Wikipedia:Simple talk

Simple talk
	This is the place to ask any questions you have about the Simple English Wikipedia. Any general discussions or anything of community interest is also appropriate here. You might also find an answer on Wikipedia:Useful, a listing of helpful pages. 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. Please note that old discussions on this page are archived periodically. If you do not find a discussion here, please look in the archives. Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page. Some of the language used on this page can be complicated. This is because it is used by editors to talk to one another, so sometimes we forget. Please leave us a note if you are finding what we are saying too hard to read.
Are you in the right place? See WP:AN to speak to an administrator. See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests. See WP:OS for oversight. 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 —    change

Opnion on ai-generated content

hey guys i have a question:what are your opnions on ai-generated content in this wiki? in my opnion i kinda dislike it because its:complex no sources promotional words with so many excessive praise to a product airline car city etc and it also has false info i think its better to write manually.

But for some people who wanna edit Wikipedia for the first time its maybe good for them receive help from a ai on how to edit what do you guys think? let me know best regards. 179.109.143.22 (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Properly using AI is a lot of work, and getting an AI to write something that is usable in this wiki is almost as much work as writing it yourself. In addition, the current AI models have the problem that they sometimes invent a link when there is none, and they cannot tell you where a generated snippet is from. Also adding references to such an article is a nightmare. In short: you are better off not using it here, in my opinion. Eptalon (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I somewhat feel like we should have something like w:WP:PROD for AI generated pages. It's too much of a hassle to handle a large volume of them. See how the progress came and delete at the end of the week if sufficient improvements haven't been made. Not sure if the volume right now is too hard to handle; so this could be a future solution. BRP ^ever 06:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Question: How do we know that content was created with AI?

I was neutral on this at the beginning, but now I've seen enough AI-generated articles with issues that I'd like not to see any more. I don't know if we can ban them within the spirit of Wikipedia, but I wouldn't be sorry if we did. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Most AI generated articles are pretty easy to spot, with oddly formal phrasing, sections and either a lack of sources or poor quality sources. I'm not a fan of those, as the "writer" often doesn't do much of a review, just cut and paste. Throwing the whole "can AI's retain copyright" out, does the article itself have copyright issues from the content, especially close paraphrasing? Have the sources been checked out to make sure they are reliable and actually refer to the topic at hand? Do the inline sources support the text where they are added or just added at the end of sections without care? Often, the language is not simplified at all.

When we run into those articles, there's a question of volunteer time and "fairness". Is it fair for the "creator" to spend 30 minutes and then expect a volunteer here to spend 4 hours cleaning up their mess? Now repeat that multiple times. But ... content is good, so a QD criteria for AI material is not where I'd want to go. I like the PROD suggestion, but PROD is seven days, so it RFD, so allow "Appears like AI generated content" as a valid RFD reason. The article can be saved by rewriting or stubbing if it's really bad. Ravensfire (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

And the content that is based on generated text but then rewritten and reviewed? It means notability? Written decently and in simplified language? Good for them, I'm probably okay with something like that. Lot of "ifs" there though. Ravensfire (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

If you generate the article or section using AI and then spend the time to clean it up and make it meet the rules and guidelines of this wiki, then likely we can't say much. The problem is just that if you don't and we are left with some AI generated content. Eptalon (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, LLM-generated content has no place on Wikipedia. It is unreliable, unsourced, badly formatted and lazy. Most editors and I do not want to fix an article that nobody wanted to write, I don't even want to read it. We will only end up with many bad articles full of allucinations (fake content created by AI). What's worse is that AI is demotivating. Why should we spend our time writing a simple article, when somebody else can just ask an AI to make the article in a few seconds? An article made with words stolen from human writers. Either way, AI fans do not read Wikipedia anymore, they just ask chatgpt for answers. People go on Wikipedia because they want to read human-written content. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 18:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

well i prefer reading articles written by humans for me the biggest problem with ai-generated articles are the promotional text with excessive praise to products like cars (mainly electric and hybrid ones) airlines cities and etc also it has fake info as well so yeah but as i said people who wanna edit Wikipédia probably ask to ais how to edit and create pages on there. 179.109.143.22 (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Mourning dove

