Wikipedia:Simple talk

(Redirected from Wikipedia:ST)
Latest comment: 13 hours ago by 2001:2020:345:9919:516E:786F:F685:925 in topic Internet
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


Automatic archival of several pages

change

Hi all, now that we have SpBot doing the archival, I am here to suggest the parameters for archival. Based on the feedback here, I will proceed with setting up the archival system. The pages and settings I have in mind will be listed below:

If you have any other pages in mind please let me know. Please also let me know any changes that you think is more suitable. I will try to set up things in a way that would make searching the archives a bit easier. Thanks :)--BRP ever 13:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, for Deletion review I will be removing recently closed deletion section and setting bots so that it only archives the resolved discussion after 3 days from the closure date. Any new comments made by replacing {{Section resolved}} will reopen the discussion, so we shouldn't have any problems.--BRP ever 10:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
BRPever, for WT:BOTS, I don't think it's necessary as the number of requests is so little and occasionally we can get comments there again saying about errors or other issues that have suddenly came up, that might be after 3 days. No issues with any of the others – WP:RFP/P and /R need a major overhaul imo as archives typically only contain one request. --Ferien (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
To add to this, it previously was archived by ChenzwBot after 60 days, as an exemption to the other archive systems, but it does not appear to have operated in years. --Ferien (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am thinking of waiting for a month and starting it all at 1st of January so we can make it all yearly without affecting the current archive. RFCU really needed some work so I went ahead with that one. BRP ever 12:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am skipping WT:BOTS and making WP:RFP/P and /R yearly then.--BRP ever 12:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

AI generated content.

change

There have a lot of content written by AI. Do we want to allow this? Problems I see relate to copyright issues as well as problems with complexity and context. I, for one, feel we should have a policy prohibiting it use. Thoughts fr33kman 23:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Questions:
  • What copyright issues do you see?
  • How do we tell that something was written by AI?
  • Have other Wikipedias prohibited using AI and, if so, what were their reasons?
  • Is there any concern that AI-created articles would be mass-created to the point where it would add too much to the work of patrollers?
As for complexity, all articles should comply with our requirements for simple language, no matter how they are created. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
You can often tell if a page is AI generated by its content. As for copyright, the AIs are proprietary software and a thing they generate would be copyrighted by the company running the AI. I don't know if others have barred its usage. I just think we should be written by humans. Otherwise we could just as ChatGPT to create the encyclopedia and that would be a mess with many errors in context. It's more common so I think it needs discussing. fr33kman 00:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Further I believe there are online tools to tell if content is AI or not. fr33kman 01:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
FYI, I got ChatGPT to write a Wikipedia page about blackholes User talk:Fr33kman/black holes so you can see the tell-tale signs of AI generated content. fr33kman 01:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Fr33kman: Wouldn't a person still have to do the actual page creation? That person would be responsible for what they post, so they would need to check the generated page. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes the creator would be responsible for the content. I'm just trying to get a concensus on the subject in this new area of concern. fr33kman 04:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Copyright info related to AI work is described in length in Commons:AI-generated media. It looks like it's allowed but there are several things that the user needs to be aware of. @Fr33kman Your concern is covered there. I think what we can do is modify A3 to copied and pasted from another Wikipedia or likely AI generated content without simplifying complex text. Unverified or unsourced content or any inaccurate content can simply be removed/deleted. There is always RFD for complex issues that needs in-depth discussion. BRP ever 02:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Modifying A3 would go along way to addressing my concerns. Thanks for the copyright info. fr33kman 03:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think we should write a guideline page for AI generated content so everyone has the information needed to stay within the rules of both simplewiki and copyright. fr33kman 04:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have started a proposed guideline page at WP:AI. Please read and comment on the talk page. Thanks fr33kman 08:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
The AI-generated content is not a good thing. It may be inaccurate and it may be biased. People can put up such content without checking any source or knowing whether it's correct or not, or knowing anything about the subject. Depextual (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it can be problematic. Each use will still need to conform to the manual of stylr, RS, N, and V. It is already being used so we need to come up with a good guideline for its usage. Please review WP :AI and comment on its talk page. Thanks fr33kman 16:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
For reference, the English Wikipedia version is at en:Wikipedia:Large language models. This should say something like "Thus, all text generated by LLMs should be verified by editors before use in articles." Depextual (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree wholeheartedly. The ultimate responsibility is with the editor. I'll add to the proposal. Thxx fr33kman 16:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think that it is very important to mark articles where such models have been used to generate content. Telling whether content is generated can be difficult, so it is the creator's responsibility to add s note to the talk page of the article. Eptalon (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree, we'll have to create a template to denote the article as AI generated content. fr33kman 17:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Many of the persons who use A.I. , to make articles, will keep on truckin', until things come to a hard stop (i.e. a block - being blocked from editing wikipedia).
Another thing, try to keep (relevant) templates, short. And without little (or no) mention of complex ideas such as automation/automated; computer programs.
Yet another thing: By saying that one suspects that "This article has been made, in part, by A.I.", then

