Wikipedia:Simple talk

Greatest GenerationEdit

I have attempted to translate Greatest Generation into Simple English. Born from 1901 to 1927, these people grew up during hard times of the Great Depression and World War II, yet became very successful later in life, and had a huge influence on world culture and politics. Most of them have died already, but some still survive. Unfortunately, despite my efforts, I didn't do the best job simplifying the article, so it would be great if others are interested in helping! Thanks! Lights and freedom (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is probably too complex and could use work there. Besides this issue, it may be too focused on the US, but that is a consequence of the enwiki article. Lights and freedom (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Despite the claim, the phrase seems to be entirely North American or even U.S. in usage. I have never heard it before. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, perhaps it's just a US thing. Lights and freedom (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely a US thing. Mostly comes from NBC Nightly News Tom Brokaw. And very on-brand for the US to call one cohort "The Greatest." --Gotanda (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A typical American-centered term which is never used in Europe. The period of WWI was a complete disaster for Europe, and the 1920s which followed it were full of social, political and economic strife. the 1920s saw the rise of Hitler, and that was not an accident. WWI was played out in France and Germany. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's not forget people such as Stalin. The people that were born in the early 20th century were also those fighting in the Second World War. The "Greatness" of the generation was probably that they lost pretty much everything they had; if they survived the war, they had to rebuild their country, because there was no other choice. For the Eastern part of Europe, Spain, and Portugal, there were also some totalitarian regimes that established themselves. So, yes, the term "Greatest Generation" is definitely an American one. Eptalon (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally, I think the unqualified phrase is quite objectionable from at least the European point of view. I suggest we add U.S. to the title, so that it reads "Greatest Generation (U.S.)". Don't forget that WWI was fought almost entirely in continental Europe. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Macdonald-ross Okay, that sounds reasonable. I moved the page to Greatest Generation (U.S.). Lights and freedom (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As far as I'm aware, when it comes to article names, we typically follow en in most cases. I do not see why this case would be any different, just because some of our editors haven't heard the term. I don't think there is any specific wording in our own MOS that would cover this, however I think following EN would be correct in this case. This is about a specific topic. As far as I'm aware, there isn't any other use case here that would require any disambiguation. Until we have Greatest Generation (U.K.), Greatest Generation (Canada), Greatest Generation (Spain) ect there is absolutely no need for this. If we need disambiguation we can create it. But it just doesn't exist. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've undone the move because it is so wrong. That's all there is to it. It is baseless.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes I agree with the reversion, the article should not be moved there even if it was only an American term. There is no justification under the Manual of Style for such a move. --IWI (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Well, you can out-vote me, but that doesn't mean I am wrong. Much of WP is American-biased and insensitive to other cultures. This is a good example. The 1920s was an absolutely terrible time in Europe, both economically and politically. If you don't want to change the title, then you should not suggest that the term applies in UK, Germany, Russia or Japan. If what you want is a history of pre-1940 countries who took part in WWII then this is not the way to approach it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Macdonald-ross: But we would add "(U.S.)" to the end if the title needed disambiguating from other uses for the phrase. Since that is not the case here, it's not clear how the move is necessary. I am not opposed, however, to making it more clear in the article that it is mainly an American term. Best, --IWI (talk) 11:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As long as there's no article giving the European (or Russian, or Japanese) perspective, there's no need to add a disambiguation. I do however insist that form the article it needs to be clear that the article gives a mainly U.S. perspective. Eptalon (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Eptalon: Agreed. --IWI (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Apologies for the late addition. Yes I fully agree that it should be mentioned in the article that this term is used mostly in the USA. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The point is not just that the phrase only relates to the USA. It is really critical that WWII happened because WWI caused the destruction of so much of Western Europe. Only the entrance of Japan needs specially different treatment. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restore Xbox 180's older revision history on the English Wikipedia.Edit

