Wikipedia:Simple talk

Simple talk

WP:ST

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 Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.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

change

Main Page idea

I was wondering if there was a way that we could add something relating to Wikipedia:Good Articles on the main page? Something that could create viewer engagement right off the bat. Seeing as how there's a little over 100 GAs, I figured it'd be nice to shed some spotlight to those articles especially since naturally they may be harder to find/appreciated. I know it's not common at English Wikipedia to spotlight Good Articles, but seeing as how we're a small community and how we have 102 GAs, I feel like that wouldn't be a bad touch. I was thinking perhaps adding some language to the VGA section of the main page. Something like: "Other very good articles – Proposals – Requirements – Some good articles". Thoughts? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea. We could also think about creating (shorter, without image?) teasers for GAs. And then list one GA teaser as well? Eptalon (talk) 07:59, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support more visibility of the GA process. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. For a community as small as ours, 100 GAs is fairly good, so why not showing them on our Main Page? That'd probably even courage people to work on them and get them to VGA status. -Barras talk 17:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add a small section of GA article previews like the VGA articles on the main page or a simple mention of Good Articles like how I suggested above? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we agreed,I would say a GA blurb should be noticeably shorter than a VGA blurb, and we need to write 100 blurbs first Eptalon (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I’ve noticed some of the VGA blurbs are rather small compared to the leads they have on their articles. We could expand the VGA blurbs a bit and follow what Eptalon is suggesting: Two sentence blurbs for GAs? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree also. fr33k man 01:09, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps what we could do is expand the "About Wikipedia" section to make it more elongated like the DYK section and then beneath the "About Wikipedia" section we could have a "Selected Very Good Article" (left) and "Selected Good Article" (right) previews? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've also created a sanbox that depicts how the GA blurbs would ideally look like for the newest 10 GAs :) I was also thinking for VGA blurbs and possible GA blurbs that are about shows, characters, books, movies, etc. that don't have a picture, we could place an image of a person related to them such as how I did for the Big Break blurb. English wikipedia does this for featured articles that have copyrighted images that can't appear on the main page. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean to make the "About Wikipedia" section cover the full width of the page and not go down so far. That's a good idea. ~2025-61813-2 (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! The About Wikipedia be expanded horizontally much like how DYK is and then beneath that section we could have VGA (left) and GA blubs (right). TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you did with the sandbox. How many blurbs do you propose? fr33k man 20:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was prepared to draft blurbs for all 102 good articles. Would that be a bad idea? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can probably just write a new one every time a new article is promoted to GA. I would suggest having a dedicated page somewhere to be able to see all blurbs at once which could be admin protected, then in the talk page, people can suggest revisions, (grammar, spelling, linking, etc). MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 02:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did we make all the blurbs? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we say there are 2 ga hooks on the page we perhaps need 4-6 such hooks to show. If it is just a layout proposal, even 2 hooks will do Eptalon (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I may need some help in creating blurbs for the remaining GA articles as I have 90-ish left to do. Anyone is free to follow the 10-12 examples I’ve laid out on the mentioned sandbox above :) TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any other feedback from users who haven't chimed in? If this is the direction we'll be moving to, is there anyone who's willing to get the ball moving on this in terms of formatting the main page? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any updates? ~2025-27691-51 (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any movement on this project? fr33k man 23:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds okeh to me. Kdammers (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TDKR Chicago 101. Any updates? Plutus^{💬 🎃} — Fortune favors the curious 03:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping that someone with experience in editing the main page would chime in/take a stab at editing the main page. I’m fairly new as an admin and don’t have experience editing the main page. I’d be happy to do it if everyone’s in agreement :) TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is content translation now using an AI simplification from English to Simple English?

I saw the pages created by SchoolWikipedian (talk · contribs · logs) and was wondering whether they simplified them themself. canadachick (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Canadachick personally looking at their page Taita white-eye I think it is insufficiently simplified. It has slightly but barely changed content. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 02:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They were deleted Plutus^{💬 🎃} — Fortune favors the curious 12:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

when I did some translation perhaps 1-2 weeks ago, there was no automatic simplification of English to Simple English Eptalon (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They may have been insufficiently simplified, but no, I do not know of a way to automatically simplify English to Simple English. I accept that there are issues with my approach for simplifying only the terms that seem complicated to me, and I am sorry if this has been causing issues. Have a great day! SchoolWikipedian (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can help with some tools like complex word finders. I am not aware of a complex sentence detector even though complex sentences are a bigger issue Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 00:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SchoolWikipedian you did a great job improving from this issue. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 19:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any tools for finding complex sentence rates, though with AI, it should be very easy to build one. On the other hand, there are a number of readability tools that include length of words, rate of multiple-syllable words and sentence length. See Readability Scoring System PLUS with the Robert Gunning Editor Kdammers (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cewbot/Interlanguage link templates need to fix

This page User:Cewbot/Interlanguage link templates need to fix is now abnormally large since the bot was briefly run on all interlanguagelinks. I have been manually going through it and fixing links and then removing them from the page.

I think I got all of the easiest ones. But if anyone wants to take a look at them, feel free.

