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 Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.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

Three article rule?

There currently exists a vague policy that most categories require three items to be considered a category. Categories that have this attribute are either emptied or tagged with popcat. The only exceptions to this rule that I am aware of are categories involving years, birth years, and death years, such as Category:24, Category:58 deaths, or Category: 14 births. As far as I know, this colloquial rule is not ever documented in a policy, guideline, or essay, except for in WP:Categories. This guideline is very vague, however, such as when it says that a category should have a "minimum of three articles", implying that a category that has three categories but no articles should not be instated. This guideline also does not include any of the aforementioned exceptions to the three category rule. I will now provide three specific examples of common instances in which the three article rule is in a gray area, that I believe deserves discussion and possibly an amendment to current official guidelines.

My recent RFD request displays a gray area to the three article rule. There are currently only two continents that have a category for 1200s establishments, and there will probably not be a third content with a category for establishments in the 1200s for a long time. A similar issue to this is when categorizing countries by century. For example, in a category such as Establishments in South Sudan by century, South Sudan has only existed for one century, and so it is arguably necessary to have a category with only one item in it. There are probably better examples for this for countries that have existed for two centuries as well, but South Sudan comes to mind first. More broadly, I believe that a reasonable exception to the three article rule are disestablishments and establishments. For example, if something was established in 785, categorizing it as Category:780s establishments implies that we do not know the specific date in which it was established, and that it was only established circa 780CE.

The issue with using the currently-existing three article rule with these three categories is the damage that it currently does to categorization in Simple Wikipedia. When I am looking through Category:21st-century establishments by country, one would expect finding every single article on Simple Wikipedia about something that was established in the 21st century in a country. However, due to the three article rule, this is not possible. The three article rule thereby unintentionally creates worse organization quality for places with an arbitrarily small age. This can arguably cause biases. Situations like this occur very often. While the three article rule is a useful rule for most situations to make Simple Wikipedia less complex, in other situations it can make navigation more complex.

I am curious about other people's opinion about this. Due to the broad nature of this topic, there are obviously many exceptions. Perhaps a category can be considered popcat if its enwiki equivalent has three items, but its simplewiki equivalent does not, and if neither wiki has three items, there is no popcat? In general, however, I think there needs to be a discussion about this, and likely a change in guidelines. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 02:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Good post. I just want to say that I support the use of popcat over blanking. Not much to say about your post because I agree (I have not seen this happen in the lists of deaths yet, because I have barely gone into it). Just to show that I read your topic before replying I want to pad this comment by saying that when I have seen a list for "of countries" cats I have looked through the Wiki for text matching that country, or added content in some places (to populate the cat). I mean this is done (to populate the cat) for "in country" cats which need smaller cats to bulk the category. Using popcat to allow a category is (in my opinion) good. However my advice is leaving those cats out for countries that do not have the infrastructure (you can also edit the receiving pages) -- sig: { Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) | User_talk:Catcus DeMeowwy 22:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

bump! -- sig: { Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) | User_talk:Catcus DeMeowwy 23:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@Catcus DeMeowwy: Why are you bumping? The discussion is ongoing and isn't close to being archived yet. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, popcat isn't meant to be permanent. A category shouldn't sit with popcat long-term. -- Auntof6 (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I would oppose any rule that depends on what's in another wiki. The rule is about what is currently in the category, not what could be. If it's about what could be there, then the rule doesn't make sense because any category could have more entries.

