Template talk:AI-generated

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 September 2025

Change the link on the paragraph that says "associated project page" to Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup (or its shortcuts that can be found on the project page) instead of Wikipedia:LLM, since Wikipedia:LLM is not a WikiProject page. Ijoe2003 (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the suggestion! twotwos (talk) 02:44, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted this because I disagree with the change. Namely, the change was based on misunderstanding what "guidance" refers to. It refers to understanding the underlying problem with the content's policy compliance and correctly handling the non-compliant or suspected-non-compliant content. That guidance is offered at WP:AIREMOVAL. Editors are aware that WP:LLM is "just an essay", and that's how it has to be until an AI use policy is adopted. AISIGNS is the wrong essay. —Alalch E. 09:13, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps it should link to WP:AIREMOVAL then instead of WP:LLM? I mean, the link text is "associated project page"; it seems odd to me to link from that to an essay instead of a Wikiproject (but maybe I am misunderstanding the use of "project" here), and at least the link to WP:LLM is immediately confusing - one expects a link to a page with direct instructions for dealing with the problem and instead gets one that begins with much fine detail about Wikipedia policies. I changed it to link to WP:AICLEAN, not AISIGNS; AICLEAN is a shortcut for Wikiproject AI Cleanup. But, I think it possibly should be a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject_AI_Cleanup/Guide; that is a guide for dealing with AI-generated content, and it's on the relevant Wikiproject page. (Though there doesn't seem to be a convenient shortcut to that one, I'm not sure that matters?) twotwos (talk) 09:46, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, it's a terminological confusion. "Project page" does not refer to a WikiProject advice page, i.e., "project" does not at all refer to any "WikiProject". Instead, "project page" is short for "project administration page", i.e., a page in the Wikipedia:Project namespace. (Every page prefixed with "Wikipedia:" is a project page.) Sorry that I mixed up the links and referred to the wrong page (I was actually thinking AICLEAN... I had edited the signs page recently...). The same logic apllies to both: The essay WP:LLM contains the relevant guidance which the template always intended to link to. It explains the policy problems that may result from LLM use (WP:AIFAIL section) via direct references to policy and then offers guidance on how to address the problems (WP:AIREMOVAL section). So it's more like 2/3 or the entirety of the essay is relevant. Therefore, I would not change the link for AIREMOVAL. —Alalch E. 10:05, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Why does this template exist?

We have this template, but aren't such articles deleted per WP:G15? - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 04:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

The template can apply to when existing articles are updated with llm text. CMD (talk) 04:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

G15 is only usable for some specific and obvious LLM-generated content. This tag can be applied to many more cases of LLM-generated content than G15. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

And here is an example creation of an article with rapid acknowledgment by the Wikipedian of using an LLM to do text rewriting, but as of 19:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC), there's still a lot of work remaining for others to clean up. A WP:AfD would fail with WP:SNOW, because many (maybe most) of the sources are at real, current URLs and justify notability. And the writing, including corrections, is more or less good enough that WP:TNT would very likely fail. The tag is useful because after I've finished going through it, I'll likely have to leave it to someone else to do an independent WP:DYK review. And if nobody else does a review, then best that the next editors are alerted until the cleanup is close enough to "done". Boud (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Adding rationale parameter

I'm very surprised this doesn't have it already, and that it isn't required. People sometimes just put the tag up on pages with twinkle giving no indication of what the problem actually is, leaving it up to the editor to figure it out. This is especially so if the problems are subtle.

This tag can be used similarly to {{Cleanup}}, but that one actually requires |reason= EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 06:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@EatingCarBatteries, you can add a |reason= to the wikitext for most templates. The Wikipedia:Citation templates and a few others will complain about the existence of an unknown parameter, but I think that all the maintenance templates will either silently ignore it or display it. I just checked this one, and it displays it. This code:

{{ai-generated |reason=98% rating in fake-ai-detector.com |date=December 2025}}

produces this result:

I'll go update the documentation to mention it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

The undocumented reason parameter is causing confusion and has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Added AI-generated tag, reason parameter was dropped. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae, don't all the mbox templates have a |reason= parameter available? (I fixed the documentation yesterday.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Collapsed by default?