After about a week this page wil become substantially smaller since User:Cewbot will fix all of the interlanguagelinks again and only check for errors on the pages in Category:Interlanguage link template existing link. So this is time sensitive. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 07:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I fixed the majority of the ones that actually cause problems here. But we definitely should at least look at the other ones Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 01:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I did a bit more but I think this is thoroughly exhausted on the easy things to fix Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 02:19, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once the page refreshes, is there any way we could do something to clear the non-mainspace pages from Category:Interlanguage link template existing link because it really should just be article space pages Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 02:29, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Best to leave this one on hold until the next cewbot cycle though. Since this would involve template editing that might have unexpected and technically difficult consequences Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 04:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did more clearing Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 20:28, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now there are only ones of this thing, or ones that do not exist on the foreign language. The nonexistent ones I think really need a speaker of the language but these ones are all resolvable and would ideally need their own pages

== Missing converted local page, or the foreign / local page is not link to wikidata. ==

=== The Railway Series (E) ===

Missing converted local page, or the foreign / local page is not link to wikidata.

{{ill|Edward the Blue Engine|ja|エドワード (きかんしゃトーマス)}}Edward the Blue Engine [ja]Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 20:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{ill|Henry the Green Engine|ja|ヘンリー (きかんしゃトーマス)}}Henry the Green Engine [ja]Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 20:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised this has a jawiki article. Might be worthy of its own. But if not idk what we should do with the ill Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 23:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 23:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

=== Wikipedia:List of Wikipedias (E) ===

Missing converted local page, or the foreign / local page is not link to wikidata.

{{ill|Wikipedia community|lt=lots of different editors|en|}}Wikipedia community [en]Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 20:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should have an article on this Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 05:27, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although non mainspace so I think actually not Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 05:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

=== 2025–26 UEFA Europa League (E) ===

Missing converted local page, or the foreign / local page is not link to wikidata.

{{ill|Beşiktaş Stadium|en}}Beşiktaş StadiumImmanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 20:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sent a suggestion for another person to make it Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 04:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

done Beşiktaş Stadium Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 04:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

=== List of Wikipedias (E) ===

Missing converted local page, or the foreign / local page is not link to wikidata.

{{ill|Aramaic Wikipedia|en|}}Aramaic Wikipedia [en]Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 20:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be worthy of a deletion since it is only used as a circular linkImmanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 07:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{ill|Syriac alphabet|lt=Syrc|en|}}Syriac alphabet [en]Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 20:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{ill|Asturian Wikipedia|en|}}Asturian Wikipedia [en]Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 20:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be worthy of a deletion since it is only used as a circular link Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 07:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{ill|Burmese Wikipedia|en|}}Burmese Wikipedia [en]Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 20:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be worthy of a deletion since it is only used as a circular link Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 07:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{ill|Cherokee syllabary|lt=Cher|en|}}Cherokee syllabary [en]Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 20:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{ill|Kurmanji|en|}}Kurmanji [en]Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 20:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{ill|Vlax Romani language|lt=Vlax Romani|en|}}Vlax Romani language [en]Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 20:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{ill|Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia|en|}}Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia [en]Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 20:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This one is not quite completely unlinked like the others Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 07:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worthy of deleting something because the only usage of it as a redirect is as a circular link? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 07:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 20:30, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think I will be able to really do these pages. Although adding things so we can discuss these things individually Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 20:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did the deletion proposals anyways for the ones only used in indirect self links Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2025/Burmese Wikipedia Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2025/Asturian Wikipedia Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2025/Aramaic Wikipedia Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a recap these are the unresolved ones

The Railway Series

Edward the Blue Engine [ja; simple]
Henry the Green Engine [ja; simple]

List of Wikipedias

Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 17:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should make all of these pages, but they are not really my area. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:06, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Immanuelle: I agree that some page spaces could be excluded, but I don't think it should be only article space. For example, I've seen this issue in templates. It's also plausible that it could be in categories (in text at the top of them) and possibly in others. Also, things in userspace often become articles later, so we might want to catch those as well. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no to userspace ones, because since this is a backlog thing, it tacitly encourages people to edit pages in other people's userspace. And the userspace stuff might just be a test or something. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 06:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently on User:Cewbot/Interlanguage link templates need to fix it seems like the bot is actually doing stuff on this page. Might attempt to edit the links here. So this is confusing. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 02:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this page got edited https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Simple_talk&oldid=10577054 Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 02:45, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of weird that this one of all pages is keeping that page running. We really need to fix the bot to stop it from running on Wikipedia: namespace, but it is an interesting reminder Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk | changes) 03:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great User:Cewbot/Interlanguage link templates need to fix has finally refreshed so I can finally finish with this really long backlog stuff. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 02:26, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say everything went as expected. Mainly Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war did not get edited as I expected and we still have a good deal of pages in . I think it might be best to just let it cycle again since the bot might have been overwhelmed last time. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 02:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure why one of the links didn’t change on that page but I hope things just get fixed next. Don’t want to push too much on the bot operator though. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should update tomorrow Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk | contribs) 00:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might be better just to make a new thread Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk | changes) 16:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pages not in mainspace appearing in Category:Interlanguage link template existing link

I think that pages not in mainspace should not appear in Category:Interlanguage link template existing link because that is a specific tracking category for mainspace pages that User:Cewbot is gonna change or failed to change. Could we try to change Template:Interlanguage link to make it so that it does not add the category unless it is in ns:0? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 02:30, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it should appear on templates too, but I do not think anywhere else Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 02:32, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Best to leave this one on hold until the next cewbot cycle though. Since this would involve template editing that might have unexpected and technically difficult consequences Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 04:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically this is not an error in the pages it is a proposal for editing the template so that these pages would not be in the category since they are not in the scope of the editing

Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 20:27, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Immanuelle: There might be some namespaces that could be excluded, but I don't think we should limit it to articles. For example, I've seen this issue in templates, and it's conceivable that it could be in other namespaces that we'd want to fix, such as talk pages (depending on what the actual issue is).

