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 Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.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

Teahouse closed

Why is it still closed to "very new users"?80.187.72.139 (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP user, I assume your talking about the en:Wikipedia:Teahouse? If I am correct please note that the Simple English Wikipedia is not the same project as the English Wikipedia.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its protected due to Persistent disruptive editing, it will expire soon, on sixth of may. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 10:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a teahouse here, only a redirect to this page. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski I assuming IP talking about en:Wikipedia:Teahouse, it's protected due to persistent disruptive editing. Raayaan 9911 18:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but we aren't the English Wikipedia. We shouldn't really be answering questions about sister projects. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The IP said; "Why is it still closed to "very new users"?", maybe answering about English Wikipedia or this project. Not all projects create teahouse, it's created differently, Simple English Wikipedia is not same project of English Wikipedia. Raayaan 9911 19:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not our business. Every project is run independently. Steven1991 (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk creation of complex copy-paste medical code lists without proper attibution

It seems like all of the articles in Category:Medical Subject Headings titled "List of MeSH codes (Letter Number)" were just copied and pasted. They are all complex, as is a common problem with medical artAOicles. They all list a non-existent website in the text as the source, but no good citation is given. Not sure what the purpose of these is and it may be harmful to have unreferenced, unsupported medical info out there. It's an awful lot of articles to mark for deletion or QD for copyvio, but bringing this here. I think they should all be deleted. All created by User:Catcus DeMeowwy who may wish to comment here. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know that the link (in the articles) is broken. I will go fix it and it will be working in future revisions, if the articles stay up.

Let me say that the articles are made to link between medical conditions. These are supposed to be (for medical editors) a "back bone" of lists to work through, to make articles for conditions and link them together, as well as to the external sources like MeSH. I also have to say that (future) - like tomorrow - I was going through them all to translate each term to simple language (and wanted to discuss on whether a link after the term to the wikt dictionary would be a good placeholder for each item until they are translated by editors, over time).

The red links would eventually become populated (sort of like how A01 is) and look pretty, and be a way to navigate simple Wikipedia pages (complete) for each of the MeSH terms.

If the community holds out on deletion it might let the articles flourish. If they benefit (and stay here), the articles they link to benefit as well. I have already started filling out the anatomy, and like I said I planned on making simple medical terms to go next to each entry for the reader to understand (if they some how got there).

Also they are more navigation and I do not think readers would be using them to learn about conditions or disease, anatomy, and so on. Instead they would go to the main article for the term. These articles need to be sorted through, found, and populated in order for the end user (reader) to have their content translated here.

Thank you.

Signed: { Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) | User_talk:Catcus DeMeowwy 01:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples of how the articles may be useful. You have to imagine them fully populated, with simplified medical terms on them - and whatever other ideas come from the community to aid in accessibility to all editors.

List_of_MeSH_codes_(G08) for example helps with the pregnancy and childbirth (sub)topic or speciality of medicine. G09 is the circulatory system, for anatomy
List_of_MeSH_codes_(A01) is the anatomy link I mentioned in the last comment
https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_MeSH_codes_(C04)&oldid=10234193 (for {{tumours}}

These articles are a list and each topic can be gone through to make articles for in an orderly way { Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) | User_talk:Catcus DeMeowwy 01:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "unsupported medical info", merely links to medical pages on a reliable website (at least historically reliable, maybe if won't be soon if US government agencies start ignoring science). Attribution can be easily given. Catcus DeMeowwy, I suggest you do that. Criticism of the usefulness of these pages may be warranted. 2601:644:8184:F2F0:B522:E2:F374:FE4C (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the list is gone I lose a lot of organization and reference. It also is not all of the articles but you would have to imagine that it has reached a point where the list is populated and all entries are linking to useful articles with translated versions of their names on the page. I can eidt in attribution if you would like, and we all reach consensus on how to do that. If the link to the external website is broken on articles then they can be edited and fixed (I think the MeSH website is probably still up)

