Wikipedia:Simple talk

Hello, So we have an editor (W;ChangingUsername) who's created Medication articles however these articles all include;

• side effects,
• who can/cannot take it,
• dosage/how to take them/length of taking/forgotten dosage
• caution/conflict with other medications
• taking whilst pregnant/breastfeeding

Examples of articles; Esomeprazole, Rabeprazole, Promethazine, Acrivastine, Cinnarizine, Chlorphenamine

My questions is: Is this content okay or should it all be removed and leave them looking like this diff?

Having this infomation in articles A) gives the impression we're a medication pamphlet as opposed to an encyclopedia, and B) I feel it could open doors to WMF being sued especially if someones followed the instructions here and it all went terribly wrong (I don't know much about the law so don't know if the WMF could be sued/held responsible etc)

Imagine if W;ChangingUsername unknowingly got the dosage wrong and someone reads it and assumes its correct and for instance takes 2 tablets instead of 1 - Of course I would hope no one would ever follow such instructions here but everyone is different, and taking into account the website we are and our viewers (whom may have mental disabilities and may not know better/different) it's a very stupid and dangerous game but I would like to seek others opinions before I go on a blanking spree,

Thanks, Kind Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 19:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Thanks for raising this here. I had a conversation with the editor about this and I meant to get back to it but I haven't had a chance.

You are absolutely right. Wikipedia should not be giving instruction or advice about anything. In the case of medications, it's even more important because of the legal implications. Wikipedia is neither a how-to nor a medical provider. As far as I'm concerned, feel free to remove this kind of info. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Auntof6, You're welcome - I know I reverted this editors edits before somewhere and it resulted in one big drama so wanted to double check first,

I absolutely and 110% agree with your last statement and couldn't ever have put it any better myself - In all honestly I wonder if this editor is here for the wrong reasons but I guess that's another discussion for another venue, I'm genuinely shocked someone added this and thought it was okay but anyway I'll remove the content, Many thanks for your quick response/help it's greatly appreciated, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 20:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Do whatever you want. Edit the article if needed. W;ChangingUsername (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Tagging David and @2001:2020:30B:CD55:2993:E9D5:BB4F:B85A W;ChangingUsername (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@W;ChangingUsername theres no point in pinging an IP Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thats a shame. There was another editor on the statins medications talk W;ChangingUsername (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia articles for antipsychotic drugs have toilet plate text for discontinuation of the drugs and this is helpful.

Such things are framed in a way that instead of being a guide it is some info from a source. If everything was done this way i dont know if there would be issue :)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paliperidone example W;ChangingUsername (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I can change the article also. Change it if you want, and if i think something could go in after, it can be changed back and forth to make good articles

And when i edit those articles I will tag you so you're aware and can have input again in future better revisions W;ChangingUsername (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @W;ChangingUsername, Many thanks for remaining calm and patient - You're more than welcome to post here and ask editors if x, and y would be okay,

I'm not lecturing you but in case you weren't aware the Simple English Wikipedia is also for people with different needs, such as children, students, and adults with learning difficulties, and people who are trying to learn English and as I said those with mental disabilities whom may not understand may think it's okay to follow the instructions here,

I appreciate you expanding the articles and trying to be helpful but given the website we are and who we cater to I'm sure you can understand the seriousness and danger of including the information you have here, I would hate for the WMF or yourself to face legal ramifications over the content included/hosted, Anyway thanks again for remaining patient and calm throughout, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done - As far as I can see I've removed all of the content from all articles, I've done various searches relating to keywords of the previous content and not getting any results so hoping i've removed all of the content, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Dont remove possible side effects from medications articles though W;ChangingUsername (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@W;ChangingUsername Too late - everything I listed above has now been deleted, You're more than welcome to start an RFC on having side effects listed here but given it's listed on any EN articles and given we're not a medical website - chances are there would be no consensus to host such information anyway, –Davey2010^Talk 22:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Fr33kman and Bluerasberry: 73.170.137.168 (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  I concur fr33kman 23:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  I dont know what information would go into a wikipedia article, or why someone would search it, other than for things like effects/side effects, pharmacology, chemistry, pregnancy category and so on. Nor do i see what info could go in from a reference (like a paper from a study) besides these. It would be challenging to make long and informative articles without these info W;ChangingUsername (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Auntof6@Fr33kman and quoted

  I'm on a laptop soon so ill be able to put a lot of focus and attention into finishing Wikipedia so that it's in a state where people have something to add to, including me. And seeing as though OP took a bunch of articles and crack cocaine fumes and had another problem with me (the second or third) after a dispute previously, deleted (in a LOT of articles) all of my work and my barnstar i gave him for 'wasting a bunch of my life and time' and told me to go fuck myself and fuck off, and less than 2 hours later on the same day declared it done, these edits are getting reverted. Thanks.

