Jump to content

Wikiquote:Simple talk/Archive 4

From Wikiquote


We need to say where quotes came from: the name of the book, and the page number, etc. Maybe we need to write a policy or guideline about this. We can look at the policies of English Wikiquote. They have the guideline en:Wikiquote:Citing sources. Coppertwig(talk) 15:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrat promoting question

I have a question: is it considered acceptable at this wiki for a bureaucrat to close an RfA that he has voted in? At en.wikinews, this occurs frequently, but I know that many other wikis, such as en.wiki, discourage it. I was curious what the local protocol on this is. Thanks, Tempodivalse 16:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Besides, we have more than 1 crat, so it should be ok. Anyway, I feel crats should be able to close an RfA where they've !voted. I don't think we have any current policy though. Pmlineditor  Talk 16:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A bureaucrat should avoid closing an RfA that he has voted in if there are other active bureaucrats who haven't voted; however, this usually isn't a problem if the vote is unanimous. Regards, SUL (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, looking through the archives, I see that some crats have closed RfAs and RfBs they voted in: Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Tempodivalse and Wikiquote:Requests for bureaucratship/American Eagle 2, for instance, so I guess it's allowed. My reason for asking this is because I wanted to vote in Pmlineditor's RfA, but also wanted to be able to close it in case the other active crat isn't around. Tempodivalse 16:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe JC is around and will look forward to close it. ;) Pmlineditor  Talk 16:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a (late) comment - I think it's generally considered acceptable on smaller communities, especially where the vote is clear. However, if the discussion is more borderline, it's best to wait for another 'crat to weigh in. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it'll get difficult in such RfAs here. We've got 2 active crats, so... it'll be nearly impossible to get an RfA where they both haven't participated. ;) PmlineditorTalk
AFAIK, RyanCross and Coppertwig still lurk, so if a close is needed we could email them –Juliancolton | Talk 05:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to update the list of most requested pages? The page was last updated on September 3, 2007. —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 00:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need someone with db access. The page is terribly outdated. Pmlineditor  Talk 07:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know who has db access or if anyone knows a bot who can update this as well? —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 06:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask others on IRC today. Pmlineditor  Talk 10:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Bluegoblin7 knows how to update it. SUL (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked BG7 on IRC, but couldn't get a good reply. I'll ask someone else. Pmlineditor  Talk 10:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not possible. The WMF no longer update these pages, regardless of who you ask and whether you file bugs or not. The easiest (but slowest) way of doing it is to get a page dump and make a page manually. If you can wait a while, I can probably do some SQL queries on the TS, but it's a big query... Bluegoblin7 (talk) 10:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@PM: That's what I said on IRC, and it's a perfectly good reply... Bluegoblin7 (talk) 10:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, I don't know much about wiki software and amidst all the kicks, it was difficult to understand. ;p Pmlineditor  Talk 10:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This has been done by Chenzw and the page may be found here. Subsequent updates to Wikiquote:Recent Changes are to be made from that list. Pmlineditor  12:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, Special:WantedPages has been updated, though I prefer Chen's list. Pmlineditor  15:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Could someone please enable popups (sysops have to do it)? Someone should know how to do it. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go to your monobook.js (or whatever you use) and add the following,
// User:Lupin/popups.js
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
            + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' 
            + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
Then purge the page. The popups should be working by then. —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 19:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added it to the Special:Preferences page, that's easier than doing it manually. Check the gagdets pages in your prefs, it should be under "Browsing gadgets". Cheers Tempodivalse 19:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's ugly! Do what simpleWP did, [[:en:Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups|Navigation popups (API)]]. It looks much better. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{edit conflict) :P —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 19:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the link in the prefs? Yeah, it looks ugly, but I can't seem to figure out how to insert a link into it. Maybe someone with a better knowledge of MediaWiki can help? Tempodivalse 19:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just figured out how to add the links. Does this look better now? Tempodivalse 19:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Thanks, Griffinofwales (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Does this project have a guideline/policy/unwritten rule on de-sysops for inactive admins? Just wondering. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No written policy exists on inactivity desysops AFAIK, but community consensus currently seems to be against removing inactive admins' rights (see Wikiquote:Simple talk#Proposal for desysop of Cromwellt (talk • changes • blocks • protects • deletions • moves). Tempodivalse 19:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Eagle

