Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussions to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 83. (BOT) |
|||
Line 1:
<noinclude>{{short description|Central discussion page of Wikipedia for general topics not covered by the specific topic pages}}
{{Village pump page header|Miscellaneous|alpha=yes|The '''miscellaneous''' section of the [[Wikipedia:Village pump|village pump]] is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)|policy]], [[Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)|technical]], or [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)|proposals]] sections when appropriate, or at the [[Wikipedia:Help desk|help desk]] for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the [[WP:reference desk|reference desk]].
For '''questions about a wiki that is not the English Wikipedia''', please post at [[m:Wikimedia Forum]] instead.
Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for {{Th/abp|age|{{{root|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|cfg={{{cfg|1}}}|r=y}} {{Th/abp|units|{{{root|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|cfg={{{cfg|1}}}|r=y}}.|WP:VPM|WP:VPMISC}}
<!--
-->__NEWSECTIONLINK__<!--
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive header}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 44
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive %(counter)d
}}-->{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|header={{Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive header}}
|archiveprefix=Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive
|format= %%i
|age=192
|numberstart=44
|minkeepthreads= 5
|maxarchsize= 250000
}}
<!--
-->{{centralized discussion|compact=yes}}__TOC__<div style="clear:both;" id="below_toc"></div>
[[Category:Wikipedia village pump]]
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]]
[[Category:Pages automatically checked for incorrect links]]</noinclude>
== Naming of articles about controversies ==
What is good idea for naming articles about controversies? "[[Controversies of Nestlé]]", "[[Nestlé controversies]]" like in case of [[Volkswagen controversies]] or "[[Controversies surrounding Nestlé]]" like in case of [[Controversies surrounding Uber]] and why not [[Criticism of Nestlé]] like in case of [[Criticism of Huawei]]? [[User:Eurohunter|Eurohunter]] ([[User talk:Eurohunter|talk]]) 08:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
:
::That's where I think it should be for the readers benefit; the only reasonable argument for not having ANY such section (DUE, etc.) on say the Nestle or whatever corporate page would be... well, none. Their interests are irrelevant; our readers interests are paramount (even over WMF needs). Stick it where it gets eyes. — <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-style:normal">[[User:Very Polite Person|Very Polite Person]] ([[User talk:Very Polite Person|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Very Polite Person|contribs]])</span> 22:32, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Eurohunter|Eurohunter]] There shouldn't ''be'' any articles about controversies, see [[WP:CRITS]]. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 07:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
::Further down in that same essay we find {{tq|Articles dedicated to a controversy may be appropriate if the reliable sources on the topic discuss the controversies as an independent topic}}. Without looking too deeply into it, my suspicion is that this is true of Nestlé at least. [[User:Caeciliusinhorto-public|Caeciliusinhorto-public]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto-public|talk]]) 12:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Caeciliusinhorto-public|Caeciliusinhorto-public]] {{tq|Generally, new subarticles should not be devoted to criticism, controversies, or other specific viewpoints but should instead focus on topical themes.}} In the Nestlé article we can split the history of Nestlé, which is explained in quite a bit of detail, to a new article. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 13:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
:::The fact that exception exists kind of makes me wonder if [[WP:CRITS]] really has any standing. ''"Criticism sections/articles are not desirable, except when they are"''; that's basically what we're saying. <sub>Duly signed,</sub> '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper</span> ]]'''-''<small>([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])</small>'' 12:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Yeah that is all PaGs, see [[WP:IAR]]. Hard rules that can never been deviated from are counterproductive when writing an encyclopedia. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 12:46, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::There are articles like [[Criticism of Walmart]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 12:49, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Possibly created with good intentions but all that should be merged back into [[Walmart]]. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 13:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::With almost 11,000 words of readable prose, [[Criticism of Walmart]] is [[WP:TOOBIG]] to merge into anything. I actually think that the best approach would be to move more content out of [[Walmart#Criticism and controversies]] and into the subarticle.
:::::::What's important to remember here is that this isn't (or doesn't need to be) a random collection of individual incidents. There are whole books written on the subject of how Walmart is/was hurting communities and businesses. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::@[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] Much of the history can be moved to [[History of Walmart]]. Currently the Walmart article has a far more detailed description of the history than the history of Walmart article, which feels uneven. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 17:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I would actually suggest this might be a good case for splitting that article into individual controversial events/topics rather than a list of controversies. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 02:45, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::It is one thing to say that the [[exception proves the rule]]. It is another to have a phrase that outright contradicts the central premise of the argument being made. Most of the time whenever I see a justification for a criticism/controversy article, it's because of the existence of reliable sources that say "this company has a controversial history". Walmart definitely qualifies. Yet you're saying that "criticism of Walmart" should be merged back in. There are ill-defined parameters here. <sub>Duly signed,</sub> '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper</span> ]]'''-''<small>([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])</small>'' 15:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::With Walmart, I don't deny that it likely has a fair amount if criticism and articles discussing that criticizism on broad terms, but the way the article here us currently structured, it's a hit piece of any negative thing Walmart has been involved in associated into various groupings. That's not what these article should be for. We absolutely don't need documenting criticism to that level. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 15:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::The hens might not be laying the best eggs, but it doesn't mean we burn down the henhouse. I agree that it's bad to list every single criticism that can be thought of in an article; it's usually a symptom of [[WP:NOTNEWS|recentism]] when some isolated controversy makes the news, and an editor adds it to an article thinking that it'll have encyclopedic staying power. We can probably still consolidate the article to less incidental instances of controversy or criticism. <sub>Duly signed,</sub> '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper</span> ]]'''-''<small>([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])</small>'' 15:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|There are ill-defined parameters here}} Exactly! The world is ill-defined, boundaries are gradients and sometimes contradictory things can be true.