The template takes a lot of space in the lead. It would be better in my opinion to have a template that is collapsed by default, just displaying the first sentence (or maybe the first two sentences), and that can expanded with a click. Alenoach (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Are there examples of any other maintenance tags that are collapsed? If not, then maybe this needs to be shortened rather than collapsed. I think we can probably delete "Please see the associated project page for additional guidance; relevant discussion may be found on this article's talk page." We should put the link to WP:LLM somewhere though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

There are some templates like Template:Multiple issues and Template:Duplicated citations that usually have a "show" button on the right, and are collapsed by default. I'm actually uncertain about what's the best solution here, maybe shortening it as you suggest would be better. The last sentence may indeed not be important enough. Alenoach (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

{{Multiple issues}} is a wrapper able to take any maintenance tag, so that's not a good apples-to-apples example. If you put {{AI-generated}} inside {{Multiple issues}}, you get a shortened version already:

–Novem Linguae (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, I took a stab at shortening it here. Let's see if it sticks or gets reverted. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Disclaimer at start

I removed extra wording added to this template by @WhatamIdoing:, who replaced "this" (as in, "this article may") with "an editor has expressed concern that this". Her edit summary stated that "even people who are good at this are wrong 10% of the time". I'm not entirely sure what WhatamIdoing is referring to here but even if true (I wouldn't be terribly surprised), I am unsure why she chose to add this disclaimer to the notice. Every template of this type (e:g Template:Notability) indicates concern of a certain editor, it may be inaccurate. If it is blatantly so, it can be removed. If it is questionably so, it might remain. I'm not clear why this disclaimer is necessary, but I'm opening this talk page discussion to see if any other editors believe such a change is necessary. Cheers! --LivelyRatification (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Redundant to "may". CMD (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

First, the source for that number: https://arxiv.org/html/2501.15654v2 says that when you have five (5) expert(!) users of LLMs look at an article and vote on whether it was generated by an LLM, the group can correctly assign the label 99.7% of the time by majority vote.

But:

• When it's just one person, then the expert LLM users are wrong about 10% of the time.
• When the person isn't an expert LLM user, they were wrong about half of the time. This is in the range of a coin-flip: They incorrectly missed 43% of the LLM-written articles and falsely accused 52% of the human-written articles as being LLMs.

This is much, much, much worse than an editor tagging with {{notability}}: Usually, if someone tags an article for notability concerns, they're correct. Similarly, AFD historically has resulted in deletion about three-quarters of the time, which is also much better than this.

Then there is the problem of who uses this tag and what we do with it.

First, I suspect that it's primarily added by people who dislike AI (who else is so motivated to keep Wikipedia free of it?), and who therefore (like me) do not use it themselves. This would result in many of the taggers being nonexperts, and their identification is going to be not very different from random (unless they use AI detection software, in which case it will be as good or bad as the tool they use).

Unlike {{notability}} or a doubtful AFD nomination, once someone has made a false accusation, it's very difficult to refute the AI accusation. Confirmation bias kicks in, and we start seeing things that confirm the accusation (oooh, it says "It is important to note", which everybody knows is always AI – um, except that MOS:NOTE has discouraged that phrase for over a decade, and why would a pre-AI rule have been created, if only LLMs use that?). False accusations, and especially false accusations that can't be refuted effectively, have harmful social effects.

This is a problem, and I suggest a couple of ways we can address it. One is that this tag could have (and Twinkle could support) an optional parameter to give the basis for the accusation. This could be as simple as |reason=GPTZero or |reason=Fictitious references or |reason=Bad URLs, which would save other editors time.

The other is that we should soften the accusation, so that this sounds less like "Evil AI here (oh, sure, if you insist, then I'll agree that there's a tiny chance that I 'may' be wrong)" and more like "I think so, and I'm nominating this to be checked by others, so we can form a consensus". That's what I tried to do yesterday, using a form that we have used in other templates in the past. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

This can be done for any tag, Template:Very long is mostly added by those who dislike articles that are too long and therefore (like me) do not write too long themselves. That doesn't mean crafting some new wordiness would help. CMD (talk) 07:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose adding a reason to the tag necessarily (though GPTZero has its problems, and fictitious references would be grounds for WP:G15). I also don't think forming a consensus is a bad idea, given that individual editors can be fallible. The study you post is interesting, and I think it's worth noting that common reasons for false positives are identifications of certain word choices as supposedly indicating generative AI use, a belief that AI-generated text is more likely to be grammatically correct, and that text written neutrally is more likely to be attributed to generative AI. I have a hunch that Wikipedians who deal with newly created articles would perhaps be more inclined to the latter two mistakes (especially the neutrality one), but that's really nothing more than a guess on my part.