Hey ya'll! Because of my absense, I have removed the bot flag from User:AEBot, which is no longer running. I have also requested on meta the removal of my admin and bureaucratship. If I ever decide to return (which I'm not currently planning on...), I think I'm trusted enough to be restored the rights without controversy. ;) But for now, I have no use of them. I must say, I'm very happy with the progress of this wiki! You are all doing a fantastic job, and I wish you all best of times! God bless, American Eagle (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Farewell! Should you ever decide to come back, I'm sure the community will be glad to restore your rights. Best of wishes in your future endeavours, and thank you once again for your contributions to this wiki. Cheers, Tempodivalse 01:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Goodbye! Thanks for all your hard work. :) —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 04:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Goodbye AE. You have done great work here. Pmlineditor  Talk 08:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Goodbye American Eagle. Thanks for all of your contributions here! SUL (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A farewell from me too. — RyanCross (talk)


I could use rollback here. I check in here frequently although I don't usually edit. I am a rollbacker at the English and Simple English Wikipedias. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Tempodivalse 00:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


There has recently been a complaint about users adding fake quotes to articles. In order to make articles more accurate, I suggest that we create a policy to move quotes without reliable sources to the talk page, which is what users at the English Wikiquote regularly do. What do you think about this? SUL (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Tempodivalse 18:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Pmlineditor  Talk 04:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


When a quote is simplified, does it simplify the quote only, or does it talk about the total meaning. An example is the 'Bring it on' quote at George W. Bush. The simple version is much longer and goes into the background. Is that correct? Griffinofwales (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the original quote is already simple, then yes, it's acceptable to explain what it means. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Juliancolton. Also, don't forget to use the {{meaning}} template instead of {{simple}} if you are explaining what a quote means instead of translating it into "simple talk". Tempodivalse 16:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What they said. :) Pmlineditor  Talk 16:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing articles

There has been a recent trend among several editors who also cite references to an article's lead summary paragraph. There is no rule on whether we should add sources to lead summaries in an article. The ENWQ doesn't appear to cite lead summaries. My question is: should we form a guideline and start adding references to lead summaries like wikipedia, or not, like ENWQ? Let the opinions commence... —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 03:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? I have no clue why ENWQ doesn't do it. The only possible disadvantage is that it adds more references in the references section, which some users might want to devote to quote references. But I have noticed that some of our articles are better than ENWQ's. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a good idea to source everything in an article, including the leads. The only exception to this might be if the summary says something obvious (i.e. Spain is in Europe, etc.). Tempodivalse 16:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The pros for sourcing the lead would be to establish notability and accuracy in an article. The cons would be that no other wikiquote project has gone forward with this. It seems to be very wikipedia-ish, imo. —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 01:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how being "wikipediaish" should be a problem - no other wikiquote wiki has come up with this, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's a bad idea. imho, sourcing will help determine a subject's notability and help make sure everything in an article is verifiable and accurate. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And with the Very good pages, sourcing leads is a must. Pmlineditor  Talk 10:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<-- I concur. VGPs are required to have sourced leads. However not all articles need to have sourced leads. —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 10:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion

<-Off topic, but what do does simpleWQ use, See also or Other pages? Griffinofwales (talk) 03:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Other websites' section is used mainly for {{other wikis}} which shows corresponding articles in other projects including WP, commons, source, news, etc. We don't seem to use 'See also' here, with a few exceptions. Remember we are SEWQ, not a wikipedia. Now back to the discussion. —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 03:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, other pages. It's used at simpleWP for links within the project. For example, we would link the article on Hitler with Nazism, Fascism, and WWII. After ec: I noticed it on a few articles, and I was wondering. Since you're a regular here, I thought you would know. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For an encyclopedia, that may be helpful. However this project's purpose is to provide a list of quotes said from that person that is verified and accurate. An ideal format for a person-related article would be a short lead paragraph, at least one image if avaiable, quotes, a 'reference' section if possible, and a 'other websites' section. —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 04:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I have absolutely no intention of adding a see also/other pages section. I do want clarification on what I should do when I come across a section like that. Remove it or rename it to the proper title (OP or SA)? Griffinofwales (talk) 04:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. I'm personally against the SA/OP format, but it might be necessary for authors whose books have pages. In such cases, try to fit it in the article. If not possible, use OP. Pmlineditor  Talk 07:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I guess this is an odd idea, but I'd like to propose something like "Very good pages" for this wiki. They'll be like the VGAs at SimpleWP and will be displayed in the Main Page. If this is okayed by the community, I'd like to present some criterias:

  • Pages must not be stubs and must contain at least 10 quotes
  • All quotes should have Simple versions or meanings
  • Pages must have a sufficient lead
  • All quotes must be sourced

I'll perhaps think of more later. Also, on a sidenote, sorry for not editing here much. I'm a bit busy at SEWP, but will become active again in few days time. Regards, Pmlineditor  Talk 17:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea, I'd support implementing something like this. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a good idea. Perhaps it'll provide some incentive to work on articles more. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with above. —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 02:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page

QOTW back to QOTD

Hello everybody. I've come here with yet another proposal; that of changing Quote of the Week back to Quote of the Day. There's a large enough community now and I think we can handle this. I'll try to make the updates myself each day. With 535 pages, I estimate about 1-2k quotes. If 70% of them are sourced, then we get ~500-1.5k simple, sourced quotes. As the community keeps expanding, it'll be easy to maintain it. Thanks for your consideration. Regards, Pmlineditor  13:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Sounds fine to me. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The community seems to have expanded since QOTW was installed, i think we have enough editors now to move it back to QOTD. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support SUL (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Was actually doing well when it was QOTD the first time. Now would be an even better time. — RyanCross (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for bureaucrats to be able to remove the sysop flag


I suggest we allow bureaucrats to remove the administrator flag. This was recently implemented on Simple Wikipedia and believe that all of the bureaucrats here are trusted enough. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment - With the exception of the English Wikipedia, I have always felt that 'crats should have the ability to remove the sysop flag from users so as to avoid the needless bureaucracy of having to post to meta and have a steward perform the action. I think that before I can support, a short one to two liner on when the flag should be removed by local 'crats should be proposed and discussed. Tiptoety (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment - I suggest that they do not remove the flag unless a a discussion or a request for de-adminship takes place giving consensus or of course an admin requests it. (resigns) Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They would only be able to remove sysop bits. Tiptoety (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Sounds reasonable. Tiptoety (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We don't have desysops too often here, but it's nice not to be dependent on stewards on the odd occasion this does happen. There should however be some sort of proviso that the flag is to be removed only after a community consensus or at the request of the administrator in question. I think that all bureaucrats here can be trusted enough for the extra privs. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral This is a better idea on larger projects that regularly do desysops. At the moment we don't have a policy on inactive admins, and we'll likely never have to preform an emergency desysop. It's not needed, but I can't see a compelling reason not to go forward with this, so neutral for now. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The reasons the larger projects do not do it that way is because of the drama that ensues, and the lack of "uninvolved" 'crats. In these situations stewards are needed as they generally do not make actions on wikis that they are regulars of. Because this is such a small wiki, there is really no need to have the stewards do a job that can easily be done by a local 'crat. I mean, consensus usually consists of 6 to 7 users, making it pretty easy on the closing 'crat. Like you said, I can't really see any reason not to allow 'crats to perform essentially the same function they do now. Tiptoety (talk) 05:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We don't generally do desysops, but why not? Sounds good. Pmlineditor  05:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above support votes This unsigned comment was added by Griffinofwales (talk • changes) .

