Wikipedia:Simple talk

Hello! There will be two Wikimedia Café discussion opportunities during the last weekend of May. Both sessions will focus on the the 2026-2027 Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan. Participants may attend either or both sessions.

1. Saturday, 30 May 2026 at 15:00 UTC (timestamp converter), at a time friendly to the Americas, Africa, and Europe
2. Sunday, 31 May 2026 at 05:00 UTC (timestamp converter), at a time friendly to Asia and the Pacific

Café participants are highly encouraged to read in advance at least this summary of the plan. Optionally, Café participants are encouraged to read portions of the plan that interest them and ask questions or provide feedback on the Annual Plan talk page.

Please see the Café page for more information, including tables of timestamp conversions for both sessions, the agenda, and how to register!

↠Pine (✉) 19:52, 21 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I would like to discuss the process of having Vaginal yeast infection promoted to a good article. Is this the right place for this discussion? Barbara (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Have a look at the WP:GAC and if you think the article meets them, list it at WP:PGA. Garsh (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Barbara (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I know that's not in the criteria, but readability-wise, two of the sections look a little short to me. Probably that's just me, but I would expect them to be about twice the size they are now (and also: more than one paragraph? Eptalon (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Excellent advice. I can certainly work on the article more. When it contains more complete information (longer), I can then follow the right 'procedure' at WP:PGA. I appreciate you taking a quick look at the article. Barbara (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

It likely is a candidate, but as I pointed out, more work is likely needed. I also added some number as to how common the condition is; I'd expect such numbers (even uf they are rough etimates) to be in the article. As you see, there alwyas are things you can fix. Eptalon (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

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 ) 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

Eligible voters are asked to participate in the 2026 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 2026 Election information page. The vote closes on 2 June 2026 at 00:00 UTC.

Please vote if your account is eligible. Results will be available by 14 June 2026. -- In cooperation with the U4C,

Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I haven't been as active here lately as I would like, but I just wanted to make sure this community is aware of the WWU solidarity campaign ongoing at Meta-Wiki. There's also an enwiki petition threatening an editing strike. This is an important issue to a lot of editors and WMF employees, so I figured I'd spread the word. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 21:42, 28 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