then why would 'anyone' want to touch (or edit) an article that is 'maybe tainted'?
Yet another thing: The good news is that many of the A.I. generated articles, are not Simple; We already have procedures to deal with articles that are not simple.
Also, if administrators, can keep on mentioning specific articles (in this thread, where those articles seem like A.I. generate), then that will be excellent: Maybe one out of a hundred articles, I will take particular interest in, and make small but important changes, and cast a "dubious"-tag, at the (earliest) place in the article where doubtful (or dubious) text, is written.
In regard to a policy against using A.I. for creating an article on Simple-wiki; My advice is, before evaluating the idea, then first lay out a
'pyramide of sanctions' for non-simple articles; On one of the steps that pyramide, there should possibly be something about "if your article seems like there are big problems related to A.I. generated text, then ...".
--If this post was helpful to some, then fine.-- (Not sure what month, that i will be back to this thread, because i will be busy fixing articles.) 2001:2020:351:CE55:7D79:5481:558D:DC8 (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I do not believe copyright is the most major concern here. While there are many AI models about, all content made by the ChatGPT, the most popular one about, is yours in terms of copyright. To quote from the ChatGPT terms of use, Ownership of content. As between you and OpenAI, and to the extent permitted by applicable law, you (a) retain your ownership rights in Input and (b) own the Output. We hereby assign to you all our right, title, and interest, if any, in and to Output. However, I do very much agree that AI-generated content is becoming an increasing issue for us - but it is extremely hard to manage through a QD criterion because we have no way of knowing a page is definitely made by AI. While there are telltale signs a page is generated by an LLM model, they are by no means a guarantee and therefore should not be managed by a QD criterion. I recall seeing pages very similar in format to the AI-generated pages that are being created now, prior to the widespread use of AI we are seeing at the moment – they would likely be eligible for deletion for other reasons.
AI-generated pages are typically unsaveable and deserve blowing up. I do not think we are yet seeing pages at a level that they deserve a new QD criterion or new deletion method, and think RfD should be able to handle it. Right now, there only look to be 3-4 pages on RfD that are handling AI-generated content, there is not a huge backlog. If we were to develop a new deletion method, it would, in my opinion, need to be one that involves at least two administrators, like RfD/PROD. Like notability, I do not think AI-generated content can simply be easily identified by one person. What might be telltale signs to one person might mean absolutely nothing to the other, and vice versa. Either way, changes to deletion policy should probably be discussed on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy as a first resort, as I was not aware of this change prior to seeing it on the deletion policy (and have reverted it as I don't think there has been adequate time for discussion.) --Ferien (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Template needed

change

Could someone who knows how please create a template to be placed on the talk page of AI generated content that says something like: "The content, or portions of it, in this article page was generated by an AI. It may need extra work, simplify or copy-editing to meet standards for inclusion on Simple English Wikipedia." The template would be placed on the talk page of the article. Thanks fr33kman 17:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

