Simple talk/Archive 169

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.

Anniversaries in the year articles

Regarding anniversaries of the creation of certain media, cultural property, and organizations, I do not see them as relevant enough to include in the year articles, in most cases. I think anniversaries should only be included if they have a particularly high amount of coverage, such as the bicentennial of the United States in 1976, or perhaps the release of Mickey Mouse into the public domain.

The following are examples of what I'm talking about:

2029: "50th anniversary of the Alien."
2043: "100th anniversary of Droopy."
2052: "100th anniversary of the Cinerama."

Yamazaki Kaoru (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. One could add an arbitrary number of non-notable anniversaries but that wouldn't be encyclopedically useful at all. Feel free to boldly remove them. Cheers, Sophocrat (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed them myself from the articles you cited. Thanks for pointing this out :). —Sophocrat (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree, too. Are all the ones you've seen in future years? -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. All the ones I've seen are in future years. I'll remove the others now. Yamazaki Kaoru (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Deprecating Template:Nobelprize proposal

Hi, I would like to propose deprecating {{Nobelprize}} in favour of Category:Nobel Peace Prize winners,

The topicon can be added to non-winners and no one would ever know about it whereas categories would be better spotted and reverted if need be. The other issue is the articles are also being put in the "Bogus file options" lint error category because there's an error with the formatting of {{Nobelprize}},

I appreciate some articles have the {{good article}} topicon however this shows the achievements of editors and the article they've significantly expanded .... whereas this topicon just tells people someone's a winner of an award, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see how it's encyclopedically useful. As far as I know we don't add a topicon for any other non-Wikipedia category. We can deprecate it and if someone's up for it we could copy English Wikipedia's version of the template, which outputs an updated link to the Nobel Prize website. Sophocrat (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm fine with this. Be bold. :) fr33k man 22:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @The Sophocrat and @Fr33kman for your replies they're greatly appreciated :),

I perhaps could've just done this instead of asking here but over at Enwiki it was always sod's law that whenever I was bold someone always had to object to my change, Of course I'm not perfect and I know there's somethings I see as being pointless that others/many don't but it seemed being BOLD would always go against me which is kinda the reason why I don't bother anymore (that and I prefer to have consensus behind me so that if someone makes a fuss at least I can say I have consensus),

Anyway waffling on thanks again it's very much appreciated :), Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 21:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2025 - Call for Candidates

⧼interlanguage-link-mul⧽ • ⧼please-translate⧽

Hello all,

The call for candidates for the 2025 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees selection is now open from June 17, 2025 – July 2, 2025 at 11:59 UTC [1]. The Board of Trustees oversees the Wikimedia Foundation's work, and each Trustee serves a three-year term [2]. This is a volunteer position.

This year, the Wikimedia community will vote in late August through September 2025 to fill two (2) seats on the Foundation Board. Could you – or someone you know – be a good fit to join the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees? [3]

Learn more about what it takes to stand for these leadership positions and how to submit your candidacy on this Meta-wiki page or encourage someone else to run in this year's election.

Best regards,

Abhishek Suryawanshi
Chair of the Elections Committee

On behalf of the Elections Committee and Governance Committee

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Call_for_candidates

[2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal:Bylaws#(B)_Term.

[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Resources_for_candidates<section end="announcement-content" />

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Merge

About Special Administrative Region and Special administrative region. These two pages have confusing similar names, and the difference is only "capital A & R" vs "small a & r". So, I have read a bit more. At the page ofhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_administrative_region it says East Timor

Oecusse, whereas, at the page of https://zh-yue.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%89%B9%E5%88%A5%E8%A1%8C%E6%94%BF%E5%8D%80 it says 東帝汶嘅特別行政區

東帝汶嚮2014年設立咗歐庫西特別行政區。

Therefore, Special administrative region is not supposed to be a China-specific page.

Could someone please start the discussion on the merge because it says "It has been suggested that this article be merged with Special Administrative Region. (Discuss) Proposed since June 2022." Yilangderen (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

References issues

Can somebody fix this? I've tried to fixed but it's error, i think there is faulty reference. — Raayaan 9911 23:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Raayaan9911 You need to copy over the note starting with

{{refn|group=note|name=León

97.94.157.144 (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Done fixed myself. Raayaan 9911 00:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Eyes needed on a few China-related pages

I'd like some extra eyes and input at a few China-related pages that have become messy in my opinion. The articles are...

The dissidents article is poorly formatted without explanation as to what makes people dissidents, and the main editor of the article is putting people into categories that they feel fit. Many of the people on the list are just "people who did things that China didn't approve of" like George W. Bush and Nancy Pelosi.

The political problems article is mostly categories and bulleted lists of things rather than an actual article. Note that the English Wikipedia has "political problems of China" as a redirect to "politics of China." May be worth exploring for Simple as well.

The movies banned in China article has no clear focus. There are songs and TV shows mixed in with movies; again things are mixed into categories that the author feels they fit into; there's even a section titled "Writers of this page cannot figure out the definitive reason."

Concerns have been raised on the talk pages of these articles, but more insight is needed from others to help address these article concerns. I'd appreciate more input. CountryANDWestern (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The articles are definitely notable given the real-world impact of Chinese state authoritarianism. What is necessary in this case is adequate sourcing and well-defined inclusion criteria so that the relevant content would be reliable. Steven1991 (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

List_of_Chinese_dissidents#Bad_people_(but_now_a_goodguy)_according_to_China is a pretty confusing section. Does it refer to Politically rehabilitated people? Apologies for the enwiki link but there is not one here. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 18:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

These articles are a complete mess. I know we used to have Chinese editors or editors of Chinese decent (Chenzw for example) but I don't think we have many currently. Could we ask for help from someone on the Chinese wikis? fr33k man 22:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to politics! Could it be the case that, the situation in Chinese politics is messy? I think that a basic concept, for learners to understand, is that Zhao Ziyang was put in "house arrest" and this is different than being jailed/ being in prison. People come and go. The person that you are referring to, might have left Wikipedia for whatever reason.Yilangderen (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The politics may be messy but our articles about them don’t need to be. CountryANDWestern (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

"... without explanation as to what makes people dissidents" If you want an explanation, just read the dissident page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer "... nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate, or reliable information." Yilangderen (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

And, read the Political prisoner page, thanks.Yilangderen (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Due to the secretive style of the CCP, Movie censorship is kinda like "reverse engineering" or "putting pieces of puzzle together" anyways. I mean, you can re-arrange the content to improve the "focus" of the page. The big problem of the page now, or elephant in the room (after the edits by CountryANDWestern) is that South Park is not being mentioned. Do bear in mind that there is Chinese demand (and also the demand of the poeple in Taiwan) to watch the controversial South Park episode. https://pincong.rocks/article/5906 Yilangderen (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Due to the clandestine practice of Chinese government...Yilangderen (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The page-merge discussion is still ongoing, by the way. Talk:China#Merge_discussion Yilangderen (talk) 04:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Those who want to help may go to the following page, thanks. Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2025/List_of_Chinese_dissidents Yilangderen (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

CountryANDWestern: "I do not believe that there is a salvageable article here". This is a weird choice of word. We are talking about a webpage in wikitext. Anyone can easily delete a specific section of the page. Now, the page is structured/ organized into the following sections "People not in PRC prison", "Death/ disappearance", "People in prison", "People sanctioned", "Bad people (but now a goodguy)", "Glossary" and "Related pages". The order of these 7 sections can be switched too. It is normally called "editing" or "changing" the page, it is not "salvaging", thanks. Yilangderen (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Importing a template from another wiki

I made a template on another wiki (not wikimedia but fully compatible with wikimedia used templates), could I have it imported here? I know that english wikipedia allows for imports from other wikimedia wikis, but I do not know the rules here and for non-wikimedia wikis. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 09:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle What's the template for? Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 10:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Cactusisme It is a template that gives the date in the Japanese calendar, the Japanese lunisolar, the Islamic calendar, and the Julian day. So it is pretty complicated and requires importing multiple parts. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 20:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

It depends on the copyright license under which you published the content on that wiki, and whether you can verify that you hold the rights to it. Please check en:Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else? for more information. Since transwiki import only works for some projects, you may need to copy and paste the content manually—but again, that depends on the copyright status. BRP^ever 11:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@BRPever It is released under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 20:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure how the importing actually works. If it is just admins can xml upload from a manual export from the wiki or if it needs to go through something specific. But copy paste moves will be a bit difficult because there are about 20 different templates involved with the calculations. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 23:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

It's news to me that any Wikipedia can import from a non-Wikimedia site. Is there no existing template that could do that, either here or on English Wikipedia? -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6 my expectation is that the page Special:Import will look something like this, and you can import any wiki xml into it.

