Wikipedia:Simple talk

Simple talk
	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 Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.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 —    change

Opting out of beta features - how do I do this please?

I've just come on for the first time in a while, and I have found this thing called a Dashboard, sitting at the top of my page. I've taken a look at it, and it says it's a beta feature. To be honest, it doesn't look like something I would choose to use, and I would like to opt out of it. The problem is, there is nowhere that I can see, where I can opt out! If someone can tell me how to do this please, I would appreciate your help. Thanks! DaneGeld (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Click the little user icon in the top right corner of the page, go to "My settings", and then there will be a "Beta features" tab. You can also get to your settings by going to Special:Preferences and the beta features tab using Special:Betafeatures. Garsh (talk) 05:56, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. I have checked the page you directed me to, and this item doesn't show up in that list. Is there any other way this could have been added to this Wiki? I have checked other versions and have not found this anywhere else, so I presume it's limited to us. DaneGeld (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Request for comments

Please treat this as a request for comments / consensus. I'm blocked on en.wiki so I can't use the typical process (no I'm not re-litigating it in any way):

I would like to bring | this custom template that I created in en.wikipedia. It's a spoof on Isaiah Mustafa's "Old Spice" add, the intent is to get the attention (in a humorous way) of people vandalizing the encyclopedia who don't respond to a first, second or third warning. I don't intend to use is for anything else other than that, and again, it's meant to be humorous. It got a mixed review and almost got deleted so I thought it would be better to ask first and gain consensus before attempting to move this template over. So feel free to vote for or against (or comment too!). I'll respect whatever the consensus is.  Wê KéèÞ Whåt Wé Kïll 18:15, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

What does this add to the project? We aren't a social media platform. You'll notice that we very rarely do humour here on simple wiki. I'd say not to bring it over. We're not enwiki and we don't have the same tolerance for non-project enhancing stuff. fr33kman 21:19, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The decision on the English Wikipedia is that it shouldn’t be used to warn anyone. I don’t see what the purpose would be to bring it here. It wouldn’t be something to use here either. Even more so on this project because the text and its implications wouldn’t be a simple message to be understood by our target audience.

Also, please change your signature. It is nearly impossible to read with the layers of shadow and then with everything having accents on it. CountryANDWestern (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

yes, please use an easier to read sig. fr33kman 21:37, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks like consensus is against (at least at this time) so I won't move it over. I happen to like artistic signatures, but again, I'm not looking to start an argument even over that. I just updated my signature to remove the accents and make them English characters. It looks clearer to me (and I'm wearing bi-focals :) ).  We keep what we Kill 03:00, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

It continues to be unclear. Please remove the shadow effect. CountryANDWestern (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Geographic places again, comments wanted

Hello, we have had this discussion in the past seceral times, from memory the last one must have been 10 to 15 years ago: Currently, the conseus on geographic places is that all of them are notable by default. I want to propose a change, as follows:

• If the article is shrt and mainly contains statistical data, it can be quick deleted ('New York City is a city i the state with the same name, 8.5 million people live there' - Not really notable)
• I would expect the article to be at least a few sentences / a paragraph. The article must state why the city might be notable (for example: historic location): Montignac is a village in the Dordogne department. About 2.700 people live there. The village is on the banks of the Vezere River. People have lived in the region for a very long time. In 2020, the village was renamed Monignac-Lascaux, in honor of the Lascaux caves which are nearby)

Note: In a first phase, this would only apply to newly created articles; no one really knows how many zililons of articles of 'X is a city in Y, Z people lve there', we have. What do other people think? Eptalon (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The recent articles regarding places in Minnesota are problematic but I don't see how shortness of the articles reflects on notability. Something is either notable or it's not. The only thing that we might decide on is that such short articles "could" be deleted as A1, little meaning. I'm open to a change in QDs such as "too short to be useful". fr33kman 21:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I generally oppose the above suggestions. An article being short does not mean the subject is not notable. It may be that a lot of possible content just hasn’t been added to the article yet. I don’t really have a problem leaving the one sentence place articles, or even allowing more, because at some point down the road, some folks with time may expand them. Wikipedia has to work based on incremental improvement. I think in an ideal world, the QD criteria are as objective as possible. Whether or not something is “too short to be useful” is a pretty subjective call and should be left to RfD. That is why we have discussions about things like notability after all. As I see it, the current state of A1, applying to articles with little or no meaning, is at least a little more objective.