My main qualms are twofold -- have there been a bunch of false positives that we, onwiki have seen: i:e, cases where a user has tagged for genAI, thusly removed a bunch of text or tried to "fix" the issue, then discovered that there was no issue at all? I don't know that there have been, but cleaning up generative AI edits isn't my specialty. Additionally, what other templates use this sort of wording? I ask this not as a sort of gotcha, but because I genuinely haven't seen it before, or at least not that I remember. "An editor has nominated this article for deletion", I suppose, but that indicates an active discussion. In cases where there's cleanup tags, I don't know that there's all that many instances of tags placing such a caveat.

The main problem, I suppose, is if cleanup tags are appropriate given the high false positive rate. I agree that this study is concerning and I do worry about false positives tarnishing an article and an editor being unfairly dragged through the mud for content they've written. But at the same time, given the speed that it takes to generate articles using large language models, is it really feasible to form a consensus for every single article before placing a notice that states "this article may have generative AI content in it"? I worry that this would be an onerous and perhaps unnecessary use of editor time and resources. I'd like to hear more from editors who commonly use this tag, and editors who've had their articles tagged in a way they feel is wrong and unfair. LivelyRatification (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Adding a reason field to the template seems like a sensible improvement to me.

The times when I've seen/applied the tag have often been during cleanup of editors who have made hundreds to thousands of problematic LLM edits across hundreds of pages (e.g. Specific kinetic energy per WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1170#Problematic possibly AI generated articles by Jeaucques Quœure, and Arsenate sulfate per WP:AINB#LLM edits by Noxoug1). Error rates for AI detection across multiple edits/articles should be much smaller than single-article error rates. Another application of the tag is for articles with obvious signs of AI use that can't be G15ed as they've been edited by non-LLM-using editors in the meantime (as with Arsenate sulfate). Again, error rates will be much smaller in this case due to the sensitivity/specificity tradeoff. Preimage (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I do think that once you've identified an editor as having repeatedly misused AI, it's fair to make some assumptions about the rest of their edits being likely AI-generated as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

You might be interested in the draft at User:Lp0 on fire/Drafts/Presumptive removal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@LivelyRatification, what concerns me about cases where a user has tagged for genAI...then discovered that there was no issue is that there is no method for "discovering that there was no issue". It's this workflow:

• Alice writes an article
• Bob thinks it's AI-generated and tags it
• Alice says it's not
• Bob thinks she's lying
• Alice says it's really not
• Bob remains unconvinced

There is nothing you can do to convince Bob that he's wrong, especially if he believes he has objective evidence (it's properly punctuated, it uses certain popular words, a tool with "only" a 1% false positive rate has claimed that it's probably AI-generated, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Presumably, the method ought to be through consensus decision-making. Bob might be 100% certain that it really was generated with AI, and might insist on keeping a tag on the article, but ideally if there's a dispute, editors should come to a consensus. This is a lofty goal and probably won't be possible in most cases of this tag being used, but I don't see how changing the wording here makes Bob either less likely to insist that he is right or less likely to be listened to by other editors. LivelyRatification (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

It might be less irritating to the innocent accused to have the tag say that this is one person's opinion, rather than a near-certain fact. It might also remind subsequent editors not to be too trusting in Bob's opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Replace text of Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Replace text of Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

reason= parameter and certain= parameter (or section=) mutually exclusive?

Just added an AI template to .sd with several parameters:

• section=: It's just the History section
• certain=yes: The edit that added it left in the chatbot response "----Would you like me to adjust the wording, or are there additional details you’d like included?" Plus there are the usual non-smoking-gun AI tells, both here and in this user's other edits
• reason-: Per ANI

For some reason though the template still reads "may contain text..." and I'm not sure why. It feels like adding a reason is even more important if you're claiming it's 100% AI. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

looks like this is fixed now, not sure how or when, but thanks to whoever did it! Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Add action item to first sentence for mobile users

On mobile, the truncated banner just says "This article may incorporate text from a large language model". On social media (see these Reddit threads as examples: ), I've seen this text cause confusion and critique as it's not clear that the banner is highlighting a problem. The banner can be read as Wikipedia being fine with the LLM content, when the banner is really highlighting an issue to be fixed.

I think we should expand the first sentence to show that we're highlighting a problem, while keeping it short. Would be particularly helpful for mobile users, but also desktop users who don't read beyond the first sentence. Suggestions:

• "This article may incorporate text from a large language model and should be cleaned up."
• "This article may incorporate text from a large language model and needs human review."

~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:59, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

New parameter: partial=

Hi -- I have WP:BOLDly added a new parameter to this template, partial=; if set, it changes the beginning of the template text to read "Portions of this article/section" rather than simply "This article/section". Ideally this would be used in combination with the reason= parameter to indicate what portions those are.

A common complaint by editors is that the template inadvertently suggests that the entirety of an article is AI-generated, when that is often not the case. However, people who use AI often edit many sections of the text, such that individually tagging each section would clutter the page with templates. Hopefully this can add clarity in those cases.

Unfortunately I'm not sure how feasible it is for me to go back and re-tag all 4,900 articles accordingly, apologies. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this, because I came here to Talk to request something just like that. Lova Falk (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete "and content with an unencyclopedic tone should be rewritten"?

I propose we delete "and content with an unencyclopedic tone should be rewritten". The template is a bit long in wording. And I don't see why we should handle tone problems different than the other problems listed. And LLM stuff is difficult to rewrite accurately -- requires reading the sources. By the time you reread the sources, it's probably the same amount of work just to rewrite it, and much less work to delete it.

Normally I would do this as a bold edit, but this is template protected, so seeking a consensus first. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was thinking that the tone of the AI writing would also be a problem, but mentioning it does use more words and might not be optimal... Newbzy (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Difference in text displayed

Can anyone explain to me why this template sometimes displays a long explanation of the issues with LLM use, such as it does on Laos, but at other times only shows the single line as displayed on this template page? I even tried copypasting it directly from Laos and the preview still showed the truncated version on the other page. That version links to WP:LLM instead of popping up with the expanded text. What am I missing? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok, it seems to be a display issue. When I checked the one I was testing in desktop mode instead of mobile I got the extended version - but normally that shows even in mobile mode, as it did for Laos, with the pop-up. I keep running into these bizarre behaviors between mobile vs desktop that don't seem to make any logical sense. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 March 2026

In mobile version, this template should use robot symbol. (Currently it use two arrows symbol) Hddty (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

When I load this template page in mobile Safari for iOS, I see no image at all. I see the same thing at {{Not English}}. I'm guessing that this is a feature of {{Ambox}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 At the page Template:AI-generated it has no image, but you can see the arrows at the article that using this template (for example Foreign relations of Finland). Thanks. Hddty (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to an affected page. That always helps with troubleshooting. I have posted a note at Template talk:Ambox, since this problem is happening with all article message box templates, not just this one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 March 2026

On line 10, change "[[WP:LLM|large language model]]" to "[[WP:NEWLLM|large language model]]" to reflect that the proposed new guidelines have been adopted. Btyner (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done I think the current essay, which already links to the guideline, is preferable here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:19, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Then maybe it could link to both? The problem as I see it is WP:LLM starts out by saying that it is not describing a Wikipedia policy but rather a mere essay; if the reader stops there then they come away with the wrong impression. Btyner (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

@Pppery The LLM shortcut was repurposed for the guideline (that is good, I support it “NEWLLM” was terrible), so now it’s the way Btyner would like it, without a decision made here. No strong opinion on my part. —Alalch E. 19:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't care enough to change it back to the essay. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:29, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 06 April 2026

−

This article '''[may] incorporate[s] text from a [[WP:LLM|large language model.]]'''

+

This article '''[may] incorporate[s] text from a large language model.''' Text generated by large language models [[WP:LLM|is not permitted]] in Wikipedia articles.'''

The current template implies that only material which include[s] hallucinated information, copyright violations, claims not verified in cited sources, original research, or fictitious references. should be removed; we need to be more specific that the guideline now states no AI-generated content is permitted in articles and all of it should be removed.

It may be sensible to use a parser function to make sure this line only shows up if certain terms ('article' or 'draft') are specificed for the |1= parameter, I leave that up to the discretion of the template editor, because I don't have time right now to figure out exactly how to write the source for that. Athanelar (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done with slightly different wording. Frankly LLM-generated text isn't permitted anywhere this template would be used so I don't see a need for any parser functions, and good riddance. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:56, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 6 April 2026

Description of suggested change:

There's a duplicate "is" in this template. Not sure if the one remaining should be included in the hyperlink or not, though.

Diff:

−

This article '''may incorporate text from a [[WP:Large language models|large language model]], which is [[WP:LLM|is prohibited in Wikipedia articles]]'''.

+

This article '''may incorporate text from a [[WP:Large language models|large language model]], which is [[WP:LLM|prohibited in Wikipedia articles]]'''.

Dropbear3 (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:33, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

All articles w/ (suspected) AI-generated text cat?

Is there a particular reason this template only adds to dated subcategories and doesn't add articles to, say, Category:All articles containing suspected AI-generated texts? I know many other mainitnence templates do that, which allows for easier tracking and the use of Special:RandomInCategory. (Which is great for making cleanup appear more manageable).

For an example of what I'm talking about, articles in Category:Articles with close paraphrasing from April 2026 also get put in Category:All articles with close paraphrasing and articles in Category:Articles needing cleanup from April 2026 get put in Category:All pages needing cleanup. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 05:21, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

This article may incorporate text...?

No it may not.

Please use a synonym to "may" that doesn't also mean "is allowed to".

• This article could be incorporating text
• This article might incorporate text
• This article is possibly incorporating text

Just three suggestions CapnZapp (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

This template considered harmful

As it stands, this template can be applied by anybody for any reason (or no reason at all), it casts aspersions on the entire article, and it's so non-specific that it's effectively impossible to address.

As proposed earlier, can we at least require a rationale pointing out something specific in the article that is likely/definitely AI, eg. a hallucinated reference? Asamboi (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 19 May 2026

Description of suggested change:

The current language of this template doesn't make it clear that wholly LLM-generated articles often would need to be fundamentally rewritten or reduced to a stub to comply with WP:NOLLM. NOLLM prohibits LLM text regardless of whether hallucinated information, copyright violations, claims not verified in cited sources, original research, or fictitious references are actually present. Any such content should be removed places the burden on editors to scour the article for these things instead of simply removing all LLM-generated text. If someone is willing to do a source check of the whole article, that's great, but otherwise, determining the article is LLM-generated based on clear WP:AISIGNS or a few spot checks is sufficient to justify removal or a rewrite. I suggest making the language here very simple: This article may incorporate text from a large language model, which is prohibited in Wikipedia articles. Any such material should be removed.

Diff:

−

This article may incorporate text from a large language model, which is prohibited in Wikipedia articles. It may include hallucinated information, copyright violations, claims not verified in cited sources, original research, or fictitious references. Any such material should be removed.

+

This article may incorporate text from a large language model, which is prohibited in Wikipedia articles. Any such material should be removed.

I₂Overcome ^talk 20:25, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. It says the article "may include" those items, which means that it's not limited to just those items. This gives editors examples of what to look for. Why would you want to erase that helpful information? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 21:57, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

You're right; this really shouldn't have been an edit request. Honestly, the only reason I made it one is because it doesn't seem like anything else on this talk page is getting much attention. I apologize for that. The community needs to establish clearer guidance on what exactly should happen to mostly LLM-generated articles that 1) don't meet G15 or any other CSD and 2) are notable. Currently, this depends on the editor who is doing the cleanup, but there is general agreement that all LLM text can be removed from mainspace (either by stubifying, draftifying, or LLMPROD, if applicable), as identifying and removing only the problematic content listed here is time-consuming and impractical. I₂Overcome ^talk 23:30, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of this template's message

We've had some discussion about this already, and the fact stands that some editors, including myself, consider the advice offered by this template to be outdated or misleading, especially following the adoption of WP:NEWLLM, the policy that using LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited.

Current wording: It may include hallucinated information, copyright violations, claims not verified in cited sources, original research, or fictitious references. Any such material should be removed. – this doesn't IMO make it clear that AI-generated text is not allowed in Wikipedia full stop, regardless of whether it contains copyvios, original research, etc. It also can imply that once those things have been removed, it's alright for the leftover AI-generated text to stay in the article.

What I propose is to largely replace the advice offered in the |fix= parameter. For articles:

And for sections:

Now, the template gives two clear actions to take depending on the article/section: either revert the edits of an editor who has used AI to rewrite parts of it, or delete entirely AI-generated sections that have been added.

Any editors who are interested or have an opinion on this, please feel free to comment on this proposal. A courtesy ping to @I2Overcome: I noticed your edit request above and was wondering if you would agree with these changes. Newbzy (talk) 09:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC)