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 Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.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

Handling AI articles

Hiyas! I haven't been around as much as I'd like to, so may have missed a discussion on this (lmk if one has already happened). I came across Separatism in Russia, an article almost certainly written by a LLM with no/minimal human review. It doesn't fall under any of the existing QD criteria, but also isn't a traditional candidate for RfD as the topic is notable, just the content is bad (though is currently at RfD). Given the ease with which people can now generate large amounts of text that may be hiding LLM hallucinations...how should we be handling articles of this kind? I'd think about simply blanking and redirecting it to a relevant article with human-reviewed content, but that might be a bit too bold. Best, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 01:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. Yes, we have been discussing this topic. At first we considered QDing them as Complex articles under a proposed G13 criteria but that went nowhere. Now we tend to RfD them, although that obviously takes time and is one of the reasons we have so many RfDs. I'd advise you to read and comment on WP:AI. It's become quite a problem, one which we haven't yet figured out. fr33k man 01:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^What Freekman said - we don't have an official way of handling these, Some people tag them under {{AI-notice}} where they then simple sit and go forgotten about/rot for years to come, and others like myself just send them straight to RFD if the Enwiki article is too complex (I try where possible). –Davey2010^Talk 01:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with having a QD criterion, I can't remember what I said in the last discussion but I probably Opposed on the basis that "they could be rewritten/improved" however that theory has turned out to be wrong as they don't get improved or rewritten - they just sit dormant for years until someone randomly stumbles upon it

So yes I support a QD criterion, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 20:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has any ideas, we can expand on it. I was thinking of making a section at RFD specifically for AI related page that act as en:WP:PROD and the gets deleted if there is no improvement in a week. BRP^ever 12:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the idea. Steven1991 (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fr33kman: Is 5 out of 99 RfDs (or 3 out of 109 RfDs at the time you commented) mentioning AI in the nomination or comments really a reason for so many RfDs? The data isn't adding up. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 21:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way forward is the QD option and from what I'm reading a few good others agree. There are a fair few other QD criteria that don't get used often but we have them as options. How many RfDs have we had since the AI thing became an issue? A lot of people have expressed a dislike of AI generated content. Perhaps it's a good idea to have a formal poll? fr33k man 22:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fr33kman: The question was simply about whether it was one of the reasons it's that we have a massive backlog of RfDs, that you mentioned in your comment, which it is not based on the data. And QD criteria also need to be objective which has not been demonstrated here yet either. A4 is already heavily misused so why would it be a good idea to open us up to another potential criterion that is genuinely subjective and likely to be misused. The QD criterion feels like a solution looking for a problem, these articles will be deleted on-sight or within 7 days at RfD, why go against the fundamentals of our deletion policy for an issue that is affecting so few of our existing RfDs. No-one is doubting it is an issue but the scope of it is certainly up for debate and whether it needs such a drastic change in QD policy. Once someone talks about how we can make this an objective pass/fail criterion for QD like every single other one I will happily stop pushing back on this issue, but it's not possible which is why it hasn't been implemented yet.

