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 Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.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

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)

I feel like it's a bit too soon from your last RFA. A bit longer period of continuous activity is likely to increase the chances of RFA passing. BRP ^ever 17:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@BRPever When you say "contentious activity", do you mean that to be an admin someone should be involved in controversial topics? 2601:644:8184:F2F0:F4BF:FFDC:18E3:C537 (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, it was autocorrect in action. I have corrected it.--BRP ^ever 17:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Curious about the areas I need or could work on. – Angerxiety^! 11:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I can't really think of anything upon quick, looks like you are already doing a very good job in many of the areas. BRP ^ever 17:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@BRPever, probably I am not that active and certainly not one of those useful for adding contents. Still, if needed, I could give a hand with vandalism. --M7 (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@M7 With your experience, I think a hand in that area would be very helpful. We do need help in keeping up with VIP requests and responding to any urgent requests. BRP ^ever 17:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@BRPever thanks for your words. It's been a tough period lately, but I'll leave some notes and a request in RfA page in a few days. --M7 (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@BRPever I am interested in adminship but due to my unfortunate block on En Wiki and not having enough experience, I don't know if I can do it, that is why I need your opinion on it, I have around 2,000+ edits or something. ⭐ Adelaide Do you have to say something? 16:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Adelaideslement8723, I know you pinged BRP but I wanted to throw in my two cents as well. Since you recently had a failed RFA, it is probably a good idea to wait some time before running again by questioning what you need the tools for and to gain more experience. You could begin participating in maintenance areas and could read past RFA's to see what editors look for in an administrator. My suggestion would be to clear up the issues on enwiki before running again, especially after the declined unblock request from a few days ago. Ternera (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Ternera,

I appreciate your insights! I plan to clarify things on enwiki, but I need to wait six months for the Standard Offer timer to reset. In the meantime, I’m going to dive deeper into the responsibilities of adminship and look into past Requests for Admins to better understand what qualities users value, especially in cases like blocking vandalizing accounts or protecting heavily edited articles. I'll also be lending a hand with Vandalism in Progress and cleaning up articles.

Regarding the recent unblock request on enwiki that was declined, I intend to discuss this with the admins there, and I may reach out for some assistance from the admins here as well. I've been a responsible editor and genuinely hope to earn a second chance on enwiki.

Thanks for your support, and I look forward to hearing from you!

Best,
Adelaide

(Generated from AI ;)) ⭐ Adelaide Do you have to say something? 19:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Adelaideslement8723: Did you actually generate this with AI? For me, that would be a reason against giving rights. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6 Yes you have caught me red-handed! It is actually AI generated, I am sorry I was busy and I didn't have time to write a lot before my next class so I used Grammerly's AI letter generator, and just posted the comment, before I had to go to my next class. ⭐ Adelaide Do you have to say something? 12:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I would advise against using AI for any reason - it would be a massive red flag for me in an RfA. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I will not use AI for any types of stuff. Thanks ⭐ Adelaide Do you have to say something? 19:06, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I would want to be a Wikipedia administrator! I would ban Wikipedia vandals, protect articles, and so much more that i would make simple english Wikipedia a better version of Wikipedia! Wikipedian2025 (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedian2025, With a one month old account and 300+ edits don't you think it's too early? Bensebgli ^(Talk) 21:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

My account was made in January and I was already told to wait longer to pass. (see comment by BRP "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!") so what would the timeframe for a administrator be? 6 month old? 1 year? Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 22:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Most likely about 6 months to a year at least on here, that way they can see how you do over a longer period of time. Sheriff U3 22:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Also while I agree that you do need edits (experience) to be an administrator, listing it as a main point to having a high number encourages EditCountitis Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 22:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Why is there so few admins here? Also I already know that I am no where near ready for adminship, I just was surprised by the low admin count. Sheriff U3 21:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sheriff U3: There may not be many admins, but we also have a low user/editor count. By percentage, I don't know if it's really that low. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I am not yet ready but almost ready for adminship at the same time, but there are only a few admins here... If I was an admin I would help out the admin team a lot, I would be a great asset to them, because I despise vandalism in any form and also I help out with articles ⭐ Adelaide Do you have to say something? 16:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

