This is NOT the place for general questions or for discussions about specific articles.
This page is only for discussions about the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. To discuss an article, please use that article's talk page. To ask for help with using and editing Wikipedia, use our Teahouse. Alternatively, see our FAQ.
Striking and collapsing obvious LLM-generated comments
The request for comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 199 § LLM/chatbot comments in discussions, closed in January, showed consensus that "it is within admins' and closers' discretion to discount, strike, or collapse obvious use of generative LLMs or similar AI technologies". This should be reflected in the talk page guidelines, because the described situation is becoming quite common and it is inconvenient to locate an archived village pump RfC every time this consensus needs to be referenced elsewhere.
LLM-generated comments: Comments that are obviously generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar AI technology may be struck or collapsed by administrators and discussion closers.
I support this addition, and I would actually take it further, by omitting "by administrators and discussion closers". I think anyone should be able to do that, and given that the need to do it is going to grow dramatically, I think all hands are needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the wording (but not the meaning) of the guideline yesterday to reduce the number of times that the guideline talks about "deletion" of comments when it means "editing" or "removing" or "blanking", instead of WP:Deletion. I find that avoiding the word deletion is clearer, because "removing" contents is less likely to be confused with "find an admin to press the deletion button".
@Peter Gulutzan thinks that this language is not an improvement (nor, I think, does he believe it to make things worse?) and therefore worth reverting, because changes should only happen if they are material improvements, and not if they are neutral changes. What do other people think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For me, this is definitely a case of "meh". But I think he has a point, in that there is a plain dictionary meaning of the word, and we aren't confusing anyone into thinking that we are referring to the in-house term of art about page or file deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will chime in, I agree with the position that if an edit does not constitute an improvement, it should be reverted. The alternative actually leads to a nonsensical situation justifying the change to constantly be reverted even though the two editors actually agree and are merely exercising their personal preference. Perhaps a bit more relevant is the idea that the improvement should not be totally based on whim. No doubt, this won't keep people from changing something just because of their personal preference for a particular wording, but it's an effort to set some sort of level of improvement beyond de minimis. Fabrickator (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "deletion" is the most common English word for it. I don't think that the other specialized wiki technical meaningS WP:Deletion, Wikipedia:Revision deletion will make them read it otherwise. BTW "blanking" also has a common different Wikipedia meaning. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing is correct that I do not call the changes "worse", and I cannot think of a decisive PAG reference saying non-improvement is forbidden (WP:EDITING contains words "improve" + "improving" + "improvements" re articles not PAGs). But I don't back off from what I said in my edit summary: The word "delete" is okay, changing a guideline in multiple places, just because there's a deletion policy about something else, is changing without improving. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In reality the sentence is: "An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article frequently." Your accusation would be less worthless if I was doing it in a particular article frequently, and if when quoting you didn't omit what doesn't fit your purpose, and if you hadn't edited the guideline far far more often than I have. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you, or did you not, revert a minor change to wording simply because you found it "unnecessary", without claiming that the change is detrimental? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think this IS an improvement. We “edit” or “change” article text - and that sometimes means “omitting” or “removing” information. We are not “deleting” when we do that. Blueboar (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that using a term like "delete a comment" or "delete a post" isn't readily confused with deleting a page, and so there isn't a need to try to avoid confusion that the Wikipedia:Deletion policy applies. Looking at the specific changes, there are three types:
Replacing "delete" with "remove":
The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or deleteremove others' posts without their permission.
DeleteRemove. It is common to simply deleterevert or blank gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material...
Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or deleteremove your comment...
Inserting text without deletingremoving any text is ambiguous, ... This problem can be avoided by deletingremoving one word and then re-inserting it...
...unarchive it by copying it back to the talk page from the archive, and deletingremoving it from the archive.
...Some new users believe they can hide critical comments by deletingremoving them
For these specific examples, personally I feel the two words are equivalent.
Replacing "delete" with "revert":
DeleteRemove. It is common to simply deleterevert or blank gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material...: personally I think "delete" and "revert" are substantially equivalent in the context of the second sentence
Replacing "delete" with "blank":
Restoration: to restore comments vandalized or accidentally edited or deletedblanked by others.:
DeleteRemove. It is common to simply deleterevert or blank gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material...
This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions ofblanking simple invective areis controversial.
Personally I think "blanked" is a jargon term, so I lean towards using "deleted".
So while I personally wouldn't bother replacing "delete" with "remove", I don't have any strong objection to it. I have a mild preference to use "delete" instead of "revert" in the specific example, as it's the deletion of the content that matters, not whether or not it's removed through an exact revert, but I don't think it matters that much. I personally wouldn't favour "blank"; it has specific connotations about what is left behind and is a jargon term. isaacl (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between removing and blanking? If there is no substantive difference, it is confusing to use both words. I suggest "removing" in all cases. (Also this use of "blank" as a verb is grammatically dubious and some dictionaries don't even have it.) Zerotalk07:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is one of scale… we “remove” a small bit of text (a factoid, phrase or sentence). We “blank” an entire section (or several sections). We “Delete” an entire article or topic.
Also - “removal” and “blanking” are not necessarily permanent. We can “remove” uncited information that requires a citation, but that information might be returned once a citation is provided. We also might “remove” information from one article because it is better placed in a different article.
We can “blank” a poorly written and confusing section, in preparation for a complete rewrite (which may or may not contain all of the information previously contained in the section).
“Deletion” on the other hand is usually more permanent, and procedural. It is rare for an article that is deleted to be resurrected.Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would avoid "blank" and its conjugations. To me, "blank" implies completely removing something (making it blank), which I would read as removing entire articles rather than small sentences or sections. CMD (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But unlike “delete”, which is permanent, I see “blank” as a temporary state (like a “blank” canvas, waiting to be painted upon.) Blueboar (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel with "blank" there is a connotation that white space is left behind (that is, a blank space). For example, blanking an article is used when the article needs to be rewritten due to copyright violations. It isn't deleted, because the topic continues to meet English Wikipedia's standards for having an article. There could also be, in some cases, an explicit reference to the deleted content left behind. isaacl (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have mildly objected to the word blank (which is fine with me; we can use remove throughout) but not to the general concept of replacing the word delete when it's not referring to page deletion: there isn't a need....while I personally wouldn't bother replacing "delete" with "remove", I don't have any strong objection to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mildly objected to the specific instance where "delete" was replaced by "revert". I objected to the use of "blank". You responded to my post where I detailed the specific instances to which I objected by saying no one thought your edit was detrimental and that you would reinstate it. It feels to me like you're not interested in considering objections to any portion of your edit. isaacl (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did in fact object to the general concept of replacing the word "delete" just because it isn't referring to page deletion. But I also examined the specific changes and, in those contexts, I felt using "remove" was equivalent. isaacl (talk) 01:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps nobody may have made the case that it was detrimental (although Isaacl clearly refutes that), but we are far from a consensus that it is an improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's when there hasn't really been any objections raised. The overall thrust of the discussion in this thread is that there has been pushback against the edit. My sincere advice is that this isn't worth fighting for. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I have given (admittedly mild) “push for” - and stated why I think it is an improvement… I would like to see one of those who are “pushing back” to state more clearly why they think it isn’t’’ an improvement. Blueboar (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About half the editors in this discussion dislike using the word blank, which I used three times. (Before my edit, it was already on the page twice in this sense: "discussions should be archived, not blanked" and "a courtesy blanking may be requested".)
Nobody has said that they believe that this change:
The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission. →
The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or remove others' posts without their permission.
makes anything worse. A few editors have said that it doesn't seem necessary. I can even agree with this; I don't think it is strictly necessary. I just think it is an improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I began my comments about this by saying "meh", and this really does not strike me as significant enough to argue at length. If WAID feels this strongly about it, I'll just leave my position as "meh", and if other editors feel more strongly, then they can make their case. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my opinion - I JUST realized that we have been discussing deletions/removals/blanking on article TALK pages, and not in articles themselves. I apologize. This changes my opinion. Please disregard my previous comments. I do NOT think a change in wording is necessary in this context, because we rarely remove/blank/delete comments on talk pages without cause… and when there IS cause, a “removed” comment does NOT have the expectation of ever being restored. Ie removal in this context is equivalent to deletion (indeed sometimes it is even deleted from the page history). Blueboar (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only exception to this is on USER talk pages… but those are discussed in a different section of policy and I would not change that either. Blueboar (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, @Blueboar, but the question isn't whether "a change in wording is necessary". The question is whether a change in wording is actually "detrimental" to this guideline.
We currently say that it's bad to "edit or delete others' posts". Do you believe it would be worse to say instead that it's bad to "edit or remove others' posts", or just that it's no big deal so why bother? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot depends on what we are actually talking about. I think the word “delete” is appropriate if we are talking about what we would do to a comment that constitutes a personal attack on another editor. But if we are talking about a gibberish test edit… I would use “remove”. Both words have their place depending on context. Blueboar (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but when a admin tool IS used… “delete” is the more appropriate word. My point is that there are situations where we should say “delete”, and situations where “remove” (or even “blank”) is more appropriate. If we need to clarify this, fine… but “delete” should stay in the mix. Blueboar (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support replacing the proposed instances of "delete" with "remove" and iterating from there if desired. I believe that using them interchangeably contributes to editors being imprecise in contexts where the distinction does matter. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Giraffedata: In WP:OWNBEHAVIOR you added: "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version." Do you have any opinion about the use of your wording in this discussion? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. To the extent that "remove" is as good as "delete", the change of "delete" to "remove" (etc.) should not be reverted. In particular, an editor who believes that "remove" and "delete" are equally good should not change "remove" to "delete" (the fact that it used to be "delete" notwithstanding).
This is not only an opinion I strongly hold, but I think one that is fairly pervasive in Wikipedia. I won't offer any arguments here, because there are essays that talk about this at length.
Regarding these edits: I don't think it's a good idea to move the CHECK anchor to the start of the paragraph preceding the corresponding text. Perhaps there is an issue specific to a particular browser, or window width, that can be resolved without moving the anchor away from the target text? isaacl (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With clear rules to follow I think AI can be a tool for assisting editors, such as disclosing which AI was used (Copilot, Gemini), what prompts, clearly disclosing which text is AI generated or based on generated output, and maybe other rules such as asking the AI to also generate a list of sources it used. As long as it is not editors assisting AI, I think it is a good thing to aliviate the impossible task of maintaining Wikipedia, which is proven by disputes that take so long they can't keep up/no one can be expected to parse all the information written in comments and pages with vanadalism that go uncorrected for months/years. The expectations of Wikipedia editors are becoming more and more impossible. It is time to ammend strategy rather than naïvely keep the bar this high at the expense of article quality and reputation of Wikipedia. Wikipedia to me is a bit like the part of the open source movement that still programs in C and uses RFC. Get with the times, get real. Wallby (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a specific proposal for one way to use AI? There is no total ban on using AI for some elements of maintenance, prior to llms we had already been using a number of tools that could be classified as AI. Disclosure is a good idea, although for llms "asking the AI to also generate a list of sources it used" is sometimes ineffective. That said, none of this seems to be about the talk page guidelines, which is generally unrelated to the concept of research and maintenance. CMD (talk) 09:41, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well you are merely repeating what WP:AITALK says. This post is about amending WP:AITALK, not about trying to figure out how to game the current rules. If there is too little known at the