And please, let's not formally "poll" the community, we work on consensus not polling – that is ironically something we need to fix in our RfDs with people making such poor baseless arguments or none at all that consensus is more difficult/controversial to determine, prolonging RfD closures and increasing the backlog in the process. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 22:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You say "these articles will be deleted on-sight": how will they be deleted on sight without a QD criteria? They will only be deleted after an RfD. I think everyone is on the same page in that we all want them to be deleted, it's just a matter of how. Right now, as I see it, most people who have commented agree with the QD option. I do agree that it is not as objective as we would like. I'm not sure how to address that. fr33k man 23:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are differing opinions so maybe it's time we list the options and see what most people agree to. BRP^ever 23:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree fr33k man 16:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our inability to objectively know if something is AI-written does not negate the possibility of a QD criteria. There are going to be very obvious AI articles, and less obvious ones, and it's not necessary that all be strictly classifiable for a QD criteria to be useful. It's possible that some can be deleted as hoaxes, but I do think a well-worded QD criteria would be helpful in dealing with these articles. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 14:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We could use G13 for obvious AI articles and RfD when we aren't sure. fr33k man 16:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally prefer to have clearly AI generated content straight deleted. We can't just go with A3, as the articles aren't copied over from another wiki. However, complex articles with possible false information damaged the reputation of the project. I'd support the G13 reason. I'm yet not very worried about AI usage in discussions. If that becomes a wider problem, we can talk about it again. -Barras talk 15:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about introducing another QD criterion? - "The article was likely generated automatically, and has not been reviewed by a human edutor"? - AI can be helpful, but such articles at least need a rewview.--Eptalon (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's essentially the idea behind G13 fr33k man 20:17, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point, this problem isn't going away and a QD criteria for it would be suitable. I don't think discussing each one gains us much and simply wastes time at AfD which is already severely missing Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a new QD criterion. I'm generally uneasy about a PROD/RfD approach because improving LLM-generated articles means we possibly keep their output in revision history or in the article itself. The issue here is twofold — first, we may keep unverified or incorrect text; second, we cannot be assured that it is not a copyvio. Here is an example of the latter: File:Using LLMs to write Wikipedia content.pdf (aside: by AI standards, this is an eternity ago — but I suspect the tools most people have access to are not SOTA nor particularly more advanced than the example). My understanding is also that the copyright status of LLM-generated text is not definite in the United States. In other words, if the text is already problematic and unworkable, we may as well QD it. Hiàn 02:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Handling these articles with QD is of course the most appealing way to do it and that's why it's what everyone wants but QD involves objective criteria. I don't think anyone wants these articles to stick about but we already have issues with admins handling claims to notability and that is an objective thing. How do we call something objectively AI-generated - articles on enwiki are described as likely containing AI-generated content, because we just don't know for certain - ie it's not a pass/fail criterion like every other QD criterion. Do we base it on GPTZero score/likelihood? That is what is different about this compared to other issues and why we need to have a slightly different approach instead of just a new criterion which in its previous form which will cause issues. Personally I say expand A3 to address more complex content. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 20:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a micro-essay on the issues of AI-generated articles here, and why it is a difficult one to just "solve" with a QD criterion: User:Ferien/AI --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 20:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your point, I would disagree with expanding A3 for two reasons:

The first being that changing A3 to fit "complexity" is not possible. The definition of "complexity" is far more subjective than any definition of what is AI, at which point such subjectivity requires an RFD.

My second issue is that, in the future, it will likely become easier for LLMs to create simple-sounding text, while continuing to be unencyclopedic, meaning that A3 would not necessarily apply to them anymore.

As AI advances, LLMs will write differently. While it currently struggles to write simple text in an encyclopedic tone without having problems, I suspect that these issues will present themselves differently in the future. Expanding A3 to fit our current definition of the problems of AI today will be obsolete in the future.