"Notability"

I was recently thinking that for a word used so prominently on simple wikipedia, "notability" could hardly be considered a very simple word. Out of the three commonly-used guideline simple wordlists I could find(VOA, 1500, and LIST), none of them use the word "notable". While I understand that some words will not appear in a guideline wordlist, I think the idea of using the word "notability" is confusing to non-English readers: the word "to note or write" becomes a noun that means "something that is worthy of note". I don't find the connection from "note" to "important" very evident, and I believe there are better alternatives to the word. Instead, perhaps "important" and "importance" could be used, which has a more straightforward meaning, and is on all three wordlists that I have mentioned. Or maybe another alternative would work. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 01:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Whilst I do think that we should try and simplify our guidance and guidelines to be more accessible, a reminder that the language of the encyclopedia is for the content of the encyclopedia in mainspace, and not necessarily used within the governance of the site.

On changing the wording, notability doesn't actually correspond to important. There are arguably very important things that are not-notable and plenty of things that are notable and aren't interesting or important at all. Generally we use the word "notable" simply because people have written about it, which is the level we require for things like GNG.

I agree that it would be nice if we could expand on what we mean in our guidance and change things wherever possible to be more simple. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we can add a short definition in parentheses after the initial use of the word in various places. Kdammers (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Dubious (March 2008)

New article, Timashyovsk.--Not ready to be published (and i 'feel' it might have problems that make it ready for QD).--USERFY, is an idea, i think.--Anyone (else) can take this to AfD, if so desired.--(If the article is AI slop, then i have seen it worse.)--Note: i have not added language-link (interwiki); I am not looking for info about who should fix the article.--Good luck finding justification for QD, since i have not yet. 2001:2020:C325:AB23:6D2F:C53A:24ED:CF32 (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Correction: April 08 March 2008. 2001:2020:8355:8E83:219E:3E5F:2C7F:6D47 (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC) /original poster

The article now has 'the Scarlet Letter of A.I. slop' - the {.{AI notice}} --I will not (or expect not to) improve this article. But the next similar article, i might consider cutting away the A.I. slop at the end of the article, and that might be enough to keep. 2001:2020:C335:8778:55CA:2CB1:3E2D:5594 (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC) /original poster

Reinstate Animal cruelty in Simple Wikipedia now

I want to reinstate this article in Simple English Wikipedia. Can someone help me in solving this problem here now? 120.56.166.70 (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@120.56.166.70, No need as we have Cruelty to animals which Animal cruelty redirects too, This also matches Enwiki (en:Cruelty to animals) so I'm seeing no valid reason to have 2 articles on 1 subject, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! 120.56.166.70 (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

In English Wikipedia, Animal cruelty has no content, so it is redirected to Cruelty to animals, which has content. In Simple English Wikipedia, Animal cruelty has content, so it is to be made into its article off. 120.56.166.70 (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

We don't need two articles for the same subject. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Then delete this old article and other outdated redirects immediately! 117.231.195.58 (talk) 06:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Redirects are not articles. We can have multiple redirects, but only one article on a topic. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Then we can move this article to that article now! 61.2.49.66 (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

The article Cruelty to animals is far superior to the text in the pre-redirect article Animal cruelty, so we would not use that version. It is fine how it is. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, then you can move Animal cruelty to Cruelty to animals and also create a section on terminology on Chicken for Rooster like it is in English Wikipedia as to be kept of in Simple English Wikipedia. 61.2.49.66 (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

The article is not protected, anyone can edit it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but i don't know how to edit that, so you edit that article now and improve that article now. 120.56.171.195 (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

We don't really support orders to do items. Wikipedia is a collaborative space, but users are allowed to edit whichever articles they like. We don't respond well to demands Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I just want you to help me in editing articles. 120.56.171.195 (talk) 05:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

USERFY (April 09) ?