And no there is not an existing template. I checked pretty thoroughly. The closest thing is en:Template:Infobox calendar date today but that one serves quite different functions. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 01:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

That is the way it looks on miraheze to get wikipedia templates there but I do not know it is more restricted on wikipedia. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 02:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I just did it with copypaste moves See Category:Japanese Time Calculation Templates in case there is more need for attribution Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move

Concerning the page Israel-Hamas war (2023-present), the most recent RM at EN Wiki resulted in consensus forming that the overwhelmingly common name in English language sources for this conflict is Gaza war. I think we should follow suit, and since there is not a WP:Requested move mechanism here on Simple Wiki, I was redirected to this page to bring up the matter. Will be glad if an admin or page mover could take care of this. Keivan.f (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Every project is run independently. I don’t see how a consensus on a separate project should automatically dictate the status of certain articles here? It should only be followed if there is a separate consensus on this site. Steven1991 (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Here's the venue for it since WP:RM redirects here. If nobody opposes the move, then it should probably be moved. Keivan.f (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

A number of reputable sources still call the war “Israel-Hamas war”:

American Jewish Committee

The House of Commons Library

...

The proposed change may not be undesirable, but I believe that these are worthy of consideration when the ENWP consensus is not made by subject experts, while the respective topic area has been a matter of intense controversy, which resulted in an arbitration case with confirmed findings of off-site canvassing and content manipulation. This ENWP essay is also helpful. I do not support following CTOP consensuses from there without duly weighted contexts and the bedrock WP:NPOV policy. Steven1991 (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with enwiki's rationale. It's more precise and common title, so I support this move.-- BRP^ever 13:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

It's more precise and common title

I do not agree. There have been several “Gaza War” between the 2000s and now: 2008‒09, 2012, 2014 and 2021. If a more specific name is not used, would readers be able to tell them apart? Steven1991 (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

There is the principle of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The current war is "The" Gaza war, regardless of how many conflicts took place in the past. The same situation applies to the Iran–Israel war, and there was already conflict between the two countries back in 2024 (aka 2024 Iran–Israel conflict). The wars in Gaza in 2008, 2012, 2014 and 2021 that you are referring to were one off operations that at most lasted a month and are certainly not the primary targets for the name suggested here. Keivan.f (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

A redirect with the same wording already exists for Israel-Hamas war (2023-present). The top search result for “Gaza war” is also the same page. Readers can already get to the page easily when they input “Gaza War” in the Search. I do not find the name change necessary, when both names are fine and have been used interchangeably in public domain, i.e. keeping the current article’s title would not compromise public perceptions of the war. Having said that, I’d leave this up to our fellow community members. Steven1991 (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

If your issue is with the timeframe, it is entirely plausible to have the page named Gaza war (2023–present). I'll also leave it to the community to decide between the options though. Keivan.f (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Cosplayers?

I noticed that a lot of articles for fictional characters here have pictures of cosplayers instead of public domain pictures of the characters like on the English Wikipedia. Is there a special reason for this? (And is it something that should not be changed?) If it is something that people here would like to be changed then I would be happy to make a start on it! Carlodivarga-s (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Carlodivarga-s: It might help us answer if you give specific examples. You mention public domain pictures. On Simple English Wikipedia, images used in articles must be in Wikimedia Commons. We don't use "fair use" images (is that what you meant by public domain?). -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

If there's a public domain picture on commons available, then I'd say go ahead and change it. -Barras talk 15:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

traditionally on the English Wiki, there's been portrayals of characters in cos play in that way because there were no free images. We don't have a version of fair use here, its commons or bust. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Extended footnotes

At User_talk:Steven1991#Extended_footnotes, I've raised concerns about the user's use of extended footnotes in Holocaust-related topics. Here is an example of the extended footnotes. Steven1991 has added these footnotes to approximately 40-60 articles in some form. Each of them occurs after a link to the Simple article on Holocaust or Holocaust denial.

It is my view that such footnotes are unnecessary as we are already linking to our article on the topic. We should not be having these external links to things like "What was the Holocaust?" when we are already linking to our own article that should explain what the Holocaust is in Simple English terms. If there is information in those footnotes that is not already in our articles, we should expand them to incorporate that material with those links as the references.

Steven1991 has agreed to not include those footnotes going forward, however, there is dispute about how to handle the existing ones. As I mentioned, it's approximately 40-60 footnotes here. I personally think that they should be removed, but Steven1991 believes that they should stay. I'm seeking community input as a third+ opinion on how we should approach. CountryANDWestern (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I don’t see a problem with footnoting certain information when it can prevent the main body of an article from being lengthy, nor do I agree that none of them should exist. I don’t think that simply deleting is helpful. As I said, let them stay while following the the agreed way for future articles – that would be easy for everyone. It is unnecessary to remove all of the existing footnotes when they can provide much more useful and accurate information (e.g. external links to authoritative sources like the USHMM and Yad Vashem) for the subject being footnoted, which exactly serve the purpose of footnotes. Steven1991 (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Adding footnotes so the article doesn't become lengthy is not a good idea. If all the text is simple then an article becoming lengthy is a good thing. Our aim here is not to create smaller articles than enwiki but to create articles that as just as good but in simple English. We want our readers to find all they want to know inside our articles not become a place that sends people elsewhere for information we should have in the first place. I think you should remove the footnotes that are unnecessary. fr33k man 14:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your input. I would be willing to remove some of them from particular articles. Steven1991 (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I think they should be removed or trimmed down to necessary minimum. It makes no sense to have them in cases like above when we already have a page on the topic. They seem to be already downsizing it, so the concern is getting resolved. If there is concern with any specific page, you can mention that. Thanks,--BRP^ever 15:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
@Steven1991 I see the same issue with newer pages like David Hirsh and Polocaust. Those pages are very complex too. BRP^ever 20:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Done. Steven1991 (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
I concur with Fr33kman and BRPever. It looks poor if we need to link to other websites to explain things in our simple articles. -Barras talk 15:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
I think i is generally a good udea, to have one footnote per publication. Suppose, that a few paragraphs on, you re-use the same publication. Ib the case of one-citation-per-foornbote you can pick the item again, if you list several publications, this becomes more difficult. Eptalon (talk) 10:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Using a single source for an article

I feel like this requires more sourcing, but is decently written. User:Immanuelle/Shimosuwa Aozuka Kofun Would it be okay just to send it to mainspace or would it require more sourcing? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: For an article with so little text, I think having only one source is fine. It does need some other work, though, in the areas of formatting, copy editing, wikifying. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I tried to clean it up a bit and moved it to mainspace.

Now for a more hard/complicated one. This article User:Immanuelle/Kumano_Gongen I really feel hard pressed with what to do with it. It is definitely not done but I am not sure what to do with it. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 01:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Nonsense page

Hi. Theres a new page called "Don Davies" and all it says is a spam of "Pierre Poilievere" in bold. --2001:4451:8786:A200:661C:AEFF:FEF9:9A9C (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)!

Took care of it. -Barras talk 10:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Vandals

How can i help fight vandalism? Its hard --112.204.167.209 (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

no My IP changed! --112.204.167.209 (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Personal attack question

Would it be a personal attack to say one user is probably a sockpuppet of someone else? 71.236.131.237 (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

If you have a reasonable suspicion - no. However, if it is a "blind" accusation without any evidence, then I advise against making such accusations. BZPN (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think it is a personal attack. Now, I would suggest providing more evidence to make your case for a connection. I restored your comment so that MathXplorer can judge for themselves. CountryANDWestern (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, if you have a suspicion, you can crete a request on this page. One of the checkusers will then look into the matter, and perform the relevantchecks. Eptalon (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

How do I make this draft better?