Besides that, I think we should do the same as enwiki on this, because we sometimes refresh our templates from enwiki.

And any time you want, I could produce a list for you of only the articles that are in the list. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no to userspace ones, because since this is a backlog thing, it tacitly encourages people to edit pages in other people's userspace. And the userspace stuff might just be a test or something. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 06:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bot even runs on this page Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So we will need to edit the template soon Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk | contribs) 00:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we need to edit it soon idk where to ask Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk | contribs) 22:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where should we ask? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk | changes) 20:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content translation tool seems to not work with wikidata properly anymore

I tried out the content translation tool on the article en:Hie Shrine and it has been giving this result

By contrast most of these links actually exist just fine here, and they are connected to wikidata. It also does not get templates.

The Hie Shrine (日枝神社, Hie Jinja) is a Shinto shrine in Nagatachō, Chiyoda, Tokyo, Japan. Its June 15 Sannō Matsuri is one of the three great Japanese festivals of Edo (the forerunner of Tokyo). Other names for the shrine include Hiyoshi Sannō-sha, Hiyoshi Sannō Daigongen-sha, Edo Sannō Daigongen, Kōjimachi Sannō, Sannō-sha, and Sannō-sama.

The main god of the shrine is Oyamakui no Kami.

History

The date of establishment of the Hie Shrine is uncertain. According to one theory, Ōta Dōkan established it in 1478. Another theory identifies the Hie with the Sannō Shrine mentioned in a 1362 record of the Kumano Nachi Taisha.

Tokugawa Ieyasu relocated it to the grounds of Edo Castle, and in 1604 his son Tokugawa Hidetada moved it out, so the people of Edo could worship there. The shaden was lost to the Great Fire of Meireki of 1657, and in 1659 Tokugawa Ietsuna rebuilt it at its present location. The shrine stands southwest of the castle, in the ura kimon direction according to onmyōdō.}}So this is confusing. It likely indicates it is not properly fetching page and template names from the backend?

Content translation tool seems to not work with wikidata properly anymore

The behavior I expect is for it to give all the same text (no ai simplification or translation), but skip over articles that exist on enwiki and not simplewiki, and give piped links to the simplewiki pages if they differ, as well as giving all of the templates from enwiki, and doing the same for categories. But it appears it is only giving the raw text with all of the templates and links removed. It also does not apply categories. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 04:14, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Immanuelle: It appears like this for me:

canadachick (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Then it must just be an error on my side, and working as intended for others. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 04:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will try refreshing browser cache and stuff like that after a while and see if it works later Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 05:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I am noticing is that it often gets the links right on the first paragraph but not doing any of the sources or categories or templates. So still not correctly working Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Immanuelle Do you mean that if you click the right column next to a paragraph that has links and sources, those sources don't appear? And that if you click next to a template, that template doesn't appear? canadachick (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Canadachick here's an example since it is easier to show than explain en:Ichinomiya Shrine (Tokushima) it appears the references do not properly go through. See the results of this for reference User:Immanuelle/Ichinomiya_Shrine_(Tokushima). This is a problem since at least going from enwiki to simplewiki, getting the references directly from enwiki is the major reason someone would want to use the tool. Because there are often hard to copy things like access date (if you are simplifying the text) and weird urls and archives. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Immanuelle You will have to click next to the reflist template to make references display. canadachick (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Canadachick I do not understand what you are saying I should be doing here Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 23:02, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am still getting this very frequently even when I have a reflist on the page if that is what you mean. And Template:Cite book exists on both enwiki and simplewiki

Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 23:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Immanuelle For that article (en:Ichinomiya Shrine (Tokushima)), the reflist template is under the "Notes" header. If you click to the right of the blank section under the notes header, the reflist template will copy over, and your reference marked [1] will display. Like this: User:Canadachick/Ichinomiya Shrine (Tokushima) canadachick (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I translate the reflist template it gives me this, and then the source does not go through

Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 23:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Canadachick so here is what actually comes out from that edit User:Immanuelle/Ichinomiya_Shrine_(Tokushima) Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 23:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am gonna call it a day on trying to figure out this glitch Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 23:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This might be related to my enwiki block which I am in the process of appealing. If my appeal is successful I will try again and see if the glitch continues. Although this is an intuition without much basis. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:16, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to work perfectly fine now. Worked perfectly here Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk | changes) 03:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend opening a phab ticket in future for issues like this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Andrew (prince in Britain/UK)

"Prince Andrew", is no longer "Duke of York". Be that as it may.