  And please read this post carefully and look st this users actions in the future. I left it but you know what i am going to make the stroke page actually good too (the incorrect and fanfic/headcannon he wrote for an article) to make it proper again, because previously he has reverted my edits to his precious article.

  And seeing @Auntof6s numerous issues with my (and my reaction to them) compared.to his i still hope that it isn't someone abusing their power and being spiteful towards me, or that it won't lead to that happenening when I re-edit his whole article later. I will also be reverting the articles if not to how my own judgement sees it shojld be but how wikipedia writes their articles. Obviously simplified W;ChangingUsername (talk) 06:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Taking 4000 characters from every article a user have done so far is not acceptable and your stroke article is garbage too. These stubs youve.created may as well not exist.

  Likewise in my other barnstar as well as thanking you for wasting my time I congratulated you for making thr site worse. Congratulations again for doing that (again). Well done on making like 50 articles stubs with 0 information and taking away their purpose. Worthless admin or whatever useless title you have (i dont care)

  @Me Da Wikipedian W;ChangingUsername (talk) 06:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  You pinged me, but I'm not an admin and I haven't done any of the above. Anyways, @W;ChangingUsername, please be more civil and remember that likwly they are trying to help. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Is actually closer to 5000 characters & forgot to tag someone. @Eptalon W;ChangingUsername (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support adding information which English Wikipedia includes English Wikipedia includes most of this information, and I support restoring that. At the English Wikipedia Medical Manual of Style there are recommended section headings for drugs. "Side effects" is the same as "Adverse effects", "Medical uses" is always the first section and is "who can take it", "Dosage" English Wikipedia does not report and does not recommend including, "caution" is "drug interactions", and pregnancy goes in a section called "special populations" at the bottom although we frequently single out pregnancy as an extra-special, special case and put national regulatory pregnancy codes in the infobox. Overall most of this is essential information which is safe to include when backed by reliable sources. Talking through at en:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine could be helpful for confirming best practices. Everyone wants dosage also but the situation is that there is significant variation in medical recommendations country to country, in addition to the matter being very sensitive patient to patient. It is fine to talk generally about the effects of not enough, too much, or just write, but do not name numbers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  I would advise against some of these simplifications. While "adverse effects" and "side effects" mean the same thing, "medical uses" and "who can take it" are two different things. "Drug interactions" and "caution" are two completely different things.

  This is an issue, too, and goes back to what AuntOf6 and Davey2010 have mentioned. If we sound too much like a medication pamphlet, it is dangerous. Not only is it unencyclopedic, it can cause legal issues.

  The word "drug interactions" was chosen because it is a medical term, and has a broader scope than most "cautions"; it includes a more encyclopedic scope of information. These medicine articles aren't made specifically for those who are taking the medication, these articles are made for those who want to learn more about the subject.

  I bring this up mainly as a warning to be very careful when editing these articles. Even though something is true and is backed up by a source, it can still be dangerous if it disproportionately adds certain types of information. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 20:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  Totally seperate idea:What if we just made a template to put on top of every medical related article with a disclaimer saying "We are not a doctor and don't trust any medical advice from here" or some variety of that. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  I support this idea. That template already exists on it.wiki since 2011 for medical, legal and similar issues, see it:Template:Disclaimer. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 13:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  Is this good Enough? I'm planning to improve it.

  (I know its not perfect and I accept criticism to improve the template.) Kirkukturk3 (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Good! I changed how the image is shown and a part of the text. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 19:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  I also changed the way it looks to match similar notices. I used {{Ambox}}. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 19:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you! Kirkukturk3 (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  please specify "do not replace medical advice" to "do not replace medical advice by a professional" as this is in fact medical advice. @Kirkukturk3 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

   Done Kirkukturk3 (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree - The content was only included in order for the article(s) to be acted as a pamphlet(s), For example;[1][2]

(I originally pasted side effects from 2 articles however it looked better in my head than it did on paper so removed the sections/examples

I would have no objections to things going back providing they're not telling the person what to do which every section is –Davey2010^Talk 11:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• The idea of the disclaimer is too say "Yes, were telling you what to do, but we might be wrong, so ask your doctor". @Davey2010 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'd rather it just be worded in ways that didn't tell people what to do but I guess if that cannot be achieved then sure I'd settle for a disclaimer, I mean there's nothing stopping anyone from finding the information online anyway, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  " there's nothing stopping anyone from finding the information online anyway" - True of most information on Wikipedia. @Davey2010 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  They are phrased that way in the source. The article mentions in 'side effects' that in the medicine box there will be a pamphlet. There are a lot of sites for information online but simple wiki may be their only source. W;ChangingUsername (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think what applies to any article, also applies to articles about drugs or diseases

  • Since anyone can edit, we cannot guarantee that the information given is accurate, or correct
  • Even if it is, making a diagnosis takes a healthcare professional. There's a reason people study 5 years or more to be a doctor of medicine, or a pharmacist (who knowns about drugs)
  • Even if the information is accurate, it might not apply in your specific case.
  • Side-effects can be very specific, the more "common" a side-effect is, the more likely you'll find it in the product brochure.
  • Wikipedia can be there for general information, but if you need more specific information ask your doctor/healthcare professional

  Keeping that in mind, there is no harm in saying "With this condition, usually either drug A, B, or C are given. Drug A usually has these side-effects..." - Remember, we are an encyclopedia, there's no "forbidden knoweldge". Eptalon (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  The common (1 in 100) side effects should be included because they are likely to happen. It's a pretty safe bet that they will. Also the side effects risks can be confirmed in the medicine packet as was mentioned. Also the information is all sourced from the NHS gov website. W;ChangingUsername (talk) 06:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Other than that, likely what we need: Is it safe during pregnancy, what are other drugs it doesn't go with well/at all. And as always, we are there for information. We cannot replace a healthcare professional. Eptalon (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello everyone,

The voting to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter is now open. The Wikimedia Movement Charter is a document to define roles and responsibilities for all the members and entities of the Wikimedia movement, including the creation of a new body – the Global Council – for movement governance.

The final version of the Wikimedia Movement Charter is available on Meta in different languages and attached here in PDF format for your reading.

Voting commenced on SecurePoll on June 25, 2024 at 00:01 UTC and will conclude on July 9, 2024 at 23:59 UTC. Please read more on the voter information and eligibility details.

After reading the Charter, please vote here and share this note further.

If you have any questions about the ratification vote, please contact the Charter Electoral Commission at cec@wikimedia.org.

On behalf of the CEC,

RamzyM (WMF) 10:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

ATTENTION: It is very important to vote on this. This Charter will have a big effect on all Wikimedia wikis, including the Simple English Wikipedia. Anyone who reads this should look at what it says and then vote on it based on your opinion of that. Reading the talk page might also help you figure out whether you support it. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Sugo Ishibe Shrine should be titled Sugōisobe Shrine. The title is a misreading of the Japanese name because 石 is normally read as Ishi, but is Iso in this shrine's name. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 12:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Move it. Rathfelder (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

You can move it! Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: I think the user is blocked from articles and template creation Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 08:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I've moved the page to the correct title for you. – Cyber.Eyes2005^Talk 14:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick question: why not keep the redirect? - Depending on where on earth you are, getting characters with accents/diacritics may be difficult..? Eptalon (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't a better redirect be Sugoisobe Shrine to Sugōisobe Shrine since the only difference would be that the o is missing its diacritic?- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 12:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

IP seems to be cranking out c. 4 articles per day.--See Talk:Westerhout 49-7.--Not wikified (i.e. No category).--Source: i dunno if the source is notable. Other "problems"? Thoughts? 2001:2020:309:AE06:BC0A:B191:9A35:7ADA (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that Simple-wiki should come up with a checklist of things that should be done, when one starts an article about a star (or a star in Space).--Such a checklist should maybe have recommended sources, about "new et cetera" stars. Thoughts? 2001:2020:309:AE06:BC0A:B191:9A35:7ADA (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC) / 2001:2020:309:AE06:BC0A:B191:9A35:7ADA

Update: Nine articles in half of a day.--That might turn out to be a problem, if the articles are not ready for this encyclopedia, at this time. 2001:2020:309:AE06:BC0A:B191:9A35:7ADA (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, such a checklist is generally not very neccessary — if someone wants to make a guide like this, they make it on their userspace, such as the one AuntOf6 made. Since many wikipedians have their own different opinions about what should be in an article, it is difficult to make a well made main page that goes beyond a simple idea such as to Be Bold. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 14:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

2MASS J04285096-2253227 is a red-link (at English-wiki), and mentioned in
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_brown_dwarfs#Unconfirmed_brown_dwarfs . --I am thinking it should get USERIFY / USERFY, or be QD.--Please consider doing one or the other in a timely manner, so that the user will "get a message" that articles have to be of a certain standard, in stead of flooding us with half-a$$ sub-stubs. 2001:2020:309:AE06:91C2:2F5C:DA4:E781 (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