I'm ready now..... (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyone home>< (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ What, exactly, are you wanting? This is the Simple English Wikipedia and we can't change anything on the English Wikipedia. Operator873 connect 03:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Restore the buired history of Xbox 180 on English Wikipedia from 2006-2008. (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then you need to go to the English Wikipedia and ask there. --IWI (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
B**cked still. (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Come back. (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you restore this by saying   Done? (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone there? (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, we're here. However, as people said above, you need to take care of this on English Wikipedia, not here. If you are blocked on English Wikipedia, you should not be asking people to edit there for you. If you keep asking, you will also be blocked here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is too personal a topic. (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again for the last time! Restore the buired history of Xbox 180 on English Wikipedia from 2006-2008. (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)  Reply[reply]
Dear IPs, this is simple English Wikipedia. Other than perhaps using similar language, sometimes, we don't have any connection to the English Wikipedia. So, if you want a page restored on the English Wikipedia, you need to talk to people there. We can't do much to restore a page there. Eptalon (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Xbox 720 doesn't exist though, it's the xbox one. What even? Derpdart56 (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simplifying airline disaster pagesEdit

If anyone is interested, these three pages need to be simplified: Swissair Flight 111, Lauda Air Flight 004, China Airlines Flight 611. I noticed that they were too complex, but I'm not sure how to simplify them well. I don't know much about aviation or what are the most important aspects of those pages to keep. Lights and freedom (talk) 06:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've started to work on Swissair Flight 111. It's very technical, and also unreferenced in the main section. I don't know too much about aviation either, but I'm referencing the sources on EN about the details. Hoping to get it in a good spot. 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changing colors in warn templatesEdit

In en-wp, the level 2 warnings have the following file that have a "i" text and an orange circle, with the following image:  . Before I want to create a consensus to change color in warn templates, I'd tried to change the warning icon from blue to orange without reason/consensus and therefore my edits were reverted. That's because I thought that the orange color in level 2 warning template is better than blue color, therefore I'd changed it without consensus. Now, I'm want to gain consensus to change color in level 2 warning templates. Power Hacks (discussion) (contributions) 09:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While we sometimes follow enwiki in terms of guidelines, we do not need to follow it for templates. I can't think of any reason to have the level 2 colour blue or orange, but what we have right now isn't broken so there's no need to change it in my opinion. --Ferien (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But the color orange is still more stronger in terms of warning than color blue in level 2 warning, and therefore I still need to change it to orange. Power Hacks (discussion) (contributions) 12:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is something that inevitably happens almost every other year, and has consistently been reverted by multiple editors (see history). There is no particular reason to have it either blue or orange, but it has started off as blue (and I should mention that the template on EN started off as blue too, before changing to orange in 2013), and the community in general has not really found it necessary to change it to orange. Is there a particular reason it cannot be orange? No, but it should be discussed considering the past objections we have had. For that matter, does it "need" to be changed to orange as you suggested ("I still need to change it...")? The answer is no, too. Chenzw  Talk  16:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know about the colorblind, but if you have a "white background", the "light blue" is difficult to read. The orange is a bit better, but not much. Think about visually impaired people (they don't see well). What they need is something with a high contrast. We might also want to try with different backgrounds, keeping in mind that the message should be easy to read... Eptalon (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Level 1 tells users that their changes were not helpful. Maybe they didn't know that when they made the changes. Level 2 tells them to stop making such changes. I sometimes start with level 2 when it's obvious why their changes were bad. So, when leaving the first warning, I think blue is better than orange. It seems less aggressive, so they don't feel that they're being attacked. They are just being told to stop. Lights and freedom (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I personally don't see need for a change for the icon colours and I think we are fine with where we are. --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 20:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also think it should remain blue because we don't want to come on too strong with an orange warning colour (which is clearly a stronger message than blue) on only the second warning. --IWI (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Simple-English Wikipedia is supposed to be simple in the sense that it is easy to read and understand. The use of unexplained abbreviations works against this goal. I'm sorry, but I do not know what IP stands for. It is used a lot on various Wikipedias, but it is not something that is in common use in general English. Why should I or any other editor who doesn't know or remember what it means have to go searching around to find its meaning? Please, when you use abbreviations, "translate" them in the first occurrence. Kdammers (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kdammers: Yes, "translating" or linking them would be good. For articles, our manual of style addresses this at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Acronyms and abbreviations. We might not stick to that as much in administrative pages, because people working there are more likely to know them, but feel free to ask any time you want it explained. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP is a common term, and should be linked. If I take the technospeak further, people using it are talking about "DNSSec", not "Domain Name System Security Extensions" (in our wiki I made one redirect to the other). DNSSec is a protocol that allows to verify that the DNS ("Domain name system") entry you are getting is actually the one submitted by the holder of the domain. It makes (government-imposed) DNS redirects much harder. Eptalon (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, what does "IP" stand for? 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:2526:A832:DFB8:B285 (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
in the context of cxomputer science: internet protocol, but i think it can also stand for intelelectual property... Eptalon (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're probably seeing 'IP' used to talk about users that only have a set of numbers in their name (their IP address). These are IP users - people that have not made an account on Wikipedia. IP stands for 'Internet Protocol'. I think the abbreviation is fine to use by itself, because 'internet protocol' doesn't add much to the term, and using it adds complex words to what is being said. 🤘🤘DovahFRD (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And depending on the context, it might be less confusing to call them unregistered users. Even the term "Internet Protocol" is not simple. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but IP is pretty common usage around the internet. What the abbreviation means is less relevant than what the term 'IP address' refers to, in most contexts. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just because it might be in pretty common use on the WWW does not mean editors on Simple Wikipedia know it. Furthermore, if a word is pretty common, it is easy to look it up, whereas looking up abbreviations can be a log slog. And then to see that it stands for 'internet protocol,' which makes no sense in sentences I often see here. I support Auntof6's suggestion of replacing 'IP'with 'unregistered user'.Kdammers (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be clear, we could replace "IP user" with "unregistered user". "IP" by itself doesn't mean a user. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lets have fewer TLAs. Including here. Please dont assume other editors understand the abbreviations you use.Rathfelder (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New RfOEdit