I wrote a draft here User:Immanuelle/Kabe_Island and I feel like it is badly written. Do you have suggestions? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: Hi, Immanuelle. Since you had said in the past that you didn't mind people editing your drafts, I just did some cleanup and simplifying on this one. Feel free to revert if you want.

The main thing I see is that the language needs to be simplified, mostly by breaking sentences into smaller pieces. I find it helps to think about our target audience, people whose English is not advanced. They might be trying to understand one sentence at a time, so it helps them to keep the sentences short. One rule of thumb about this is to have only one subject and verb in a sentence, but it goes beyond that. Take a look at the ones I shortened, and see if you understand why I did it in each case. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6 I hope you are happy with what I did there. I have another one that I really like but I am very afraid is too complicated right here User:Immanuelle/Kumano_Gongen Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 20:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Did you mean to remove the categories? -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6 I did becase all the categories were redlinks. But I forgot to add new categories. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Some other things I see:

The infobox has a lot of invalid parameters
The Ill template link to your userspace should be removed

-- Auntof6 (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

What about User:Immanuelle/Kumano_Gongen now? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

It's in a couple of maintenance categories. You could do something to resolve those.

It's usually considered good practice with infoboxes to put one parameter per line. It's not required, but it makes it easier to see the code.

The Commons boxes should go at the top of the other websites section.

A couple of statements in the lead have a lot of references with them. I'd cut it down by a lot. If that removes links that you still want in the article, you could put them in the other websites section.

The Origins and Beliefs about the Three Mountains sections could have some of their sentences combined into paragraphs instead of each being on a separate line.

The big table is in the Beliefs about the Three Mountains section. Does it need its own heading?

Just my thoughts. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6 Is your suggestion to merge in the headings like I did earlier? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 23:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: I'm not sure what you mean. Which earlier change are you referring to? -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6 the last edit. Sorry worded that badly. Do you think the current version is better structured? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 00:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

What to do about Slowking4's athlete articles?

Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:UserLinks/shared' not found. created hundreds of stub articles on athletes, particularly women's volleyball, water polo, and rugby players. Here are some example articles: Sarah Chobot, Sarah Pattison, Sarah Landry, Wang Fengjiao, and Valeriya Rylova. For the most part, they are formulaic stubs that have a source or two that are databases or rosters. They are mostly orphaned articles and don't exist on other wikis as well. There is never likely to be expansion of them. Most have never competed at the Olympics.

I made two batch RFDs for a few articles earlier this month (Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2025/Slowking volleyball D and Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2025/Slowking water polo D) both of which resulted in SOFTDELETE as there was no further input.

How do we best address these articles? I feel like a bunch of batch RFDs will be tedious and clog RFD. How do we best handle these articles? CountryANDWestern (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd say creating a list and requesting deletion in smaller batches might be a good idea. They do have a bunch of socks though so the list of pages might be quite bigger considering that. I have made a list at User:BRPever/test1-- BRP^ever 14:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I will try running some query to see if I can narrow the list to pages that are not linked to enwiki pages via wikidata. BRP^ever 15:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@CountryANDWestern I have narrowed the list down to ~400 pages by removing pages with links to dewiki, frwiki and enwiki, and it seems this list mostly include pages without any significant coverage. I think this will be a good starting point to work from.-- BRP^ever 15:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for compiling this list. Want me to copy it into my user space so you don't need to maintain it? CountryANDWestern (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Please feel free to copy it. :) --BRP^ever 23:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Copied it over to my space; thanks for the help! CountryANDWestern (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Sister Projects Task Force reviews Wikispore and Wikinews

<section begin="message"/> Dear Wikimedia Community,

The Community Affairs Committee (CAC) of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees assigned the Sister Projects Task Force (SPTF) to update and implement a procedure for assessing the lifecycle of Sister Projects – wiki projects supported by Wikimedia Foundation (WMF).

A vision of relevant, accessible, and impactful free knowledge has always guided the Wikimedia Movement. As the ecosystem of Wikimedia projects continues to evolve, it is crucial that we periodically review existing projects to ensure they still align with our goals and community capacity.

Despite their noble intent, some projects may no longer effectively serve their original purpose. Reviewing such projects is not about giving up – it's about responsible stewardship of shared resources. Volunteer time, staff support, infrastructure, and community attention are finite, and the non-technical costs tend to grow significantly as our ecosystem has entered a different age of the internet than the one we were founded in. Supporting inactive projects or projects that didn't meet our ambitions can unintentionally divert these resources from areas with more potential impact.

Moreover, maintaining projects that no longer reflect the quality and reliability of the Wikimedia name stands for, involves a reputational risk. An abandoned or less reliable project affects trust in the Wikimedia movement.

Lastly, failing to sunset or reimagine projects that are no longer working can make it much harder to start new ones. When the community feels bound to every past decision – no matter how outdated – we risk stagnation. A healthy ecosystem must allow for evolution, adaptation, and, when necessary, letting go. If we create the expectation that every project must exist indefinitely, we limit our ability to experiment and innovate.

Because of this, SPTF reviewed two requests concerning the lifecycle of the Sister Projects to work through and demonstrate the review process. We chose Wikispore as a case study for a possible new Sister Project opening and Wikinews as a case study for a review of an existing project. Preliminary findings were discussed with the CAC, and a community consultation on both proposals was recommended.

Wikispore

The application to consider Wikispore was submitted in 2019. SPTF decided to review this request in more depth because rather than being concentrated on a specific topic, as most of the proposals for the new Sister Projects are, Wikispore has the potential to nurture multiple start-up Sister Projects.

After careful consideration, the SPTF has decided not to recommend Wikispore as a Wikimedia Sister Project. Considering the current activity level, the current arrangement allows better flexibility and experimentation while WMF provides core infrastructural support.

We acknowledge the initiative's potential and seek community input on what would constitute a sufficient level of activity and engagement to reconsider its status in the future.

As part of the process, we shared the decision with the Wikispore community and invited one of its leaders, Pharos, to an SPTF meeting.

Currently, we especially invite feedback on measurable criteria indicating the project's readiness, such as contributor numbers, content volume, and sustained community support. This would clarify the criteria sufficient for opening a new Sister Project, including possible future Wikispore re-application. However, the numbers will always be a guide because any number can be gamed.

Wikinews

We chose to review Wikinews among existing Sister Projects because it is the one for which we have observed the highest level of concern in multiple ways.

Since the SPTF was convened in 2023, its members have asked for the community's opinions during conferences and community calls about Sister Projects that did not fulfil their promise in the Wikimedia movement.[1][2][3] Wikinews was the leading candidate for an evaluation because people from multiple language communities proposed it. Additionally, by most measures, it is the least active Sister Project, with the greatest drop in activity over the years.

While the Language Committee routinely opens and closes language versions of the Sister Projects in small languages, there has never been a valid proposal to close Wikipedia in major languages or any project in English. This is not true for Wikinews, where there was a proposal to close English Wikinews, which gained some traction but did not result in any action[4][5], see section 5 as well as a draft proposal to close all languages of Wikinews[6].

Initial metrics compiled by WMF staff also support the community's concerns about Wikinews.

Based on this report, SPTF recommends a community reevaluation of Wikinews. We conclude that its current structure and activity levels are the lowest among the existing sister projects. SPTF also recommends pausing the opening of new language editions while the consultation runs.

SPTF brings this analysis to a discussion and welcomes discussions of alternative outcomes, including potential restructuring efforts or integration with other Wikimedia initiatives.

Options mentioned so far (which might be applied to just low-activity languages or all languages) include but are not limited to:

Restructure how Wikinews works and is linked to other current events efforts on the projects,
Merge the content of Wikinews into the relevant language Wikipedias, possibly in a new namespace,
Merge content into compatibly licensed external projects,
Archive Wikinews projects.

Your insights and perspectives are invaluable in shaping the future of these projects. We encourage all interested community members to share their thoughts on the relevant discussion pages or through other designated feedback channels.

Feedback and next steps

We'd be grateful if you want to take part in a conversation on the future of these projects and the review process. We are setting up two different project pages: Public consultation about Wikispore and Public consultation about Wikinews. Please participate between 27 June 2025 and 27 July 2025, after which we will summarize the discussion to move forward. You can write in your own language.