::::::An article about why Walmart sucks shouldn't exist. The Walmart article should explain why Walmart sucks, but should not list every single example of Walmart sucking ever. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 15:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Something like [[Criticism of Christianity]], where that itself is a notable topic, is what is meant to qualify for standalone articles. If you have a lot of disparate instances of criticism and lump that into one larger article as in the case of Nestle, that is absolutely a problem. These articles draw every bit of negative commentary that editors like to balloon into a "criticism" or "controversy" as to be covered by those, and makes it hard to keep to the most significant factors.
:::Keep in mind an alternative at least for businesses is by lump any legal litigation into an article as with [[Litigation involving Apple Inc.]]. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 12:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
::::...see also [[WP:COATRACK]]. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 13:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
::::[[Objections to evolution]] is another one in that theme that shows what can be done. A key point is that its topic is the objections, rather than coverage of Evolution itself. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 13:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::And we should stress that while even if notable, these viewpoint-based articles should only be standalone if we are running into size issues. Eg with the evolution one, it would be preferable to see these objections alongside the actual reasoning supporting evolution, but Size does come into play and requires this. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 15:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Not just overall size, but due weight. There are many objections to evolution that would be [[WP:FRINGE]] and a distraction at best on the main article, but are notable in some way in their own right. The same might apply to say a particular criticism of an individual company, although it would be less likely. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 16:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
{{Outdent}}
There are over 100 articles with titles that begin "Criticism of". —[[User:Anomalocaris|Anomalocaris]] ([[User talk:Anomalocaris|talk]]) 00:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
:100 articles is like a rounding error. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 00:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
::[[Criticism of criticism articles about criticism of topics]]? — <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-style:normal">[[User:Very Polite Person|Very Polite Person]] ([[User talk:Very Polite Person|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Very Polite Person|contribs]])</span> 00:46, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Another guardrail is [[WP:POV fork]]. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 00:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
: [[User:Eurohunter|Eurohunter]]: Your original question was, "What is good idea for naming articles about controversies? '[[Controversies of Nestlé]]', '[[Nestlé controversies]]'..." If the article is about controversies, I would go with the model [[Controversies of Nestlé]]. If the article is about criticism, I would go with the model [[Criticism of religion]]. My advice would be, if you believe an article should be created, [[WP:BOLD|be bold]] and create it, and then have fun defending it. It's also OK to create a redirect to an article section, as I see you have done. Cheers! —[[User:Anomalocaris|Anomalocaris]] ([[User talk:Anomalocaris|talk]]) 07:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
: In general, I'd suggest either merging those back into the main article ''or'' splitting them into articles about individual events or topics. Usually we should avoid having articles specifically about "all the controversial things about X" but we can absolutely have individual articles about each of the controversial aspects of X. So for instance we don't have [[criticism of Israel]], we have [[Gaza genocide]], [[Israeli apartheid]], etc. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 02:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::But we don't have separate articles on "Walmart has been accused of having lax security standards, as outlined generally in this book chapter and as illustrated by these two specific incidents". We could probably write a whole article on some things (e.g., Nestlé's role in marketing infant formula in developing countries), but not on everything. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::We could 100% have an article on lax Walmart security or walmart "public freakout" videos or walmart's unique network of dairy farms or walmarts shopping carts or anything else--if there's enough to get it past [[WP:GNG]] and someone has the will and interest to bother. If the entire article was "why Walmart's X sucks" in practice, because there are 20-30 SIGCOV level pieces all talking about why Walmart's X sucks... make the article. If we don't have that Nestle example of yours that's a shame. [[User:Very Polite Person/draft/Donald Trump's makeup|I found one that I started noodling on which I was astonished didn't exist yet]]. — <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-style:normal">[[User:Very Polite Person|Very Polite Person]] ([[User talk:Very Polite Person|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Very Polite Person|contribs]])</span> 00:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Sure, if there are sources demonstrating notability, we can have an article on anything. But I don't think that there are sources demonstrating notability for Walmart's security standards. It's verifiable, and it's probably worth mentioning somewhere in Wikipedia. But since it's not notable, it needs to be mentioned in the context of a larger article, and that larger article is probably going to be [[Criticism of Walmart]].
::::(Start with [[1977 Nestlé boycott]] and [[Infant formula#Policy, industry and marketing]] if you're interested in the Nestlé example.) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:: [[User:LokiTheLiar|LokiTheLiar]] is mistaken. We do have [[Criticism of Israel]], and also [[Criticism of Wikipedia]] and [[Criticism of religion]], and more than 100 other articles like this. It's possible that some of them should be merged into other articles, but these three (and probably many others I haven't looked at), I would '''Keep'''. —[[User:Anomalocaris|Anomalocaris]] ([[User talk:Anomalocaris|talk]]) 06:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
== One comment per day ==
I've rarely seen an editing restriction that is something like "one comment per talk page, per day" or "one edit per article, per day". This is meant to deal with editors who post many comments per day to the same talk page, especially low-value comments (e.g., demanding prompt responses, or posting nearly identical comments multiple times in the same thread). Does anyone know whether this is a formal thing, and if so, what it's called?