I urge, that the community changes the title (of the wiki-article) to "Prince Andrew" (and not call the article the same as en-wiki is doing, "The Prince Andrew"). ~2025-28382-09 (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enwiki's article is still at en:Prince Andrew, Duke of York. There's discussion on their talk page about renaming. There's apparently some disagreement about whether Andrew's announcement really has any effect. I recommend waiting until there's consensus on this. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The cabinet members are no longer using 'the phrase' "Prince Andrew, Duke of ...".

Parliament is no longer using 'the phrase' "Prince Andrew, Duke of ...".

When the RS become clear and overwhelming, about the current state-of-things, then administrators can move title of page, to "Prince Andrew ('country') ".--Simple enough, one might say. ~2025-28382-09 (talk) 06:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the prince and the government aren't using the phrase doesn't mean that he isn't the Duke of York. It takes some kind of official action (possibly by Parliament) for it to really take effect. Until then, the article should keep the current title. -- Auntof6 (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article will need a lot of work with recent updates Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk | contribs) 00:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit at 19:37 on October 30, with an edit comment. Since then, the title of the article has changed.--One problem though: He is still a prince, and he is still the Duke of York.--Parliament is busy making laws regarding many millions of British people, so it could take a while before parliament takes a closer look at things regarding the prince.--@Auntof6:. ~2025-28382-09 (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done - " The process of removing his styles, titles, etc. has started, but has not yet been completed, so Andrew still has them. It's possible it won't even happen, or that only part of ... . Please be sure things are in effect before moving articles. ... 01:56, 31 October", according to 'emerging consensus' (or something like that). ~2025-28382-09 (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use of AI on talk pages and discussions

Since I've noticed recently that there have been more than a few cases where users have used AI during discussions and RfDs, I've written a little proposed guideline for it. I'd appreciate if people could review it and comment on it. Feel free to alter or add to it. Thanks, fr33k man 02:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fr33kman I think that is reasonable. Would you want me to add some examples to help demonstrate the policy? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk | contribs) 02:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a work in progress so be bold and add anything that makes sense to you. :) fr33k man 02:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fr33kman I apologize for the formatting since the visual editor is not something that works in that namespace. But do you like what I did? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk | contribs) 04:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fr33kman I tried a version which just had the what not to do part. If that is better. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk | contribs) 07:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So not the excessively large ai output Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk | contribs) 07:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if we need examples. Please discuss on the proposal's talk page and see what others think. fr33k man 23:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"as long as the contribution reflects the users own thoughts and ideas and not those of the AI".

The guideline, might help ' AI abusers ' (for a lack of a better term), to cement ideas that already are skewed.--A kind of logic, might say: "Because the AI did print text, on my command - then/therefore, all of text and opinions are mine (minus any text that i remove)".

The guideline should maybe say something about 'who are the target audiences, within the wikipedia-community'.

One section, in the guideline, might be called: "You need to 'wake up', if ...".

I might contribute on the Talk-page, of that article, come time. ~2025-28382-09 (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC) /~2025-28382-09 (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to say who the guideline is aimed at,. It should be obvious that it's aimed at anyone using AI during discussions fr33k man 05:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Because i think , or use-AI-in-discussions, then/therefore I do exist.--And, bad edits (using AI), are only made by other wikipedia-users; Never-ever by myself."--That is a (major) mindset, that faces the problem-one-is-trying-to-solve.

Claim: many that use AI, 'are in some ways, a lot like people who use performance enhancers in sports'; 'I could see my muscles, had grown, by the end of a day';

When people use AI (in discussions, or articles), then i can see that the Dunning–Kruger effect, becomes more pronounced, in those persons, statistically.--What words should "you" chose (or even, could you chose), to 'wake' those people 'from their slumber'?

"Your" nutshell-thingy, will likely be perceived to only apply to a few 'Lex Luthor types', in the wiki-community.--It will not (be perceived) to apply to 'white hat' users, who only have used AI in wiki-discussions, c. 'once or twice, this week' (or during the last five minutes).

I am fine with expectations ~~expactations~~ (maybe) being 'lowish', in regard to this nutshell-thingy.--It might be in human nature, to leave no stones unturned, when it comes to fixing problems/challenges that seem sizable.--Have a nice day. ~2025-28382-09 (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC) /~2025-28382-09 (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC) /~2025-28382-09 (talk) 08:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly written articles

Do we have, or should we have, a template for poorly written articles? I've come across a couple of articles that read like a five-year-old wrote them (I will fix them), and thought a template to sort them into a group would be useful. fr33k man 05:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe we have a generic "This article may not be of good enough quality" template, although I imagine the more specific problem templates (e.g. Template:Wikify) would be better in almost every scenario I can think of.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fr33kman: There's {{copy edit}} if that's the problem. What specific problems are you seeing? -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just come across really poorly written articles that are so poorly written that they were hard to read with language far to dumbed down. I didn't make note of the titles as I was just reading. fr33k man 04:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If i see a Talk-page thread that is called, say, Delete or what?, then i might ask myself: Is the title (of article), non-boring)?--Thereafter i will hopefully proceed to fix the first sentence (of 'non-boring title'); And 'shorten into a stub'.

