Simple talk/Archive 159
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Enabling noindex in article space
Following on from Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 133#Use of QD A4, there was a rough consensus to implement NOINDEX in article space, however it wasn't really considered worth it for the actual impact it would have, especially as it would differ from all other WMF sites. There was a discussion on my talk page, at User talk:Ferien#Why, where the idea of noindexing pages at RfD was bought up again. This time, it was pointed out by Lee Vilenski that enwiki actually has a system whereby pages newer than 90 days are not indexed unless they are patrolled – see w:WP:NOINDEX for how they do things.
Now, we don't want any AfC/NPP-like processes here (as was rejected in Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 134#Proposal: Introducing Wikiproject Article for Creation), but we could adjust our patrol system so that only articles that were either patrolled and/or existed for, let's say 10 days, would be indexed. This would allow the time for the notability of articles to be discussed at RfD, while not worrying about the article effectively serving as a free promotion for the person, company etc being discussed at RfD. This would also, hopefully, reduce the misuse of A4 that is still occurring over 3 years on from that original discussion. Thoughts? --Ferien (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support - As I mentioned before, I'm obviously fully in favour. I think it's worth noting that, I think the technical solution is pretty simple, and just a case of opening a phab ticket for the change to be made. I like the idea of ten days, as it is enough time for an article to go through AfD if suitable. I can see a massive upside to not indexing potentially dangerous articles, and the only downside being a small wait for indexing on good faith articles.
- Enwiki also has w:WP:autopatrolled permission. Whilst not part of this discussion, would be easy enough to setup to give a flag to community members who make a lot of articles to bypass the delay (if they care). A potential discussion for a later date if this were to proceed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: we already have patroller which serves as both our patrol and autopatrol right. --Ferien (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, no problem, didn't realise it was bundled. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: we already have patroller which serves as both our patrol and autopatrol right. --Ferien (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Support: @Ferien Do we also have page curation tool here? DIVINE 20:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- DIVINE, I'm not quite sure what you're referring to so probably not, we have our own version of Wikipedia:Article wizard, but I don't think that's the same thing? --Ferien (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Ferien No, it is completely different. It is usually used by patrollers while reviewing pages on English Wikipedia. I thought we also have it here at SEWP, but we don’t have it. I think this tool will be helpful while patrolling the new pages, as patrollers' rights here on SEWP are a combination of both New Page Reviewer (patroller) and Autopatrol. And the tool iss more advanced and has additional features, which will surely help while patrolling. You should take a look once.[1] DIVINE 15:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- DIVINE, oh yeah, I've seen that before. I'm not sure we'd need it here, as our patrol process is a bit more basic than en's, and we might need to customise it more to fit what the community would like here, but that's another discussion. --Ferien (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Ferien the only problem is that we can mark as patrolled but can't reverse it in case of a mistake. I don't see any confirmation options before patrolling. DIVINE 16:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- DIVINE, oh yeah, I've seen that before. I'm not sure we'd need it here, as our patrol process is a bit more basic than en's, and we might need to customise it more to fit what the community would like here, but that's another discussion. --Ferien (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Ferien No, it is completely different. It is usually used by patrollers while reviewing pages on English Wikipedia. I thought we also have it here at SEWP, but we don’t have it. I think this tool will be helpful while patrolling the new pages, as patrollers' rights here on SEWP are a combination of both New Page Reviewer (patroller) and Autopatrol. And the tool iss more advanced and has additional features, which will surely help while patrolling. You should take a look once.[1] DIVINE 15:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- DIVINE, I'm not quite sure what you're referring to so probably not, we have our own version of Wikipedia:Article wizard, but I don't think that's the same thing? --Ferien (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Fantastic idea, Doing this would also result in vandalism-pages not showing in Google results which they do at the moment, 110% support. –Davey2010Talk 08:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support I genuinely can't see any downside to this proposal.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support Hopefully this will improve simple's search engine optimisation issues. --SHB2000 (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support I have indeed seen attack pages from here in Google search results, not to mention that we provide free advertising for a week before pages are deleted, while enwiki doesn't do this. So definitely a good idea. Kk.urban (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support I think everyone else has good arguments --Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 05:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support Avoids vandal and attack articles showing up in web search results, gives time for new articles to be checked but isn't an involved process - all Good Things (tm). 17:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- As a summary:' - There's widespread support for this in the community, I will therefore look into getting it enabled on this Wiki...--Eptalon (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Eptalon That’s good news. By the way, just to let you know, it can be shown immediately if it’s marked as patrolled, like on the English Wikipedia. This way, we will also have an actual use for the patroller tool for reviewing new pages, as it is worth it. Thanks. DIVINE (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I believe this would require the Simple English Wikipedia to use PageTriage, albeit a modified version of it. It's what the English Wikipedia uses to automatically NOINDEX unpatrolled pages for 90 days. I'm not sure if PageTriage supports such modification, or if a fork of it needs to be created first.— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 04:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Olivia Rodrigo is now a good article..
Hello all, there seems to be ovrewhelming support, so I have promoted Olivia Rodrigo to Good Article. Thank you to all who helped... Eptalon (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Idea:Deletion Policy For Clearly AI Generated Content
Perhaps we could have a QD for something undisputably AI generated (ex.something starting with Here is a draft of the Wikipedia article you requested:, something that's clearly an AI generated essay rather than an article, etc.) can be quickly deleted if it provides little to no value as an encyclopedic article. And maybe could we agree that in general AI generated content (unless it is in fact useful content, which is rather rare) should be deleted once determined to be such (again, provided it is in fact harmful, untrue, not encyclopedic or an article, not in simple english, etc.) Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- All those things apply to any article. How is it different if it's AI-generated? -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Because AI has a way of quickly making plausible sounding non-uncyclopedic nonsense.@Auntof6 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- We already agreed that AI shouldn't be used here due to the complex language?- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 05:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I feel like we'd probably spend a bit too much time figuring out if it's AI, or just someone's essay. We can handle it in the same way we already remove unencyclopedic info. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Links to En wiki
No direct links to en wiki are allowed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Random question but are there any ways of finding article that link to EN ?, I've searched "[[:en:" but no luck, WPCleaner does have a interwiki linking finder but it's all WikiDictionary or whatever it's called, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- You could probably do it with a query, or maybe AWB.
- Might be worth stressing that things like {{ill}} is fine. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Notability about an article
A new article, Toilet Tower Defense, was made, and I'm not sure whether to nominate this for deletion or not. I cannot find any sources that are reliable and although Fandom has info about it, I highly doubt it's a reliable source due to its wiki nature. Cyclonical (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- you lose nothing by nominating for regular deletion. It allows the community to discuss.... Eptalon (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- I was a little unsure about it so just wanted to make sure, but I'll go ahead and add it to RfD for discussion. Cyclonical (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)