(@[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]], this approach might also be useful for LLM problems. Imagine if suspected LLM bloviation could be reduced to a single comment per day, without needing any agreement that an LLM was actually being used.) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:I think its a thing... I recently had issues with someone who, if I remember correctly, was under a two comments per talk page, per day restriction but they were able to get around it by posting massive comments with replies to multiple editors embedded within them. In light of that I would want any future restriction to come with some sort of size limit on the comment or the explicit understanding that it isn't to be circumvented by posting walls of text. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 17:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:I think there might be a [[WP:CTOP]] that could cover this, but it would require a willing administrator to place the ban and go through the process. I know the arbs are currently voting on some CTOP changes, but also one of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation 2/Proposed decision#Editor time is our most valuable resource|proposed principles]] at least supports the concept since non-stop comments invariably drag other editors back to reply. I know for the "nearly identical" they've been referred to as [[meatball:ForestFire|ForestFire]]s before, which are generally viewed as disruption. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 17:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:Some CTOPs have a word limit restriction that is related to this. Here's a proposal to expand it to all CTOPs: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation 2/Proposed decision#Word limit restriction (discretionary) added to contentious topic restrictions standard set]]. There's also the original definition of it somewhere, probably in an old ARBCOM case. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 08:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|Some CTOPs have a word limit restriction}}. See [[WP:ARBPIA5]] which also brought in a balanced editing restriction, which is measurable using edit filters. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 04:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm actually hoping to find a "one sig, or we'll block you" kind of rule. I've been watching an editor (now indeffed) whose talk page comments are sometimes very long but frequently both very short and very low-value (e.g., just pinging editors who haven't replied fast enough to suit him/while it's the middle of the night in their timezone). [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:Just about any restriction is good if it pushes an editor in the right direction. I don't think we need to think about how formal it is. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 14:20, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
::It's a lot easier to suggest a type of restriction if you can say "Why don't we try a [[WP:LOWVOLUME]]?" instead of "So, once upon a time, I remember seeing an admin try this one weird trick, and it really seemed to help..." [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I can't find a name for this. I've looked in [[WP:Don't bludgeon the process]] and [[WP:Civil POV pushing]] but I can't see any such restriction linked in those. I admit that I haven't read through all of [[WP:Editing restrictions]], so you may find your answer there. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 18:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:Update: [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Standard set]] now lists "word limits per discussion". This wouldn't necessarily stop an editor from creating multiple "separate" discussions, but it might be adequate overall, at least for CTOP articles. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
== LLM accusations and non-native speakers ==
I haven't yet had time to gather hard evidence, but anecdotally it seems to me that <s>accustoms</s> accusations of LLM use are being used to shut down talk page discussion from people whose first language is not English (and who therefore sometimes use archaic terms or misuse idioms), when there is no evidence that an LLM has been used. This seems to affect new users disproportionately, too.
I've just put one sample into an LLM detection tool and it came back as "We are highly confident this text is entirely human". On the User-talk page where it was posted, it was hatted with {{tl|Collapse AI top}} and the poster's comments were disregarded.
This seems an egregious failure to AGF, and often "bites" newbies.
What are others' experiences?
Under what circumstances can the use of {{tl|Collapse AI top}} be undone? Do we have a set of "uw-" templates for its misuse? Has any research been done, to check the frequency of non LLM texts being hatted by it? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 11:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:This is one of those situations where it might be better to look at the exact incident instead of speaking in generalities. Feel free to link to the talk page in question. Also, careful of AI detectors, which I don't think are reliable. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 13:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::I'm not talking about one exact incident. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 13:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:Using llms and saying others use llms is not an AGF issue at all. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 13:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::Telling someone they used an LLM and hiding their comments on that basis ''in the absence of convincing evidence'' is very much an AGF issue. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 13:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::No it is not, it is not inherently bad faith to use an llm. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 13:41, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I agree with your latter point (those using {{tlx|Collapse AI top}} clearly do not), but I fail to see how telling someone "I'm not going to talk to you because of the tool I think you used" is an assumption of good-faith. But this seems to be a side issue. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 13:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Collapse AI doesn't say the text was added in bad faith, no more than reverting unsourced text suggests the unsourced addition was in bad faith. If it is a side issue, the proposal should not open suggesting the template use is an "egregious failure to AGF". [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 16:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Hiding someone's talk-page comment because you believe it to be LLM-generated doesn't say that it was added in bad faith/as an active attempt to harm Wikipedia, but it does tend to indicate that you think that person's contribution is so worthless that nobody else should read it. Or "nobody else should 'waste their precious time' reading it", if prior comments from its supporters are to be taken at face value. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::As do reverts of unsourced text, posts seen as Forumy, etc. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 17:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Nowhere do I say that "Collapse AI says the text was added in bad faith". HTH. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 18:08, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::"accustoms of LLM use are being used to shut down talk page discussion...it was hatted with {{tl|Collapse AI top}}...This seems an egregious failure to AGF", HTH. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 02:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Thank you for confirming my point. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 11:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::If you feel addition of Collapse AI is not an egregious failure to AGF, then strike the statement. As it stands, it's a pretty clear plain English reading. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 13:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I have not said {{Tq|1="addition of Collapse AI is an egregious failure to AGF"}}. My statements stand.
::::::::::The reading issues are with you, and while they persist I will not be engaging further. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 13:36, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Fully agreeing with you, <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> telling someone they used an LLM and '''hiding their comments''' is showing bad faith, and often also biting newcomers. [[User:Lova Falk|Lova Falk]] ([[User talk:Lova Falk|talk]]) 12:27, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*The use of AI in talk pages seems to be the '''issue of the month'''… we are having multiple discussions about it in multiple venues - here, at VP(Policy), at WT:RFC, ANI, etc. I don’t think this is intentional Forum Shopping (the discussions are all started by different editors)… but we do run the risk of ending up with competing consensus. I am thinking we need a centralized discussion. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 19:09, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*:It's probably because of all the news stories that came out about a week ago about the AI cleanup project. That's why I got started looking for stuff. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 19:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:OK so there are a lot of things going on here:
:* ChatGPT use [https://www.newsweek.com/map-shows-which-countries-use-chatgpt-most-1950639 really is more common (by some definition of "more common") in non-Western countries]. In my experience that tracks with what I've seen on Wikipedia.