I will also host a community conversation 16th July Wednesday 11.00 UTC and 17th July Thursday 17.00 UTC (call links to follow shortly) and will be around at Wikimania for more discussions. <section end="message"/>

-- Victoria on behalf of the Sister Project Task Force, 20:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Victoria,

thank you for the message. Not touching on the subject matter, are you aware that the text that you wrote is of a considerable difficulty, and likely far from what we would consider "Simple English". In that context would it not be likely that the main audience of this project will not understand what you write? - So when you do not get any feedback, this might be because of disinterest, but it might also be because of a failure to communicate with the target audience in a language they actually understand. Those are of course just my thoughts... Eptalon (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Feedback

Please give me some feedback on my article Raphael (given name). Rafaelthegreat (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Rafaelthegreat, welcome to the Simple Wikipedia. I took a look at your article and have a few tips for you. First, it's important to always include sources when you are writing an article. You may want to read WP:V for more information. It also would be considered a "stub" or short article, so I have tagged it as such. I do like how you included the template to show that the Simple English Wiktionary has a definition for the name. You're on a good track and I encourage you to continue writing! Ternera (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I am pretty new here. I am usually on the English Wikipedia. Rafael Hello! 13:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Ternera: The infobox adds the Wiktionary template. I actually just suppressed the one that the infobox adds and added it manually to improve the look of the page, even though the Wiktionary entry doesn't have anything that the article doesn't already have. -- Auntof6 (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Writing a simple article on a drug

I have been working on this draft article User:Immanuelle/Pink cocaine. Are there specific rules or protocols around trying to write simple articles on this topic? I think I did a good job with the beginning. But the table and templates might need some simplification. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 16:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

There are no specific rules on articles such as this. Just write it as you would for any other topic. We're not censored so we can, and should, have articles on every notable topic. fr33k man 18:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

BTW: the article looks fine fr33k man 18:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

RFC on paid editing as a CU

Folks on this project are invited to comment on a ongoing RFC on the compatibility of paid editing with CU permissions at this page. Sohom (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I cant make an account!

Hi! Can you help? I cant make an account. It says i "session hijacked". Please help. (im on a Samsung smart tv) Thanks! --2001:4451:8786:A200:661C:AEFF:FEF9:9A9C (talk) 09:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Please answer --2001:4451:8786:A200:661C:AEFF:FEF9:9A9C (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd recommend trying to make an account on another device. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 20:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Article title issue Kurdish-Yazidi uprising against the Safavids

Yazidis are an Kurdish speaking ethnoreligious group they are not Kurdish people, the article title Kurdish-Yazidi uprising against the Safavids should be fixed it may mislead readers into thinking they are ethnically Kurdish. Thanks 81.109.99.117 (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I have moved the page Eptalon (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree. I hope that there will be subject experts fixing it. Steven1991 (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Can you please set this up here?

From en:Wikipedia:New pages patrol:

Template:Tq is only for quoting in talk and project pages. Do not use it in actual articles.

I really hope you can set this up on Simple English Wikipedia too. This was most recently discussed in April/May 2024 at Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 159#Enabling noindex in article space with overwhelming support. 96.65.201.81 (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I would definitely support this. It seems Eptalon was looking into it last year and there has been no update since then? Ternera (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd have to find the exact link for it but I believe someone either from WMF or on the technical side of things said they'd rather not change it, after that discussion finished. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 20:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd have doubts also. Most new pages are not patrolled fr33k man 20:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm currently trying to reduce the backlog of new pages. However, I think I work most likely alone on that right now. While I think this would be a good thing to have, that would mean we need more people patrolling new pages. I guess there are several thousands of unpatrolled pages as the special page only goes back for 30 days or so. -Barras talk 21:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I think that the pages are automatically indexed after 90 days on English Wikipedia, per en:Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing. We could do that here, too. We could also reduce it to 7 days. 96.65.201.81 (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd say 90 days are good. If patrolled, the articles are indexed anyway. We probably require more time to patrol pages than enwiki. -Barras talk 21:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

At least having some limit will mean that speedy-deletable pages don't get indexed. Any number of days is okay with me. 96.65.201.81 (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Temperature MOS spell

Hey guys, in temperatures on Wikipedia, is it 0 degrees, zero degrees, or 0°? 2001:569:7C59:1E00:70D9:EFB9:1015:AB57 (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I would say to use the convert template. For Fahrenheit, use {{convert|0|°F}}. That would display as follows:

0 °F (−18 °C)

For Celsius, use {{convert|0|°C}} to display like this:

0 °C (32 °F)

I'm trying to encourage use of the convert template for various measurements so that we're more inclusive. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay thanks (plus I am in the same IP range as the last one). 2001:569:7C59:1E00:7901:5B7E:44DA:407E (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey

Hey is me Adelaide, I forgot my username, I am trying to log in but I forgot my user can anyone look it up for me? Thank you! 2600:8804:8A81:9100:D674:DCF1:28E6:B034 (talk) 06:08, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Wasn't it "Astralee" or "Astrolee" or something like that? If you remember a specific article you were working on, you could go there, check the history, and find your username in the list of contributors. Ternera (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Thats someone else Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 09:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Asteralee Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 09:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Adelaideslement8723 --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 14:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Surname articles

In Category:Meitei surnames, there are 238 articles that follow basically the same format. There are two sentences, an infobox, sources and/or links to mychildnames.com and indiachildnames.com, and a link to a Simple English Wiktionary page with the name (except, from the random ones I clicked on, none of them actually have pages at Wiktionary). The two sentences are the same "XXXX is a Meetei Manipuri surname or family name which has Indian origin. People of this family mainly live in Manipur, India." Some example pages: Chungkham, Thangjam, Maimom.

Occasionally, there will be an additional section for the history of the name or a person with that name who is notable such as Naorem and Ningombam.

The bulk of these are not on other wikis (and if they are, they are as disambig pages for notable people with that surname) and are orphaned on Simple English Wikipedia. Are these kind of articles appropriate for the wiki? If not, how do we approach them? CountryANDWestern (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything inherently notable about a surname in and of itself. It'll be a pain but I think we should delete them all. To do so we'd need to work from a list. fr33k man 16:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Haoreima: 204.195.97.109 (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Is a batch RFD the best course of action? It didn't work so great with the clan articles a couple of weeks ago. CountryANDWestern (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Give me few weeks. I will improve all of them into notable articles with more citations. HAOREIMA (Khurumjari) 17:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

In far-North Scandinavia (and Fenno-Scandinavia) 'tribal last-names' will sometimes/often 'say' where many/most of the people with an (individual) last name, which settlement (or larger area) that a person comes from. Be that as it may.--If one of the mentioned 'Manipur last-name articles' would say something like, "some sources from the 18th century, says that most of the (Manipur) people with last name Singh-A-Song, came from the Alfa-Bravo Valley" of Manipur, then that might be helpful. And notable sources, would be necessary, of course.

Another thing, please identify/'list'/name, one or two of the 'related' disambig pages (at En-wiki).--I will check "Singh", myself.--Maybe, maybe i can add something. 2001:2020:359:B9D1:C969:6551:E913:D235 (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC) /2001:2020:359:B9D1:C969:6551:E913:D235 (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

It will be great if you create a user account. We can collaborate further. :-) HAOREIMA (Khurumjari) 19:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Haoreima have you thought about making wikidata entries on these surnames? They seem really structured and suited for it. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 07:14, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle I want to but since they're numerous, it's a big deal for me to carry on alone. :-) HAOREIMA (Khurumjari) 07:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Well you certainly had no problem making so many articles here… CountryANDWestern (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I just ran a small QuickStatements batch on the items. In general, it would be good to have a better native speaker POV on the items — including their names in the Meitei script and possibly mergers/sitelinks with the Meitei Wikipedia's equivalents if they exist. Hiàn 02:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@Hiàn Yes, I can. I have started improving some of it BTW. :-) HAOREIMA (Khurumjari) 04:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@Haoreima I'll help u just like always. :-) Victor Ningthemcha (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Script

Hi all, if you want a easier way to review new page, I created a script, <syntaxhighlight lang="js">importScript('User:Cactusisme/Wikipatrol.js'); </syntaxhighlight> add this to the common JS if you want to use it. Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 09:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

What does it do? CountryANDWestern (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@CountryANDWestern a button appears at the top right of ur screen and it provide many options for new page patrollers. There r custom options Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 10:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Such as? CountryANDWestern (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

sorting (abc, numerical, date) filter out patroller admin pages, redirects etc Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 10:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

there is a cactus loading animation, so don't mind it Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 10:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

More details at: User:Cactusisme/WikiPatrol Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 10:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Cite book

In cite book, if the publisher parameter contains a colon you'll see an error.

