Wikipedia:Simple talk

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Editor review)

Unable to convertEdit

I tried to convert some bare references into properly formatted references using those automatic mechanism. But I was unable to do it. My only way was to do them manually. I tried at Miss Manipur. What may be the actual problem? And could anyone convert those references for me using automatic way (if possible)? Please! Haoreima (talk) 04:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Haoreima I had a similar issue when I tried to translate fr:Forêt guyanaise into the English Wikipedia for some reason. Gave up eventually. SHB2000 (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
@Haoreima and @SHB2000 -- I was having trouble with the manual, as well, though only for websites, not other forms. TBH, I just went over to enwiki and did them there, then copied them here. Kind of a pain, though, and not something I could have my students do. Castilibrary2 (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
@SHB2000, Castilibrary2: Some months ago, I could convert any citations from bare link to organised link through automatic mechanism. Nowadays, only links from Google Books, Archive org, etc. are possible but news and magazine links couldn't. This is the issue! For example, at page Phouoibi! Haoreima (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@Castilibrary2, SHB2000, Ferien: Hey guys! I don't know if we should post this issue at meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Citations. Presently, proposals are being submitted. We can take this opportunity. :-) Haoreima (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Excellent idea! If you want to take the lead, I will certainly follow up with my experiences. Castilibrary2 (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Castilibrary2: Yeah, I had posted it. :-) Haoreima (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hah, sorry. Was just reading your post over there and thinking, "This thoughtful person spoke about the problem very nicely," and saw it was you! Turns out, cannot add to it from work as have specific-Wiki exemptions from a major IP block, but will put on my calendar to comment after I get off today. Castilibrary2 (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
If you want, then go for it :) SHB2000 (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:American country musicians is a mess...Edit

Hello all, I just wanted to point out that the Category:American country musicians is a mess:

  • The typical country musician will play the guitar, banjo, or similar instrument, while singing;
  • We do have a subcategory for singers, which contains 111 entries (of the 130-odd of the parent category)
  • There are Lists of country musicians from <state>: These are counter-productive and can be replaced by subcategories.

So, I'd think cleanup would be good:

  • Push people down the list, if they sing, they end up in American country singers; if necessary ...from <state>
  • Get rid of the lists

What do other people think?--Eptalon (talk) 08:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

True, some additional sub-Categories need to be created, the articles in the main can then be moved to the sub-categories. I can help. --Tarawneh (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Category : Category:American country musicians Tarawneh (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Done re-classifying, there are 20 subcategories (Country musicians from <US State>), for all the states that have at least 3 entries; there are between 15 and 20 pages left, which are hard to classify (or come from states with less than 3 matching people). --Eptalon (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Just remember lists and categories are not mutually exclusive. Both should exist. -Djsasso (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I have restored the few "List of country musicians" that I quick-deleted. Anyone is free to do an RfD for the ones seen aqs unnecessary.--Eptalon (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


Hi guys. In the Arabic Wiki, we use the hidden category tag {{Hiddencat}} in category structures reserved for Schools Projects (Example). Each school has its own category, and some times subs. Today I went through most of Simple policies and guidelines, but it seems I am not able to find the right page. Can someone please point me to the right policy. Thanks. --Tarawneh (talk) 22:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tarawneh: On this Wikipedia, we haven't used categories for school projects. We tend to keep our category structure at a minimum. What are you thinking such categories would be used for? -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Tropical Storm Gabrielle views
@Auntof6, It makes tracking and channeling progress way much easier. For example when using tools from toolforge server such as Massviews Analysis we can direct the students to focus on certain pages.
To exlpain... I can see that Tropical Storm Gabrielle article is on the main page. This article as expected is a Very good articles. The data from the toolserver can cast more light. Tropical Storm Gabrielle made it fourth within its category Hurricanes in the United States, with 491 views from October 5th til today
1 List of New York hurricanes 1,038 13 / day
2 1910 Cuba hurricane 973 12 / day
3 Hurricane Katrina 725 9 / day
4 Tropical Storm Gabrielle (2007) 491 6 / day
5 List of hurricanes in California 315 4 / day
6 Hurricane Hazel 134 2 / day
The graph shows us that the actual interest in Storm Gabrielle is due to the fact it was on the main page. 1910 Cuba hurricane located at the same category, has wider range of interested people.
This helps us guide the students to work on articles having higher demand. Of course we can do all of this manually, but it is way much easier using the categories. Tarawneh (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