The attribution belongs on each talk page. Attribution to the English Wikipedia, if they were copied from there. 2601:644:8184:F2F0:FC21:8BC:E147:47FA (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but they are in the revision history (article linked) and I am not sure if so much attribution is needed, only because it is a list of external content (which editors have brought up in the RfDs of the articles there (en). { Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) | User_talk:Catcus DeMeowwy 01:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no attribution in the revision history. The history for G08 reads, "copied from https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_MeSH_codes_(G08)". These are all a big circular mess with regard to source or attribution. --Gotanda (talk) 01:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If people think that it should be attributed to the en. Wiki source then it should be. But just to note that the content is coming from the external website. If it ends up being attributed then I will bring having to do that into the process. I can leave everyone else to talk instead of responding to everyone but if you would like to continue then just let me know any time

sig: { Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) | User_talk:Catcus DeMeowwy 01:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move 'almost all' the pages to user-pages. USERFY, that is my suggestion, for now.--Can one page, get an okay form? We got a long way to go, before we maybe can get there.--If this post, is looked at, in 'a constructive light', then fine. 2001:2020:C305:834B:1804:FAEA:FEA3:2E33 (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might be fun to tell you (and build some of) that one list - that one that contains eukaryotes (our cells) contains every animal and plant in existence and you can link to them from the library if you manage to find it :)

So the browser or the lists here (they are not on Simple (yet?)) contains in some form (it allows you to navigate to) any thing you can think of. There are also prokaryotes and I do not care about algae tbh. I think this was cool and you might like playing around with it.

{ Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) | User_talk:Catcus DeMeowwy 00:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fix (with formatting, and to make our own if we want to) is likely going to be done by a pro with regex or a good text editor. Just to get the info over. There is also no export (there was actually one with a file similar to .xml). Still not an issue, but the format will probably be automated, and a bot would be helpful and probably all that is needed, either now or in the future. { Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) | User_talk:Catcus DeMeowwy 02:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. You said the link is broken and it is. It was also the 2006 (files to get from to update) link to the files on the article page. I think that link should be fixed and should stay on there, but the link to the website needs to be fixed.

Thank you again, for pointing it out (otherwise I would not know).

The link is in the second reference on the list of MeSH codes. The specific page i.e. A01, B, C, 2, 3, in brackets has an external link to the website (working). The link to every article on the list of codes page to a specific page, the specific code being in brackets (), has two references, the second one being the live website it is generated from. I overlooked the external page link next to the numbers.

The link before it on list of MeSH (specific codes) (first link) which I think is numbers, comes before the link to external with (I think numbers. It links to the simple Wiki (or en. Wiki) list of codes again (the right thing for it to do at least in some way).

The en. Wiki is probably also wrong unless simple is missing something for me to manually copy the page over. They probably do not know either. If you ask there about the dead link (should there not be bots doing that) they might fix it quicker than it will happen here, and done better. en. Also seeing more traffic (with that broken link).

The article should link to the list, and the website properly. For anyone interested in browsing (I am busy doing it right now) they can. There is also C23. There is also the broken link to 2006 files which are not added (but again if it is done on en. Wiki it is more useful, as well as I can copy the page to simple). en. Sees more traffic and other people would probably duplicate it also.

Just wanted to say before I go down a rabbit hole through this over thought website (I like it).

{ Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) | User_talk:Catcus DeMeowwy 07:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is also important to mention that I like MeSH (as a reference), and used/found them on the Vas deferens (anatomy/reproduction/genitals (male)) article.

sig: { Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) | User_talk:Catcus DeMeowwy 01:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of MeSH codes (A01); Nominate that one, for AfD.--(And do language-link, interwiki, while you are at it.)--Then i can try to simplify that (one) article.--Thereafter, when i have simplified, then i (quite possibly) will explain, why things had to be done in that (aforementioned) order.--Hope to see you (as prescribed), soon. 2001:2020:C305:834B:AD2A:106A:4BE3:B12 (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC) /2001:2020:C305:834B:1804:FAEA:FEA3:2E33[reply]

Do none of that, and do not go delete one single list of codes of out all the lists.