I would support expanding the 3-entry rule somewhat. Maybe we handle it the way we handle stub types. -- Auntof6 (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6 what do you mean in handling it the way we handle stub types? Thanks, MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 23:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@MrMeAndMrMe: I mean by discussing and getting consensus about what exceptions to allow. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I may hava another example: Namibia. Namibia became independent from South Africa in 1990. It is very sparsely populated, about 3 million people live trhere. This gives 3.7 people per square kilometer. Its capital is Windhoek, about 486.000 people live there. Another important city is Walvis Bay, wth about 102.000 peoople. And now the fun starts. Bartolomeu Diaz anchored in what is now Vais Bay in the 1480s.Windhoek was first mentionen as a settlement in 1840, and was founded as a city in 1890 (in what was then Deutsch SüdwestAfrika / German South West Africa. So if I wanted to classify these twons I wouldn't be able to use Establishments in Namibia in thr 1840s/1890s (because Namibia didn't exist them). I would have to use German Oouth West Africa, so the link between German South West Africa, and Naminia is lost. So if I asume cxities were founded when Nabibia was under the Rule og South Africa (After WW I?) I have the establishments in 3 different categories. Big question, is this practical? Eptalon (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I could see this as a general issue. Another example of this is in the English Wikipedia, en:Establishments in Germany by century excludes establishments in Germany for the 11th to 18th centuries, due to the fact that it was occupied by the Holy Roman Empire(I will note that Simple Wikipedia does not do this, and keeps this period of time as establishments in Germany. I am unsure whether that is because of established consensus or because somebody make it like that and nobody has bothered to change it since, and I am assuming it is the latter). It is not historically accurate to say something was established in Germany in the 15th century, just as it is not accurate to say that Windhoek was established in Namibia in 1840. English Wikipedia has seemed to address this kind of thing, since in en:Category:20th-century establishments in South West Africa, it mentions the succeeding establishments in Namibia, thereby connecting the two. Furthermore, if you go to en:Category:19th-century establishments in Namibia, it will redirect you to the category on South West Africa(and vice versa for en:Category:21st-century establishments in South West Africa, interestingly).

In fact, since South West Africa transitioned directly into Namibia with little change in territory, this is a fairly straightforward and practical situation. The only thing that needs to happen is to make it abundantly clear that there is a link between the two states.

Where I think things can get complicated is in instances where a territory changes in its boundaries. Or, perhaps, the name in which one designates that region is not obvious. When continents or countries are not well-defined, it could be reasonably difficult to define the region with a category. However, this occurs infrequently enough to the point that every instance of it occurring would have to be a case-by-case basis. In general, I believe that Namibia and German South West Africa are not one of those instances. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 23:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

With territory changes I believe it makes sense to use the country/state/whatever that had the territory at the time of the establishment, as it was established in that country/state/whatever, but then that also brings up the issue of things created during occupations, would that go in the de jure category or the de facto category or would that also be in its own special category?- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 12:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, this is also not the case a lot of the time, an example of which is China. For all points in time, categories uses the modern definition of China, even in places like Manchuria which is historically separate from China. I have never personally seen a category that relates to de jure or de factos, either. I am not an expert on this kind of thing, though, so I am likely wrong. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 04:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

You've got and made a few good points. Historically this rule was developed here on ST over a long period of time. I think this is where WP:IAR comes in use. If a rule is actually hurting the project then there is a good case to be made for ignoring it and doing what makes sense. I'd be very interested to know what more @Auntof6: has to say about this as she is very active in the area of categories. fr33kman 23:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Since not a lot of discussion has been made, I will make a proposal.

In Wikipedia:Categories#Is_there_a_need_for_the_new_category?, a redirect called WP:POPCAT be made to this section, and the wording of the section be revised to as follows (revisions from original are in green):

"Because categories are a way to group together similar articles, there is no need to start a new category for just one or two pages. There should be at least three pages that would fit into the category before a new category is started. Some categories do not need three pages. Categories only need one page if they have any of these characteristics:

• The category is about a year, decade, or century. Examples: Category:49, Category:630s BC, or Category:21st century BC
• The category is about the year of birth or death of a person. Examples: Category:68 deaths or Category:130 births
• The category is about the year that something was established or disestablished. Examples: Category:1665 establishments or Category:1801 disestablishments
• The category has establishments or disestablishments in a country by century or decade. Examples: Category:Establishments in Iraq by century or Category:Disestablishments in Japan by decade

A category only needs two pages if they have any of these characteristics:

• The category is about establishments or disestablishments by country or continent. Examples: Category:1200s establishments by continent, Category:2021 disestablishments by country, or Category:7th-century establishments by continent

Sub-categories should be considered when a category starts to get too large to easily find an article in it. There is no set number of articles to require this, but if a category has more than twenty articles, it is usually a good time to think about dividing it into smaller sub-categories."

