Simple talk
	Shortcut WP:STWP: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 Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.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.	Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
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

Hello, we have the page white supremacy. I would like to suggest we fully protect the page, for 1-2 years, after which the protection is re-evaluated. My reasoning behind this is the following:

• I edit-protected the page today (for six months), after finding that most of the edits ot the page are vandalism, or reverting vandalism- there is little "content work"
• In 2023,2025, and now 2026, there was at least one long term protection of the page
• The talk page remains open, and unnmed/unconfirmed editors can still suggest changes.

The page gets an average of 427 views per month (or a bit over 10 per day). What do other people think? Eptalon (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

What I mean is: people wanting to edit need to be auto confirmed Eptalon (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I support long term semi-protection for this page. I think you are correct that it is difficult for us to keep up with the level of vandalism we are seeing. The vandalism is mostly from temp and new accounts, so semi-protection is a proportional response. I'd say let's protect it for 12 or 18 months and then let it open and see if the vandalism starts again. Garsh (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

We should probably start being more lenient about semi-protecting pages. While it's certainly a good idea, that in general everyone should be able to edit a project, times have changed a lot in the past 20 years. Nowadays, there is much more vandalism. Other projects, such as enwiki, have introduced the extended confirmed protection for large parts of the project. I think we should start using the semi-protection more frequently and for longer on problematic topics. We are too few people to really keep track of all types of vandalism, especially clever vandalism, where incorrect data is inserted into our articles and often goes unnoticed. I think we could make things easier by protecting pages more often and for longer. -Barras talk 21:15, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

The page is currently semi-protected, for six months. I was tempted to use a longer protection, but wanted to get community input. I can think of a few other pages where we likely have similar problems Eptalon (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

If nobody objects, go ahead and do what you feel is best. White Americans has been one of many targets of the same vandal(s) as White supremacy. Garsh (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Maybe we consider more leniency with protecting sensitive topics. These could be political figures, race, current events, etc. A lot of vandalism seems to concentrate in these areas. A unfortunate part of it doesn’t get caught or takes some time before it does. Garsh (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think our current protection policy is fine to allow that. We can currently only use protection if it is the only option left available to solve the problem of vandalism of the page, but if lots of sneaky vandalism is going undetected on multiple occasions, it surely is the only option left to solve the vandalism. I don't want us to start encouraging protection again as I and other admins have been undoing long protections (see [1]) and good results have came of it pretty much every time. I should also mention the "honeypot" effect - if a page is closely watched, then vandalism on it will not last very long (and it is very unlikely a reader will come across it in that state) so in a case like that, protection just isn't necessary and pushes them onto parts of the wiki less watched so is actually counterintuitive. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 13:35, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I definitely see this side of things too. There is a line between protecting the integrity of the project and overprotecting such that it violates the nature of our mission, and the latter seems to have been done in the past. I will say, it is very frustrating sometimes for those of us who look through recent changes to see the same vandalism repeated by the same LTAs for months. It seems to me that some vandals are only interested in vandalizing certain pages, and it's not a guarantee that they will move along to others. I do agree that permanent protection, especially full protection, shouldn't really be done on content pages. Also, create protection should only be applied to problematic titles that could never really have a legitimate article created (repeated recreations of RfD deletions, hoaxes, etc). I am still in support of medium term protection though as Eptalon is suggesting, especially when shorter terms have not been shown to work. Garsh (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

i think it should be indefinitely semi. fr33kman 12:30, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you all for the inputs; following this discussion, I have changed the protection to expire a year from now. After the year, we can assess how well this has worked. I would laso suggest, that if people noriuce other pages with a similar editing history, that they start a discussion on ST. Eptalon (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

After a period of time where I was unable to participate on wiki for technical reasons I am back full-time. Just an fyi. Regards, fr33kman 02:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Welcome back! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Glad you're back! Garsh (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Good to have you back :). BZPN (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Welcome. – Erakilos 𐤀 06:40, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Welcome back to the party! -Barras talk 16:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yay, welcome back :D --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 23:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

HelloVietnamtime (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Glad to see you returning! Ternera (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello!Vietnamtime (talk) 04:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, could I ask someone to please look at Template:Wikidata_image, I left an edit request there. The template code is outdated as some empty functions were removed. The amended code and more information can be seen on Talk page. Thanks, -- Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 09:33, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Done -Barras talk 15:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Quick question: When creating an article, is it okay to copy from the English Wikipedia and then edit it so it is in Simple English? Thanks in advance. CubeMaster77777 (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes it is Cyberwolf (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but 1.) please make sure to add some kind of attribution and 2.) please actually simplify it. Re: the former, you can add attribution by putting it in the edit summary with something like "copying from [URI]" or posting to the talk page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

it depends on how you do it. Please follow the instructions at WP:CW. fr33kman 16:48, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