Do not give one page out of the list an "okay" form

Do not move the lists to any user page off the Wiki { Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) | User_talk:Catcus DeMeowwy 23:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of MeSH codes (A01); Nominate that one, for AfD - without regard to 'the other articles'.--It is not Simple (and drastic measures are needed).--The ball is in the court, of the one of you, who nominates that one article for AfD. 2001:2020:C305:834B:39D0:DB22:E37:88BE (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC) /2001:2020:C305:834B:39D0:DB22:E37:88BE (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

updating the topic so that it does not get archived

signed: { Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) | User_talk:Catcus DeMeowwy 23:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk reset script

How i get talk reset script gadget in my mobile? — Raayaan 9911 15:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Raayaan9911 I am assuming you mean reset talk script. Hears the code, copy to you common.js:

//<nowiki>

$(function (){

var RT_config = {

name: '[[:w:simple:User:DannyS712/Reset talk|reset talk]]',

version: 1.1

};

if ( mw.config.get( 'wgNamespaceNumber' ) % 2 === 1 && mw.config.get( 'wgNamespaceNumber' ) > 0 ) {

mw.loader.using( 'mediawiki.util', function () {

$(document).ready( function () {

var link = mw.util.addPortletLink( 'p-cactions', '', 'Reset talk', 'ca-ResetTalk', 'Reset talk page');

$( link ).click( function ( event ) {

event.preventDefault();

ResetTalk();

} );

}

function ResetTalk(){

mw.loader.using( 'mediawiki.api', function () {

new mw.Api().postWithEditToken( {

action: 'edit',

title: mw.config.get( 'wgPageName' ),

text: '{{Talk header}}',

summary: ('Reset talk page with ' + RT_config.name + ' (version ' + RT_config.version + ')'),

} ).done( function ( response ) {

console.log( response );

location.reload();

} );

}

});

//</nowiki> Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 13:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created my common.js, i tested reset talk in my sandbox's talk page and it's worked. Thank you for guiding me! Raayaan 9911 18:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete

What Speedy Delete is policy?--Kikikiki.aka (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kikikiki.aka: That function here is called quick delete. You can find information about it here. Is that what you were asking? -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is it. Thank you. Kikikiki.aka (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We will be enabling the new Charts extension on your wiki soon!

(Apologies for posting in English)

Hi all! We have good news to share regarding the ongoing problem with graphs and charts affecting all wikis that use them.

As you probably know, the old Graph extension was disabled in 2023 due to security reasons. We’ve worked in these two years to find a solution that could replace the old extension, and provide a safer and better solution to users who wanted to showcase graphs and charts in their articles. We therefore developed the Charts extension, which will be replacing the old Graph extension and potentially also the EasyTimeline extension.

After successfully deploying the extension on Italian, Swedish, and Hebrew Wikipedia, as well as on MediaWiki.org, as part of a pilot phase, we are now happy to announce that we are moving forward with the next phase of deployment, which will also include your wiki.

The deployment will happen in batches, and will start from May 6. Please, consult our page on MediaWiki.org to discover when the new Charts extension will be deployed on your wiki. You can also consult the documentation about the extension on MediaWiki.org.

If you have questions, need clarifications, or just want to express your opinion about it, please refer to the project’s talk page on Mediawiki.org, or ping me directly under this thread. If you encounter issues using Charts once it gets enabled on your wiki, please report it on the talk page or at Phabricator.

Thank you in advance! -- User:Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enabling Dark mode for logged-out users

Hello Wikimedians,

Apologies, as this message is not written in your native language. Please help translate to your language.

The Wikimedia Foundation Web team will be enabling dark mode in this Wiki by 15th May 2025 now that pages have passed our checks for accessibility and other quality checks. Congratulations!

The plan to enable is made possible by the diligent work of editors and other technical contributors in your community who ensured that templates, gadgets, and other parts of pages can be accessible in dark mode. Thank you all for making dark mode available for everybody!

For context, the Web team has concluded work on dark mode. If, on some wikis, the option is not yet available for logged-out users, this is likely because many pages do not yet display well in dark mode. As communities make progress on this work, we enable this feature on additional wikis once per month.

If you notice any issues after enabling dark mode, please create a page: Reading/Web/Accessibility for reading/Reporting/xx.wikipedia.org in MediaWiki (like these pages), and report the issue in the created page.

Thank you!

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Web team.