So this:

turns into:

Foobar. This contains: a colon.

but if you remove the colon:

turns into:

Foobar. This contains no colon.

Can someone fix the Lua? Polygnotus (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I think a a change is needed to module:Citation/CS1/Utilities Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 05:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Do you happen to know? Polygnotus (talk) 07:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

It looks like someone called Auntof6 imported the current version of en:Module:Citation/CS1 but neglected to import the matching version of the other modules in the cs1|2 suite. simple.wiki's cs1|2 module suite is now out of sync with itself.

I do not have the necessary permissions to fix this so you will have to get Editor Auntof6 or someone else with simple.wiki import privileges to fix this.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

And Auntof6, can you also give Trappist the monk admin rights? That is useful in situations such as this and User_talk:Trappist_the_monk. Polygnotus (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: No, we don't just give admin rights. A user gets the admin right by going through the WP:RFA process. That's probably not what is needed here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

You appear to think that I want admin privileges here. If you do think that, let me disabuse you of that thought. I do not want admin privileges at simple.wiki.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk I should learn to use those /s things. How do you denote tongue in cheek stuff? Polygnotus (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I was replying to Editor Auntof6. If you mean emojis, I have no idea because to my not-so-young-brain, they are more-or-less meaningless and excessively over cute.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Sorry, I pinged the wrong person. I was replying to @Polygnotus. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: I don't remember why I imported that template, so I'm tempted to undo the import rather than import a group of others. Would that solve the problem, do you think? -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, though I think that keeping up with the current en.wiki version of the cs1|2 module suite is in the long run beneficial. Regardless, it seems that the simple.wiki module suite has been updated by another editor.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Done @Polygnotus: note import requests can go on WP:AN. We do have the active admin numbers to keep up with maintenance stuff like this at the moment. Some stuff can get missed out but if you just let us know we will handle it as soon as possible. :) --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 22:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ferien Thank you! Yeah I am not really used to simple yet.

Is there a list of differences somewhere? Polygnotus (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: User:Auntof6/simplediffs covers many of them --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 22:39, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ferien Excellent! Thanks again! Polygnotus (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ferien Look at the categories at the bottom of this page. It is in "CS1 maint: publisher location". Polygnotus (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus It's supposed to do that. See the explanation here: en:Category:CS1 maint: publisher location. 65.76.141.133 (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I learn something new every day. Polygnotus (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I've now copied this across from enwiki so it's hidden now unless you have viewing hidden categories enabled. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 14:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah its a bit weird to have this page in that category. Polygnotus (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

"Total Backlog Annihilation" phase four

Hi everyone! After the Category:Underpopulated categories backlog has been cleared in phase 3 of WikiProject TBA (Total Backlog Annihilation), a new phase has just begun to clear the next backlog: Category:Pages with broken reference names. Instructions are provided on how to help clear the backlog. You can find out more and register interest at User:Ferien/WikiProject TBA/Phase IV. All help is very much appreciated to try and clear as many backlogs on our wiki as possible! Thank you! --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 22:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Another one!! --Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 23:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Help a list-like article

I have a draft that is pretty much just a list. Do you have suggestions on how to make it better? Wikidata links should probably be removed, but I expect someday articles in other languages will be written on these things. Is the general structure good?

User:Immanuelle/Eight Great Dragon Kings

Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: My comments:

It might be nice to put the list in a table. Possible columns are name, translation, and notes.
I would remove the unused sources. Lists of sources are meant to be full information for references that use a format like references 5 through 8 in this article. If the source isn't used, it doesn't need to be in the list.

Just my thoughts. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I did it on all of them Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 08:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I also made this one User:Immanuelle/Demon King of the Sixth Heaven Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 10:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikidata Item and Property labels soon displayed in Wiki Watchlist/Recent Changes

(Apologies for posting in English, you can help by translating into your language)

Hello everyone, the Wikidata For Wikimedia Projects team is excited to announce an upcoming change in how Wikidata edit changelogs are displayed in your Watchlists and Recent Changes lists. If an edit is made on Wikidata that affects a page in another Wikimedia Project, the changelog will contain some information about the nature of the edit. This can include a QID (or Q-number), a PID (or P-number) and a value (which can be text, numbers, dates, or also QID or PID’s). Confused by these terms? See the Wikidata:Glossary for further explanations.

The upcoming change is scheduled for 17.07.2025, between 1300 - 1500 UTC. The change will display the label (item name) alongside any QID or PIDs, as seen in the image below:

These changes will only be visible if you have Wikidata edits enabled in your User Preferences for Watchlists and Recent Changes, or have the active filter ‘Wikidata edits’ checkbox toggled on, directly on the Watchlist and Recent Changes pages.

Your bot and gadget may be affected! There are thousands of bots, gadgets and user-scripts and whilst we have researched potential effects to many of them, we cannot guarantee there won’t be some that are broken or affected by this change.

Further information and context about this change, including how your bot may be affected can be found on this project task page. We welcome your questions and feedback, please write to us on this dedicated Talk page.

Thank you, - Danny Benjafield (WMDE) on behalf of the Wikidata For Wikimedia Projects Team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Simply, removing 'wrong or non-updated' mayor, from infobox of Chinese cities

I have now 'started' at the bottom of a 700+ list of Chinese cities. (And i am going to the article about the individual city/cities.)--Is it okay if i simply remove 'the wrong mayor from infobox' (and 'cite' the en-wiki infobox, in the edit comment in our article) without ? Example, this city 'has the wrong mayor'.--I have no intention of 'making a career' out of adding names of mayors (to infoboxes of city articles).--Fair enough?--I hope that i do not get blocked for asking this; I am asking so that i can edit without those edits being viewed as wrongful).--Also, i seem to remember that over at German-wiki, more than 5 years ago, we decided that 'removing wrong names' of Norwegian mayors, from infoboxes, was simply a fine thing to do. (And of course, every wiki can make their own rules.) 2001:2020:32D:CF3C:5DCD:FEE0:591B:A3A7 (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

If something is wrong then it's fine to remove it. fr33k man 00:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Another option would be to say than (for example) in 2020 that person was elected mayor. Now if these elections happen (say) every four years, it is clear that another election happened since then. Note also: over here (Switzerland,Austria, Germany) villages and smaller cities often have the same mayor for long times, esp. If that person is doing a decent job. Eptalon (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

But in the infobox that wouldn't work. I think it's better to remove them. 204.195.97.109 (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Can you put the wikilinks at my talk page please? I would like to help out, but I can't find the "infobox", thanks. Yilangderen (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

On the issue of China, please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2025/List_of_Hong_Kong_dissidents thanks. Yilangderen (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

SAR

The Special Administrative Region and Special administrative region pages need to be fixed. Yilangderen (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Yilangderen In what sense? What should happen? Polygnotus (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Change the page-name of "Special Administrative Region" to "Special administrative regions of China". Please see en:Special administrative regions of China. Yilangderen (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I think "merging" is kinda over-complicating things. If the page-name is changed successfully, then, I can easily fix the 2 pages. I don't know how to change the name of the page, please help. Yilangderen (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Yilangderen What happens if you go to Special:MovePage/Special_Administrative_Region? WP:MOVE explains how to rename a page. Polygnotus (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Handling AI articles

Hiyas! I haven't been around as much as I'd like to, so may have missed a discussion on this (lmk if one has already happened). I came across Separatism in Russia, an article almost certainly written by a LLM with no/minimal human review. It doesn't fall under any of the existing QD criteria, but also isn't a traditional candidate for RfD as the topic is notable, just the content is bad (though is currently at RfD). Given the ease with which people can now generate large amounts of text that may be hiding LLM hallucinations...how should we be handling articles of this kind? I'd think about simply blanking and redirecting it to a relevant article with human-reviewed content, but that might be a bit too bold. Best, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 01:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Hiya. Yes, we have been discussing this topic. At first we considered QDing them as Complex articles under a proposed G13 criteria but that went nowhere. Now we tend to RfD them, although that obviously takes time and is one of the reasons we have so many RfDs. I'd advise you to read and comment on WP:AI. It's become quite a problem, one which we haven't yet figured out. fr33k man 01:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

