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 Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.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

Automatic archiving for WP:RFCU

Hello all, the requests at WP:RFCU usually get handled fairly quickly. I would therefore propose we set up the bot to also archive them automatically; proposed parameters: 10d old, min 2 threads left. Comments? Eptalon (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Related previous discussion can be seen at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser#Archiving. MathXplore (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Considering how RfCU works, I would want to see the bot be tested in a RfCU replica before firmly saying yay or nay.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Pure Evil offered a reasonable point at Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser#Archiving 2. I feel like it is probably best for CUs to manually review each one prior to it going to the archived, as responses can often go unanswered - and I appreciate sometimes this is on purpose. --Ferien (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Idk, I'm 50:50 on this one. It'd be nice to have them auto archived due to workload issues but understand the issues of wanting to manually close them out. I'd lean towards a bot if it could be made to work. fr33kman 18:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

i think the bot handling the other page archiving could be made to work. It would archive discussions that haven't Bern touched in .. days, leaving at least ... Items on the page? Eptalon (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I would leave it to the people with the checkuser right to decide, but I have a question. Is there an amount of time an unaddressed request can be left, after which either it is considered stale or the checkusers wouldn't do anything with it? I would let that be the number of days old to use for archiving. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

(Non-checkuser observation) @Auntof6: m:CheckUser_policy#CheckUser_status says information is only stored for a short period (currently 90 days), so I think this is the time limit. MathXplore (talk) 07:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

As to the data availability: requests need to be made fairly quickly, information that is older than about three months is deleted. As you requests: I would guess s bot could (technically) handle archiving old requests.... Eptalon (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It depends on the thread.some requests get done very quickly and gets no additional input. Others, however, can seem to be stale for days or weeks and become active again. If say if a thread has been stale for 7 to 14 days then gets another sock added to the listing. However, as a reporting user could easily point to the prior listing from the archive I'm in favour of a bot. fr33kman 19:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I found C:User:SpBot/How to make SpBot archive your wiki that looks like it could help with this. A note on C:Commons talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, which the bot archives, says that it archives 1) any section tagged as resolved and 2) any section whose most recent comment is older than 90 days. Of course, maybe our usual archiving bot can do the same thing. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, a bot could do it well. We could always have a trial run and see if it can be made to work well. fr33kman 20:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Eptalon, @Auntof6 @FusionSub and @Fr33kman; I have asked operator of SpBot to operate the bot here. I think this one will make RFP (rollback and patroller), DRV, PGA, PVGA and RFCU much efficient and organised. The templates have already been imported and the bot is currently pending approval.-- BRP ^ever 14:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Good fr33kman 17:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Fr33kman it is in place and working... I have made some changes to our archive system to make it easier to manage, the links to old discussions in the archive won't break despite the changes. BRP ^ever 04:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Good job. Every little bit of automation helps us to work more efficiently. fr33kman 08:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

No archival any more?

Hello, it looks like there is no more bot archiving, anyone has details? Eptalon (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Really? I'll test 873Bot, is there any specific bots that are confirmed to not be archiving now? Fu2ionSub (Talk) 08:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

this is set to archive threads that are older than 10 days, so I would expect some of these here to disappear.. Eptalon (talk) 10:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Bot873 does seem to still be archiving talk pages, since it archived my one this morning. Looks to be a Simple Talk specific issue. Is there any other pages archived by Bot873 that seem to be having this issue?- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this one, and the admin notice board (which has a longer rétention time of 14 days) Eptalon (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

I don't know if it is a settings issuew, or something else change: The archival bot seems to run, but it no longer archives these pages (Simple Talk/Admin Noticeboard, possibly: Talk:Main page, but there's very little traffic there.

So we need to look into getting archival for these pages running again.

Comments? Eptalon (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It might (suddenly) be having problems with pages in the Wikipedia namespace (although not confident as nore data is needed past two pages).- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 21:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at Special:Contributions/Bot873, the only pages in Wikipedia namespace that it edits are indeed ST, AN and Change filter mistakes where there are fewer requests. It was archiving almost daily but seemingly stopped on 18 October. But as a first point-of-call, we should ask Operator873. He will probably be able to realise the problem quicker than we can not knowing what's going on behind the scenes! --Ferien (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that probably should've been done first lol.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 21:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Investigating... Operator873 ^connect 00:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Eptalon @Ferien -- seems the issue was the archive process was hung in toolforge. I've nudged it. It should run at 0400UTC as normal. Operator873 ^connect 00:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I went ahead and manually executed the run to verify it was working. It does. Problem solved. Operator873 ^connect 00:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Operator873: Not really, I again see contributions 14 days old, the limit is set to 10 days? Eptalon (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it got stuck again.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 15:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Eptalon The bot ran this morning. See the template at the top of the page for when the bot is set. Operator873 ^connect 01:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Operator873 That wouldn't explain the topics over 10 days old here, despite the config being set to archive topics over 10 days old.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 07:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Found the issue and am in the process of proofing the fix. Operator873 ^connect 22:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 07:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Operator873 The bot has not archived anything since 1 November. 131.109.227.10 (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Automatic archival of several pages