This change highlights the specific issues I had in my original comment. I do not think there are many other exceptions, but if they are, they should be discussed and added to the list. There is also an argument to be made about simplifying the last paragraph on here, but I have not made it part of the proposal due to being irrelevant to the discussion. Let me know what y'all think. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 13:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

If I take the example of the '60s deaths', I get (at the time of this writing), 2 entries for the years 64 and 68. EnWp has 3 entries for 64, they also have en:Clateus, who seems to have been an early Christian martyr, who died during the persecution of Christians during Nero's reign.For the year 68, Enwp lists 15 pages, we only have two. So what's the disadantage of listing Nero (wgo died the year 68) in the category "60s deaths", until there's a third entry? Eptalon (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The disadvantage would be that the article would stay in the decade category until someone thought to look at it to see if it could be diffused. If I had to guess, I'd say that people don't check the decade categories for that very often. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Can we handle that with a hidden category: 'catNeedingDiffusion|60s deaths|64 deaths'. Have a bot run periodically, and create a category '64 deaths' (with the given parent) and remove the template? Eptalon (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Auntof6, and I will also make the argument that organizing something by decade implies an ambiguity as to which year in that decade, and putting something by century implies an ambiguity as to which decade in that century. This is also why I have included establishments by year in the list. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 18:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@MrMeAndMrMe: Very good list. I see that those are all time-related. I would suggest including categories that are about either:

• A (sovereign) country (current or former)
• A first-level subdivision of a country
• People from a country

I would also support an exception for categories that complete a finite, stable, well-defined set. For example, Category:IUCN Red List conservation dependent species has only two entries, but it's part of the set of IUCN conservation statuses. An example of when this exception would not apply is winners of a given award that is given out periodically, such as the Academy Award for a given area. At any given time, the list of winners is known and therefore finite and well-defined, but it changes every year so it is not stable.

Just some thoughts. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

In the case of sovereign countries and first-level subdivisions, I do not think that these would be particularly useful suggestions. There are simply far too many former countries, and the result of that inclusion would be a number of categories with only a page for the country itself, which is not particularly useful. Giving special status to all sovereign countries implies that every country is notable enough to warrant its own category. Giving special status to all first-level subdivisions implies that every first-level subdivision is notable enough to warrant an article. If both of these exceptions only applied to current countries, however, I would agree.

Regarding people by country, I agree, and that should be added to the exceptions list. However, I think that only current countries should be an exception, since if there are not 3 people to be categorized to a former country, then those people can be categorized according to a modern demonym. Another non-exception would be categorizing people in that country by century (as in, Category:19th-century American people should have at least 3 articles)

I would support your last exception regarding stable, well-defined sets provided that there are some exceptions. In the case of Category:IUCN Red List conservation dependent species, however, since there are decidedly way more than 10 species in that category that exist, I think the category should be considered to be underpopulated. I think it could be worded along these lines:

"A stable well-defined set is a set that is defined by an authority and does not change periodically. In a category, it is said that a member of the set is included if it exists as a designated page in the category, or is listed in a list in that category. To be populated, a category should have at least 3 members and 2 non-redirecting pages to be fully populated. Of the 2 pages, one should be the list, and the other should be a page dedicated to a member of the set. A list is not needed if the 3 members are all non-redirecting pages. If the stable well-defined set has less than 5 members, the category only needs 2 members instead of 3."

While it is a little convoluted, I have made this definition with these intents in mind:

• There should be at least two pages in the category
• If there only one or two members in that category that are notable enough to warrant its own category, then a list can be used to define its members
• If a set has enough members, at least 3 of them should be part of the category, whether it is part of the list or it is its own dedicated page. Since the IUCN Red List conservation dependent species has so many members, a category with only 2 of its members should not exist
  • Note: A set having "enough members" is defined as 5, but that is an arbitrary, and I think it could range from 3-7. However, if it is set too low, then sets with a small amount of members, no dedicated list page, and only 2 members cannot have its own category, which is against my intention.

Having given that definition, I do not entirely see the issue of including periodical sets. For example, if a country has had 2 presidents, then a category cannot be made about its presidents. Or Category:22nd-century presidents of the United States cannot exist until 2108 instead of 2104. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 19:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I would normally just edit my reply, but since I have already posted this proposal, I am going to add a suggested amendment to be added somewhere onto the section.

A page can refer to an article, category, template, or redirect. However, a redirect should not be the only member of a category.