:* A lot of LLM additions tend to be in the space of closing content gaps. This is partly due to the above, partly due to edit-a-thons and student initiatives often targeting those articles, and partly due to the WMF framing LLM strategy around improving accessibility.
:* There is no way to definitely prove that something was written with AI, and with article edits especially, the users probably aren't around anymore to ask.
:* Being [[WP:DICK|dicks]] to non-native English speakers is really common -- and honestly, probably part of why people use LLMs to communicate in the first place. Misusing idioms, "broken English," etc. are all actually kind of an ''anti-''tell for AI.
:* Talk pages have been bombarded with AI-adjacent spam -- usually people inputting prompts or search queries, often for homework help -- starting in 2022, and it has not let up. It's the kind of thing that is ''really easy'' to identify when you've seen thousands of instances, but not immediately obvious otherwise. ([[Special:Diff/1143652261|This]] is an example -- "TLE" here stands for the Philippines curriculum's [[Education in the Philippines|Technology and Livelihood Education]], which is only obvious if you've seen hundreds of these diffs or are from the Philippines.) And a lot of this does come from non-Western countries.
:* People are really weird and touchy about talk pages, myself included.
:* People are ''really'' weird and touchy about AI, myself included.
:* We still don't have a coherent AI policy -- actually we have no real ''policy'' -- and what we have, no one really agrees with, often from different directions.
:[[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 19:43, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::The last bullet point is a big problem. Because we have no real policy on generative AI, we end up endlessly re-litigating the same arguments. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 23:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::It is orthogonal to my point. Whatever policy we do or do not have ''about the use of AI'' is irrelevant where discussions are being shut down ''when there is no evidence that an LLM has been used''. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 13:39, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
::::The problem is that I don't know what you expect anyone to do about it. There will never be definitive evidence that a LLM has been used because those tools do not exist and may not even be technologically possible. There is no way to prove text is AI-generated -- or for that matter that it isn't AI-generated, as AI detectors can also produce false negatives especially if you're trying to make them -- so if that's your benchmark, then you might as well suggest getting rid of the template altogether. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 22:02, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Of course, I can't answer for <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span>, but, about the question what to do about this: first of all, don't take the decision to collapse talk page discussions lightly, and second, {{tq|a set of "uw-" templates for its misuse}}. But personally, I don't see why a collapse simply can be reverted. [[User:Lova Falk|Lova Falk]] ([[User talk:Lova Falk|talk]]) 05:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]], I like your list, and I wonder what you think about this story:
::* I want to make a suggestion to Wikipedia. It's a bit intimidating for me, but I really want to help and give something back to the site that has helped me so much. Out of total respect for Wikipedia, I want to make sure that I do everything as properly, as formally, and as professionally as I can. So instead of just throwing something out there, like I might do on Discord or Reddit or some other casual website, I'm going to use all the resources at my disposal to craft a well-written, respectful, professional-quality proposal. Of course I'm going to use Grammarly and other LLM tools; of course I'm going to explain thoroughly; of course I'm going to make it as organized as I can.
::* Hey, why did they just hide my comment? I worked hard on that!
::[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:::The second part doesn't seem real to be honest (or AI for that matter) but the rest seems good faith enough, assuming there's nothing else going on behavior-wise. I don't think someone using AI to write comments is automatically acting in bad faith but I know that's not the current consensus. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 20:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::::What do you think a young person would [[Emotions|feel]], if they worked hard on a proposal, in an attempt to help Wikipedia, and it got boxed up with a robot icon and a complaint about using AI to polish up their proposal? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::That would be frustrating, but we don't go out of our way to coddle POV-pushers either, and both are editing with what they think are good intentions. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 20:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:LLMs usually write grammatically correct English. The kind of mistakes that LLMs make are not the kind of mistakes that a non-native English speaker would make (and I say this as one of them, who also makes mistakes). [[User:MGeog2022|MGeog2022]] ([[User talk:MGeog2022|talk]]) 11:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::I think the issue that people are identifying here is that LLM problems are compounded by a lack of English skills: there are often obvious LLM tells in the context of text written for Wikipedia discussions that can typically be spotted and corrected by fluent speakers, but which may be missed by someone who is less conversant. In some cases, these are editors whose English may not be textbook perfect, but which is still good enough to communicate and edit capably; in other cases, it's genuinely someone using the LLM as a translation tool, who has no real ability to engage in a written English discussion. Unfortunately, it's not always easy to identify which is which. Alternatively, some people have learned that you can fool an LLM detector (or people more generally) by taking LLM text and adding typos (which is IMO acting in bad faith); a non-native speaker may add improbable typos due to lack of exposure to casual written English and common misspellings or contractions. At the end of the day, if a native English speaker and a non-native English speaker are both misusing LLMs, the non-native English speaker is much more likely to get caught, even though the behavior is in principle equally problematic coming from either party. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 20:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:::At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is the quality of the text that is written, regardless of whether an LLM was used or not. Soon enough LLM's are so good that not even native speakers can see the difference. Furthermore, language is ever evolving, and the way an LLM writes text will also influence the way people write when they don't use an LLM. So I would say, stop being bothered about the use of LLM. Check if the text is confirmed by the source, and copyedit if you think something can be said in a smoother way. [[User:Lova Falk|Lova Falk]] ([[User talk:Lova Falk|talk]]) 05:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Again, this is orthogonal to my point, which was about discussions being shut down ''when there is no evidence that an LLM has been used''. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 11:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I disagree with this view in the strongest possible terms. There is a moral aspect to LLM use, too; its use, not just its output is by nature suspect. The end, it turns out, does not justify the means. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 14:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::When working on improving Wikipedia, it is the end that counts. Editing, editing, to create the best possible Wikipedia. What do we know about the processes in our editors, apart from assuming good faith? Nothing. A bad edit made with the best of intentions, and there are many such edits, will hopefully, eventually, be replaced by a better edit. Friendly, [[User:Lova Falk|Lova Falk]] ([[User talk:Lova Falk|talk]]) 15:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Tangential, but have you seen sources like [https://www.vice.com/en/article/youre-not-imagining-it-people-actually-are-starting-to-talk-like-chatgpt/ "You’re Not Imagining It. People Actually Are Starting To Talk Like ChatGPT"] and [https://www.theverge.com/openai/686748/chatgpt-linguistic-impact-common-word-usage "You sound like ChatGPT"]? If people spend enough time reading something with a distinctive style, they'll start adopting those. It won't just be LLMs adapting to match us; we will adapt to match them. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::My, it is already happening! No, I had not seen this. Thank you! [[User:Lova Falk|Lova Falk]] ([[User talk:Lova Falk|talk]]) 06:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::<nowiki>**</nowiki> Really? **—I'm amazed! <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 11:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::I had not seen these. Sigh. I'll go crawl under a rock now. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 14:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
== Accounts creating other accounts ==
From a thread I was just reading I was led to this log, [[Special:Log/Dianne_Magcamit]], which shows a user account being created{{emdash}}and then that account creating three other accounts. How does an account create another account, and what does that even mean, for one account to be made by, and associated with, another? [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 12:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:You can create an account at [[Special:CreateAccount]]. Most people are not logged in when they use that page, but if you're logged in, it will appear in your log as it does here. You can either specify a password, if it's for yourself, or you can send the password to an email address, handy when it's for someone else. Noobs do this a lot, as they get confused about being logged in or something - it's not usually something to worry about. By the way if you're going to create an alt account or doppelgänger, this is the way you should do it, so there's a record. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 12:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks! It occurs to me from your response that a teacher might use it to create accounts for a class, right? [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 12:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Exactly. It's also the method used by [[WP:ACC]] operators, and admins in some special situations. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=OutreachDashboardBot OutreachDashboardBot] does this on an industrial scale. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 12:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:Go to [[Special:UserLogin/signup]] and fill in the boxes. Many people have alternate accounts; [[WP:SOCKLEGIT]] explains the policy on when they're allowed. For example, {{u|RoySmith-Mobile}} is one of my alts. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 12:11, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
::Looking at that particular one, looks like she was having difficulties:
::02:47, August 15, 2025 User account Milano Dianne talk contribs block was created by Dianne Magcamit talk contribs block (I can't open) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
:: 02:43, August 15, 2025 User account Dianne Milano talk contribs block was created by Dianne Magcamit talk contribs block and password was sent by email (I can't open) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
:: 02:37, August 15, 2025 User account Magcamit Dianne talk contribs block was created by Dianne Magcamit talk contribs block (I can't open) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
:: 14:27, August 14, 2025 User account Dianne Magcamit talk contribs block was created Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
::[[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 15:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
== Neatsville page view saga continues ==
Remember last year's apparent botted view count situation on the page [[Neatsville, Kentucky]]? It's still going on and worse than it was before. Neatsville [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2024-08&end=2025-07&pages=Neatsville,_Kentucky got 1.3 million views last month], [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/topviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&date=yesterday&excludes= was one of the top viewed pages on the project], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Kentucky/Popular_pages is getting close to four times as many views] as [[Abraham Lincoln]].
I'm also convinced the page [[Fuck]] is undergoing a similar situation which has also gone largely unnoticed (see [[Talk:Fuck]] for more details), and, while even before it was a high-traffic page, it's now getting over 30 times as many views as it was and [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/topviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&date=yesterday&excludes= as of now is the sixteenth most viewed page on the project].
I'm not convinced either case is due to some notorious recent event or promotion of the page (cue in TikTok trend to add your signature to the [[Fuck]] page), as ''neither'' are receiving the amount of love and attention ''or'' vandalism that pages with this many views would be expected to get. Neatsville was only edited three times in the past 365 days. I don't have any particular goals for bringing this issue here besides getting more eyes on it. [[User:Departure–|Departure–]] ([[User talk:Departure–|talk]]) 01:55, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:Also, for what it's worth, the only thing off-wiki I could find for this was [https://www.reddit.com/r/ARG/comments/1jr25wt/maybe_an_arg_or_maybe_just_a_weird_easter_egg_in/ this Reddit post], claiming an ad from a newsletter from [[Polygon (website)|''Polygon'']] redirected to the Neatsville page. This correlates with a comment at [[Talk:Neatsville, Kentucky]] from {{ping|Cixtpide}} {{green|There are ads running in popular email newsletters redirecting to this article. It's really strange.}} [[User:Departure–|Departure–]] ([[User talk:Departure–|talk]]) 01:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::I also found [https://www.reddit.com/r/Adblock/comments/1l9rdtl/yt_just_redirecting_every_video_to_the_fuck/ another Reddit post] claiming that a popular [[ad blocking]] script on [[Google Chrome]] caused [[YouTube]] videos to embed as the [[Fuck]] article. This one is more likely to be a practical joke from the script's developers in my eyes. [[User:Departure–|Departure–]] ([[User talk:Departure–|talk]]) 02:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:::[https://www.reddit.com/r/Adblock/comments/1l21d8m/heres_a_working_youtube_adblocker_for_when_ublock/ Original Reddit thread for the aforementioned script], and wouldn't you know it, a lot of people complain about being sent to Wikipedia instead of having ad-free YouTube. [[User:Departure–|Departure–]] ([[User talk:Departure–|talk]]) 02:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::Hi, I can confirm that there are still ads for the Neatsville page in newsletters from The Verge sent this week. There is a Phabricator ticket about this: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T366554 [[User:Cixtpide|Cixtpide]] ([[User talk:Cixtpide|talk]]) 09:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:Please see [[Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Neatsville%2C kentucky still has insane pageviews]] and [[phab:T366554#11055913]]. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 02:48, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:: I continue to think that this is highly problematic and a threat to the integrity of the encyclopedia. Our processes continue to be abused through means that we can not discern, and therefore can not guard against. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 03:10, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::: Looking at the linked discussions, it doesn't seem like anyone is trying to accomplish anything...? At least, not anything that affects Wikipedia. It seems more like a placeholder that was left in, which in turn is causing pageviews from bots and such that interact with the ad campaign. Annoying on our stats, but harmless. Given how many things point at Wikipedia, I'm surprised weird things like this don't happen more often. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 03:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Hmm. I believe I saw in last year's thread that the traffic from the ad to the Neatsville page at least all had the same incoming signature. Could it be feasible for traffic to specific pages with extreme page views have, say, a banner at the top saying {{green|This page is likely experiencing an illegitimate page view surge from viewers with your technical signature. If you have arrived at this page without specifically looking for it, please [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page let us know at this form]}}, with a link to an anonymous form where users can say where they got there from? This would only work if the people seeing the page are real people and not bots, as we've established. This might also help crack the nut as to where the views come from (for cases we didn't already know about). I know most normal Wikipedia readers don't want to be served a form to fill out but these are only going to be served to those unintentionally at the site to begin with who are probably just as confused as we are, and as Wikipedia goes, nobody's stopping them from just closing the tab.
::::As for the "harmful" aspect of this, I think it's almost completely benign, as Wikipedia pages (to my knowledge) cost fractions of a penny to serve, and the only thing it's disrupting are the [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/topviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&date=yesterday&excludes= Today's most viewed pages] and any sort of WikiProject-specific Popular Pages subpage. Even [[WP:25]] excludes pages with botted views. ''Maybe'' pages with these sorts of view counts could have unintentional views removed in these contexts, but even as is it isn't the biggest issue. I found this interesting which is why I brought this here. [[User:Departure–|Departure–]] ([[User talk:Departure–|talk]]) 14:43, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Also, for what it's worth, I've also identified that page views over the past few years for [[Madeira]], [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2020-07-29&end=2025-08-18&pages=Madeira (1)], [[Utrecht]] [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2020-07-29&end=2025-08-18&pages=Utrecht (2)], and [[Durrës]] [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2020-07-29&end=2025-08-18&pages=Durr%C3%ABs (3)], are all more-or-less identical, so there's almost certainly ''some'' form of botted or involuntary traffic to these pages too. These are all European locations that ''might'' be on some travel agency's top destination list so the ad theory seems possible here. [[User:Departure–|Departure–]] ([[User talk:Departure–|talk]]) 14:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::The general reader won't have a horses' idea what {{tq|with your technical signature}} is. I'd suggest {{tq|This page is likely experiencing an illegitimate page view surge, and Wikipedians are working to figure out what is going on. If you have arrived at this page without specifically looking for it, please let us know at this form}}.<span id="EF5:1755617199902:WikipediaFTTCLNVillage_pump_(miscellaneous)" class="FTTCmt"> — <big><sup>[[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]</sup></big>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]<sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 15:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)</span>
:::{{U|BD2412}}, how is this either "highly problematic" or "a threat to the integrity of the encyclopedia"? Just ignore it and it will be neither. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 19:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:::: At the least, we weigh page views into [[WP:PRIMARY TOPIC]] decisions all the time. If those can be manipulated, the outcomes of those decisions can also be manipulated, which may well be significant for products and politicians. We also post interest in topics, which sometimes translates to [https://edition.cnn.com/2024/12/03/business/wikipedia-most-viewed-2024 mainstream media coverage]. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 20:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
== 'Wikipedia:Scam warning' page ==
There was an information page at [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning|Wikipedia:Articles for Creation/Scam warning]] which detailed the practice of scammers targeting AfC participants and asking for payment in return for accepting draft articles.
Since we also are seeing scammers targeting new editors, AfD articles, and autobio subjects of articles I've gone ahead and updated this information page to cover these scams as well, and moved it to the Wikipedia namespace at: [[Wikipedia:Scam warning]].