There've been some edits to the page, such as moving all but one sentence out of the intro. It's a VGA, so can people please check if these edits are good? 2601:644:8184:F2F0:9063:3662:C192:4BB0 (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

They seem okay. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 09:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Isn't it kind of strange to have only one sentence in the intro? 2601:644:8184:F2F0:F8AE:4783:30B2:16C3 (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@Steven1991 what do you think, since you made those edits. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 11:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I've reordered the lede a bit. It is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, so could probably have a bit more from elsewhere too. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Now Steven1991 has made similar changes on Sun, for example a section with only one sentence. Also, I don't think a heading for "Overview" is needed unless the introduction is quite long. Can you explain this? 169.229.202.227 (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. You can rewrite it in a way you see appropriate. I initially made that change as I felt that the article was somehow disorganised. Steven1991 (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Change filter/Mistakes

I am not sure if If it warns you or stops you from making a helpful change, please don't report it here. is correct. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 09:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Special:Diff/10045039 was vandalism and it needs to be reverted. 2601:644:8184:F2F0:F8AE:4783:30B2:16C3 (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Impressive that nobody spotted that edit when it happened. Yeah, that needs to get changed back. Conflicted edits in the mean time, so I'll work on a manual revert. Thank you for calling out the specific edit. Ravensfire (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, reverted the changes in a series of edits, if any of them are wrong hopefully it's easy enough to revert back / change as needed. Diff of my changes. Ravensfire (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Good although there may need to be a 'd' after '(counter)'. 2601:644:8184:F2F0:F8AE:4783:30B2:16C3 (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I went back into late 2024 when the bot was archiving and the counter just had a number. Reading through the config template docs, the counter just gets appended to the end of the archive name, and when the bot determines it is time to rollover to a new archive, it updates the counter value. In the template docs Variables section, it does have %(counter)d, but the d there means this should be a decimal value. Short version, I don't think it needs a d at the end. Ravensfire (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thanks all. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 11:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Reinstate List of goat breeds on Simple Wikipedia

I want to reinstate this article in Simple English Wikipedia. Can someone help me in solving this problem here now? 2409:40F4:A8:2BD9:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I've been reverting as per Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2021/List of goat breeds although that RFD was in 2021 and consensus does change, An IP did remove all of the redlinks in this revision but I'm not so sure that this is any better?,

That being said we do have List of bus routes in London which is also redlinked/unlinked so seems unfair to have that page exist and not this one (something up until now I didn't think about when reverting), Anyway I'd have no objections to the goat breed list article existing but felt consensus should be sought, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 16:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

No. That IP who removed all the red links is me only. I am telling that you should reinstate and expand the article by yourself now itself here on. 2409:40F4:A8:2BD9:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Davey2010 That RfD said "since the entire list of goat breeds is missing it don't really makes sense", so I don't think the reason applies anymore. 169.229.202.227 (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, The article was only a short stub when it was nominated, Duly noted, Apologies for the unintentional disruption, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

No, other editors can help out too, it's just not @Davey2010. ⭐ Adelaide Do you have to say something? 16:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Considering there is a (admittedly poorly visited) RfD, it's wise to see if an article now meets the criteria (for a list, that is W:WP:NLIST). I do think there's nothing inheritedly wrong with this article existing. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment @Lee Vilenski, Indeed I agree I don't think there's anything wrong with this article existing either, I just thought because of the RFD that it had to stay as a redirect but yeah consensus changes all the time, I've reverted myself, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 17:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! 117.231.194.236 (talk) 08:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

How do I do recent changes on mobile?

Hi, this is Adelaide but this is my mobile account, I don't have my PC on me so it is not a sock puppet. But how do I view recent changes on mobile or is that a PC thing? AdelaideMobile542 (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

PC, because mobile doesn’t have recent changes. Nassiv64 (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh, okay AdelaideMobile542 (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Nassiv64 (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@AdelaideMobile542 and Nassiv64: That's not true; you can view recent changes on mobile. Just go to Special:RecentChanges. 166.107.163.247 (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah got ya, thanks! AdelaideMobile542 (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I’m iPad not mobile. Nassiv64 (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Just an FYI but at least on Chrome you could use desktop version which takes some getting used too but I found all of my scripts worked, Hope that helps, (Tick desktop version and then change the url from simple.m.wikipedia.org to simple.wikipedia.org ), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Recent changes is available on mobile. Go to settings page and select "advanced mode" and it will appear. Jdlrobson (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

If you have any issues using the mobile view mode of Wikipedia, drop me a line. I edit almost exclusively from mobile and can probably give you a few tips. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Someone left a message that's a bit strange

Can I remove the message from my own talk page? What should I do with this user? Justjourney (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I already left a warning template Justjourney (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Looks like it's gone, but, yeah, you can remove anything from your own talk page. Just be aware if you remove things like warnings or the like, they still apply. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Some one Guide me please

We can create article on a topic that have article on English Wikipedia. If such article are not present on simple Wikipedia? Bensebgli (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Bensebgli, Yes you can but you need to simplify words and sentences, Please Wikipedia:About and BE850 to get a better idea, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I want to tag this page for quick deletion what is the right tag for this page to delete? Bensebgli (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done - tagged, You can use {{QD}} or you can install WP:Twinkle and it'll do everything for you :), Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 23:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi! Is anyone interested in becoming an admin or have any questions about it? Like always, I think we'd benefit from having more admins. So if you are interested, or just want to be sure if you are ready for an WP:RFA, or just want to know the areas that you need to work on, please leave a message below. Any inquiries via email are also welcome. If you want to know more about tools and rights you get as an admin, feel free to ask them. I am free till next weekend, so I will try to answer as much as possible. Thanks, BRP ^ever 16:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

This is just a forum. To know more about how to become administrator, visit WP:RFA.-BRP ^ever 03:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I would be interested in adminship. It's okay if you deny me because of my lack of experience (only 150 edits, 2 months of experience). If you are okay with me only having this much experience then i would like to know more. I've invested my time into countering vandalism and creating creating articles i am proud of (take these for example: Metro Transit (Minnesota), Minnesota Star Tribune, and Nickelodeon Universe) Ieditrandomarticles (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ieditrandomarticles I think you are up to a very good start. A few more months and I think you will have an easier time passing. Keep up the good work!-- BRP ^ever 04:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank You :) Ieditrandomarticles (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ieditrandomarticles: Also, be aware that it wouldn't be up to just one admin to accept or deny you. People become admins through votes of the membership. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I assumed that it would work like nominations for good and very good articles. Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 12:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@BRPever What do you think about me? Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 23:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I think you need a bit more experience too. Also, you don't need to participate in everything, especially the areas you are unfamiliar with or don't have the tools for. That often leads to mistakes. Give it some time, gain experience and there is a good chance. BRP ^ever 03:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@BRPever: Can you elaborate of more experiences? Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 03:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

More overall experience. Like when it comes to content, the pages you do still need quite a bit of work, you recently responded to a CU request you shouldn't have. Also more knowledge about policies/practices to avoid cases like these is also required. BRP ^ever 03:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 03:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Most of the abuse filters might want my help (and fixes), and some other admin areas could suit my help. What do you think? Codename Noreste (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Would it be ideal if an RfA candidate had most of their contributions in anti-vandalism? Are admins expected to contribute to/have a decent knowledge of all aspects of the site, or just the WP:RULES are okay? randomdude121    13:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

A decent knowledge of content is necessary IMO. It's not a requirement, but it's best to know how the wiki you are admin of is written. BRP ^ever 14:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks. randomdude121    14:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm curious about opinion about me ;). BZPN (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

What would it take to start a project here?