I think this better defines what a page refers to, in case it is not clear, especially with previous community decisions (that decision is also currently linked in Wikipedia:Categories#Is_there_a_need_for_the_new_category?) MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 19:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I think that the list of criteria put forth by MrMrAndMrMe along with the proposed amendments is the way to go here and would support it as the official guideline. fr33kman 01:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Since discussion on this topic has dulled, I will put the full proposed change to Wikipedia:Categories#Is there a need for the new category? based on others' replies.

{{shortcut|WP:POPCAT}}Because categories are a way to group together similar articles, there is no need to start a new category for just one or two pages. There should be at least 3 pages that can be in a category before the category is started. A page can be an article, category, template, or redirect. However, a redirect should not be the only member of a category.

Some categories do not need three pages. Categories only need one page if they have any of these characteristics:

1. The category is about a year, decade, or century. Examples: Category:49, Category:630s BC, or Category:21st century BC
2. The category is about the year of birth or death of a person. Examples: Category:68 deaths or Category:130 births
3. The category is about the year, decade, or century that something was established or disestablished. Examples: Category:1665 establishments or Category:1801 disestablishments Category:470s establishments
4. The category is about the year, decade, or century that a work was created. Examples: Category:1921 works or Category:1590s works
5. The category has establishments or disestablishments in a country by century or decade. Examples: Category:Establishments in Iraq by century or Category:Disestablishments in Japan by decade
6. The category is about people from a country. Examples: Category:South Sudanese people or Category:American people

:A category only needs two pages if they have any of these characteristics:

1. The category is about establishments or disestablishments by country or continent. Examples: Category:1200s establishments by continent, Category:2021 disestablishments by country, or Category:7th-century establishments by continent
2. The category is about a sovereign nation that exists right now. Examples: Category:South Sudan or Category:Canada
3. The category is about a first level administrative subdivision from a sovereign nation that exists right now. Examples: Category:New York (state) or Category:Brandenburg
4. The category is about a notable set of things. This set should well-defined and should not change periodically often. Examples: Category:IUCN Red List conservation dependent species Category:Species by IUCN Red List category

If a category does not have enough articles, the {{popcat}} template should be added to the category.

Sub-categories should be made when a category starts to gets too large to easily find an article in it. There is no set number of articles to require this, but if a category has more than twenty articles, it is usually a good time to think about dividing it into smaller sub-categories.

If there aren't any objections or amendments in, say, another week, it will probably be appropriate to add this to the page officially. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 15:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I would rather see the same criteria for all exceptions. Either they need three entries or they don't.

Also, Category:IUCN Red List conservation dependent species is not a good example of a set that doesn't change. The conservation status of a species is subject to change at any time. A better example would be Category:Species by IUCN Red List category, because the list of different statues isn't likely to change much. I would also change the wording to make it clearer that the set can change, but not regularly or often -- "periodically" is a complex word. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with these considerations.

Also, I believe it may be necessary to add the year that a work was created between exceptions 3 and 4, for the same reason that exception 3 was created(in that a work from a decade rather than a specific year implies that there is an ambiguity as to which year in that decade the work was created). MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 23:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Draft articles on Bodhisattvas

I have made two draft articles on Bodhisattvas. Do you think these are up to the language standards here, or are they too complicated?

• User:Immanuelle/Amoghapasha
• User:Immanuelle/Thousand-armed Kannon

Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 02:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I am a bit more confident about these ones

• User:Immanuelle/Magatama
• User:Immanuelle/Mozu Tombs

Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 01:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

One thing I see is in the use of the {{Ill}} template. Before this goes to article space (assuming you get your block resolved):

• The Ill links to Simple should be removed -- there's already a link to that.
• The Ill links to enwiki's draft space should be removed.

I find use of that template to be distracting, but if it's going to be used it should at least link only to other Wikipedia's articles (again, if it goes to article space). Another issue is that the {{Ill}} template apparently uses "expensive parser function calls", so I imagine it's good to minimize its use. For an example of this issue, see Talk:Beppyo shrine. I also think that this template should have links only to articles that actually exist: at least one I checked doesn't exist on the other Wikipedia.

Other comments below.

Amoghapasha

• Please unlink the year(s) and century(ies).
• Some sentences need to be divided.
• "See also" should be "Related pages".

Thousand-armed Kannon

• Language looks simple enough in this one.
• "Related item" heading should be "Related pages"

Magatama

Needs some sentences to be divided. A rule of thumb is to try to have only one verb in a sentence. For example, there is this sentence:

They are very old and come from Ancient Japan.

That could be divided as follows:

They are very old. They come from Ancient Japan.

That puts the verbs "are" and "come" in separate sentences.

Mozu Tombs

• The sentence "The Imperial Household Agency officially says it is his burial site." seems to be separated from the person it refers to.
• Some punctuation is missing.
• There is a sentence fragment at the end of the last paragraph.
• "See also" should be "Related pages". Although actually the section should be removed because it contains only red links. (The Ill template wouldn't be appropriate there.)

Other general notes:

• Be sure to remove the interwikis before the articles go live.
• About dividing sentences. Compound and complex sentences may seem simple to us, but think of a language learner trying to read them. The more they have to look at together, the harder it is for them to read the text. If we divide sentences into pieces, they don't have to evaluate as much at a time, which makes it easier for them.

HTH -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6 thank you for the help. I thought for interwikis it was good to keep them, since that means a bot automatically connects the page to wikidata. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 01:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: Interwikis aren't supposed to be in mainspace any more. Having them might make a bot do the connection, but I don't think the bot removes them afterward. And you can do the connection yourself manually -- it's not hard to do, and you don't even have to get into Wikidata to do it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Still working on these pages Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 08:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I am working on this one now User:Immanuelle/Curved Array (Gouchen)

Do you know of any way to do interwiki stuff that would link to the wikidata? I have been getting a bit more interested in wikidata as a project now. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: I'm not sure what you're asking. If you mean to link your drafts to Wikidata, then no. Things in userspace shouldn't link to Wikidata, even if they're going to become articles. If that's not what you meant, please explain further. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6 I meant putting something on the page that would make the wikidata button pop up on it. For User:Immanuelle/Curved Array (Gouchen) I put d:Q7254772 at the bottom but it just shows up as an inline link Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 23:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: By "Wikidata button," do you mean the link in the left sidebar? That shows up when the page is linked in Wikidata, but you don't link user pages in Wikidata. If/when it becomes an article, you can make the Wikidata link and remove the interwiki links you have hardcoded.

Also, I noticed some other things in that article:

• The Commons template on that page is in the wrong place. Since there's no "Other websites" section, it would go at the top of the references section.
• You have links to other Wikipedias (the Chinese names of stars). You can put the names in Chinese text, but not link them.
• "See Also" should be "Related pages." Although, since none of the articles exist here, that section can be removed. Items in the related pages section should actually exist here, not be redlinked or use the ILL template.

Hope that helps. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6 I mean this thing. I fixed the things on the page that you mentioned.

Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 23:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: Those (the Commons link and the Wikidata link) appear when an article is linked in Wikidata. As I mentioned, user pages don't get linked in Wikidata, so you won't be able to link your draft. It's not like interwikis that you can still hardcode and see them in the list of languages in the sidebar. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. But thank you for helping with that Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 00:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

You could link or explain terms like, divinity, archaeological, ceremonial etc. Anything that is not on the combined words list. But I think you have done a good job. On another topic, do you want to start a discussion about lifting your block of mainspace? It's been a couple of years since you were blocked and I think it might be time to talk about lifting it. What are your thoughts? fr33kman 22:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Fr33kman yes I just passed the 2-year point. And I would like to discuss it. Thank you. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 00:01, 11 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...

• List of Chinese dissidents
• Political problems of China
• Movies banned in China

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? fr33kman 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)

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. :) fr33kman 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)

The word might have 'one, main meaning' in English

However, the word is 'not Simple English'. Therefore, Invocation is now a disambig page.--If administrators (in particular), do not say 'maybe a snow Keep', then I am fine with the article going to AfD.--(There seems to be a handful of these articles, and some are fine with that.) 2001:2020:309:CBE7:19C4:7799:B895:291E (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

If you are asking for help from an admin you need to take it to administrator'noticeboard. This page is for community discussions. Thx fr33kman 22:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism? (jocularity in infobox?)