"This page, or parts of it, has been created using automatic tools. While these tools get better, they still have limitations. For this reason, a human editor still needs to cross-check the page:
  • Some of these tools use statistics, and many other texts. They will create the content based on what is most likely. This means that the content they create does not nercessarily exist elsewhere, they may invent facts or links between facts. Very often such tools also do not tell where the content is from.
  • Content that looks like it is from an outside source, but that does not give this source, should be removed. Copyright also gives some rules how content can be re-used. Removing content from an unclear origin is the safest option.
  • Like other pages, this page should use simple language, that is easy to understand. The page also needs to use proper formatting and styles, which are consistent with the Manual of Style.
  • Every editor is responsible for the content they provide, no matter how it is created.
  • The talk page of this artice should be used for discussions on how to improve it."
I think it is moree future proof to talk about automated tools than use the term artificial intelligence. Eptalon (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sockpuppet Tag

change

Hi guys, can somebody put the sockpuppet tag in TaiUhBye's user page which is {{sockpuppeteer|confirmed}} and for Taitheguy87's user page, use: {{sockpuppet|TaiUhBye|confirmed}} . thetree284 (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also don't forget to put {{checkuserblock-account}} or {{SockBlock}} in both of their talk pages. Thank you. thetree284 (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Thetree284: Why aren't you doing it yourself? -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Thetree284, it's   Done. Best regards, BZPN (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I was unable to put a sockpuppet tag in both of user pages and after that, Asteralee reverted my edits in their user pages. thetree284 (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Baby shower

change

We now have an article that is AI generated content Baby shower. What is our stance and can we also get a consensus on WP:AI and changing QD:A3 to include non-simple AI content? Thx fr33kman 13:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was also thinking about QD, but it could be another G altogether. The stance should be simple. Why? Well, it's not just that the AI content is not simple. The point is also that AI-generated content do not ide specific information, but only too exaggerated and unreliable terms without specific context. There's actually no useful information there. I amMyeproposal is to create mplate that would mark articles generated using AI on the disctalke, but only if such an article has real and true value for the reader. BZPN (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, we'll have to have a template for such articles. I'll update WP:AI to include that AI generated content must be both comprehensive and simple or can be deleted under G13. It's still a proposed guideline atm. fr33kman 14:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Something like this to put on the talk page (from User:BZPN/AI notice):
BZPN (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
And category "Articles with AI-generated content". BZPN (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree, looks good. fr33kman 14:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Personally, I don't really know what we gain by using AI to create articles, especially when a editor written article exists on enwiki. I think we should delete them on sight, rather than just tagging them. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's not about that. Such an article must meet all standards and policies anyway - if the user really wants to publish a real article, he will refine it after AI (all AI-generated articles that do not meet the standards may be deleted in QD mode). Marking an article that was created using AI will allow us, for example, to recognize the real skills of users and the quality of the content. This will also allow us to collect statistics on how AI influences the creation of content on Wikipedia. BZPN (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Can you elaborate on recognizing the real skills of users? If they are able to refine an article correctly after AI then chances are we will not even be able to distinguish an AI article from a non-AI article, and then that really isn't an issue to us that is worth monitoring. If it looks AI-written still, then chances are it will still be eligible for deletion. --Ferien (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
So what if an article contains elements created by AI, but is not entirely created by AI? Such an article will then not pass the RfD and will need to be corrected. It is not known who will correct it and when. Then you should leave the AI-notice template on the talk page. And if the user uses AI tools when writing an article, they can leave such a template on the discussion page, and then it will be known, for example, how often and who uses AI (statistics can be created). BZPN (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I do not think cleanup templates/categories should be created on hypotheticals we do not have examples of. Articles are typically entirely created by AI, not created by AI, and if they are a mix, they are likely disruptive in other ways. If AI is just added in, it can simply be reverted. And how far down the rabbit hole do we go? Does me occasionally questioning ChatGPT for simpler synonyms to specific words in articles and using my judgement and BE 1500 count as partial generation by AI, when the end result is identical to me going and using a dictionary and comparing it to BE 1500? And if I don't disclose this, how will we know for certain that such articles are created by AI? I do not think AI-generated content is comparable to enwiki-translated articles, as it's harder to detect and also isn't necessarily copyrighted. --Ferien (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
In the case of Baby shower, I also feel the promotion in the article hasn't been noticed. Pages that were created only to say good things about a person, company, item, group or service and which would need to be written again so that they can be encyclopedic. This description fits this article. They put in a promo about Cositas Chulas and then AI-generated content around it to support their ad. This is what I mean when I say if AI content is being used, it likely has other issues. --Ferien (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have no idea what "the real skills of editors" means. By allowing articles created by using LLMs, we are going to be creating substandard articles.
This will also allow us to collect statistics on how AI influences the creation of content on Wikipedia. So, we should use LLMs to gain more information on how LLMs can create articles? That's a circular argument if I ever saw one. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
just for info: I replaced the article with s stub and kept it. No, not AI generated Eptalon (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