I would like to start a project here to help grow the coverage of Minnesota. Is there some way I could do this (I don't know if this is a good example, but similar to 50,000 Challenge On the English Wiki) I've been working on doing this myself but I just wanted to know if I was able to turn this into a proper effort. You can see some pages i've created for this already (See Hennepin County Library, Metro Transit (Minnesota), Minnesota Star Tribune). Thanks, Ieditrandomarticles (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Ieditrandomarticles, We generally host Wikiprojects in userspaces (ie User:Ferien/WikiProject United Kingdom) but generally speaking Wikiprojects here aren't a big thing here and probably won't help with your goals. The best way I can think of of growing the coverage of Minnisota topics is by adding those topics to Minnisota related articles or topics overall but in a way where you're not just spamming those articles everywhere,

You could create list articles or taking Metro Transit as an example; you could check where the Metro Transit's linked on Enwiki and sort of bring the layout here if that makes sense (So if there's a section at en:Minnesota then you could copypaste that section to Minnesota and then simplify it), Hope this makes sense, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, Thank you. Ieditrandomarticles (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Disambig pages (March 2025)

BYD / BYD.--I think that should get kept. Thoughts? 80.67.37.2 (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Isn't the content entirely copied from en? Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 23:32, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cactusisme: That's only a problem if there is complex text. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I was just curious since almost all the pages are red links. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 01:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

There can be red links in articles that aren't copied from enwiki. In addition, it's common for comprehensive dab pages to have a lot of red links: it's good to list all possibilities even if we don't have the articles. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 01:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

You need to give attribution though? Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 01:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposal - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As you can see, the heading of this post is a bit long. I propose we remove "the free encyclopedia" from the webpage title on pages here. Currently "Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" is displayed in every browser tab. English Wikipedia used to have "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" there but they changed it to just "Wikipedia", and here it is even longer. To change this, an admin would edit MediaWiki:Pagetitle to say just "$1 - Simple English Wikipedia". Can we get consensus for this change? 192.83.149.205 (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

This makes sense if we are trying to be consistent with enwiki, seeing as the edit summary of the last change was "match en.wiki and the tagline here". Ternera (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

We do not think that it should be matched given that every project is run independently, so the proposal for removing the said part of the sentence is not a bad idea. Steven1991 (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Weak oppose There is one difference that needs to be called out. The logo for enwiki explicitly says Wikipedia / The Free Encyclopedia, so that phrase which is key to what makes Wikipedia so valuable, still remains on every page on en wiki. Our logo is different, with Simple English below the image. If we remove the phrase "the free encyclopedia" from MW Pagetitle, that phrase is now gone except for the main page. I'm not 100% sure I'm in favor of that. I get the points main on the 2016 VPP discussion, but it gets called out in more than a few comments on the VPP thread that "the free encyclopedia" is in the logo, so duplicating it didn't make sense. Weak opppose at this point, but can be convinced. Ravensfire (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Huh, so the French Wikipedia doesn't have the MediaWiki:Pagetitle file at all. German has the file, but it looks like they have that style hidden in a common style sheet. Interesting. Ravensfire (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

• I'd support in leu of the logo being replaced as Enwiki's logo has the tagline "The Free Encyclopedia",

Also just to note on Opera, Simples tagline appears differently for each page;

Special:SpecialPages says "Special pages - Simple English Wikipedia, the"

Wikipedia:About says "Wikipedia:About - Simple English Wikipedia, "

Wikipedia:Contact us says "Wikipedia:Contact us - Simple English"

Also I've just noticed Main_Page for me says "Wikipedia" and that's it.... that's weird.... Anyway given the whole tagline appears to show for some browsers and not them all I'd therefore support removing this providing the logo can be updated at the same time to include the tagline, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

How do I remove this?

This is what it looks like

Sorry if I have been using this page too much, but on my article Metro Transit (Minnesota) it says [[File: |200px]] on the photomontage in the public transit infobox. I can't figure out how to get it removed.
Thanks for your help. Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 21:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ieditrandomarticles The infobox template expected a filename such as "Cats.jpg", not a collage template. It hasn't been updated since 2013(!) and I've just imported a new version from the English Wikipedia. Let me know if anything breaks. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 22:52, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

It seems to be working right now, Thanks! Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 00:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Brevity as a secondary and optional objective?

Hello! I understand that the main goal of Simple English Wikipedia is to use basic vocabulary and simple grammar to help people who may find standard English difficult to read for various reasons. I also know that some topics may need longer articles to explain clearly, and I’m not against that when necessary.

Still, I wonder if there has ever been discussion about encouraging brevity — writing more concise articles — as a secondary goal. I am not suggesting that content should be incomplete or overly reduced, just that, where possible, we aim for clarity through conciseness in addition to simple language. In my view, using fewer words can also make information easier to understand, especially for readers who may feel overwhelmed by long texts.

I have written multiple regular English Wikipedia articles, and I am now interested in bringing them to Simple English Wikipedia. In my usual work, I tend to include a significant amount of detail. But here, I feel I can make a more distinct and helpful contribution by not only simplifying the language but also making the writing more concise.

Has this idea been discussed before, or might it be worth considering?

Thanks! Al83tito (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Sung-Yoon Lee bibliography (regarding Sung-Yoon Lee) - one or two of these articles, might be okay to have.--If you write simple, but "brief", then i do not have a problem with you doing that.--To me, it takes some extra effort, in trying to write Simple English; I do not add "make an extra effort to be brief", on my checklist of how i write, when i make changes to a simple-english article. 2001:2020:323:C7BB:D15D:E89F:8DCC:4E83 (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

@Al83tito: I like to be terse when I write. However, with simple language, you sometimes have to use more words to convey something. There are some specific expressions I see here where I try to reduce the number of words, but other than that I take it on a case-by-case basis. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

"2025 leak of military plan against Houthi rebels"

Title (at simple-wiki)?--I wrote a paragraph in "Pete Hegseth". (I or anyone else (arguably) have enough to start an article, with that paragraph.)

It is not obvious that we will use the same title as at English-wiki.

My favorite:
2025 leak of military plan against Houthi rebels. However, "U.S." is not mentioned; The controversy is portrayed to primarily affect U.S. politics (and elections in both 2028 and 2026). Therefore, one could argue that "U.S." is not an important part of the title (because it is obvious).

Possible redirects:
2025 United States leak of military plan
United States leak of military plan against Houthi rebels; no year, is questionable.
2025 United States military plan leak; i think the title should say something about Houthi.
Signal-gate (U.S. politics)
Signalgate. That could (arguably) be confused with 'Logic gates' related to Boolean algebra.
Signal-gate (year 2025). Maybe okay, while "2025 Signalgate" sounds like an address, or like a television program "Hollywood 45123".
Thoughts? 46.15.60.62 (talk) 06:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC) /2001:2020:323:C7BB:D0BF:35D0:3882:3F (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

For now probably a year and what it is. If I talk about the Watergate scandal, most people will probably know, without year. For the moment, likely we need to see the extent of the issue, and if in s few weeks/months a name has established itself. Eptalon (talk) 06:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. That Watergate-thingy was named after a building (or building complex), where a burglary happened.--On the other hand, the leak in 2025 happened on a not-Whatsapp, not-Telegram (software), not-Teams (software) but on Signal (software) or Signal (platform).--My point: it is (arguably) easy to associate "Watergate" with a physical thing.--Not so in the case of the Telegram controversy, uh, Signal controversy /Signal-gate. 2001:2020:323:C7BB:D0BF:35D0:3882:3F (talk) 06:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Telegrams are a very old technology, so having telegram in the name is likely a bad idea. Signal-gate might be an electrical component as you say. Eptalon (talk) 06:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Please move "my" article to 2025 Yemen attack leak. 2001:2020:323:C7BB:D0BF:35D0:3882:3F (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC) /2001:2020:323:C7BB:D0BF:35D0:3882:3F (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Please move "my" article to 2025 U.S. leak of its attack in Yemen. 2001:2020:323:C7BB:D0BF:35D0:3882:3F (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

2025 U.S. leak before its attack in Yemen? 2001:2020:323:C7BB:B06A:7576:2179:5D07 (talk) 07:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)