Here is one title, that 'sort of was started, in the style' of a five-year old.--(Written that way, 'as a replacement' for a deleted AI-junk, article.)--For training purposes, or whatever: I am fine with anyone writing on that Talk-page: "Delete or what?".--If any of this is helpful, then fine.--If anyone does not understand, then don't worry, 'me thinks'. ~2025-28382-09 (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume is something like this? Plutus^{💬 🎃} — Fortune favors the curious 08:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Writing an article like a five year old is better than an unreviewed ai article. We are here for clear unambigous articles that explain important things. Generative AI tends to make things more complex and wordier.

My philosophy on simple english wikipedia is that except for the few things that do not have enwiki articles, all pages have an enwiki article. The simple article needs to be actually simple to help people. If someone is interested enough in the topic they can read the enwiki article, they might have a harder time but they can read it if they care enough about it. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk | contribs) 04:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? " except for the few things that do not have enwiki articles, all pages have an enwiki article." This looks like a tautology to me. Kdammers (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Plutus - Nice catch.--(If you, or anyone, had slapped on a tag, 'additional source, needed' - then that would be fine.--The current source, is 'on the same level', as writing: "The public library, was my source today", or "A book was my source").--I salute you for (already) having cleaned up that article!--If this post is viewed as helpful, then fine. ~2025-28382-09 (talk) 08:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Clean sweep', of refs in 'AI-generated articles'

Sometimes we keep 'AI-generated articles'.--One example.--Maybe we need a (defined) 'recommended way', of 'removing all the sources' in (such articles), after they pass RFD.

Suggestion for edit comment: "Established user, can put back ONE reference (at a time), if s/he checks that the ONLINE page, exists, and checks that it seems relevant, and seems like a notable source".--Note: i will gladly remove the sources, from one such article, when this thread finds acceptable wording of edit remark.--(Another note: The linked article will still have at least one AI-hallucination, even after all the sources are removed (however, we have moved on from that issue, per discussion that ended a few days ago, and 'we will just have to deal with the cards that we are dealt')).--If no one answers this thread, then i expect to be bold and remove the sources in the linked article, when this thread gets archived (in say c. two weeks).--Have a nice day. ~2025-28382-09 (talk) 07:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A quick-and-dirty way of removing references, with some sort of justification:

simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_West_%28Western_Australia%29&diff=10598889&oldid=10598657

If the edit was helpful, to get a better idea about the problem/situation, then fine.--'Mea culpa, in advance' for 'possibly' having (already) crossed a line (and later done a revert). ~2025-28382-09 (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also while what you are talking about seems unreasonable. Using the template ^{[verification needed]} is the actual reasonable thing to do. That does not just destroy a large amount of the article, unlike what you did. An editor can actually check the source easily from the article or even do a backlog annihilation over it. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk | contribs) 22:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See this article, South West (Western Australia)(no AI-references, guaranteed).

Guaranteed that there are no AI-references; And there is only one, surefire way to guarantee that!--If that article is perceived as 'constructive', then fine. ~2025-28382-09 (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I moved this to User:Immanuelle/South West (Western Australia)(no AI-references, guaranteed) because this does not belong in mainspace. I do not understand why you cannot just edit the page properly Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk | contribs) 18:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to why you felt such a fork article was needed. And, again, you keep saying there's hallucinations but, despite being asked a couple of times, have not said what the hallucination is. CountryANDWestern (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The user of the 'original article', has been blocked for "... AI ...", and for nothing else.--Today, I created an article - with attribution - but that has absolutely no AI-references.--I for one, do not see myself touching articles that has come from a poisoned well, starting with the very first edit, being tainted'.--If that makes things 'clearer', then fine. ~2025-28382-09 (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Immanuelle actually has no business of taking an article from mainspace, and turning it into one of her user pages.--If a page needs to disappear, then we have procedures to deal with that.--QD or RFD, come to mind.--User:Immanuelle should seriously consider reverting her edit; Not doing so, can reflect badly on you; Not reverting the edit, will likely be held against you, if there comes a time to review 'how you, overall, are doing on wikipedia.'--Have a nice day. ~2025-28382-09 (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not QD it because you are claiming there is an actual reason for this article to exist. So moving it to userspace allow us to actually discuss it. Do you want me to just QD it without discussion? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk | contribs) 18:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The real mistake I made was forgetting to QD the redirect Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk | contribs) 18:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QD is 'fair play'.--Unless admins suggest that you should give yourself a "topic ban" or cool-off period. ~2025-28382-09 (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CountryANDWestern can you please give me advice on this situation? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk | contribs) 18:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is link to 'article' , that has started out, without AI-references, guaranteed:

simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&oldid=10599607

In regard to other kind of hallucination, in the article; We have closed discussion on that; I have moved on (and i suggest that ~~user:Immanuelle~~ other users do the same).--Have a nice day. ~2025-28382-09 (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC) /~2025-28382-09 (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'AI user' or possible 'AI-lab doing runs'