People defaming fauciEdit

Where do I report hem or her to Snowy Cotton Candy (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:VIP MathXplore (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
@Snowy Cotton Candy: If someone does vandalism, first give warnings. And if that doesn't work, please report him/her to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. This is a noticeboard for persistent vandalism. Haoreima (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

5 million to 15 million within 2 decadesEdit

I saw Rajbanshi language article states that it has 5 million speakers in 1991 but 15 million speakers in 2007. Something, unnatural! The sources are also not too good. The population 15 million is stated both in Regular English as well as Simple English wikis. Google knowledge panel says it has 170,000 speakers in 2011. Haoreima (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I cannot speak to you about, but the thing to do would be to check multiple sources. It will soon become clear which one is wrong. Most likely, they're not defining "speaker" in the same way. For example, English has so many native speakers but many more speakers if we count people who speak it as a second or third language. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I think it is one of the official languages in India. Assam seems to be the region/state where it is most prevalent. So all else failing, look at the census data of Assam. It should be relatively easy to get, and we can then link to that census data. Same thing for the "Rajbanshi" of Nepal (different language, same language family); there again census data of Nepal/the districs where it is prevalent?--Eptalon (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


It's 2022 and HAPPY NEW YEAR to all! Happy to report that WP:WAM is over. We had the most number of accepted articles, 16 this year, and the most number of participants ever, 5. These numbers may seem small but given the tiny size simple is, I am very glad to see such numbers. Thank you to つがる for being a very good co-organizer to me. Most importantly I wish to thank all participants for making it a success. We have a tie in the first place with @Prajjwal3959 and @Haoreima both having 7 accepted articles. @BRPever came in 2nd with 2 good articles. I also thank @FarhanNF ‎ and @ORAcled ‎ for submissions, these are good articles with just some work needed but they still enriched this project. That's wrap up this year edition of WAM, and I think the WAM team will be contacting those who are eligible for postcards to award them. Have a nice year ahead. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Yay! Let's do it again next November.-BRP ever 08:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
What good news!Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Real or notEdit

Is 2021 FIFA World Championship an actual thing? The page has no matching entry on any other wiki which is very weird for a top level football article. Google responds with us at #1 which is rarely a good sign. The page is screaming hoax but I thought it safer to ask for info rather than just toss it up for deletion. --Creol(talk) 23:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

According to the FIFA site, there was a Club World Cup, in the United Arab Emirates, in 2021. see here, for the men, there will be one in Qatar, in 2022, see here. for the women, it will be 2023, in Australia & New Zealand, see here. So there was something in 2021, but it is named differently. --Eptalon (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
And the 2021 competition will be held in winter 2022, probably because of a virus...--Eptalon (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Some of the issue im seeing with this:
  1. our seems to be national teams and not clubs
  2. ours is in Qatar while the Club cuo is in UAE
  3. The dates are overlapping
  4. Ours has teans who qualified up to years agam, one team wont qualify until 4 days before the tourney starts and one team who qualified back in Aug 2021 is still to be determined
--Creol(talk) 00:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
In very short words: They meant Quatar'22, but mistyped the year? Eptalon (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
en:2022 FIFA World Cup? Eptalon (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Can't be as this one is only 10 teams onand took place "as a prelude to the 2022 FIFA World Cup". This one also "was held in Qatar, from 14 to 30 December 2021" and at the same time was postponed and "was rescheduled to 10 to 26 February 2022" which comes in handy as the one team won't qualify until a month and a half after it origionallty was held. SO it took place and hasnt taken place both with a team who will not be deternined until just hefore the future instance occurs. And while "First match(es) will be played on 21 November 2022. Source: FIFA" It started on 14 Dec 2021 and will start until 10 Feb 2022. This 21 Nov 2022 will interfer with the previously mentioned 2022 Wold cup which this was/will be a prelude to as they start on the same day. The temporal dynamics here are/will be a bit hard to navigate at this/that point in time. I am starting to convince myself that this is all a poorly masked hoax. --Creol(talk) 05:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
It's a hoax. No information on this tournament's existence from FIFA, Qatar Football Association, Socceryway, or SofaScore. There is no website proving this tournament exists and there are no sources on the article. I say quick delete. Mwiqdoh (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@Eptalon: And just a note, you are confused with the FIFA Club World Cup, a tournament for clubs, whereas this is a fake international teams tournament using the same format as the Club World Cup. Mwiqdoh (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I deleted this one this morning, it's an obvious hoax. Thank you for noticing Eptalon (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit neededEdit

{{Tp}} currently redirects to {{Tl}} which is redirected to {{template link}}. Normally this is a simple re-aiming to correct the double redirect. In this case its not so easy. {{Tp}} is protected above my level hense I need an admin to wander over and repoint that thing for me. --Creol(talk) 21:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Creol:   done --Ferien (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks --Creol(talk) 21:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

double redirectsEdit

There are a host of double redirects at Special:DoubleRedirects that still need attention. The main problem I have wotking with them is that they are protected .js/.css pages and I cant edit them. (else I would have been done with this a while ago) Many of them seem to have been caused by user renaming and it is doubtful they would ever be used but they still should be dealt with. The list is in the format Page A redirects to Page B which redirects to target page C. To fix, the source on page B needs to be copied and replaced on Page A. Hense, Page A redirectd to target C and not page B (and on to target C). SO, if anyone who can edit protected pages wouldnt mind making the edits (about 15x copy from here - paste to there), It would be appreciated. --Creol(talk) 09:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Djsasso, needs crat/IA action. Vermont (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
All done...--Eptalon (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Core ContestEdit

Hello, Simple Wikipedia editors! :) My name is Vat, and I'm not very active on simplewiki, but I'm active on the English Wikipedia and English Wikivoyage. I recently had an idea for a simplewiki editing competition I've been talking about with some admins here, who like the idea. BRPever suggested I bring the idea up here, so other Simple Wikipedia editors can talk about it.

On enwiki, there's a competition called the Core Contest. The point of the Core Contest (TCC) is to find important articles that are in bad shape, and improve them over a six-week period. You can look at the entrants and winners from last year to get an idea of how the contest works. The contest has cash prizes, so the people who make the biggest improvements to an article win a small amount of money as thanks for their hard work. On enwiki, this is funded by Wikimedia UK.

The next enwiki TCC will run in February. BRPever and I are considering hosting a TCC on simplewiki. TCC seems like a good idea on simplewiki, because many important articles here are stubs or redlinked. The Vital Articles list includes many important articles that don't exist on simplewiki, or exist only as stubs, and a competition to encourage people to create and improve them could get a lot of important work done. Because simplewiki is an important project for audiences like children and English language learners, this could do a lot to expand free knowledge worldwide.

If simplewiki editors like the idea, we could look into getting a grant from the WMF to fund the competition. We could also consider getting a CentralNotice to advertise the contest on lots of projects. This could encourage people experienced with article writing elsewhere to edit simplewiki, helping expand the project. I'm coming here to see if simplewiki editors as a whole like the idea, and if it's something the simplewiki community would be interested in participating in. BRPever is interested in the idea, as is Vermont, but we would need to get a wider range of opinions to know if this is a thing people want to do.

Thank you for your time, and I'm interested in hearing from you. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea overall and I'm very happy to help out if I'm needed but we've got to consider: there are lots of things different from enwiki and simplewiki, and if we are trying to attract editors from other wikis, we need to make sure they can create simple articles. The core articles are typically the most difficult and complex articles to create (that's mainly why they haven't been created yet) and having tons more articles to simplifty from the flood of articles that will come in in a contest may be a problem. --Ferien (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
We would need to check possible entrants to make sure they would be able to participate. I was thinking mostly about the opposite problem (screening out people who can't write well enough at all, not just not simply enough), but that's important too. Of course, someone whose article wasn't simple enough wouldn't win the contest.
Core articles can be hard to write, but one unexpected thing about them is they can be easy to write, too -- because they're very general, you don't have to get too technical. I found that on enwiki, the TCC articles were often simpler than a more niche article on a similar topic would be. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, writing a language in simple terms often requires a higher language proficiency than non-simple articles, given the many grammatical and word choice possibilities that one needs to juggle to best explain complex concepts simply. See WP:HOW for more specific information. However, I don't really think it'll be an issue here. We have had edit-a-thon type projects before, which has worked well, and we can always check and improve articles that don't meet community standards. I'd be happy to participate in this. Vermont (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I was trying to find the best way to put that -- simple language can be very hard to write. But it can be easier, surprisingly, on some of these "big articles", because core articles tend to be about broad ideas and not the technical details that need harder language. I'm happy to hear people like the idea! Vaticidalprophet (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm interested. Anyone feel some kind of unofficial pre-contest qualifier to assess anyone's simple writing skill level? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Something that's pretty easy to implement, and cross check: Sentence length, one idea per sentence. What about a team of established SEWP editors. Before the contest ends (like halfway through): New editors get one "language simplicity review" per article, where these editors can point out problematic sections?--Eptalon (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
The usual TCC structure involves a panel of judges. Usually the judges have checked articles at the beginning and end, but on simplewiki the idea you propose of checking in the middle as well sounds good. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
My idea would be that the editors reviewing for language would not be part of the other judges; they'd simply point out isssues with the language complexity of the article (e.g. on the article talk page). The judges would then be able to see the development, and could assess whether the issues had been fixed. Note:Simple Wikipedia is not about adhering to word lists, it is about explaining well..--Eptalon (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello everyone. This idea was brought to me by Vat, and I liked it very much. If we get approval for CentralNotice, it can be a good opportunity to introduce our wiki to users and readers from other communities. The progress of the contest can be monitored as we go, and guidance to the participants can be provided by the people already familiar with Simple English. It can be judges or any member of the community. Thanks --BRP ever 04:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Just keep in mind that if we do go onto CentralNotice then a lot of people will see it. We will need to be careful because we could get a very large amount of pages to review. No other editing contest we have ever had before has had CentralNotice, so instead of getting around 10 people in a competition CentralNotice may increase that to 100s. Also this post has only been up for 3 days now so we might want to leave it a bit longer to see what other people think. --Ferien (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
As much as I would like to get more people over here. I don't think we could remotely handle the crush of people that would come from being on a CentralNotice. Not even slightly. I should also point out we actually have all the WP:VITAL articles created since it was mentioned above that we were missing many. That being said many of them need work. 100% in board with doing a local event to do this, but I do not think we could handle the flood of articles from advertising to other wikis. We already have a hard time keeping up with fixing articles from people coming over from other wikis assuming they know how to write simple and don't at all do so. People often don't realize it is very hard to write simple as opposed to writing just regular English. -Djsasso (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I discussed the CN opposition with Ferien on Discord and was asked to repost it here. It's extremely unlikely a CN would result in a crush of as many people as worried. The enwiki TCC is advertised extremely broadly across the entirety of that project, which is a much larger project than simplewiki, and still doesn't attract many signups; last year there were 17 signups, of which about two-thirds made any significant edits. 5 people were awarded prizes, which means more than one-third of the participants with significant edits received a prize. That's on a project with an order of magnitude more editors. On a project simplewiki's size, CN advertising would be needed just to get enough people to make it viable to run. As well, CN doesn't necessarily mean a huge blast across all of Wikimedia -- it can be very tightly focused on specific demographics, which would be the plan here, and which would result in a much smaller and more manageable uptake.
With regards to the "all Vital Articles exist on simplewiki" comment, I'm not just referring to Vital level 3 (which is the one linked from en:WP:VITAL), but also other levels. Many (most?) of the articles in levels 4 and 5 are missing, and many of those are still very core. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah Ferien had mentioned you talking about it. And that sounds good. But it wasn't so much the participants that I was concerned about as presumably people taking part in it would try hard to be simple etc because of wanting to excel in the contest. It was the people who didn't actually sign up but came because they had a link put up in front of them a little more blatantly than an interwiki link on the side. Those coming over and making a few edits here in more of a drive by method. However, I am sure you will get support based on the below. As I said love the contest I am just not sure about the advertising. -Djsasso (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  Support as proposed. I'll volunteer to assist with the contest in anyway I can. Operator873 connect 21:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  Oppose without reservation. The idea of getting people to work on articles with the prospect of, essentially, getting a cash prize for contributing the most to an article doesn't sound right to me. It shouldn't need to take the carrot of getting money being dangled in front of someone's face, to get them to contribute. DaneGeld (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello @DaneGeld, Cash prize is a sort of award here, and is often seen in several events around Wikimedia community. This contest isn't the first of this kind. And it's not really a lot of money to make people write pages for one and half month just to earn it. It's a small sum given to the winners as a token of appreciation. It is neither given, nor received in the manner you just pointed out. I have won some contest in Nepali wikipedia, got around $70. But I didn't participate in the contest for the money. I participated for the fun of it, and that small reward, gave satisfaction that no other $70 would. Thanks--BRP ever 16:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
We've also had cash prizes on other contests here, like Wiki Loves Women South Asia for example. People working in these competitions are usually competing to improve the encyclopedia, not to earn the cash. --Ferien (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
That's fine. I won't stand in the way of the contest, but I won't be contributing to something I morally disagree with. In the words of Dragon's Den, "I'm out." DaneGeld (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Neutral It seems a good idea, but I share similar thoughts as Ferien. If the articles are not simple enough, that would go on en, not here. SHB2000 (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  Support - looks like a great idea 😁 - TNT 14:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I can   Support this now. Vat has addressed all my concerns here. And as I have said already, I am very happy to help in reviewing the articles. --Ferien (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to join the contest, so   Support. I've been working to make enwiki content simpler, and I'm keen to see if I can take it a few steps further here. I was at first not that keen on cash prizes, but I know that this can mean a lot of some editors, for instance getting them a better computer to work on Wikipedia (or simply rent, also quite vital for editing work). Femkemilene (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, but monetary rewards might need in depth consideration as there can be disputes in judging etc. Oppose using CN to promote as clearly we cannot handle the load coming from multiple wikis as CN can be very pervasive in reach. One exception is that we tailor the CN settings that only certain amount of notifications, which in that sense a village pump announcement can work equally well or MMS. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Folklore is back!Edit