Diff,
simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=June_2025_Los_Angeles_protests&diff=10319677&oldid=10319561

This article (of a current event).--(See infobox, "Local protesters, Supported by: [within] Expand").

No source for edit.--I am going to pass (this round) of getting directly involved. 2001:2020:309:CBE7:19C4:7799:B895:291E (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC) /2001:2020:309:CBE7:19C4:7799:B895:291E (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC) /2001:2020:309:CBE7:19C4:7799:B895:291E (talk) 07:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

What exactly are you asking us to do? I'm confused fr33kman 22:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The IP user is engaging in vandalism again. Steven1991 (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Does the diff (at "06:52, 10 June") indicate vandalism? "Yes" or "Probably" or "No", as an answer, would be helpful, so i 'can report vandalism'.--If that is not a simple request, then never mind. 2001:2020:309:CBE7:815F:C7CE:E03C:D13D (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

You know what you are doing. You do not need to ask questions for which you know the answers. Steven1991 (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually, i am not sure, if the following diff, is vandalism,

simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=June_2025_Los_Angeles_protests&diff=10319677&oldid=10319561

.--Now, in regard to if a person seems to be non-polite (and also not show good-faith) in this thread, then it might be better that i not engage with such person.--Have a nice day! 2001:2020:309:CBE7:5D78:19A8:1309:27C5 (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC) /original poster

Would you please stop flooding this thread with trivial matters as advised by patrolling admins above? Steven1991 (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

User blocked for two weeks for general disruption fr33kman 01:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Unblock discussion for User:Immanuelle

I am putting forth a proposal to discuss the potential unblock of user Immanuelle. This person was blocked almost two years ago for creating bad pages. They are only blocked in main space and retain access to their user space to create draft articles. I have seen this user editing quite often while I've been patrolling New Changes and have delved into their edits and block history out of interest. I personally believe that whatever problems existed before do not exist now. I support unblocking their account and restoring their access to main space. I am putting this forth to the community rather than just unblocking them on my own right because of the nature and length of the block. Also they have made it pretty clean of their user page that they are too afraid to ask for an unblock themselves : hence why I am suggesting it here. Thanks, fr33kman 01:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Was the block in response to a community ban discussion? If not, it doesn't require a community discussion to unblock. Maybe this should be at WP:AN.

But to reply to the issue at hand, I see that the reason for the block by Operator873 was given as "Creating bad pages: Continuing to create machine translation pages with complex language. Limit from article space for now." Before unblocking, and since Immanuelle has been working on drafts in userspace, I'd want to see some draft articles that are in good shape. I've looked at some minor things that Immanuelle asked for feedback on, but I haven't evaluated any entire draft articles, so at this point I don't know what shape they're in. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I guess we can move it to AN. I want to get opinions on it because I didn't feel comfortable just removing the block. Immanuelle has listed a few draft pages above so you can get an idea of her edits. fr33kman 02:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion moved to AN fr33kman 02:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Major movie studios

Hi, this page seem to have been changed a bit recently. The list has become big 7 instead of big 5, plus the logos sizes look quite odd to me. If someone has some time, we might have to update it a bit. Thanks.--BRP ^ever 16:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

Regarding the creation of an article with many redlinks

I have been trying to create the article "List of black holes", but encountered a problem.

I brought the information needed from the English Wikipedia, but it has far too many redlinks (at least ninety percent of the articles linked haven't been made yet). Should I leave them there or remove any entries that haven't been made yet?

(I took a relatively long break from Wikipedia, so I have forgotten quite a few things) ☀SolarX☀ 05:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@SolarX: Usually I would say to leave the red links, but I'd want to see the article. Can you give us a link to what you've done so far? -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Auntof6. We only have 270k articles, we are missing articles on many topics. Redlinks show pretty much only where we need to work on. However, a list with only redlinks might not be worth keeping, while having a list with only redlinks isn't a reason to delete. See also WP:RL. -Barras talk 15:18, 13 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)

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. fr33kman 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)

Vote now in the 2025 U4C Election

Please help translate to your language

Eligible voters are asked to participate in the 2025 Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee election. More information–including an eligibility check, voting process information, candidate information, and a link to the vote–are available on Meta at the 2025 Election information page. The vote closes on 17 June 2025 at 12:00 UTC.