Antifungal drug.--QD, or does someone else have time to train the lab-or-user?--Note: The user ( ~2025-30386-04 ) does not seem to be able to read up to 'a fifth-grade' level, without reading machine-translation from to English.--The user has difficulty comprehending whatever the AI etcetera has created. ~2025-28382-09 (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC) /~2025-28382-09 (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC) /~2025-28382-09 (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's intended to be vandalism, based off of the edit summary from the creator. Ternera (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might be 'the AI that is doing the talking', in the edit summary, also.--Now nominated for QD. ~2025-28382-09 (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits on Generation Alpha

Somebody marked my edit for Generation Alpha vandalism when in reality it wasn't. Generation Alpha, according to multiple sources, began from 2014 and will not officially end until the last day of 2029. There are arguments over the beginning and ending dates of the Generation Alpha group. Angela Kate Maureen Pears 20:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you discussed this with the other user or brought the concern to the article's talk page? CountryANDWestern (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Migration to Parsoid

Read this in another language

Hello everyone! I am glad to inform you that as the next step in the Parser Unification project, Parsoid will soon be turned on as the default article renderer on your wiki. We are gradually increasing the number of wikis using Parsoid, with the intention of making it the default wikitext parser for MediaWiki's next long-term support release. This will make our wikis more reliable and consistent for editors, readers, and tools to use, as well as making the development of future wikitext features easier.

If this disrupts your workflow, don’t worry! You can still opt out through a user preference or turn Parsoid off on the current page using the Tools submenu, as described in the Extension:ParserMigration documentation.

There is more information about our roll-out strategy available, including the testing done before we turn on Parsoid for a new wiki.

To report bugs and issues, please look at our known issues documentation and if you found a new bug please create a phab ticket and tag the Content Transform Team in Phabricator.

Content Transform Team 00:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain this in simple English. Kdammers (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ABreault (WMF) I would like that simplified yes. How might this affect our site? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk | changes) 01:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, it should be transparent to users, but please see mw:Parsoid/Parser_Unification#How_does_this_impact_wikis?. We are also collecting some common on-wiki fixes at mw:Parsoid/Parser_Unification/Instructions_for_editors. ABreault (WMF) (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Grokipedia

I think it should be unprotected so other people can help improve/simplify the article. I think the reason it got a lot of traction 1 was because the english wikipedia article on grokipedia wasnt indexed by google as it was previously a redirect. Now the english wikipedia article on grokipedia appears on google so im assuming there wont be as much disruption to the simple wikipedia. Most vandalism edits were reverted by the unnamed users Yeatglazer (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's only just been protected so I think it's fair to leave it how it is for now and see what happens when it expires fr33k man 03:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also for future reference requesting a page to have its protection reviewed is more suited for WP:AN.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 09:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking volunteers to join several of the movement’s committees

Each year, typically from October through December, several of the movement’s committees seek new volunteers.

Read more about the committees on their Meta-wiki pages:

Applications for the committees open on October 30, 2025. Applications for the Affiliations Committee, Ombuds commission and the Case Review Committee close on December 11, 2025. Learn how to apply by visiting the appointment page on Meta-wiki. Post to the talk page or email cstwikimedia.org with any questions you may have.

For the Committee Support team,

- MKaur (WMF) 14:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My situation – IWI

From a discussion a while back with Ferien, I have decided to make this post to the community. I respect this community and I believe full transparency is paramount. I have suffered with psychosis a while back possibly caused by borderline personality disorder; the psychotic elements are neutralised with medication. I have also had substance abuse problems (opioids and cocaine mainly); I am not yet fully clean but intend to be soon. All of these factors should be taken into account should anyone else suggest to nominate me for administrator again, although I am now committed to not editing under the influence. I would not feel comfortable with any tools without these facts being known to the community. Best, --IWI (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say that I appreciate your honesty and I believe that shows a lot of maturity from you. You could have chosen to hide this information, but instead you are taking a step that most would be scared to do by putting it in the open. Thank you for sharing and I wish you the best of luck with self-improvement. Ternera (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ternera: Thank you very much. This community is like family to me, and I will always be open. --IWI (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back, I'm not sure I ever responded to your last email so I just wanted to publicly say thank you for your trust and being open and responsible to this community, as I have always known you to be. It's really great to see you back. Best wishes, --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 22:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being open about your condition. I wish you the best for your recovery. Thank you for your service to the community all these years. You are always appreciated. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 22:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are doing well. I appreciate the honesty. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk | contribs) 22:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your well wishes. You have my word that you will all be kept in the loop on both my mental health and substance use. --IWI (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your honesty, but this is very personal, and I would have understood if you had never wanted to put it on a public part of the Internet. If you had said "I have a health problem" or even "I have a serious personal issue that would affect my ability to carry out my duties," I would have just believed you. I would support full redaction if that is your choice. This is the sort of thing that could follow you IRL if you get outed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand but I do not fear being outed nor do I fear stigma. I have been suggested for nomination as admin; I cannot accept that trust, within in my personal morals, without declaring these facts. --IWI (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being open about all this, IWI. It takes guts to share something so personal, and I really respect that. I really hope you recover! Plutus^{💬 🎃} — Fortune favors the curious 08:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Template:AI-notice

