Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 168

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

"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]

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]

I'll run it through my gizmo! Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:06, 16 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]

Ivan P. Clarin

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.

Ivan P. Clarin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I believe we need to consider the application of WP:ONESTRIKE with regard to the above named editor. The user is blocked on the English Wikipedia for persistent addition of unsourced material and refusal to communicate. I note similar behaviors here. In March, they received a final warning for the creation of bad pages. Since then, it appears that they have made even more bad pages. I tagged a few as QD yesterday that were recreations of articles that had been deleted at RFD previously. In a quick glance at their last 1000 edits, I see one contribution to a discussion at an RFD. Otherwise, the user is not engaging on talk pages or discussions.

A ONESTRIKE should be considered based on there being a final warning in March and based on the same editing pattern that led to the block at En. At the least, a restriction from creating new pages should be applied. CountryANDWestern (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CountryANDWestern Isn't this supposed to be in WP:AN? Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 12:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(change conflict) This would probably be more appropriate at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard as it involves the application of administrator powers.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 12:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, ban discussions have occurred at ST rather than AN as they're community decisions. I personally feel ONESTRIKE applications can benefit from community input. If you feel otherwise, I can certainly move it there. CountryANDWestern (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is such policies, and such things that need admin help help/tool should be in there. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 12:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this to WP:AN per the suggestions here. I still believe that ST is appropriate for community input on such a matter, but will go with whatever is suggested. CountryANDWestern (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

We add sources

Hi all, I was thinking of doing a small project to reduce our backlog of pages that are lacking sources. It's sort of like big weekend but a bit longer, I am thinking between 2-4 weeks. I am here to see if anyone else is interested in this. I have started User:BRPever/We add sources to gather those who are interested to see if we can get somewhere, and if decent amount then we can work on the details. Thank you and happy editing!!-- BRP^ever 12:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I joined :) Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 15:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voice actor (in Super Mario, computer-game)

Not notable, to have 'his own' article on En-wiki,if asked.

Mentioned on disambig, at en-wiki, see
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_James

Is spam going on? Not sure.

Our disambig page, linked here.

This should maybe link to the disambig page?

Name of person with middle initial.--This name could maybe redirect to "Bowser" (as at en-wiki), or SuperMario.

Link that is 'maybe-not-so-helpful' :
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_24
. 2001:2020:303:BB75:219E:ADC:27BE:B7D9 (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Link to a (relevant) QD-nomination,
simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenny_James&oldid=10266068
. 2001:2020:303:BB75:219E:ADC:27BE:B7D9 (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. What are you asking us to look at? CountryANDWestern (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done, spam has been removed. And "Ken ..." and "Kenny ..." are now redirected to the disambig page of "Kenneth ...". 2001:2020:303:BB75:219E:ADC:27BE:B7D9 (talk) 02:21, 18 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]

Hear hear! fr33k man 23:42, 18 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]

Just copying and pasting the page works fine when I do it. fr33k man 23:47, 18 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]

I think it just about makes a claim of notability. fr33k man 23:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke or 'soft nuke' (car-model from China)

Please nuke or send to AfD or QD, a car model from China.--The article's first sentence is okay. But reading sentence two and three, i feel it is best to ask for nuke .--For information: The article starter, promised a couple of months ago, to not start new articles.--The article is not ready to stay in mainspace.--If anyone removes all sentences, except the first one, then i am fine with that solution (, option, 'soft nuke').--If anyone finds justification for AfD, within this post, then please nominate for Delete (or AfD).--Is this article fixable? Not likely ('without AfD'). That is how things 'look like in the real world' ! 2001:2020:303:BB75:D980:8DA8:908F:901C (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's QD worthy, then tag it with the appropriate quick deletion template. If it's not QD worthy, then open the RFD yourself. You can find an outline of the process here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion#Discussed_deletion. I'm not sure why you need others to do it for you. CountryANDWestern (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we've changed the rules regarding anonymous editors and RfD. Be bold and fix the problem yourself. Regards fr33k man 23:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there consensus for removing all the sentences, except the first one? That will be a nice 'fix', while keeping the picture, to boot.--The ball is in your court, to be bold! 2001:2020:303:BB75:45A5:CD8B:8A7E:C1FD (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC) /original poster[reply]

Template-thingy for "Eyelid", only

(Template is headed for Delete, and that will be okay, for that case.)

Please look at Eyelid 'template-thingy'. Does that thingy seem okay (or passable) for now? (C. once every month, i choose a 'template red-link', from which i create an article.--I choose one topic, out of all the templates on simple-wiki.)

In regard to a template that is headed to be a goner, that link is

simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Eye_symptoms_and_signs
.--If some or many don't understand, then don't worry, would perhaps be my advice. 2001:2020:303:BB75:3825:C63B:A42C:AEF0 (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Special pages

Is it just me, or has the left-side link to Special pages disappeared? -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it either. - MourningRainfall 🌧️ 08:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure it was moved as part of some WMF sidebar re-shuffle. I vaguely remember it being talked about in an issue of the m:Tech news, I'll see if I can find it.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 12:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found it in issue 2025-07.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 12:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FusionSub: Thanks. If I'm reading that right, it should be in the "Navigation" part of the sidebar. I don't have a navigation label, but I think it's the section at the top -- the section that includes links to the main page, simple start, simple talk, etc. I'm not seeing special pages there, either. I don't see it even if I do a search for "special" on the page.

I wonder if it's skin-related -- what skin are you using? @MourningRainfall, what about you?

For what it's worth, I also no longer have the link on Commons, although I do see it on enwiki (in the "Contribute" section). -- Auntof6 (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the getting around section is technically considered the navigation section (if I'm interpreting Mediawiki:Navigation right).

I did also check a couple skins earlier and can confirm it isn't present in Vector 2010, Modern, Monobook (what I use on the regular) and Cologne blue. The only skin I know still has a link to Special:SpecialPages is minerva, which I'm pretty sure uses its own, wierd, system.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 14:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See phab:T385346 and phab:T388927.

You can follow mw:Tech news to make sure you avoid disruptions in future. Jdlrobson (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm testing out a quick and dirty fix for the issue, if I don't run into any issues I'll request it to be added to Mediawiki:Common.js.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FusionSub and everybody else: I have resolved this issue with this change to MediaWiki:Sidebar. If anyone thinks the Special pages link should be earlier in the list, feel free to say and it can be moved. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking care of this. I use special pages a fair bit for different logs and such. I didn't see why it would be removed. fr33k man 01:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 Disabling my script still doesn't show it for me.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 06:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FusionSub: Are you looking at the right place? It's in a different place now, at the end of the first section in the left sidebar, just above the Tools section. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still not seeing it.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 06:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

nvm it finally arrived for me.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Gurjar" should stay. "List of ...", should not

List of Gurjar clans.--If asked, En-wiki's article is a redirect to title Gurjar.

The conclusion (and its arguments) from en-wiki,if asked:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Gurjar_clans_(3rd_nomination)
. Good luck (while i do not expect to touch, "List of ..."). 2001:2020:309:CBE7:7CF5:E6C8:2556:867 (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC ongoing regarding Abstract Wikipedia (and your project)

(Apologies for posting in English, if this is not your first language)

Hello all! We opened a discussion on Meta about a very delicate issue for the development of Abstract Wikipedia: where to store the abstract content that will be developed through functions from Wikifunctions and data from Wikidata. Since some of the hypothesis involve your project, we wanted to hear your thoughts too.

We want to make the decision process clear: we do not yet know which option we want to use, which is why we are consulting here. We will take the arguments from the Wikimedia communities into account, and we want to consult with the different communities and hear arguments that will help us with the decision. The decision will be made and communicated after the consultation period by the Foundation.

You can read the various hypothesis and have your say at Abstract Wikipedia/Location of Abstract Content. Thank you in advance! -- Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please move (May 21)

X-23. Please move that to X-23 (female hero) or X-23 (role figure), or X-23 (superheroine).--Then i expect to publish "X-23" ('disambig'). 2001:2020:309:CBE7:7CF5:E6C8:2556:867 (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What other articles do we have that would necessitate a disambiguation page? And why wouldn't this character be the primary one like the English Wikipedia has it? CountryANDWestern (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The IP user has engaged in spam-like behaviour over trivial issues on this page for weeks, along with instances of abusing QD that got declined by admins. I wonder if it is necessary for any admins to have a conversation with the IP user. Steven1991 (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax? (Power-lifter from Iran)

This one.--No mention at En-wiki,if asked.--'Clouded in unspecifics'? "In 2017, he became the world champion in the WPC Senior World Championships held in Moscow, Russia".--Another question, does en-wiki have an article about any world-championships (any year), of the organization that held the contest, in the quote. 2001:2020:309:CBE7:2936:5676:110C:FF04 (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask these questions at the article talk page. You can tag it as {{QD|A6}} after you research you find out it is, in fact, a hoax. You can take it to RFD. You can also go to your preferred search engine and see if the English Wikipedia has articles on these world championships. CountryANDWestern (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"WPC Senior World Championships" was searched at en-wiki. No (relevant) hits,it seems.--Therefore this thread.--Anyone can take it AfD or Delete - thanks for reminding us about that.--He might not be notable to have 'his own' article on Simple-wiki (if the topic is not a hoax).--You (or anyone) can do all the research you want, about contests.--Good luck (while i fix articles that have passed AfD), whichever one of those, that i choose. 2001:2020:309:CBE7:B450:AAA:A67:197D (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m confused by your motivation here. Why are you bringing things to Simple Talk but then leaving it up to other people to research and decide whether to take action? You’re doing this a lot. CountryANDWestern (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The IP user has engaged in spam-like behaviour over trivial issues on this page for weeks, along with instances of abusing QD that got declined by admins. I wonder if it is necessary for any admins to have a conversation with the IP user. Steven1991 (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Claim: there is no contest titled WPC Senior World Championships.--You have been informed about my research (albeit non-ambitious in this case).--If you do not have good-faith, then take that junk into a separate thread; In that case, Shoo!--(Or, in many words, in that case, start 'your separate, suggested thread'.)--Note: i am fine with trying to make a "WPC (disambig)".--If you invite me to read your related-gripes-or-whatever (on your talk-page), yeah maybe i will drop by (that page). 2001:2020:309:CBE7:107B:3A43:ADB0:CCA0 (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikiproject

Hello everyone, I am proud to announce to have started a new Wikiproject, Wikiproject South Asia. This Wikiproject is dedicated to South Asia, it's geography, history, people, and culture. Please feel free to join to contribute. Shubhsamant09 01:10, 24 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]

The only thing I see on it as Complex is the term deprecated. Otherwise I think it's fine. fr33k man 23:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t feel that the template is complex for English learners, the only complex thing that i see would be some terms that some people don't understand without a knowledge of the topic, for example some utilities, developer tools and user interface.

Emolga826 (any problem?) 20:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that we sometimes refresh our templates by re-importing from enwiki. Any customization could be lost if that is done. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caste (?). Not mentioned at en-wiki,if asked

Attal (caste). (Attal).

Sejwal (caste). (Sejwal).--Is POV-pushing, et cetera, going on?--If my question is viewed as a Good-faith question, about Good-faith edits by others, then fine.--If articles are not okay, then i am fine with nuke.--If anyone gives a (reasonable) justification, for having any of the articles go to QD, then i expect to use such justification.--Does anyone support QD justification, "not simple English"? 2001:2020:309:CBE7:81A2:5D2B:39F3:BFE7 (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with “not simple English” justification, the articles listed have advanced words that some people couldn’t understand, for example i had to look in the dictionary words like “namesake” (A complex word even in my native language: Spanish), “widespread” and similar words, problems that i have detected more in the second article (Sejwal (caste)), with the first one only deleting those hard words would be enough, articles that forces us to search the meaning in a dictionary every 2 words, are complex articles for this Wikipedia.

Emolga826 (any problem?) 20:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfD bundles

Hello. I've encountered a mass of cricket-based lists which were created indiscriminately by an IP editor in Auckland. I would, ideally, like to bundle them all and send just a single RfD, but we don't seem to have that functionality here. I could just name them in an existing RfD, but we need the deletion flag on the article pages, and the utility does that.

Can anyone suggest a way around this, as I don't want to put a huge pile of individual requests into the RfD queue? Thanks. Jack (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the ones I've already listed individually at RfD, the following 44 lists all need to be considered.

The same rationale applies in all cases.

No significant coverage per en:WP:NSPORT. The only source is a statistical database, and the content breaches en:WP:NOTSTATS. The list is one of several that were indiscriminately created by an Auckland-based IP editor. The team does not play Test cricket, and operates internationally at a minor level of competition only. Its players cannot be notable without a prominent career in first-class cricket, and so this will remain a list of redlinks.

It would be great if I could nominate them for QD, but they don't actually meet any of the QD criteria. Thanks. Jack (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackJack I have had this happen a couple of times in the past, and I organized them as shown in the following links: Link 1 or Link 2. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 23:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MrMeAndMrMe, and thanks. That's what I need. All the best. Jack (talk) 08:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The articles exist on the English Wikipedia. In fact, some are featured lists. 205.154.244.243 (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Their being on another wiki is not a reason to keep them. See also en:WP:NOTSOURCE. The lists could be completely different on enwiki, or they may need to be deleted too but haven't been nominated yet. Only one of the lists I'm nominating are among the enwiki featureds. That is Hong Kong which, to be fair, is a borderline one. The countries I've listed above all play at a very minor level only, albeit in official ICC matches, and have few if any first-class players. Thanks. Jack (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackJack: Steps:

Create an RfD for one of the pages.
Edit the RfD to add the list of additional pages to the new RfD. (Don't add them to one you have already created.) Do this right away so that anyone monitoring RfDs will see the whole set.
Add a group RfD template to each of the additional pages. If you don't have an automated tool for that, I could do it for you with AWB.

Hope that helps. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Auntof6. As there are such a lot, I think I'll spread them out over a few days, and maybe submit half a dozen or so each time. All the best. Jack (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a dozen of them, and the method works a treat. I'll spread the rest out over a week or so, as I said. Thanks again to MrMeAndMrMe and Auntof6 for your help. Best wishes. Jack (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Proposal to move Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia to simple wiktionary. It is mainly just stating the defination of the word, which should be wiktionary's function. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 03:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good idea. Steven1991 (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could redirect to List of phobias#Funny and fictional phobias? :) –Davey2010^Talk 15:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we could. Steven1991 (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is already content, so why waste it Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 00:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth starting a topic on simple wiktionary as well before performing any interwiki move.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 16:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure--Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 00:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

done Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 03:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery again...

Hello, I just recently nozced that our article Slavery was accessed over 20.000 times in the last year. It used to be a good article, but was demoted, due to various issues. Note, we do have a category, with sub-categories, which regroup another 50+ pages. I know tat the subject area is huge, and out current article covers fa too little. It also has a sideboxx, with links ot related topics, which has many red links. Yesterday, I "translated" Great Dismal Swamp maroons, which also needs cleanup. I wonder if anyone was interested in working in that direction? Eptalon (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to delete the page right away.

I want to delete the page right away.Template:Infobox_baseball_biography/styles.css and Template:Infobox_baseball_player Kikikiki.aka (talk) 08:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kikikiki.aka. You could try QD/G7 as you are the author. Good luck. Jack (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

both deleted Eptalon (talk) 09:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. Kikikiki.aka (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2025 Selection & Call for Questions

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

This year, the term of 2 (two) Community- and Affiliate-selected Trustees on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees will come to an end [1]. The Board invites the whole movement to participate in this year’s selection process and vote to fill those seats.

The Elections Committee will oversee this process with support from Foundation staff [2]. The Governance Committee, composed of trustees who are not candidates in the 2025 community-and-affiliate-selected trustee selection process (Raju Narisetti, Shani Evenstein Sigalov, Lorenzo Losa, Kathy Collins, Victoria Doronina and Esra’a Al Shafei) [3], is tasked with providing Board oversight for the 2025 trustee selection process and for keeping the Board informed. More details on the roles of the Elections Committee, Board, and staff are here [4].

Here are the key planned dates:

May 22 – June 5: Announcement (this communication) and call for questions period [6]
June 17 – July 1, 2025: Call for candidates
July 2025: If needed, affiliates vote to shortlist candidates if more than 10 apply [5]
August 2025: Campaign period
August – September 2025: Two-week community voting period
October – November 2025: Background check of selected candidates
Board’s Meeting in December 2025: New trustees seated

Learn more about the 2025 selection process - including the detailed timeline, the candidacy process, the campaign rules, and the voter eligibility criteria - on this Meta-wiki page [link].

Call for Questions

In each selection process, the community has the opportunity to submit questions for the Board of Trustees candidates to answer. The Election Committee selects questions from the list developed by the community for the candidates to answer. Candidates must answer all the required questions in the application in order to be eligible; otherwise their application will be disqualified. This year, the Election Committee will select 5 questions for the candidates to answer. The selected questions may be a combination of what’s been submitted from the community, if they’re alike or related. [link]

Election Volunteers

Another way to be involved with the 2025 selection process is to be an Election Volunteer. Election Volunteers are a bridge between the Elections Committee and their respective community. They help ensure their community is represented and mobilize them to vote. Learn more about the program and how to join on this Meta-wiki page [link].

Thank you!

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Results

[2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Committee:Elections_Committee_Charter

[3] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Committee_Membership,_December_2024

[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_committee/Roles

[5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/FAQ

[6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Questions_for_candidates

Best regards,

Victoria Doronina

Board Liaison to the Elections Committee

Governance Committee

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request.

I would like to request an article please, Splitgate 2, thank you.

BigKrow (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BigKrow Requested articles can be added at WP:Requested articles, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 18:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have content for it? Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 10:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Questions as redirects

Saw Is Holocaust denial legal in Germany? as a redirect to Legality of Holocaust denial in Germany in new changes the other day and noticed that there are a handful of these kind of redirects on Simple that are questions. To me, these are implausible constructions for redirect purposes. I feel like it creates a slippery slope as well. We could have redirects like "Who won the 1988 Academy Award for Best Picture?" or "What is the biggest city in Japan?"

I wanted to bring this topic here for discussion before I started tagging any of those redirects as deletion candidates. CountryANDWestern (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t find it a problem as long as they are directly related, because it is doubtful whether ordinary users would search “legality” before the rest. Having a related redirect in the form of a question may help them get to the article that discusses their subject of interest. Steven1991 (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's one of the things Wikipedia should not be, so we can discuss about 'Legality of Holocaust denial' or perhaps 'legality of ... in ...', but likely not the question as a redirect Eptalon (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard, if no other dubious edits (is > was) ?

One user has changed "is" to "was".

No edit-comment. No source.

simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HiSilicon&diff=10289551&oldid=10288934
, HiSilicon.

If admins prefer to move this thread to the (relevant) article, then i will not oppose that.--(I have put a tag, at the dubious part of the article. I am not likely to bother, with that part of that article.) Good luck (while i fix other wiki-things, in whatever article i choose). 2001:2020:309:CBE7:AD1E:4E81:9EC4:B165 (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC) /2001:2020:309:CBE7:AD1E:4E81:9EC4:B165 (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WT: alias

I think you should add WT: as a namespace alias to Wikipedia talk: namespace. It would be helpful by making it easier to type in the names of these pages. 64.21.222.134 (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pages to watch, if you're so inclined

If anyone would like to add the various boy band categories to their watch list, that would be appreciated. We're getting another round of groups being added to those categories that aren't actually boy bands. (See Boy band for an explanation if you're not familiar.) This time around, the girl group categories were also being used incorrectly, so consider adding those, too. Thanks for your consideration. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Wikipedia is not within the scope of en.wikipedia.org

The dispute is between User:Davey2010 and myself over Political_problems_of_China as my recent 2 edits are reverted based on the reason of "original research". I have asked for further explanation in the talk page. This is a huge topic and there is supposed to be a lot to cover. Also, I have tried to start arbitration (third opinion) at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&oldid=1292827563 but it is rejected. What can I do next? 10:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC) Yilangderen (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you can do next is discuss. Hopefully Davey2010 can provide you some feedback based on your questions at both your talk page and the article's talk page. I note that they haven't edited since they made those edits to the page, so we have to allow time for them to engage in discussion with you. Based on your review of your edits, there are a lot of concerns. I raised some at Movies banned in China and I removed some of your edits from other articles as well, such as adding categories inappropriately or adding images that aren't necessary to provide context to other articles. List of Chinese dissidents is another one that is really messy and needs to be examined as to how to fix it. CountryANDWestern (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, My OR comment was based on this edit however OR was the wrong summary to use, Your edits aren't sourced nor are they mentioned at the Enwiki article so therefore could be made up.

