Wikipedia:Simple talk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Simple talk

Shortcut: WP:ST This is the place to ask any questions you have about the Simple English Wikipedia. You might also find an answer on Wikipedia:Useful, a listing of helpful pages. If Wikipedia is not working or is very slow, you might find news about this at "Wikipedia's Status". You may reply to any section below by clicking the "change this page" link, or add a new discussion section to this page. Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~). Please add new topics to the bottom of this page. Are you sure this is the right place? See WP:CHU to change your user name or usurp another user name See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests. See WP:RFRB to request the rollback feature (which administrators can grant). See WP:VIP to report vandalism. Add this page to your list of watched pages — Purge

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

Contents 1 Wikipedia and WP headings 1.1 Vote - incorporate WP: and Wikipedia: headings 1.1.1 Support 1.1.2 Oppose 1.1.3 Neutral 1.1.4 Comments 2 Flood Flag Proposal 2.1 Support 2.2 Oppose 2.3 Discussion 3 Another censorship debate 3.1 Vista Parental controls handle filtering of Simple Wikipedia properly 3.2 Debate is over, nothing will be changed on this site -- tags or ratings 3.3 Review of CYBERsitter interacting with wikipedia 3.4 Review of Vista's parental controls with wikipedia 3.5 Review of OpenDNS with wikipedia 4 Romanian Rivers Update 5 French Communes 5.1 Support 5.2 Oppose 5.3 Comments 6 WikiProject User scripts 7 Permission request - Importers 7.1 Support 7.2 Oppose 7.3 Talk 8 RFA archive box discussion 9 Bot Idea 10 New discussion 11 Peer review limited to 30d. 12 commas on dates 13 Special:WantedPages update 14 RfA Procedures 15 Spoiler warnings 16 Edit count

[change] Wikipedia and WP headings

I think that we should incorporate Wikipedia: and WP: as one heading so if someone wrote WP to simplify, they wouldn't get lost. This is what en.wikipedia does. MathCool10 04:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, so you mean that EN does, for example, go to 'Wikipedia:Test' when you type WP:TEST and have no redirect message below the title; or go to 'Wikipedia:This is a test' when you type WP:TEST but show a redirect message saying 'Wikipedia:TEST'?

And If I'm right it will move the WP: namespace from mainspace to the Wikipedia: one and stop new WP shortcuts from appearing the small 'New pages' sidebar? - Æåm Fætsøn ^{/ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/} 06:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I mean the 1^st example (where WP:TEST goes to Wikipedia:Test without redirect message). MathCool10 04:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it should go ahead. - Æåm Fætsøn ^{/ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/} 10:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Since WP:TEST redirects to Wikipedia:Sandbox on English Wikipedia, the redirect link should say something like "Redirected from Wikipedia:TEST", not from WP:TEST. MathCool10 01:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

And also, when you search, if you type WP:, the search results should be Wikipedia:SOMETHING, not WP:SOMETHING.MathCool10 02:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

reset Just thought i'd explain fully how this works. What it requires is for a developer to add some code to LocalSettings.php. This allows for WP: to become a "shortcut namespace" that relates to Wikipedia: without any redirecting. Things with WP: will automatically be in the Wikipedia: namespace. For it to work, everything with WP: will need to be deleted, and it also might be a while before it gets fulfilled. Personally, I think it's an undeeded measure here at Simple at the moment, but if there is consensus for it I will file a bug. BG^7even 08:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

We'll have a vote. MathCool10 02:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

[change] Vote - incorporate WP: and Wikipedia: headings

Support or oppose to making WP: a shortcut (not a seperate heading) of Wikipedia: (see above conversation).

[change] Support

1. Support. I support this fully (I brought this up) because we will remove a lot of extra pages that we could eliminate. MathCool10 03:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Support, makes sense --Chris 09:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Support: hard coding WP pseudo-namespace is a good idea. It works in e.wiki and will work here. Ruslik (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Support Yes please. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Support - Sounds good. But to address what BG said in the neutral section. I think think you should do it now while it's a small job compared to if you wait.-- ✝ CM16   19:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
6. Support - Stops WP: shortcuts cluttering the 'New changes' and 'Recent changes' sidebar gadgets and makes the search show only Wikipedia: pages if there's no page with that exact name. - Æåm Fætsøn ^{/ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/} 09:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
7. Strong support I think we should incorporate Wikipedia: headings (i.e. if you type 'WP:VANDAL' it will automatically link to 'Wikipedia:Vandalism' with a redirect message saying 'Redirected from Wikipedia:VANDAL'). Tharnton345 19:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
8. Support - I don't see why not. It would make our lives easier; sesides, we already have ...wiki/SP:USP-type shortcuts Resident Mario (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
9. Support I don't see why not. Synergy 15:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Anything to make life easier is good. --Sultec (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Agreeing with Sultec. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 19:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[change] Oppose

1. Oppose - I have a vague idea what you mean. We dont have any double redirects, so if one types WP:TEST, one would go directly to Wikipedia:Test - There will be a redirect message, but no-one will get lost. Fine as it is. If it ain't broke... Kennedy ^(talk) 09:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose - while I understand the reasonings behind, I do not think it is necessary. It gets annoying while typing on English Wikipedia, and so I've never liked it. Perhaps in the future, if needed, but not now. -- American Eagle (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

[change] Neutral

1. Neutral Per my reasoning above, I don't think it's needed at this time. It would also mean that all the current redirects will have to be deleted for it to work. But we can cross that bridge once a bug has been filed (if one is needed!). Cheers, BG^7even 09:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral I agree with BG. Not necessary now. Also, in my four months editing here, it's never caused me any problems. Yotcmdr^{✼ Merry Christmas ! ✼} 16:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

[change] Comments

If this turns out to be Support (currently support is leading more than 50%), can someone with the knowledge and the capability of making this bug do it? I don't really know how to code. MathCool10 21:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As I keep saying, if needed i'll file the bug, but it requires admin help to delete all the current redirects. I'd be happy to do it if my RfA passes that i'm running for in the early new year, but can we wait that long? BG^7even 21:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to file the bug if needed - I know the code that's required. But first an admin needs to delete all the current redirects else it will create conflicts... BG^7even 21:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I see... can you change all of the WP: pages to Wikipedia: pages? MathCool10 22:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There are two ways of doing it. Either recreate them all and delete the originals, or redirect the originals and delete the leftovers. Either way, it's a messy job... And don't start until there is clear consensus! BG^7even 22:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

When would we have "clear consensus?" MathCool10 22:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Oh dear... I see that you have started... just don't do any more, and revert the changes youve made and qd tag the new pages. 7/2/1 isnt clear consensus... and i'm also bordering on oppose as an unecessary evil. BG^7even 22:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry. I'm too lazy to undo my edits, but I'll do so if I must. MathCool10 22:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Clear consensus is normally 7 or 8 to 0. As we have 7/2/1 i'd call perhaps 10/2/1 clear consensus imo, but others may say something else. Either way, there's no need to start till the bug is filed, they take months to go through (as we found with Rollback). Thanks, BG^7even 23:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

reset Hmmm if you can't be bothered the i'll get GBot2 to do it - it's a simple AWB job (I think...). Cheers, BG^7even 23:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

AWB works on Simple English Wikipedia? I never knew that! I have it on English Wikipedia. MathCool10 17:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Just set up your AWB so you log in to simple.wikipedia. It works across all Wikimedia Foundation projects, as well as some non-WMF ones. If you have it at en.wikipedia, and want it here, ask an admin to add you to the check page. Thanks, BG^7even 17:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! MathCool10 17:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

(reset) We're straying a bit off topic. WE NEED MORE PEOPLE TO TAKE PART IN THIS VOTE! MathCool10 19:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Note: Can we have a consensus that we have "clear consensus?" Sorry for the awkward language... MathCool10 02:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

[change] Another censorship debate

Hello all, I do this in a section on its own, because the other two sections above are already getting lengthy. I'll keep it very short, because we already have had this discussion many times before. As was pointed out before, Wikipedia is not censored; this means that we do not adapt our content so it fits special audiences (like children). The proposal has been made to "moderate" Wikipedia in some ways, in that special tags should be introduced. These tags would specify that the content given is of the specified nature, e.g. that a certain article is for an audience "10+" because the article contains certain "features" that make it suitable for that audience. There are several problems with this:

• Who are we to decide what "features" are suitable for a certain "audience"
• The article on breasts has images and schematics that show different human breasts; none of them is pornographic in nature. How am I then supposed to rate the article, it has (on-topic) images, has some (on-topic) graphics, and has language fit to describe the subject at hand?
• If this article is appropriate for the EFL crowd, how would it not be for children?
• How can I factor in the "cultural" difference? - If it is ok for a 12 year old "western" boy, is it for a 12 year old boy from Arabia, or from Japan?
• Where do we get the people that rate the articles, and that write the other articles?

In short, trying to "rate" articles probably raises more issues than it solves.--Eptalon (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. A cow to me is food, but to someone in India, a cow is holy, sacred. So me seeing a cow being butchered will make me hungry, but my counterpart in Asia will be very offended. Censorship in this way is not possible. Period. Kennedy ^(talk) 19:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree with you two. We're not the ones censoring, if you can call it that. We're simply the ones rating articles. The persons computer is the one censoring. We have no control over that. I think that this rating system is the best idea proposed.-- CM16 ^M_LB  04:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

But, and using Kennedy's example as a basis, we (non- cow is sacred people) would give a cow being slaughtered a pg-13 (cause it is being killed after all.. ) rating where an Indian person would be up around R or even XXX.. An American would place naked breasts far higher on the rating level than someone from a country were topless beaches are normal. An American vs most Europeans will differ greatly on sexuality. Heck, an American from San Francisco vs one from North Carolina will differ greatly on a slew of topic. What do we base the ratings on? Who's opinion is the one we use as to what is acceptable? Why the hell should we decide what is acceptable to someone else's children?? Only the parent can decide and moderate what is right for their child, and each parent will have a different level of tolerance on each individual subject. My personal opinion vs the original posters ideas are complete opposites (she has 3 boys - any boy who can understand the image pretty much already has a firm understandig of what a penis looks like and likely is looking the topic up only because he is wondering if he broke his when the white gooey stuff came out of it. Not exactly damaging his frail sensibilities by showing him that what he was already doing was a natural process his body was designed to do.) Who's opinion is right? mine or hers? More so, whos opinion was right for the other 10,000 parents out there? And who are we to state one opinion is right for all 10,000? We may not be censoring, but we are being placed in a position to define what should be censored and that is just not our call to make. It is the responsibility of each parent to chose for their own child, they should not push it off on others to take over their responsibility. (and side note - yes, I got issues with failure in parental responsibilty, issues dealing with a recent suicide and crappy parenting.. Parents need to step up and do the job of being responsible to and for their children or quit having kids they are incapable of raising properly for whatever reason.)--Creol(talk) 06:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the proposer still wants some "rating", so why don't we give them what they want: the whole Simple Wikipedia is PG-13. "Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. May contain moderate language, some explicit nudity, intense violence and/or gore, or mild drug content." BTW, this rating confirms my theory that the target audience may be users around the reading level of 8th grade. Cheers, Lwyx (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Just something very shortly: those parenting programs are very simple; they install a proxy server. Before the page can be accessed, it will be scanned for certain features (like images). Scanning text is easy, scanning images for certain content is harder to do (so AFAIK it is not done). Rather the program relies on third-party information (an image downloaded from playboy is likely pornographic in nature). These programs have been known to work badly (I have a case in mind of such a program blocking info on breast cancer, based on a text scan (and the word breast)). As Creol states above, they cannot replace parenting, which is often the reason why they are installed. Perhaps my statement will cause an outrage: I'd prefer my children to see nudity, because it's natural. If they ask their other-sex friend in school to undress they will likely see similar things. It is the parents or the society they live in that tabooises nudity. All we could do is tag the respective pages (breast contains images of naked breasts, and the text to describe it; however, given this project wants to build an encyclopedia this is something you'd expect, so does not really need tagging. The argument probably holds for most other articles we have: If you find an image somewhere that you would not expect, the image is probably misplaced. --Eptalon (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The point of these programs is to take stress off parent(s) by having the program watch for them...parent(s) CAN'T look over their kids shoulders 24/7 to make sure their kids are looking at what they want their kids to see. Thus these programs were created. By not doing this, we would make these programs useless and make it harder for the parent(s). To answer you problem on what's right? Why not set up a consensus system and average all inputs to a happy medium. But, IMO this has to be done in some way. Thank you.-- CM16 ^M_LB  04:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, picture this: The Fluffy Bunnies and Lollypops article is created, specifically about fluffy bunnies and lollypops. So what rating? Well thats easy, U (universal) or its equivilent. But after we create it, and deem it U, some rotten IP gets to it, and adds all sorts of unsavoury words and images. A child clicks on Fluffy Bunnies and Lollypops, and sees pictures of cows being killed or something. The parent sees this, and notices the U certificate which the IP forgot to update when he added images of dead animals. Now, what will the parent think? Who's fault is it? Well, they will blame us, because we rated that article as Universal. I smell a lawsuit. There is a disclaimer saying we cannot guarentee that our content is accurate or even legal. How can we guarentee that it is suitable for children? Kennedy ^(talk) 08:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Parents can watch their children 24/7 (in regards to being on the net). Its quite simple really, you put the computer in an open space like a family room and you only allow your children on at certain times. Parents today always seek to blame others for their kids behavior but more often than not their behavior could have been stop before it even started with a simple solution, sometimes years before the behavior starts. -Djsasso (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Most parents do DJ, but that doesn't solve the problem that most parents work and are not home 24/7...then what do you suggest? Like I said parents CAN'T watch their kids 24/7. As for what Kennedy said, are you just looking for reasons to oppose or something? I mean, any logical personal can tell when an article has been vandalized or changed to a way that an article isn't meant to be. that would not be our fault and if you Wikimedia were to get sued over that in the USA I pretty dang sure the lawsuit would be thrown out.-- CM16 ^M_LB  19:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You lock the computer so they can't get on. There are many ways to watch them if you are worried about these things. An 8 year old shouldn't be using the internet to research by themselves in the first place. -Djsasso (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ever heard of homework? sometimes you can't do that cause it stops a kid from doing homework when they need it most. And when the parents aren't there cause they're at work thinking they're kids are behaving they're looking up something bad or accidently clicking on it.-- CM16 ^M_LB  19:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If a kid is old enough to be home alone, they are old enough to see any of the content we would have on this wiki. Otherwise I am sure there is some other type of guardian around to monitor them. -Djsasso (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm done arguing...my opinions have been expressed and I'm done. I shall be watching though.-- CM16 ^M_LB  19:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Since I was the one who started this debate again, I will address some of the issues.