The template {{AI-notice}} says The content of this article was partially or entirely generated by artificial intelligence. But if someone just thinks that an article was generated by AI, can they still use it? Or is it only to be used when you are absolutely sure it was generated by AI? The English version says This article may incorporate text from a large language model. ~2025-30642-86 (talk) 04:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot fast, or Be bold, is my view.--To put a "tag" (or 'AI-template'), is actually a 'good way' for getting a feel of', of that the community 'agrees with anyone's skills of making many good decisions'.--Those who have a 'sure nose, and a sure hand', for AI-articles, are taking articles for QD, 'all the time', nearly.--If one is not sure, in some cases - then go ahead and say on talk-page: "I think the article 'is AI'. Do you agree?"--I actually do not see a need for mentioning 'which markers, are in sight'. ~2025-28382-09 (talk) 07:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC) /~2025-28382-09 (talk) 07:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Groups for simplifying pages

Are there any groups for working on Category:All pages that need simplifying, Category:Complex pages or Wikipedia:Requested pages? I would love to help out with those. I found WikiProject Simplification but it doesn't look like it's been active for a while. Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ changes 15:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most active cleanup is currently WP:TBA. Might be worth asking if we are going to look at these cats in future. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

at least the requested pages is not really active, as far as I can tell.. Eptalon (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

False alarm (early November) ?

Special:Contributions/~2025-30816-68.--New user, as of today.--I found one questionable edit.--Please check the (3?) new articles, that there is SIGCOV, or no other major problem. ~2025-28382-09 (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like none of the new titles, have titles at en-wiki, if asked.--If anyone finds 'hoax in the air', then that would be nice to know. ~2025-28382-09 (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be good to make articles in this series

Here is one User:Immanuelle/List of Shikinaisha in Aki Province would it be good to make new articles like this? There would be a lot of articles like this, with most being larger than this one. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk | contribs) 20:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From someone who doesn't know the subject, this is unreadable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski how would you suggest improving it? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk | changes) 17:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archival bot again?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

I hate to say this, but discussions on this page are set to expire after 10 days. If the bot works ocrrectly, they will be archived. This is also a page which gets a lot of traffic, thts why the archival setting is at 10 days (it is at 14 days for the Admin noticeboard). Looking today, i again see threads, where the last ocmment wasover 10 days ago. Do you think it would be feasible ot fix the archival bots; alternatively where in the foundation do I need to knock to get a set of archival bots (MiszaBot) set up that run on toolserver, once a day, and that archice the diferent pages? Eptalon (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My bot was once approved for the task. I guess I could set it up again for archiving pages, if needed. -Barras talk 17:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Likely that would be a good idea. Ideally to run peroliodicalky (once a day)? Eptalon (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the request on WT:B. Barras talk 20:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep all discussion on this in one place. Operator873 has responded on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Archival bots?. Closing. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 21:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

I really like the new mobile switching

It is really helpful since it means I no longer ever get trapped in mobile and need to manually change the url. This makes it very helpful. Is there anywhere to express thanks for it? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk | changes) 22:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblacklist "Battle for Dream Island" and associated terms

The term is still blacklisted from creation, but this has been deemed as unnecessarily preventing the creation of a notable subject on the english wiki ALittleClass (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Review and Move: Tableo Article

Hello! I have created a draft article about "Tableo" in my user sandbox: User:TamaraNaudi/sandbox

As I am affiliated with the company, I will not move the page to mainspace myself. I have disclosed my conflict of interest on my user talk page and the article talk page.

If any editor would be willing to review the draft and, if appropriate, move it to the article namespace, I would be very grateful.

Thank you! TamaraNaudi (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I feel like it needs a bit more work. Some additional secondary sources would better enhance the reliability of the claims in the article. Also, the article could use some more neutrality. Plutus^{💬 🎃} — Fortune favors the curious 10:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Plutus, thank you so much for your feedback. It's much appreciated. I've reworked the content including many more references and worked on the neutrality of the article, to make it more factual. Would you be so kind as to give it a second glance? TamaraNaudi (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes filters issue

Hi there,

Recently, when I tried to sort the recent changes filters (such as Likely bad faith), it hangs for a while and crashes with This search has timed out. You may wish to try different search parameters. Does anybody know what the issue is with this? Thanks. MisterDude2000 (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just refresh and it should be fixed Plutus^{💬 🎃} — Fortune favors the curious 09:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VGA nom

Hello everyone, some helpful comments/feedback would be appreciated at PVGA, request has been open for quite some time with no comments. Plutus^{💬 🎃} — Fortune favors the curious 09:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

A new RFC have opened up relating to this Wikipedia. Local editors may state your opnions there. Thanks Plutus^{💬 🎃} — Fortune favors the curious 10:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Plutus for letting us know while the nominator hasn't even made an edit here. The request for comment is called "The state of Simple English Wikipedia". --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 12:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Total Backlog Annihilation" phase six

Hi everyone! I've just opened the newest - and probably most ambitious - phase of WikiProject TBA (Total Backlog Annihilation) yet and that is to clear our backlog of complex pages. Instructions are provided on how to help clear the backlog. You can find out more and register interest at User:Ferien/WikiProject TBA/Phase VI. All help is very much appreciated to try and clear as many backlogs on our wiki as possible! Thank you very much for all volunteers who have helped so far, and thank you in advance for all those who will help in this phase! --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 12:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m interested in this Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk | changes) 16:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to take a while Plutus^{💬 🎃} — Fortune favors the curious 04:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A new look for talk pages

Hello

For your information, the Editing team will soon change how talk pages look. These changes have been available as a Beta feature on your wiki for some time. Perhaps you are already using them?