Also why have we gone from going to the talkpage to suddenly going to 30 at Enwiki and escalating it here ?, Would it not be obvious to assume given I last edited at 2 in the morning that I was .... you know .... asleep maybe?,

Anyway yeah my revert was because your edits are unsourced and because some of it doesn't seem like it belongs there, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any help?

Hello, sorry to bother again. My good article nomination "1755 Cape Ann earthquake" was closed without consensus to promote. Asteralee responded to me that a lot of the text is complex, and needs simplifying, which i replied that Asteralee needed to show the sentences that needed to fix. I also asked for help on Simple talk, which some editors helped the article by simplifying or cleaning.

Yesterday, Asteralee closed my nomination without replying to me, even though the article now seems simple and cleaned. My goal is to achieve Good Article status. Could someone please identify which sentences still need simplification/clean up? Thanks. Bakhos Let's talk! 15:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a little review on the article's talk page. - Barras talk 15:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also left some notes/concerns that can be looked at. CountryANDWestern (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-thingy 'started, but not started'

Ibac.
Delete-talk has already started (and a Delete-page has already been created). However, the page has a tag that says,

"A discussion page has not been created yet! Because of this, the page won't get deleted as no one knows it is up for deletion. Click here to create a discussion page!". 2001:2020:303:BB75:8D33:ED08:CBD2:496 (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cache problem. Refresh your cache and you should see the correct message. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Deployment of the CampaignEvents Extension

Hello everyone,

(Apologies for posting in English if English is not your first language. Please help translate to your language.)

The Campaigns Product Team is planning a global deployment of the CampaignEvents extension to all Wikipedias, including this wiki, during the week of June 23rd.

This extension is designed to help organizers plan and manage events, WikiProjects, and other on-wiki collaborations - and to make these efforts more discoverable.

The three main features of this extension are:

Event Registration: A simple way to sign up for events on the wiki.
Collaboration List: A global list of events and a local list of WikiProjects, accessible at Special:AllEvents.
Invitation Lists: A tool to help organizers find editors who might want to join, based on their past contributions.

Note: The extension comes with a new user right called "Event Organizer", which will be managed by administrators on this wiki. Organizer tools like Event Registration and Invitation Lists will only work if someone is granted this right. The Collaboration List is available to everyone immediately after deployment.

The extension is already live on several wikis, including Meta, Wikidata, English Wikipedia, and more ( See the full deployment list)

If you have any questions, concerns, or feedback, please feel free to share them on the extension talkpage. We’d love to hear from you before the rollout.

Thank you!

Udehb-WMF (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig pages (May month's end)

Rud. Is it fair to say that "Some content creators on Wikipedia, feel that this article (a disambiguation page) is largely okay. Furthermore, some feel that this page is within policies and guidelines set by Wikipedia."

(I am not really asking, Were there 12 more steps that (subjectively) should have been completed, before article published.) 2001:2020:303:BB75:8D33:ED08:CBD2:496 (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the question actually 'goes beyond this one article'. Therefore i am raising the question at Simple-talk. 2001:2020:303:BB75:8D33:ED08:CBD2:496 (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: Copyvio 'seems to have happened'. However, attribution has later been made.--Good luck (while i fix articles, 'when/what i choose'). 2001:2020:303:BB75:8D33:ED08:CBD2:496 (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content translation gone?

Hello, I just noticed that 'my changes' no longer has a drop-doiwn which also lists content translation. Did anyone else notice this? Eptalon (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eptalon It still shows that for me. Did thye change it back? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 03:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Extraterrestial archaeology' (a topic that en-wiki does not have,if asked)

Anyone (and everyone) has my full support, in removing the that section, from "Archaeology". Moving it to talk-page, is fine.

simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archaeology&diff=10303142&oldid=10272041