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:

• To be archived into yearly archives for the section marked as resolved.
  • Wikipedia:Deletion review
  • Wikipedia talk:Bots
  • Wikipedia:Requests for permissions#Current requests for patroller
  • Wikipedia:Requests for permissions#Current requests for rollback
  • Wikipedia:Proposed good articles
  • Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles
  • Wikipedia:Proposed article demotion
• To be archived into Monthly archives for the section marked as resolved, or those which have had no comments in 90 days period.
  • Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I am skipping WT:BOTS and making WP:RFP/P and /R yearly then.--BRP ^ever 12:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

AI generated content.

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)

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)

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)

Further I believe there are online tools to tell if content is AI or not. fr33kman 01:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Modifying A3 would go along way to addressing my concerns. Thanks for the copyright info. fr33kman 03:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree wholeheartedly. The ultimate responsibility is with the editor. I'll add to the proposal. Thxx fr33kman 16:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

I agree, we'll have to create a template to denote the article as AI generated content. fr33kman 17:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Template needed

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)

"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)

Sign up for the language community meeting on November 29th, 16:00 UTC

Hello everyone,

The next language community meeting is coming up next week, on November 29th, at 16:00 UTC (Zonestamp! For your timezone <https://zonestamp.toolforge.org/1732896000>). If you're interested in joining, you can sign up on this wiki page: <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Language_and_Product_Localization/Community_meetings#29_November_2024>.

This participant-driven meeting will be organized by the Wikimedia Foundation’s Language Product Localization team and the Language Diversity Hub. There will be presentations on topics like developing language keyboards, the creation of the Moore Wikipedia, and the language support track at Wiki Indaba. We will also have members from the Wayuunaiki community joining us to share their experiences with the Incubator and as a new community within our movement. This meeting will have a Spanish interpretation.

Looking forward to seeing you at the language community meeting! Cheers, Srishti 19:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

hello i want make page

i want make page 185.244.154.125 (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a joke or not, but you can find some guidelines/tips on Wikipedia:Simple start. BZPN (talk) 13:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

im confused about date??

normaly it's like day month, year i read, but on here it got no comma why for? Reatom2 (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Reatom2 You can change how you see the date by setting it on your preferences. ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 16:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Asteralee i done that it aint do nothing Reatom2 (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to a specific article? Some articles will be made with a different date style to the one you are familiar with. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Reatom2: See MOS:DATEFORMAT for the acceptable date formats you can use here. If the day is given first, there is no comma. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Automated tool (disambig)

'Automated tools'.--That should maybe be a disambig page. Thoughts?--Please also advise about En-wiki articles, that are topics that might be relevant for mention, on our (upcoming) disambig page.--(Soft) ping, to user:Eptalon. (It seems that user:Eptalon mentioned that phrase, on this talk page, c. today.--The point made, seemed quite interesting.) 2001:2020:359:C1D5:3505:28FE:DD6C:BB0 (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

(Update of my previous post)
This link shows some of the stuff, that falls under,

'Automated tools' can be ...

Link,
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?fulltext=1&search=Automated+tool&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1
. 2001:2020:359:C1D5:3505:28FE:DD6C:BB0 (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

That title isn't really suitable for a dab page. Lots of things aren't likely to be confused with something like that.

Generally we don't add items to an existing disambiguation page unless it has an article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Actually, we do add redlinked things to dab pages. It allows disambiguating tools to work when there's no article for the intended subject. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Tag

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)

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)

@Thetree284: Why aren't you doing it yourself? -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

Baby shower

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)

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)

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)

Something like this to put on the talk page (from User:BZPN/AI notice):

BZPN (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

And category "Articles with AI-generated content". BZPN (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, looks good. fr33kman 14:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

AI-notice template

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)

I support the template fr33kman 14:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

A tag for a human translation is not comparible with a computer generated article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I think a template on the talk page would be useful. fr33kman 23:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

  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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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, –Davey2010^Talk 18:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

Wikipedia:Bad articles

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)

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)

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)

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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Rename request

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

Rename request 2

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

Hello

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

What do you need help with? Ternera (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that's just a test, not real question. BZPN (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Request to remove my permission and block me.

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)

Done, take care and remember you're always welcome back fr33kman 17:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries Divine, Take care and stay safe, Warm Regards –Davey2010^Talk 19:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

How to erase drafts

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)

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)

Ok. Thanks a lot! 83.49.8.6 (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

U1 would have been the most suitable rationale. See WP:UQD Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

A Twinkle QD change requests

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

They both appear to be the same. fr33kman 01:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@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)

@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) JJP_Master (she/they) 02:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)