Wikipedia:Simple talk

Simple talk
	This is the place to ask any questions you have about the Simple English Wikipedia. Any general discussions or anything of community interest is also appropriate here. You might also find an answer on Wikipedia:Useful, a listing of helpful pages. You may reply to any section below by clicking the "change this page" link, or add a new discussion section to this page. Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~). Please add new topics to the bottom of this page. Please note that old discussions on this page are archived periodically. If you do not find a discussion here, please look in the archives. Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page. Some of the language used on this page can be complicated. This is because it is used by editors to talk to one another, so sometimes we forget. Please leave us a note if you are finding what we are saying too hard to read.
Are you in the right place? See WP:AN to speak to an administrator. See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests. See WP:OS for oversight. See WP:RFRB to request the rollback feature (which administrators can grant). See WP:VIP to report vandalism. Add this page to your list of watched pages —    change

Automatic archiving for WP:RFCU

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No archival any more?

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any other New Changes Patrollers noticing this?

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)

@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)

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

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)

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)

Technical issue

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)

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

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

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

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

Disable filter 86 or opt out simplewiki from global filter 123?

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)

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)}

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

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)

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)

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)

Question

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Conference of the parties/Parties

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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
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)

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)

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)

WikiProject Horses

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)

Automatic archival of several pages

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

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

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

Also, for Deletion review I will be removing recently closed deletion section and setting bots so that it only archives the resolved discussion after 3 days from the closure date. Any new comments made by replacing {{Section resolved}} will reopen the discussion, so we shouldn't have any problems.--BRP ^ever 10:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Broken Article

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)

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)

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

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

@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)

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

Protected page text

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)

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)

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)

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)

New category for members of the Academia Europaea

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)

@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)

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.wiki.x.io. (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)

@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)

Western civilization

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)

@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)

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)

Site-wide blackout

I no longer think this is a good idea, and it has not received any support yet, so I am withdrawing the proposal. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Enwiki is currently having a discussion about blacking out the site, as they did in 2012. As all of the issues there would also affect this site, I am proposing that we black out simplewiki at the same time. Thoughts? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't see the need for that. Let's start with the fact that Simple Wikipedia is often used as a learning source, users (often students) visit this wiki to learn English. Why should we take away this opportunity from them, even for a moment? Simple wiki has a much smaller active community of permanent editors than enwiki - a decision made by part of the community may harm a large number of readers. For this reason, I oppose this idea. However, we can use an alternative, e.g. create a Sitenotice about it or include a mention on the home page. BZPN (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Simplewiki doesn't have as much reach as enwiki, so a protest here wouldn't have noticeable effects anyway. BZPN (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment - Please link to whichever Wikipedia-article that tells about what happened (in 2012) during blackout of English-wikipedia.--How long is the blackout (at En-wiki) supposed to last.--User:BZPN has agood argument, and at the very least - perhaps Simple-wiki should have a relevant link on its front page (or home page): Perhaps somehing like: "In 2012 and this year,En-wiki blackout-ed to show support for ...".--If this post is regarded as helpful, then fine. 2001:2020:305:C4A0:DDE9:2E03:2836:3142 (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Maps

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)

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)

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)

Creating empty talkpages

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)

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)

(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)

^^ 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Removing my rollback permissions

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)

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

Research opportunity

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)

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

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)

AI generated content.

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

Questions:

• What copyright issues do you see?
• How do we tell that something was written by AI?
• Have other Wikipedias prohibited using AI and, if so, what were their reasons?
• Is there any concern that AI-created articles would be mass-created to the point where it would add too much to the work of patrollers?

As for complexity, all articles should comply with our requirements for simple language, no matter how they are created. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

You can often tell if a page is AI generated by its content. As for copyright, the AIs are proprietary software and a thing they generate would be copyrighted by the company running the AI. I don't know if others have barred its usage. I just think we should be written by humans. Otherwise we could just as ChatGPT to create the encyclopedia and that would be a mess with many errors in context. It's more common so I think it needs discussing. fr33kman 00:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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

FYI, I got ChatGPT to write a Wikipedia page about blackholes User talk:Fr33kman/black holes so you can see the tell-tale signs of AI generated content. fr33kman 01:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Fr33kman: Wouldn't a person still have to do the actual page creation? That person would be responsible for what they post, so they would need to check the generated page. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes the creator would be responsible for the content. I'm just trying to get a concensus on the subject in this new area of concern. fr33kman 04:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Copyright info related to AI work is described in length in Commons:AI-generated media. It looks like it's allowed but there are several things that the user needs to be aware of. @Fr33kman Your concern is covered there. I think what we can do is modify A3 to copied and pasted from another Wikipedia or likely AI generated content without simplifying complex text. Unverified or unsourced content or any inaccurate content can simply be removed/deleted. There is always RFD for complex issues that needs in-depth discussion. BRP ^ever 02:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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

I think we should write a guideline page for AI generated content so everyone has the information needed to stay within the rules of both simplewiki and copyright. fr33kman 04:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I have started a proposed guideline page at WP:AI. Please read and comment on the talk page. Thanks fr33kman 08:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The AI-generated content is not a good thing. It may be inaccurate and it may be biased. People can put up such content without checking any source or knowing whether it's correct or not, or knowing anything about the subject. Depextual (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it can be problematic. Each use will still need to conform to the manual of stylr, RS, N, and V. It is already being used so we need to come up with a good guideline for its usage. Please review WP :AI and comment on its talk page. Thanks fr33kman 16:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

For reference, the English Wikipedia version is at en:Wikipedia:Large language models. This should say something like "Thus, all text generated by LLMs should be verified by editors before use in articles." Depextual (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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

I think that it is very important to mark articles where such models have been used to generate content. Telling whether content is generated can be difficult, so it is the creator's responsibility to add s note to the talk page of the article. Eptalon (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Please put a "simplification-tag needed", on article "... :Fr33kman/black holes".

A tag 'about A.I.' ? No, for now.--Example of suggested message for the talk-page of 'the perp':

"Hi user:FrEEKeyyman, do not use ChatGPT (or other A.I. generating' programs), for making articles on this website. Thank you!"

Further comment - I will now try to take (say) at least a half weeks 'vacation from this part of the thread'. Thank you. 2001:2020:343:9D6B:A919:2BA9:9BC9:384E (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)