Justification? The text is not okay, or 'good enough'.--Can there be other justification, that might apply? yeah, 'almost surely'. 2001:2020:309:CBE7:890B:9EEE:6387:3E54 (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told by an admin that whether an article exists on enwiki has no bearing on its retention on this platform. Every project is run independently. No project’s content takes precedence over any other’s. Would you please listen to others rather than insist on your own way? Steven1991 (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... The text is not okay, or 'good enough' .--Can there be other justification, that might apply? yeah, 'almost surely'.--If that reminder was helpful, then fine. 2001:2020:309:CBE7:890B:9EEE:6387:3E54 (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you really want to convey? Steven1991 (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Anon2001 wants to remove the passage about space archaeology from Archaeology. The passage is short and has two sources, one of which is BBC. I find it proportionate. Anon2001 seems to be asking, "Okay, if we don't remove it on the grounds that there is no en.wiki counterpart, could we remove it because it is badly written? Could we remove it for some other reason?" Anon2001 seems to want the passage out for reasons they don't want to share at this time in this thread and does not mind if the official Simplewiki reason doesn't match.

I don't think the wording is bad enough to justify removal. If there is a good reason to remove it, it could be that "space archaeologist" isn't really a thing/word/official thing yet. That is something that might be worth exploring.

Anon2001, have I interpreted your views correctly? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The IP user is an LTA hopping back and forth with addresses within the same range. It has abused the QD and vandalised several pages as well. An admin gave that IP range a one-week block yesterday. It is hard to tell whether the IP user would resume the same disruptions after the block expiry. Steven1991 (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone here good with the Hebrew language?

I wanted to use the correct title in the reference in Highway 20 (Israel). When I go to the link, the title is divided into 3 parts, each part on a separate line. I'm not confident I could get the pieces in the correct right-to-left order, so is there anyone here who understands that? No guessing, please, only people who actually know. If no one does, I might have a non-Wikipedian friend I could ask to look at it. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help wanted

I want to display 2 tables in 2 colums. How can I do this?--Werner100359 (talk) 09:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please see Help:Tables. Best regards, BZPN (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EasyAsPai - you reverted a lot of significant info that I added

Dear Sir:

I painstakingly added a significant amount of information to the Biography of Mgsr. Ignazio Bedini (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignazio_Bedini). I am an amateur Wikipedia user and have only added info a handful of times. I am not familiar with all the complex rules on Wikipedia; It is way too complicated. I am not trying to be a Wikipedia editor, and frankly, have no interest in becoming one. But when I see a page with incomplete information about someone or something that I am well familiar with, I try to enter additional information that I know of.

You reverted my additions to the above page saying it was "not sourced". How do I source my first hand accounts? I have known Mgsr. Bedini for 55 years; I am 61 now. He was the dean of both my elementary and middle school when I was in 1st grade through 8th grade. He was my teacher during two of those years. He was present very often when my soccer team practiced. He was in the summer camps that I would go to. I have dozens of group photos that include both him and me from different years. He was my parish priest when I was in my 20s. He attended my baptism. I have photos from many of those events and activities, but no newspaper published any articles about them to indicate that he was my teacher or my parish priest or etc, which I can then "source" to make it valid for Wikipedia. I don't know how to add references as footnotes, and I am too busy to spend many hours browsing Wikipedia to figure out how to add a footnote.

For parts of the additions that I made to Mgsr. Bedini's biography, I referenced a published interview with him 10 years ago, and also referenced public websites connected to the Catholic Church. Below are sources for some of the information that I added to his bio:

https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bbedini.html

https://www.oasiscenter.eu/en/christians-iran-are-flowers-desert

https://www.catholicbusinessjournal.com/news/faith-at-work/world-news-faith-at-work/tehrans-new-catholic-archbishop-is-ordained-offer-the-light-of-the-gospel/

https://adian.bashariyat.org/?p=2174

https://journal.salesianstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Bransom-Sons_of_Don_Bosco_Successors_of_the_Apostles-Salesian_Bishops_1884_to_2001-Journal_Salesian_Studies-Vol12_No1-Spring2001.pdf

Sincerely,

Bayareagr8 (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Bayareagr8[reply]

This is Simple English Wikipedia. You want English Wikipedia. You should bring your concerns to that user’s talk page or the article talk page. CountryANDWestern (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bayareagr8 This is the Simple English Wikipedia. Your edits were on the regular English Wikipedia, so you should discuss it there. If you want to ask that person on their talk page, you can go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EasyAsPai. If you want help from other people, you can ask at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse. 2607:F140:6000:8072:4053:80F:EFC3:BEE4 (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft articles on Bodhisattvas

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

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

I am a bit more confident about these ones

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

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

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

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

Other comments below.

Amoghapasha

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

Thousand-armed Kannon

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

Magatama

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

They are very old and come from Ancient Japan.

That could be divided as follows:

They are very old. They come from Ancient Japan.

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

Mozu Tombs

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

Other general notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, I noticed some other things in that article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

You could link or explain terms like, divinity, archaeological, ceremonial etc. Anything that is not on the combined words list. But I think you have done a good job. On another topic, do you want to start a discussion about lifting your block of mainspace? It's been a couple of years since you were blocked and I think it might be time to talk about lifting it. What are your thoughts? fr33k man 22:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fr33kman yes I just passed the 2-year point. And I would like to discuss it. Thank you. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 00:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you are asking for help from an admin you need to take it to administrator'noticeboard. This page is for community discussions. Thx fr33k man 22:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism? (jocularity in infobox?)

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

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

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

What exactly are you asking us to do? I'm confused fr33k man 22:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User blocked for two weeks for general disruption fr33k man 01:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock discussion for User:Immanuelle

I am putting forth a proposal to discuss the potential unblock of user Immanuelle. This person was blocked almost two years ago for creating bad pages. They are only blocked in main space and retain access to their user space to create draft articles. I have seen this user editing quite often while I've been patrolling New Changes and have delved into their edits and block history out of interest. I personally believe that whatever problems existed before do not exist now. I support unblocking their account and restoring their access to main space. I am putting this forth to the community rather than just unblocking them on my own right because of the nature and length of the block. Also they have made it pretty clean of their user page that they are too afraid to ask for an unblock themselves : hence why I am suggesting it here. Thanks, fr33k man 01:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I guess we can move it to AN. I want to get opinions on it because I didn't feel comfortable just removing the block. Immanuelle has listed a few draft pages above so you can get an idea of her edits. fr33k man 02:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to AN fr33k man 02:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Major movie studios

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

Regarding the creation of an article with many redlinks

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

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

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

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

I agree with Auntof6. We only have 270k articles, we are missing articles on many topics. Redlinks show pretty much only where we need to work on. However, a list with only redlinks might not be worth keeping, while having a list with only redlinks isn't a reason to delete. See also WP:RL. -Barras talk 15:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vote now in the 2025 U4C Election

Please help translate to your language

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

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

Moving my drafts into mainspace now that I have been unblocked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drafts I think are good enough to move to mainspace

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

Drafts I am working on

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

Short completed drafts

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

Templates

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

45	Template:Promising Draft	2024-04-26 06:07	60	467	Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews
80	Template:Atsuta Faith	2024-03-30 21:03	983	1,204	Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews
144	Template:Generations of Watatsumi	2023-11-06 23:41	19,009	20,218	Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews
34	Template:Myōken Faith	2024-04-30 23:29	828	2,342	Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews
84	Template:Oki Shrines	2024-03-29 18:01	622	511	Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews
85	Template:Iki Shrines	2024-03-29 17:38	448	788	Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews
98	Template:Atago Faith	2024-03-27 22:29	1,178	3,238	Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews
103	Template:Isonokami Faith	2024-03-25 16:27	911	1,256	Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews
106	Template:Isotakeru Faith	2024-03-24 17:03	711	1,034	Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews
81	Template:Shinmei shrines	2024-03-30 16:57	2,306	2,866	Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews
83	Template:Tsushima Shrines	2024-03-29 18:10	695	495	Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews

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

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

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

TheMaxChannel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You've got and made a few good points. Historically this rule was developed here on ST over a long period of time. I think this is where WP:IAR comes in use. If a rule is actually hurting the project then there is a good case to be made for ignoring it and doing what makes sense. I'd be very interested to know what more @Auntof6: has to say about this as she is very active in the area of categories. fr33k man 23:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that the list of criteria put forth by MrMrAndMrMe along with the proposed amendments is the way to go here and would support it as the official guideline. fr33k man 01:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with these considerations.

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