• My oldest boy is 8 yrs old, and the person who talked about a teenage boy wanting to make sure that his body's actions were a wet dream as opposed to gonorrhea makes a good point. (Example from the movie A Chorus Line). One issue is that there are two categories for that page: "Female reproductive system" and "male reproductive system", but it does not contain the parent project category "Sex and Sexuality". There are so many different ways to phrase these topics how does a filtering program know what to look for? Plus how does one distinguish between a page that is generic (text describing what it is with maybe a diagram) and a more detailed article with live person videos? Right now, from what I am hearing, I am not even allowed to create a second article called "Health Education, Ejaculation" that is more along the lines of what one would expect to find in a Middle School Health Education Text Book. By doing that, people are saying it is censorship. "Why are you preventing from putting my video on that page as well?"
• We cannot stop people from writing bad things on "U" rated pages, but if they are "U" rated the bad stuff can be removed immediately and the person notified. If it was an accident (posted under the wrong article), give a warning. If it was a deliberate attempt to vandalize, then take action according to Wikipedia policies.
• By having a standard system of terminology and categories in place it allows 3rd party applications like NetNanny to better filter items. For example, breast cancer and foreplay have the potential to contain images of breast or talk about breasts. By marking the breast cancer page as "Health Education, wellness" and the foreplay article as "Sex and Sexuality" it makes it very clear that one is a medical and one is sex talk. But both of these topics should not be in one main article. By breaking them up into sub-articles and talking about different topics accordingly it allows parents to discuss with their children about breast cancer without having to be required to discuss with their children about foreplay.
• If we take a proactive role in our category naming and we work with somebody on NetNanny's project management team, the two systems can be designed to work together. Then we can advertise that we are NetNanny compatible and NetNanny can advertise that they are Simple Wikipedia compatible. It becomes a win win situation.
• The cow example ... most parents don't want young children to see a cow getting slaughtered. Therefore, it should not be in the main article about cows. It should be in a sub-article. Then the a person can select that sub-topic to learn all about the slaughtering of cows, including images. Also have a category called "Parent warning: Indian religious culture issue"
• I don't think that it really matters if the unmarked pages are assumed to be PG-13 and mark PG and G pages accordingly or if the default is PG and mark PG-13 accordingly. We just need to mark pages accordingly. We don't have to use a rating system. Just a standard categorization of names would work: "Parent warning: Sex and sexuality, images" "Parent warning: Sex and sexuality, discussion" "Parent warning: Sex and sexuality, diagrams"
• People gave examples of different beliefs in different cultures. Maybe we could make a template called "Parental Warning: TTT culture(s) may find YYY an issue. Please see ZZZ page for a more generic version of this topic." This would be displayed at the top of the page and a standard on the site would be that potentially objectionable images should not placed within the 1st screen shot.
• Having computers in an public area is not the only issue. There is also the question of how do kids to their research. Do I put simple wikipedia on the "Allow" page or do I spend $60/year for a subscription to Britanica? My personal view about wikipedia in general is that it is a good starting point to get an idea of the vocabulary that is involved in a topic. It is also a good place to get images. I don't want to have to "throw the baby out with the bathwater".
• I don't expect software to take my job as a parent. But I also have to let my children be children. I know that when my boys are teenagers, they are going to look up the sex words and look at the images. It is a normal part of growing up. But the diagrams and diagram videos that are included in Britanica should be enough to answer their curiosity questions. IMO, they don't need to see a live person video. Other parents may disagree. That is where categorizing comes in. It allows parents to make an informed choice to allow or not allow a certain article. Plus by having tagging, it allows the same topic to be discussed at different age levels. How one explains "penis" to a 4 yr old is a lot different than one would explain "penis" to a 13 yr old. This would even be true between explaining "penis" to a girl vs. explaining "penis" to a boy.

Zzmonty (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, Zzmonty, but one of your changes messed up the outline of the debate: you deleted text from other users, so their viewpoints (mine included) were misrepresented. Please restart from this point and avoid editing talk pages as if they were emails. Please don't delete other peoples' text, save for fixing typos and things like that. My apologies to others involved. Cheers, Lwyx (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I may be a bit rude, so my apologies in advance: this sort of "parent tagging" is technically impossible on WikiMedia projects, because any editor can remove the tags or place "inappropriate" contents anywhere in the encyclopaedia. You may say that the former may be fixed by protecting every page with the tag "Sexuality", but there is no way to fix the latter without protecting the whole encyclopaedia, and either would betray the stated goal of "The encyclopaedia that anyone can change".-- You're looking for an encyclopaedia explicitly aimed at children, so you must look elsewhere. Cheers, Lwyx (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

First, sorry for accidently messing up your post.