None of these are notable per en:NASTRO or en:NASTCRIT. This is fairly obviously not notable, but I am not sure that it necessarily falls under QD. Would it be possible for an admin to mass delete these pages, or does it all have to be put through RFD?(or maybe just one RFD page for all of IP's articles?) MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 15:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Rather awkwardly, a few of the articles actually are based on subjects that are notable. So some checking will have to be done the manual (painful) way. --Ferien (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Westerhout 49-2, En-wiki has an article about that, and the history of that article goes back for for some years.
Link,en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westerhout_49-2
, 2001:2020:309:AE06:91C2:2F5C:DA4:E781 (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• The user that started the articles, last edited at 13:03, 26 June 2024.--If possible, consider tagging most of the articles, in regard to notability.--I am thinking that we should see if we can accent the positives, so to speak, in regard to that wikipedia-user.--So, any QD can wait a day or two or a half week, in my view. (As long as articles have relevant tags.) --Thoughts? 2001:2020:309:AE06:91C2:2F5C:DA4:E781 (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  
  Update: All, except one of the articles, have been tagged: "Notability".--So, now we might have two days or a half week, to think things over (without pretending that the problematic articles, are okay). 2001:2020:309:AE06:91C2:2F5C:DA4:E781 (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
• Another update: WOH G17, was created at 16:58 .--En-wiki has deleted their article (not notable); link,
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WOH_G17
  .--That article should be QD for not being encyclopedic and/or not being wikified.--USERFY? I would not bother with that article. 2001:2020:309:AE06:BD15:72C7:4DB0:35C6 (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC) /OP
• New article, LGGS J004520.67+414717.3.--Seems to be only mention at En-wiki, in the article about Eddington limit.--No need for a redirect (but QD for not being encyclopedic and/or not wikified.) 2001:2020:309:AE06:BD15:72C7:4DB0:35C6 (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
• Newer article, Westerhout 49-8.--Seems to not be mentioned at En-wiki.--QD for not being encyclopedic and/or not being wikified? Good luck (while i fix other articles). 2001:2020:309:AE06:BD15:72C7:4DB0:35C6 (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  Should probably not be redirected to Westerhout 49.--However, it is mentioned in the table, at En-wiki's List of most massive stars. Link,
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_massive_stars
  , 2001:2020:309:AE06:BD15:72C7:4DB0:35C6 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  Newer titles, without articles at En-wiki:
  Stephenson 2 DFK 15
  Stephenson 2 DFK 2. 2001:2020:309:AE06:BD15:72C7:4DB0:35C6 (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  
  Update: About 14 new articles, in two hours. 2001:2020:309:AE06:5C0F:321:9AF4:4AE7 (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  We don't really need an update every time there is a new article created. If articles aren't notable, they should go to WP:QD or WP:AFD. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  Since your insightful edit, there have been c. 10 more articles.--Good luck in whichever way the community chooses (while i fix other articles). 2001:2020:309:AE06:A528:AB83:4622:BFCA (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• I have asked En-wiki if they are interested that i bring these articles over to them. See Link,
  
  en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Astronomy&diff=1231335005&oldid=1231247271
  . 2001:2020:301:A9E4:D9A9:D130:F839:7819 (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:309:AE06:BC0A:B191:9A35:7ADA

  Enwiki does not control simplewiki. Why would they need to give the okay to allow star articles? Ternera (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  What you are saying, and what i said, are two different things.--No worries, I expect that any answer at English-wiki will be illuminating (and quite possibly helpful for this thread too).--I suggest we wait and see where the chips may fall. 2001:2020:301:A9E4:D9A9:D130:F839:7819 (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Three people have (so far) answered at En-wiki.--None of them have said that the titles are wanted over there. (And one said that it is best not to create the bunch of titles.)--The sources for many of the articles, also suck.--Good luck fixing the articles (or whatever), while i fix other articles. 2001:2020:301:A9E4:99F2:4A71:53B8:9057 (talk) 04:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:309:AE06:BC0A:B191:9A35:7ADA

  Once again - the English language Wikipedia isn't a controlling instance of what we may or may not have here.

  If something is not notable, nominate it for deletion. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  What you are saying, and what i said, are two different things.--In regard to nominating non-notable stuff - for Delete: anyone has that possibility. 2001:2020:345:A57A:B15B:DF51:B1FB:D893 (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:309:AE06:BC0A:B191:9A35:7ADA

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
IP blocked for a week, while we work out what to do with the articles for the moment. --Ferien (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Simple solution: if a title also exists (as a title) at En-wiki, then be gentle.--For the other articles, press the switch that says "Czar bomb" (or nuke).--Please note that there are dubious entries on (astronomy) Lists at En-wiki. (For elaboration, see

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#List_of_brown_dwarfs
. 2001:2020:345:A57A:CCB8:F39D:CE66:9C82 (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep, Westerhout 49-2 (and Westerhout 49). I think all the other objects, linked individually in this thread can be nuked first. 2001:2020:345:A57A:CCB8:F39D:CE66:9C82 (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Please check it these "last" stars, are notable: Link,
  
  simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/47.186.42.50
  . I will be busy fixing other articles. 2001:2020:31D:C652:AC45:8744:8029:8AF3 (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  
  
• N6946-BH1 - suggested for QD, and the justification says,
  
  Not notable. See Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/HD 269112 for inspiration}}
  .--There are c. 7 more articles from last month, that probably should be deleted (plus c. one article that has a wiki-notable title). 2001:2020:337:DE57:C80E:E7C0:E025:38A4 (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• R71 and the rest of the articles (from last month) by that article-starter, has not been dealt with.--Good luck while i fix other articles.--Note: Westerhout 49-2 is notable at En-wiki (and regarding our article's fate faith: not sure i care, either way). 2001:2020:349:7E25:545D:A12C:100E:81A1 (talk) 05:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I was just reading through the article on the Kilogram using the Android app. Underneath the heading "Mass and weight", the following message is shown:

Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Leonidlednev Rapes Babies on Wheels' not found.