AI-notice template

change

Hello. I have just created a new AI-notice template for marking pages with AI content. Please report any objections or doubts here. Thank you. BZPN (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I support the template fr33kman 14:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Nominated for deletion - such pages should simply be nominated for RfD or the AI content removed on-sight. This is not the sort of thing we need to have tags on for years over. --Ferien (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's the same as marking articles with a template that they have been translated from other Wikipedia. When creating the template, I did not have in mind the articles eligible for deletion - the point was to mark the details of creating a real article that would comply with the policies and guidelines. I explained an example of this in the thread above. BZPN (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
A tag for a human translation is not comparible with a computer generated article. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think a template on the talk page would be useful. fr33kman 23:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Okay - here's an example of why this template could be used. Let's assume we have a new article in the main namespace. It is written by AI, which is clearly indicated by the text style and terms characteristic of AI. However, it contains some specifics (e.g. dates) supported by sources (citations). Wikicode is partially formatted incorrectly - e.g. headings are marked correctly (== ==), but bold is marked with ** (which is also typical of AI). Such an article is then not suitable for QD. Then this template is used to mark this article as requiring improvement and, at the same time, as a warning to the reader. We don't know when this article will be corrected - so instead of leaving it, mark it for readers and editors. BZPN (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Or, here's a thought, let's denounce the use of these tools, tell the user to not do it, delete it and get the article written properly by a human. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    By itself using AI tools to generate content is not bad, and should not be condemned/outlawed. The preconditions to that are that in the end, a human editor looks over the generated content and fixes the issues, in a reasonable time after the article is created. Eptalon (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I think that is where we're at with WP:AI. We do need to set some rules on its use and I think we should have a QD category for deleting complex AI content. fr33kman 17:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    But we cannot have a QD criterion over something that is not easily identifiable. Sure, you can look at an AI article and think "That is likely AI" but we cannot guarantee it. With the now-deleted black hole example you provided in your user talk space above, were the sections not included and it were formatted slightly different, I could not have been able to identify that as AI. --Ferien (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I just wanted to interject here to say Ferien and Lee are correct - there are subtle differences with some articles but others there don't appear to be any difference at all, I can't remember the article but there was a discussion on some article somewhere and imho it looked fine but it turns out it was AI content which surprised me,
    In short I agree with Lee - we shouldn't accept AI here, it should be deleted and and the creator told not to repeat those actions again, –Davey2010Talk 18:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I definitely agree that AI should not be accepted. However, we cannot ban the use of AI. I mean, it is theoretically possible, but when it is not prohibited in other projects, here we would have to get a clear majority of votes in favor. This decision could also be met with opposition. Hence the whole idea of defining the use of AI here, because on the one hand its use is growing, and on the other hand there were no appropriate regulations on this subject. This is where the template for marking articles came from - it is supposed to help us, not harm us. BZPN (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    And the template is not about marking non-obvious cases - I explained when and why to use it above. In short, it is about where the article has style and issues that are obvious to AI (WP:DUCK), but for some reasons it does not qualify for QD and may not pass RfD and require improvement. BTW, the author of the article should mark it if they created it with AI. BZPN (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Bad articles

