Wikipedia:Simple talk

Simple talk

WP:ST

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 Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.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

change

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 fr33k man 13:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was also thinking about QD, but it could be another G altogether. The stance should be simple. Why? Well, it's not just that the AI content is not simple. The point is also that AI-generated content do not ide specific information, but only too exaggerated and unreliable terms without specific context. There's actually no useful information there. I amMyeproposal is to create mplate that would mark articles generated using AI on the disctalke, but only if such an article has real and true value for the reader. BZPN (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we'll have to have a template for such articles. I'll update WP:AI to include that AI generated content must be both comprehensive and simple or can be deleted under G13. It's still a proposed guideline atm. fr33k man 14:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I agree, looks good. fr33k man 14:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't really know what we gain by using AI to create articles, especially when a editor written article exists on enwiki. I think we should delete them on sight, rather than just tagging them. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about that. Such an article must meet all standards and policies anyway - if the user really wants to publish a real article, he will refine it after AI (all AI-generated articles that do not meet the standards may be deleted in QD mode). Marking an article that was created using AI will allow us, for example, to recognize the real skills of users and the quality of the content. This will also allow us to collect statistics on how AI influences the creation of content on Wikipedia. BZPN (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on recognizing the real skills of users? If they are able to refine an article correctly after AI then chances are we will not even be able to distinguish an AI article from a non-AI article, and then that really isn't an issue to us that is worth monitoring. If it looks AI-written still, then chances are it will still be eligible for deletion. --Ferien (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what if an article contains elements created by AI, but is not entirely created by AI? Such an article will then not pass the RfD and will need to be corrected. It is not known who will correct it and when. Then you should leave the AI-notice template on the talk page. And if the user uses AI tools when writing an article, they can leave such a template on the discussion page, and then it will be known, for example, how often and who uses AI (statistics can be created). BZPN (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think cleanup templates/categories should be created on hypotheticals we do not have examples of. Articles are typically entirely created by AI, not created by AI, and if they are a mix, they are likely disruptive in other ways. If AI is just added in, it can simply be reverted. And how far down the rabbit hole do we go? Does me occasionally questioning ChatGPT for simpler synonyms to specific words in articles and using my judgement and BE 1500 count as partial generation by AI, when the end result is identical to me going and using a dictionary and comparing it to BE 1500? And if I don't disclose this, how will we know for certain that such articles are created by AI? I do not think AI-generated content is comparable to enwiki-translated articles, as it's harder to detect and also isn't necessarily copyrighted. --Ferien (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Baby shower, I also feel the promotion in the article hasn't been noticed. Pages that were created only to say good things about a person, company, item, group or service and which would need to be written again so that they can be encyclopedic. This description fits this article. They put in a promo about Cositas Chulas and then AI-generated content around it to support their ad. This is what I mean when I say if AI content is being used, it likely has other issues. --Ferien (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what "the real skills of editors" means. By allowing articles created by using LLMs, we are going to be creating substandard articles.

This will also allow us to collect statistics on how AI influences the creation of content on Wikipedia. So, we should use LLMs to gain more information on how LLMs can create articles? That's a circular argument if I ever saw one. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

just for info: I replaced the article with s stub and kept it. No, not AI generated Eptalon (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks user:Eptalon.--I would appreciate it, if, say, an admin writes (here), something like, "I think this discussion, has ended for now. Please note: ' This version, was still not-so-good (in regard to AI)', before it was changed.--And this other earlier version, was bad (in regard to AI)".--My (main) point: When all of this is hopefully done, then i will likely link to those, say, two versions (from the relevant talk page)--Many users ('but also readers-only'), are not sure what part of an article sucks because of 'A.I. or LMM-or-LLM-whatever); With those two links, then a user can go back and check, and get an 'aha experience': Oh, so 'that (version) is what makes an article suck because' of A.I. or LMM-or-LLM-whatever.--Note: if anyone wants to complain because one feels that i have used a rude word here, then okay i guess; I have only tried to write simply and relatively quickly (without using all day, to find 'the smoothest words in the world').--If many people, sort-of-get-my-thread, then fine. 2001:2020:351:C573:550A:B330:4026:F053 (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:351:C573:550A:B330:4026:F053 (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Done. Looks like a user has done "Undo" or "Revert". 2001:2020:351:C2EF:204E:AD81:5960:E620 (talk) 11:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New problem, same article:
simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahya_Sinwar&diff=9932644&oldid=9932383
,'Not soldiers, but terrorists - according to new user, that is edit-warring'.

I have no plans for edit-warring. However, one of you should consider making an edit (to set things straight or 'whatever').--I am not the article's 'janitor', so i expect to largely have a hands-off approach.--(Bag-of-popcorn, has already been procured.)--For now, the relevant talk-page has not been leading to any results. 2001:2020:331:9B64:90D7:363C:21FD:F6C2 (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:319:AC4F:ADC5:CEB8:C39C:E608/ 2001:2020:331:9B64:28CF:BA55:332B:3AF0 (talk) 05:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems worse than category "QD ruled out?"

We have an article about 'a body part' collector. So, I checked en-wiki about the name of person being 'slandered et cetera', and s/he is mentioned 'with relatively few bells and whistles' at

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_County_Detention_Center

.--The user that created the article about 'the collector', has created 2-3 articles here, and i did read a bad 'review' about 'all the user's articles', at RfD/AfD on Simle-wiki.--Good luck (while i fix other articles). 2001:2020:309:EA48:DC06:E4AD:769A:AE4A (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:309:EA48:DC06:E4AD:769A:AE4A (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The user that created the article about 'the collector', has created dozens of articles and/or redirects. There might not be a problem in that.--If this post is perceived as neutrally worded, then fine. 2001:2020:309:EA48:B4F4:7D88:B452:3824 (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:309:EA48:DC06:E4AD:769A:AE4A[reply]

If I use the term 'uterus collector' (which is also used in the article), I get pagers of a Georgetown Law Journal (here), the Guardian (here) or BBC (here). Those are like the first 3-4 links. So the title is probably accurate, Wikipedia isn't censored... Eptalon (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The largest known manhunt in the U.S. this year?

This man.
Notable to have a bio on Simple-wiki? Is there enough SIGCOV about him?

He is being biographed in at least one (notable) newspaper in a Nordic country.--He is supposedly a valedictorian, from his high school. He has been arrested (this week) by police in regard to a murder case.--Please list (in this thread), significant coverage when it appears; Then i hope to start a stub.--The manhunt might have added to his 'significance or' wiki-notability.--No other wikipedia, has his article yet, according to my latest online search. 2001:2020:351:C573:E4A6:4F9F:13CE:A3AB (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:351:C573:E4A6:4F9F:13CE:A3AB[reply]

En-wiki redirects from his name, at time "20:22, 10 December 2024".--Just in case anyone was wondering about that. 2001:2020:351:C573:E4A6:4F9F:13CE:A3AB (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the suspects name, for now, from an article, UnitedHealth_Group, diff,
simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UnitedHealth_Group&diff=9937289&oldid=9936580
. 2001:2020:351:C573:E4A6:4F9F:13CE:A3AB (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper Aftenposten.no, does not mention his name, but quotes what the suspect shouted to the journalists, when he was escorted (into a building) by police officers. 2001:2020:351:C573:E4A6:4F9F:13CE:A3AB (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Britain's largest broadcaster:
"[... Name of suspect] charged with murdering healthcare CEO in New York", is article title at BBC.com, today. Link,

www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly2zwqqr1ro
. 2001:2020:351:C573:E4A6:4F9F:13CE:A3AB (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dagbladet.no, newspaper, title: "' Name of suspect: Friends are [in disbelief or] shocked'". Link,
borsen.dagbladet.no/nyheter/drapssiktet-venner-i-sjokk/82363170
. 2001:2020:351:C573:8CD8:222F:E048:3788 (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're writing too much here ;). You really don't have to quote newspapers or describe your edits. You can always create an article, but I believe that Luigi Mangione is only temporarily popular in the daily news, and is not notable enough to write an article about him. This man's popularity will most likely decline in a few days, maybe weeks. I suggest writing about it on Wikinews for now. BZPN (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there (enough) SIGCOV about him, that might make it appear quite reasonable, to write (and keep) a stub or article about the suspect?--That was the first (?) question, more or less.

In regard to wikinews: if you or anyone spends (their own) free time with that, then i will not hold that against 'ye'. (To be clear - i am not requesting information about Wikinews. If you have information to share about Wikinews, then please consider mentioning it on your user page, if that okay by Simple-wiki's rules.) 2001:2020:351:C573:D2:5AFB:15EA:B6F (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:351:C573:E4A6:4F9F:13CE:A3AB[reply]

Research 'about the suspect', is already underway, at Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) at Rutgers University.--Link, to a foreign broadcaster's article,
nrk.no/urix/amerikanere-hyller-mannen-som-er-siktet-for-drapet-pa-toppsjefen-brian-thompson-i-unitedhealthcare-1.17161246
.
I have now walked wikipedia-users thru some of the SIGCOV.--Now, anyone has a job to do, to show wiki-notability in an article about the suspect. 2001:2020:351:C573:8DBD:1906:B2BB:EDE5 (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: wiki-notability: "The creepy idolisation of Luigi Mangione", is a title by The Spectator (a media outlet).--The case about "Mangione's" wiki-notability is maybe not slam-dunk, yet. (A wiki-article would have to show that.) 2001:2020:351:C573:8DBD:1906:B2BB:EDE5 (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:351:C573:E4A6:4F9F:13CE:A3AB[reply]

Allowing users to remove flood flag from their own account

Hello everyone! I was wondering why users with the flood flag can’t remove it themselves once they finish their task, especially if they complete it earlier than expected (e.g. on plwiki it's possible). Waiting for the flag to expire can prevent users from engaging in other activities. It seems like a small change that could make things more efficient, reducing the need to bother admins to turn it off manually. Allowing users to remove the flag themselves would resolve this issue. What do you think? BZPN (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BZPN: That could be good. I think it would be a software change that we can't address here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I guess we will have to report it to Meta, but I don't know anything about it. BZPN (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To implement such an adjustment in the software, a ticket needs to be submitted in Phabricator. If a consensus to make the change is reached, the developers will review it. --Esteban16 (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question

How do i make a Wikipedia project page with the add topic?

Miguel Inigo Mercadal3 (talk) 11:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really do WikiProjects here. There's no specific issue with having a page in your userspace though. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long lists of related pages and categories

Is there a guideline regarding how many related pages are appropriate to be included in an article? Long lists of links, which I personally don't think are relevant enough, are being added to these articles, such as Autobiography, Catholic Church, and Zionism. Depextual (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From w:MOS:SEEALSO:

Contents: Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category. For example, the article on Jesus might include a link to List of people claimed to be Jesus because it is related to the subject but not otherwise linked in the article. The article on Tacos might include Fajita as another example of Mexican cuisine.

So, there's no set number, but I usually use a rule of three being my max. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"related pages" is a section that somehow tells about the sohrtcomings of a page: There is a page on a subject, and there are links to other pages (red or blue links in the sections of the article), but still there was now way to include the pages listed. Having too many of them likely also tells me that the page may lack focus. Eptalon (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed most of them as they were unrelated and pov-pushing as well. Why was Adolf Hitler a related page under autobiography? Yeah, he wrote an autobiography, but every famous person wrote an autobiography. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 13:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; that's what I thought too. Depextual (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elckerlijc spelling mistake

The page Elckerljic has a spelling mistake in the title. I am not allowed to move pages, so could someone move it to Elckerlijc for me? Special:MovePage/Elckerljic Tom9358 (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been moved. Thank you for the notice. Griff (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nmed template proposal

Hello. I noticed that we don’t have a template for articles that might include unverified medical/pseudomedical information, and I think it could be useful to introduce one. It could serve as a clear warning against pseudomedical knowledge, so that the reader does not confuse it with real medicine. Here’s an example of how it could look:

I'm looking forward to your feedback :). Best regards, BZPN (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't totally work: it just seems to tell readers not to trust that article, which then raises the question of why the article exists (unless it were added to all medical articles). It could be better if the notice asked for help improving the article like other cleanup templates. Depextual (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Depextual: such a template can prevent possible confusion with medicine in articles about pseudomedical sciences. The point is not to inform that the article needs improvement - it is to inform that the data contained in it may not be consistent with current medical knowledge. An example of an article in which such a template could be placed could be Bananaphobia (of course, if it was written properly, in accordance with the policies) or Homeopathy (pseudomedicine). BZPN (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. such a template could be placed in articles such as those mentioned in List of phobias#Funny and fictional phobias (if they existed), so that they would not be confused with real diseases. BZPN (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May I perhaps just remind you: In Wikipedia, almost any user can change almost any article. While it might be (and will be the case gicen enough revisions) that the information is scientifixcally accurate, this need not be the case, and likely isn't. See Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer and Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer, just to cite two of the disclamers Eptalon (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eptalon: I'm not talking about mentioning medical risk. The point is to place this template in articles about topics that are widely recognized scientifically as pseudomedical, and not to warn about unverified information. As I mentioned earlier, for example, the article Homeopathy is about scientifically diagnosed alternative medicine (pseudomedicine), so it just needs to be clearly stated. BZPN (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

so a 'pseudoscience disclaimer'. Likely well known example is homeopathy. Eptalon (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what I meant :).

