Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 165

Seriously?

Is there really such a title as "First Gentleman of the National Committee of Brazilian Art"?

Thalison Lanoa is the page. 2601:644:907E:A70:A88A:D01:D812:BC47 (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems that such a title actually exists - it was translated literally into English from "Primeiro Cavaleiro do Comitê Nacional de Arte Brasileira (CNAB)". However, this person does not seem to be notable and the article has already been reported to the RfD. BZPN (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated the page for deletion. Notability of association and this officeholder in particular is unclear Eptalon (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Griff (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Re-set talk-pages (in January)

Some talk-pages, maybe need a re-set. Such as this one. 2001:2020:317:B3DB:3DF1:503E:D78C:34DF (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that article to our attention. You can also do this yourself by replacing the content with {{talkheader}}. Griff (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Help in reviewing the battle pages

We seem to have many battle pages that lack reliable sources for verifiability. There is also a chance that those are battle within wars which are notable, while the battle itself is barely significant in comparison. Or some could simply be hoax as we have found a few. I am listing here a few that do not have enwiki equivalent and are not going through RFD, any help in reviewing them would be appreciated.

• Battle of Miandoab
• Battle of Baziqiya
• Battle of Kars has enwiki page but different dates
• Defensive of Zet Valley
• Battle of Dôla Vazhê
• Battle of Barqi Beg
• Battle of Kirkuk (1821)
• Lakestan Incident
• Battle of Jafarbad
• Battle of Kirkuk
• Battle of Mush (1821)
• Battle of Bitlis (1821)
• Kurdish-Yazidi uprising against the Safavids
• Battle of Doğubayazıt (1821)
• Battle of Merivan
• Battle of Gulmakhana
• Battle of Soran
• Siege of Baneh (1834)
• Siege of Sanadaj(1834)
• List of Wars Involving Ardalan Emirates
• Siege of Sanandaj (1865)
• Sack of Baghdad (1812)

Thanks,--BRP ^ever 00:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The pages on List of battles involving Kurds probably need a review as well. BRP ^ever 02:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@BZPN, @Griffinofwales, @Eptalon, @Chenzw who are already involved to some extent. BRP ^ever 02:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

A little bit more background in case it's useful: while I can't remember which page it was, but a few weeks ago I also happened to come across one of the battle-related articles that appeared to be an attempt to bring content from one of the Fandom wikis, to this wiki. The Fandom wiki in question appeared to primarily consist of fictional/"alternate universe" content. Chenzw  Talk  07:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, I'll take a look at it today :). Best regards, BZPN (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

A little time ago, I closed Massacre of Salmas (1918) (then called ...(1930)) as a keep. In that incident, it wasn't so much Kurds against the others, but rather: Likley predominately Muslims killing a patriarch of a small Christian denomination. Most sources I found were off-line, and in French. What I think this might mean is the following: A serious review means that whoever reviews, might likely want a library of a university, offering degrees in history/history of religion/christian theology. I haven't looked at the listing in detail yet, but I propose, that all articles should include at least one source and be more than 2-3 sentences. If they aren't we can likely delete them? Eptalon (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I would think so, if they just don't have good context or if it's too non-notable. RiggedMint 09:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Eptalon I have spent time reading several pages of 3 books often mentioned. Most of the battles mentioned here have very little content even there, in those pages. Whoever is using so many registered/unregistered accounts is always welcome to create a summary for the whole war or that specific part of history. But one to two sentence pages with no possibility of expansion and all based on single source without any other sources to verify the content makes me doubt the reliablity and notability in this case. However, I welcome some serious review and have sent most of them to RFD instead of simple deletion unless they have a serious lack of content. BRP ^ever 09:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I guess that would be a good option, create 1-2 pages for the respective conflicts, and group the battles there. It also adds context and helps understanding. Rather than: yesterday afternoon I again saw people bathing naked in the pond in the park just around the corner, having an article about the park, or the pond is likely more useful. Eptalon (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I did a quick research and determined if the articles are hoaxes or not. The list is here: User:BZPN/Hoax. I reported most of them to RfD. BZPN (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

There are few pages in List of battles involving Kurds that'd likely need review too. I found some copied from fandom and I am not exactly sure but the license looked compatible. Currently going through RFD. BRP ^ever 13:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

From my experience with the warfare/MILHIST members on enwiki, there's very few notable battles that haven't got an enwiki article, so I'd suggest if there isn't an enwiki equivilent we should require a good list of references to back up that both the battle happened, and that it is sufficiently notable.

I see some have already done some research, but the onus should be on the creator to prove both of those things are true rather than us scrutinise it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Bangladesh ips users

I have run into many bad ips and users from bangladesh im also not hating on the people of Bangladesh, just alot of trolls on here.... Any feedback would be greatly appreciated, thank you! BigKrow (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean? BZPN (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Bangladesh ips and users tend to create non notable pages, like those battle pages rfded alot. If I'm not explaining myself enough feel free to ask more questions, thank you. @BZPN: BigKrow (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there are certain IP users from Bangladesh who do that. At the moment, I dont' think it is a problem, I also don't think that the number of users from Bangladesh who create problems is higher than that of other countries. And as always: users (and ips) who create problems may be blocked. Even thouggh, once the user is registered, the ip is no loger visible. These users then get blocked with trheir username, and where they are from is ireleant. Eptalon (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thank you @Eptalon: BigKrow (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

If you are talking about specific users, report them to vandalism in progress; if it is about the correlation of two named users, you can also lit them at thre request for checkuser page. Eptalon (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

K. BigKrow (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Disambig page (in January)

Please move Roland to Roland (leader). ("Roland" should be a disambig page, and i would like to start that title.)
Other meanings of "Roland", see
simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&oldid=10009122
. 2001:2020:347:EF43:642A:F90A:72D6:E5BF (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done. BZPN (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Two duplicate pages that both have the wrong title

I have found Chuadhary Sher Ali and Chudhary Sher Ali. I believe that they are about the same person, but the title should be Chaudhry Sher Ali as that is the spelling used in most sources. The others could remain as redirects, because Pakistan doesn't use the English/Latin alphabet, so there may not be an "official" transliteration. Could someone please help to move this page and merge the articles? 2601:644:907E:A70:A565:8C0D:F32A:F878 (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Articles redirected (one deleted) to the now-correctly named article (matching enWP). Article was cleaned up. Thanks for noticing. Griff (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Privacy Policy And Community Guideline

Do we have to comply with this policy as it seems limiting? 165.155.163.135 (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This page is vandalism and will be removed. The Privacy Policy can be found here: wmf:Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy. Thank you for noticing! Best regards, BZPN (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The page no longer exists. Steven1991 (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Launching! Join Us for Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025!

Dear All,

We’re happy to announce the launch of Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025, an annual international campaign dedicated to celebrating and preserving Islamic cultures and history through the power of Wikipedia. As an active contributor to the Local Wikipedia, you are specially invited to participate in the launch.

This year’s campaign will be launched for you to join us write, edit, and improve articles that showcase the richness and diversity of Islamic traditions, history, and culture.

• Topic: Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025 Campaign Launch
• When: Jan 19, 2025
• Time: 16:00 Universal Time UTC and runs throughout Ramadan (starting February 25, 2025).
• Join Zoom Meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88420056597?pwd=NdrpqIhrwAVPeWB8FNb258n7qngqqo.1
• Zoom meeting hosted by Wikimedia Bangladesh

To get started, visit the campaign page for details, resources, and guidelines: Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025.