A request for oversightership has started. You can participate here. --Ferien (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some of our articles and categories use Health care as two words and some Healthcare as one word. In the outside world there is clearly no agreement about which is right, and no obvious pattern for the different uses, but I think writers in the field mostly use one word. Can we agree to standardize on Healthcare? Rathfelder (talk) 09:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there's agreement, and you change it, can you do a category redirect? - Off-hand I couldn't tell you which of the two is more common. Eptalon (talk) 10:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whatever is decided, it should normally be lower case, unless at the beginning of a sentence, part of the name of something, or for some other grammatical reason. -- Auntof6 (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to Google Ngram, "health care" used to be much more common in books, but now "healthcare" is surpassing it.[1] Lights and freedom (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The words are more readable when kept separate. It is not a term but a normal construction of two words IMO. Knocking words together makes them more difficult to read. That is significant for us. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But consistency is also important in Simple English. I am only proposing a change to the names of categories, not to the content of articles. Rathfelder (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimania 2023 Welcoming Program SubmissionsEdit

Do you want to host an in-person or virtual session at Wikimania 2023? Maybe a hands-on workshop, a lively discussion, a fun performance, a catchy poster, or a memorable lightning talk? Submissions are open until March 28. The event will have dedicated hybrid blocks, so virtual submissions and pre-recorded content are also welcome. If you have any questions, please join us at an upcoming conversation on March 12 or 19, or reach out by email at or on Telegram. More information on-wiki.

Is this page simple enough?Edit

I just made this page H₂weh₁-yú and I'm not sure if its simple enough. It's often hard to figure out if an article is simple enough since I'm still a beginner here. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 16:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At least, "originate" and "derive" should be simplified. MathXplore (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Absolutely agree. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He started in .. and many .. gods like him? Eptalon (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A4 reword proposalEdit

  • A notice that I am proposing a change to the deletion policy here to reword the A4 quick deletion criterion. Thanks, --IWI (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feminism and Folklore contestEdit

With two weeks left in the Feminism and Folklore contest, I'm pleased to announce that contestant user:DovahFRD is in the lead with a focus on the performing arts. But perhaps user:Haoreima, user:Aidar254 or user:Lights_and_freedom will sweep in from behind! Who knows what will happen?! Remember, everyone, what happens at edit-a-thon stays at edit-a-thon. Permanently. We can go back and read the posts any time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ChatGPT and large language models in generalEdit

Hello! As described on WP:AN, there is a user creating articles using ChatGPT. This can cause problems, as ChatGPT is not always accurate, and it may appear accurate to people who are not experts in the subject. Should there be a guideline against using LLMs (large language models) to create articles? Justarandomamerican (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll restate what I also wrote on the other board: If one of the edit I deleted today was written by ChatGPT, then these are fairly easy to detect. They can then be deleted. In the past, editors have been blocked for continuing to do "automatic edits". So if they come from specific editors, these can be blocked easily. Perhaps a bit more technical: these bots are trained using specific models. Changing the model means that the bot will have to undergo re-training, in most cases. So far, I have not seen a bot that is capable of producing "Simple English" as we require. I also currently think that the "market value" of Simple English is too small to warrant specific training or parametrization. So, likely there won't be any need to take specific actions in the future (other than what we already do: Block problem editors, if they continue their problematic behaviour). Eptalon (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shouldn't the civility guideline be switched to a policy, as the enwiki version is? Users should essentially always follow it, and is not really negotiable as it being only a guideline would suggest. Would there be consensus for introducing it as a policy instead? --IWI (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot to add and remove protection templatesEdit