It's a pseudomedical disclaimer. BZPN (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good. I agree to its adoption. Steven1991 (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a disclaimer like this is needed. On the whole, we should be representing what is shown in reliable sources, to a point where this template should not be needed. If there are alternative viewpoints not presented in reliable sources, then those should be removed. I think the way Homeopathy is written is good, in terms of presenting scientific evidence that it's likely a placebo effect behind it. Bananaphobia shouldn't exist as an article and should just be deleted. So I also don't see a need at this stage. --Ferien2 (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason not to include additional information that the article concerns pseudomedicine. This is just additional information for the reader, which improves orientation in the topic and clearly shows that the topic is contrary to science. BZPN (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we find a formulation that doesn't include 'pseudo-'? Eptalon (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can use "alternative medicine" instead of "pseudomedicine", but those are synonims. BZPN (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The word “alternative medicine” also sounds more encyclopaedic, making it the better one on this site. Steven1991 (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. therefore, the template could be called {{Alt-med notice}} BZPN (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And, for example, we have such a template in plwiki (you can see it, for example, on pl:Homeopatia), and it works quite well. BZPN (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I translate that disclaimer, it reads: 'This article describes theories, methods or activities that are inconsistent/incompatible with modern medical knowledge." Eptalon (talk) 11:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I included the same thing in my template, but in a more detailed version. BZPN (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~We have this page, so I don't really see why we would need this template. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 12:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

@Contributor 118,784: this template is not related to Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer - it would simply serve as additional information in articles about alternative medicine, and not as a warning about the quality of medical content. The idea is to prevent possible confusion between articles about alternative medicine and articles about actual medicine among readers, e.g. those who have a poor understanding of English (such a template will attract their attention + it is noted that the article describes a non-scientific topic). BZPN (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's my bad -- I didn't understand what you meant. In this case, I will

Support this and remove my weak support. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 14:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do i be a Bureaucrat?

What are the tips to be a Bureaucrat? Karuja (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please read WP:A and WP:CRAT. Thank you. BZPN (talk) 10:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome. Bureaucrats are very experienced editors. In this wikipedia, only administrators can become bureaucrats. So, in very short terms:

Make many useful changes, and become aware that this Wikipedia is different from the English Wikipedia in many ways. Also take part in discussions.
Create, fix or extend articles that interest you.
Help fight vandalism, get the autopatroller or rollback flags.
Once you are visible and well-known enough, try to get the adminship flag.
After you have been an admin for some time, you can apply for bureaucrat.

Eptalon (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonally-themed DYK hooks?

I just wondered if we could find new editors, if you try the next DYK update with seasonally-themed hooks?- Another question, if we decide to do that, do we have any that we could call 'seasonally-themed'? Eptalon (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is good, but it would probably take a lot more work to prepare. Overall, I support the idea. BZPN (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support This seems like a fun idea. I'm in favor. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 12:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then. How many seasonally-themed DYKs can we get in the week that's left? Eptalon (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it about how many articles? BZPN (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are about six hooks on the Main Page now, so there should be six seasonal hooks, thus, six articles. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 14:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I

Support that. BZPN (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support What a cute idea! I love it! We could find some hooks about holidays like Christmas, Hanukkah, Yule, or about other things like Santa Claus (Simple is also targeted to children who might like some fun facts about Santa). If we don't make it in time, we can always have seasonal hooks in the future, like Chinese New Year in February. I have an exam tomorrow, so I don't really have time to find the hooks now, but just some ideas. Tomorrow evening I should have more time. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I extended A Christmas Carol quite a bit, with text from EnWP. Unfortunately, their way of citing is not how we usually do it. Might also look into simpilfying some of the material. As always, anyone's welcome to help Eptalon (talk) 08:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Love the idea! it would look so cute! So I am in favor of this! ✿༺ 𝒜𝒹𝑒𝓁𝒶𝒾𝒹𝑒 ༻✿🆃🅰🅻🅺 💌 08:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]