In a lot of ways I think judging the notability of a geographic place is more challenging than other types of articles. Would a certain population of an urban area make it notable? What about location, physical size, or something else? Pretty much any town or city can make a claim of notability somehow. Non-populated areas like permanent landmarks or physical features can be even harder. Do we consider age, size, natural vs man-made, number of visitors, sourcing, or some combination? I think assuming geographic places are notable is okay for our purposes. Garsh (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Why is it so hard to make a redirect?

I clicked the link to web forum intending to create a redirect to internet forum, but instead of text to create the article I saw this:

"New article

What is this?

Actor Person who acts in a dramatic or comic production and works in film, television, theatre, or radio

album Grouping of album releases by an artist usually released at the same time with the same title and tracks but in different formats for consumption (digital, CD, LP)

Animalia Kingdom of multicellular eukaryotic organisms

astronomical object Physical body of astronomically-significant size, mass, or role, naturally occurring in a universe

athlete Person who participates regularly in a running competition sports

award Something given to a person or a group of people to recognize their merit or excellence " and so on. ~2026-37126-38 (talk) 03:33, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

This is the result of a new feature that is in testing called article guidance. The feature certainly has issues, and I'm not quite sure how to help because I (thankfully) avoided the the testing group. Logging out and then creating a new temporary account might fix the problem because it could get you out of the testing group.

@UOzurumba (WMF), Garsh (talk) 04:20, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @~2026-37126-38, for reporting this, and @Garsh2 for pinging me. This issue has been captured in this ticket and will be looked into. We ask for your patience while we work on it. Best regards, UOzurumba (WMF) (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

When to use "no useful content"?

@Garsh2: I recently tagged about 10 artices with one sentence for deletion, and got declined for {{tq|short articles are not inherently useless. When exactly to use the speedy deletino criterion "no useful content"? Least Action (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

There is no specific criteria for this. The recent spate of year articles can probably be deleted as A1 (little meaning) imo. fr33kman 17:40, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I gave a little bit of my thoughts about this in one of the sections above. No useful content is for articles with so little content that it’s hard to even figure out what they are about, per WP:AQD. Even one sentence that gives information about the place is useful content. Garsh (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

"Simple" pages

I'm concerned about what's being treated as "simple" here. I found The Sound and the Fury, which I was about to tag for quick deletion as a copy of the English Wikipedia en:The Sound and the Fury, but then I realized it was created by an admin Fr33kman. If that is enough to qualify as simple, this project is beginning to seem redundant. canadachick (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure of what your point or intention is in opening this thread here. Admin are not some godlike entities where everything we do is flawless or automatically meets every standard. I have nominated articles by admin for deletion before. My suggestion is raising these concerns with him or at the article’s talk page as a first means of addressing your concerns. I don’t think opening a thread at a community board about one admin’s creation of one article being indicative of something bigger about this entire project is necessary. CountryANDWestern (talk) 06:49, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, anyone can create pages here, with very few exceptions. As to the language complexity: simplification is under way. Since the page was started some simplification has been done. So, what exactly are you trying to say? That the article is still difficult to understand? Probably. But what can and should we do against it? Eptalon (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't write so much about books, but look at the article forced marriage which I created several years back. Looking at the edit history, I contributed about a third of the edits. Most are small fixes. Yes I know important subject to write about. No, not popular or catchy. So, getting an article to simple language often is a process. This is a small wiki, so getting other people to contribute can be difficult. The article you talk about above is about a book, so how msnY literary inclined editors are there? Eptalon (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who created the article, admin or not. If you feel it needs more simplification you could either tell me on my talk page or fix it yourself. Bringing it to ST is not the best first step. fr33kman 11:51, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

It did need some work (as do most pages) so I have had a quick go at simplifying. Peterdownunder (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. :) fr33kman 12:00, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I should say that I do understand canadachick's concern. Administrators are not all powerful or even more important than anyone else, but I think the community trust does come with some expectation about setting a standard. There is no problem tagging or deleting articles created by administrators, but it does warrant some questions about why the article was in that state. With that said, nobody makes perfect articles. We all should improve on each other's work, and I'm glad that happened here. Garsh (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2026 (UTC)