While I am not active in such topics in SEWP, I don't think AI false positives have ever been an issue in SEWP, and such articles are usually very-easily identifiable (see WP:DUCK). Even in the case of false positives, articles that are so bad that people mistake them for AI should be deleted or TNTed anyway. I would therefore support a new QD criterion. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 01:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also use a term like 'automatically-generated'. In the end, AI is just a tool. We care what the article looks like, and we see it has certain deficiencies. What tools were used to make the article are irrelevant. Eptalon (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I should have said A3 expansion would be only one of the things I would actually want to do to address it. Complexity can be pretty objective though, based on whether it contains complex vocabulary not in BE 1500, longer sentences etc which is why it already exists - enwp copies that aren't complex are often declined for A3. I also think we may reach a point where AI-generated articles end up being completely unproblematic and it is difficult to determine which article is AI and which one is not. We are definitely not at that stage yet tho. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 14:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Seems like A.I.-slop": I think that we should should 'start' with using that justification, in regard to RfD /AfD.--Before we even consider using that soundbyte as a 'QD justification', then we should gain experience in 'much use' of 'RfD justification': Seems like-A.I. slop. 2001:2020:32D:CF3C:182E:6C17:24D3:8784 (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion for a wording in the form of a deletion criterion - of course based on my personal opinions that a QD criterion could not work in the traditional way but trying to account for fast deletion that gets rid of these quicker than any RfD and the clear majority opinion here. Any feedback would be appreciated.
- 13. Obviously contains AI-generated content: Pages very likely generated by a large language model (LLM) and recommended for deletion by at least two editors.
This should be relatively easy to technically implement, where two signatures/users go into the QD template here. So one user nominates then another approves. This is a bit like the PROD idea but faster. Given how closely CAT:QD is monitored, the second user should be quite easy to get, and could maybe be done by passing admins in QD. We could also have a category for QD alone with AI-gen'd contnet? Thoughts? --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 14:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've started User:Ferien/AI-QD with the ability to add an editor2 - simply added by adding |editor2=(User) onto the template. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 15:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really like this idea — seems like a good balance between an admin-discretion QD and a week-long RfD. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 15:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed fr33k man 20:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Seems like ...", is better than Obvious.--After all, if things really were obvious, then QD could have taken care of everything. 2001:2020:32D:CF3C:182E:6C17:24D3:8784 (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't understand your comment. QD is designed to take the quick easy (obvious) cases whereas RfD has always been for those that are up for debate. If we change the criterion to "Seems like it contains AI-generated content" then it's up for debate. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 14:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about something simple like "Contains AI generated content" for obvious cases such as those that refer directly to LLM or other straightforward cases and RfD for the others? I know there will always be some that require a subjective test but I think we are also trying to avoid cases where the RfD outcome would essentially be a case of SNOW. fr33k man 14:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support having AIQDs exist in a separate category. I would also recommend making this template physically distinct from a QD template, just as a RFD template is different from a QD template. Perhaps orange?

My other question is would this be easily addable to Twinkle? I can imagine pressing G13 on the twinkle page, then if there is already a QD template there, it adds your signature. If there are two signatures, perhaps the template becomes red again, and then is moved from a theoretical AIQD to QD. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 17:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bad idea, to have to persons + one person doing a QD, with a subjective justification.--It is likely better to start with RfD /AfD, that have "snow close", after six days, or 5 days, or 4, or 3, or ... .--These 'fast-track' thingies mentioned, are in regard to "Seems like A.I.-slop". 2001:2020:32D:CF3C:3C32:B4D7:8E45:FCC2 (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC) /2001:2020:32D:CF3C:182E:6C17:24D3:8784[reply]

I like that idea for templates, might be easier to technically implement actually as we already have a function on Twinkle that allows admins to replace a QD with an RfD if they initiate one. There's also the prod and endorsed prod templates on en that could serve as inspiration. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 14:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So where are we at so far. I think we have a consensus for the obvious cases regarding your suggestion of two users. Would that be meaning that the deleting admin is not one of the two? fr33k man 20:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be good - a user tags the article, a passing admin in CAT:QD sees it and approves, then the next admin can delete. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 20:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hereby "tag" this article.--It seems 'AI-esque', and it seem complex.--Please go thru the motions of the 'suggested system'.--If this post is regarded as helpful, then fine. 2001:2020:32D:CF3C:CD45:30A:7ED2:28EA (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am personally holding back on my dozen or so articles I've seen and collected that are very likely AI-generated to avoid potentially flooding RfD further, and giving a chance to use any new system that may be created. I'll add that to the list. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 22:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this theoretical template would look something like this:

User:MrMeAndMrMe/AI-QD

and implementations of this template would look something like this

User:MrMeAndMrMe/AI-QD/testcases

with some minor changes. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 11:07, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK how do technically institute the changes to the scripts that requite the templates being created, twinkle implementation and hanging the QD criteria. Ill update Wikipedia:AI to update it based on consensus here. fr33k man 01:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming that there will be an (upcoming) vote, in regard to the main idea.--If a vote, then please consider having one alternative that says: "... for a test-period of 3 months or 6 months.--In general, when 'weaponizing', then it is convenient to have a 'default period for de-weaponizing'.--If one of you, sort of gets what i am suggesting, then please speak up (cuz some or many 'will not have the foggiest' in regard to my suggestion).--If this post is regarded as helpful, then fine. 2001:2020:32D:CF3C:C5B3:9907:5FDD:EF43 (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re-cap

OK, so as far as I can see we seem to have agreed that straightforward cases will be handled by a modified version of Quick Delete (G13) where it will take 2editors to sign the G13 template with an admin then performing the deletion itself. For all other cases we will send the article to a normal RfD. So how do we make the G13 template (who will make it) and how do we alter Twinkle to handle the new criterion and do the work of placing the temple etc... Who has the technical know-how to alter Twinkle? fr33k man 18:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think AI articles can be bad if many are made at once but at the same time be good. They should be allowed if they are marked on their talk page as AI-generated, and before being published into the mainspace they should be thoroughly vetted and CEed to ensure quality. Quality over Quantity. Bobherry Talk My Changes 02:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fr33kman: I can help alter Twinkle to implement this. We just need to get the template sorted out first. I think generally agreed idea here is that we have a template to start the process, then another editor adds their endorsement to the template, then it adds to QD category. We could have a category specifically for AI articles and/or one for AI articles that can be deleted immediately (having had the two endorsements).I'll sort it out over the next few days and we can always change the technical implementation if people prefer it done a different way. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 23:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great. I'm not a very good coder so it's beyond my abilities. I think a separate category for AI makes sense. Thanks in advance for your help fr33k man 23:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey is me Adelaide, I forgot my username, I am trying to log in but I forgot my user can anyone look it up for me? Thank you! 2600:8804:8A81:9100:D674:DCF1:28E6:B034 (talk) 06:08, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't it "Astralee" or "Astrolee" or something like that? If you remember a specific article you were working on, you could go there, check the history, and find your username in the list of contributors. Ternera (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thats someone else Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 09:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Asteralee Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 09:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adelaideslement8723 --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 14:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, removing 'wrong or non-updated' mayor, from infobox of Chinese cities

I have now 'started' at the bottom of a 700+ list of Chinese cities. (And i am going to the article about the individual city/cities.)--Is it okay if i simply remove 'the wrong mayor from infobox' (and 'cite' the en-wiki infobox, in the edit comment in our article) without ? Example, this city 'has the wrong mayor'.--I have no intention of 'making a career' out of adding names of mayors (to infoboxes of city articles).--Fair enough?--I hope that i do not get blocked for asking this; I am asking so that i can edit without those edits being viewed as wrongful).--Also, i seem to remember that over at German-wiki, more than 5 years ago, we decided that 'removing wrong names' of Norwegian mayors, from infoboxes, was simply a fine thing to do. (And of course, every wiki can make their own rules.) 2001:2020:32D:CF3C:5DCD:FEE0:591B:A3A7 (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If something is wrong then it's fine to remove it. fr33k man 00:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another option would be to say than (for example) in 2020 that person was elected mayor. Now if these elections happen (say) every four years, it is clear that another election happened since then. Note also: over here (Switzerland,Austria, Germany) villages and smaller cities often have the same mayor for long times, esp. If that person is doing a decent job. Eptalon (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But in the infobox that wouldn't work. I think it's better to remove them. 204.195.97.109 (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you put the wikilinks at my talk page please? I would like to help out, but I can't find the "infobox", thanks. Yilangderen (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of China, please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2025/List_of_Hong_Kong_dissidents thanks. Yilangderen (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surname articles

In Category:Meitei surnames, there are 238 articles that follow basically the same format. There are two sentences, an infobox, sources and/or links to mychildnames.com and indiachildnames.com, and a link to a Simple English Wiktionary page with the name (except, from the random ones I clicked on, none of them actually have pages at Wiktionary). The two sentences are the same "XXXX is a Meetei Manipuri surname or family name which has Indian origin. People of this family mainly live in Manipur, India." Some example pages: Chungkham, Thangjam, Maimom.