^What Freekman said - we don't have an official way of handling these, Some people tag them under {{AI-notice}} where they then simple sit and go forgotten about/rot for years to come, and others like myself just send them straight to RFD if the Enwiki article is too complex (I try where possible). –Davey2010^Talk 01:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I also agree with having a QD criterion, I can't remember what I said in the last discussion but I probably Opposed on the basis that "they could be rewritten/improved" however that theory has turned out to be wrong as they don't get improved or rewritten - they just sit dormant for years until someone randomly stumbles upon it

So yes I support a QD criterion, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 20:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

If anyone has any ideas, we can expand on it. I was thinking of making a section at RFD specifically for AI related page that act as en:WP:PROD and the gets deleted if there is no improvement in a week. BRP^ever 12:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the idea. Steven1991 (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Fr33kman: Is 5 out of 99 RfDs (or 3 out of 109 RfDs at the time you commented) mentioning AI in the nomination or comments really a reason for so many RfDs? The data isn't adding up. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 21:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the way forward is the QD option and from what I'm reading a few good others agree. There are a fair few other QD criteria that don't get used often but we have them as options. How many RfDs have we had since the AI thing became an issue? A lot of people have expressed a dislike of AI generated content. Perhaps it's a good idea to have a formal poll? fr33k man 22:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Fr33kman: The question was simply about whether it was one of the reasons it's that we have a massive backlog of RfDs, that you mentioned in your comment, which it is not based on the data. And QD criteria also need to be objective which has not been demonstrated here yet either. A4 is already heavily misused so why would it be a good idea to open us up to another potential criterion that is genuinely subjective and likely to be misused. The QD criterion feels like a solution looking for a problem, these articles will be deleted on-sight or within 7 days at RfD, why go against the fundamentals of our deletion policy for an issue that is affecting so few of our existing RfDs. No-one is doubting it is an issue but the scope of it is certainly up for debate and whether it needs such a drastic change in QD policy. Once someone talks about how we can make this an objective pass/fail criterion for QD like every single other one I will happily stop pushing back on this issue, but it's not possible which is why it hasn't been implemented yet.

And please, let's not formally "poll" the community, we work on consensus not polling – that is ironically something we need to fix in our RfDs with people making such poor baseless arguments or none at all that consensus is more difficult/controversial to determine, prolonging RfD closures and increasing the backlog in the process. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 22:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

You say "these articles will be deleted on-sight": how will they be deleted on sight without a QD criteria? They will only be deleted after an RfD. I think everyone is on the same page in that we all want them to be deleted, it's just a matter of how. Right now, as I see it, most people who have commented agree with the QD option. I do agree that it is not as objective as we would like. I'm not sure how to address that. fr33k man 23:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I think there are differing opinions so maybe it's time we list the options and see what most people agree to. BRP^ever 23:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I totally agree fr33k man 16:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Our inability to objectively know if something is AI-written does not negate the possibility of a QD criteria. There are going to be very obvious AI articles, and less obvious ones, and it's not necessary that all be strictly classifiable for a QD criteria to be useful. It's possible that some can be deleted as hoaxes, but I do think a well-worded QD criteria would be helpful in dealing with these articles. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 14:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree. We could use G13 for obvious AI articles and RfD when we aren't sure. fr33k man 16:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd personally prefer to have clearly AI generated content straight deleted. We can't just go with A3, as the articles aren't copied over from another wiki. However, complex articles with possible false information damaged the reputation of the project. I'd support the G13 reason. I'm yet not very worried about AI usage in discussions. If that becomes a wider problem, we can talk about it again. -Barras talk 15:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
What about introducing another QD criterion? - "The article was likely generated automatically, and has not been reviewed by a human edutor"? - AI can be helpful, but such articles at least need a rewview.--Eptalon (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
That's essentially the idea behind G13 fr33k man 20:17, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I think at this point, this problem isn't going away and a QD criteria for it would be suitable. I don't think discussing each one gains us much and simply wastes time at AfD which is already severely missing Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with a new QD criterion. I'm generally uneasy about a PROD/RfD approach because improving LLM-generated articles means we possibly keep their output in revision history or in the article itself. The issue here is twofold — first, we may keep unverified or incorrect text; second, we cannot be assured that it is not a copyvio. Here is an example of the latter: File:Using LLMs to write Wikipedia content.pdf (aside: by AI standards, this is an eternity ago — but I suspect the tools most people have access to are not SOTA nor particularly more advanced than the example). My understanding is also that the copyright status of LLM-generated text is not definite in the United States. In other words, if the text is already problematic and unworkable, we may as well QD it. Hiàn 02:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Handling these articles with QD is of course the most appealing way to do it and that's why it's what everyone wants but QD involves objective criteria. I don't think anyone wants these articles to stick about but we already have issues with admins handling claims to notability and that is an objective thing. How do we call something objectively AI-generated - articles on enwiki are described as likely containing AI-generated content, because we just don't know for certain - ie it's not a pass/fail criterion like every other QD criterion. Do we base it on GPTZero score/likelihood? That is what is different about this compared to other issues and why we need to have a slightly different approach instead of just a new criterion which in its previous form which will cause issues. Personally I say expand A3 to address more complex content. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 20:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
I have a micro-essay on the issues of AI-generated articles here, and why it is a difficult one to just "solve" with a QD criterion: User:Ferien/AI --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 20:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

While I understand your point, I would disagree with expanding A3 for two reasons:

The first being that changing A3 to fit "complexity" is not possible. The definition of "complexity" is far more subjective than any definition of what is AI, at which point such subjectivity requires an RFD.

My second issue is that, in the future, it will likely become easier for LLMs to create simple-sounding text, while continuing to be unencyclopedic, meaning that A3 would not necessarily apply to them anymore.

As AI advances, LLMs will write differently. While it currently struggles to write simple text in an encyclopedic tone without having problems, I suspect that these issues will present themselves differently in the future. Expanding A3 to fit our current definition of the problems of AI today will be obsolete in the future.

While I am not active in such topics in SEWP, I don't think AI false positives have ever been an issue in SEWP, and such articles are usually very-easily identifiable (see WP:DUCK). Even in the case of false positives, articles that are so bad that people mistake them for AI should be deleted or TNTed anyway. I would therefore support a new QD criterion. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 01:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
I would also use a term like 'automatically-generated'. In the end, AI is just a tool. We care what the article looks like, and we see it has certain deficiencies. What tools were used to make the article are irrelevant. Eptalon (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, I should have said A3 expansion would be only one of the things I would actually want to do to address it. Complexity can be pretty objective though, based on whether it contains complex vocabulary not in BE 1500, longer sentences etc which is why it already exists - enwp copies that aren't complex are often declined for A3. I also think we may reach a point where AI-generated articles end up being completely unproblematic and it is difficult to determine which article is AI and which one is not. We are definitely not at that stage yet tho. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 14:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

"Seems like A.I.-slop": I think that we should should 'start' with using that justification, in regard to RfD /AfD.--Before we even consider using that soundbyte as a 'QD justification', then we should gain experience in 'much use' of 'RfD justification': Seems like-A.I. slop. 2001:2020:32D:CF3C:182E:6C17:24D3:8784 (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

A suggestion for a wording in the form of a deletion criterion - of course based on my personal opinions that a QD criterion could not work in the traditional way but trying to account for fast deletion that gets rid of these quicker than any RfD and the clear majority opinion here. Any feedback would be appreciated.
- 13. Obviously contains AI-generated content: Pages very likely generated by a large language model (LLM) and recommended for deletion by at least two editors.
This should be relatively easy to technically implement, where two signatures/users go into the QD template here. So one user nominates then another approves. This is a bit like the PROD idea but faster. Given how closely CAT:QD is monitored, the second user should be quite easy to get, and could maybe be done by passing admins in QD. We could also have a category for QD alone with AI-gen'd contnet? Thoughts? --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 14:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
I've started User:Ferien/AI-QD with the ability to add an editor2 - simply added by adding |editor2=(User) onto the template. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 15:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I really like this idea — seems like a good balance between an admin-discretion QD and a week-long RfD. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 15:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Agreed fr33k man 20:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

"Seems like ...", is better than Obvious.--After all, if things really were obvious, then QD could have taken care of everything. 2001:2020:32D:CF3C:182E:6C17:24D3:8784 (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand your comment. QD is designed to take the quick easy (obvious) cases whereas RfD has always been for those that are up for debate. If we change the criterion to "Seems like it contains AI-generated content" then it's up for debate. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 14:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
What about something simple like "Contains AI generated content" for obvious cases such as those that refer directly to LLM or other straightforward cases and RfD for the others? I know there will always be some that require a subjective test but I think we are also trying to avoid cases where the RfD outcome would essentially be a case of SNOW. fr33k man 14:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I would support having AIQDs exist in a separate category. I would also recommend making this template physically distinct from a QD template, just as a RFD template is different from a QD template. Perhaps orange?