A example on how to properly attribute your en wiki translation to a simple english article's talk page is Talk:Billy Zane. Use the attribution template, link the en wiki article and the version number (which can be found on the URL of the latest page revision on the article's history on enwiki). Hope this helps! :) TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I would say, an example workfolow could be:

• Create the article here, andcopy over the lede from enwp; If you don't use the translation tool, add some mention on the talk page, to say that tis article is based on the EnWP version
• Without much delay, go over the section, and simplify; for example split sentences into shorter ones; If you have references that occur multpile time, re-use them
• Look that the eork generally follows our style guide
• If it isn't already there, add an interwii link to enwp.
• Fix categories, see if you find a good image to illustrate

Once this has been done, you can do that with the next section, if you like. Also note: More controversial subjects need more thought, to give a balanced view. Eptalon (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey guys i am focusing mainly in improving newly-created car articles mainly adding sources and etc the question i have is:do you think i am doing a good job? Just asking. ~2026-31265-91 (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Solid work! Thank you for your contributions. – Erakilos 𐤀 02:31, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

thanks! ~2026-31265-91 (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me! Have you considered creating an account? This would let you edit semi-protected pages (after becoming autoconfirmed), and you would not lose your change history every 3 months. Either way, thanks for contributing! Garsh (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

no problem i think i will prefer to edit logged-out for now. ~2026-31265-91 (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Great contributions! You’d be a great asset to the team. Echoing Garsh’s question/suggestion about creating an account :) TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:50, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please do create an account but please also remember that you can be blocked if you break the rules. If you get blocked you should not indulge in logged out editing nor should you create another account-Baangla (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ok i will be careful to not violate any rules ~2026-31265-91 (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

sorry for the late reply but thanks and like i said before i think i will prefer to edit logged-out ~2026-31265-91 (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

No problem at all! We have temporary accounts for that reason. Edit however you want. Garsh (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I recently noticed that in categories of BC decades that are a multiple of 100, (ex., Category:300s BC, Category:200s BC, Category:100s BC, Category:400s BC, etc. the link at the top of the page, "This category is for topics specifically related to the 300s." Links to the wrong page, linking to the AD version instead of the BC version. This also happens in English Wikipedia, strangely enough. The issue is caused by the template for the page. Does anyone know the cause of this issue? MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 18:51, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

There are others who are far better at templates than I am, but from what I can see, it has to do with Template:Decade link (also used by enwiki) which is used by Template:Year category header/core. Basically, the header template uses Module:Year category type to detect which kind of category it is based on the title. The core subtemplate pulls this value and then modifies what the template header says. It uses the decade link template because the 100 multiple decades need to be disambiguated to distinguish from their respective century pages. That template makes no account for AB vs BC. The header/core does distinguish between the two, but only to add "BC" in the text of the header, not in the wikilink. I suppose one solution could be to fork a second template that would work for the BC categories and then use it in the decade_bc part of Template:Year category header/core. Some more experienced people should have a look. Garsh (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please protect the pages White Americans, Angry white male, and White nationalism. These pages are constantly targeted by the same LTA(s). This is essentially the same case as #Protecting White Supremacy?. If possible, could these pages also be semi-indefed? Erakilos 𐤀 04:36, 1 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I ageee that these should be protected, but not indefinitely. Since it’s primarily the same LTA, I think a medium term protection like a year or so should be sufficient. Garsh (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Fair point. Erakilos 𐤀 07:24, 1 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've protected each page listed for three months. Once the protection expires on September 2 and excessive vandalism continues, a year protection would be the next move in my opinion. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Erakilos 𐤀 14:31, 3 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello Wikipedia administrators and other Wikipedians! I was wondering if we can add pools to the Simple English Wikipedia, just like how in the English Wikipedia we have pools in which people make guesses about various future milestones for English Wikipedia, i think we may also add that in the Simple English Wikipedia in which well people make guesses about various future milestones for the Simple English Wikipedia (like for example: the people can make a guess on when will the Simple English Wikipedia reaches 300,000 articles). And that's it i guess - Wikipedian2025 (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Interesting, Is Pool(s) only meant for guessing future milestones? Also, wouldn’t it be a bit unnecessary here? SEW doesn’t have as many active editors as enwiki, so participation would likely be quite limited. Erakilos 𐤀 14:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello! But anyways, pools would be only meant for guessing future milestones. Just like English Wikipedia's pools. And the reason why we should add pools to SEW is because why not, i feel like this should have pools. And about participation... Well... Since there are less users on SEW than on the English Wikipedia does NOT mean that there is going to be completely no participation in the pools. Like some users on SEW might find these pools and well place their predictions on when will SEW will reach these certain milestones (like when will SEW will reach 300,000 articles) and yeah - Wikipedian2025 (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I understand where the idea comes from, but I'm not convinced that this would have much meaningful participation here. We don't have that many editors here, so editor time is more valuable. I don't think this is the best way to spend it. Garsh (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Dear Wikipedians,