Please help translate to your language

You are humbly invited to participate in the Wiki Loves Folklore 2022 an international photography contest organized on Wikimedia Commons to document folklore and intangible cultural heritage from different regions, including, folk creative activities and many more. It is held every year from the 1st till the 28th of February.

You can help in enriching the folklore documentation on Commons from your region by taking photos, audios, videos, and submitting them in this commons contest.

You can also organize a local contest in your country and support us in translating the project pages to help us spread the word in your native language.

Feel free to contact us on our project Talk page if you need any assistance.

Kind regards,

Wiki loves Folklore International Team

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey 2022Edit

The Community Wishlist Survey 2022 is now open!

This survey is the process where communities decide what the Community Tech team should work on over the next year. We encourage everyone to submit proposals until the deadline on 23 January, or comment on other proposals to help make them better. The communities will vote on the proposals between 28 January and 11 February.

The Community Tech team is focused on tools for experienced Wikimedia editors. You can write proposals in any language, and we will translate them for you. Thank you, and we look forward to seeing your proposals! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Feminism and Folklore 2022Edit

Please help translate to your language

Greetings! You are invited to participate in Feminism and Folklore 2022 writing competion. This year Feminism and Folklore will focus on feminism, women biographies and gender-focused topics for the project in league with Wiki Loves Folklore gender gap focus with folk culture theme on Wikipedia.

You can help us in enriching the folklore documentation on Wikipedia from your region by creating or improving articles focused on folklore around the world, including, but not limited to folk festivals, folk dances, folk music, women and queer personalities in folklore, folk culture (folk artists, folk dancers, folk singers, folk musicians, folk game athletes, women in mythology, women warriors in folklore, witches and witch hunting, fairy tales and more. You can contribute to new articles or translate from the list of suggested articles here.

You can also support us in organizing the contest on your local Wikipedia by signing up your community to participate in this project and also translating the project page and help us spread the word in your native language.

Learn more about the contest and prizes from our project page. Feel free to contact us on our talk page or via Email if you need any assistance...

Thank you.

