User talk:Abductive
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Run of citationbot on Category:K-pop music groups
[edit]Hi Abductive, just a heads up, the run of citationbot on Category:K-pop music groups you started is creating a lot of errors with regards of author names and first1/last1. I've reported the bugs on the talk page of the bot, but it might be best practice to not activate it on korean categories untill it is fixed. Redalert2fan (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- I stopped the job, thanks for the heads-up. Abductive (reasoning) 19:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
LLM generated plant sites
[edit]Hi Abductive,
I noticed you used Botanical Realm as a source on Vicia lenticula. Based on errors in their articles and how quickly they "write" the articles I'm confident that they are generated using a Large Language Model. The two other plant sites I'm aware of like this are Botanikks and Selina Wamucii. Since the only information cited to Botanical Realm is that it is in Fabaceae I just removed it. Ping me if you have any questions. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
- I was just using it for the common name, searchability was hampered due to the recent change from Lens ervoides to Vicia lenticula. Abductive (reasoning) 22:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
- Common names are exactly the sort of thing I am most suspicious of a LLM "hallucinating" into existence. I did a search on archive.org for "dwarf lentil" and there just two hits, one in a book written in German (and in blackletter, I so hate trying to read blackletter). The German book says that it is a common name in English for Ervum lens, an old synonym of the lentil. I'm not sure, but maybe it is a cultivar named "minor". Anyways, I've wandered away from my point. The other hit is for a description of another plant in India. I cannot find any evidence that "dwarf lentil" is actually used for any plant species and I think Botanical Realm made it up as that is the only place it appears outside of Wikipedia mirrors.
- It might have been known as Egyptian lentil in the mid 1800s. At least under the botanical synonym of Ervum lenticula. https://archive.org/details/profitableplants00arch/page/19/mode/1up?q=%22Ervum+lenticula%22
- 🌿MtBotany (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC.
- Actually, I got the name from iNaturalist, https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1375469-Vicia-lenticula, which is what the bots are drawing from, but last time I used iNat as a ref, someone complained that it was a circular ref (it wasn't—iNat updates from new Wikipedia articles in seconds sometimes). Abductive (reasoning) 03:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- I found two uses of dwarf lentil. One is in a historical recipe for A dish of lentils and barley taken from Platina's De_honesta_voluptate_et_valetudine. This is translated from Latin so not a valid English name. The second is from a recent scientific paper on food grain quality (Jamanca-Gonzales et al, 2024), which lists dwarf lentil as one of the lentil types of Lens culinaris. This suggests the dwarf lentil is a type of lentil (Vicia lens) rather than Vicia lenticula. Although its not an article where the taxonomy is important, it is consistent with the German article mentioned above. — Jts1882 | talk 13:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- I wonder where iNat, which is unlikely to have made a mistake, came up with it? Abductive (reasoning) 19:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- iNat absolutely has some common names that have been made up there. It is against their policy, but it happens. It has also taken some common names from Wikipedia that were probably made up here.
- iNat has "Fire Printzia" as the common name for Printzia pyrifolia. That name doesn't appear on the internet anywhere other than iNaturalist and Wikidata/Commons (via the file name of a photo imported from iNat). That is clearly a mistranslation of the scientific name; pyr- is pear, not fire in the context of -folia.
- And iNat common names that can be traced to other sources aren't necessarily carefully checked. iNat had "Procellaris grotis noctuid moth" as the common name for Agrotis procellaris, which is how it is misspelled on the IUCN Red List ("grotis" should be "agrotis"); it can be found correctly spelled in some other sources. I flagged it on iNat pointing out the spelling issue and they ended up deleting it altogether (it is utterly useless as a supposed common name since it just rearranges the binomial and adds a name for the family that is still based on the scientific name). Plantdrew (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- Do what you think is best. Abductive (reasoning) 17:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- I wonder where iNat, which is unlikely to have made a mistake, came up with it? Abductive (reasoning) 19:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
WikiCup 2025 November newsletter
[edit]The 2025 WikiCup has come to an end. Our top scorers, based on the tournament point rankings (which can be seen here), are:
BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,604 tournament points, will receive the 1st place award.
Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,075 tournament points, will receive the 2nd place award.
Arconning (submissions) with 860 tournament points, will receive the 3rd place award.
History6042 (submissions) with 804 tournament points
Sammi Brie (submissions) with 635 tournament points
TheDoctorWho (submissions) with 386 tournament points
AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 373 tournament points
Thebiguglyalien (submissions) with 362 tournament points
Our high scorers in the final round were:
- BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,035 round points, mostly from 19 good articles and 21 did you know articles about athletes
vigilantcosmicpenguin (submissions) with 819 round points, mostly from 13 good articles and 11 did you know articles about a wide range of topics from abortion topics to African cities
TheNuggeteer (submissions) with 508 round points from 9 good articles, 4 good topic articles and 6 did you know articles mainly about Philippines topics, along with 19 good article reviews
The final round was very productive, and contestants had 2 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 106 good articles, 5 good topic articles, 178 article reviews, 76 did you know articles, and 9 in the news articles. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!
The top eight scorers will receive awards shortly. The following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. These prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field during the competition.
- Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, with 12 featured articles total, and the featured topic prize, with 9 featured topic articles in total
- Hey man im josh (submissions) wins the featured list prize, with 10 featured lists total
- AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, submitting the only featured picture in the entire contest during round 3
- History6042 (submissions) wins the featured content reviewer prize, with 127 featured content reviews. He will also share the ITN prize, with 20 in the news articles in total.
- BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the good article prize, with 100 good articles total, and the DYK prize, with 147 did you know articles in total. He will also share the ITN prize, with 20 in the news articles in total.
- TheDoctorWho (submissions) wins the good topic prize, with 16 good topic entries in total
- Arconning (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, with 68 good article reviews in total
A special mention also goes to these users who scored the highest in a particular category in a single round:
- Sammi Brie (submissions), with 27 good articles in round 3, and 45 good article reviews in round 1
Tails Wx (submissions), with 10 in the news articles in round 3
Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate. The WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2026 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!
On behalf of the judges, Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · email):
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
Wikilinking countries
[edit]MOS:OVERLINK says that "major examples" [italics in original] of countries shouldn't be wikilinked, giving examples like Brazil and China. It doesn't say that no countries should be wikilinked. In the list at Allium oreoprasum, you left Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan unlinked. I would be very surprised if most of our readers knew where these countries were, and I would wikilink them. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
- Just because they don't know where the country is doesn't mean there should be links. I draw the line where the average reader isn't even sure it's a country, such as Kiribati or eSwatini. Abductive (reasoning) 10:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
- I guess we draw the line in different places. I'm as sure or unsure about Kiribati as Kyrgyzstan. But the examples in MOS:OVERLINK seem much more common than these countries. Ideally the MOS should be less subjective. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
- Putting oneself in the shoes of the readers is difficult. But the article says "Central Asia". And they may be looking for information other than the countries. Meanwhile we have users mass-creating one/two sentence permastubs. Abductive (reasoning) 20:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
- I guess we draw the line in different places. I'm as sure or unsure about Kiribati as Kyrgyzstan. But the examples in MOS:OVERLINK seem much more common than these countries. Ideally the MOS should be less subjective. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)