Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 163

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello everyone, I previously wrote on the 27th September to advise that the Wikidata item sitelink will change places in the sidebar menu, moving from the General section into the In Other Projects section. The scheduled rollout date of 04.10.2024 was delayed due to a necessary request for Mobile/MinervaNeue skin. I am happy to inform that the global rollout can now proceed and will occur later today, 22.10.2024 at 15:00 UTC-2. Please let us know if you notice any problems or bugs after this change. There should be no need for null-edits or purging cache for the changes to occur. Kind regards, -Danny Benjafield (WMDE) 11:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I was wondering if I was allowed to bring existing userboxes from enwikipedia to here? for example, if I wanted to add Template:User Pantheist (a userbox that is only on the en wikipedia) to my profile on simple, could I simply copy the source code from the en wiki page? Or must I create my own original pantheist userbox with its own original source code/text? I apologize if this isn't the right place for questions of this nature. Gumboot! 🌵 ^(talk) 14:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gumboot Soup: Yes, you can copy it. Please be sure to:

• Categorize it in a category we have here, either Category:Userbox templates or a subcat of it. We don't have the same categories as enwiki, so the category/ies it's in there might not exist here.
• Bring over the doc page and functional subpages, if any. You do not have to bring over sandbox or testcases pages unless they are needed.

Thanks! If you would like the template imported for you, you can ask for that on WP:AN. -- Auntof6 (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I made a WikiProject called WikiProject Games. You can join if you want! Thetree284 (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject has been renamed from Gaming to Games because I want to include board games too. Thetree284 (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The new pages in this WikiProject are: Sorry! (game) and Trouble (board game). Thetree284 (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the reason, I removed Taitheguy87 from the members list is because he is a blocked user. Thetree284 (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thetree284: Maybe it's better to discuss the project on its talk page, not here 🙂 ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 15:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But, this topic will get archived by a bot after no replies in this topic for a certain amount of time. Thetree284 (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I want to keep the comment because I like this topic. Thetree284 (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop, it's been almost a month since you first posted this. There are many other things to be discussed on Simple Talk. It doesn't matter if you like it or not. Why should your post stay here forever? Other posts get archived, so will yours, because we are all the same here. You are not the only one who started a WikiProject. Thank you. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 19:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because I just like this topic. Thetree284 (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are a very kind person and I really appreciate you as an editor, but it doesn't matter. You are not the only one here, I like many other topics, but I let them go, like everybody else. This isn't a social media. This is my last comment under this specific thread. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 19:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is not a social media, but I don't want this comment to get archived by a bot. Thetree284 (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thetree284 (Simple talk stalker?) Hi. Just like everything else in Simple talk, your post will eventually be archived after some time. Users don't get any special treatment just because they like the topic they are writing about. Like Dream Indigo said, why should everybody else's comments go while yours stays forever? The Simple talk runs this way, and there really isn't anything you can do about it. This is the first and last time I will be responding under this header. Aster🪻 ^{talk edits} 19:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, it will be archived soon? And I know most comments will be archived by a certain amount of time. Thetree284 (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thetree284: Please stop making comments here just to keep the section on the page. If you continue doing that, one of two things might happen: either you will be blocked from editing this page, or the section might get archived manually. Make comments only if you have something to contribute to the discussion. Thanks.

Everyone else: please stop responding to Thetree284's unconstructive posts. That will only keep the section around longer, with no constructive discussion. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fine, I will stop and this comment will be archived by a bot. Thetree284 (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a weird question, for example, if an article on Simple English Wikipedia is created with good grammar, formatting, and spelling, but it's much shorter than the English Wikipedia article, how can it still become a good article or a very good article? Bakhos Let's talk! 04:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are minimal length requirements, bit they are fluffy. VGAs need to be comprehensive, which likely means they end up at a certain length. Why don't you nominate the article when you think it is ready? The people active at reviewing will give ideas as to how to improve it. Eptalon (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakhos2010: A little late, but the article can be a Good Article when it covers the most important parts of the subject, which means it can sometimes be much shorter than the enwiki version. Very Good Articles have to cover all of the important parts of the subject, so it would usually have to be a similar length to the enwiki version. Hope this helps! QuicoleJR (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it covers all aspects of the topic than despite not being too lengthy, it can be a GA. It just needs to be reasonably complete as an article without lacking major significant details. BRP ^ever 11:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not enough, for an encyclopedia to say, that a compound, is "a solid"; In many cases it should be okay to indicate something like,
"It is a solid at room temperature at atmospheric-pressure at sea level, and in many other situations".

There should be consensus as to one or more standard phrases et cetera, about what to say about those compounds. Thoughts?

For now, i don't think it is helpful to use the wiki-article Standard temperature and pressure - to explain (or link), to explain 'a solid at room-temperature at sea-level (pressure)'.

(I recently tried to fix an article, by saying "sea-level" - but i have not fixed the 'missing part about pressure'. See,

This compound (and many other) is a ... solid]] at (so-called) standard temperature and pressure.) 2001:2020:333:C6E5:83A:C472:2680:1408 (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It is often found as a solid, in nature."--This is an example of something, that is not as bad as saying "It is a solid."--I would not rule out (myself) using that ('nature phrase') as a 'quick fix', if an article says 'It is a solid.' 2001:2020:333:C6E5:83A:C472:2680:1408 (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that without further qualifications, this means under standard conditions (room temperature, standard pressure, sea level)? - So I will continue hugging my block of Helium (...which melts at 0.95 Kelvin..).. Eptalon (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It is a ... solid at 15 °C at standard atmosphere, and in (many) other situations."--The word 'situation', is a dumbed-down translation of 'condition'.

(And for those of you who are thinking, "But isn't Helium" a gas? Yeah,

it is a gas at 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees Fahrenheit) at standard atmosphere (and in many other 'situations'). 2001:2020:355:9511:AC4A:460E:8E48:8867 (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:333:C6E5:83A:C472:2680:1408 /2001:2020:355:9511:AC4A:460E:8E48:8867 (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helium is usually a gas..? and link the usually to Standard temperature and pressure. Helium is an extreme example, it melts at 0.95 K (-272 °C) and boils at 4.2 K (-269 °C). Under normal pressure, at absolute zero (0 K), it will be liquid. So, hugging my block of Helium is probably impossible. Eptalon (talk) 06:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helium is often a gas..?--In regard to "Under normal pressure, at absolute zero (0 K)", that does not sound like any liquid; However, it does sound troublesome, as in big-problem. 2001:2020:335:AE4B:6D0F:C33A:F723:90CC (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:333:C6E5:83A:C472:2680:1408[reply]

I am not a chemist, but Hydrogen melts at 14 K (-259 C) and boils at 21 K (-251 C). I am not a chemist, but likely there are some elements that don't have a solid form... Eptalon (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please 'advise me' in regard to which of the (cirka) room-temperatures, which is the most interesting for chemistry articles (on Simple-wiki).--Zero degrees Celsius i would not consider room-temperature. So, in most cases 'i will likely stick with' 15 degrees or 25 degrees or 20 degrees Celsius, wherever the arguments will lead us.--(Also, 15 degrees or 25 degrees or 20 degrees Celsius - one of these should maybe have an article, so that one can link "Compound x is a gas at about room-temperature/cirka room-temperature" ... ).

Anyway, Neon is now "an odorless and tasteless gas (at 15 degrees Celsius at a standard pressure)".--Maybe that text will be good enough for c. one week. 2001:2020:313:AAD9:AC3C:461:ABFB:5507 (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:333:C6E5:83A:C472:2680:1408[reply]

Yes, that's definitely ok. I think IUPAC defines room temperature as 25 degrees centigrade/Celsius, but the physicists say it's 15 degrees. Eptalon (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone creates articles with '25 degrees Celsius' or '20 degrees Celsius', then leave that alone (for the longest time)!--Some times it is okay to deal with nitty gritty, say a year after people have diminished their article-creation output.--Another thing: Room-temperature (arguably) gets most attention when we are heating rooms, or when we are using aircondition; Electric fans have little impact on the average temperature in a room; North-Europeans might feel a stronger 'economical connection' with the 15 degree Celsius idea. People from near equator might care less about the 15 degree idea.--If this post is helpful to anyone, then fine. 2001:2020:8347:71BB:904B:C529:B877:7D76 (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:333:C6E5:83A:C472:2680:1408[reply]

I forgot to say that it is unlikely that anyone will feel insulted, if "15 degrees Celsius", gets changed to a shorter form (that has c. 4 characters).--I use the long forms, just to finish text without extra hassle.)--If this post makes sense to many, then fine. 2001:2020:8347:71BB:904B:C529:B877:7D76 (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An example is "Sea levels were lower because more water was in the form of ice. So migration from Asia to Australia was easier than it is now." (Ancient Australia)

That is better for simplicity. 2620:6E:6000:2900:E47B:272A:94C2:AE9D (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helloǃ The Simple Wiki doesn't really use conjunctions at the start of a sentence. In your example,"Sea levels were lower because more water was in the form of ice. So migration from Asia to Australia was easier than it is now", it would be "Sea levels were lower because more water was in the form of ice. Migration from Asia to Australia was easier than it is now." Thanks, Aster🪻 ^{talk edits} 13:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But without the conjunction, people might not realize that the first sentence is the cause of the second. 2620:6E:6000:2900:E47B:272A:94C2:AE9D (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You also could switch it around so it says, "Migration from Asia to Australia was easier than it is now. This is because sea levels were lower because there was more ice." Thanks, Aster🪻 ^{talk edits} 13:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or just use "therefore" instead of "so": "Sea levels were lower because more water was in the form of ice. Therefore, migration from Asia to Australia was easier than it is now." -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the articles about French communes use the old Regions of France from before 2016. Most of these articles are very short. For the pages I'm talking about, see:

• Search results for "in the region Aquitaine" --> should be changed to Nouvelle-Aquitaine
• Search results for "in the region Basse-Normandie" --> should be changed to Normandie or Normandy (not sure which)
• Search results for "in the region Languedoc-Roussillon" --> should be changed to Occitanie
• Search results for "in the region Midi-Pyrénées" --> should be changed to Occitanie
• Search results for "in the region Nord-Pas-de-Calais" --> should be changed to Hauts-de-France
• Search results for "in the region Picardie" --> should be changed to Hauts-de-France

• Search results for "in the Aquitaine region" --> should be changed to Nouvelle-Aquitaine
• Search results for "in the Basse-Normandie region" --> should be changed to Normandie or Normandy (not sure which)
• Search results for "in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region" --> should be changed to Hauts-de-France
• Search results for "in the Picardie region" --> should be changed to Hauts-de-France
• Search results for "in the Picardy region" --> should be changed to Hauts-de-France

Combined, these add up to 2889 articles.

I've noticed that most of them say "in the region X in the Y department". The departments are smaller than regions so I wonder if the departments should come first. A possible argument against that is that the regions are larger and therefore more recognizable.

Another question is whether these should say "in the region X" or "in the X region", or if both are acceptable and they should be left alone.

Are these edits that administrators could make, using AutoWikiBrowser? PRicoNMI (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, the departments didn't change, it was just that 2-3 of the old regions were combined into a new one. Eptalon (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, therefore I am hoping that an admin could use AutoWikiBrowser to change the regions in all these articles. The other questions are secondary, but they could be handled at the same time. PRicoNMI (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators, Why Articles doesn't connect to translation Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 15:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to click on 'Add translation', and add add at one... Eptalon (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says "This page is not available in other languages." Can you help me to 'Add translation' Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 15:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there are several areas of the project that needs more participation from users and admins. I am going to list them here so anyone interested can add these page to the watchlist which is the easiest way to be updated on those areas. If I am missing any areas, please feel free to list them so I will add it to my watchlist as well.

• Wikipedia:Proposed good articles -- needs more overall participation
• Wikipedia:Deletion review -- Can we set better archival system for this page?
• Wikipedia:Requests for permissions -- A request is stuck for more than a month with 22 votes with the minimum requirement being 25.

Thanks,--BRP ^ever 12:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like WP:DRV really needs a rework in general. Maybe make it more similar to WP:RfD in some ways?- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 14:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think if we set it up in a way where the archival is automatic or semi-automatic everything will be resolved. Another RFD like process is a lot of extra maintenance work for community when we already have our hands full.--BRP ^ever 11:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just when I was looking for something to do. Thanks, BRP. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all,

We’re thrilled to announce the Wiki Loves Ramadan event, a global initiative to celebrate Ramadan by enhancing Wikipedia and its sister projects with valuable content related to this special time of year. As we organize this event globally, we need your valuable input to make it a memorable experience for the community.

Last Call to Participate in Our Survey: To ensure that Wiki Loves Ramadan is inclusive and impactful, we kindly request you to complete our community engagement survey. Your feedback will shape the event’s focus and guide our organizing strategies to better meet community needs.

• Survey Link: Complete the Survey
• Deadline: November 10, 2024

Please take a few minutes to share your thoughts. Your input will truly make a difference!

Volunteer Opportunity: Join the Wiki Loves Ramadan Team! We’re seeking dedicated volunteers for key team roles essential to the success of this initiative. If you’re interested in volunteer roles, we invite you to apply.

• Application Link: Apply Here
• Application Deadline: October 31, 2024

Explore Open Positions: For a detailed list of roles and their responsibilities, please refer to the position descriptions here: Position Descriptions

Thank you for being part of this journey. We look forward to working together to make Wiki Loves Ramadan a success!

Warm regards,
The Wiki Loves Ramadan Organizing Team 05:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators about whether we should grant interface admin to non-admins or not. Please offer any comments and questions you have on that page. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Recently I noticed that the condition of some sources on simplewiki is very bad. There are instagram as a source, or even quora and reddit as historical sources (!). Some of the pseudo-sources I found are listed on User:BZPN/BlockedDomains.json. All sources on my list have been removed from the articles and replaced with an appropriate template where necessary. Moreover, I also suggest blocking medium.com and buzzfeed.com, as these are sources created without any verification by users and are completely unreliable. If anyone is against blacklisting these sources, please let me know. Regards, BZPN (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would not blacklist Instagram, because according to en:WP:INSTAGRAM, sometimes it can be used as a primary source (for example for a celebrity's birthdate). ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 21:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Indigo, Instagram as a source is disrespectful to the reader - everyone can write whatever they want there, and the reader doesn't know whether it's true. Moreover, on enwiki, content is controlled differently - there, pseudo-sources or spamlinks will be spotted immediately by active editors, while here, most likely, no one will notice them. Recently, I found and removed, for example, text (with emoji) copied from an Instagram post in an article (btw, it's a copyvio), lots of spamlinks to Instagram profiles, or Instagram as the only source. Instagram should absolutely not be used in such a situation, and blocking it will allow us to protect ourselves from spam, etc. I cannot understand how Instagram can be considered any source in an encyclopedia that reaches millions of people... After all, literally anyone can create an account there and write whatever they want. Moreover, enwiki rules do not strictly apply here and should be interpreted in terms of the simplewiki situation :). BZPN (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BZPN: I agree with many of the things you said, however (literally anyone can create an account there and write whatever they want) there is a huge difference from a random, unreliable fanpage and the official, verified profile of someone. If Lady Example says she's Christian on her official account, why should I not believe her? If Example Singer says that today it's his birthday, why would he lie about that? And if he lied there, he will lie in interviews as well. Personally, I believe their own Instagram posts more than any interview, which could contain a mistake, be a misinterpretation or even be slightly edited. Also, I don't see how it is disrespectful to our readers, if and only if used correctly, according to that guideline. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 23:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Indigo, let's assume you're right. If Instagram is a primary source, then there must be a secondary source. So why not just provide the secondary source? Wouldn't someone so famous that they have a verified social media profile even get an interview in a large and well-known newspaper (and such rarely make mistakes in content)? I'll say it again: simplewiki won't be able to pick when Instagram is good and when it's not; there will be more spam than real sources, and editors won't be able to handle it. BZPN (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have Instagram, but I think that you don't have to be so much famous to get your account to be verified, in fact most people with a verified profile don't make it to Wikipedia because they don't meet the notability guidelines. Not every work is going to cite their birthdate (because it's usually something boring and most magazine/newspaper readers don't care about that, but they either prefer to read about important events or trivial gossip). To sum it: a secondary source doesn't always exists. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 23:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't you agree with me that it is better not to provide information at all than to provide it based on very weak sources? BZPN (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I don't believe Instagram to be a weak source (again, only when used according to that guideline). I do agree about blocking all the other domains you listed though (except maybe TikTok, but I need more time to think about it, so for now I am neutral about TikTok). ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 23:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, with "Tik Tok" I mean "Un-exceptional claim about oneself from the official, verified Tik Tok profile", never "a good source about other people or events". ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 23:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have no idea what TikTok could be the source of... it would seem like a joke. If it's to confirm the number of followers - there are definitely better quality websites with statistics. BZPN (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What Dreamy said. We shouldn't blacklist Instagram even though it's not suitable as a source on anything but itself. But if the article mentions an Instagram post, we want to be able to cite and link to that specific post. For example, I wouldn't use an episode of the Simpsons as a source on American history, but if the article's popular culture section mentions an episode of the Simpsons, we want to be able to properly credit that episode as a source for its own content. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkfrog24: It's like you read my mind, but explained it so much better! I also want to add what Fehufanga said on the admin's noticeboard (Special:Diff/9861193) Blacklisting is an extreme measure […] Additionally, the spam blacklist applies to all namespaces. I can see some uses of having these links in discussion pages. Also, some people have userboxes that link to their Instagram profile or whatever social media on their userpage. There are many reasons not to blacklist Instagram. After learning what Fehufanga said (that the blacklist applies to all namespaces), I am also against blacklisting most other websites. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 14:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated, but I do not recommend linking your Wikipedia identity to any other identity you may have. It's in my top three Wikipedia if-I-could-do-it-overs. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkfrog24: That's true, there are some weird vandals (and even readers and editors) out there that might dox you or stalk you. I know it's out of topic, but I feel like it's always good to remember anyone who's reading to be careful, especially when younger. Not only safety is very important, but it's also less future work for the oversighters. Thanks Darkfrog24 for the useful reminder! ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 00:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree with that, I'd say the better solution would be to set up a filter to limit it so only autoconfirmed people can add that to reduce excessive abuse.--BRP ^ever 14:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BRPever: That's a great alternative! I like your idea of a filter. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 14:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A filter is a much better idea. Blacklisting tiktok or instagram is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, there's valid reason to use Instagram and TikTok links, just because they are unreliable doesn't mean they are always unusable (be it in an article or in a discussion). I can see Instagram and TikTok links being used in discussions. I can write a test filter if needed. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 14:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fehufanga, I suggested this a few hours ago on AN ;). BZPN (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing edits on this wiki from a user called User:Times Daily. Times Daily is a newspaper published in Florence, Alabama, and I am wondering if the use of this username, would have any issues, given that (maybe unintentionally) it is advertising a business. If it is the case, then can someone tell me how to report it and who to report it to, please? Thanks. DaneGeld (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DaneGeld You can report at WP:VIP. Thank you! Aster🪻 ^{talk edits} 18:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw I don't think this user is related to that newspaper as none of what they've been creating/editing is America related,

I'd prefer the user be given a chance to rename first however given the constant issues with them thus far I honestly don't know if it's worth giving them that option when they'll probably be blocked per CIR in a weeks time anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 18:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: I'm pretty sure the user behind Times Daily blew up that account and made a new one, is that legitimate? Aster🪻 ^{talk edits} 18:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking yes it's legitimate providing they never edit under TD again but if they've already got a new account then I would support hard blocking purely because of the username –Davey2010^Talk 18:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not a Business entity, and i didn't knew of it's existence till now, when you tagged me. Times Daily (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming that. Would you be OK with changing your username please? It would be helpful if you could. You don't have to lose the work you have done. You can ask the stewards to change it here. Thanks! DaneGeld (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have just created WikiProject Reliable Sources and I invite everyone to join it. Have a nice day/night :). BZPN (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have promoted Kenya Grace and Terry Fox to the status of Good Article. Thank you for all who contributed, good work. Eptalon (talk) 10:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats.--BRP ^ever 10:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eptalon can you also close the discussions at WP:PGA. BRP ^ever 10:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did close (and archive) the two discussions affected.. Eptalon (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have Google Wallet pages but not connected wikidata can you connect me please Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 15:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done connected the page to wikidata.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 15:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 15:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a very bad WP:POV fork of en:November 2024 Amsterdam attacks (including the name). It contains multiple omissions and non-neutral sentences, for example, The rioters and their [[Left-wing fascism|left-wing]] [[Horseshoe Theory|backers]]. Its creator, @Steven1991, was recently indefinitely blocked in English Wikipedia due to similar concerns. Can something be done to fix it and to tell the creator that it is not OK? stjn 22:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The name seems good. Depextual (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The “rioters” classification was quoted directly from the reliable sources being cited. Large-scale violence was involved in the incident, so I do not see there is a problem with the use of “rioters” to refer to the individuals shown or proven to have been involved in the incident. I do not see there are any omissions either when the description of the events is based on the reliable sources being cited, unless you believe that those sources are somehow unreliable, which I would like to hear any reasons or analyses.Steven1991 (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The omissions are glaring when you compare the article to English one. The note 6 is also quoting IHRA’s Working Definition of Antisemitism to make a point of accusing ‘left-wing fascist’ ‘horseshoe theory’ backers of antisemitism. It is clear that you have an agenda and the start of your editing is exactly when you were indefinitely blocked in English Wikipedia for disruptive editing in Israel-Palestine related topics. stjn 22:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what omissions you are referring to. It is important to assume good faith rather than cast aspersions which may constitute personal attacks. Also, the contested wording has been removed and extra verifiable sources have been added to support the classification of the violence involved in the event. If you disagree with any part of the content, feel free to lay out the suggestions on the relevant Talk page, or add sources you consider as appropriate. I would appreciate if it can be done. Steven1991 (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omissions are of reports about anti-Arab racism and behaviour of Israeli fans prior to the match, as reported per enWP by NBC News, Times of Israel, CNN and BBC.

It is not a ‘personal attack’ to point out your prior block for I-P editing in English Wikipedia, see WP:1STRIKE. stjn 22:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing them out. I will add those information to the article. Steven1991 (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As said, it would be easier to follow if you can lay out all the suggestions on the Talk page of the article, or provide any other sources you consider as appropriate for inclusion in the article’s content. Steven1991 (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello StevenJ1991. Sorry to say so, but at the base, this is likely just rioting at a football game, whhere one of the clubs happened to be Israeli.Rioting at a football game is inacceptable, no matter who played. To keep the balance, you could likely add that Mulin association also condemned the attacks, see the EnWP article. But hoenstly, in my opinion: this is rioting at a footall match, likely little else. Eptalon (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind suggestion. I will do it in a moment. Steven1991 (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say the same thing, it is a clear POV violation, including the title. There is a reason why the english wiki article is WAY more neutral. It needs to be moved immediately. Mason7512 (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The “anti-Jewish” and “riot” classifications were supported by reliable news sources and condemnation statements by multiple government officials. It is about verifiability rather than whether the classifications are really true from your standpoint. One cannot allege something as a “POV violation” simply on the basis of the disagreement. Steven1991 (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A selection of sources that claim the events were anti-semetic does not confirm the motivations of the riots. I could easily provide numerous sources stating otherwise. This is a very strongly worded, heavy-handed title which needs more evidence to be justified; it cannot be thrown around. This isn't disagreement, this is the truth. Mason7512 (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to current events, it is not about the absolute truth but verifiability, particularly when there is a possibility of new evidence showing up at any time. We do not need 100% accurate evidence to prove that something is exactly what it is or what you believe to be. What is required is the content being supported by reliable news sources, which may or may not include quotations of official statements, whether by the Dutch government or the European Commission. Given that the Dutch PM and EC President have classified the riot as antisemitic, I don’t see how it cannot be stated as such in the article, unless you can provide more reliable sources to show that the riot does not involve any antisemitic elements, which is not the case given the details of the series of events. Steven1991 (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the article is currently at November 2024 Amsterdam attacks, and it is actively being worked on. I have done 2-3 minor edits, like splitting longer sentences, or fixing a reference that was in there twice. Eptalon (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have another article called Xiaomi 14 can you connect to Wikidata please? Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 23:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raayaan9911  Done 2601:402:4400:3A90:90D2:D9DE:66F0:3B60 (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raayaan9911: Are you unable to connect things yourself? -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 Yes, It says "Only Administrator and Trusted Users can add and remove" Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 01:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raayaan9911 It shouldn't say that, because I was editing as an IP when I connected the Wikidata item and it worked. 2601:402:4400:3A90:C39D:D68:EDB9:8E05 (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for IP Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 01:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raayaan9911 I too have just connected an article logged out and it worked fine for me so not sure what you were seeing, but just to confirm you can do this yourself, Fwiw though you don't have to connect articles to WikiData as I personally don't when I create articles here, But yeah you can connect these yourself, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 02:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010, I recognized you that connected article to wikidata and works fines Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 02:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If their IP is blocked with settings preventing them from editing logged in, they won't be able to link pages via wikidata. This is my guess in this situation.-- BRP ^ever 02:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know, It's IP and Dave Logged out his account automatically and Connected article via Wikidata and he have logged in back it logged it and replied me Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 02:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But then wouldn't they be seeing a blocked message instead?, Hmm strange –Davey2010^Talk 02:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think is seeing block message if they editing too much using IP Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 02:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A petition has been started at enwiki related to the recent ANI v. WMF controversy. The petition opposes the idea that the WMF might reveal editors' personal information to ANI and the courts. Since this affects all Wikimedia wikis, I think this community should know about it. The petition can be found by clicking this link. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you a lot. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 17:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does strike me as a little odd it's being handled on enwiki and not meta. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Thank you for posting this QuicoleJR it's greatly appreciated, I also concur with Lee I'm too surprised this isn't being handled on Meta. –Davey2010^Talk 21:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surprised, visibility is the easy answer. Clearly the originators think it will get seen there more. -Djsasso (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both local filter 86 and global filter 123 disallow poop vandalism, therefore the local filter might not be needed. There are two options:

1. Disable local filter 86.
2. Opt out simplewiki in the poop vandalism global filter with wiki_name != "simplewiki".

Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 17:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support for option 2. It's probably better to keep the local filter - administrators always have control over it. BZPN (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)_{Changed BZPN (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)}[reply]

I Support option 1 - I didn't know that our local filter is outdated. BZPN (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support option 1, I believe that the global filter will always be better performing (and accurate) than our own one. Not to mention the fact that I don't believe this wiki (as a community) has the capability to maintain such a filter without a noticable reduction in filter quality over time. Plus, the global filter was updated this year, while our own filter was last updated in 2019.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 09:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support option 1: Why opting out a global filter when we could just disable or change ours? Option 2 would give us tue same result, with extra steps. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 14:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support option 1 - Agree with above - No reason to rely on the local outdated filter when we can rely on the global updated filter, No brainer really :), –Davey2010^Talk 15:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it recommended for all articles about cities to be as long as Lawrence, Kansas? Oholiba (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Article length is a product of several factors, such as how many sources there are, interest of editors to write about a topic, readability, etc. There is no required length for all articles on any topic. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, many articles here haven't had a lot of interested editors, which is why they are so short. However, I'm understanding from your response that some cities may have less sources written about them, and then it might be better to keep the article shorter, even if someone is interested in expanding it. Is that your view? Oholiba (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct: claims need sources. There will be a lot more claims about Paris than Topeka, for a variety of reasons, therefore, there will ideally be a lot more content about Paris than Topeka here as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I will refrain from adding too much detail (about the history, economy, landmarks) regarding things which are less significant or covered in fewer sources. Oholiba (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Follow your heart, friend. As long as you are reporting the things that are sourced with reliable sources, sticking to NPOV, and you're using simple English, you can't go wrong. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! If you like horses or horse riding, you are invited to join WikiProject Horses :) See you there! ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 20:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody else noticing pages are being "removed" from Category:Pages using the JsonConfig extension more than normal, and any subsequent edits the page also can result in the page being "removed" from the category, even if it is just a simple grammar fix?- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FusionSub the category on en wiki will be deleted. Whatever template/module used to populate it is no longer used, so whenever an edit is made to any page in that category, it will be purged and removed from the category. They say there's a "job queue" that will eventually purge all pages and empty out the category. It's possible a similar change was made to a template/module here. Depextual (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

actually, you need to make an edit. Simply purging a page does not work. Depextual (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense if it only happened once, but it happens whenever the page is edited (even after it was previously edited (which with the reasoning you provided shouldn't happen)).- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 14:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is still occurring after 2 weeks, does anybody have any ideas of what is causing this cycle of contradictions?- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conference of the parties. "Conference of the Parties".--En-wiki has both titles, but one might feel that both titles seem to be sort of the same thing (and many of our articles belong in the first 'category').--Should Simple-wiki 'worry' about Conference of the Parties, for now? 2001:2020:343:C4DE:90E5:4DF7:7EAD:409A (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It'll depend on if that phrase is a proper noun or not Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On that note: It seems like our article, links to the 'wrong' of the two titles at En-wiki.--There might be 'a problem' (and i ain't gonna be working on that problem). 2001:2020:357:B814:4526:D8CE:AC9D:F44F (talk) 07:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:343:C4DE:90E5:4DF7:7EAD:409A|2001:2020:343:C4DE:90E5:4DF7:7EAD:409A[reply]

Hi, I linked the articles because, despite the different titles, they both are disambiguation pages. If you search the Simple English title on enwiki you will be redirected to the page I linked. The most important part is that the contents of the pages match, not the titles (it's better if the titles match of course, but the content is much more important, because moving a page is easy, but changing the content messes up the change history). About which title is better, I am not sure. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 09:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

looking at a few sources, it looks like a proper noun (as in a title), so the capitalisation here is correct.

It is important, as either it's a title, or it's a series of parties in a conference. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are many parties (or people) at those conferences.--Each conference of the parties, are not known for 'series of dance parties' et cetera or 'rock n roll parties'.--(If i misunderstood your explanation, then that is not fortunate.)-- 2001:2020:32B:F22A:BC9D:9EA2:D8C1:9CBA (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:343:C4DE:90E5:4DF7:7EAD:409A[reply]
Diplomat corps might use capital letters (of 'special words'), more often than encyclopedias do.--With Diplomatic Regards from Myself: 2001:2020:32B:F22A:BC9D:9EA2:D8C1:9CBA (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it is important, however, it is referred to as a name, rather than a description (a proper noun), so should be capitalised.

I don't think "Diplomat corps" is a proper noun. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "diplomat corps" is not in any (reputable) dictionaries - however folksy language that journalists or other writers use, according to the number of google hits)'.--Those People and Practitioners really should know better. 2001:2020:32B:F22A:6D86:6B03:6923:5073 (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me, Lionel Messi Article has been Broken including early life and club career Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 15:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there has never been an early life and club career because I can’t find any evidence of it in the history. Bebo12321 (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

look at references please Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 15:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhhhh Bebo12321 (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raayaan9911, it's  Done. I've fixed it for now by removing the faulty reference, I'll refine it later. BZPN (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BZPN thank you Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 15:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create a new category for members of the Academia Europaea, but I don't know how I should name the category. Which version is better?

• Members of Academia Europaea
• Members of the Academia Europaea

Dandelo (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dandelo: First, we should consider whether we have any pages to include in this category (and how many of them there will be). As for the name itself, I think it will probably be Members of the Academia Europaea. BZPN (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As of 2024 the Academia Europaea has more than 7000 members. Accourding to the Wikidata Query Service 265 of them have an article in simple.wikipedia.org. (Most of the 265 articles didn't contain the membership at the moment. So I will have to update them.) --Dandelo (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dandelo You are able to start the category! But for future reference, a category needs to have at least three pages in them. Happy editing :) ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 22:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that there are Template:Protected page text and Template:Protected page text/full, which are unused.

The actual page that displays is MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext. The enwiki version of the MediaWiki page transcludes the Template, but the simplewiki version does not.

If the Templates are not used, maybe they should be deleted. They seem to be copied directly from the enwiki version, which uses links which don't exist here, and more complex wording. However, I think the "submit an edit request" button is a good feature in the Templates, although it could be adjusted to "submit a change request" or "request a change to this page". Do people want to customize the Templates and incorporate them into the MediaWiki page, or delete the Templates? Depextual (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these templates show up as used the way most templates would. I think they're invoked behind the scenes when someone tries to edit a page that they don't have permission to edit. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly sure that the MediaWiki page is what's invoked when someone tries to do that. Depextual (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can confirm that the mediawiki: page is whats invoked on semi-protected pages if non-confirmed editors try and edit them. Fu2ion5ub (Talk) 12:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a page western civilization that have many wrong things! First of all you write about western civilization and you dont mention anything about Greece! Greece is the birthplace of western civilization! Secondly you have a map that shows Greece as not a western country and have some other random eastern countries! How can you talk about western civilization and you dont write anything about Greece? All the official sites have Greece as western country! Please fix the page because almost the whole page is wrong!Write some information about Greece and remove the map! Alikakii (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alikakii: Hello. If you think the article contains wrong things, you can correct it yourself - we encourage everyone to edit it themselves. You can find relevant sources and improve the content based on them. Everyone here is a volunteer, and we do not edit at user request. If someone finds the time and wants to edit this page, they will certainly do it, but it would be faster if you did it yourself :). Have a nice day! BZPN (talk) 06:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your response! An editor from wikipedia already helped me and corrected the article! And sorry for being a little rude before in my text but the article hadnt some important information! Anyway all good! Thanks again and have a nice day too! Alikakii (talk) 11:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An error is in effect at COVID-19 pandemic in British Columbia. When one clicks the "Languages" button, it says, "This page is not available in other languages"; however, the page is actually available in standard English: En:COVID-19 pandemic in British Columbia. 162.156.70.174 (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just linked it in Wikidata. Did that fix the problem? -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it did. 162.156.70.174 (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those links don't show up automatically. You have to make the connection in Wikidata. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tested, and it works. Arabic, Serbian (Српски srpski), Indonesian, and Normal English 31.45.34.136 (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! So there are 2 pages western world and western culture. There are maps that dont include Greece in the western world and with western culture generally as no western country! Instead of Greece these maps show as western countries some other random eastern countries! So you are writing all these information in these 2 pages that the western culture and generally the western world comes from Greece and then you show maps that dont include Greece in the western world world and with western culture??? Are you serious?? Please change these maps with other correct maps that shows Greece as western country! All the official sites have maps that show Greece as western country and only here in wikipedia you have it wrong! Do something! Alikakii (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both terms are highly subjective, so it's clear you find different maps that do (not) include certain countries Eptalon (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is subjective?? That Greece created the western world???🤣🤣🤣 Its just a fact! If you read history books you will learn it! Its not difficult!!! Alikakii (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can I request to remove my rollback permissions? I have been inactive from changing Simple Wikipedia and I'm concerned that I may make controversial rollbacks due to my inactivity (policy can change and I may rollback following old and criticized policy). – Angerxiety^! 15:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Angerxiety, Hello. You can request that on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Regards, BZPN (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, quick question Is creating empty talkpages allowed ?, Various IPs have created talkpages with just the talkpage notice (example) but I didn't know if there was any policy that says this is disallowed or even if its worth my time requesting deletion anymore?

Some admins do QD them as "QD G6: Non-controversial or regular cleanup: Mass deletion of pages added by x" but just didn't know if we had a policy somewhere, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it depends a bit on what "empty means". Completely empty pages (zero content) should never exist.

If it's more that there's just a tag at the top, it might depend on the tag thats being applied. I don't think just {{talk header}} is in any way helpful (maybe on their own talk page, I guess), but a single tag for a translation or something would be suitable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Not policy but my opinion) Creating these empty talk pages may not be very helpful but they don't really disrupt the wiki unless it's done as a bulk page creation of nothing but {{talk header}}, which in cases like that is when the "Mass deletion of pages made by x" deletions occur. If an editor creates one page like that, the impact is so minor it probably isn't going to be noticed and enforcing any rules against it would be pointless when that time could be spent elsewhere on parts of the wiki with a higher demand.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 16:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^^ Ditto FusionSub here. I usually mass-delete if there is a random bulk creation of empty talkpages. If it's just one or two pages, it's not worth going through the process. Some believe that talkheader and pageview stats etc help in encouraging people to contribute a comment.-- BRP ^ever 16:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your helpful replies @Lee Vilenski @FusionSub and @BRPever it's greatly appreciated,

Sorry I should've been clearer I did mean creating talkpages with just {{talk header}} only (translations etc would certainly never be deleted by me),

I've had empty talkpage QDs declined in the past and so just recently I began wondering whether I should be just leaving them be, Kind of assumed they were more hassle to admins than what they were worth but I'll continue QD'ing them, Thanks again I really do appreciate you's taking the time to reply here, Have a great day/evening, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 18:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I should mention I do agree with the above that even if these pages are created, there so many more important administrative tasks than deleting them. Mass creation is likely just w:editcountitis Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree Lee, admins have far more important things to be doing than deleting empty talkpages which by all accounts aren't causing any problems, Your reply is the precise reason why I came here to seek clarification :), Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 18:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A policy that says "No et cetera", might be okay.--However, how about having a catalogue of 'Greeting cards' et cetera; Take the example, that yesterday evening there seemed to have appeared a 'new talk page, with no real content' for the article about 'Fluor-Antimony acid'.--I would like to inform that person, something like: "Hi! Thank you for (trying to) help this Wikipedia, to articles that keep getting better. However, at least one wikipedia-user feels that it was not necessary to start the talk page about ... . The talk-page has no real content (or no actual discussion). Please consider stop doing that. Or please ask an established user, if that edit is (regarded) as useful. Thank you."

Comment: When i see that a new talk page has been started, then it is a waste of my time, to open that talk page, to see that there is no new content.--So maybe i will stop checking talk pages 'out of the blue'.

Anyway, a message to a user, might be simpler than above, and could likely be shorter.--Thoughts? 2001:2020:351:E9CE:C421:D47A:1AEB:2C19 (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. The University of Washington is conducting research into the Simple English Wikipedia about the Heath care related articles contained on our project. They should have already sent emails out to those of us who have been identified as having edited these articles in the past. I have checked and the research is genuine and a great honour for our project. I'd like to encourage those of you approached to take part in the research to actively cooperate with the researchers as it will be good for simplewiki and WMF who will be receiving a donation to compensate us for our time. Thank you fr33kman 10:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems interesting and useful for the project.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 16:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was among those who were mailed, and I did the survey. Some of the questions are tricky. Eptalon (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

'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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

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

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)[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]

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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 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, –Davey2010^Talk 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]

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

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

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 –Davey2010^Talk 19:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[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) JJP_Master (she/they) 02:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]