Race and health in the United States.--Should admins(?) be asked to USERFY? If it is not ready to be published, then i am fine with this article getting USERFY. Thoughts?--An article can be in poor shape, and sometimes i willstill make interwiki (language link) and/or put tags in place. (I see little hope for this article, unless anyone voices any kind of commitment, within reasonable time.)--I am not asking who should (or can) fix the article. 2001:2020:8355:8E83:219E:3E5F:2C7F:6D47 (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

It's a copy of the first two paragraphs from the en wiki article and does not appear to be simplified. Interwiki links updated on wikidata and the language chooser shows up. Without the rest of hte article being pulled over, there's a lot of information and context missing. Ravensfire (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Nominated for QD,
simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_health_in_the_United_States&diff=10181172&oldid=10179754
. 2001:2020:8355:8E83:616E:BB15:179D:D31D (talk) 04:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC) /original poster
 Done (and quick-Deleted). 2001:2020:8355:8E83:600C:92CD:E098:2BC1 (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC) /original poster

Redirects to Wiktionary

I'm sure we've discussed this a million times in the past, but I'm curious about the current consensus. How do we feel about redirects to Wiktionary? See these short pages. I thought in the past we didn't want this. Maybe that thought has changed. They seem rather useless to me. A red link in this case is almost more useful, as it may encourage somebody to actually write something. This isn't an RfD, I'm just curious what the community thinks of these. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I am more in favor of linking it straight to Wiktionary wherever needed. Redirects don't work crosswiki; and it makes no sense to create page with soft redirect when we can link directly or create a wikipedia page wherever applicable. BRP ^ever 01:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

An advantage of redirects is that if we ever create an article for the title, everything that links to it will automatically be linking to the new article. With direct-to-Wiktionary links, if we create an article, direct links to Wiktionary would have to be converted. I know I've found cases where a direct link to Wiktionary was in an article when there was an article it could point to instead.

I don't really like either option, though. I prefer to either use different language for the term or explain it. I don't like for readers to have to go to another site to understand what they're reading.

By the way, Category:Redirects to Wiktionary may not have all of our redirects to Wiktionary. It only has the ones that use the {{Wiktionary redirect}} template. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not the biggest fan of pushing people offsite. I'd rather we didn't have an article on each individual term, but rather these terms all linked to one page based here that can either have the desired glossary of terms in the simple word list, or it has a basic overview and then a link to the Wiktionary.

For instance above would link to Glossary of simple terms#above or similar. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Just as long as the doses are kept small?

redirect: Ostrazismus (Psychologie).--This links to nothing (and there probably is no requirement for such).--Some things might be somewhat strange to some people (or even to myself).--The redirect does touch upon one of the longest discussions on Simple-wiki, during the last ten years.--No big problem yet (is what i am feeling, or thinking). 2001:2020:8355:8E83:E06D:D79C:2CED:297A (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are suggesting - this is currently redirected to social rejection. I'm not sure I think we need this redirect (why "psychologie"?), but it does go somewhere. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

"Psychologie" is from one of the c. 6000 languages that has a word for psychology.--With German language, now 'knocked off the list', there are 5999 languages left.--For starters i am thinking that some user should maybe encouraged to have
[.[social rejection|Ostrazismus (Psychologie)]], on their user-page, instead of a redirect.--If this is just a one-off thing in mainspace, then maybe one can ignore this (or see thru one's fingers).--If this post gives an idea of what i am suggesting, then fine. 2001:2020:C335:8778:91CA:D62E:75A9:1A39 (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)/original poster /2001:2020:C335:8778:91CA:D62E:75A9:1A39 (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I think we can safely remove this redirect. In English, people would likely refer to it as ostracism, so the source of the redirect should be ostracism psychology) or similar. Ostracism was an Athenian procedure of banning someone from the city. Eptalon (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

i hav deleted the redirect, people in this Wikipedia are unlikely to search for it in this way Eptalon (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks! 2001:2020:C335:8778:4968:5C7:9D71:2881 (talk) 04:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RefToolbar - Cite label missing

Hi, the "Cite" label on Wikipedia:RefToolbar (WikiEditor) has disappeared as has whatever label used to be for the down arrow,

The RefToolbar now shows as a right arrow only (no Cite label next to it)