Volunteers Still Needed

Hi all,
Although we will soon remove the centralnotice that is up, the Wikimedia Strategic Planning project is still looking for volunteers to serve as subject area advisors or to sit on task forces that will study particular topics and make recommend short- and long-term strategies for the Wikimedia projects and Foundation, and the wiki movement.

To apply to serve on a task force or be an advisor in a specific area, visit http://volunteer.wikimedia.org.

The Wikimedia Strategic Planning project is a year-long collaborative process being hosted at http://strategy.wikimedia.org. Your input is welcome there, and will drive the process. When the task forces begin to meet, they will do their work transparently and on that wiki, and anyone may join fully in their work. We hope to include as many community members as possible in the process.

Any questions can be addressed to me either on on the strategy wiki or by email to philippe at wikimedia.org.

I hope you'll consider joining us!

Philippe (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow admins to grant flood only to themselves

Currently, admins can grant Flood to all users. However since Flood is like Bot, admins shouldn't be able to grant the flag to normal users. Shouldn't we change this? Pmlineditor  10:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a trusted user is about to flood recent changes with valid edits, I see no problem granting them the flood flag. –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 10:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read m:Flood flag. In such cases, the user should get bot. Pmlineditor  10:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flood flag is only meant to be used for a short period of time, unlike bot, which is intended for prolonged use and is usually kept on indefinitely. If a trusted non-admin wants to flood for a short time, i think it makes more sense to grant them a temporary flood flag, not bot. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I don't think there is much benefit in restricting it to self-flags. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to interject on a project I'm not active on, but I have to agree. Granting the flood flag is not a big deal. Flood flag is for short-term prevention of disruption of RC. This can be done by an admin (a user who is already trusted not to mess too much up). Fine granting a long-term flag that hides one from RC (bot) should be done by a crat, flood is fine with the sysops granting it. fr33kman t - c 02:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hiya gang! Recently, on IRC, a suggestion came up about dealing with open proxies on all Simple English WMF projects at the same time. The creation of a adminbot (proxyblocker) that'd block proxies for all sites at the same time. This came up because on simpleWQ today an open proxy vandal (the same one as simpleWP of late) begun an attack there. This proxy had already been blocked on simpleWP for some time. As such, it might be useful to get some discussion going about the need for such a tool, what it would look like, what it would do and what it would not do. Suggestions so far have ranged from a non-admin bot that dumps a list of proxies to block into AN on the projects (or another page) to a bot with the sysop flag that finds the proxies and deals with them. It was also wondered about if this should be a new bot (EhJJ expressed interest in writing it) or an existing bot (IE: w:en:User:Slakr's bot) Thoughts? fr33kman t - c 00:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of a more standardized way of dealing with open proxies. That said, I am weary of admin bots. I feel that the operator must be someone with a great deal of technical understanding, and who is easily reachable if something does wrong. I would only support a block, if the bot was well tested and cleared by the community first (plus have an active operator). Just my two cents. Tiptoety (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, would running a proof-of-concept help here? We could give it a shot, have it go through all the motions and decide based on that? fr33kman t - c 22:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that there has been some concern about what the bot would do and what usergroup it'd be a part of. I think that there is good reason to allow a bot to run as admin. Speed of blocks, consistency of blocks, easier to keep track of blocked proxies due to logs being easier to find. I think that all projects should take part in a trial period of dry-run actions. This would include the bot making a record of the actions it would have taken for incidents that really happen. This can then be checked by the right people and verified to be the case. At that point we can then decide on the future of the bot. Thanks! fr33kman t - c 23:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The PVGPs need closing by someone uninvolved... Pmlineditor  13:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look. Yotcmdr (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]