Wikipedia talk:AI noticeboard

Requested move 29 April 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Moved to Wikipedia:AI noticeboard. On further reading and based on new replies since the relist, I find consensus to move here. I left it a little while as active discussion was still ongoing, but seems to mostly have finished now. (closed by non-admin page mover) {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 15:05, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard → Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models/Noticeboard – I believe that the role that this noticeboard now plays is incompatible with its current status as a Wikiproject page. As per WP:PROJPAGE, Wikiproject pages are under the sole control of their governing Wikiproject. Given that this page now serves as a hub for the broader community's monitoring of LLM-generated content, the time has come to place it under community control and remove it from WikiProject AI Cleanup's scope. To do this, I propose that we follow the precedent set by Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (WP:RSN) and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (WP:BLPN) by converting this page into a noticeboard for the WP:LLM guideline. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 03:50, 29 April 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 07:37, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

• To note, I am happy with any other naming the community finds acceptable. Wikipedia:LLM noticeboard seems a good choice. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 04:15, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support moving it outside of the project's scope per nom, although I would prefer renaming it to "LLM noticeboard" for the sake of conciseness. Relatively short alternatives such as "Large language models noticeboard" or "LLM content noticeboard" could work too. Your style is certainly more common, but a shorter name could be more practical, and there is precedent for this style of naming, such as Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard not being a subpage of the policy Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 04:08, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  As a fun historical tidbit, this noticeboard actually grew out of the project's talk page, which was the original page where such reports were posted on. Given its progressive growth in importance, this feels like a very natural next step. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  Per discussion below, less convinced about "LLM noticeboard" without a qualifier reminding that this is chiefly about misuse in general, and cleanup in particular. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:41, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose move to a subpage of WP:LLM, because AINB isn’t limited to problematic uses of LLMs in mainspace (there’s problematic use on talk pages and discussion pages, for example). I would support a move to something like Wikipedia:AI misuse noticeboard, or one of Chaotic Enby’s suggestions. I₂Overcome ^talk 04:11, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• I support moving this but not to the proposed target, which is scope-limited to articles and drafts, whereas WP:AINB covers all kinds of LLM misuse - articles, user-to-user communication, even images. Not sure where it should go, but clear that it shouldn't go to Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models/Noticeboard NicheSports (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• I am in agreement with above that while the move rationale is reasonable, the proposed target is not a good option. The way this noticeboard has evolved seems most similar to WP:CCI, which is a standalone board. CMD (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support in theory but there seems to be (still) way too much disagreement and confusion about the acceptable ways to handle AI-generated content -- or if there are any acceptable ways to handle it besides shutting up and leaving it alone like a good little girl/boy -- for it to be moved to projectspace. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support - I agree that the move makes sense, but as others have said the name is a bit unwieldy. I like LLM Noticeboard personally. InfernoHues (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support something like Wikipedia:AI clean-up noticeboard, this shouldn’t lose its prerogative of being primarily for clean-up Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 05:18, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support different target – The board's coverage is broader than Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models. A generic root page like Wikipedia:AI noticeboard would best cover the current topic area which includes things like: user conduct, text cleanup, image cleanup, review requests, policy questions/notices, etc. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support different target per fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four. Wikipedia:AI noticeboard would be my preference as that matches the actual scope. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose: Just shut the whole thing down. Nobody wants it. It's all a witch hunt and no one is doing actual work. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  I understand that you’re frustrated with the recent pushback you’ve received in tagging a specific article, but it is very clear that the community wants (needs) this. One editor calling it a "witch hunt" doesn’t mean we should give up on the whole thing. I₂Overcome ^talk 17:51, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  It's not just one person. On a regular basis, editor after editor comes out of the woodwork to tell you that you're wrong. Why they don't participate in these RfCs is beyond me. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  I feel your frustration @Gnomingstuff Dr vulpes (Talk) 21:31, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support I was skeptical for a moment, but I kind of see your standpoint. I would agree for WP:LLM noticeboard. One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 19:03, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support move to WP:AI noticeboard. I think this is a more sensible target than WP:LLM noticeboard because the former terminology includes things like images generated by AI algorithms that are not technically large language models. Athanelar (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support, I agree that moving away from the Wikiproject is a good idea. Don't really care too much about the name, but I do like the idea of having something like WP:AI Use/Noticeboard where WP:AI Use would have the policy and the noticeboard would have all the other stuff. Any change would be fine with me. Dr vulpes (Talk) 21:34, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: Wikipedia:AI cleanup noticeboard

Given the problems raised with the original proposed target, let's try something simpler. Wikipedia:AI cleanup noticeboard both removes the page from the project's scope and preserves the original naming. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 06:42, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 06:42, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support, hyphenated or not Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 08:27, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Only worry would be that it might still appear dependent on the WikiProject, although clarifying it as an added bullet point in the header banner could be an elegant way to solve this. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:21, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• I would prefer it without "cleanup", as there is some general discussion that isn't cleanup (CCI uses investigation for example, which is often but not always cleanup), and there is a slight possible aggressive note to "cleanup". However, bikeshedding. We should use the opportunity to standardise the acronym in any case, we have "AINB" and "AINB-notice" but "AIC status". CMD (talk) 09:41, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yep, AIC came from the project name, but especially now that it's being moved away from it, standardizing everything to AINB seems the way to go (also a bonus of using that instead of something like "LLM noticeboard" as we can keep the existing acronym). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:55, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

• Weak support for "AI cleanup noticeboard" (it's for more than just cleanup), strong support for "AI noticeboard". fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support. Short and simple. I support both "AI cleanup noticeboard" and "AI noticeboard", and have no preference between the two for now. — Newslinger talk 12:02, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, I much prefer Wikipedia:AI noticeboard as that is what matches the scope. If cleanup requests come to dominate over other matters then a Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Cleanup would be the best location for that. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Weak support - It's a personal nitpick of mine to use the term LLM instead of AI, but I think that's just a me problem. I'd prefer AI noticeboard over AI cleanup noticeboard. InfernoHues (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia:AI noticeboard per others. I₂Overcome ^talk 17:41, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia:AI noticeboard. Feeglgeef (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia:AI noticeboard NicheSports (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Prefer Wikipedia:AI noticeboard. I understand the desire not to use "AI" as strictly synonymous with "LLM" but I prefer to stick with the vernacular here. This also permits more flexibility to identify other potential non-LLM, AI-related issues. This is also a less drastic change from the current title. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support WP:AI cleanup noticeboard as a more concise version of the current title that doesn't lose any information. I also wonder about WP:AI problems in line with WP:Copyright problems, if people want the scope to include issues other than direct cleanup (e.g. simple LLM blocks); I think WP:AI noticeboard is too broad as this sounds like it includes discussions that are better off at WP:VPR or WT:AIC. The shortcut WP:AIP is taken but WP:LLMP could reasonably be usurped. lp0 on fire () 10:41, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support WP:AI cleanup noticeboard is an easy-to-understand title, and I agree it's a good idea to move it out of the Wikiproject. Lijil (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose scope_creep^Talk 14:41, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: Wikipedia:AI noticeboard

Proposing another alternative due to this being suggested multiple times in the first alternative. Feeglgeef (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support Feeglgeef (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support, as noted above. Not sure we actually needed a separate subheading here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above (and I also agree with Myceteae). Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• oppose in favour of including "cleanup" as I don't want this to become a forum for discussing AI more generally (that's best at the pump or WT:AIC), but this looks like it has the most support anyway Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  The instructions at the the top of the noticeboard could clarify that it’s for discussing problematic uses of AI/LLMs, not AI on Wikipedia more broadly. I₂Overcome ^talk 18:51, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  I guess we do have a banner saying This page is for reporting issues of AI misuse in big letters Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:53, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  My earlier suggestion Wikipedia:AI misuse noticeboard could clarify it further if there’s a desire to have it in the title. I₂Overcome ^talk 18:58, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  We can keep an eye on things. Every noticeboard and discussion page sees inappropriate posts that have to be redirected elsewhere. I'm not sure variations on the name prevent that. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  I've taken the liberty of writing up a start for the header for the post-move noticeboard at Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Header. Athanelar (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  The current header covers the key purpose of the noticeboard, but in less detail, and has some helpful information about {{AINB-notice}}, {{AIC status}}, and other tidbits. I don't have strong feelings about this. I understand the concerns about banner bloat/blindness others have raised. In general, I think less is more but adding an additional bullet or two may be helpful. My preference for the board's name and locations isn't contingent on this and I think additional tweaks and refinements to the header can be made after any page move. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support Put a big banner at the top that explains the scope, remove off-topic posts (like people trying to advertise their latest vibe physics "discoveries" or whatever) per standard operating procedures. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per Kowal2701. Banners are rarely useful, and we don't want to add even more work for volunteers by having them remove the many tangential posts that will pop up (especially as having a post removed is rarely a pleasant experience). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:38, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support - per my comments above. InfernoHues (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support. AI includes things like AI-generated images, which are within scope for this noticeboard and are not covered by the term 'LLM'. Athanelar (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• No objection – If this is what the community prefers, it is alright with me. Conciseness is a virtue, after all. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 10:02, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support, with no preference between "AI noticeboard" and "AI cleanup noticeboard" for now. More concise than the current page title. — Newslinger talk 18:26, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support as the clearest alternative name. It falls in line with other noticeboard names. SenshiSun (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support, this is my preferred option NicheSports (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support, I agree that moving away from the Wikiproject is a good idea. Don't really care too much about the name, but I do like the idea of having something like WP:AI Use/Noticeboard where WP:AI Use would have the policy and the noticeboard would have all the other stuff. Dr vulpes (Talk) 21:33, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support as the name is concise yet neutral. Gramix13 (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisting comment: There's definitely consensus to move here, but the discussion is split between "AI noticeboard" and "AI cleanup noticeboard". I see some strong arguments on both sides, and there seems to be some debate about what the actual scope of the noticeboard is. Relisting to hopefully get a definitive consensus. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 07:37, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support Wikipedia:AI noticeboard as a more concise option. The draft header is a good start. I think we do need a general noticeboard to report AI content. "Cleanup" isn't always an option as some LLM outputs might be better off deleted outright. As somebody who still struggles detecting LLM content at times when it lacks obvious tells, including or for reporting suspected AI-generated content for further scrutiny. is especially helpful. If the noticeboard is being misused, that is something we can address. ASUKITE 14:37, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Support per norm. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 15:32, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:35, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support – As stated before, and before. not a fan of the section splitting fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  I agree, the section splitting makes it more confusing to navigate the discussion and determine consensus. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 15:54, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. It looks like at least 1/3 of respondents in the section above actually preferred this shorter version, Wikipedia:AI noticeboard, and many others have expressed support for the same title in multiple sections. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  Fine with "AI noticeboard" if that gets the ball rolling faster. I don't want to slow down the decision with bikeshedding. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:42, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'll also note section splitting is kind of confusing, after noticing some editors may be "opposing" in one and "supporting" in another, not to mention "supporting" a different title in the wrong section.. I don't envy whoever ends up closing this now. ASUKITE 14:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

  Most of the supports in wrong sections are because the section for the name they are supporting didn't exist when they left their comment. Thryduulf (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

• Commment re: scope of noticeboard – I don't see that either variation, with or without "cleanup", strongly communicates a different scope nor that this RM is intended to change the scope. Discussions about the scope and how best to communicate it will likely need to continue after this closes. The concerns about banner blindness/bloat are understandable but I wouldn't discount the value of a good header. I often find them helpful and have many times decided not to post on a particular noticeboard/discussion page or have refined my post based on such guidance, especially for noticeboards or topic areas that I am less familiar with. Some (many?) editors will make off-topic posts regardless of what the header says—or whether the name includes "cleanup"—but I suspect I'm not alone and that there are other editors who actively look for guidance before posting somewhere new. The header also gives regulars a concise, consensus statement to point to when gentle redirection is needed. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support A much more sensible name for cross-domain problem. That first entry is absurd. scope_creep^Talk 14:41, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