Click on that right arrow

A down arrow, cite name icon (tick) and cite error check (red cross) show underneath

the down arrow when you click on it shows cite web, news, book and journal (down arrow used to have a label)

Assuming this is an error somewhere?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Improve request

Can somebody improve this article? i think it's has a AI written article. — Raayaan9911 16:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Raayaan9911: I did some on the lead and the first section. I also did some general formatting. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Raayaan9911 01:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Help writing an article

Hello, can anyone help me write an article? I am not very fluent in English, but I can send the text of the article and its references to someone and that person can write the article correctly and publish it. Can anyone help me? Voxplusetc (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

You have a question, on your talk page, about your idea.--Please answer there. (And on that page, someone might maybe care to inform you, that it is desirable that users register wikipedia-accounts - with user name.)--If the post on your talk-page is helpful, then fine. 2001:2020:C335:8778:C27:1BDB:CA9:35F6 (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

please don't ask others to write articles for you. It's a type of W:WP:PROXYEDITING. I would recommend writing what you have into your userspace (such as user:voxplusetc/sandbox) and ask someone to help improve it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Articles that does not have title (or redirect) at En-wiki.

"Scientific farmer".--However, there are two articles (there), that use the phrase Scientific farmer.--There is a science dealing with agriculture; Agricultural sciences.--First of all, i think that the article "Scientific farmer", needs to 'disappear'. At any rate, one should maybe consider if the phrase "Scientific farmer" should be mentioned in any articles (and if so, which articles). Thoughts? 2001:2020:C335:8778:C27:1BDB:CA9:35F6 (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

You cannot "disappear" articles, but you can request a QD or an RFD. ⭐ Adelaide Do you have to say something? 13:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

You should either nominate an article for deletion or don't do so. We don't need a discussion on every article that gets nominated for deletion. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I did not find your comment constructive.--However, i have now added something to "Agriculture",

simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agriculture&diff=10193270&oldid=10028003
.--Less is more, might apply to wikipedia-users, from time to time. 2001:2020:C335:8778:C27:1BDB:CA9:35F6 (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I did not find your comment constructive. - I wouldn't recommend just ignoring it. The suitable location for a discussion on whether or not an article should be deleted is at WP:AfD Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

cow tools W;ChangingUsername (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Agricultural scientist, is a 'real thing'.
Farmer science, too.--To be brief: It is not (yet) a sure thing, that QD or AfD is the best medicine, for this case. 2001:2020:C335:8778:C27:1BDB:CA9:35F6 (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC) /original poster

Agriculturist, see
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculturist
, is another 'real thing'.--One (highly possible) outcome of the discussion, is that i will say, "I am gonna write article-stub XYZ, if anyone nominates for redirect-plus-QD; or only AfD". 2001:2020:C335:8778:C27:1BDB:CA9:35F6 (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Now, there is some helpful information, at Agriculture#Disciplines,
simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agriculture&diff=10193399&oldid=10193270
. Anyone can consider to nominate Scientific farmer, for QD or AfD (and i expect that i will "vote" at AfD, in a heartbeat).--Note to self: If there are procedural complaints, then let someone else do the wiki-lawyering. 2001:2020:C335:8778:9C70:2E4F:20DA:CBC0 (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC) /original poster
If googling, "Scientific farmer", then do you get any good hits? I believe not; It is likely a sort-of descriptive phrase, that never 'caught on'.--I did some work in the "Agriculture" article, and now my work seems done in this thread. Good luck while i fix articles (but not Scientific farmer). 2001:2020:C335:8778:9C70:2E4F:20DA:CBC0 (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Not mentioned at En-wiki:
"Farmer science",
"Farming science".--The Science of farming, on the other hand, is a subset of Agricultural science. 2001:2020:8341:83A0:45D7:1B3F:3DA6:81F9 (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month 2025: Invitation

Please help translate to your language

Hello, dear Wikipedians!

Wikimedia Ukraine, in cooperation with the MFA of Ukraine and Ukrainian Institute, has launched the fifth edition of writing challenge "Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month", which lasts from 14th April until 16th May 2025. The campaign is dedicated to famous Ukrainian artists of cinema, music, literature, architecture, design, and cultural phenomena of Ukraine that are now part of world heritage. We accept contributions in every language!