Occasionally, there will be an additional section for the history of the name or a person with that name who is notable such as Naorem and Ningombam.

The bulk of these are not on other wikis (and if they are, they are as disambig pages for notable people with that surname) and are orphaned on Simple English Wikipedia. Are these kind of articles appropriate for the wiki? If not, how do we approach them? CountryANDWestern (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is anything inherently notable about a surname in and of itself. It'll be a pain but I think we should delete them all. To do so we'd need to work from a list. fr33k man 16:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Haoreima: 204.195.97.109 (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is a batch RFD the best course of action? It didn't work so great with the clan articles a couple of weeks ago. CountryANDWestern (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. Give me few weeks. I will improve all of them into notable articles with more citations. HAOREIMA (Khurumjari) 17:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In far-North Scandinavia (and Fenno-Scandinavia) 'tribal last-names' will sometimes/often 'say' where many/most of the people with an (individual) last name, which settlement (or larger area) that a person comes from. Be that as it may.--If one of the mentioned 'Manipur last-name articles' would say something like, "some sources from the 18th century, says that most of the (Manipur) people with last name Singh-A-Song, came from the Alfa-Bravo Valley" of Manipur, then that might be helpful. And notable sources, would be necessary, of course.

Another thing, please identify/'list'/name, one or two of the 'related' disambig pages (at En-wiki).--I will check "Singh", myself.--Maybe, maybe i can add something. 2001:2020:359:B9D1:C969:6551:E913:D235 (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC) /2001:2020:359:B9D1:C969:6551:E913:D235 (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It will be great if you create a user account. We can collaborate further. :-) HAOREIMA (Khurumjari) 19:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Haoreima have you thought about making wikidata entries on these surnames? They seem really structured and suited for it. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 07:14, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Immanuelle I want to but since they're numerous, it's a big deal for me to carry on alone. :-) HAOREIMA (Khurumjari) 07:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well you certainly had no problem making so many articles here… CountryANDWestern (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran a small QuickStatements batch on the items. In general, it would be good to have a better native speaker POV on the items — including their names in the Meitei script and possibly mergers/sitelinks with the Meitei Wikipedia's equivalents if they exist. Hiàn 02:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hiàn Yes, I can. I have started improving some of it BTW. :-) HAOREIMA (Khurumjari) 04:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Haoreima I'll help u just like always. :-) Victor Ningthemcha (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Script

Hi all, if you want a easier way to review new page, I created a script,

importScript('User:Cactusisme/Wikipatrol.js');

add this to the common JS if you want to use it. Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 09:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does it do? CountryANDWestern (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CountryANDWestern a button appears at the top right of ur screen and it provide many options for new page patrollers. There r custom options Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 10:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? CountryANDWestern (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sorting (abc, numerical, date) filter out patroller admin pages, redirects etc Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 10:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there is a cactus loading animation, so don't mind it Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 10:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More details at: User:Cactusisme/WikiPatrol Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 10:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cite book

In cite book, if the publisher parameter contains a colon you'll see an error.

So this:

turns into:

Foobar. This contains: a colon.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link)

but if you remove the colon:

turns into:

Foobar. This contains no colon.

Can someone fix the Lua? Polygnotus (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a a change is needed to module:Citation/CS1/Utilities Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 05:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk: Do you happen to know? Polygnotus (talk) 07:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone called Auntof6 imported the current version of en:Module:Citation/CS1 but neglected to import the matching version of the other modules in the cs1|2 suite. simple.wiki's cs1|2 module suite is now out of sync with itself.

I do not have the necessary permissions to fix this so you will have to get Editor Auntof6 or someone else with simple.wiki import privileges to fix this.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And Auntof6, can you also give Trappist the monk admin rights? That is useful in situations such as this and User_talk:Trappist_the_monk. Polygnotus (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk: No, we don't just give admin rights. A user gets the admin right by going through the WP:RFA process. That's probably not what is needed here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to think that I want admin privileges here. If you do think that, let me disabuse you of that thought. I do not want admin privileges at simple.wiki.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk I should learn to use those /s things. How do you denote tongue in cheek stuff? Polygnotus (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to Editor Auntof6. If you mean emojis, I have no idea because to my not-so-young-brain, they are more-or-less meaningless and excessively over cute.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk: Sorry, I pinged the wrong person. I was replying to @Polygnotus. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk: I don't remember why I imported that template, so I'm tempted to undo the import rather than import a group of others. Would that solve the problem, do you think? -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though I think that keeping up with the current en.wiki version of the cs1|2 module suite is in the long run beneficial. Regardless, it seems that the simple.wiki module suite has been updated by another editor.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Polygnotus: note import requests can go on WP:AN. We do have the active admin numbers to keep up with maintenance stuff like this at the moment. Some stuff can get missed out but if you just let us know we will handle it as soon as possible. :) --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 22:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferien Thank you! Yeah I am not really used to simple yet.

Is there a list of differences somewhere? Polygnotus (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: User:Auntof6/simplediffs covers many of them --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 22:39, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferien Excellent! Thanks again! Polygnotus (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferien Look at the categories at the bottom of this page. It is in "CS1 maint: publisher location". Polygnotus (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus It's supposed to do that. See the explanation here: en:Category:CS1 maint: publisher location. 65.76.141.133 (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I learn something new every day. Polygnotus (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've now copied this across from enwiki so it's hidden now unless you have viewing hidden categories enabled. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 14:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yeah its a bit weird to have this page in that category. Polygnotus (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Total Backlog Annihilation" phase four

Hi everyone! After the Category:Underpopulated categories backlog has been cleared in phase 3 of WikiProject TBA (Total Backlog Annihilation), a new phase has just begun to clear the next backlog: Category:Pages with broken reference names. Instructions are provided on how to help clear the backlog. You can find out more and register interest at User:Ferien/WikiProject TBA/Phase IV. All help is very much appreciated to try and clear as many backlogs on our wiki as possible! Thank you! --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 22:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another one!! --Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 23:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help a list-like article

I have a draft that is pretty much just a list. Do you have suggestions on how to make it better? Wikidata links should probably be removed, but I expect someday articles in other languages will be written on these things. Is the general structure good?

User:Immanuelle/Eight Great Dragon Kings

Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Immanuelle: My comments:

It might be nice to put the list in a table. Possible columns are name, translation, and notes.
I would remove the unused sources. Lists of sources are meant to be full information for references that use a format like references 5 through 8 in this article. If the source isn't used, it doesn't need to be in the list.

Just my thoughts. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did it on all of them Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 08:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also made this one User:Immanuelle/Demon King of the Sixth Heaven Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 10:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata Item and Property labels soon displayed in Wiki Watchlist/Recent Changes

(Apologies for posting in English, you can help by translating into your language)

Hello everyone, the Wikidata For Wikimedia Projects team is excited to announce an upcoming change in how Wikidata edit changelogs are displayed in your Watchlists and Recent Changes lists. If an edit is made on Wikidata that affects a page in another Wikimedia Project, the changelog will contain some information about the nature of the edit. This can include a QID (or Q-number), a PID (or P-number) and a value (which can be text, numbers, dates, or also QID or PID’s). Confused by these terms? See the Wikidata:Glossary for further explanations.

The upcoming change is scheduled for 17.07.2025, between 1300 - 1500 UTC. The change will display the label (item name) alongside any QID or PIDs, as seen in the image below:

These changes will only be visible if you have Wikidata edits enabled in your User Preferences for Watchlists and Recent Changes, or have the active filter ‘Wikidata edits’ checkbox toggled on, directly on the Watchlist and Recent Changes pages.

Your bot and gadget may be affected! There are thousands of bots, gadgets and user-scripts and whilst we have researched potential effects to many of them, we cannot guarantee there won’t be some that are broken or affected by this change.

Further information and context about this change, including how your bot may be affected can be found on this project task page. We welcome your questions and feedback, please write to us on this dedicated Talk page.

Thank you, - Danny Benjafield (WMDE) on behalf of the Wikidata For Wikimedia Projects Team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the News?

Hello, on Talk:Main Page, @SimpleAsPi asked if we could/should get an 'In the News' section on our Main Page. My take on it would be to have 3-4 hooks to articles, and that we need to rotate these 1-2 times a month. So we neeed 9-12 hooks. The criteria would likely be similar to those we have for 'Did you know', but with the additional requirement that the event must be 'fairly current'. This means that If I nominate a hook (that is 'fairly current') now, and that hook does not get used in 2 rotations, the hook will no longer be useful. It is much like the DYK system, except that DYK hooks do not 'time out'. Do you see thar setting up such a system would be worthwile? - I know the details are rough, and would have to be looked at. Eptalon (talk) 09:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One could embed a Wikinews feed, in theory. Polygnotus (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

pointing to sufficiently simple articles that exist at SEWP? The big issue here is that we need some form of 'review process' like we have for DYK Eptalon (talk) 10:35, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eptalon Sure, seems like a good idea. We can have a similar page like Template talk:DYK for nominations. The criteria for the news noms needed to be drafted (with consensus) unless we are planning to use en wiki ones. Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 10:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, we need to talk about them. Main points are:

Hook references an event that is 'current' at the time of publication.
Article the hook references has a sufficient length and is written in fairly simple language.
Factoid referenced is supported by an external reference.

Eptalon (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By current do you mean the month of the event or something else? Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 10:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

needs to be defined, but if we go for 2 updates a month, likely 'at the time the hook is published, the event is max. 1 month old'. Eptalon (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict?) Good idea overall — the three main criteria make sense. We might just need to define "current" more clearly and make sure sources are reliable. Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 10:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

supposing a 'cycle' of two weeks: an event that is current now (July 15) has one cycle to get approved (End of July) and two cycles (mid August, end of August) where it can be added to the hooks visible on the main page? Meaning maximum 'age' at publication is 1.5 months (3 cycles)? Eptalon (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hm, sure! Seems to be ok Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 11:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But unless it is super important most news disappears after perhaps a day or two. Polygnotus (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know that we have the manpower to keep up with that kind of project especially after enthusiasm for it wanes months down the road. CountryANDWestern (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the users active at DYK is interested? courtesy ping: User:TDKR Chicago 101, User:Raayaan9911 Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 11:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As now, the community is too small to maintain the news selection manually. However, we need bot to update in the News section, is that enough now? Raayaan 9911 11:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a similar bot for DYK? Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 11:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is similar bot for DYK but can we add discussions page and rules in the news selection if reached enough community, those are helpful? Raayaan 9911 11:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've always wondered how the logistics of having an 'In the News' section on our main page and I do think it would make our main page more informative and engaging for our readers, however seeing as how we simply don't have a lot of users willing to contribute to such a project (i.e. there's roughly 4-ish active users on DYK [me included]) I'm not sure how reliable an ITN section could be/how frequent it'd be updated. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably one of the big issues, unless a group of people is willing to contribute frequently. --Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 09:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SAR

The Special Administrative Region and Special administrative region pages need to be fixed. Yilangderen (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yilangderen In what sense? What should happen? Polygnotus (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change the page-name of "Special Administrative Region" to "Special administrative regions of China". Please see en:Special administrative regions of China. Yilangderen (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think "merging" is kinda over-complicating things. If the page-name is changed successfully, then, I can easily fix the 2 pages. I don't know how to change the name of the page, please help. Yilangderen (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo

Hey guys, I think somebody blanked the Nintendo page (not me), and I can't put it back because of the abuse filter and multiple edits to undo. So can somebody put the whole page back? 2001:569:7C59:1E00:4E9:C5C7:84A5:DD72 (talk) 04:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should be done. Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 09:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]