I cannot help but feel like this is somehow an attempt at vandalism. I tried to change the page to remove the vandalism, but I was unable to find any reference to this script.

Is this a normal error message? I wish I could be of more help and remove it, but I am not familiar enough with the edit side of the platform to know where this message is coming from.

The reason I've decided to place it on the general page instead of the kilogram talk, is that this seems to be a wider spread issue. A Google search will turn up many pages where the text is found: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Lua+error+in+package.lua+at+line+80%3A+module+%27Leonidlednev+Rapes+Babies+on+Wheels%27+not+found.%22+site%3Awikipedia.org

Thank you for everything.

Korimo (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Korimo probably some sort of template vandalism (a template is a piece of text that can be automatically included into articles). I'm going to take a look. —76.212.74.243 (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Korimo update: it is template vandalism, though it has been removed now. See Special:Contributions/Lua Module Smasher for an example. We might need a way of making sure our Lua modules aren't modified like this, though there will probably be a lot of modules to handle. Also, it's very sad that the vandalism is now on Google. Hopefully it will be removed soon. —76.212.74.243 (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC) (comment edited at 01:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC))

I had the same thing happen a couple weeks ago. I made a edit on the page I was on and pushed publish and it worked for me. It's from some guy vandalising a module or something. - MourningRainfall 🐺🇨🇦 01:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Unfortunately it is in the cached versions of pages, so although the problem is fixed in the modules, and has been for more than a month, the problem lingers on a lot of pages. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Current_issues_and_requests_archive_75#simple_Wikipedia_appears_to_be_defaced_through_the_clever_introduction_of_a_Lua_error for a discussion of the problem. I fixed about 200 pages manually before getting bored but clearly there is more to do. Bring up any page with the problem, append ?action=purge to the URL, and then reload: fixed. You can find a list of problem pages by searching this. I'll do some more of them now. Antandrus (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I take that back; none of those pages show the problem any longer - maybe someone server-side was able to purge the cache? It still comes up in search results but I can't find a page that loads with the problem any more. Antandrus (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The vandalism has found its way into the Kiwix database dumps used for offline viewing of Wikipedia. Is there any way to remove it from there, or would we have to contact the WMF? —76.212.74.243 (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I suspect we should probably page protect modules to prevent such widespread vandalism. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. There is a list of highly-transcluded pages at Special:MostTranscludedPages. There does not appear to be a corresponding API and scraping the special page itself seems impolite so the best we can do is go through the list manually. —76.212.74.243 (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Simple wikipedia has a small collection of pages and category that refer to various types of diaspora. (See Category:Emigration).

I am wondering if this term is too complex for simple wikipedia. Many native english speakers don't even know what the word "diaspora" means.

I propose that we change and redirect all instances of the word "diaspora" to "emigration", since in almost all instances they cover the same topics.

In fact, this has been done in some cases already in English Wikipedia where there have been two separate articles for emigration and diaspora. See en:Talk:American diaspora#Proposed merge with Emigration from the United States.

If gained enough approval, would there also be a way for a bot or mod to automate this process?

Thanks, MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 15:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe it should be changed or kept on a case by case basis. "Diaspora" has a different meaning than "emigration". They are not the same thing. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 15:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand, but in nearly every context they cover the same topics. An article about emigration from a nation can easily be merged with an article of that nation's ethnic diaspora. This was done in en wiki with Emigration from the United States. Diaspora is a type of emigration, which is why it would make sense for them to be in the same articles. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 17:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I find both terms to be un-simple (de-simple, ney-simple?). I'd prefer emigration if no simple word exists, as I've never heard of Disapora. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Emigration is the better word. Rathfelder (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

"changed or kept on a case by case basis", sounds okay.--My guess, is that this discussion will not agree on any single category, or article-title, being changed.--Specific examples ain't gonna sound good, or look good: that is my prediction. 2001:2020:317:BD4D:F071:1980:AA23:EFAC (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not know where to indent this comment, but I want to make some examples. Something like "American diaspora" can be easily merged to "Emigration from the United States", but what about the Jewish diaspora? "Jewish emigration" does not explain its history well, it basically waters it down. The article should explain the meaning of "diaspora", though. A diaspora is a complex phenomenon. The two words are not synonyms, this is what I mean. In most cases, we can use "emigration", but not always. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 19:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

My issue is that I do not see why "Jewish emigration" does not explain the issue well. In theory, diaspora is a type of emigration.