The most active contesters will receive prizes.

If you are interested in coordinating long-term community engagement for the campaign and becoming a local ambassador, we would love to hear from you! Please let us know your interest.

We invite you to take part and help us improve the coverage of Ukrainian culture on Wikipedia in your language! Also, we plan to set up a banner to notify users of the possibility to participate in such a challenge! OlesiaLukaniuk (WMUA) (talk)

16:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Trying to solve a technical issue

Please see [1] and [2]. They're the same code, yet they appear different on mobile view. I'm looking into this, but I haven't found anything yet. It might have some connection to css, but I'm not sure. TagUser (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

What specifically are you seeing different? I can see that the subheader (Capital city) shows left aligned on mobile and centered on web, and the font sizes are slightly different. I know the font-size would be affected by the mobile styling, I suspect that's also true for the subheader. Are there other differences? If you're using a laptop/pc brower, try using the developer tools (usually F12) to view the final styling and what stylesheets it pulled from (and the other) to determine that final style. Ravensfire (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ravensfire They're two different links, one on simplewiki and one on enwiki. You see the difference, don't you? I'm referring to the mobile version only. TagUser (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I know about this one. It's to do with something we don't have set up here. I'll try and drag out what was said when I asked before. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Apparently the difference is between [3] and [4]. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that! I wonder why simplewiki used to have the line centered even though nothing was changed here. Nevertheless, now a bureaucrat can import MediaWiki:Minerva.css from enwiki and solve the problem. TagUser (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it's a change from an infobox module that wouldn't normally show up, but the Minerva skin isn't making that change. I'm not quite technical enough to know if all we need to do is simply import it, but it's worth fixing. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Could a bureaucrat become interface admin and import this? @BRPever, Eptalon, and Ferien: Then we can check if the problem is solved. TagUser (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I did try importing it; it works on the skin; but still no change in the sitewide mobile version. BRP ^ever 07:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Does seem to be working when I tried using other browser. BRP ^ever 07:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Looks working to me now.

You may have had caching issues before that.

Grand news. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

It does work for me. More importantly, it works on the mobile browser when logged out. TagUser (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Sigh, I just remembered that I have a script on en wiki that if I open a mobile link there from a desktop browser, it changes the link to the desktop version. Wasn't even seeing what I should have. Glad the issues has been identified though. If this was tied to the Minerva style, I probably wouldn't have spotted it as I use a different one. Ravensfire (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Vote now on the revised UCoC Enforcement Guidelines and U4C Charter

The voting period for the revisions to the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines ("UCoC EG") and the UCoC's Coordinating Committee Charter is open now through the end of 1 May (UTC) (find in your time zone). Read the information on how to participate and read over the proposal before voting on the UCoC page on Meta-wiki.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. This annual review of the EG and Charter was planned and implemented by the U4C. Further information will be provided in the coming months about the review of the UCoC itself. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, you may review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

In cooperation with the U4C -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Longer first paragraphs

On mobile view, an infobox shows up after the first paragraph, so it becomes a bit of a problem when the first paragraph of an article is very short. For example Saturn now just has two sentences before the info box, which don't exactly draw readers in. Just throwing this out here as a concern of mine. TagUser (talk) 02:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Pretty sure enwiki has similar mobile infobox behaviour.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 06:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Trying to write the article in this way (even if you have the tools to check all standard resolutions) is a diagnostic nightmare and would constantly break in future edits if/every time someone edits the first sentence of the page. There is also the issue of different levels of zoom in the browser and people with extra/large screen text. And all of this to write the sentence in a way (which potentially is less easy to understand for some readers) that changes the position of the text on-screen according to the infobox for the author/editors vanity and ego, which ought to be absent from your articles if on Wikipedia, along with personal writing style.

Let the reader be drawn in by the topic (which they came here for) and pause in the middle of the sentence to scroll for 2 seconds, not the opening sentence (which should be written to make it contain the first bit of basic information or basic summary of the topic), and write it in a way that hopefully they can understand W;ChangingUsername (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

pageviews / page views

"Pageview"is an extremely rare word. It might not be obvious to our users that it is a compound noun. I suggest replacing it with "page views." Both words are common ones. Kdammers (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Typically I use whatever format already exists and go with that, like if there is an article for pageviews if not a wiki definition. If I think that a certain word or format is going to be confusing for some people I use mine and refcat redirect the link to the one I use, to the format that already exists. Pageview and page views are both the same thing however the latter is less likely to be on the list of simple Wiki words to use, or it is going to be less likely to be on there, while the two words separate are more likely. For these reasons I think the two words should replace the compound version of themselves W;ChangingUsername (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Minority-view is suggesting that we wrtie page-view.--(I am not suggesting using "page-view", in mainspace.) 2001:2020:8341:83A0:65B3:4D43:52EF:F0F3 (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Focus/attention related disability

Most (if not the complete majority of) articles on the Wiki could be easy to understand in people with mental disabilities and other well-known things like Autism. However the articles can get quite lengthy, and I think this is true for a lot of articles on the Wiki across all sorts of niches. This might deter certain readers and makes the information here less accessible when some of it is already not easy to get.

I'm wondering if the community has any ideas on how to offer the information in a way that is still useful and complete, but in some other way that is easy for them to consume. Obviously there can't be multiple articles created for each page, and there are already sections, but I'd like to know if there can be discussion about this, and if Wikipedia already has tools to help create articles of information in alt formats such as slideshows or video. Also what you all think about this, and why/how you are using simple Wikipedia. W;ChangingUsername (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Target (or goal): An article on Simple-wiki is supposed to be written so that a (native speaker of English, that is) fifth grader (in elementary school or grammar school) is likely to understand the language in the article.--What you seem to be talking about, is changing the goal ('or moving goalpost's).--I like that Simple-wiki still has simple goal (and i do not support your suggested changes; However, i am guessing that there might be room for a portal-of-sorts on your user-page; Anyone, please correct me if i am wrong). 2001:2020:8341:83A0:1D98:EF94:E0DB:7457 (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I always heard it was aimed at eighth graders. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I spoke to a person who had illness-induced brain fog. When I told this person about SEWP, they were very, very happy. The goal of SEWP is simple language. I see our audience as kids, English-language learners, and people with brain fog etc. But being short often makes things harder to understand, not easier. Example: Regular English "leaf litter" is in Simple English "dead leaves on the ground." More than twice as many words to convey the idea. The shortest I can get "secondary forests" is "forests that are growing back." Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Also note that there are different tools that will calculate more or less meaningless numbers, what is called readability score. There is no point in limiting the length of an article, though. So reaching these goals can be something checked by good/very good article criteria. Unfortunately these processes are not very active now. Eptalon (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Videowiki

https://mdwiki.org/wiki/File:En.Wikipedia-VideoWiki-Gout.webm W;ChangingUsername (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Doing nothing about Fake sources (that come from 'Hallucination' from 'A.I. software')

This article was taken from 'Death row', then given a 'pat on the back' (on February 17), and then set free.--The fake sources (in the article), were not removed; The article was not nuked/Deleted.--Our system has failed (in regard to that article).--Now, one user has used time, and has also gotten the article put 'on trial', again.--Should there be suggestion for change (such as another formal justification for QD), for fake-sourced articles?--I am somewhat concerned about what will be the next new-article, that ' slips thru the cracks', and avoids being nuked, while still having fake sources 'from hallucination from A.I. software'. 2001:2020:8341:83A0:C0B6:1805:D64C:75C5 (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I would support a QD option for articles that have no non-AI sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Please can you try to make things a bit more easy to read? There is no "death row", no putting "on trial" and there is no "system" for an article to "fall through the cracks".