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

User Script for AINB

Hey folks, I wrote a script to help work with the {{AINB status}} and {{AINB article}} templates. Take a look and let me know if you have any problems or ideas. User:Dr vulpes/Scripts/AINBHelper Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:39, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, I feel kind of silly but how exactly do we use these? I mean it looks good I'm just having one of those oh wow this is another thing everyone else knows that I somehow missed moments... Lijil (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

They are brand new, and only three people (myself and Dr vulpes included) have used them so far, so you're definitely not missing anything :) @Dr vulpes, thank you for doing this. The script seems to be working well so far. The only minor thing that I noticed is you can select more than one status option, and you can’t unselect them, so you have to start over if you accidentally click the wrong one. I₂Overcome ^talk 18:07, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Phew. What do they do? Lijil (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

See {{AINB status}} and {{AINB article}} for descriptions and some of the latest posts on the noticeboard for examples. I₂Overcome ^talk 01:14, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

So we're not using separate tracking pages for the articles anymore? Athanelar (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Dr vulpes: Although to clarify, do you mean for these templates to be a replacement for {{AIC status}} and {{AIC article list}}? I hardly see those used beyond the basic "cleanup is requested," but what's the reasoning behind creating new templates? I₂Overcome ^talk 01:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I was trying to expand the functionality of the those templates that @Chaotic Enby made. I'll be honest I hadn't seen the article list template until right now. I think it's fine to use either, whatever folks are comfortable using, over the couple of weeks or so we can work on gain consensus about what features/processes/templates/guides we want to see.

My general thought process for making this is I noticed a problem that it was kind of hard to track everything that was going on with a clean up so this was my attempt to help keep track of everything and who was doing what. Sometimes there are so many articles that need to be checked I just didn't want folks stepping on each others toes while trying to work. One improvement for people coming to AINB I made was I tried to make things big, visually standout, and colorful, which I know sounds silly. My logic was that some of the people who are using AI/LLMs to write articles have limited English so I wanted it to be very obvious to them what was going on (red=bad, green=good, mucky yellow=not good not bad). It's hard enough to try and figure out what is going on using Google Translate so I just didn't want anything to get missed and make them more frustrated. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:14, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a better option for colors with respect to accessibility and culture. I just ran with what sort of felt right at the time, nothing is set in stone. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Dr vulpes It's not silly at all! These templates aren't only an improvement for new or EAL users. I've been hovering around this noticeboard for a year and as the volume of incoming slop has multiplied, I've found AINB and the separate tracking pages have become overwhelming. The status indicators are a great help in navigating cases. Thank you! ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 08:03, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Looks amazing, happy to keep working with you to improve them even more! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Lijil this is a good how to guide Wikipedia:User_scripts#Installation. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:07, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

And I've been editing them manually, like a fool. CMD (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Auto-archive period

Isn’t 60 day auto archive seems too long for this noticeboard? Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 05:52, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Shorter archiving times are more likely to end up hiding cleanup efforts which are only tracked by open reports. Auto-archiving isn't the only way though, feel free to archive any resolved reports manually, I personally do this from time to time. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Was gonna say this... perhaps temporarily reduce the auto archive time until there is a reasonable amount of discussions? Fortek67 (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

It's way too long at present, and it's presenting performance issues on the page. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:20, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I've temporarily changed the archive period to 30 days. Can be changed back to 60 or maybe something slightly lower once the page size starts to decrease. Fortek67 (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The page size was already reduced in Special:Diff/1357163287/1357171629 by 250000 bytes, mostly by the selective removal of (most) month old discussions and other closed discussions. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I get that but sending a reply still takes some time. I'll go ahead with also manually archiving some closed discussions. Fortek67 (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll chime in and say a shorter period may be a good idea, but also that we could change the format of this to use subpages for cases, similar to how we handle other noticeboards, which might improve the performance and navigability. ASUKITE 16:06, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Relegating cases to subpages by default will reduce visibility, add friction and decrease engagement. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps there is an alternative form of reorganization that may be possible, but it’s obviously not an emergency. Anything of that order would require a lot of work to implement anyway. ASUKITE 20:06, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Category:AI noticeboard open cleanup cases may interest you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