For example, instances in which Jewish individuals have been separated, forced out of a place, moved to another location, etc can be explained by emigration to another location MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 20:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

But the pattern of movement for Jews is very much more complex than for other peoples. The movements of their ancestors is still significant hundreds of years later. For most other people they are eventually absorbed into the new culture. Rathfelder (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not see how that absorption into culture is tied to the term "emigration", however. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 21:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I think most people would see emigration as just moving from one country to another. Rathfelder (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that the complex pattern of movement of peoples over time is, at its core, moving from one place to another.

The idea of "Jewish emigration" can mean a variety of things throughout history, all of which fundamentally resulted from moving from one place to another(whether intentional or forced/displaced, whether once or multiple ). MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 21:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I think we likely need both. Imagine, that some people emigrate, for whatever reason. Then there is a 'community of foreigners' in another country. Over time (their parents emigrated, their grandparents did), what is left is a 'diaspora'. Happened in many cases, not only to Jews, but also people emigrating for other reasons. The German-speaking communities in Romania, in Russia, In South America are just examples. So, likely it needs explaining, and we need both concepts, and cannot do with one of them alone. Eptalon (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Rathfelder (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

A diaspora is much more than moving from a place to another. If I move to France tomorrow because I like Paris, that is "emigration". No loss of culture, famines, wars or genocides involved, yet it is emigration. A diaspora, to put it as simple as possible, needs some sort of tragic background to happen (not always, but most of the time). If you want a much better definition, then "William Safran set out six rules to distinguish diasporas from migrant communities and Rogers Brubaker more inclusively applied three basic definitional criteria" (copied from enwiki, cannot copy more due to copyright).

P.S. I really hope this does not come out as rude. I sometimes sound mad for no reason in written text, but I do not know how to fix that. I am relaxed while writing this, not mad at all ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 21:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

This only confirms what I said above: we need both concepts, and we need to explain well, and in simple language Eptalon (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I see your point, thank you for the explanation. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 11:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Regarding the article "Diaspora": It has c. none of the (good) information from this thread.--Anyone (or myself) can add info.--By the way: in my North European language, the largest encyclopedia has one article about Jewish diaspora, and one article about Diaspora.--If i see anything okay to add, then i probably will. 80.67.37.2 (talk) 11:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)/ 80.67.37.2 (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  I just added some info about its definition. I tried to write it as simple as possible. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 20:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  We also need an article about expatriates. Rathfelder (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Just wondering I know the lead at Plaxton Pointer is a mouthful but is it simple enough?,

I've found https://goodcalculators.com/flesch-kincaid-calculator/ which calculates the readability score and it's saying for the lead it reads as "Reading Level: College ( Difficult to read )"

If the lead is problematic then I don't really know how to trim it down/make it simple enough so didn't know if anyone had any suggestions, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 19:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I've made a few changes to make it a bit more simple to read. I know nothing about busses, so you'd have to re-add bits about the high-floorness, whatever that is. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

You @sir are amazing thank you so much for your help and edits they're greatly appreciated, I've added the high/low floor back but it's absolutely perfect thank you, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 20:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I tend to think the lede sentence should always just say what the subject is in plain terms (that's true on all Wikis). It's almost always too in depth. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I know you're talking about in general but unfortunately up until now I always thought my lead sentences did say what the subject is in plain terms but then again I wasn't aware of that website so didn't know any better and didn't have anything to guide me other than Wikipedia:BASIC English alphabetical wordlist and assumption/guess work,

I'll be honest I was taken aback by your edits (in a good way) and they've genuinely opened my eyes - Anyway we live and we learn - I'll fix the rest of my articles this week,

Thanks again I do greatly appreciate you're help, Have a great morning/day/evening, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 20:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I am writing a biography and I re-read WP:MOS and en:WP:MOSBIO, but I am still confused about nationality wikilinks in the first sentence. Which one is correct?

1. Pinco Pallo was an Italian person.2. Pinco Pallo was an [[Italy|Italian]] person.3. Pinco Pallo was an [[Italians|Italian]] person.

✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 00:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I prefer the third one, but I don't know that there's any official policy or guideline for it. Please note:

• I also see the second one a lot, but I change it when I can.
• We don't have links for all nationalities. (Although you can create the ones we don't have.)

Hope that helps. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6: I usually do the second one for things like music groups, but I prefer the third one for individuals as well. And yes, it helps, thank you! ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 01:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dream Indigo: Yes, I also use the second one for musical groups, and for things other than people. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I don't really like linking nationalities, the actual link is often an W:WP:EASTEREGG (when you click "Italian" you'd expect an artivle ok "Italian people", not "Italy) and we try our best not to overlink to very common terms. Often in the lede, the nationality is followed by a link, so I don't link to avoid W:WP:SEAOFBLUE. It's quite common that a person's birthplace is also in the lede, so I just link it there.

