This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mexico City article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage Sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography
Hi -- I have tagged this article as potentially AI generated, specifically edits by user Synthetic.Cognizance. They display many tells of AI writing, and a sockpuppet investigation seems to be further evidence. Needs review, fact-checking, tone check, etc. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
@Gnomingstuff: The notices on top of the article tend to be seen as a major problem throughout the article. In fact, when you add a template that says "This article may incorporate text from a large language model. Such text potentially includes hallucinated information or fictitious references" implies that it, indeed, lacks creditbility. You are saying that because one person, exclusively, who just added one picture and one microparagraph to this article guarants the disclaimer the readers must interpret as "warning, some text (which we won't reveal) might be LLM". This template is getting out of control, to be honest. (CC)Tbhotch™ 18:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
That is exactly what I am implying. The AI use is what's gotten out of control, and it would still be there template or not; editors and readers may as well know about it. At any rate, if the edits are so small-scale then fixing them should be a very quick fix and then you can remove the tag. You could probably have fixed it in the time it took to write this comment.
(To address the obvious question: Right now, my focus is on identifying undetected AI edits so that they can be in one centralized place. I've taken more direct action when it involves unsourced material on WP:BLP articles -- i.e., when the guideline is to just revert, no questions asked -- but the most pressing issue right now is actually finding the stuff.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
"if the edits are so small-scale then fixing them should be a very quick fix and then you can remove the tag." Something that you, in fact, had to to first.
"You could probably have fixed it in the time it took to write this comment." Yes, in the time you wrote this answer, I fixed it in three other articles, which, once again, you should have fixed yourself instead of tag-bombing dozens of articles.
That being said, given the enormous amount of undetected LLM edits that exist, there are basically only three options: ignoring it, tagging, or mass deletion. Reversion is usually not an option since this stuff tends to get buried deep in edit history and tweaked without addressing the root cause. Fixing them one by one means the rest just go undetected that much longer. Of those options, mass deletion is generally considered much more disruptive -- especially when there's no actual proof of anything -- and not fully supported by policy except on BLP articles. (WP:CHATGPT is an essay.)
As far as tagbombing, here's what the text of WP:TAGBOMB -- which is also an essay and not policy -- actually says: "Adding multiple tags without explaining the reason is disruptive." (Bolding mine.) See also WP:OVERTAG: "However, it is not actually "drive-by tagging" so long as [editors] explain the rationale for the tag on the talk page." So, when the potential LLM use is not immediately obvious or easy to find -- basically, when I had to go through 5 pages of stuff to find it -- I've been explaining the rationale and mentioning the involved user and/or linking to the original diff so others do not also have to go through 5 pages of stuff.
One thing I should be doing more of is removing redundant tags -- for instance a lot of people add the "reads like an essay" tag when the reason something reads like an essay is because it's ChatGPT. When I get a chance I'll go through my recent edits and do that. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