The Article guidance team is pleased to announce that the Article guidance feature, which supports editors, especially less experienced ones, in creating new articles aligned with community practices through community-tailored guidance, has been enabled on this Wikipedia as part of an A/B test. As part of the launch, we have collected initial feedback over the last few days and resolved several issues based on community comments, and are now officially announcing the launch after addressing the primary issues highlighted. This milestone builds on the communications and collaborations with the community (see previous communications links: 1 2 ). We appreciate everyone who tested the feature, reviewed and adapted outlines, responded to questionnaires, participated in office hours, and shared feedback. Your insights have shaped this feature at every stage.

The feature is primarily aimed at helping junior editors to create good quality articles that follow the community practices (and detect earlier cases where the intended article is not suited for the wiki). Although the focus is on junior editors, the involvement of more experienced editors is also key. In this experimentation phase, the feature is also being surfaced to experienced contributors so they can use it, raise any issues they find, and become familiar with it. Also, more experienced editors can refine the outlines and create additional ones tailored to the type of article outlines they think junior editors will need. Additionally, we want to ensure the feature can also help experienced editors by automating tedious tasks such as Wikidata connections. Hearing from experienced editors is really important also to make sure that the new feature doesn't get in their way (and identify early potential issues to fix them). As we get the results of the experiment, we will be able to compare the impact of the feature on both groups to make sure that improvements for one don’t come at the expense of negatively affecting the other group..

Experienced contributors who want to skip creating a new article with the guidance provided in the feature will soon be able to do so once the improvement captured in this ticket is implemented. It can be done by clicking on "Edit without community guidance", option at the bottom of the screen, see image below. This option will only be available to experienced contributors once they provide a title for the article in the feature.

The experiment is currently running for a subset of editors creating new articles. It will measure whether guided article creation improves the 30-day survival rate of new articles as the key metric among other measurements. This group will see the feature automatically as part of their article-creation workflow.

Experienced contributors can continue creating outlines for specific article types as needed for new contributors. As a reference, over 30 outlines are available that can be useful as a starting point to define other outlines. Feel free to create outlines tailored to your Wikipedia’s practices and incorporate the tags and markups as they appear in the reference outlines. You can find a quick guide to markups used in outlines on this page.

Since this feature is new, we are implementing improvements identified by contributors and will continue to rely on more feedback to refine it. If you notice something that does not work as expected, please report it and share your feedback on the project talk page.

We will continue to share updates as the experiment progresses.

Best regards,

UOzurumba (WMF) (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

How do I get a redlink to display the deletion log like in the past? Clicking edit without assistance shows it briefly before the edit box takes over. This change has significantly hindered administrative and anti-vandalism work. CountryANDWestern (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Apologies @CountryANDWestern, for the inconvenience this change has caused in your administrative and anti-vandalism work. The issue with red links not displaying the deletion log has been reported here: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T428146. We understand how important this is to you as an admin, and we are working to restore it as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience. UOzurumba (WMF) (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I want to create an article about the Jin dynasty (265-420), but i am unable to do so, can anyone help me? Smokey 6767 (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Basically, you search for the article name in the search box, and if it exists, you are redirected there, if it doesn't, you get a red-link to click on, thats one of the way to create articles. What I found was Jin dynasty (1115–1234) Eptalon (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

ok thanks Smokey 6767 (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

(Please let me know if I have made any mistakes here. This is my first time posting on talk pages. I am also new to wikipedia). I have added a discussion about this in the talk page for the article Wikipedia:Words to avoid in Simple English. Currently, there is only one word in this list. I am going to try to add more words to the list. It would be great to have more people help as well. It would also be great to start discussions on the talk page about which words should be on the list. I really love what this wikipedia is trying to do. I want to help people learn how to make changes to articles. SuddenArtichokes (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed a recent trend of vandals slowly but surely adding absurd number of items to lists within articles. Horton Hears a Who! (movie) and Dodge Ram are two good examples. Because it's gradual, it sometimes gets missed by the recent change patrollers. Please be on the lookout for this! Garsh (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply