Bazza 7 (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the {{bulleted list}} solution. Fixing the potential bug of the extension or preprocessor may be too aggressive to fulfil within a short period of time. Maybe I should take a look at how to integrate {{bulleted list}} into {{Numbered block}}'s doc to avoid using too much HTML/CSS. -- Justin545 (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Justin545: Tables are for presenting data in rows and columns (MOS:TABLES). I can't work out why five characters should need to be presented in a single-celled table. What are you wanting to achieve? Bazza 7 (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply to Hoary above. -- Justin545 (talk) 11:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need some advice on use of AI images. The articles David Copperfield and Great Expectations have recently had images added (and removed) which have been generated using AI, and are classed as 'own work' by the author. See those articles' talk pages. I have a personal objection to them on aesthetic grounds, but WP policies do not seem to consider that as a reason to object. However, a more important point is whether WP has policies which are keeping up with AI. In particular, is an editor now permitted to add their own original AI-generated art? Original text is not permitted, since it is usually classified as original research. The only policies I can find which are relevant are MOS:PERTINENCE, WP:IMGCONTENT,and WP:Image use policy, which do not help much.

Are there policies I have missed? Is there a discussion or a working group thinking about this? Without a policy, it seems WP could rapidly be flooded with original, AI-generated images, with no grounds to object. Masato.harada (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masato.harada there is a similar question at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#AI generated images, with a link to WP:WPAIC, where there is another related conversation, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup#Wikipedia policy on AI generated images. TSventon (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there's a stronger objection than any mentioned above to the recent additions to the Dickens articles. That is that they're works of fiction, made up by the creator and his AI. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for publishing works of fiction. Pictures created during Dickens' lifetime and with his approval qualify as part of his work; pictures created more than a century later don't. Maproom (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth noting that copyright law concerning AI-generated artwork is far from clear, may vary from one jurisdiction to another, and seems to be dependent at least in part on the copyright status of data the AI was trained on. It is entirely possible for AI to generate derivative works in breach of copyright. Uploading AI-generated images while describing them simply as 'own work' also seems to be contrary to Commons good practice, at absolute minimum. [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

_{Also most of it is utter slop.} Qcne (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working on an article concerning a climate hunger strike in Berlin, Germany, with five strikers at present. First a disclaimer: I am not involved in the hunger strike, any associated organizations, the planning of events, media and social media liaison, those participating, or anything else related — besides being an observer with a camera and some language skills who happens to live in Berlin. I have nonetheless chatted to strike participants and organizers when taking photographs and video, mostly to seek their permissions for publication.

My question is hypothetical at this juncture. Are there Wikipedia policies about appropriate editing in the event that one of the hunger strikers does succumb to their self‑starvation? Not something I would ever hope to happen, but equally, quite possible going forward. Thanks in advance for any guidance. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RobbieIanMorrison: If that happens, then the article could be updated to summarize what is published about the event in reliable sources. RudolfRed (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But note WP:NOTNEWS. ColinFine (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 16

Hello! Ive noticed that every country seems to have their own portal. I then tried to search up Portal:Albania but nothing pops up. Was it deleted or yet to be made? If so how can it be created? Thank you so much! Arberian2444 (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arberian2444: Many countries don't have portals. Portal:Albania was deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Albania. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok thank you! Arberian2444 (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Today I found the List of libraries in Australia. Among other issues, for some states it lists not only every library, but every single library sub-branch, which I feel counts as unnecessarily excessive per MOS:LONGSEQ. Most other library lists by country are smaller. After working on the article a bit (the Queensland public library section), I've realised even if I remove all the sub-branches, it will still be a very long list as there are libraries missing.

The options I can see are:

• Leave only items that have a Wikipedia article (I don't like this one as there seem to be notable ones without articles and I think the list may encourage articles to be made)
• Split the list into by state (i.e. "Libraries in South Australia")
• Split the libraries by type (i.e. Public Libraries in Australia")

I had a look at other library and I can't see any pattern of how they're split. I appreciate any advice (including telling me the list is fine at its current size). Thank you a lot! -- NotCharizard ^🗨 08:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]