Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please try to post within policy, technical, proposals or assistance rather than here. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

« Archives, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80

Saints Row Wiki

There's a wiki site for saints row if anyone's interested. We could sure use some contributions. I think the last one was by me. Here's the link: saintsrow.wikia.com - Aspiring Astronomer Racecarlock

Needing some input

So I recently joined up with WikiProject Wikify and I was going through a number of articles and I tend to find a LOT of articles that fall under other WikiProjects. I had the idea of somehow trying to get other WikiProjects involved in wikifying articles. It would help with the backlog and help the other projects improve their own articles.

I would cross reference which articles need to be wikified along with what falls under certain WikiProjects, and drop a quick message with the respective WikiProjects to see if the ycan help out.

Long story short I put together this nice little template:

Is something like this appropriate? Or would it be considered rude towards other projects? (i.e. looking like I am begging for help or dumping my work on others)
Is the wording / layout appropriate? Is it easy to understand?
Will anyone pay attention to it? Or am I just beating a dead horse?
Is there a way for the subsections within the message to not show up on the page Table of Contents? I tried __NOTOC__(seen in another template) however it removes the entire Table of Contents from the page.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvlax2005 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 24 August 2008

I think the following approach would be more productive: If you notice that an article falls into the scope of some WikiProject, but it's not currently assigned there, then just put the appropriate WikiProject banner on the talk page. Some WikiProject scan newly assigned articles, and they can also receive reports of articles in their scope tagged for maintenance; see User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings. Not every WikiProject has the capacity of fixing these problems, but some of them do. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you need a list that shows which WikiProjects have the most "wikify" tags assigned, I can provide you with that. You may then more directly work with these projects and seek support - I think that would be much better than copy-pasting a canned message without any project-specific content, which will most likely be ignored. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping with this little project of mine to mostly bring active awareness to other WikiProjects. The process of wikifying an article is fairly straight forward but with 14,000 articles backlogged it can quickly become tiresome. And just so you do know the area under "Articles" would be filled with a list of actual articles pertaining to that WikiProject. I've been using this[1] nifty tool to find out which articles need both wikification and may fall under a certain WikiProject. Although I can't specifiy WikiProject, I can at least list articles that fall under more generalized topics (Physics, Mathematics, Biology, States, Countries, Music/Genres, etc). If you have a way of searching tagged wikify articles within WikiProjects I am definitely open to that option! Bvlax2005 (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As said, the tool exists. But let me give you an example, also to illustrate the numbers involved. One of your largest "clients" would be Wikipedia:WikiProject India, with 569 articles to be wikified as of July 14. The project already has a list of these articles, see Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Cleanup listing#Wikify; indeed, every work group of theirs has a listing like that (example). So, explaining the wikification process to them, and pointing to that list, would be worthwile. However, having done similar notifications for WP:WPNN, I'd say that the messages should be short and to the point, and adapted to the situation of the individual project if possible. Standardized messages that appear like "mass mailings" will probably reach the archives unread. --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Find a nicer color. Lucas Brown 42 (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pollsters

Are there any rules/bureaucratic hoops/etc for contacting editors for polls or surveys that don't directly affect anything on-Wiki? If, for example, the folks that run the Gallup poll wanted to survey a random selection of Wikipedia editors, is there any sort of paperwork that needs to be done first? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problems basically are (a) how to chose a sample; (b) how to contact editors; and (c) how to avoid getting your account blocked for spamming. Partly that's because there isn't anyone in charge here who has the authority to authorize a survey, and partly it's because unless the survey can be shown to (in some way, at least partially) be for the benefit of Wikipedia, it's going to be seen as interfering with writing an encyclopedia. For example, if the goal were to see how Presidential candidates are viewed by Wikipedia editors, it's unlikely that would be seen as really benefiting Wikipedia.

(a) and (b) aren't trivial. Should editors who did nothing but register (about 2/3rds of all acounts) be treated the same way as editors who have thousands of edits? What about someone who was an active editor but stopped editing three months ago? Will editors be contacted via email (less interference with the project, but many editors haven't enabled this) or via their user talk page (spam, in the eyes of many editors)?

To be a bit more helpful, the Wikimedia Foundation owns the place here, though they are not at all involved in running it (except to deal with legal issues that might arise). They might authorize a sampling, if the requester were more than (say) a graduate student. And I think they're doing (or planning to do) their own survey about who edits Wikipedia: This is the January 2008 press release. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there would be any need for paperwork or permission from the Wikimedia Foundation as long as you do not disrupt the site. However as User:John Broughton explained, the logistics of it would more or less require cooperation from the Wikimedia Foundation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvlax2005 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of spam, I at least would also consider it spamming (and attempt to get the perpetrator stopped) if an email about presidential candidates turned up in my inbox via Wikipedia. I enabled email to get messages about Wikipedia, not random surveys. Algebraist 01:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, your link didn't work for me, but I found the press release here.

Thanks for your responses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry for the bad link; I copied the wrong heading on the page. And you found the page I was trying to link to, so I won't bother correcting the link above. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia in Harper's

I haven't seen it noted anywhere yet and it's mildly interesting: Harper's Magazine published in the July issue a small section called "Candid CAMERA" with copies of a few of the infamous CAMERA emails. The current issue (Sept.) now has a letter from Gilead Ini of CAMERA disagreeing with Harper's presentation and discussing the "flawed Wikipedia experiment". I can supply by email request. Franamax (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to post something at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Wikipedia talk:Sandbox

I rather assumed that Wikipedia talk:Sandbox should be a place for meta-discussion of the sandbox, rather than a sandbox in its own right, so I added a header accordingly. But someone has queried whether the move has consensus (see current version), so I'd like to throw this open here. What do you think? Thanks, — Alan^✉ 21:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your assumption is a reasonable one, but might there occasionally be a template that needs testing and only that is designed to only work on talk pages? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the way namespaces are added as conditions in templates, they would have to be added as "Talk", "Wikipedia talk", "User talk", etc, so one could just as well use User talk:Foo/Sandbox. Not unthinkable, though. Maybe a MediaWiki editnotice on WT:SB (like what you see if you click "edit" on User:Jimbo Wales) directing anyone with discussion about the sandbox to the VP would be a good idea. WODUP 04:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something like this. WODUP 05:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind this discussion here now, but I am concerned that VP is not ultimately a good place for discussion about the sandbox, because stuff is briefly discussed and then archived, making it difficult to find past discussions on any particular topic.

Another possibility for separating out meta-discussion about the sandbox from tests in the Talk namespace would be to put one at Wikipedia talk:Sandbox and the other at a sub-page of the same. Does this seem reasonable?

In that case, there question is simply which should get the top-level talk page and which should get the subpage. There are pros and cons:

If the talk-space sandbox gets the top-level page, then people will inevitably keep erasing whatever header directs people to the subpage for discussion, making it hard for people to find the subpage. (Note that this same issue also applies if the discussion is at VP or wherever.)
If the meta-discussion page gets the top-level page, then it may not serve the occasional purpose when the talk-space testing can't be in a sub-page.

Your comments? — Alan^✉

P.S. re the mediawiki edit notice -- nice idea, but it's not very transparent, in the sense that you have to click edit before you notice it, so it's still essentially hard to find. — Alan^✉ 06:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I found Wikipedia:About the Sandbox and Wikipedia talk:About the Sandbox. Perhaps meta discussion about the sandbox should be sent there. Wikipedia:About the Sandbox is already linked from the sandbox and sandbox talk headers. WODUP 23:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done to you. I'd missed that. I'll put back the sandbox talk header at WT:SB, and make the link more obvious -- the link is prominent enough for the purposes of the sandbox header, but on the talk page, where people may be going to discuss the sandbox, it needs to be more explicit. Then WT:SB can (again) be a place for talk-space testing. But what we do then need is a bot to restore the sandbox talk header more frequently when it gets removed. — Alan^✉ 11:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done now. — Alan^✉ 12:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may be being incredibly pedantic here, but surely Wikipedia talk:Sandbox is for talking about the sandbox, Wikipedia:About the Sandbox is for information about the sandbox (i.e. not a discussion obviously), and Wikipedia talk:About the Sandbox is for talking about the page Wikipedia:About the Sandbox (yes confusingly, for talking about the "about the sandbox" page)? That seem to me to the normal use of any talk page, to talk about the page it is the talk page of. Deamon138 (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta FM radio stations

I would like for all Atlanta FM radio station articles to have logo images that are uploaded with detail that ensures that the image meets criteria for inclusion and will not be up for deletion. Georgia guy (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you might want to post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations, and/or Wikipedia talk:Logos, depending on what your question or request is. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK could do with another regular or two

OK folks, the Template talk:Did you know page (and related pages) for updating Template:Did you know could do with one or a few new faces helping out, as the turnover has been slow occasionally. So if you are sick of negative interactions at AfD and in the chore of reverting vandals, this may be a good place to recharge, and help editors get their ~~15 minutes~~ 6 hours of fame. Don't be scared..it's fun. I have been doing it a bit when it is late but prefer writing them really. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manage multiple terms in different languages

How to manage references to other languages when there is no bidirectional corrispondence in terms? Please, see my question about Helmet (talk) as an example of this problem. --Dejudicibus (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at Help talk:Interlanguage links#How to deal with multiple articles in another language. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for link. I read it ad made a proposal. How can spread the voice so that we can discuss of that? Thank you in advance.--Dejudicibus (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image talk:Flag province luxembourg.png

Could somebody who speaks French please review Image talk:Flag province luxembourg.png? This seems to be copies of an email correspondence. Unless all participants in the discussion have given their permission to copy this, it's a copyright violation. Corvus cornix_talk 20:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Largest ever time of an article

Hi, I was wondering whether it is possible to find out when a particular article was at its largest, or maybe even be able to rearrange the edit history in size order? Are either of those things possible? Thanks in advance. Deamon138 (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of anything that would help on this, though there might be. Do note that the visible byte count of pages shows only for edits since (around) April 2007, so that displaying the last 500 edits and quickly scanning through the page is probably a fairly easy way of answering this sort of question for all but the most heavily edited articles. (And if an article has more than 500 edits since April 2007, it's reasonably likely that any large deletion would have been reviewed by a number of editors for possible vandalism.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's annoying. I'm guessing the byte count was only added back in April 07 then? Ah well, anyone else know anything else relevant to my question? Thanks. Deamon138 (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's Willy on Wheels?

I see "Willy on Wheels" mentioned everywhere. What exactly is it? Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A popular vandal of Wikipedia in 2005 who liked to move pages to phrases containing "on wheels". Georgia guy (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks on wheels. Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be exact, he moved them to places that ended in "on wheels". I'd rather not tell you more. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 03:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rancho Bernardo High School

The article about RBHS presents a very negative image of what is really a very good school. To provide a better image of what the school is, I have put a new version of the article on its talk page, seeing as the article is semi-protected and I am a new user. Could an established user replace the old version with the new (it adds a section about the band and one about the Academic League) and then remove the copy that is on the talk page? Lucas Brown 42 (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When your account is 4 days old, and you have made more than 10 edits (latter already accomplished) you will be able to edit the page. I have never seen a talk page used for this purpose, and technically anything put there should be kept forever (but in this case an exception should be made). It would have been better to create a sandbox or sub-page of your own account, and point to that from the talk page. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Lucas Brown 42 (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The orange bar