change

Hi! Following the comments in Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/Wikipedia:Bad articles, I've decided to create the user page User:Angerxiety/Bad articles as an information page on bad articles. I invite anyone with free time to help change the article to move into Wikipedia space. Some things to consider adding:

  • How articles could be written poorly
  • What to avoid or fix
  • A list of bad articles
  • List of summaries with links to policies/guidelines.

Thank you to everyone who helps out. – Angerxiety! 14:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, I don't see the purpose of this page. This is actually a short mention of what is already described in greater detail in other policies. Do you have a more specific purpose for this page? BZPN (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
And how can we create a list of bad articles there? After all, if they are bad, they will be deleted (according to what this page says) in QD or RfD mode. BZPN (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
If I'm honest, I was thinking it would be an essay, rather than a policy. Covering the different things that could make an article be poorly written (too complex, bad grammar, unreferenced, etc). Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rename request

change

See Talk:Aromanticity for a new rename request. JJPMaster 17:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rename request 2

change

See Talk:LGBT for another new rename request. JJPMaster (she/they) 21:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello

change

I need help 2401:4900:3762:E1B5:581E:DE74:1DE6:BDA2 (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

What do you need help with? Ternera (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think that's just a test, not real question. BZPN (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Request to remove my permission and block me.

change

Following my statement here and in the AN threads [1], I would like to request that an admin revoke my permissions of Rollbacker and Patroller.

Thank you all for trusting me, even after I was blocked.

Thank you to @Ferien, @Fr33kman, @Auntof6, @Vermont, and @Davey2010 for always correcting my mistakes and supporting me.I will take a break from this account and will be back soon when the time is right. You all will be remembered always. Prakash Neupane (DIVINE) DIVINE (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done, take care and remember you're always welcome back fr33kman 17:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
No worries Divine, Take care and stay safe, Warm Regards –Davey2010Talk 19:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

How to erase drafts

change

Hello everybody, I'm trying to erase these two drafts:

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tektonfan/Pitched-brick_vault

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tektonfan/Tile_vault

Can someone help me? --83.49.8.6 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello. If they are yours, you can use {{QD|"G7" or "author"}}. Otherwise, you cannot delete them because they belong to another user, unless they clearly violate the Simple Wiki policies. BZPN (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ok. Thanks a lot! 83.49.8.6 (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
U1 would have been the most suitable rationale. See WP:UQD Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

A Twinkle QD change requests

change

On MediaWiki:Gadget-Twinkle.js, on line 6276, change "... claim to be notable." to "... claim to be notable" for consistency with the other criteria. JJPMaster (she/they) 01:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

They both appear to be the same. fr33kman 01:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Fr33kman: It looks like one includes a period that should be removed.
@JJPMaster: Since that page can't be edited by most editors, this request should probably be made elsewhere. Maybe a protected edit request on the related talk page. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Auntof6: I decided not to go to the talk page since it appears not to be actively watched. And this edit would require an interface administrator, of which there currently are none, as the right is granted as needed by bureaucrats. (Also, sorry, but I'd also like for uw-qd to be removed as a "level1" template on lines 7543-7546, as it's already correctly listed as a single-use warning) JJPMaster (she/they) 02:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Question - QD bot