There are obviously some cases where that's not suitable - if someone is notable because of their nationality, their country of origin is not well known, or there's no suitable way to include the link, then I might put it in the lede sentence. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Thank you for the info! I usually link countries/nationalities because we are on simple and maybe some readers only know a place's name in their native language. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 18:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure. My way is for no means definitive. That's just how I like to deal with it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dream Indigo: Exactly. Here is a discussion we had about this a while back. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Just read it and I 100% agree with you. Also, I love how you used Florence as an example, because it is one of the first cities that comes to my mind when I think about this. When I was a kid, I knew Firenze, Italy, very well, but I did not know "Florence" and I used to believe that it was a French city! People come here on SEW because they are young (so they studied little geography/history/etc), because they are learning English or for similar reasons. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 21:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I like the third one and its usually what i do since auntof6 helped me. It's also good to have the country name mentioned in the article to link to Italy as well when Italians are covered W;ChangingUsername (talk) 07:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@W;ChangingUsername: Thank you for your imput! ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 08:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Yesterday when I was editing Kurdish articles to make them more neutralised when I came across Rojava. I dont even know where to start, the article seems to be glorifying the autonomous entity and has no sources. What do I do? Do I just delete the whole mess and write it all over again or I leave it like this? Kirkukturk3 (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

put it in RFD; unless you are rewriting it Cactus ^{spiky ouch} 12:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I will try my best to rewrite it! Kirkukturk3 (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

good luck Cactus ^{spiky ouch} 06:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

People are copying JavaScript from EN Wikipedia. Is it okay? Cactus ^{spiky ouch} 12:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

For user scripts and the like? No reason why not. All content on En-wiki is covered by CC-BY-SA, that includes script. If it's malicious, then that's a problem. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Without attribution? Cactus ^{spiky ouch} 06:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

hmm? Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 12:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

What sort of thing are we talking about? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Redwarn Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 02:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

there was one more, but I forgot Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 02:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

cant you just import the script from enwiki? In some cases it's possible, you'd use something like importScript('W:User:RedWarn/.js'); //Linkback: W:User:RedWarn/.js Added by Script installer.

Someone slightly more adept at redwarn may be able to tell if this works. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

hmm, okay Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 08:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Friend is one of the 850 Basic English words, but should it be redirected to Friendship or not? 136.152.209.58 (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The reason for keeping it is per WP:Deletion policy#Pages that should not be deleted. The reason for redirecting it is that it duplicates the content of friendship. 136.152.209.58 (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

These pages are a mess, mainly caused by not being clear about their historical sequence. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a mathematician, but the "simple explanation" given in Kurt Gödel seems wrong to me. The sentence "This sentence is false." is not a sentence that cannot be proved true or false, but rather a statement that is self-contradictory. Does anyone here know enough about mathematics to clarify this? 192.83.149.205 (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I see the same issue on Decidability theory. At least I think it's an issue. 192.83.149.205 (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I removed the section in the article on Kurt Gödel, it realy isn't what his theory states. The thing in decidability thery looks halfway correct Eptalon (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello all, Good Aruicles, and Very Good Aricles were a nice idea at the time. They are flags that say that a given article has a better quality than other articles. There's just one problen though: Except for me, no one has been promoting these articles, and if they sit in the queue for too long, it is clear that the proposers lose interest. If one month from now (mid August), there are no other people promoting, I propose we do away with the idea. Our community is small already, and getting an article to meet GA or VGA criteria is a huge effort. What do other people think? Eptalon (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to go through any I haven't commented on and give them a promote/fail if there's a consensus. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The GA/VGA process has been slow for a long time, but I think it's good to keep it around. It's a nice way to motivate people to make pages that stand out in quality (I know that the thought of getting a page to 'Good Article' status has at least made me put my best work into translating & writing, I wouldn't like to speak for anyone else).

Maybe we should change the process to be more similar to how English wiki does it? The biggest obstacle I've noticed is simply getting enough users to vote for an article to have a consensus. Having one user do a much more involved review might help with that - right now, it takes months for something to pass, even if it has a clear consensus given by a small number of editors. 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I also believe a system of fewer, more in-depth reviews would do good in helping get more GA/VGA's through. LV^✉✎ 15:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I will always be supportive of the GA/VGA process. I think the idea of elevating articles to VGA statuses and having them on the front page is essential for Simple Wiki. I'd be happy to promote articles :) Is there like a guideline/instructions on how to do so or is promoting articles an admin-only thing? I also think that even if you voted to support a promotion, you could still promote the article given the little active users we have on this project. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello all, there were elections in the UK a few days back, and Sunak's party lost. There are likely many people who do ont agree with his policies or actions. I have therefore semi-protected the page, for two weeks. Eptalon (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

seems reasonable Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 08:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a proposal at Category talk:Wikipedia#Proposal to split this category. Please reply on that page. 73.170.137.168 (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello everyone,

This is a kind reminder that the voting period to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter will be closed on July 9, 2024, at 23:59 UTC.