Hopefully it'll be useful. <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">'''[[User:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">qcne</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">(talk)</span>]]</small></span> 12:32, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
== A flaw of a bot ==
This bot: @[[User:Kotbot|Kotbot]] was making pages for Polish municipalities in 2007 - problem is it listed every single internal part of towns/villages as its own settlement. For 18 years no one noticed and now the problem affects thousands of articles and hundreds of pages e.g [[Ławki, Tomaszów Lubelski County|Ławki]]. This is a low priority problem, but it still needs some attention. [[User:Brickguy276|Brickguy276]] ([[User talk:Brickguy276|talk]]) 15:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:What would be the correct wording (and header?) for [[Gmina Tomaszów Lubelski#Villages]], which currently says "Gmina Tomaszów Lubelski contains the villages and settlements of Bujsce...Ławki...and Zamiany."? [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 15:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::Probably we could seperate it into colonies(kolonie), internal parts of towns, internal parts of villages and the stuff that's already there, similar to how does the template look on the Polish Wikipedia. [[User:Brickguy276|Brickguy276]] ([[User talk:Brickguy276|talk]]) 15:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Would that be possible to do at scale? [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 16:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::::It's a low priority task so it's possible to do over time. [[User:Brickguy276|Brickguy276]] ([[User talk:Brickguy276|talk]]) 16:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
== How to avoid edit war? ==
I disagreed with an edit on [[Proton]], reverted it and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proton&diff=prev&oldid=1307133351 replaced the content] with values from a well-known reliable source. My edit was reverted. So I thought the right thing to do would be to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proton&diff=prev&oldid=1307134182move the page back] to the point before the original edit. However @[[User:83.139.29.114|83.139.29.114]] reverted this change as well.
What should I have done in this case?
Thanks. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 19:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]], [[WP:AVOIDEDITWAR]] recommends starting a discussion on the talk page, which it looks like you have done at [[Talk:Proton#Secondary reference for proton lifetime.]] I suggest that the next thing you should try is leaving a note at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics]] to invite editors who are interested in physics to join you in the discussion on the talk page. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks! However I already posted on Physics as well.
::I guess I should have been more specific: to me it seems wrong that the page stays in the form set by the (in my opinion inappropriate) edit. As I understand [[WP:BRD]], my revert should have been followed by discussion by the other editor. Since the other editor reverted me instead, the page stays in their form while work this out. If we stalemate, then the new content stays. I thought the original content should be the default. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 19:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I have restored the original content. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 08:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
::::John, [[WP:BRD]] is optional, and it's really a negotiation tactic for experienced editors dealing with complicated disputes. You're still in the basic dispute resolution process. You needed a [[Wikipedia:Third opinion]], or any response to your comment at all. You didn't need elaborate rules about who gets to revert whom when.
::::(The process you describe is [[WP:STATUSQUO]], which is also optional, and whose main point is: Please, just ''everybody'' stop edit warring. It's okay if the article is showing the [[m:The Wrong Version]] during a discussion.) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:23, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::[[m:The Wrong Version]] is an excellent essay; people should read it more often. I'd also like to point out one of our newest essays, [[WP:Perspective]], which addresses the same basic concepts from a different slant. The common theme between the two is that even if something is demonstrably wrong, it's OK for it to be wrong for a while as everybody takes a deep breath and works through the issue. Have faith in your fellow editors. If something really is wrong, it's likely somebody other than you will come along and fix it (as @[[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] did above). [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 20:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
== Facebook is a reliable source?? ==
Hi ,I answered,Facebook is a reliable source?? I have the problem with this logo ([[:File:Syrian Railways Corporation logo.jpg]]) ,he ([[User:Yeagvr]]) publicated this logo from a Facebook,but the user says in talk ([[User talk:Yeagvr#File:Syrian Railways Corporation logo.jpg]]) says:''A government official account, linked to the Presidency of the Syrian Arab Republic, is indeed a reliable source. The website is no longer updated''. (Google translator) [[User:AbchyZa22|AbchyZa22]] ([[User talk:AbchyZa22|talk]]) 18:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:In my opinion, it is a reliable source in this case, just as [https://www.facebook.com/WhiteHouse facebook.com/WhiteHouse] is. The Syrian government isn’t updating many of its websites, likely for economic reasons; some even use the former regime’s flag and/or coat of arms. Social networks, on the other hand, are updated daily and consist of verified government accounts. –[[User:Yeagvr|<span style="font-weight:bold; color:blue;">yeagvr</span>]]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> [[User talk:Yeagvr|<span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Courier; color:#F04A00;">✉</span>]] 18:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::What would actually tell us that it is an 'official' linked account? I'm not seeing anything that would indicate that its definitively shown to be an official account. Is there news coverage that establishes it? [[User:Driftingdrifting|Driftingdrifting]] ([[User talk:Driftingdrifting|talk]]) 18:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::The account has a blue check, is verified. –[[User:Yeagvr|<span style="font-weight:bold; color:blue;">yeagvr</span>]]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> [[User talk:Yeagvr|<span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Courier; color:#F04A00;">✉</span>]] 19:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:Facebook is a [[Digital platform (infrastructure)|digital platform]], rather than a [[WP:SOURCE]]. So the question IMO shouldn't be "Is Facebook reliable?", but instead should be "Is this person/organization posting on Facebook reliable [[Wikipedia:RSCONTEXT|for the thing they're posting]]?" [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::WhatamIdoing makes a good point. It's a little like asking "is Penguin Random House a reliable source?" [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 00:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I'd be a bit careful with that. Penguin will likely employ fact checkers and editors to make sure that non-fictional works stay close to the truth, so a book published by Penguin but authored by an unknown likely still can be taken as reliable. (There ''are'' print book publishers that do not have that type of rigor, generally those doint very limited runs of books for payment, like Amazon, and that's a different case) Facebook, on the other hand, is just a platform for anyone to publish anything they want without checks on content, so those cases should be left to whether we can consider the poster reliable. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 04:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:https://www.facebook.com/syrianrailways appears to be an acceptable [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] source for [[Syrian Railways]], it has the blue checkmark. Sometimes orgs use different logos in different places. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 07:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]]:Yes,I see ,the copyright holder (official account) change the logo (July 2025),now is a eagle (emblem of Syria). (Google translator) [[User:AbchyZa22|AbchyZa22]] ([[User talk:AbchyZa22|talk]]) 07:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*Reliability is contextual. Facebook is not reliable in a ''general'' sense, because it performs no fact-checking and has no editorial controls, but individual confirmed Facebook pages may be used for simple [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] statements. In theory the Facebook page for a specific organization might actually pass [[WP:RS]] beyond that if you could convince people that it falls under their general editorial controls and reputation, but it'd be rare. The other case that might occasionally allow us to use a verified Facebook page is [[WP:EXPERTSPS]]. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 15:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
== Why do we keep articles about villages with no notability? ==
More specifically, while hopping onto various random articles, I have seen a bunch about villages (especially in countries like [[Iran]] and [[Türkiye]]) where the only information is about their population (which is in the three digits at most) and where they would be located on the map. They don't really have any notability, and they could all just be collated into the articles about their respective districts, counties, or provinces. At first I thought AFD'ing the articles would be best since they often delete articles where the subject has no significant notability (they are just villages), but there are just so many of them that haven't been actioned on, which begs the question: Why do we keep those articles?
Sorry if this is the wrong place for this kind of discussion. '''''[[User:JekyllTheFabulous|<span style="color:green">Dr. Hyde, muahahaha</span> <sub>jekyllthefabulous</sub>]]''''' ([[User talk:JekyllTheFabulous|speak, or you shall die]]) 11:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:It has long been a guideline on en.wiki ([[WP:NPLACE]]) that "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable". It has never been solved as to what a "legally recognized place" actually is, but nevertheless the community tends not to delete human geographical areas on balance. If a human community has been around for long enough and is of a reasonable size, it is very likely to have enough sources written about it to meet [[WP:GNG]]. That is not to say 'place' articles don't get deleted; sometimes places as small as suburbs are deemed not notable, and mass creations in the past have generated a number of 'places' that are somewhat made up and/or misrepresentative (see [[#A flaw of a bot]] above). You'd have to look into whether the Iran and Türkiye articles you encounter fall into such a category, and you can always [[WP:BEBOLD]] and merge scattered information into more cohesive articles. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 11:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::I see. Thank you for your advice, i didn't know why a lot of stubs on those places existed '''''[[User:JekyllTheFabulous|<span style="color:green">Dr. Hyde, muahahaha</span> <sub>jekyllthefabulous</sub>]]''''' ([[User talk:JekyllTheFabulous|speak, or you shall die]]) 12:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::I think the logic behind [[WP:NPLACE]] made a lot more sense in The Old Days, when growing the number of pages we had was one of our primary goals. That's the same logic that lead to all schools being considered notable by default. In the schools case, years of argument eventually led to that idea going by the wayside and the current [[WP:NSCHOOLS]] has stricter requirements. I think it would be a good thing if [[WP:NSPACE]] were similarly strengthened. On the other hand, I expect that would be a similarly contentious and drawn-out battle, so per [[WP:PERSPECTIVE]] I'd be hesitant to go there. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 12:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::We have tightened up a little on "legally recognized", deprecating GNIS as a source for "legally recognized", for instance. However, discussions on how to further tighten up the definition of "legally recognized" have not produced results. Personally, I would like to see GNG apply to all articles about places, but, yeah, "perspective". [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 14:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Tangent: The guideline in which NSCHOOLS resides is self-contradictory. The opening paragraph says "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose <u>with the exception of non-profit educational institutions</u>, religions or sects, and sports teams" (emphasis added), and then it has a section on schools that encompasses non-profit educational institutions. I understand that the exception in the lead was part of a compromise related to [[WP:SIRS]] a few years ago; apparently they didn't look at the guideline holistically at that time. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] Articles on Iranian places were mass created by Carlossuarez46, who just took a list of places from the Iranian census and converted them into "[name] is a village, as of [date] it's population was [number] people." type stubs. As it turns out lots of the places where the census was taken were not actually settlements, so we ended up with thousands and thousands of stub articles claiming that [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tolombeh-ye_Mohammad_Shafi|Mohammed Shafi's Water Pump]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abadi Zavarzmand Shomareh Mowtowr 55|Abadi Zavarzmand, engine number 55]] or [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazraeh-ye Baqr Sheybani|Baghershibani farm]] were villages. Carlossuarez's talk page currently has 12 or 13 archives just of deletion notices for these types of articles. [[Special:Contributions/86.23.87.130|86.23.87.130]] ([[User talk:86.23.87.130|talk]]) 21:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Lots were, but despite past actions I assume there must be some Iranian villages that actually do exist. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 00:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:JekyllTheFabulous|JekyllTheFabulous]], when you say "villages with no notability", do you mean "villages that have no apparent real-world importance"? Because on wiki, notability means that the subject qualifies for a [[Wikipedia:Separate, stand-alone article]], so your question sounds like "Why do we keep articles about villages that don't qualify for keeping articles?"
:[[WP:Notability]], in our jargon, doesn't mean important. We keep articles about subjects that qualify for separate articles. That includes a lot of [[Wikipedia:ITSIMPORTANT|"unimportant"]] villages, a lot of [[Wikipedia:UGLY|ugly little stubs]], and so forth. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:: Are these villages not normally within some larger geographic organizing structure, like a county? It seems to me that we could merge and redirect a lot of the shortest ones into lists of villages in such and such jurisdiction, and break them out from there into separate articles if the content on a specific village grows enough to justify this. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 22:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::In most cases creating list of localities would be indeed the best practice, though some people tend to resist. [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 09:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
| |||