Feminism and Folklore Team,

Tiven2240 --05:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tiven2240: Hello! I just want to ask you a query! "You can help us in enriching the folklore documentation on Wikipedia from your region by creating or improving articles focused on folklore around the world, including, but not limited to folk festivals, folk dances, folk music, women and queer personalities in folklore, folk culture... ". In the above paragraph, I have a doubt. (1) Can we expand already created articles also? (2) What is meant by including, but not limited to? Does this mean that the mentioned topics are included but it's not only these mentioned topics but there are many many more topics eligible? Haoreima (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Haoreima,
Answering 1st question - you are free to expand already created articles, be sure to have 3000 bytes and 300 words in expansion for the jury to consider it for points.
2nd - The main aim of the project is to create/expand articles regarding local folk cultures and Women. It is not just limited to just folk dance, music, culture but every aspects of folk such as folk cusines, folk mythologies, etc.
We look forward for immense participation from you and the simple English Wikipedia community :) --Tiven2240 (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Tiven2240: Is the contest to be organised on the basis of country or on the basis of particular languages' wikis? I am asking this because I saw a French version of the contest organising only for the country of Benin🇧🇯 (an African French speaking nation)! Seems it excludes France even though it's in French. In another case, Bengali is organising for both India and Bangladesh at a single contest. While Assamese is organising only for India! I saw all these from here. (1) Could you please clarify what is the rule of the contest based on country, language and wikis? (2) Can a participant expand article created by another editor? Haoreima (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Haoreima, just to clarify that this wiki - the simple English Wikipedia is a global wiki wherein people from various countries can participate. Some Wikipedias are language specific such as Assamese Gujarati Marathi etc which are all based in India but have different language Wikipedia. So this project is not limited to just one country or language. Any person from any part of globe who is an editor on simple English Wikipedia can participate in the contest.
2) yes a participant can expand article created by another user.
Feel free to ping me or contact us on project talkpage if you need any assistance. Best wishes. --Tiven2240 (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I found an article that needs cleaning up.Edit

Like I said, I found an article that needs major cleanup. I tried to clean it up, but the info is so jumbled I can't even follow along. I came here because the person who responded to my help request on my user talk page couldn't fix it either.(No offense to them) I'm hoping someone here knows how to deal with pages like these.

Here's the article: Nokia 8800

Thanks, Midknight of the Abyss (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Call for Feedback about the Board of Trustees elections is now openEdit

The Call for Feedback: Board of Trustees elections is now open and will close on 7 February 2022.

With this Call for Feedback, the Movement Strategy and Governance team is taking a different approach. This approach incorporates community feedback from 2021. Instead of leading with proposals, the Call is framed around key questions from the Board of Trustees. The key questions came from the feedback about the 2021 Board of Trustees election. The intention is to inspire collective conversation and collaborative proposal development about these key questions.

There are two confirmed questions that will be asked during this Call for Feedback:

  1. What is the best way to ensure more diverse representation among elected candidates? The Board of Trustees noted the importance of selecting candidates who represent the full diversity of the Wikimedia movement. The current processes have favored volunteers from North America and Europe.
  2. What are the expectations for the candidates during the election? Board candidates have traditionally completed applications and answered community questions. How can an election provide appropriate insight into candidates while also appreciating candidates’ status as volunteers?

There is one additional question that may be presented during the Call about selection processes. This question is still under discussion, but the Board wanted to give insight into the confirmed questions as soon as possible. Hopefully if an additional question is going to be asked, it will be ready during the first week of the Call for Feedback.

Join the conversation.


Movement Strategy and Governance, Zuz (WMF) (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Please rename "Alexine Tinné" to "Alexine Tinne"Edit

Could an admin please change the name of this page to Alexine Tinne? See the Talk page in the English Wikipedia. — CvZ (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

CvZ,   Done --Ferien (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! CvZ (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk:The Game of Death#?Edit (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Definition of 100 edits and logged actionsEdit

A quick one, per the RFDA, why not we just change the policy to state explicitly 100 edits the "edits" aren't automated / semi-automated or bot like. I think this might be relevant via a policy change but well we can go to RFDA route too and then nothing needs to be changed. Ideas? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Question about Cat-a-lot preferencesEdit

Is there a method to change the edit speed of Cat-a-lot ? When I was using this at JAWP, one user asked me to do so n order to avoid floods in the "New changes" page. MathXplore (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)