time of whether, and if so how, to allow for acceptable use of AI output, then perhaps this discussion halts here. Wallby (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My 2c… there is NO acceptable AI output. At least directly. What an editors uses “behind the scenes” to conduct background research on a topic is their own business, but they must re-write it completely (in their own words) prior to posting it to WP. And (of course) they need to have non-AI published sources to verify anything in article space. Blueboar (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an intended purpose for talk pages, and everything you post will be public. There are probably much more effective and appropriate tools you could use. CMD (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oh, thank you for letting me know, do you think the chances are high people can just stumble upon our messages ? I'm using wiki as an alternative for personal reasons. Elyssab12 (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything posted on en.wiki is public and theoretically archived forever. Creating anonymous accounts on microblogging sites is one option that would be far more private. CMD (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages are for discussing improvements to that particular page. (WP:NOTFOURM). But to answer your question about whether people see your comments, it depends on the talk page. A talk page like this one has 1,400 watchers (people that have it on their Special:Watchlist), so will definitely get readers. A page that has only 1, 5, 10, or 20 watchers will get a lot less replies. You can check the # of watchers by going into the tools menu and clicking "Page Information". –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I want to clarify that the article "Eligibility Verification" was created through a mix of human writing and AI assistance. I am a writer specializing in healthcare, particularly revenue cycle management and the medical billing industry. I noticed there isn’t much content on these topics in Wikipedia, so I felt it was important to contribute. I understand and respect Wikipedia’s policies, and I will work on revising the article to ensure it follows a neutral, encyclopedic tone with stronger citations. Writing about healthcare is both my profession and my interest, and my goal is to improve the coverage of underrepresented areas in this field. Alexagoodwin (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you're human! Nice to meet you.You're on the wrong page, see the huge banner at the top of this page:
YOU MIGHT BE ON THE WRONG PAGE.
This is NOT the place for general questions or for discussions about specific articles. This page is only for discussions about the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. To discuss an article, please use that article's talk page. To ask for help with using and editing Wikipedia, use our Teahouse. Alternatively, see our FAQ.
Sir that's called a signature. Please learn how Wikipedia works before making such accusations.And I—a human—use the em dashes—these things—often. FaviFake (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, I realize the top of the page says this is not for general discussion, yet the editor tagged WP:AITALK and this is the talk page for that. If you want me to discuss this bias I am facing related to policy on this page, please give me a targeted policy page with a talk page, pls.
==
Hello, I noticed a recent instance where my hand typed, brain used content has been tagged as AI generated, for example at Talk:Infinity [Topic: Infinity, documented by Vedic text Yajurveda (c. 8th century BC)] by Leonidlednev
Whats the logic behind these? Are patrolling Editors using a AI tool which are actually not working? Getting this tag (and threats about getting comments collapsed) discourages me to want to invest time and energy.
Hi Buddhimatta, there is no tag on your comments, and no particular group of patrolling editors. This was an individual comment by an individual editor. You would have to ask the individual in question for their logic, but in the mean time you have informed them that they have made a mistake, which is likely the best response. CMD (talk) 08:39, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha.
Regarding my other comment about creating a space for AI assisted content creator editors (accused) to have a discussion, how do we go about creating a space? This page is obviously not the right space given the notice at the top. Someone like me, didn't know where to go have this discussion. Buddhimatta (talk) 09:12, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a lot of discussion about handling AI, but I can't recall any proposals for a dedicated space. The best place is likely always going to be the talk page with the relevant comments, and following that normal WP:Dispute resolution steps. CMD (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eccessive shortcuts in shortcut boxes
Hi, I think this page could use a little cleanup of the shortcut boxes... I can't be the only one thinking this box contains way too many shortcuts:
To be clear, I don't want to reduce the number of shortcut boxes, I just want to reduce the number of shortcuts that are inside the existing shortcut boxes.
The point of these template boxes is not to list every single redirect for any given page [...]. Instead, they generally should list only the most common and easily remembered redirects. One way to check which is the most common is through the Pageviews tool (replace the examples with the shortcuts you are testing).
Yeah, 10 is a bit excessive. I'd support trimming that one box down to 4. If you're able to get data for these odd #-style links via "Page Information", maybe pick the 4 most used to keep, then remove the others. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
