Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 166

Semi AI article review

I decided to see if it would be possible to use an AI to co-write an article. Please review User:Fr33kman/deep learning and tell me what you think on the talk page. If the consensus is positive ill finish the article with citations etc. I think the current Deep learning article is too complex and doesn't contain useful info on how it works and examples of what it can do. Thanks, fr33kman 14:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Sentence number three: "Digital learning is made up of core units of programming in languages like Python and C++ containing many millions of lines of code."--Not a clear idea, one might say.--For now, it seems like a looser of an idea - to have A.I. write stuff (or 'generate' stuff) for the lede of this article. 2001:2020:311:F266:69C0:7359:28F3:C54B (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

It's much easier to rewrite the whole thing taking bits of content from enwiki than fix that. Not encyclopedic at all in the later sections. BRP ^ever 10:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Of course, user:BRPever. However, humans are slowly finding out more, about the dream in regard to 'pressing a button', and then good and encyclopedic text (in Simple English) is supposed to be generated by software-and-a-machine. 2001:2020:333:C37D:F0FF:D7EF:7C3D:1FDA (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I would like to share something else regarding AI and writing articles. Well, some models can be taught to write articles really well (here's an example and a chat). You can test it here. Should this be forbidden? I invite you to share your feelings. Best regards, BZPN (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The example from User:BZPN, had at least 'two good sentences/lines' for a lede.

Please see 'How to approve sentences/lines (for an article), out of an AI-generated text',

simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABZPN&diff=10083894&oldid=10077691

. Good for you, for picking (the subject of) a ' physical thing ', and one that is easy to describe (for both man-and "-model").--Note: I am guessing that many LLM-whatever-models would have done just as, uh, not-too-bad. 2001:2020:325:D0A7:45DE:19F:A519:E090 (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

i have made an 'article', out of some of the text, that was harvested by user:BZPN. See,

simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tatra_National_Park,_Poland&oldid=10084261

. I have checked that the two numbers in "my" article, match the infobox at En-wiki. 2001:2020:325:D0A7:B94A:A4E9:C707:A8CB (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC) / 2001:2020:325:D0A7:45DE:19F:A519:E090

Brand recognition

I have become aware of a problem: It is almost impossible to tell if you are on English or Simple English Wikipedia when reading an article on mobile. People sometimes end up here by accident and are surprised when this project doesn't have the pages they want, or they are too simple. In other cases, they might edit the articles to make them more complex without realizing where they are. Can we try to find a solution for this? 2607:F140:6000:802A:34CB:4958:DA33:888 (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm simple english wikipedian, i readed article in my mobile, what's your problem right now? Raayaan9911 06:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Did you read my comment? 2607:F140:6000:806A:F899:5FEB:BA0D:8E1C (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes i readed it but i'm difficult to understand what's your problem. Raayaan9911 02:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

It is almost impossible to tell if you are on English or Simple English Wikipedia when reading an article on mobile. 2607:F140:6000:806A:F899:5FEB:BA0D:8E1C (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

What's your article when you reading article on your mobile? Raayaan9911 03:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

If you read any article on mobile, there's nothing on the page that says "Simple English". So how will people know they're not on the regular English Wikipedia? 2607:F140:6000:806A:F899:5FEB:BA0D:8E1C (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Movies by decade

Was there some reason there wasn't many categories for movies by country by decade (i.e. Category:2010s American movies currently doesn't exist), or is it just that these categories haven't been created yet? 205.154.244.130 (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Simply a category that has not been created apparently. Griff (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

New page (February)

Biomarker. It is a disambig page (and arguably important). Note: i generally do not start articles (unless disambig page or template). I will start none of those red-linked articles.--Thoughts about if the article should be kept?

Copy: simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&oldid=10086232
. 2001:2020:339:A818:1942:2790:ED08:C1A4 (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

And of course, it simple explains "Biomarker", in one line/sentence. 2001:2020:339:A818:1942:2790:ED08:C1A4 (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC) /2001:2020:339:A818:1942:2790:ED08:C1A4 (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The article did not meet the precise definition of A3, but I see little value in a disambiguation page with one blue link in a sea of red. Griff (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia-users will be glad to read "Molecular subtypes" (article), and be able to click for an explanation, "Biomarker". 2001:2020:339:A818:D8D9:777A:E4AB:83CA (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Redirects to Wikitionary

I've noticed this category of articles: Redirects to Wiktionary. What is the point of these if you can just directly words to Wikitionary? Seems like an extra step for nothing. Etoza (?) 23:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The way it works is that if someone entered a word into the search bar here, they would get a result. It also makes things easier for those who don't know how to use interwiki links (and we have a lot of articles where there are no interwiki links to Wiktionary, but should be there), and to replace redlinks in links to important words. Remember that we are in simplewiki, where people usually come to learn English, and here everything is made easier ;). Best regards, BZPN (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Etoza: It's also easier to find them so that we can either create an article, or find the places where they're used and simplify the article so that no link to Wiktionary is needed. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Help with simplifiying

Hello guys i have a question:could you please help me simplifiy the VinFast and Tatra (company) articles? because i think they are complex i hope you all understand that anyways good luck with all your contribuitions best regards. 179.109.143.137 (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

You should always first take the problem to the talk page, of each of those articles. (Can admins or others in the know, say, if one should wait half a month for an answer, before one goes to Simple Talk page.)--I am thinking that if the pages are correctly tagged, then there is no need to go to Simple Talk, 'after tagging or informing at the article Talk-page'. Thoughts? 2001:2020:351:CADD:4C47:E218:C1B7:C556 (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

i think its a better idea ask for help on simplifying the articles on the talk page of the articles 179.109.143.137 (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

VinFast. I have now asked for QD: "qd|Not ready for publishing. Not okay. Does not have the bare minimum of what is needed, to stay published. Partial copy already given back to s/he who started the 'article' ".--You really should have started that article, with only, say, 4 lines/sentences.--Then you should have asked on that talk page: "Are the 4 lines/sentences, good enough, to STAY published?".--Then, MAYBE, someone could have made THAT version, okay to stay published.--Anyway, have a nice day. 2001:2020:351:CADD:1488:F14D:720:8DFF (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok no problem anyways good luck with your contribuitions best regards. 179.109.143.137 (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Correction: "Then, MAYBE, someone could have fixed made THAT version, so that it could become, okay to stay published". 2001:2020:351:CADD:1488:F14D:720:8DFF (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC) / 2001:2020:351:CADD:4C47:E218:C1B7:C556

Reliable sources

Is Newsbreak a reliable source Sign them in (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Some context and why you think it might be a reliable source is helpful here. That said, some quick searching finds this story and other information that calls it a news aggregator at best which should never be used as a source. Ravensfire (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

No; see en:WP:RSP and Ctrl+F for "Newsbreak" in the table. —76.212.74.243 (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

^ This, Newsbreak is deprecated as per en:WP:RSPSOURCES and shouldn't be used, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

newbreak not reliable i dont think Reatom2 (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

My page being removed

Guys i have a quick question:why my page about the Hanteng X8 was removed? I didint add anything wrong to it are the links promotional? I dont know Fusionsub notified me about my page being removed but i dont know what is the reason by the way i am not a vandal anyways good luck with all your contribuitions best regards. 179.109.143.218 (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

It looks like it was quickly deleted under A4 - "The page is about a person, group, company, product or website, and does not claim notability". Ternera (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Also the page was just about a Chinese car the last time i saw the page it had nothing wrong just a car article but i will probably remake it again but i will make sure it dosent get deleted again by using alternate refs since i think the ones i used are promotional and not adding anything wrong 179.109.143.218 (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Look at Hawtai. You must fix "your" article (the parts that you can see).--Maybe i was the one who asked that your other article get QD (Quick Delete). 2001:2020:313:8B04:3CDC:388F:E489:A660 (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Look at Haima Automobile. You must fix "your" article (the parts that you can see). 2001:2020:313:8B04:3CDC:388F:E489:A660 (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Wiki in need of more Kurdish users

This wiki needs more Kurdish users to watch pages such as Iraqi Kurdistan, I'm very busy these days and I can't watch these pages myself. Is there any way to get Kurdish users here? Any help will be appreciated, thanks! Kirkuk 20:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I also forgot to add that experts on the topic of Kurdistan and Kurds are welcomed too. Kirkuk 20:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

How to make a redirect to an article

Hi, does someone know how to make a redirect from one article to another like these two: Cowpea and Cowpeas? They could be redirected to the original. Any help is appreciated, thank you! 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 21:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@Adelaideslement8723 Like this:

# REDIRECT [[Cowpea]] 2601:644:8184:F2F0:4C62:E0B:70C2:2EA1 (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@Adelaideslement8723 Actually, you must remove the space between # and REDIRECT. 2601:644:8184:F2F0:4C62:E0B:70C2:2EA1 (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh thank you, I appreciate it! Have a great day and happy editing :) 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 21:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Upcoming Language Community Meeting (Feb 28th, 14:00 UTC) and Newsletter

Hello everyone!

We’re excited to announce that the next Language Community Meeting is happening soon, February 28th at 14:00 UTC! If you’d like to join, simply sign up on the wiki page.

This is a participant-driven meeting where we share updates on language-related projects, discuss technical challenges in language wikis, and collaborate on solutions. In our last meeting, we covered topics like developing language keyboards, creating the Moore Wikipedia, and updates from the language support track at Wiki Indaba.

Got a topic to share? Whether it’s a technical update from your project, a challenge you need help with, or a request for interpretation support, we’d love to hear from you! Feel free to reply to this message or add agenda items to the document here.

Also, we wanted to highlight that the sixth edition of the Language & Internationalization newsletter (January 2025) is available here: Wikimedia Language and Product Localization/Newsletter/2025/January. This newsletter provides updates from the October–December 2024 quarter on new feature development, improvements in various language-related technical projects and support efforts, details about community meetings, and ideas for contributing to projects. To stay updated, you can subscribe to the newsletter on its wiki page: Wikimedia Language and Product Localization/Newsletter.

We look forward to your ideas and participation at the language community meeting, see you there!

MediaWiki message delivery 08:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Should we blacklist IMDb from being added to articles?

Sadly I have seen a lot of articles with either social media sites or IMDb (Internet Movie Database). And we all know that those are not reliable sources for Wikipedia, we need reliable sources of info for Wikipedia, to make the article more readable and reliable. So let's cast a vote, should we just blacklist IMDb all together? Thanks, - Adelaide P. Johnson— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adelaideslement8723 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

As a source, it generally shouldn't be used. There are a couple of areas where it can be considered a reliable source though, see w:WP:CITEIMDB. It does make for a helpful Other website link for movies and actors. I would be against blacklisting. Ravensfire (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

No, we certainly cannot do this for two reasons:

1. Although IMDB cannot be a source, links to IMDB often constitute a valuable addition to the content of the article for the reader (in the "Other websites" section),
2. You cannot add any website to the blacklist as long as it appears in the content - you must first remove all links from the articles (failure to remove links and put them on the blacklist means that the pages will be blocked from editing, because the system will detect them as abuses).

BZPN (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

IMBd cannot be a reliable source, I have seen what IMDb is like, I know what the website is about. 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 19:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we know that, as Ravensfire mentioned above. BZPN (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

IMDB can be a reliable source, but only in a few circumstances (and really only for writing credits).

1. The writing credits marked with "WGA" that are supplied directly by the Writers Guild of America (where applicable). For released films, citations are typically not necessary because the film itself is implied to be the primary source.
2. The MPA ratings reasons, where they appear, that are supplied directly by the Motion Picture Association.

The second one is basically useless, the first can be helpful at times. Ravensfire (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Right... Well I guess that makes sense, but why do editors add IMDb when they know it is not reliable? 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 19:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Maybe these editors don't know the rules, or they are new, etc. It's best to ask them yourself. BZPN (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, that makes a whole ton of sense, thanks for explaining 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 20:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source, so it should not be used for claims made in articles. I personally avoid using the site in general, but many readers will probably find an external link to IMDb helpful. If we decide to blacklist it, we can still provide external links only via templates, like those listed at Template:IMDb, which can be drawn from entries at d:. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, makes sense, thanks! 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 20:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Not sure if my comment is of any help here but blacklisting it would be mean it couldn't be used in the Other websites section which would be a problem as it tends to be useful there, I won't say the rest because you know the whole Citing IMDB thing :), (If you already knew all of what I've just said then my apologies), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@Davey2010:, see my above comment about using Wikidata. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Good point I forgot about that, Still meh not really seeing a need to blacklist it –Davey2010^Talk 20:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I'm advocating it either, just explaining how it could be achieved fairly painlessly. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Inactive admins

(Originally asked at Wikipedia Talk:Administrators yesterday) With WP:A is there an agreed upon time-frame without actions that would define an admin as "inactive" or is it based on feels?- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@FusionSub See Wikipedia:Inactive administrators,

An inactive administrator is one who had made less than 100 changes or administrative actions combined within the past calendar year. Editors who have zero edits in a 12 month period will also be considered inactive.

Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 10:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I know the policy with the removal an inactive admin's rights but WP:A uses a different criteria when categorising the admins into the active-semi active-inactive categories.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

oh, okay Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 10:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@FusionSub: it probably depends on the user's activity in other projects - for example, if someone is a steward, they cannot be active only on simplewiki due to responsibilities in other projects. It is similar if someone is an admin in several projects at once. And that's why such an administrator is semi-active here. BZPN (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

The way I see it: active is when they have tens or hundreds of recent edits/actions in the past few months. Semi-active is when they have some edit/actions in past few months. Inactive is when they have no edits/actions in past few months. BRP ^ever 15:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

But is there any roughly agreed upon time frames? If I take your wording at face value I get the feeling the answer is closer to feels.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 20:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Maybe it's worth just asking one of the people who is listed, for example, as semi-active? @Bsadowski1, could you please help explain this (if it's not a problem for you) as you are listed as semi-active? BZPN (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Bsadowski is a steward, so he has probably a lot of work to do so it very reasonable. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 07:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I'm gonna get a concrete answer (and to be honest I don't think anybody has a concrete answer) so I'll just use my definition and discretion if/when I edit the admin list.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Which is? Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 10:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I will assume you are asking about my definition of "inactive admin" which is 3 months with 0 edits/actions.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

ok Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 10:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I think less than 100 edits/admin actions in the last 12 months could be a decent benchmark for activity of admin. It would, however, be significantly higher than the equivalent on enwiki, which is:

1. Has made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period
2. Has made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period.

Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

That is also tied into the removal of admin rights, but basically it's 100 edits in 5 years, or no actions at all in the last year. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Simple English already has a policy for removal of inactive admins (<100 edits/logged actions in one calendar year, or 0 over a 12 month period), see WP:Inactive administrators. 2601:644:8184:F2F0:4C62:E0B:70C2:2EA1 (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

When I used to update the admin pages, my rule of thumb was if their edits on there last 50 edits went back 3 months then I considered them semi-active and moved them over. However, if an admin objected to that I wouldn't move them. Inactive was no edits/actions in 3 months. -Djsasso (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Bugatti Veyron "Hypersonic car" ... What!?

The short description of the Bugatti Veyron is "hypersonic car"... how do I go about changing "Basic information" such that I can remove this tidbit? TheSaturnLover (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@TheSaturnLover Go to the Wikidata item and change the description there. 2601:644:8184:F2F0:1805:E17C:9F3B:75BA (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, this bothered me a lot... no more :) TheSaturnLover (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Please nominate for Delete

Not ready to stay published (as of February 2025).
Please nominate (first) for Delete /AfD, any of the following 3,
Hawtai
Haima Automobile
M-Hero

Nissan S-Cargo
Nissan Be-1
Nissan Figaro (the last 3 seem fine for redirect to "Nissan", but Delete-talk seems to be the way to go, since redirect has been reverted).

Mitsubishi ASX
Mitsubishi Xforce
Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross (the last 3 seem fine for redirect to "Mitsubishi", but Delete-talk seems to be the way to go, since redirect has been reverted).

The following 5 seem fine for various redirects, but Delete-talk seems to be the way to go, since redirect has been reverted). Haima 7X
Haima 8S
Haima Automobile
Hawtai Terracan
Hanteng X5.

Ford Mondeo Sport, this one is probably easier to fix (for anyone), but Delete-talk seems to be the way to go (while i am busy fixing other articles). 2001:2020:347:A2A3:C87E:75AE:913A:677 (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

USERFY or Stubify, are alternatives (while i fix other articles). "Nuke" is last resort.--C. none of the articles are ready to stay published. 2001:2020:347:C6D3:B941:BF97:F8F:D5F9 (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC) /2001:2020:347:A2A3:C87E:75AE:913A:677

Tags: Possible Spam... ???

(See: https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saturn_ION&action=history)

I have read the article on what spam is... why might this be getting flagged as potential spam? And how do I ensure that it is known this is not spam? TheSaturnLover (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@TheSaturnLover: I don't know why it was tagged, but you do need to categorize the article and include a references section. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, these are good suggestions and I'll start applying them across all future articles I make, I didn't know to do this and it really brings the whole thing together :) TheSaturnLover (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@TheSaturnLover: Sounds great! Let me know if you need any help categorizing. Also, you only need a references section if there are references in the article. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Should these pages be merged?

Walking stick, Cane, and Posture cane. If so, what should the title be? 207.62.246.71 (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

At English-wiki, the article is "Walking stick".--The other two, are not articles (there), it seems. 2001:2020:347:C6D3:C915:BE00:AD91:3BC8 (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)