EnWP has en:User:MusikBot II/FixPP, which adds and removes protection templates. It automatically adds {{pp}} and similar templates when a page is protected, and removes them when protection ends. Should such a bot be run at SimpleWP too? I'm not volunteering to do it myself, but I think it could be better than the current system. Individual users have to add and remove the templates, sometimes weeks after the change in protection. The bot code already exists, which might make it easier, although I don't know much about wikibots. Lights and freedom (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is worth noting that the template will automatically not display an icon on unprotected pages, although it could be useful for categorisation and such. I would not be opposed to such a bot, if someone volunteered to run it. --IWI (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have looked at a few, tell me where it is. Can we get language-adapted templates? Eptalon (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eptalon If you're looking for the code, it's at GitHub. The link is on the bot's user page. The templates just look like padlock icons, so I don't think anything would have to be adapted (except some things might be different, like extended-confirmed protection doesn't exist here). Lights and freedom (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Wiktionary redirectEdit

Shouldn't {{Wiktionary redirect}} link to Simple English Wiktionary instead of English Wiktionary? I think this can be changed by changing "wiktionary:" to "wikt:", but I don't know what's best practice with these interwiki shortcuts. Lights and freedom (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Should this ( be moved here, or to some other talk page?--(Wherever the discussion ends, I might want to mention a view about China or China-of-today being within China proper will perhaps not be mentioned by me/myself.) 2001:2020:4329:FC62:7CF0:5311:1C74:331D (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)/ 2001:2020:4329:FC62:7CF0:5311:1C74:331D (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed VGA demotion for Ronald ReaganEdit

The article has multiple issues. See Wikipedia:Proposed_article_demotion#Ronald_Reagan Gotanda (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help needed: Bathyphysa coniferaEdit

We recently got Bathyphysa conifera which has an almost identical article at enwp. It is a deep-sea creature, and was first described in the 1870s. Not much seems to be known. I cut out some highly-technical description, but I think the article needs more simplification; references would also help. Eptalon (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject Red to BlueEdit

Hello, I recently started a new WikiProject called WikiProject Red to Blue (User:Shadow of the Starlit Sky/WikiProject Red to Blue is the link). This WikiProject aims to fix redlinks on Wikipedia and turn them into articles, and also maintain and expand these articles to gradually seal the information gap on Simple English Wikipedia. I was wondering if some of y'all would be interested in checking it out, so I decided to post about it on this board.

Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 12:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's the policy on updating the store logo? As the one on the page is out of date. Tsugaru let's talk! :) 19:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

つがる, as long as it exists on this wiki, you're free to update it to the latest version. --Ferien (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Ferien. I'm not sure if it's on commons though, as there is likely a copyright for the logo. Apparently, with the old Zellers logo, HBC didn't renew the trademark and now there is a lawsuit going on because someone tried registering the trademark. Tsugaru let's talk! :) 19:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay so this is the current logo and the file is on commons here. Tsugaru let's talk! :) 19:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Board of Trustees have ratified the UCoC Enforcement GuidelinesEdit

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.
More languages Please help translate to your language

Hello all, an important update on the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines:

The vote on the Enforcement Guidelines in January 2023 showed a majority approval of the Enforcement Guidelines. There were 369 comments received and a detailed summary of the comments will be published shortly. Just over three-thousand (3097) voters voted and 76% approved of the Enforcement Guidelines. You can view the vote statistics on Meta-wiki.

As the support increased, this signifies to the Board that the current version has addressed some of the issues indicated during the last review in 2022. The Board of Trustees voted to ratify the Enforcement Guidelines. The resolution can be found on Foundation wiki and you can read more about the process behind the 2023 Enforcement Guidelines review on Diff.

There are some next steps to take with the important recommendations provided by the Enforcement Guidelines. More details will come soon about timelines. Thank you for your interest and participation.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]