If an article is about something that doesnt exist - WP:A6 is the appropriate QD. We don't delete articles on the sources they produce, rather how notable the subject is. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

COI

We don't have a warning Template for COI in twinkle. This article is created by G. V. Prakash Kumar we need to add Template:COI? or report such articles in future. Bensebgli ^(Talk) 21:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I think an old version of Twinkle is being used here and it may need to be updated. I asked about getting the AI template added and that was what Lee mentioned. Ternera (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ternera You are right I'm unable to find COI and AI related warning templates in Twinkle. But I think posting this Idea on en:WP:AN is a better option because on En-wiki there are many admins and contributors who can edit or modify any existing scripts as they know coding. Bensebgli ^(Talk) 22:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

It's not an English Wikipedia problem so why would they help? –Davey2010^Talk 22:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I suspect we'd need to open a phab ticket to get our Twinkle updated Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski @Bensebgli Not really, it can be done locally, and I've done it before: Special:Diff/8927555. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 22:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this problem can be solved here on simple-wiki. I think we need some other warning templates, such as

1. {uw-mislead1} for misleading edit summaries
2. {uw-ai} for AI/LLM generated content
3. {uw-nor} for original research
4. {uw-notcensored} for censorship of material
5. {uw-defamatory} for addition of defamatory content on any article

I don't know any further if we need to add or not. Thank you. Bensebgli ^(Talk) 00:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you think we could update our Twinkle? It currently does things like not pass through QD rationales and the like. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes I think. But things need to pass through QD rationales, I'm agree on it. Bensebgli ^(Talk) 05:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

No.5 probably isn't needed as we already have warnings for deliberately adding wrong material to articles (which defamatory content would be).- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 17:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree, I have used twinkle on English Wikipedia and it is much more capable as you can add your own templates to the options. (That is done through Twinkle preferences which is a link in the twinkle drop down on English Wikipedia,) Sheriff U3 18:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bensebgli I'm not sure if you're asking about adding the notice to an article, or adding a COI warning to a user's talk page, but both exist in Twinkle. The first is on the Twinkle "Tag" menu, under "General content issues": "Neutrality, bias, and factual accuracy". The second is on the "Warn" menu, under "Single issue notices". Also, things can be added to Twinkle at MediaWiki:Gadget-Twinkle.js. TagUser (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

In-lieu of not having a COI warning, I've given the user a {{Uw-advert1}} warning and have A4/G11'd their article as either way they were advertising themselves. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused why you said "in lieu of not having a COI warning", because there is a COI warning in Twinkle already. TagUser (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

My apologies, we indeed do have a coi warning template, I didn't bother reading the OPs message properly, So what's the OP crying about as we have {{coi}} for articles and {{uw-coi}} for users?, Feel like I'm being dense here and missing something completely obvious.... –Davey2010^Talk 22:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@TagUser I've rechecked; you were right we already have {{uw-coi}} for conflict of interest.Bensebgli ^(Talk) 00:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Y'know, not all warnings have to be done through Twinkle. Just sayin'. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Huh I never said they did ?, –Davey2010^Talk 22:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I've asked for both. I've installed Twinkle through setting/preferences and also installed Twinklemobile script through User:Plantaest/TwinkleMobile. But unable to find both COI/AI related warning templates. I know on en-wiki we have COI but I don't why we don't have here on Simple-wik. Bensebgli ^(Talk) 22:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I think what Twinkle also needs is the 3RR warning template, because on mine, I don't see it. ⭐ Adelaide Do you have to say something? 16:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Adelaideslement8723 That's in Twinkle, it's under "Single issue warnings". TagUser (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Adelaideslement8723 Please check here. Bensebgli ^(Talk) 09:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

What about warnings this.

1. {uw-tempabuse} for abuse of warning or block template.
2. {uw-aiv} for abuse of WP:ANI's report.

Can somebody create it? Raayaan9911 10:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much we really need the second one, as the amount of WP:AN abuse is incredibly little and can simply be warned across using the standard vandalism templates.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I've mentioned five what do you think? We need these five or less than five. Thank you. Bensebgli ^(Talk) 12:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Raayaan9911 I think second one is not a good. Sorry if I'm wrong. Thank you. Bensebgli ^(Talk) 12:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Second one is not necessary? Raayaan9911 15:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I think. But not sure about others opinion. Bensebgli ^(Talk) 16:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

It's okay, wait for others' opinion. See if necessary or not. Raayaan9911 17:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

We should really try our best to only template items that are to be common problems. I can't see the second of these being a common warning item. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)