Wikipedia:Simple talk

Simple talk

WP:ST

This is the place to ask any questions you have about the Simple English Wikipedia. Any general discussions or anything of community interest is also appropriate here.

You might also find an answer on Wikipedia:Useful, a listing of helpful pages.

You may reply to any section below by clicking the "change this page" link, or add a new discussion section to this page. Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~). Please add new topics to the bottom of this page.

Please note that old discussions on this page are archived periodically. If you do not find a discussion here, please look in the archives. Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.

Some of the language used on this page can be complicated. This is because it is used by editors to talk to one another, so sometimes we forget. Please leave us a note if you are finding what we are saying too hard to read.

Are you in the right place?

See WP:AN to speak to an administrator.
See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests.
See WP:OS for oversight.
See WP:RFRB to request the rollback feature (which administrators can grant).
See WP:VIP to report vandalism.

Add this page to your list of watched pages — Purge

change

Three article rule?

There currently exists a vague policy that most categories require three items to be considered a category. Categories that have this attribute are either emptied or tagged with popcat. The only exceptions to this rule that I am aware of are categories involving years, birth years, and death years, such as Category:24, Category:58 deaths, or Category: 14 births. As far as I know, this colloquial rule is not ever documented in a policy, guideline, or essay, except for in WP:Categories. This guideline is very vague, however, such as when it says that a category should have a "minimum of three articles", implying that a category that has three categories but no articles should not be instated. This guideline also does not include any of the aforementioned exceptions to the three category rule. I will now provide three specific examples of common instances in which the three article rule is in a gray area, that I believe deserves discussion and possibly an amendment to current official guidelines.

My recent RFD request displays a gray area to the three article rule. There are currently only two continents that have a category for 1200s establishments, and there will probably not be a third content with a category for establishments in the 1200s for a long time. A similar issue to this is when categorizing countries by century. For example, in a category such as Establishments in South Sudan by century, South Sudan has only existed for one century, and so it is arguably necessary to have a category with only one item in it. There are probably better examples for this for countries that have existed for two centuries as well, but South Sudan comes to mind first. More broadly, I believe that a reasonable exception to the three article rule are disestablishments and establishments. For example, if something was established in 785, categorizing it as Category:780s establishments implies that we do not know the specific date in which it was established, and that it was only established circa 780CE.

The issue with using the currently-existing three article rule with these three categories is the damage that it currently does to categorization in Simple Wikipedia. When I am looking through Category:21st-century establishments by country, one would expect finding every single article on Simple Wikipedia about something that was established in the 21st century in a country. However, due to the three article rule, this is not possible. The three article rule thereby unintentionally creates worse organization quality for places with an arbitrarily small age. This can arguably cause biases. Situations like this occur very often. While the three article rule is a useful rule for most situations to make Simple Wikipedia less complex, in other situations it can make navigation more complex.

I am curious about other people's opinion about this. Due to the broad nature of this topic, there are obviously many exceptions. Perhaps a category can be considered popcat if its enwiki equivalent has three items, but its simplewiki equivalent does not, and if neither wiki has three items, there is no popcat? In general, however, I think there needs to be a discussion about this, and likely a change in guidelines. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 02:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good post. I just want to say that I support the use of popcat over blanking. Not much to say about your post because I agree (I have not seen this happen in the lists of deaths yet, because I have barely gone into it). Just to show that I read your topic before replying I want to pad this comment by saying that when I have seen a list for "of countries" cats I have looked through the Wiki for text matching that country, or added content in some places (to populate the cat). I mean this is done (to populate the cat) for "in country" cats which need smaller cats to bulk the category. Using popcat to allow a category is (in my opinion) good. However my advice is leaving those cats out for countries that do not have the infrastructure (you can also edit the receiving pages) -- sig: { Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) | User_talk:Catcus DeMeowwy 22:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Catcus DeMeowwy: Why are you bumping? The discussion is ongoing and isn't close to being archived yet. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose any rule that depends on what's in another wiki. The rule is about what is currently in the category, not what could be. If it's about what could be there, then the rule doesn't make sense because any category could have more entries.

I would support expanding the 3-entry rule somewhat. Maybe we handle it the way we handle stub types. -- Auntof6 (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]