Usability Improvements are a set of incremental design and functional changes to Wikipedia’s talk pages, aimed at making these spaces more intuitive and accessible for all contributors, especially newcomers.

The improvements focus on visual clarity, easier navigation, and better tools for communication.

The data shows these changes lead to more productive participation and fewer mistakes.

We plan to deploy these changes to your wiki, starting on November 12. These changes can be opt-out in user preferences.

What have we changed?

Visual Clarity: Sans-serif fonts for titles, bolder action buttons (reply, subscribe, new topic), and clearer section headings make talk pages different from articles.
Metadata: We show the number of comments per topic, the date of the latest comment, and an improved table of contents that highlights the number of replies.
Action Tools: Easier-to-find buttons for replying, starting new topics, and thanking contributors from the reading interface.
Backward Compatibility: Usability Improvements apply to all skins, on both mobile and desktop experiences; they can be disabled in user preferences.

These changes complete recent talk pages improvements by addressing long-standing usability issues identified in the 2019 Talk Pages Consultation. They align with Wikimedia’s goal to make editing more inclusive and accessible.

Does this change has an impact?

It increases engagement and reduces reverts

11% decrease in revert rates for talk page edits across all experience levels.
12.5% decrease in revert for new contributors (<100 edits), helping newcomers participate more successfully.
19% increase in the proportion of talk page views by new contributors that included a saved edit.

Users have a better success at leaving a comment

3.3% overall increase in edit completion rates (edits started and successfully published).
10.2% increase for new contributors at pilot wikis.

It has minimal disruption for users

No significant increase in the number of users blocked after publishing a desktop talk page edit.
Less than 1% of users opted out after deployment.

You can read the full analysis for more information.

Please let me know if you have any questions regarding these improvements.

Best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My concern

I'm concerned that the Simplewiki community has nothing constructive to say about any of my GA nominations. I get that they may have issues in the eyes of some people, but can't those people maybe give me tips on how to FIX THE ISSUES THEY SEE? Is it really that hard, guys? Hell, if it's such an issue, why don't you guys go in and fix it yourself? Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 19:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Contributor 118,784, sorry if my comments on the GA nomination came across as too harsh. One of the problems people were pointing out is that the sources rely too much on Apple's own website (primary sources) instead of relying on sources from third parties (other websites talking about the product). This could be fixed by finding sources from a variety of reliable websites (you could also look at the English Wikipedia article for ideas). Hope that helps. Ternera (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're perfectly fine, thank you for the apology. I appreciate the guidance. :) Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 19:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see feedback and guidance in that discussion. People pointed out the concerns with too many sources from Apple. People pointed out the concerns with it being written with a lot of bullet points and not in paragraph form. People pointed out uncited areas. People pointed out sections that felt like they read like press releases.

While they didn't say "this is uncited, you should cite it," it should be pretty obvious what the fixes are for each of these things. We're all volunteers here. No one is obligated to fix your article for you to make it meet good article standards. CountryANDWestern (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article met the official GA standards when I nominated it. It just didn't meet YOUR standards. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 20:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it definitely did not meet requirements 3 and 5 of WP:RGA. It underwent a large rewrite shortly before being nominated for GA. Ternera (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a misunderstanding here. What you are referring to is requirements for the article to be nominated, it is not the criteria for it to be a GA.

There are lots of other reasons why an article might not be suitable for GA, and that is what the !voting time is for. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification, I understand now. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 19:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You must realise that the GA criteria is designed to be applicable to well written simple English articles. If you are getting some negative feedback, it's a tale that the articles in question aren't quite at the point of being suitable yet. If someone hasn't given actionable feedback, you can ask for some, but remember that reviews are voluntary, and a reviewer doesn't have to provide ways to "fix" an article Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New article/page request

Translate en:List of lakes by area to List of lakes by area.
I tried to make a "top 10 list by area" at the List of lakes but my edit got reverted. Fourchild (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Active proposal at WP:PVGA

I'm just here to remind people that there is an active proposal at Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles, seeing as there's been no comments at all in the 11 days that it's been up. ShadowBallX (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I already placed a notice here Plutus^{💬 🎃} — Fortune favors the curious 03:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't notice it. Thanks though! ShadowBallX (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I nominate a page for Quick Deletion?

Hi, I want to nomminate Super_Mario_(2027) for QD because I can not find any reliable source for it, making it most likely a hoax (see A6). I put the apropriate template up with Twinkle but do I need to start a discussion somewhere? microTato (talk) (contribs) 18:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MicroTato, you did it correctly. There is no need to begin a discussion for quick deletion; only for WP:RFD. I deleted the page because it was definitely a hoax. Ternera (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]