UOzurumba (WMF) 00:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Pedophilia

Hi, User:MonkeyLizzards2 is adding content to Pedophilia stating "pedophilia is a Sexual Identity" and that "when said person struggles with their Sexuality or lives it out illegally by committing Crimes, it all other cases its described as a normal Sexual Identity"[1]

They also keep adding a Minor Attracted Person pedophile flag[2].

At the moment their edits scream "I'm a paedophile, lets normalise paedophilia" but maybe there's something I'm missing here (I certainly hope so for their sake), The en:Pedophilia article doesn't even mention sexual identity or that "it's described as a normal sexual identity", Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 07:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i just fixed a simple Wikipedia article, according to the latest scientific research and changes of the WHO and the ICD-11, i don't see a problem in updating articles when the scientific meaning changes to a more inclusive wording. MonkeyLizzards2 (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah nah, your claims are widely rejected, and continuously re-adding them despite warnings is considered disruptive.--- BRP^ever 11:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help BRP it's greatly appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone simplify "Template:MacOS"?

Can someone simplify this template? Because I'm not good at making navboxes. It should be like this template. Wikipedian2025 (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the greatest at editing templates but I will see what I can do Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 19:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what exactly is complex about it? Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 19:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it could be complex for a new english learner Wikipedian2025 (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As in the text or the layout? Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 12:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it could be similar to this template, this, and maybe this template. But is most likely gonna be similar to this template Wikipedian2025 (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They all look the same style to me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

maybe i could simplify the template Wikipedian2025 (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reincarnation of actor from Bronx and Harlem

"01:21, 24 December 2024 ... deleted page ... this one (QD G5: Created by a blocked or banned user: Mass deletion of pages".--Not notable.

Reincarnation, this one.--Maybe anyone should QD. 2001:2020:303:BB75:98A6:6418:1695:23A5 (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should the European Parliament article have an infobox?

Should the European Parliament have an infobox like on the English Wikipedia? I'm not that good at making infoboxes about parliaments, but it would be better if this article had an infobox Wikipedian2025 (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are things we don't actually have a consensus on site-wide. If you feel like it would benefit from an infobox, feel free to add one, but we don't require articles to have one. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok, im gonna add the infobox to the article Wikipedian2025 (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PlainText

Is it possible to get the plaintext from a wikipedia page? I want to run Metro Transit (Minnesota) through a readability test. Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 14:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Try [3] Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I usually just copy and paste from Visual Editor. Works for me. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It still keeps references and sometimes selection can be a bit weird with more fancy articles Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 01:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Dei" rather than something that sort of 'looks like DEL'

I think it is better to have an article title Dei than DEI (capital letters).--I mention this now, so that there will be less 'back and forth', when "my" article gets created.--If this post seems informative, then fine. 2001:2020:303:BB75:3470:DB78:60D0:18A2 (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Douglas Williams (cricketer) is notable article or not, I'm not sure if article is clearly non-notable or not, if somebody answered it's non-notable, i will qualify for QD? — Raayaan 9911 17:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged QD Raayaan 9911 16:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Addison

Can I get some eyes on Mark Addison? Something feels "off" about the article as all the sources and the image come from 2022, but I can't find it as a copy from somewhere else. I'm not sure on the notability of this person, but want some other reviewers to take a look rather than opening an RFD. 50.202.176.117 (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @50.202.176.117, The article was copypasted from en:Mark Addison so I've QD-tagged it as WP:A3, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find that article as existing at En. for some reason. 50.202.176.117 (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard that, Retagged under A4, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk

Good article

Hi, sorry to bother, but i simplified my article "1755 Cape Ann earthquake" which i proposed it to become a good article. Could someone help me by pointing out which sentences are still complex? Bakhos Let's talk! 05:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Call for Candidates for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C)

The results of voting on the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines and Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) Charter is available on Meta-wiki.

You may now submit your candidacy to serve on the U4C through 29 May 2025 at 12:00 UTC. Information about eligibility, process, and the timeline are on Meta-wiki. Voting on candidates will open on 1 June 2025 and run for two weeks, closing on 15 June 2025 at 12:00 UTC.

If you have any questions, you can ask on the discussion page for the election. -- in cooperation with the U4C,

Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]