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 Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.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

Advice for contributing

How does contributing here differ from ENWP? My writing feels a quite too complex for basic English learners to understand. Ahri Boy (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps the easiest is trying to avoid words with multiple meanings, and trying to make shorter sentences. Also, we do not categorize by gender, so no male football players or female football players as a category. Another example: we use 'movie' where enwp uses 'film', simply because film also has other meanings. Eptalon (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I once saw a contributor just put [[brackets]] around what they thought were all the hard words. The idea was that the reader could just click on any word they didn't know. But this is no good. We want the reader to go through the whole article without stopping. One way to do this is to pipe certain words, like so: [[water pollution|bad chemicals in the water]], [[snout-vent length|from nose to rear end]]</wiki>, <nowiki>[[habitat|place to live]]. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

DYK

I think this rule for DYK hooks (DYKs should not be very good articles (VGA) already as VGAs already get their own spotlight on the Main Page as the "Selected very good article".) should include GAs as now GAs also have a spot on the main page. Also see the discussion: here PieWriter (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree for the sake of consistency. However I believe that GA articles that are already in the DYK holding area should be the exception since they were nominated and approved prior to this rule. Also worth mentioning that articles nominated for VGA/GA are still eligible until they get approved officially. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I also think so. In addition given the sheer number of hooks we have, can we change the hooks more often? Eptalon (talk) 13:00, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking about that, instead of making it twice a month, but some editor (don't remember) mentioned how activity on DYK varies from active to dormant at any given moment so the massive amount of hooks on hold is a precaution to make sure we have just enough to keep DYK going in case there's a lack of activity/nominations at the moment. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

If rule is approved. We should demote all DYK articles that are already nominated GA before that rule or you can remove any GA articles in DYK holding area or queues? Raayaan9911 16:49, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Which is simpler?

I was wondering which one of these we use here in Simple Wikipedia, lynching or killing? PieWriter (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Context is necessary. I don't think there's doubt that "killing" is a word that more of the Wiki's target audience (children, ESL speakers, etc) recognize. However, there are cases where the context necessitates the word "lynch" to be used, and that should either be linked to the article, or have a brief explanation in the sentence. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 03:39, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

How about for this article, Killing of Dipu Chandra Das? PieWriter (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Did you see, we have an article on Lynching? Eptalon (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@PieWriter "Killing" is simpler, but "lynching" should be used when it is the accurate term, with a short explanation or link for clarity. 7Bonfire (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Query

Should red links be retained in newly created articles? Esyms (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

It depends on what the red-link is. Generally, if something appears as a red-link, we do not have that article. However, it is worthwhile checking if we have the article under a different name. Otherwise put: red links are not bad, they tell the reader we do not have certain articles. Eptalon (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, red links can be retained in newly created articles. Red links are acceptable when they point to topics that are notable, relevant to the subject, and likely to be created in the future. They help identify content gaps and encourage article creation. However, excessive or speculative red links should be avoided, especially if the linked topic is unlikely to meet notability guidelines. 7Bonfire (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Re-nominating the iPhone 15 to Good Article

Hello Simple English Wikipedians, i would like to re-nominating iPhone 15 to GA after two withdrawn proposals due to poor grammar and other issues that i need more works? Here that given issues examples and here that given issues examples again. If issues are spotted, let me know! Raayaan9911 17:02, 31 December 2025 (UTC)