Please vote if your account is eligible. Results will be available by 1 July 2025. -- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Moving my drafts into mainspace now that I have been unblocked

I have been recenrtly unblocked and have a lot of draft articles I made over the two years I was blocked

I would like to move some of my draft articles into mainspace, but I do not want to be disruptive or potentially end up just blocked immediately again.

Here are the drafts I feel like I could move. I also have a list of templates that I made in my userspace that I would like to move.

In the unblocking discussion it was mentioned that it was decided because some of my userspace drafts were high quality but there was not that explicit a mention of which pages were good. So here are just the pages I think are my best drafts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immanuelle (talk • contribs) 04:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: Did you forget to include a list? I'd be glad to look at one or two -- I might find some things that would apply to all of them. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: Oops, sorry. I didn't see the separate section below. I'll reformat that. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: I left some comments on the talk pages of one of the articles and the talk page of the template used by the article. I pinged you, so you should get notifications. Let me know if you have questions about what I wrote. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6 yep I got the notifications. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 07:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: Cool. When you use the move function to implement the pages, please be sure to either blank the userspace pages or ask for them to be deleted. You could use either QD option U1 or R2. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Drafts I think are good enough to move to mainspace

I think these ones are all good to go. But I want to wait a bit to ensure that my intuition is correct.,

• Amoghapasha
• Thousand-armed Kannon
• Magatama
• Mozu Tombs
• Kasuga no Kami

Drafts I am working on

I feel confident about these ones but don't feel they are quire ready yet

• Ame-no-Oshikumone
• Curved Array (Gouchen)

Short completed drafts

I'm not really passionate about these drafts, but I made them when making other drafts. My concern is they might not establish notability with how small they are, and I may not have reviewed them as much as the ones I am more passionate about

• Bronze mirror
• Reed bed
• Kudzu
• Pure Land Buddhism
• Constructed wetlands

Templates

I also have a list of templates in my draftspace that I would like to move into the template namespace. I feel like these would be less disruptive to simply move there. But I want to be sure.

Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 04:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I decided a lot of the templates here were not really necessary and quick deleted a lot of them. But I moved some of them into mainspace. Filed the userspace pages for deletion. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 10:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Only one I didn't touch was User:Immanuelle/Template:Generations_of_Watatsumi because it is used in a lot of my drafts but has nothing to use it in mainspace. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 11:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

TheMaxChannel

Two users, TheMaxChannel528-24 (talk · contribs) (their article creations) and TheMaxChannel528-35 (talk · contribs) (their article creations), have created a bunch of TV network articles such as Star Channel (Australian TV channel), FX (Japanese TV channel), and Discovery Kids (Southeast Asia). They're all essentially the same issues: unsourced, unverifiable, and not on other wikis. Googling these channels is giving back these articles plus fandom wikis. I'm not finding existence for them.

Each account is blocked on English and Spanish Wikipedias for socking. What's the best way to approach these accounts and articles? I'd like to avoid making massive RFDs if possible and I don't feel confident enough to declare them all hoaxes for QD purposes. CountryANDWestern (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@CountryANDWestern what about merging them all into articles like Discovery Kids?

They might be not on other wikis because their operations in a single country are not notable, but notable as a group. Then we can work on trimming off the unverifiable content later. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 12:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@CountryANDWestern update both have been blocked by @MathXplore so is it good to just delete all the pages as hoaxes now? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 13:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@CountryANDWestern @MathXplore considering that they seem to be just posting things from this site https://dreamlogos.fandom.com/wiki/NBC_(Russia) to here, and this site seems to be explicitly a hoax wiki, I think they should all be speedy deleted. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 00:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6 would you be able to mass delete their created pages? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 00:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: Any admin can do a mass delete of a user's created pages if they agree it's appropriate. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6 do you agree this is appropriate? You are an admin right? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 00:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2025 - Call for Candidates

More languages • Please help translate to your language

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

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)

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)

References issues

Can somebody fix this? I've tried to fixed but it's error, i think there is faulty reference. — Raayaan9911 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. Raayaan9911 00:08, 19 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)

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)

Support this move per WP:COMMONNAME. Cactus🌵 ^{hi ツ} 04:14, 20 June 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. fr33kman 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)