change

Hello everyone. I hope you are having a good weekend. Recently I came up with the idea of creating a bot that would help us insert QD templates into newly created articles. The operation would be simple: if the article is less than 100B (this is only an approximate value) and does not contain any links, references, templates, etc., QD G2 would be inserted into it. The idea here is to work with only obvious editing tests, where the editor inserted random letters/test sentence as a new page. For now, however, I haven't tried to write any bot, I just wanted to ask if the community would mind if it was possible. Thank you and best regards, BZPN (talk) 08:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This would be prone to too many false positives. Not everyone adds all of the content in one go. I would rather see this as a tag/log-only edit filter rather than a bot that tags for QD. No QD criteria fits this anyway. G2 is one of the most misused QD criteria in my opinion. It should be reserved for cases where it's a test. A 100kb unsourced page about Telemann's Wassermusik (its history, musical analysis, performances) is not a test page. A page that only contains:
  • John was here lol
  • Please make an article
  • So basically idk
  • etc...
are test pages and eligible for G2. QD criteria should not be applied loosely, but strictly. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 08:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
We have edit filters for some of the cases Eptalon (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ah yes, I suppose those are Special:AbuseFilter/11 and Special:AbuseFilter/107. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 13:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Fehufanga, for clarification: I meant 100B here, not 100kb (I made a typo and misled you, I'm sorry :)). BZPN (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
(Non-administrator observation) Maybe you meant 100 bytes? 100kb (100,000 bytes) is a very long article. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 19:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh yes, you're right, I meant 100 bytes... thanks for pointing that out! BZPN (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
No problem, there are so many things like documents and pictures that weight some kb, that it sounds more natural to say kb instead of just bytes. I didn't even notice at first, it sounded right. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 21:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
An edit filter could be put in place that stops very small new articles by new users, I don't really see why very small articles need automation to be removed. They aren't exactly harming anyone. We don't get so many of them that it's a lot of man-power, and they aren't indexed, so there isn't any reason to get to them very quickly. Even if all of the above wasn't true, we would still require administrators to delete the articles in question. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Actually, writing an abuse filter is also a good idea. However, such test edits definitely harm us - Wikipedia is not intended to test edits in the main namespace. That's why we have WP:Sandbox. Test edits only waste editors' time inserting QD templates and administrators' time deleting them. BZPN (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Special:AbuseFilter/19 does exist, but it only tags the edit. From the logs the false positive rate appear to be small enough that elevating it to warn might be acceptable. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 21:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agree BZPN (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Template issue

change

Hi, Over at Manchester Victoria station, the text under Manchester Exchange is showing as:

Manchester Exchange
toward [[Template:S-line/National Rail Historical left/LNWR station|Template:S-line/National Rail Historical left/LNWR]]

I don't suppose anyone knows how to fix this?, I've updated the S line template and Template:S-line/side cell but nothing's worked, Thanks, Kind Regards, –Davey2010Talk 22:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Davey2010: This appears to be due to the presence of the previous parameter. I removed these parameters and the template should display correctly. However, if incorrect information is displayed, please revert my changes. Have a nice day! BZPN (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
P.S. It looks like it was probably because there was only one such parameter in one place, which could cause an error between templates without this parameter. BZPN (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @BZPN, Brilliant thank you so much, I have noticed though at en:Manchester_Victoria_station#Westbound_services it says Miles Platting and here it now says Terminus, I didn't know if I should just remove the template and add that name back manually ?, Thought I'd ask you first as you're amazing with this sort of stuff :), Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks again for fixing that too it's greatly appreciated, I certainly would've messed that up so I'm thankful and greatful you replied and helped so thank you :), Have a great day, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 13:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Davey2010, That's very nice of you :). I tried to fix the appearance to be the same as in enwiki, but the word toward kept appearing under the station name, and there was no way I could hide it. Therefore, I simply did it with a "rail line" template with appropriately set parameters. You can't tell the difference visually, but in wikicode it's a bit more complicated. I hope this isn't a problem :). Best regards, BZPN (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ah okay I didn't even notice the enwiki one was changed, Oh no of course I don't care about the wikicode tbh - As long as it matches enwiki externally then I'm happy :), Thanks again, –Davey2010Talk 14:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Internet

change

The article about the Internet is very incomplete. It talks about how people use the internet, but gives no explanation of how it works, technically. Internet is a level 3 vital article on English Wikipedia, so it's a high priority. I'm leaving this message in hope that someone can help, as I don't know enough about internet infrastructure to write it myself. Depextual (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think we can discuss what the article should be? People using a browser to surf on the web, to watch TV, to make phone calls are not necessarily aware that they are using 'the internet'. Do they have to? Does it help to add complexity telling that some services are connection oriented, others are connection less, that there is a quality of service for some...
Should we not also talk about the dangers of impersonation, of people getting blackmailed or exploited in one form or another? What do you expect he article to be? Eptalon (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I expected to see more about the technical infrastructure of how it works. Depextual (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sure, I agree there should be more on that. Just need to keep it as simple as possible. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
'Thread-starter' has removed "Hotspot (computers)" from 'Related pages'.--One is suggesting that user:Depextual should maybe focus more on using Talk-page, if s/he is not dead sure about relevance of stuff in the article. (If it was only a one-off honest mistake, then no big deal, in a Good-faith perspective ...). 2001:2020:345:9919:652F:B1E5:8E63:3ED4 (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
It wasn't a mistake, I just thought it wasn't very useful as a link as there's already a link to Wi-Fi. It's okay to keep that as a link. But I will be removing the red links. Depextual (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Removing from "Related pages", is fine. (Removing from the main body of the article - no, don't do that.)--If this post is regarded as polite, then fine. 2001:2020:345:9919:516E:786F:F685:925 (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's okay with me. Depextual (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Depextual - i suggest that you go to the relevant Talk Page, and make suggestions about new sections (that also English-wiki is using).

If you can start any one of the following sections, then that might be good place to start:
Infrastructure, Service tiers, Access, Mobile communication, Internet Protocol Suite, Internet protocol, IP Addresses, Subnetwork, Routing, IETF; Applications and services: World Wide Web, Communication, Data transfer.--Good luck (while i fix other articles, and wait and see what specifics you will bring to the table.)--If this post is regarded as quite polite, then fine. 2001:2020:319:AC4F:F053:6E48:DDFF:F61C (talk) 08:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

The following link, mentions some specific challenges/'problem'

simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Depextual&oldid=9926815
. 80.67.37.2 (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article does not have the word WiFi/Wifi or Hotspot.--Anyone can add that (while i try to figure out which Fun fact, i will choose to add to the article). 80.67.37.2 (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
WiFi and Hotspot are now included. Depextual (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Vandalism? ("porn", "cowardice" added to at least one article)

change

At least one article (a bio), has both the word "porn" and "cowardice".--The English article has none (of those words).--Someone might want to take the problem to 'most relevant' talk page, or find other 'solutions'.--If my post was regarded as helpful, then fine.--Good luck (while i fix other articles). 2001:2020:319:AC4F:ADC5:CEB8:C39C:E608 (talk) 07:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Kendall Jenner is now a good article

change

Kendall Jenner is now a good article, thank you to everybody that has helped the article get to this point.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 09:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Article feedback

change

Hi, Could people kindly review User:Davey2010/sandbox2/VW Golf and let me know their thoughts please?, The individual articles (Volkswagen Golf Mk1) etc have already gone live but they can be changed too,

I'm not a great lover of the way the sources are throughout the sentences as you seem to lose readability ?, I don't know if I really need to list the years for every model, Maybe these are too detailed,

Anyway wanted to get peoples feedback before pasting this to the Golf article, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 19:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your article looks great. I have no objections to it and support its replacement with the current article. Best regards, BZPN (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply