Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 36

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180

I think we should use subpages for RfD threads, which are then transcluded on the main RfD page (like on the English Wikipedia). It would make archiving and finding deletion discussions a lot more convenient and efficient. Any objections?--TBC 11:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been done :P Chenzw  Talk  11:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crap. Wrong talk. Meant to post this here. Got confused since I was in the process of editing both. D: --TBC 11:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello community; Our current GA and VGA have some criteria they must meet, before they can be promoted to the respective level. One of them reads:

“

The article must have gone through a few revisions, possibly by different editors. No one writes perfect articles.

”

It is item number 3 in the GA criteria, and number 4 for the VGA criteria. Discussions On the talk page for the GA criteria and the talk page of a VGA candidate have raised doubts of how this should be interpreted; and that it should perhaps be re-worded or deleted. The original discussion can be found here. The idea at the time was to require several edits (in the form of a review or ipmrovement process), but to make the different editors part optional. It looks like current interpretation seems to be to require the different editor part (By interpreting No one writes perfect articles as No single person writers perfect articles, and then taking that as strengthening the different editors part). In any case, I hereby opened the can of worms. --Eptalon (talk) 10:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think we should remove the criterion altogether. The only way an article can be promoted is with community consensus. Who edited it on the way is irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the criterion, but clarify it. An option might also be to drop the criterion from the GA criteria, but keep it (with an clarified interpretation) in the VGA criteria. And note, this was not meant as a vote, but rather a Request for discussion. --Eptalon (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies. I will strike my vote. Please explain what "clarification" you had in mind? As a criterion it has to be 100% clear, not open to misinterpretation. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rephrase - I think rephrasing it will be better. As discussed, having only one person edit an article will gradually cause him to "distort" the facts of the article and introduce POV. Chenzw  Talk  11:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Rephrase to do what? And as I've said, if the article becomes distorted and POV before it's promoted by the community, it's the community's responsibility to oppose its promotion. In fact, it's much more likely to become distorted and POV after it's been promoted because it won't be under anywhere near as much scrutiny. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that's the case, I will strike my vote. Chenzw  Talk  11:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to explain what I mean by clarify. If I take the original statement above, I'll iterpret it, as follows:

1. We do not promote one-revision articles. Multiple/Several revisions are a sign that there was some editing, and possibly improvement to the article. Therefore we want future (V)GAs to have several revisions. This is required, it cannot be changed by consensus in a vote to promote a particular article.
2. In general it is a good thing that multiple editors have seen the article. This is however not required, but optional. The community can choose to promote a particular candidate, even though it was only edited by one person.

The problem we have above is that the No one writes perfect articles is taken to mean that an article, either a VGA or a GA to be cannot be written by one editor alone. If we change this to No one writes perfect articles from scratch (or similar; we need to find a wording that is easy to understand. The wording needs to clarify that in fact we need multiple revisions, but we don't need multiple editors).

Is there a need for two versions of this, like only requiring multiple revisions for GA's, and requiring muliple revisions and muiltiple ediors for VGAs?--Eptalon (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you have to be careful about mixing up "good practice" with mandatory criteria. It's pretty clear that it's extremely unlikely that someone will go for GA/VGA for an article with created correctly in a single edit. But, if they had, so what? If after the two week voting period the community believe it to be flawless (again, highly unlikely) then the article should be promoted. Of course, this is a wiki, we have manuals of style and other guidelines with which articles should comply and the chances of an article making GA/VGA without the input of multiple editors are extraordinarily slim. But once again, I can't believe there is a requirement to mandate this. Especially a vague one which is open to misinterpretation. I don't believe we need this criterion for either GA or VGA. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several years ago, when the English Wikipedia was relatively new, someone created a bot that created new articles for every county, city, and town in the United States and possibly in other countries as well. It automatically retrieved demographic information from census websites and put that information into sentences. I mention this because, in my opinion, the Simple English Wikipedia is severely lacking when it comes to information on counties, cities, towns, and other political jurisdictions. Someone who knew what they were doing could make a bot that could quickly create these articles, making the demographics much easier to understand than they are in normal English. It would also get the ball rolling so other users could flesh these articles out. Anyone with me here? --Andrew from NC (talk) 11:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it makes much sense at the moment to do this automagically. We could say we want every city that is bigger than 100.000 people in this wikipedia, for example. The problem is that historical importance does not depend on city size; Verdun (known for the battle in WW I) has about 20.000 people, Cluny (Very ipmortant in Church history) has between 4.000 and 5.000. Common bastides range from about 500 people (Monpazier) to about 50.000 (Montauban). If I now say I want all the places bigger than 5.000 people, we end up with loads and loads of articles no one cares about. --Eptalon (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are people out there who care about even the smallest of towns. If you look at traffic statistics on the English Wikipedia, even some of the smallest towns are getting 50 or more hits per month. If you are opposed to creating these articles automatically, would you be opposed to someone doing it manually? --Andrew from NC (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me rephrase: Simply creating articles for places bigger than X people is not the way to go. If however you came up with a list of places that (for some reason or other) can be considered significant, it does not matter whether the respecive articles are created by a program, or by hand. But before anyone develop or run a bot to do this, please keep in mind that automatically created articles need to be reviewed by a person; at the moment we are less than 50 regular editors here. We do not have the manpower to review a bunch of articles for places that may be on the brink of being significant. If you want to do something in that direction, you could start by looking if we have all countries (recognised, unrecognised) with their capitals (and descriptions other than ABC is the capital of XYZ. nnnnnnn people live there.) --Eptalon (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) If you think that Bearton (imaginary name) is important, even though only 50 people live there today, you create an article about it, saying that it is there and there, today it has a popluation of 50, but it is important because some bearhunters invented a method using wooden spoons to hunt bears there. Thats funamentally different from automatically creating articles for all places 50 people or bigger. Nothing Gulch may also only have 50 people, but may not be as important (don't quote me on the names, I invented them; if they really exist, no pun intended towards the respective populations; they are used as examples). --Eptalon (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we are at i,t the VGA criteria (item 2) say

“

The article must be comprehensive. A comprehensive article is not missing any major facts and details.

”

Just a very basic question: Given that our average editor does not know everything on every possible subject, it will be very difficult to decide if a particular article is missing anything. How could we change the requirement that it becomes easier to handle. Dropping it is not an option, because the original VGA criteria did not have it; look at some of the demoted VGA's to see why. --Eptalon (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could change it to

“

The article must state all the major facts that are mentioned in the given sources.

”

It's really my opinion, but I'm open for any opposes on it. Feel free to tweak it a little if needed. -- RyanCross (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia's criteria is "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details;"... if we simplify that a bit, it could work. —Giggy 09:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can an available admin please fulfill this request? Thanks! Maxim _{(talk | editor review)} 13:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been completed here. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following the recent discussion about image censorship, I created this page. Please update it as required. Microchip 17:47, Friday, June 27 2008 Utc

The recent changes page cannot be edited anymore, can some admin kindly delete the articles that are already created, removing them from the "most wanted" list? These articles are now striked off, instead of deleted completely. I don't have permission. Prime Contributer (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not protected. Did you attempt to change Mediawiki:Recentchangestext instead? Chenzw  Talk  10:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --  Da Punk '95  talk  10:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, I just wanted to tell you why I wasn't on yesterday... my sister is getting married! Little 'Manda ♥ Bear' are getting married this August, this is so cool. I get to wear a Tuxedo, won't I look great? Anyway, I just wanted to invite you'll to it, it should be fun (I'm an official wedding planner). Cheers you all! :) -- America ^†alk 16:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats to your sister and you!!!--  † ChristianMan16  23:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! ;) I was wondering where you were yesterday. Your inviting Wikipedians to her wedding? Anyway, everybody back to editing, chop chop. :D -- RyanCross (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find it, sure. -- America ^†alk 23:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you won't expect me showing up. :P -- RyanCross (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I expect pictures... or at least WP:WEDDING to be created... Microchip 10:15, Tuesday, July 1 2008 Utc

Congratulations! I wish I could go, weddings are one of my favorite things in the world! --Andrew from NC (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a small mention of this in an earlier section, but I wonder if "disambiguation" is a very good name for such pages as "ambiguous" is not really Simple English and Basic English says opposites should be made with "un-". It looks like this was talked about two or three years ago on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, but no agreement was reached. Does anyone else think the name could be better, and what could it be? Hippopotamus (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any other simpler word to use other than "disambiguation". I personally think we should stick to "disambiguation". We have 500-1000 disambiguation pages and we would have to change all of them since they all have the {{disambig}} template on them. -- RyanCross (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pages shouldn't be a problem as it's a redirected template and/or short bot run. I'll look in thesaurus and see if I can find anything better to suggest. Given "disambiguation" is at least five syllables, there must be something more simple... Hippopotamus (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that it transludes into the disambiguations, but we would have to move all the pages that have "disambiguation" at the end of the article name to the new name if found. -- RyanCross (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to rename all those pages with a bot in less than a couple of hours. Whether there is a better word is the question... Hippopotamus (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) Disambiguation has the Latin ambi in it. This means both (of two); A quick check, Spanish uses desambiguación, French uses homonymie, German has Begriffserklärung. The French word is basically the same than the Latin-nased disambiguation, except that they take all from Greek. It means words that are spelled the same (but have a different meaning). The German very roughly translates to Explanation of terms. People that have a Romance language (those are based on Latin) as their first language, will porbably have little trouble understanding disambiguation. If we come up and say Word explanation (for example), this might be more difficult to understand than the disambiguation (or similar) they are used to. --Eptalon (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly agree that the Latin/Greek-based languages use words similar to disambiguation. In different languages Mandarin Chinese uses 消歧义 (two words in English, second one looks like "ambiguity"), Arabic seems to use توضيح ("clarification") and Finnish täsmennyssivu ("further clarification"). I'm just not sure I'd like to have to explain "disambiguation" to a child. It's certain not a word I often use in "real life"! Hippopotamus (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think clarification would do, rather near to German Begriffsklärung. But you learn what it means from the pages, not from the word disambiguation or clarification anyhow. --Cethegus (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=All you have to do is come up with a story about how somebody managed to come up with the word in the first place and I think everybody will be satisfied andb grow into it. WFPMWFPM (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On words with more than one meaning you are redirected to a page called, for example, "Example (disambiguation)". To keep with Simple English, I would suggest "Example (List of meanings)" or "Example (Words with many meanings)" ~ R.T.G 03:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone with experience in HotCat please explain how to enable my using it. Help? -- America ^†alk 01:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My settings > Gadgets > check the HotCat box. You'll get +/- links next to the categories on the bottom of the page. Cassandra 02:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I knew how to turn it on, I just always thought those (±) (-) (+) stuff was just for looks :) Thanks! -- America ^†alk 02:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys. I've noticed that the criteria for GA and VGA are defined as "guidelines" not "policy". This means that "criteria" for good and very good articles aren't really criteria, they're simply suggestions. Is this an area that needs to be tightened up? While we're there we can ditch the pointless "guideline criterion" which says an article needs to be edited by multiple editors. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we could have our own en:WP:IAR as well? Like everything else, discussion seems to have stalled out. Cassandra 17:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well since the criteria are already declared as guidelines, not policy, I think that's inherent. Which is a problem more here on Simple English Wikipedia because these criteria ought to be rules, so it makes them unambiguous and clear to follow. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be against a en:WP:IAR as it's confusing enough enough to have a rule to ignore rules in English Wikipedia, let alone in Simple English. A version that talks about common sense might be better. Something along the lines of en:WP:UCS maybe. Hippopotamus (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, not convinced that Simple English is ready for an IAR yet. That means criteria should be exactly that, criteria, not ambiguous, debatable, mis-interpretable wishy-washy guidelines. That's why I'm keen to get rid of the "edited by others" as well - it's already proven to be ambiguous. If we aim for one thing here to help Simple English editors, it's clear, unambiguous policies. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should should judge the outcome of the editing, not the process of getting there (i.e. number of edits/editors). Since there are less editors on this Wikipedia than some others, it may be that editors work alone on an article for sometime and improve it through their own changes. Hippopotamus (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And we then use that to say that at least two edits; possibly more than one editor is a bad rule? --Eptalon (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be bold: What would change, if the guidelines were policies? - We'd had to go through a vote; with possibly a minimum number of voters, and a minimum percentage of support votes. (Very) Good Arricle is an extra tag that shows an article is about a particular quality; it meets a given standard, and a vote showed that most editors (who voted) are fine with sticking on the tag. Also, if this becomes policy, changing it is more difficult to do; I am fine discussing/adapting the criteria we use for a particular category; Personally, I wouldn't be at ease making this policy. --Eptalon (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "at least two edits; possibly more than one editor" is required. It's that simple. What are the odds of creating the perfect article in one edit? I'd say zero. And even then, if it was perfect, the reviewers would have to agree that before voting for its promotion. If they weren't happy they'd either make edits themselves or not support the promotion. As for making the criteria "policy", I have a feeling it's a bad idea too, but right now the criteria aren't great and need some work to avoid ambiguity and miscomprehension. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what the others say; If we were to rework the criteria, we would need to fix a time limit (eg. a month) too. The last time took far too long. --Eptalon (talk) 11:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between the {{NPOV}} template and the {{Neutrality}} template? The Neutrality template seems more simple language, but is there a deep meaning I'm missing. If there is a different, is it too subtle for Simple English? Hippopotamus (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related to the above, the categories for "China" weren't very neutral. I tried to copy English Wikipedia which appears to have come to some sort of compromise. Before the categories may only have favored the views of the People's Republic of China. Anyway, if someone could double check, as I'm not an expert. I just stumbled across it all while categorizing a university article. Hippopotamus (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

does anyone know why Special:WithoutInterwiki hasn't been updated since 19 June 2008? JurgenG (talk) 06:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, special pages are sometimes slow (sometimes very slow) to update. If it hasn't changed in a month it may be broken or something like that. —Giggy 08:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still not working... Who can fix it if it's broken?JurgenG (talk) 09:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working fine for me, showing 249 right now... Perhaps you need to clear your cache Jurgen? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yours is actually not showing 15:xx 19 June for a last update?? Take a look at several of the other maintenance special pages and see if it is the same there because for the most part I am getting all maintenance pages last update as the 19th. Looks as if they stopped updating most of the section (a pain for uncat pages, broken redirects and a host of other general maintenance issues) -- Creol(talk) 10:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can confirm that its 19th June for me too. ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 10:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. 19 June. Whoops. I just clicked on a couple and found they didn't have iw links. Oh well, it's broke - official. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed ("The information on this page was last updated at 20:17, 19 June 2008"). --Gwib ^-(talk)- 10:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So now someone get the screwdrivers and wrenches out and try to fix this :-) (or should we call Ghostbusters or something?) JurgenG (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ist OK now thanks! JurgenG (talk) 09:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am having some trouble with an infobox for a football club. I can't seem to get the latest one to work. Can someone have a look at it for me, and tell me what I am doing wrong? Its in my Sandbox. It worked here and here, but for some reason I can't get it to work now... Thanks ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 09:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Talk:Main Page. Microchip 10:13, Tuesday, July 1 2008 Utc

 Done You were missing part of the brackets for Gordon Strachan. ([[Gordon Strachan] instead of [[Gordon Strachan]]) When infoboxes screw up like that, it is often just a matched bracket situation. -- Creol(talk) 11:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaahh! Thank you! For the life of me I couldn't work it out. Thanks :D ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 11:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of you probably know already, but the general system is as follows:

1. An article is identified as a candidate to become a (very) good article. Work is done to it, it may be listed at Peer Review, if needed...
2. When it meets half of the criteria (this means: pick any five from the good article criteria or the very good article criteria) it can be listed at Wikipedia:Proposed good articles or Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles. The respective tag can be added to the article; not its talk page.
3. There is a period of (at most) two weeks where the nomination can be discussed, and the article can be generally worked on to meet all of the criteria.
4. After the two weeks (or sooner, at the choice of the nominator), it can be moved to the voting section; At this time, only minor fixes are expected; I (personally) do not expect that the article is completely rewritten from scrach at that time (but perhaps that a few paragraphs are changed for consistency, ease of reading; that references are added, etc.)
5. If the article gets enough support, it can be promoted after the week voting.

(If the nomination is withdrawn, please archive it).

I knew most of you knew this. I just wanted to say how it was intended; It is also listed in the respective criteria page.--Eptalon (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, Eptalon. As someone relatively new around here I found the whole thing a bit confusing so it's good to get some clarification (the "when to move to voting phase from... that other phase" part is the bit that confused me most, if you want to try and clarify instructions on that a bit). —Giggy 10:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the time to start the voting process is when the article meets all the criteria of the given category, and you feel that you can reach the number of required votes (70% support, 5 votes min for GA, 80% support, 6 votes minimum for VGA). Please note that current understanding is that muliple editors are optional for both categories; also the there must not be many redlinks left was left vague on purpose; we could not agree on an an exact number/percentage. We were fine with the vagueness.--Eptalon (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm fine with the vagueness of that because redlinks affect articles in different ways depending on their density. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! I've created another article from scratch and think it meets all the VGA criteria. I've listed it at WP:PVGA and would be happy for people to review it, improve it, and support its promotion to WP:VGA. Thanks for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiyas all; congratulations to all those who contributed. I have promoted Charles Spurgeon to VGA status; all 12 votes were in favour of promotion. This shows that the VGA process is not broken; it just needs a lot of work (and of course the right article to work on). All the best. --Eptalon (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can some one help me expand Chris Benoit to GA status and maybe even VGA staus? It's something I thinks needs to be done....I want to do this and have it serve as sort of a tribute. Let me know on my talk page if your interested.--  † ChristianMan16  05:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone fix Template:Infobox wrestling event for...I can't get it to work.--  † ChristianMan16  06:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind...it corrected itself last night. Must've been a bug in the program.--  † ChristianMan16  17:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will sadly not be on wiki or irc June 3-9. I am going to a computer/tech camp however and may be able to go on during that time. I am unsure. Anyway I'll see you soon! Have a great six days! SwirlBoy39 13:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See you again next week! Hope you will enjoy the camp! Chenzw  Talk  13:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Chenzw! SwirlBoy39 13:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obai, brush up with your skills on computers while your gone. :P -- RyanCross (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See you in a month. Cassandra 21:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao, take it easy. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C-ya SB39. -- America ^†alk 02:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to let you know that Simple English Wikipedia is now the proud owner of another VGA, the second in three days. Thanks to all of you who helped get it there, not bad for an article which is only eight days old! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! /pops the cork ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 10:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one will beat my record though. My very first article here became a VG one! also congrats--Gwib ^-(talk)- 11:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there are a few articles sitting in the queue to become Good articles. It would really be nice if you could have a glance; Nothing is os frustrating as havig to archive because there were not enough votes. Thanks. --Eptalon (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When proposals are moved to the vote, could be write in bold letters below it that it was moved to the vote? I might be the only one, but I'm easily confused and forget to look further down to the page to see if the vote has started. Just something like

Moved to vote. ~~~~

-- Hippopotamus (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Fourth of July!!!!
† ChristianMan16  18:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Just remember that they're not all Americans here, but happy 4th of July anyway! -- America ^†alk 18:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least we are on Holidays over here in Oz! --  Da Punk '95  talk  03:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh. Page stretch! Microchip 14:07, Monday, July 7 2008 Utc

Does Simple English Wikipedia have any RSS or other feeds? Because I have a really cool My Yahoo! and I was wondering if I could add one. I have the English ones, but I'm not that active there. Thanks -- America ^†alk 02:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's an RSS feeed on RecentChanges at least; see in the "toolbox" below the search button. Cassandra 02:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]