This is quite a silly proposal. Whenever a new message is left on user's talk page, the bright orange bar comes up at the top of any page. I think the color is very unfriendly and too bright. It would be my personal preference, but the color is really bothering me ever since I joined in Wikipedia. Could this bar be changed to light green or blue or any other friendly neutral color? Or the color can be up for user preference? I also have seen other people complain about how the color is threatening. It is a minor issue, but I think trying a new thing on the bar is not that bad. --Caspian blue (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Lucas Brown 42 (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's that colour specifically in order to grab attention. It goes away when you click it, and only appears rarely, so I think this is okay. Dcoetzee 06:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If you want it changed just for yourself, you can do it with personal css. Algebraist 14:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm very ignorant of such "CSS" and programming language. I don't even know how to use monobook and various tools provided by mediawiki. As I said, I'm not the only complaining about the too conspicuous orange bar.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add the following to Special:Mypage/monobook.css:

.usermessage {
    background-color: #colour;
}

replacing 'colour' with the web colour desired. Algebraist 17:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the instruction. Just for a test, could you visit my talk page? :) --Caspian blue (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) OK, apparently that only changes the inside of the box, leaving a bright orange border. I'm going to test something on my monobook.css; can someone leave a message for me on my talk page so I can test it? Thanks. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right! I've found the solution:

.usermessage {
    background-color: #colour;
    border-color: #colour;
}

Again, "colour" is whatever color desired. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 18:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Alinnisawest and Algebraist!! Now, I'm free of the orange bar and get the friendly new green one. (in real life, I love eating orange...hehe)--Caspian blue (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simplest way of fixing this would have been to go to "My preferences" and change the skin to "Classic". That way you get notification without any bars at all. Still if you're happy with a green bar that's fine too. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must be very popular. I don't get messages often enough that the color of the bar would bother me. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures

How can I make my signature have colors? Or different fonts? Or any fancyness? Lucas Brown 42 (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are details about customizing your signature at Wikipedia:SIG#Customizing your signature. Hope this helps. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... But how do I put color/fonts/fancy stuff into it? Lucas Brown 42 (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do it with HTML, if that helps any. And some wikimarkup, but now I'm just getting confusing. Basically, the same way you format that sort of stuff when editing pages. Like my sig is this:

--Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here)

It's created through this markup:

--[[User:Alinnisawest|Alinnisawest]],[[Special:Contributions/Alinnisawest|'''Dalek Empress''']] ([[User talk:Alinnisawest|'''extermination requests here]]''')

See what I mean? --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 03:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you see a user with a signature you like, do this:

Click the "[edit]" button to the section where the signature appears
Copy the signature you like
Go to "my preferences" (at the very top of every Wikipedia page)
Paste the signature into the "Signature:" field
Change it so it links to your user page and user talk page, not the person you copied it from!
- For example, if the user was User:Place holder, then wherever it says "Place holder", change that to "Lucas Brown 42".
Modify any parts (colors, fonts, etc) to your liking
Check "Raw signature"
Click the "Save" button

Next time you sign ~~~~, it should show up with the new formatting. (Also, what is with that (commented) vandal warning at the top of this section?) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible vanity article and autobiography

In the Spanish Wikipedia, the article about the german actress Berta Grosser was deleted because it was an hoax. Pay atenttion that this article it doesn't exist on German Wikipedia. Furthermore, it seems a vanity article and an autobiography.

See the search in Google: Berta Grosser

Cheers, Der Ausländer Alles klar! Und du? 30 August 2008 22:35 (UTC)

Since nobody has bothered, I've nominated it for afd. Corvus cornix_talk 04:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate some input - Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games

Mario and Sonic is an IOC licensed video game based on the 2008 Summer Olympics. The game revolves participating in a range of Olympic sports as characters from the Mario and Sonic series. The article is currently at FAC, but an issue of contention has arisen.

Currently, the article gives a complete list of the Olympic events represented within the game. I believe that this list of events is crucial in order for the article to be complete and comprehensive, likening the list to track lists within albums. Other editors believe that the list of events is outside the scope of Wikipedia, failing aspects of WP:NOT relating to "game guide" material.

Should the article give a list of events represented? So far, the discussion is between a handful of editors active in the video game space. I'm posting here to broaden this issue's audience, I'd appreciate comments either at the FAC or at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#List_of_Olympic_events. - hahnch e n 02:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the list does any harm. Why not keep it? It is not like it takes up very much room and the people who will be reading the article are probably interested in the information. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things "don't do harm". That's not a justified reason to keep things in articles. It's simply game guide/trivia content at best. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole idea of an encyclopedia article about one video game (unless its very important in the history of video games) seems very stupid to me. However, since the article is there taking an extra two inches for a list doesn't seem like a problem. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hacking? at Sarah Palin

Someone seems to have gotten to this article so that when you go to it the screen changes to a hostile message. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine now. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 19:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a vandalized template. Corvus cornix_talk 20:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting an article that looks like it was written by the company

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keva_Juice

See Supplements and History.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumarine (talk • contribs) 23:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and added some tags to prompt improvement. You can do that too! Just watch the article talk page afterward so you can outline your concerns to the involved editors. It's actually best to start a talk thread yourself, but in this case I believe the tags are pretty clear-cut. We'll give the people watching the article some time to react, then clean it up - sounds good?

Also, please remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). Franamax (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks. Lumarine (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comon folks, tags are not supposed to be a substitute for editing. The problems with the article were obvious, so change them - as I just did in five minutes. If there's obvious piffle, remove it; wikipedia depends on that. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. Some of us are busy on our own little obsessions and just scan the boards quickly at the end of the day and come up with rapid solutions. Tagging the article was better than leaving it as is, but you are of course right that taking the shears to it is better. I can't help but notice though that you didn't add any sources. I mean, c'mon folks... :) Franamax (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Belgium local chapter creation

Hi,

I'm relaunching the process of the creation of a Belgian local chapter.

It will take in consideration the great amount of expat workers (a very large community at Brussels, as a services dedicated city and the de facto capital of the European Union), the Dutch, French and German speaking contributors. So, if you're an active contributor based on Belgium, whatever the language you speak, you're welcome.

If you're interested to invest yourself in the process or to become a member, please drop me a note or send me a mail. --Dereckson (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL violation

Some of you might be interested in knowing that there is an application for the iPhone using copied wikipedia contents without honoring the GFDL appropriately (in fact without mentioning it at all). - 91.62.251.70 (talk) 11:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to provide a straight copy of Wikipedia country infoboxes. The information in these boxes is uncopyrightable; I don't know whether copyright could be claimed on the exact layout of Wikipedia infoboxes, or on the wording of the footnotes (if they're included). Incidentally, are you sure there's no acknowledgement in the app? There's nothing in the screenshots, but they don't show everything. Algebraist 11:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware that there's no copyright on the information itself, however the aggregation, layout and notes might be covered by copyright. And yes, I am pretty sure there's no further acknowledgement than what you see on that web page (like I told in my first post and which is incidentally why I posted it). – 91.62.251.70 (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then probably the simplest solution is to send a polite email to them suggesting that they include copyright notices. They seem perfectly willing to acknowledge their debt to Wikipedia (there's even a fundraising link on the app page). Algebraist 15:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New England Week in Russian Wikipedia

We are about to start the New England week on ru.wp, ru:Википедия:Проект:США/Новоанглийская неделя. The idea is that new articles on the topics related to new England states will be created and existing articles improved. The dates are Sep 5 to 15. Our experience with other "thematic weeks" shows that around 150 new articles will be created. We thought the whole of the US is too broad of a topic and have chosen to cover only New England (if the interest persists, other parts may be eventually covered). The problem we have is that it is sometimes difficult to separate New England topics. For instance if I know someone was American I may be less sure of what state he/she was from and whether he/she has been associated with New England. If any of you have ideas what articles would be good to cover (obviously these must be either articles without ru interwiki, or tiny Russian articles), these ideas will be gladly appreciated. The best place is to put these on the page I linked above or its discussion page; a link to en.wp would suffice, but may be a short comment why this article is important would be particularly helpful. Thanks in advance for your help.--Yaroslav Blanter (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions?

Can anyone tell me where the best place to post a suggestion for the wbsite esditors is? I have a good idea for them but there are so many topics on here I just don't know where to put it... Thanks