What I am hearing is that since we can't prevent mischievous people from acting mischievous, we should not do anything. That would be like saying since we can't prevent all spam emails from entering our computer we should not setup any filter system. Anybody who uses wikipedia is going to have to accept the risks. One of those risks is that the articles are biased even though they are supposed to be NPOV. The second risk is that the content is just wrong. The founder of Wikipedia gets 10 emails a week from students who got an F on their paper for using Wikipedia as a main source. The third risk is that you will see or read something that you did not want to see or read. If a parent does not want to accept those risk to any level, they spend the $60/year and get a subscription to Britanica. I am leaning very strongly in that direction. The problem, as stated before, is that Wikipedia commons has a bunch of great pictures.

If a parent is willing to accept some risk, then having tags will help to organize the materials, and creating pages to more directly link to images that kids would use in school reports would improve this site, not harm it.

The sad part of this is that there are a lot of people who are putting in a lot of effort in this project. 95% of the people here, at least, have good intentions for being here. They want to share the knowledge that they have learned with others. Why do I have to prevent my child from reading articles about different animals, because I have personal issues with my child seeing the articles from the project sexuality before he has formally been introduced to that topic by either his parents or through his school?

I know of whole schools that do not allow the children to use the Internet for any school project. The kids must use traditional sources. There is one side of me that can see that point of view, especially reading this discussion. But there is another side of me that believes that there must be a middle ground. Do I really want to go from completely isolating my child to just letting my child loose during college? It seems extreme and very unhealthy.

FYI: I did not say "fix" by protecting a page. I said "fix" by the project leader, aka User:Gwib, monitoring the pages under his project and making sure that people don't remove the tags once they have been approved by the project committee.

As for what rating system to use, this site is out of American (USA), so the standards of ratings of similar materials out of the USA should be used. I did a bunch of research on different rating systems, and Marvel comic books seems to be most in line with what we are doing here (text and images). Plus, I think that their age breakups make sense, as well as the criteria for placing items into a category. On top of that, we can always add standard text to give more information to the potential reader.

Another option is to just use the categories that are used in Vista's parental controls since they have to do with web page content.

Age tags are the easiest to read. On the other hand, the text descriptions are usually useful for the in between stages. Do you allow your 12 yr old who had his first wet dream to read an article about "Ejaculation" that is rated 15+ or 13+? The 15+ one contains a live person video while the 13+ one contains only a diagram and some images of semen. It will depend on the child and the family values.

Zzmonty (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

As you can read below, I will shortly have a bot operational. One of the things this bot will do is to remove the parent category in an article, if that article is already listed in one of the subcategories. This is done because the subcategories are supposed to be more accurate- it is also the behaviour suggested in WP:CAT. Also note, that the category try is not really a tree, each category can have multiple parents. In your case, this would remove the category Human sexuality if the article is in either male or female reproductive system.--Eptalon (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

[change] Vista Parental controls handle filtering of Simple Wikipedia properly

I just did some testing with Vista's parental controls and Simple Wikipedia's site. If a person activates "Parental Control" and sets the "Web Restrictions" to medium it will allow access to Simple Wikipedia. Page of the type "penis", "ejaculation", "nudity" will not be displayed without parental permission, but pages like "elephant" will display without a parent having to give permission. If the "Web Restrictions" are set to "High", the user cannot access anything on Simple Wikipedia.

I have not done testing on commons MediaWiki to find out how it interacts there.

Moderator question: If I did some testing, and I wrote an article "Vista Parental Controls and Wikipedia" would that be considered "Original research" and not allowed? Zzmonty (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be disallowed as an article. However, I don't think that anyone would object if you created an essay in your user space about it, Either way (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia space may also be acceptable. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I'd suggest Wikipedia:Parental control#Windows Vista, and add a link from Useful pages. Happy New Year,