My other question is would this be easily addable to Twinkle? I can imagine pressing G13 on the twinkle page, then if there is already a QD template there, it adds your signature. If there are two signatures, perhaps the template becomes red again, and then is moved from a theoretical AIQD to QD. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 17:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Bad idea, to have to persons + one person doing a QD, with a subjective justification.--It is likely better to start with RfD /AfD, that have "snow close", after six days, or 5 days, or 4, or 3, or ... .--These 'fast-track' thingies mentioned, are in regard to "Seems like A.I.-slop". 2001:2020:32D:CF3C:3C32:B4D7:8E45:FCC2 (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC) /2001:2020:32D:CF3C:182E:6C17:24D3:8784

I like that idea for templates, might be easier to technically implement actually as we already have a function on Twinkle that allows admins to replace a QD with an RfD if they initiate one. There's also the prod and endorsed prod templates on en that could serve as inspiration. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 14:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
So where are we at so far. I think we have a consensus for the obvious cases regarding your suggestion of two users. Would that be meaning that the deleting admin is not one of the two? fr33k man 20:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
I think that would be good - a user tags the article, a passing admin in CAT:QD sees it and approves, then the next admin can delete. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 20:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
I hereby "tag" this article.--It seems 'AI-esque', and it seem complex.--Please go thru the motions of the 'suggested system'.--If this post is regarded as helpful, then fine. 2001:2020:32D:CF3C:CD45:30A:7ED2:28EA (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
I am personally holding back on my dozen or so articles I've seen and collected that are very likely AI-generated to avoid potentially flooding RfD further, and giving a chance to use any new system that may be created. I'll add that to the list. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 22:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
I think this theoretical template would look something like this:

User:MrMeAndMrMe/AI-QD

and implementations of this template would look something like this

User:MrMeAndMrMe/AI-QD/testcases

with some minor changes. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 11:07, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

OK how do technically institute the changes to the scripts that requite the templates being created, twinkle implementation and hanging the QD criteria. Ill update Wikipedia:AI to update it based on consensus here. fr33k man 01:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I am assuming that there will be an (upcoming) vote, in regard to the main idea.--If a vote, then please consider having one alternative that says: "... for a test-period of 3 months or 6 months.--In general, when 'weaponizing', then it is convenient to have a 'default period for de-weaponizing'.--If one of you, sort of gets what i am suggesting, then please speak up (cuz some or many 'will not have the foggiest' in regard to my suggestion).--If this post is regarded as helpful, then fine. 2001:2020:32D:CF3C:C5B3:9907:5FDD:EF43 (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Re-cap

OK, so as far as I can see we seem to have agreed that straightforward cases will be handled by a modified version of Quick Delete (G13) where it will take 2editors to sign the G13 template with an admin then performing the deletion itself. For all other cases we will send the article to a normal RfD. So how do we make the G13 template (who will make it) and how do we alter Twinkle to handle the new criterion and do the work of placing the temple etc... Who has the technical know-how to alter Twinkle? fr33k man 18:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I think AI articles can be bad if many are made at once but at the same time be good. They should be allowed if they are marked on their talk page as AI-generated, and before being published into the mainspace they should be thoroughly vetted and CEed to ensure quality. Quality over Quantity. Bobherry Talk My Changes 02:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Fr33kman: I can help alter Twinkle to implement this. We just need to get the template sorted out first. I think generally agreed idea here is that we have a template to start the process, then another editor adds their endorsement to the template, then it adds to QD category. We could have a category specifically for AI articles and/or one for AI articles that can be deleted immediately (having had the two endorsements).I'll sort it out over the next few days and we can always change the technical implementation if people prefer it done a different way. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 23:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Sounds great. I'm not a very good coder so it's beyond my abilities. I think a separate category for AI makes sense. Thanks in advance for your help fr33k man 23:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I have created User:DreamRimmer/QDA7endsore.js to make endorsement easier. DreamRimmer (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

How do we use it? Thanks fr33k man 17:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

It will need to be adopted as a gadget so that all users can use it, or if you want to use it personally, you can install it in your common.js. When a page is tagged as A7, the script adds a link in the template's HTML to endorse the nomination. If it is already endorsed by another user, it will show a disabled button. The user who endorsed it will see a button to remove their endorsement. DreamRimmer (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

In regard to IP-users doing nominations: Am i correct that i (as an IP-user) can not directly use the system (which this thread is about)?--This article, seems 'special'. Please confirm that IP-users will 'only have to use talk-pages', and can not use the system (which this thread is about).--And congratulations with the new system; it seems to have been taking care of a lot of challenged articles, lately!--Regarding another challenged article, it might be more about other issues. 2001:2020:359:B9D1:B5DA:A453:E622:41E6 (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC) /2001:2020:359:B9D1:B5DA:A453:E622:41E6 (talk) 05:59, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I think IP users can use it. There's nothing in policy preventing you from doing so. I think logically a named user should be involved in the endorsement, although I don't see many people socking for the purposes of fulfilling these requests. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 22:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

In the News?

Hello, on Talk:Main Page, @SimpleAsPi asked if we could/should get an 'In the News' section on our Main Page. My take on it would be to have 3-4 hooks to articles, and that we need to rotate these 1-2 times a month. So we neeed 9-12 hooks. The criteria would likely be similar to those we have for 'Did you know', but with the additional requirement that the event must be 'fairly current'. This means that If I nominate a hook (that is 'fairly current') now, and that hook does not get used in 2 rotations, the hook will no longer be useful. It is much like the DYK system, except that DYK hooks do not 'time out'. Do you see thar setting up such a system would be worthwile? - I know the details are rough, and would have to be looked at. Eptalon (talk) 09:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

One could embed a Wikinews feed, in theory. Polygnotus (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

pointing to sufficiently simple articles that exist at SEWP? The big issue here is that we need some form of 'review process' like we have for DYK Eptalon (talk) 10:35, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Eptalon Sure, seems like a good idea. We can have a similar page like Template talk:DYK for nominations. The criteria for the news noms needed to be drafted (with consensus) unless we are planning to use en wiki ones. One issue is the manpower needed for such a thing. Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 10:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

No, we need to talk about them. Main points are:

Hook references an event that is 'current' at the time of publication.
Article the hook references has a sufficient length and is written in fairly simple language.
Factoid referenced is supported by an external reference.

Eptalon (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

By current do you mean the month of the event or something else? Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 10:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

needs to be defined, but if we go for 2 updates a month, likely 'at the time the hook is published, the event is max. 1 month old'. Eptalon (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict?) Good idea overall — the three main criteria make sense. We might just need to define "current" more clearly and make sure sources are reliable. Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 10:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

supposing a 'cycle' of two weeks: an event that is current now (July 15) has one cycle to get approved (End of July) and two cycles (mid August, end of August) where it can be added to the hooks visible on the main page? Meaning maximum 'age' at publication is 1.5 months (3 cycles)? Eptalon (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

hm, sure! Seems to be ok Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 11:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

But unless it is super important most news disappears after perhaps a day or two. Polygnotus (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know that we have the manpower to keep up with that kind of project especially after enthusiasm for it wanes months down the road. CountryANDWestern (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Maybe the users active at DYK is interested? courtesy ping: User:TDKR Chicago 101, User:Raayaan9911 Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 11:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

As now, the community is too small to maintain the news selection manually. However, we need bot to update in the News section, is that enough now? Raayaan 9911 11:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Isn't there a similar bot for DYK? Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 11:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there is similar bot for DYK but can we add discussions page and rules in the news selection if reached enough community, those are helpful? Raayaan 9911 11:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I've always wondered how the logistics of having an 'In the News' section on our main page and I do think it would make our main page more informative and engaging for our readers, however seeing as how we simply don't have a lot of users willing to contribute to such a project (i.e. there's roughly 4-ish active users on DYK [me included]) I'm not sure how reliable an ITN section could be/how frequent it'd be updated. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

That's probably one of the big issues, unless a group of people is willing to contribute frequently. --Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 09:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we've the manpower for this. We could include news (if we have some) in DYK. For that, we'd just need to update the DYK section more often. I proposed that a while ago, but received only one reply. I'm not willing to add more hooks to the endless queue, as I discribed there. With a news section, we will end up having troubles getting it updated frequently. We're backlogged in so many things here, I don't think it would be wise to add more currently. News sections have been proposed in the past already and we've never had the manpower to maintain that. -Barras talk 18:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
We've still got many hooks to burn through at DYK at least, but that took a very long time to build up and we were in a state where we didn't have updates for months beforehand, hence the community's reluctance to make them more frequent at the many discussions we've had about it since. I fear a similar thing will happen for ITN. With DYK you can build up hooks for months on end and even if you do end up running out it's not truly that big of a deal, whereas if we have out of date news on the front page of our Wikipedia, that would no doubt come up in another closure proposal for this Wikipedia. It's also just a liability anyway. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 22:04, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Nintendo

Hey guys, I think somebody blanked the Nintendo page (not me), and I can't put it back because of the abuse filter and multiple edits to undo. So can somebody put the whole page back? 2001:569:7C59:1E00:4E9:C5C7:84A5:DD72 (talk) 04:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Should be done. Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 09:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Blanking a page ("User talk:2600:387:1:811:0:0:0:96") is such a dirty way to get people's attention. Yilangderen (talk) 08:06, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Using "Annihilation" for disambig

Please move "Annihilation" to Annihilation (physics), so that title "Annihilation" can be used as disambig. See draft for that 'partly simplified draft'

simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&oldid=10403592

If that can not be done, then never mind.--The physics-thingy links to c. a half dozen articles. 2001:2020:359:B9D1:B5DA:A453:E622:41E6 (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Mentioned in media

I put an en-WP press template on a talkpage, Talk:Heartbound (video game), but maybe that was a bad idea. Is there a local version? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: A local version of the template? Yes, you used it on the talk page. However, I have removed that press notice because the link to the Sports Illustrated site doesn't seem to work. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Doh! Yes of course the template was "local" since it worked, sorry! The "mentioned by a media organization:" redlink confused me.

Yeah, the article seems to be gone now, and I can't find an archived version, oh well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

English Wikipedia discussion about styling

On English Wikipedia I have started a discussion about Simple Wikipedia having distinct styling. Sorry if this is the wrong place to note this. Commander Keane (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

The styling developed over time, and likely it isn't easy to change. Also,being different from another Wikipedia is likely not a sufficient reason to change. Eptalon (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Have fun discussing over there. It's pretty much like the Italian WP discusses changes for the German one. If you want something changed, you need to discuss this with the local community and not with a different one. -Barras talk 08:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

My apologies, I should have started the discussion here then. Or maybe Meta. I don't intend to continue the enwiki discussion.

The mobile/minerva logo header has changed over time? It looks just like the English, German, Afrikaans, (...) versions. Of course in those editions when you start reading, the language difference is apparent.

It must confuse others apart from me.

Admittedly, changing the styling is not easy but I thought I would at least mention it somewhere. Commander Keane (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Before anything is done, I again want to point out: The fact that one language wikipedia is too similar to another language version is not enough to force people to change the markup, or the logo, or anything. So, unless you have other arguments, I don't think there is much we can discuss here. Eptalon (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Filmography

Have we ever decided on a word to use instead of this? First thought is "movieography" but that really doesn't fit the bill. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 15:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

"List of movies"? Ravensfire (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest "Media". MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 15:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Both seem like good ideas. Thanks both! --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 20:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ferien Category:Filmographies and the word "filmography" is used pretty often. Do you think SEWP should change instances of this word? MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 16:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Media might be too broad. I think "List of movies" makes the most sense for simpleWP. -Barras talk 16:07, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

+1 to the list of movies. BRP^ever 16:13, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes these filmographies can also include different things, like Television, Music videos, Video games etc, hence why I think Media may be ok. Although in most cases it'd just be movies. "List of works" might be appropriate for those cases where different things are included? --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 16:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree. There is not really a risk of too much broadness in this case. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 17:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree as well. BRP^ever 08:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

How about just "movies"? In context, it is obviously "the movies in which the subject of this article has worked or performed." Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

"Movies" and "Television" and "Video games" could be different categories. They don't have to have one supercategory over them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to have five separate == headers == if someone was in or produced multiple types of media. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 02:02, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Union Jack

I am requested to move to Union Jack from "Flag of the United Kingdom", which is recently merged last June on English Wikipedia. Absolutiva (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Great Firewall

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2025/Great Firewall. However, accessory is very similar. Yilangderen (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

There’s no reason to bring this here when discussion can occur at the RFD. CountryANDWestern (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Of course there is a reason to bring this here. By the way, would someone please read Wikipedia:Requested pages and try to write the wanted pages being requested there, thanks a lot. Wikipedia:Requested_pages#G I did put a "Great Firewall of China" request there. Yilangderen (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I should not be silenced, because I am just writing the truth honestly. Yilangderen (talk) 02:50, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I have rewritten the page, as a stub, but left the RfD tag there. While Great Firewall likely refers to the thing done in China, I am sure there are other states that likely use saimilar technologies. Eptalon (talk) 09:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:AN#Yilangderen creating bad pages. Yilangderen (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hairy Maclary and Friends - additional input requested

Could neutral users please share thoughts at Talk:Hairy Maclary and Friends? A user and IP have added information that I believe constitutes original research. Rather than continue an edit war, I am requesting additional views to help determine a consensus. CountryANDWestern (talk) 05:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Anastasia Kobesh & Ruslan Saberov

Hello! I am the author of many Wikipedia articles. I do not agree with the fact that the article about the side project was deleted due to bypassing the lock. Please give me the opportunity to write a draft, or better yet, an article right away. I completely rewrote it. Please pay attention to this. Anastasia Kobesh & Ruslan Saberov Bronza495 (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

If you want to request undeletion please do it at WP:DRV fr33k man 01:05, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Reflections

If you have time, please contribute and answer the questions at User:Cactusisme/Editor reflections. Thanks!! Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 06:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Mehreen Pirzada

Requesting a page move on Simple Wikipedia From Current name to Mehreen Pirzada.

And remove any relevance to the surname "Makwana" as she has nothing to do with the name or person. Paradoxodarap (talk) 11:57, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Change_filter/Mistakes#Mehreen_Pirzada Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 11:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@Paradoxodarap Do not use multiple accounts, stick to one account. Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 11:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Sure, Ill follow your advise. However I am unable to "Ask" at Simple Talk page. I am running in circles. Please help.

Paradoxodarap (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

This is simple talk? Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 00:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Because the sources do not seem reliable, I have removed the mentions of this "marriage" from her article and move the title back to its original name. CountryANDWestern (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Suspected ban evasion on Simple Wiki

Hi, I suspect that a few banned users from En wikipedia have been making pages on this Wikipedia to evade the bans they have on the other site, due to some pages that have recently appeared here. The pages, frankly do not appear to be created in the spirit of Simple Wikipedia. Is there a process for reporting usernames for Administrator attention here? Or what is the right process to proceed here? It appears new usernames have been created to make the new pages. Many thanks Nayyn (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Your best option is probably administrators' noticeboard. Note that just because someone is blocked on the English Wikipedia doesn't mean that they NEED to be blocked here. However, we do have a WP:ONESTRIKE rule that if someone is blocked on another wiki, we can block them here if they're demonstrating similar behaviors. CountryANDWestern (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok this is very helpful, many thanks. I'll pursue the admins noticeboard. Appreciate your help! Nayyn (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)