"Start a new discussion" doesn't work

Trying to create a new topic just eats whatever text you put in the template. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Might be something that I missed in this edit, where I attempted to change the header to the new page title. I₂Overcome ^talk 18:30, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I tried it and it seems to be working. I₂Overcome ^talk 22:01, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Proposed addition to WP:LLMTRANSLATE

Please see Wikipedia talk:LLM-assisted translation#Clarification on allowed scope of prompting, or if such a discussion ought to occur somewhere else, please let me know. Einsof (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Do we need a central register of articles needing cleanup?

When a batch of articles is posted for cleanup there is often a flurry of activity but not all articles are completed. WP:AI_noticeboard#Wkambale is a good example: all the low-hanging fruit have been plucked, leaving tough cases. Then the case scrolls further and further away and is eventually archived, at which point I think the chance that anyone not monitoring the specific case (which I am for Wkambale but no others) will ever see it again is very low. If articles requiring cleanup were added to a central register, older reports might have more chance of being done eventually: at least, we would be able to clearly see how many there are and call for help if overwhelmed. It would also be a good basis for a community cleanup event.

I will confess that I don't have the skills to create this, though if unskilled assistance would be valuable I'll be happy to help, for example in populating the resulting list. M kuhner (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

we have Category:AI noticeboard open cleanup cases and Category:Articles containing suspected AI-generated texts, is there something else you had in mind? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:11, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:AIMAINT Moxy🍁 15:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

(btw I've requested an edit filter for removal of tags) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:15, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

On examination, open cleanup cases should do the job, but there are two problems. If the cleanup list is made by just wrapping each article in [[Template:AINB article]], that doesn't get onto the cleanup cases list. I am a guilty party here for sure, but I don't think I'm the only one: it's easy to cast around for an example and seize on this template as how it's done, missing that another template is needed too. Results look fine but underlying mechanisms break. So for example Wkambale is not on the open cleanup cases list. And the list is organized by the front end of its name, which is less than helpful.

Sorry to propose something that already exists. M kuhner (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Sporwiki

Moved to WP:LLMN § User:Sporwiki

Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:36, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Recognising LLM contributions

Hi all, I believe there is an essay/guideline somewhere on the wiki about spotting AI/LLM contributions. I can't seem to locate it, can anyone give me a link?

Thanks in advance Trugster | Talk | Contributions 23:29, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Trugster | Talk | Contributions 09:09, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Google Books hallucinating book contents

For awareness, see: "Google Books hallucinating book contents" topic at Wikimedia-l. -- Rosiestep (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

For a moment, I thought the explanation the Google AI gave you might be a hallucination too - surely Google Books wouldn't make up not just a TOC but entire pages of text too? Eventually I found the Amazon preview of their Kindle edition would show me Chapter 1 to compare with the Google Books one and oh, isn't that Google Books creation shockingly anodyne and a complete misrepresentation of the author's approach? Thanks for the alert. NebY (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I never liked citations to Google Books previews, and there's a lot of them. With pirate book sites, online libraries, physical libraries, and resource exchange, there really is no need to rely on Google Books previews for citations. I wonder if this is somehing we could deprecate/forbid? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 16:09, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I've opened Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Hallucinated content on Google Books, describing the problem but not offering any solution, alas. Maybe the editors there can see a way forward. NebY (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Reporting back from RSN: there's a good chance it's a third-party scam, somebody trying to make money from their own AI creation. That would mean GoogleAI's explanation to you that it was a GoogleAI hallucination was itself a hallucination - turtles all the way down. NebY (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Village pump

Just a brief note that there are two discussions on Village pump policy now that might be of interest. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for comment/Policy update for AI content

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

New inline commenting templates inspired by the duck ones

•  Looks AI-generated to me. — {{Looks AI-generated}}
• — {{Looks AI-generated2}}
•   Sounds like an AI chatbot beeping into a megaphone to me — {{MegaphoneAI}}
•   1.75x amplified ultimate beep of ultimate destiny — {{MegaphoneAI}} with parameter ultimate

– MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Writing articles with large language models § RfC on LLM-assisted copyediting

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Writing articles with large language models § RfC on LLM-assisted copyediting. Athanelar (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Claude Watermarking AI-generated text

Source: TL;DR, to comply with EU laws, Anthropic announced that they're going to be watermarking all text output of new Claude models launched after August 2. The relevant portion: When a supported Claude model generates text, it weaves an imperceptible watermark directly into the text itself. You won’t see it, and it doesn’t change the meaning, quality, or readability of Claude’s response. Because the watermark is part of the text, it will travel with the text when it’s copied and pasted elsewhere, and may persist through some editing. Watermarking will be applied at the model level, which means it will be present no matter which Claude product or surface the text comes from. and that We’re also working to enable users and other third parties to detect Claude’s embedded watermarks and provenance metadata. Detection checks whether a piece of text or a file carries a supported Claude mark. If a supported mark is found, it indicates that the content may have been processed by Claude. We’ll share details on detection mechanisms in forthcoming technical documentation.

Presumably, these detection mechanisms are something that we'd want to work into our toolset. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:00, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Huh. Wonder how this will work then - will it be in the text text (ie would survive a retype), or will it be, say, done with something like ZWNJ characters? Morwen (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I have found reddit threads that claim that this would perturb the randomness enough to be detectable, but I don't quite follow how that then would be detectable without full knowledge of the model and the prompt. Morwen (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah unsure. I'll withhold judgment on this until the technical docs are released. Still, at least they're trying something. My understanding is that OpenAI rejected text watermarking in 2024 because even though the false positive rate overall was low on any individual sentence, for large bodies of text or large corpus of work the rate was unacceptably high.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

There's a piece here going into some depth about how (they think) it works and... I'm now very skeptical that they can release a tool (or even make one available for remote use online) without making workarounds quite easy. Morwen (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:AIC § Some important info regarding AI as a source-search tool

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:AIC § Some important info regarding AI as a source-search tool. Athanelar (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Signs of AI writing for non-English text

If anyone has any clues on detecting AI-written text in languages other than English, please let me know. I semi-frequently work on translating articles from the Chinese Wikipedia to English and would like to double-check against AI use. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 13:32, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff might, but AFAIK research on other languages is very limited or non-existent (even what's currently at WP:AISIGNS is now outdated). Zhwiki has a page on AI signs (zh:维基百科:AI生成文的特征) but it's basically a translation of enwiki's (they seem to do this for all their policies for some reason), frwiki has one though (fr:Aide:Identifier l'usage d'une IA générative) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:19, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not fluent in any other languages, but they can present surprisingly similarly -- as in similarly enough that you can sometimes spot it even without fluency -- which tracks with some research that suggests LLMs have an internal skew toward English.

Here's a Spanish example (markdown, utm_source), you can sort of see the same stuff happening Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gommeh Perfect example here in Filipino: Draft:Eric tacsay Ramos. Identical formatting to other AI drafts, bullet points/random bolding, "Wikipedia-style draft" disclaimer at the bottom. Run it through Google translate and it's obvious slop. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 13:57, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Got it. Tagged the draft as AI-generated and non-English, so that the author is hopefully aware of the issues. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 16:51, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

TM:AINB-notice

I think this needs rewording, it seems too ambiguous and euphemistic (i.e. easy to misunderstand, we're asking them to engage there) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 08:09, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Presumably it is also for notifying other editors who might be peripherally involved (e.g., they previously attempted to intervene in the main party's LLM usage). The ANI notice that this is presumably patterned after is also similarly ambiguous. In this situation if I wanted the responsible party to appear at the noticeboard, I would write something to that effect directly with my own words. Einsof (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Same, but people rarely do that for some reason. I don't think I've ever seen it be used for anyone other than the reportee (people just get pinged normally) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:09, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I often use the reason= parameter:

{{subst:AIN notice|reason=your edits|thread=User:Example}}

That makes the notice a lot less euphemistic. Don't know if it's better though. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:45, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Noticeboard size is out of hand

When attempting to save a reply on the noticeboard, the write operation took too long and threw this error:

Database error

To avoid creating high replication lag, this transaction was aborted because the write duration (12.502400159836) exceeded the 3 second limit. If you are changing many items at once, try doing multiple smaller operations instead.

The page is too large. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:51, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

it's 760 kb, I'll send some to the backlog Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:44, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

That shouldn't normally take 12,5 seconds to write to write that to a DB, must have taken a while to get a write lock or something. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:47, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

tbf I've been getting it on articles as well, might be worth taking to WP:VPT Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:50, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I've cut the page down to 650 kb anyway, which is what it's usually at Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:00, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Everything's backed up

Many of them have been resolved and still sitting in the active board, perhaps we should start archiving the lot WorldClassChampion (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@WorldClassChampion, I've restored them. This noticeboard is primarily for cleanup and all these threads are ongoing, you also archived the pinned thread about the backlog. Please take more care. The current system is that threads where cleanup is completed get closed and archived, but the page regularly gets too big so I try to keep it under 650 kb by archiving cases that look like they'll go to the backlog anyway. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:41, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

It was becoming a nuisance but yeah i see your point WorldClassChampion (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

thanks, normally it's great to be bold, but yeah this is the sort of thing where a lot of thought has already gone into it. Idk if you'd find WP:AICGUIDE useful (no worries if not)? Re sanctioning editors, we've got to be really wary of WP:BITE, and tbh a large part of this is gauging how much WP:ROPE is needed (which comes w time) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:20, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you also stop closing threads? This is not a conduct board, the cleanup is the "case" because this is a cleanup board. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:36, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Newslinger and @WorldClassChampion, it's probably better to discuss it here rather than in edit summaries and cleanup threads. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:59, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I think the issue is this board tries to do everything at once. Conduct to clean-up. Hence the massive backlog. You should be able to address a person’s conduct, resolve it, and put the rest elsewhere. Cleanup is primarily an editor maintenance tool, conduct is a disciplinary tool. These do not go in the same category. I see the logic behind this, address them, resolve, then clean up the fallout, but if the articles edited were very minor and/or small in quantity, editors can naturally come to it and edit it. Use categories, so you don’t have to summon an entire clean-up crew, WorldClassChampion (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

This board does not explicitly handle conduct. Conduct, if it needs to be 'handled', can be brought to WP:AN/I. (Conduct may be discussed here as it can be relevant to cleanup, and individual administrators can take action, but that is no different to any discussion page.) CMD (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

The issue is more that the amount of work exceeds the number of people doing it, so stuff tends to sit around (and the noticeboard isn't even close to all of the cleanup done). Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I report maybe like 15% of the LLM users that I find and clean up after. There's so much that never even hits the noticeboard. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:54, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AI conduct board?

Is this something anyone has talked about creating? Don't see anything about this at the project or this notice board. Wikipedia:AI conduct board Moxy🍁 01:22, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Seems to be boldly spun off following the thread above. CMD (talk) 01:32, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Is this something the community is willing to undertake? If so I can set this up properly.... If not it should be quickly redirected to the normal notice board. Moxy🍁 01:35, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Given the community preference recently has been for noticeboard consolidation, I don't envision a high chance of it supporting a split. CMD (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay redirecting for now...... If this is something the community wants to take it can easily be bought back. Moxy🍁 01:40, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

LLM Paste Check - wording for the default translations of the UI

 You are invited to join the discussion at meta:Talk:Artificial intelligence/Policies by project § LLM Paste Check - Question about the default wording to show in the global feature. Briefly: We'd appreciate any multi-lingual/multi-wiki perspectives on what UI text to use, in this upcoming part of the Edit Check feature. The feature can (based on local config) show a message to any editors that copy & paste text from a few commonly used LLMs directly into an article (within VE), after they've done that. The local versions of the UI's text/link can (and should) be overridden for more specific local nuances/desires, but we need an ideal global baseline version for other wikis that are using the basic/fallback version. Thanks. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2026 (UTC)