Add your community here, and organized Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025 in your local language.

Whether you’re a first-time editor or an experienced Wikipedian, your contributions matter. Together, we can ensure Islamic cultures and traditions are well-represented and accessible to all.

Feel free to invite your community and friends too. Kindly reach out if you have any questions or need support as you prepare to participate.

Let’s make Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025 a success!

For the International Team 12:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Blix Tower

Hello @Fr33kman,

i request the creation of the page, Blix Tower exists, it is a skyscraper in Brussels, Belgium. 2A02:A03F:6A97:E201:5D1B:4BC7:5A96:F6BD (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence that this tower exists. 71.202.215.54 (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

QD'd as A6 - Cannot find any evidence that this even exists, QD'd the German article too, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

You need to be able to prove that it exists. For future reference the right place to request undeletion is here, regards fr33kman 20:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Merge question

Hello! I would like to merge Eternal Sunshine and Eternal Sunshine (album) together as they are about the same subject, but I am confused about which article to merge the details to. The first article was created earlier, while the second one was created by a blocked editor (and its title is currently the one used on English Wikipedia).

(And on another note, could someone help to update Template:Album chart? The Poland2 chart ID does not work here.) Jolly1253 (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I suggest moving the content of the Eternal Sunshine article to Eternal Sunshine (album), and leaving the redirect on Eternal Sunshine. The article Eternal Sunshine (album) is, in its current state, largely unsourced and the content is complex. As for the template, I'll try to look at it later. BZPN (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jolly1253, now the template should work properly. BZPN (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@BZPN Thank you! Jolly1253 (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree, although for a different reason. While you're doing that, the duplicate Wikidata items should also be merged. -- Auntof6 (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6 Eternal Sunshine (album) is not connected to Wikidata, so I should be able to connect it by editing the item that Eternal Sunshine (Q124253656) is connected to, right? Jolly1253 (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jolly1253 Yes, you should. ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 00:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jolly1253: Yes, it is connected. You can see the words "Wikidata item" in the left column of the article page. That means it's connected.

I recommend the following steps:

• Get our article named correctly.
• Disconnect it from Wikidata item Q131736753
• Change the Wikidata item used by the enwiki article to have the correct article here.

HTH. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I have completed the merge for the articles on here and Wikidata. Thank you for the helpful responses! Jolly1253 (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Quality offensive: Good articles anyone?

Hello, I just wanted to point out that currently there are no proposals for Good Articles. Good articles are one of two sets of articles that meet certain criteria, and that are considered better quality. The criteria are listed on this page. If you think that an article meets most of these criteria, you can list it on the proposals page, to start the process. Note, that as we are a community, the process is designed for several editors. One editor alone cannot write a good article. As to the subject of the article, we are completely open. Any subject will do, the criteria are about the form, and not about the subject. So, feel free to nominate an article, if you see one that you think is of better quality. Eptalon (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I second this. I have a WIP and should have something nominated soon, but Wikipedia is always about the quality of the articles, so we'd love to see more GA nominations. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I have been trying to work on one. It might take 2-3 more weeks before it gets to that page though. Thanks, BRP ^ever 09:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

It's Tihar (festival). But that needs a lot of re-writing and page creation to deal with red links. Also, a little bit of expansion with the help of Nepali wikipedia article and some more reliable sources to cover different beliefs in different regions. Any help would be much appreciated. BRP ^ever 09:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Eptalon Can I bring back Athena out of the archive Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 03:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Kurdish genocide

Not sure what to do with this page: Kurdish genocide is fake. At best, it's original research, at worst, complete vandalism. Anyway it seems to be related to Kurdish Genocide (1915-1918), which is a candidate for deletion, but it's arguing the opposite point. Tuscan Ant (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I tagged it with {{delete}} —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Suggestion

On mobile view, when I'm reading an article, I don't see the "Talk" tab, but I do see it when I go to the revision history of the article. I suggest that someone changes this so you can always see the "Talk" tab, like on English Wikipedia. 2601:644:907E:A70:90D6:48CC:297D:A452 (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can't do anything about it. It's more of a technical issue/problem with the skin you're using, or a temporary technical issue. For me, everything works on the default vector 2022 in the mobile version. Administrators and other users cannot fix system problems locally, but you can always report a problem on Phabricator. BZPN (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't have an account, so I don't think I can use any "skin"! What do you mean by "everything works"? 2601:644:907E:A70:90D6:48CC:297D:A452 (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

That means I have the talk tab. Also, you didn't specify whether the problem is related to the situation you're logged in or the current situation, so I assumed one of the possible general causes. BZPN (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, that's odd. Mobile view seems to show the talk tab as intended for me. Could you provide any extra details to help us find the cause of this?- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 19:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Even if you are logged out? And can you take a screenshot? 2601:644:907E:A70:90D6:48CC:297D:A452 (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Ahhhh, it doesn't appear when logged out. That is baffling.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 19:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

It works for me, even if I'm not logged in. BZPN (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you using a mobile device? 2601:644:907E:A70:90D6:48CC:297D:A452 (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. BZPN (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I tried in an incognito tab on my chromebook, same result. Gonna try on my xbox one but will likely have the same result.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 19:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Same result on my Xbox One, haven't tried anything non-chromium though.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 19:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a temporary bug, I had this yesterday. I'll see if I can fish out the phab ticket. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Is this still going on? Can you take a screenshot, I've opened up a phabricator task as I have seen this error myself Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski I think I can but I have not seen the error myself yet. But I will try to do some things and see if I get the error. 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 20:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like it's a logged in/logged out thing. I must have been on a hidden browser when I saw it before. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

So it looks like as a non-logged in user, you don't see the tab on Simple Wiki. It can be a thing, provided we have consensus. See this phab ticket where it was enabled on ruwiki: [1] Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Why is this something we need consensus for? I think most of us would agree that such an unnecessary restriction is a bad idea that only hurts the wiki.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 20:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

So it's only a log in/log out error? @Lee Vilenski

And @FusionSub I agree with you but that's not the point right now, the point is that there was an error reported on the Phabricator, and we don't know if we can fix it or not. 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 20:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

yeah, if you log out you also won't be able to see the tab. If you do the same on enwiki or similar, you will.

As the task would be part of the site requests feature on phab (or so I understand it) it would be best that we have at least discussed that we want this functionality (or at least that I have this to point to to show that it is wanted) if that makes sense. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes this does make sense, thanks for helping clear this up. 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 20:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Sitewide change

So, I've had some feedback on my ticket, and it looks like we do need an actual consensus on making this change. We'll need to fill out Requesting Wiki Configuration Changes which requires a direct link to a consensus.

To confirm, the change is to change this value [2] on Simple Wiki, which allows non-logged in users to see the article and talk page buttons the same as logged in users. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Please could you support/oppose this change below:

• Support as instigator. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support sure, why not. BZPN (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support - common sense feature. Griff (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support Okay! I support on this, great change! :) 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 17:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support - It's mental that we need consensus to add a button that should already be there by default...., Nonetheless I support adding this button. FYI I've tried on mobile (Chrome Incognito) and no talk link shows for me either, Anyway support. –Davey2010^Talk 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support it's an obvious change. I rarely use mobile version, and use desktop version even on phone so I never noticed.-BRP ^ever 18:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support The fact that we need consensus to fix an issue that the WMF created is frankly stupid, but since we haaaaaaaave to.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 18:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a plan! Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 12:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support Obviously! ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 13:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Weak support The Simple Wikipedia is not a large community like the English Wikipedia, so its talk pages are not used very often (especially by IP editors). Lionel Cristiano (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support no brainer. Ternera (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Just to let you know that this has now gone through. I did a test, and seems grand to me, but let me know if it doesn't work now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out!! Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 09:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Technical 13/1CA

Hi, Should this script be marked as historical or should it just be deleted? (this script doesn't work and hasn't done probably since 2020),

I created it in 2018, used it briefly in 2018, and then stopped using it in 2018 and to my knowledge no one's ever used since,

Technical 13's script is now marked on Enwiki as not recommended and tbh I can't be bothered in keeping this maintained as I prefer manually archiving and most people here either use the bot or do it manually,

People have this script installed on their common.js page however it's not like this script took off and is being used everywhere so it seems pointless keeping however I didn't know if deleting could cause issues with peoples scripts on their common.js page so asking here first,

Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 16:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

That script is hosted on enWP and has been replaced by a different one (that is maintained). I am not sure there is any action for the Simple English team at this time. Griff (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I've QD'd them, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 17:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Research opportunity

The University of Washington is undertaking a research study about health related articles on simplewiki. It is quite an honour and indicates how important our project is to the general public. If you are contacted I'd like to encourage you to take part. The WMF will receive a donation for your time. Regards, fr33kman 03:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Disambig page (another one in January)

Please move Stargate to Stargate (movie franchise). ("Stargate" should be a disambig page, and i would like to start that title.)
Other meanings of "Stargate", see
simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&oldid=10028520
. 2001:2020:311:B209:4DB6:18C6:2984:9DA9 (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi there IP! Which one are you talking about in the disambiguation page? 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 04:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Stargate is already a disambiguation page. BZPN (talk) 08:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@BZPN Maybe he is talking about moving the disambiguation page to the page he is mentioning? 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 13:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

That makes no sense. BZPN (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

How does that not make any sense? 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 14:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Because moving a disambiguation page with disambiguation content to a page with a detailed title under which a specific topic should be located does not make sense (Stargate -> Stargate (movie franchise)) ;). BZPN (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

P.S. all you need to do is add other meanings to the current content. Moving is unnecessary. BZPN (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to expand the disambig page as needed. Move to a different title is unnecessary. BRP ^ever 15:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@BZPN Oh, that is why moving is not necessary at the moment. and yes @BRPever I do agree with you. Thank you both for helping clear that up. 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 16:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@user:BZPN - okay, i tried to add something,
simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stargate&oldid=10029503
. If it was helpful, then fine. 2001:2020:311:B209:B912:47F1:7A6C:2E4E (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done There is no movement that can be done here. The dab page is not disambiguated. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Justin Jin and User:DIVINE

NOTED BY ADMINISTRATORS:

Report noted. Administrators will take action if appropriate. If further discussion or edits require review by administrators, report to AN. Griff (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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.

---

User:DIVINE had publicly acknowledged that he was paid to vote for Justin Jin on the English Wikipedia. Additionally, DIVINE holds the roles of patroller and rollbacker on this platform. Such actions are unacceptable and warrant the immediate revocation of his patroller and rollbacker rights, along with penalties in accordance with Wikipedia policy WP:PAID also with "onestrikepolicy".[3] Qylt (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Could you please tell me where the user DIVINE admitted that he works for a fee (diff, page)? Could you also explain what this has to do with the permissions they have and why you think this user should lost them? Thank you. BZPN (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

A person with the patroller right creates a page. The MediaWiki software immediately list the page at Special:NewPages. The software (rather than a human) marks the page as patrolled.[4] They are trusted user not add inappropriate material to the Simple English Wikipedia[5]. If you check the history of Justin Jin they have been pushing their article on Wikipedia since 2021 or 2022 having it deleted multiple times here and on the English Wikipedia. Qylt (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It's worth noting that paid for editing isn't against the rules, as long as it's disclosed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It's here if you dig down [6]. I believe "Lee" is enwiki Sysop. Qylt (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

In his lastunblock request on ENWIKi he mentioned that he was paid for an AfD vote.[7] Qylt (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

DIVINE !voted keep in the last AFD on enwiki [8] and his vote was struck for being "inappropriately procured".[9] (And that entire RFD is a mess with socks (not connected to DIVINE) pushing to keep) DIVINE's last unblock request on enwiki failed in part because of a lack of openess around COI/UPE. At a minimum, DIVINE should have disclosed here that they have been paid by Jin or related group in the past. DIVINE should also make a full and clear disclosure of any COI/Paid editing related to this article.

As for the article itself, it's certainly better than the past couple of iterations, but it was on my list to create an RFD for at some point due to a lack of solid sourcing. There's a bad odor on what's happening here, but I think the RFD is warranted. Ravensfire (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if my email is related to this whole charade but @Qylt please don't email me via Commons asking "What will you do if you get unblocked?", You can ask this on my talkpage.... but to answer your question; I never will be unblocked as it's not something I particularly care about (Long explanation here).

Sorry to burst your bubble but I'm not DIVINE, I don't know them from Adam and tbh I don't care about their Enwiki antics or your thread here if I'm honest. Happy editing!, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 22:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to burst anyone's bubble... But I don't think Davey is DIVINE, even if he was. They are two totally different editors, so DKDC in my opinion... And DIVINE is a paid editor not Davey. I think it is against the rules of Wikipedia to be a paid editor. 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 22:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

No one said they did - just stating I'm not because I find the email bizarre.... –Davey2010^Talk 22:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello 2010, Yes i emailed you. But why you came here? It's different wikimedia project. Qylt (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Personal emailes are supposed to be personal from users to users. Qylt (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Because I edit here more than Enwiki and because I was actually reading this thread just as you emailed me....,

Personal emailes are supposed to be personal from users to users - Indeed however as stated above I found your email to be rather weird considering we've never spoke before .... like why would ask anyone a complete stranger "what will you do once you get unblocked ?", Was you expecting me to say "I don't know I might vandalise Commons!" or something?

Weird individual. –Davey2010^Talk 23:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

You might have answered some positive things too. Qylt (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Davey2010, stop pretending the davey, i have emailed you multiple emails post all those. Qylt (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Qylt "I was wrong you do have WP:CIR issues", LOL 2/10 mate try harder. Your ability to email me has been revoked. Sad weirdo. –Davey2010^Talk 00:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for being weird to you Davey. I never spammed you nor did ithreatened you. I just tried to email you and an email is just an email, that's all. Qylt (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

And it's not against the rules to be a paid editor either... BZPN (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Davey2010 Got ya. It is pretty bizarre tbh with you.
@BZPN Sorry, I thought it was, but what is anything got to do with paid editors? What is against the rules of a paid editor? :/ 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 22:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It is not against the rules to be a paid editor, see en:WP:PAID. BZPN (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Anyways, enough of my commentary... Continue on of what you were discussing. And @BZPN thanks I will look into that. 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 22:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Adelaide the way you response to IP user it's not new. Qylt (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

Status template

Hi, could someone help me find where the status template is? Thank you! :) 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 21:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Adelaideslement8723: It depends on what exactly you mean, but we have e.g. Template:Status or Template:UserStatus. What exactly do you mean? What do you need this template for? BZPN (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

"What do you need this template for?" For my user page... Why not? 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 21:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Adelaideslement8723: so I think Template:Statustop or Template:UserStatus is what you're looking for ;). BZPN (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@BZPN Okay, thank you so much! :) 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 22:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Addison Rae

About Addison Rae, why is the article sorted by Rae, Addison? This kind of sorting is appropriate when it comes to articles like Swift, Taylor or Rodrigo, Olivia because those are their surnames. Similar to a conversation about the same thing (but a different singer), I think Addison Rae's categorization sort should be {{DEFAULTSORT:Addison Rae}}, as Rae isn't her surname. ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 20:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) Rae is not a surname so it should not be sorted by Addison Rae not Rae Addison :)
So AFAIK... the categorization of Addison Rae should be changed. 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 20:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

If she is commonly known as "Adison Rae", then it should logically be sorted as Rae, Adison, because Rae is an indicative word, replacing a surname; most language versions have this type of sorting. BZPN (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Asteralee & Adelaide. NAMESORT indicates that, with some exceptions, the sort key should mirror the article's title as closely as possible. One exception listed is articles with a title of FirstName Surname. In those cases, Surname, FirstName sorting applies. As "Addison Rae" is not a FirstName Surname, I believe we should use the standard guidance of mirroring the article title. Griff (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

You are right - although this is an easy change. We generally sort by family name on categories (so, Chinese and other names where the first name is the family name, we don't change the sorting). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 23:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

RFD withdrawn after a response?

Qylt has withdrawn Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2025/Justin Jin and I understand the reasons why they've done so. There was a response to delete in the RFD and I'm working on adding a comment there as well. What's the best way forward here? Reopen the existing or create a new one with probably some better reasoning. Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

enWP always has the answer. Per WDAFD, withdrawn RFDs can be speedy kept by the nominator if no one has supported deletion of the article. As this is not the case, and there has not been enough discussion on that RFD to determine consensus, I believe that the RFD should be re-opened. BZPN has already taken that action, and I have added a clarifying comment on the RFD. Thanks for bringing this up, Griff (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

You can't withdraw an RfD if someone else has advocated for its deletion. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I concur with the above - If there's delete !votes present then the RFD stays open (The only time I close as Withdrawn when there's delete !votes is when the keep !votes detail why it's notable etc and the delete !vote only says "fails GNG" or similar small comments), It comes under discretion but yeah in this case the RFD should remain open, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate the thoughts - inline with my belief on how to handle this type of situation. Ravensfire (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I was suggested not to create any more drama and be constructive, so I withdrew. You can feel free to re-open. I don’t have any objection. Qylt (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct annual review: provide your comments on the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines

Please help translate to your language.

I am writing to you to let you know the annual review period for the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines is open now. You can make suggestions for changes through 3 February 2025. This is the first step of several to be taken for the annual review. Read more information and find a conversation to join on the UCoC page on Meta.

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

Please share this information with other members in your community wherever else might be appropriate.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

We must be careful with names...

Hello, Donald Trummp has been president of the United States for only a few days, and one of the things he did / does want to do, is to rename geographical features. We should be extremely cautious with following this naming:

• In the middle of Australia there is a large "mountain", when the English came there, they called it "Ayers Rock". I think today, that same geographical feature is called "Uluru". As far as I know, it is in a territory administered by Aborigines, which seems to be the people who lived there before the English came. If I remember correctly, the renaming was done, because the name "Ayers Rock" was seen as a part of colonialism/whatever atrocities were done to Aborigines by English colonialists. So yes, the name sends a signal.
• There's a mountain in Alaska, that was called "Mount McKinley" and that was renamed to "Denali". Now Trump wanted to change its official name back to "Mt McKinley"... what kind of signal does this send? - Also looking at the discussion page at Enwp, both names seem to have the same frequency approximately, and certain groups of people in Alaska seem to be against a name change.
• "Gulf of Mexico" -> "Gulf of USA" or similar -> likely the same applies, but here we are looking at a part of the Carribean, and established nautical names...

So before starting a rename spree, please make sure which of the names is likely the one people will use to search, which of them is most common. And before now renaming, because someone signed a decree, we might also wait some time, and see if the name actuall changes in the media, or with the common people. This is our Wikipedia, and we should not change it, because certain decision makers cannot stand what it looks like. Eptalon (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Categorizing

Hi, fellow editors. Sometimes it's hard to figure out what categories to put on a given page. I recently thought of a way to help with this, and did a write-up on it. If you're interested, please look at User:Auntof6/How to#Categorize for details. If you have questions or suggestions, or you can think of a way to make the write-up better, please let me know, either here or on my talk page. Happy categorizing! -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

List of Asian pornographic actors

Hello everyone,

I saw a few IPs and Mac addresses are adding multiple names on this page. How can we verify the names if they are really pornographic actors or someone is using a name for vandalism or defamation? Or should we just revert those redlinks? I am little bit confused to revert any edits here. Please express your op. Qylt (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

All changes had to be reverted, which I already did. The recently added information was unsourced and most likely false. BZPN (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated the list for deletion. This is far too broad a description to provide any encyclopedic value and is a BLP concern for me. Griff (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

How do I edit the short description of an article?

I didn’t see it anywhere on the source or visual editor. TTYDDoopliss (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no short description template on simplewiki. Instead, you should edit the description of the Wikidata item connected to the page. BZPN (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

A category for articles without Wikidata item?

Should there be a hidden category for all articles without a linked Wikidata item, like en: Category:Articles without Wikidata item? Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 20:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Myrealnamm That's already at Special:UnconnectedPages. 166.107.163.31 (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Feminism and Folklore 2025 starts soon

Please help translate to your language

Dear Wiki Community,

You are humbly invited to organize the Feminism and Folklore 2025 writing competition from February 1, 2025, to March 31, 2025 on your local Wikipedia. This year, Feminism and Folklore will focus on feminism, women's issues, and gender-focused topics for the project, with a Wiki Loves Folklore gender gap focus and a folk culture theme on Wikipedia.

You can help Wikipedia's coverage of folklore from your area by writing or improving articles about things like folk festivals, folk dances, folk music, women and queer folklore figures, folk game athletes, women in mythology, women warriors in folklore, witches and witch hunting, fairy tales, and more. Users can help create new articles, expand or translate from a generated list of suggested articles.

Organisers are requested to work on the following action items to sign up their communities for the project:

1. Create a page for the contest on the local wiki.
2. Set up a campaign on CampWiz tool.
3. Create the local list and mention the timeline and local and international prizes.
4. Request local admins for site notice.
5. Link the local page and the CampWiz link on the meta project page.

This year, the Wiki Loves Folklore Tech Team has introduced two new tools to enhance support for the campaign. These tools include the Article List Generator by Topic and CampWiz. The Article List Generator by Topic enables users to identify articles on the English Wikipedia that are not present in their native language Wikipedia. Users can customize their selection criteria, and the tool will present a table showcasing the missing articles along with suggested titles. Additionally, users have the option to download the list in both CSV and wikitable formats. Notably, the CampWiz tool will be employed for the project for the first time, empowering users to effectively host the project with a jury. Both tools are now available for use in the campaign. Click here to access these tools

Learn more about the contest and prizes on our project page. Feel free to contact us on our meta talk page or by email us if you need any assistance.

We look forward to your immense coordination.

Thank you and Best wishes,

Feminism and Folklore 2025 International Team

Stay connected  

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Folklore is back!

Please help translate to your language

Dear Wiki Community, You are humbly invited to participate in the Wiki Loves Folklore 2025 an international media contest organized on Wikimedia Commons to document folklore and intangible cultural heritage from different regions, including, folk creative activities and many more. It is held every year from the 1st till the 31st of March.

You can help in enriching the folklore documentation on Commons from your region by taking photos, audios, videos, and submitting them in this commons contest.

You can also organize a local contest in your country and support us in translating the project pages to help us spread the word in your native language.

Feel free to contact us on our project Talk page if you need any assistance.

Kind regards,

Wiki loves Folklore International Team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Help with One Piece

I was wondering if anyone was interested in helping with the One Piece article. They are missing almost all of the arcs. -TS Rubber Alt Main (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@TS Rubber alt main: Maybe @BRPever would be able to help as he knows about these topics :). Or you could ask someone from the Anime and manga project. Best regards, BZPN (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok thanks @BZPN -TS Rubber Alt Main (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

By the way, how do you thank someone -TS Rubber Alt Main (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@TS Rubber alt main: go to the page's edit history and press "thank" next to a specific change. You can read more about it here: mw:Extension:Thanks :). BZPN (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done some cleanup on this article, cause the formatting was all over the place. For reference, we don't bold terms in the body of an article for no reason. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I can help, what would you like to work on? Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 08:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@User:TS_Rubber_alt_main, I cleaned up the articles, what do you want to improve next? Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 08:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe like putting in some more of the East Blue arcs like Baratie and Buggy's island -TS Rubber Alt Main (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll work on adding in more of the characters -TS Rubber Alt Main (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Done -TS Rubber Alt Main (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 09:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia Research Recruitment

Hi simple English editors,

I am a researcher at the University of Washington conducting a study about health-related information on the Simple English edition of Wikipedia.

We are very interested in your experiences with editing simple English articles and how we might improve the coverage of articles in the Simple English edition. Your help will make a great contribution to our research.

Our Wikimedia Meta project page provides additional information about our study. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Improve_the_coverage_and_quality_of_health-related_articles_in_the_Simple_English_edition

If you are 18 years old or older and would consider participating in our study, please complete our screening survey. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfwYZHyGgjuhq2NnPPGbv8d_jl-CndWvBC12Zljgz8sBDdWfw/viewform?usp=sf_link

Also, if you have questions, you can contact us at the email we provided on the Meta project page.

Thank you! Loricai99 (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from a new editor

Hi there!

I've noticed that on the main page it's stated that this is a site for everyone, including children.

My question is, aren't children under 13 prohibited from creating an account under coppa law? (At least that's how it works on the wiki I come from). What do you mean for everyone?

Additionally, since Wikipedia isn't censored (it doesn't even look like there's a policy on graphic violence / graphical content) you can easily find both pornographic and extreme graphical content such as self harm hosted on Wikimedia Commons using the search tool from this site.

I'm a bit concerned, mainly confused.

Thanks, It's moon (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This is definitely a good place to ask such a question :). The main goal of simplewiki is to help people learn English - it is most often visited by students and people who want to learn the language. As far as I know, no local/WMF policy prohibits children under 13 from creating accounts. We even have a wiki specifically for kids. As for pornographic and other sensitive content: this is a problem that affects all wikis, editors' opinions are divided. On simplewiki we tend to avoid very sensitive content in places where the user wouldn't expect it. On the other hand, the photo of, for example, a penis in the article Penis is not sensitive, but purely educational. We don't have any pornographic photos here in places where users don't expect them. However, Wikipedia is not censored, and we cannot completely get rid of images that may be considered sensitive if they are used for education. Best regards, BZPN (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@BZPN Please clarify what you mean by "we even have a wiki specifically for kids". 2601:644:907E:A70:6C22:C35:9395:7E3F (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I think they mean Wiki junior. Simplewiki has no content aimed specifically for children. fr33kman 10:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I meant m:Childrens' Wikipedia in the context of children under 13 creating accounts on Wikimedia. BZPN (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Depending on where you live being a child can mean anyone under 18-21. We aim to write pages that can be read by someone in US grades 7-9. This includes people who are 13. Remember also that our editors live in many countries not just the US. I'm not personally aware of any editor under age 13. Most of our article edits are made by anonymous users as well. Hope this helps fr33kman 10:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Where it says this is a site for everyone, it's talking about reading, not necessarily editing. An account isn't needed to read the content. Actually, it isn't needed to edit, either, but I think that statement is about reading.

As far as whether the content is appropriate for children, know that all Wikipedias, in any language, are not censored. That is Wikipedia policy. It is up to a child's parent or guardian to control, as they see fit, what a child looks at. -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't require someone to have an account to edit. That's where the Wikipedia statement "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit" comes from. We aren't censored, but my opinion is that people have wildly different opinions on what items should be censored.

Yes, a child could see an image, or read about something that might not be age appropriate, but, also on the other hand, it may be the only way to learn about certain things. Wikipedia is reader descression advised, the same as how the whole internet is. If there are specific images that are inappropriate for the topic being referred to in the subject, please let us know.

However, an article on a subject is likely to have an image related to that subject. We don't stop things being graphically shown. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

After doing a bit of research and discussing this with some folks I've learned that Wikipedia is a not for profit organization, for which coppa does not apply. I'm still concerned about some images from Commons but I figured that since they are not used on any article and therefore not being used with an encyclopedic purpose I'll b fine to flag them for deletion. It's moon (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@It's moon: Commons is a separate site, but I can tell you that the fact that an image there is not being used on an article is not a reason to delete it. Images on Commons are used in more places than Wikipedia. It's just that the Wikimedia sites are the only ones where they can tell you they are used. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I will quickly summarize what I already wrote on Talk:Main page, where a post like this was originally made:

• Wikipedia does not record ages / birth dates of ediors, as far as I know. While some ediots may be minors (definition of what that means varies by country), we encourage ediots not to reveal their age, date of birth, locatioon or other sensitive information.As an oversighter, I have permanently removed such information in the past.
• As to our disclamers, Wikipedia is not censored; it may show content you might not want to see. As an example, out article on self-injury contains a picture, it shows a forearm with typical injuries. It is relevant to the article, and there's no point in asking for it to be removed.
• As to editing, everyone sees the same page.
• Wikipedia is non-profit, there's no selling or trading of addrress data. To my knolwedge, there's no way for an editor/admin to display the email address associated with an account, other than his/her own.

Eptalon (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Requesting a move

I think Gaia should be moved to Gaia (disambiguation) and Gaia (mythology) should be moved to Gaia as it's the primary topic. 2601:644:907E:A70:598C:4AE6:1FDF:ECC8 (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done by @BZPN Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 06:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@BZPN: I did the move of Gaia (mythology) for you. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Auntof6 :). BZPN (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Looking for feedback

Hi there :] Figured I'd look for feedback before nomming myself for adminship. Given the fact that I just recently returned, I won't do it this instant, but I'd like to help with clearing the backlogs. Anything would be appreciated! Justarandomamerican (t • c) 08:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Justarandomamerican Here are few things I noticed that will improve the chances:

• More work on the content. You barely have any page creations
• Lengthy period of continuous activity
• More participation in community discussions.

--BRP ^ever 08:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely! I have a few decent-sized articles, I'd say decent quality too, but I could always use more content work. The other points are great too! Justarandomamerican (t • c) 08:48, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@BRPever: Do you perhaps mean continuous activity? -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6: oops, yeah fixed.--BRP ^ever 12:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I feel like you just need more contributions and participation. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 04:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Red links are helpful

Hi guys, if you do not know why red links are useful, it is because red links can use to make new pages and grow Wikipedia. In the 2008 study, they found out that the red links make Wikipedia grow. Thanks guys, thetree284 (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay!! Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 04:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Thetree284: Thanks for this reminder. There is info about this at the link above, and even more at enwiki's WP:REDLINK guideline.

There are some places where red links are not good because they are specifically for directing people to other pages, more so than a red link in article text:

• In hat notes
• In a related pages section

Hope that helps! -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Add link to the global rights log to the Special:UserRights interface

I believe the the topic name is self-explanatory. Such a change would help in (admittedly rare) cases where user rights seemingly vanish or magically appear because they weren't changed in our local wiki (for example: CheckUser and Oversighter promotions are done through meta's rights log).

Even if it see's rare use it would not change the interface of Special:UserRights at all except from an extra line. Basically: Help track some changes in rights and wouldn't change the interface noticably (unless you have a keen eye).- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 12:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Is there any difference in the way those logs are presented? I am slightly worried about the confusions it might cause. BRP ^ever 12:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm stupid, probably should've specified the "global rights log" I was talking about was the meta-wiki rights log, not the true global rights log. I probably got confused by mw.org calling it simply the "global rights log".

My fault, sorry!- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 14:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Reminder: first part of the annual UCoC review closes soon

Please help translate to your language.

This is a reminder that the first phase of the annual review period for the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines will be closing soon. You can make suggestions for changes through the end of day, 3 February 2025. This is the first step of several to be taken for the annual review. Read more information and find a conversation to join on the UCoC page on Meta. After review of the feedback, proposals for updated text will be published on Meta in March for another round of community review.

Please share this information with other members in your community wherever else might be appropriate.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Possibility of new pages commuter town, exurb, and edge city

So I'm wondering if commuter town (en:commuter town), exurb (en:exurb), and edge city (en:edge city) should be new pages, or should they be included in suburbanisation or suburb? 2601:644:907E:A70:E87A:50DA:5C34:E7D2 (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

If you think that you can write more then 3-4 sentences on any of them please create them. Merging is always possible if we see there is not enough content. Eptalon (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Marking pages as patrolled

Hi :) I accidentally marked a random page as patrolled (the page was appropriate, as it was an already-closed-as-successful request for deletion). But now I'm wondering: is there any point in marking non-content pages as patrolled? I mean pages like manteinance categories or requests for deletion. Stuff other than articles, templates and content categories. Stuff like userpages, talk pages, etc. Should I mark those as patrolled (if appropriate obviously), should I leave them alone or is it indifferent? I remember one day I marked many manteinance categories as patrolled, but maybe it wasn't as useful as I thought. Sorry if my question isn't clear or is dumb, I don't really know how to explain myself better than this. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 12:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

In general, the focus of patrollers should be on articles. There is no harm in marking other pages as patrolled, but it should be a secondary focus. For example, marking 50 maintenance categories as patrolled does not do any harm, but it also takes your time away from patrolling 10 articles, and those 10 articles are more important than those 50 categories. Griff (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Griffinofwales: Thank you :) ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 16:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Dream Indigo: Marking maintenance categories as patrolled probably isn't very helpful. Marking content categories can be helpful, but there's more need to focus on articles. -- Auntof6 (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Noted, thank you :) ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 17:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Buses

Hi, Just wondering; should articles in Category:Buses be moved to individual bus categories (ie to "Category:Alexander buses", "Category:East Lancs buses", "Category:Optare buses") etc etc,

It may seem daft me coming here but I know we don't create cats like En does and I didn't want to go off doing this and then find out there were objections so thought I'd come here and ask/seek peoples opinions first, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 19:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that the categorisation you are proposing is appropriate per the guideline and makes sense. Griff (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Griffinofwales, Brilliant thank you for replying and for your help it's very much appreciated :), Have a lovely evening, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 21:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

It's absolutely ok, but only if when those categories are created meet our limit of a minimum of three articles in the category. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you as you don't make the rules .... but how is this place ever supposed to grow when we have backwards policies such as this ?, Still rules are rules and you wouldn't be doing your job if you didn't enforce them ... but it's bs that in 2025 this policy still needs to exist, Meh I know I'm moaning at the wrong person,

Anyway noted - once I've finished I'll make sure to have the one-article-categories deleted, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 22:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Reliable References

Please editors help me check if this site is reliable enough to be used as a source for Wikipedia article am just trying to clarify it. Signthepost (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it looks quite reliable. Could you tell me what specific element you would like to use and in which article/information? BZPN (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

In an article related to science or biographies I would say. Signthepost (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the source itself. It's basically a website that provides scientific publications. You can use it. Best regards, BZPN (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Zenodo is an open publishing site, so just about anyone can publish papers, notes, data - anything there without peer review. It's a good place to link to a paper, but this is about something science related or especially medicine / health related, it really needs to be published in a peer-reviewed magazine. Treat Zenodo similar to a blog with self-published material - use with great caution. Ravensfire (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

w:WP:ZENODO at the RSN/Perennial sources page on enwiki has some good info on that and similar sites and the reasons to be very cautious with using sources from them. Ravensfire (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

After the moving on English Wikipedia

Can we have consensus to move Israel–Hamas war to Gaza war (2023–present)? 205.154.244.130 (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

We have already renamed the article once to match enWP and I will note that enWP is using "Gaza war" for the article title. I believe that either the current title or the enWP title would be appropriate, but also think this is better suited for the article's talk page. Griff (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I just thought nobody would look at the talk page, so I posted here. You could move it to Gaza war. 205.154.244.130 (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I Support this move. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 12:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

It may be a good idea given the variety of non-state actors involved in the war, but it is also important to note that each project is independent of one another and that no content from any other project takes precedence over that on this project. One must ensure that any changes are reflective of facts and keeping any bias at minimum. Steven1991 (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The (warfare or) war did not start in Gaza, on October 7, 2023.--Another thing: Could one say that the "Israel-Hamas war", included warfare on the West Bank?--I am thinking Keep name for now.--Note: i have not looked at the En-wiki discussion about changing the name; there might be good arguments there, that go against "my" idea. 2001:2020:359:A0DC:B5C0:9C69:7329:5BBB (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
For now, it might be good enough, to have redirect to Gaza war (since 2023), and redirect to Gaza war (2023–present). 2001:2020:359:A0DC:B5C0:9C69:7329:5BBB (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
By the way, French-wiki and Italian-wiki have the same title as we do (and that might indicate that there is no hurry to make a decision). 2001:2020:359:A0DC:B5C0:9C69:7329:5BBB (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Two articles (with some I-am-not-sure-what)

Does the text of the following two articles have a "common denominator, in a not-too positive way"? Are those two articles, good enough for this encyclopedia? I have my doubts (but I can not say for sure, what seems to be rubbing me the wrong way, about the style of writing in those articles).
New article of today
Another new article of today.--Both topics have articles at En-wiki - in addition the claim of notability, I am not contesting. 2001:2020:359:A0DC:B5C0:9C69:7329:5BBB (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC) /2001:2020:359:A0DC:B5C0:9C69:7329:5BBB (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Is this site reliable

Can someone please help me check if this site is a reliable reference for Wikipedia article Amandachapin (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Basically, it looks like a regular news portal. I don't see any problems with reliability (it's the BBC). BZPN (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I Support BZPN here. The BBC is a very reliable source. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 11:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Amandachapin, If you go to en:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources that tells you all of the sources that are acceptable (and unacceptable) here, The BBC is a widely trusted, reputable and reliable news source so that can be used here, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Amandachapin Also no that website cannot be used as it's a user-made website hosted on NeoCities.... which to my knowledge has nothing to do with the BBC, Please only use https://www.bbc.co.uk/news, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 11:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks Davey for noticing this! The original BBC Igbo website is here: [10]. So this website is illegally impersonating the BBC. BZPN (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I've reported it to Google as an impersonation site and (if I get time) will contact the real BBC to notify them of the impersonating page.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 12:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I've also reported it to NeoCities to hopefully stop it at the source.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Hellabyte/Ronnabyte merge

Hi, @No more redundancy had redirected Hellabyte to Ronnabyte per the "consensus" at Talk:Hellabyte#=_Marge_with_Ronnabyte,

Unaware of that discussion I had changed it and redirected Hellabyte back to Byte#Names_for_larger_units as per the Enwiki and per the fact the Ronnabyte article didn't even mention Hellabyte so it didn't make sense to me,

Anyway @Superfroggy21 has since stated in that discussion that they disagree with my actions and that it should be discussed here (I did state I'd come here if they objected),

Given consensus was achieved even though I wasn't aware of it I still sort of feel crap for changing this so wanted to seek opinions, I have wondered if both are the same thing but surely if they were the Enwiki article would point to the Ron article too ?, Anyway many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 21:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Yes, they are. en:Hellabyte redirects to en:Hella#SI prefix, which states:

An online petition begun in 2010 by Austin Sendek of Yreka, California, seeks to establish "hella-" as the SI prefix for 10²⁷... In 2022, the International Bureau of Weights and Measures adopted the prefix "ronna-" to represent 10²⁷, as the symbol H, commonly used to represent "hella-", is already in use in the metric system for the Henry, a unit of inductance.

Sidenote: I strongly suspect that Special:Contribs/No more redundancy and Special:Contribs/Superfroggy21 are the same person. In particular, Special:Contribs/No more redundancy was created today, has done nothing outside of advocating for the merge, and has a username that suggests their account was created for this purpose. —76.212.74.243 (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @76.212.74.243, Oh okay interesting thanks for the heads up, If no one else comments then I'll self revert and add mention to that article,

Re those two; Agreed it looks very odd so I've filed a CU request, I hadn't looked at their contribs so thank you for also pointing this out, Your help has been very much appreciated thank you :), Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 23:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Struck as both are now sock-blocked, Given Enwiki redirects I feel we should follow suit for simplicity but if others believe a merge should happen then I'll do that, Thanks 76 for spotting this your help is very much appreciated, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 01:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Is deleting pages only admin?

Hi, I know this may be a stupid question but are deleting pages only for admins? Or is there other permissions like rollbackers or something that can do it? Please help me clear this question up, thanks and happy editing! :) 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 18:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, only administrators can do this. In addition to them, global administrators (on some wikis), stewards, WMF employees and system administrators can also do this. I have not yet encountered the possibility of deleting pages by non-advanced user groups in any Wikimedia project. BZPN (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@BZPN: The Portuguese Wikipedia has this (pt:Wikipédia:Eliminadores). JJP_Master (she/they) 18:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@BZPN Oh okay, makes sense because they don't want inexperienced users or anons going around deleting a whole ton of good pages, am I right? (lol) Well I am an experienced user and I am not an admin (maybe someday). But thank you for answering! :) 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 18:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@JJPMaster True, but I cannot read Portuguese yet. 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 19:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@Adelaideslement8723: Google translate can be your friend! :) -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

True, but posting machine translated articles can also get you blocked. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 08:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Cactusisme: We were talking about reading, not writing. -- Auntof6 (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 01:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6 Yes true, thank you. :) 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 21:31, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

hello all, I think that this wiki has a policy where adminship is easy to get, and I would also guess that most regular contributors have the flag. AI generated content may be bad, but it's no reason to not run an RFD when in doubt Eptalon (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Change filter stopping me from making article

hello everyone i made the VinFast article and i am making car articles for VinFast but when i always try to make VinFast LUX SA2.0 article the change filter keeps stopping me from making the article saying its harmful even though i did nothing wrong i am a good faith ip editor and also i will keep making car articles but its hard to make this one because of this change filter bug.

Also the reason why i said this here not on change filter mistakes its because i am scared of being a victim of vandalism on change filter mistakes due to frequent vandalism on that section anyways good luck with all your contribuitions best regards. 179.109.143.137 (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I already explained it to you here. Please provide any external links you use and we will try to find the problematic one. I will also mention that using links to online stores is not common, and it should not be done without a clear reason. BZPN (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

It would be better if an admin looked at this because they can see what links were being used. 205.154.244.130 (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes links like IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes for example, the filter is triggered because it prevents you from adding spam links into articles. And IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes is not a reliable source of information for Wikipedia so the filter stops you from adding such links. 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 00:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

i basically tried i removed the sources that arent promotional but it still appears to me but there's no problem i will probably make other car articles but thanks guys for the help 179.109.143.137 (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Reply to my comment: Also shopping links are not allowed on Wikipedia, because the filters will take it as spam. 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 00:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@179.109.143.137 Of course, happy to help. Happy editing! :) 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 00:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:Where

Hi, I'm inviting you to join the discussion at Template talk:Where. Have a nice day, everyone! ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 23:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Help with changing name of a page

Hi,my question is possible to change default name of an page here ? Page is Albanian Stars of the Diaspora to be changed to default name : Yjet Shqiptarë të Diasporës. I will appreciate if possible,Thanks in advance. 93.93.171.92 (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Only logged in and Autoconfirmed users can change name on pages, Wiki-fan-editor-68568 (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes but i thought an admin can do that. 93.93.171.92 (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I don't see the need for this. "Albanian Stars of the Diaspora" is the correct translation of the original name into English, present in the sources, and it should remain so. Best regards, BZPN (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, i understand, mostly i say becouse of original title of script,anyway thank you. 93.93.171.92 (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

taxonomy template help

I've tried making Taxonomy templates for Eleotridae and Tyson, for the article Arrow wriggler, but they have lua errors. Can someone explain what I did wrong? I'm looking at other taxonomy boxes and don't see anything i did wrong... 💠Ely - Talk💠 17:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@Elytrian: Can you provide links, please? Did you copy from English Wikipedia, or make them from scratch? -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:Taxonomy/Tyson and Template:Taxonomy/Eleotridae. The Tyson one sort of works on the speciesbox but the Eleotridae one is broken completely. I did take the sources off of English wiki but i did write them by hand off of the Simple wiki, i used the page Tiger as reference for the speciesbox. I did fiddle around with different things but the Lua errors didn't get fixed 💠Ely - Talk💠 06:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I mean I also looked at the Template:Taxonomy/Gobiiformes and I found nothing wrong with what I was doing 💠Ely - Talk💠 06:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Elytrian: I tried a few things, but I think I reached the limit of what I understand. Maybe someone else will be able to help. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, somebody else helped. Ty for trying though <3 💠Ely - Talk💠 18:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I did some random things and it appears to be working now. Best, Griff (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Although, how did you fix it? It certainly didn't seem straightforward. 💠Ely - Talk💠 18:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day!

I hope everyone has a great Valentine's Day today, and a great weekend as well! :) Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 12:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Same for you :). BZPN (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

me too Reatom2 (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you and same for you! <3 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 21:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

You too!! Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 04:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposal of a list of current automobile brands article

Hey guys do you think we should made a article that list current automobile brands since it already has this type of article on en wiki and i think it would be good a article of this type here what do you think? let me know also good luck with all your contribuitions best regards!. 179.109.143.137 (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Support I support this idea, great idea! :) 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 21:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

i agree and probably would be in alfabetic order each automobile brand and the good thing is that it will make this wiki have more articles about automobile brands and cars 179.109.143.137 (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

How about a list of "all" makes, with an indication of which ones are still viable. I would be disappointed to see a list of makes (and models? - I don't know what "brand" means when it comes to cars) that omitted Desotos, Stanley Steamers, Hupmobiles, Packards and Studebakers. Kdammers (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

brand is a word that is used to refer to a maker or marque of cars also i think its great to make separate lists of current and defunct car makers 179.109.143.137 (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm a native speaker of American English, and that use (brand) is foreign to me when referring to cars. Kdammers (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

There is an okay list, at

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automobile_manufacturers

. 2001:2020:311:F266:891A:7ECF:6A7D:80DB (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

See, List of Current Automobile Brands By Country.--Note: a manufacturer can have more than one brands.--If "brand" does not mean "manufacturer", in British-English, then our title seems wrong. 2001:2020:325:D0A7:30AD:1764:22F8:A55B (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC) /2001:2020:311:F266:891A:7ECF:6A7D:80DB

Grant (money)

Is it better to keep Grant (money) as its current AI version as a complete article, or revert back to the non-AI, incomplete, version? 2601:644:907E:A70:C990:69D7:57E4:7FC8 (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I fixed the article, removed nonsense, added references and simplified it. It should be better now. BZPN (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@BZPN See also Manufacturing. 2601:644:907E:A70:D0FE:95B8:1B95:70CF (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

My opnion on extremely short articles

Guys i am here to tell my opnion on extremely short articles:the objective of this wiki is to have acessible language to readers and to use shorter less-complicated and simple words.

But some people they take the simple word a little bit too far in my opnion because they take articles (not only about cars but also about other topics) and they remove so much content on them that they leave a extremely short article with only a phrase and sometimes these stub articles even dont have a infobox (and one of the rules is to not simplify too much a article many dont respect it).

And also in my opnion i am not a big fan of these extremely short articles since they have only one phrase with useless info to the reader and they arent updated since the 2010s or even in 2020 2021 2022 and 2023 also i said this first on BZPN talk page when i used a account to edit (due to the loss of my two accounts i made the 2 one to keep editing after losting the access of my second account i am now editing as a ip editor) and this is my opnion anyways good luck with all your contribuitions best regards. 179.109.143.137 (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Some editors tend to be "starters" and some are "finishers". If both types of editors work together and do what they enjoy, the wiki can thrive and quality articles can be created. I would say a stub with a small amount of information is better than no article at all (as long as the article meets the standards to be an article), but I do agree it is helpful if people can help expand them as well. Ternera (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

This problem exists in most translated articles on language wikis. It is simpler for people to just translate the lead so that's what they do. On enwiki the lead is supposed to be a summary of the whole article so it should contain most of the key information the rest of the article has. Unfortunately this is often not the case and we end up with small articles. I know, in my case, I try only to create articles that have a comprehensive lead. fr33kman 04:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Isn't there a list somewhere of articles that need help?Kdammers (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Also my car articles have a small summary of what cars are:brand that makes them the type and production years then i write the History and Features of the car in History and Features section that have in many of my articles.In Markets section i say where they are sold and sometimes the sales and some infos like in the VinFast VF 8 article that i made i explained on a simple way that it was criticized by the press in the US.

And for discontinued cars i add a discontinuation section and sometimes i say the reason why they were discontinued and my articles have infobox infos about the car and are simple and i will probably expand existent car articles on this wiki 179.109.143.137 (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi 179, Do you have any diffs showing what people are removing ?, There could be lots of reasons for removals (such as vandalism, unsourced content etc),

Anyway we all start off small; I certainly did although as noted above we have editors whos English is their second language so would find it harder to expand the article they're creating, –Davey2010^Talk 18:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

No i dont have diffs since as a new editor i dont know what is this also yes editors here start small and i saw someone saying the reason why there are stub articles its because its to make people expand the article but sometimes it dosent work for example the:Audi 100 unfortunely isnt updated since 5 years so i dont think it works 179.109.143.137 (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

'Have no worries' about the "Audi 100" article (because it has fantastic pictures) !--If this post is regarded as polite and helpful, then fine. Thank you so much for the link to that car article. 2001:2020:325:D0A7:30AD:1764:22F8:A55B (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Unreasonable blanking of talk-pages

SPA has started an article. I started its talk-page, and now the SPA has 'deleted' the talk page.
simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJ_Vee&diff=10082733&oldid=10082639

It might seem counter-intuitive, for me to go back to that talk-page. Is "admin noticeboard", a good place to go (or is there a "patrollers noticeboard")? 2001:2020:311:F266:79EE:7E0:9295:D13 (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Update: the article 'that belonged' to the talk page, has been deleted: "14:38, 17 February 2025 ... (QD G11: Advertising)". Thanks. 2001:2020:325:D0A7:7C95:121B:EFAF:D2A4 (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC) /2001:2020:311:F266:79EE:7E0:9295:D13

I made a draft. Is it well written?

I made a userspace draft here User:Immanuelle/Sarutahiko Ōkami. I hope it is well written but I am not sure. Does it seem ready as an article? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 01:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Not ready, in my view.--The first sentence/line is not okay.--If the text had been at Articles-for-Delete, then i would quite possibly say "Delete". Some, or many, might disagree with me. 2001:2020:325:D0A7:9CA0:6C73:79BD:B34E (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC) /2001:2020:325:D0A7:9CA0:6C73:79BD:B34E (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Update: Weak Neutral, that is my view now.--Please do not expect user:Emannuelle to be able to continue to work on an article, if it gets into mainspace (because of a partial block). Therefore, we should not publish any of user:Emannuelle's articles, unless it is already good enough. 2001:2020:325:D0A7:9CA0:6C73:79BD:B34E (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

others can improve it Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 02:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Cactusisme: Others can improve every article we have. We shouldn't publish articles that aren't good with the expectation that somebody will fix them. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

oh, okay Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 03:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle some of the catgories, templates and related pages do noy exist here. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 01:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I fixed it up a little bit. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 01:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: The sentences look fairly simple -- good work on those. The article also seems laid out logically, so the information is easy to follow.

My only criticisms would be:

• Please remove the interwikis. Not only do they not belong in userspace, they also don't belong in the article if it goes to mainspace.
• You might also simplify the {{ill}} templates. The way they're coded is intrusive. One link should be enough in each use.
• Another comment would be to condense the navigation template at the bottom so there isn't as much white space. That might require shrinking the image. You'll also need to move the template to template space.

Other than that, it looks good. :) -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)