If you have not voted yet, please vote on SecurePoll.

On behalf of the Charter Electoral Commission,

RamzyM (WMF) 03:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sulphate&oldid=9636526

The current version is dead wrong.--Please have it either QD, or put up for Delete discussion. ASAP.--Alternatively, have the page remain a laughing stock (on the Wikipedia that Jimbo Wales created).--The ball is in your court (and i might not be adding to this thread). 2001:2020:357:A2F3:E82C:920C:6BD0:F92E (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC) / 2001:2020:357:A2F3:C5A3:205D:48AE:EE45 (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@2001:2020:357:A2F3:E82C:920C:6BD0:F92E: Exactly which QD criteria does it meet? "I don't like the content" isn't one. You should review Deletion is not cleanup rule on Wikipedia. You are proving to be a very severe and on-going WP:CIR concern. Operator873 ^connect 22:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Note that it is "your" version of the page, that I have mentioned specifically.--A third wikipedia-user has not been militant about "his" version that has been shot-down (and that does not have consensus).--I have pointed out which versions are dead wrong (and the community has been advised to get the wheels in motion (ASAP), for Delete of the article , if the current version is going to stand).--This Master class is a freebie (and i might not be adding to this thread).--Other master classes might be available from other "purveyors". 2001:2020:357:A2F3:C5A3:205D:48AE:EE45 (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's my version of the page... but I didn't write it. I agreed with the edit from another administrator and restored it. You know what that's called? Consensus. YOU do not determine the content of the encyclopedia. Inaccuracy or problems on a page are not criteria for deletion. Finally, you hold no authority to determine what gets "shot down" and what remains. I'll remind you that you're on final warning for conduct and behavior. :) Operator873 ^connect 22:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem with you adding parts that are dead wrong.--(I am not going to go back and see if you did that twice, or only once.)--I have made my recommendation to the community (and i might not be adding to this thread).--About this thread, an option might be "Humble pie". Someone else will likely come along and fill in the details. Bye, 2001:2020:357:A2F3:C5A3:205D:48AE:EE45 (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you want - you ask others to nominate for deletion. If you believe an article either needs fixing or deletion, you should be the change you need. See this essay on it on enwiki - W:WP:SOFIXIT. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Many languages of Wikipedia allow fair-use pictures. But we don't allow them in Simple English Wikipedia. So I want to deprecate the File namespace. That is, we want to declare the namespace to be obsolete in this language. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • changes) 08:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sbb1413: I'm not sure what form that would take, but we do have a few files here. The ones we have are administrative and are mostly recordings of Simple English articles -- remember that not all files are images. Therefore we couldn't completely eliminate the file namespace. -- Auntof6 (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

There should be an article for creation on this wiki, like EN Wiki, so that there won't be so many nonsensical pages created, and the backlog would decrease significantly. Thanks Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 08:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Cactusisme An AfC-like process has been rejected by the community many times so I doubt that this proposal will go anywhere.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 09:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you should read through the archives before proposing such thing. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • changes) 09:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

oh, my bad. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 11:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

then closing Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 11:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Cactusisme: Also, that wouldn't stop people from creating bad pages. -- Auntof6 (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean it would not show up in mainspace Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 22:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done

Joe Bloggs

Joe Bloggs in 1987 [example of a free picture]
Birth	July 4, 1969
Death	May 16, 2021

Sometimes, we try to add a non-free picture in subjects without any free pictures. But we don't allow them here. So we should make changes to the infoboxes to add a parameter to add a website to a non-free picture. I'm showing its example at the right. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • changes) 08:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Thank you for suggesting it, but I do not see the point in this. It does not look very good in the infobox and you can simply search for the picture on the web. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 10:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, we try to keep many of our templates the same as enwiki's to make maintenance easier, and such a change would conflict with that. -- Auntof6 (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Given Simple and EN Wikipedias are generally the same it's a shame we can't use EN images or at least upload images locally like EN, I know we're Simple and all but it's still never made sense to me why we can't, Anyway like above I don't see the point of having placeholder images either so oppose, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

We are discussing the introduction to this article (Plaxton Pointer), and would appreciate opinions and suggestions. Kdammers (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

A special election has been called to fill additional vacancies on the U4C. The call for candidates phase is open from now through July 19, 2024.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members are invited to submit their applications in the special election for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

In this special election, according to chapter 2 of the U4C charter, there are 9 seats available on the U4C: four community-at-large seats and five regional seats to ensure the U4C represents the diversity of the movement. No more than two members of the U4C can be elected from the same home wiki. Therefore, candidates must not have English Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, or Italian Wikipedia as their home wiki.

Read more and submit your application on Meta-wiki.

In cooperation with the U4C,

-- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Should we, like enwiki, have a Draft namespace? It might encourage greater cooperation to edit articles. fr33kman 04:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Is that how it works on enwiki? I thought people write their drafts and then they got either approved or denied (by whom, I don't know). -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)