Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Delete the April Fools AFD's on this page

Per WP:BRD. I want the april fools AFD nominations to be removed from this page. No other talk page does this, it seems pointless, and the "consensus" is wrong anyways. Also there is no humor template. @Johnjbarton SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Having a look at Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2024, you might be right. Why did you delete the merge though? CMD (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis That was a mistake I made. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Done a few more spotchecks, found Talk:Balloon, but that's the only one so far. CMD (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis doesn't really make sense to include april fools AFD nominations. April fools day on wikipedia is contained to just April 1st, not for it to be actually used. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

They might be humorous, but they were actually filed. I say keep them, it's what the Old Afd-template is for. I don't know of any routine to exclude "funny" afd:s, my default assumption is that if it happened, it should be added. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Keepers, for the humour alone (and the ever-present historic value). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion. I don't agree with your reasons for your delete:

• "No other page does this," No other page is named "Wikipedia" either. Many pages have old-AfD listings, but I've never seen such a listing deleted. Perhaps deleting these are more common than I think.
• "it seems pointless" If you mean the Fools part, please see Humour As with any art form, the acceptance of a particular style or incidence of humour depends on sociological factors and varies from person to person. If you mean retaining a list of old AfD, then please start an RFC to remove Template:Old XfD multi from all pages.
• "the "consensus" is wrong anyways." I am unclear on what this means. The word "consensus" appears in your proposed delete in the sentence The discussion was closed on 27 February 2010 with a consensus to merge. which appears to me to be true based on the records.

Johnjbarton (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

As I noted above, from my checks it seems the majority of April Fools AfDs are removed from their relevant talkpages. CMD (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis I agree that is a reasonable argument to remove the April Fools AfD on this page. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton consensus of the AFD's SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

If you believe the consensus of the AfD's is incorrect, I suppose you can attempt to appeal them with an RFC but I think that is very unlikely to be popular. I don't see how your opinion on the consensus of these AfD becomes an argument to delete the record. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I kind of also agree with you that we should update this page instead of deleting it. Bro StaRs (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Fwiw, the OP is currently indeffed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support removal Generally agree with the consistency argument put forward by SimpleSub. I also can see this being confusing to new editors, who might come to this talk page as they are trying to figure out how Wikipedia works and get a false impression that it is proper process to nominate articles about clearly notable subjects for deletion over concerns about things like article quality, bias, etc. Flip^andFlopped ツ 22:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

"Wikipediya" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipediya has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 4 § Wikipediya until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 1 April 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: an immovable object. (non-admin closure) AlphaBeta135  talk 22:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC) ~~~~

---

Wikipedia → Dickipedia - Hear me out: we move this to Dickipedia, take the 1 billion dollars, divide it between us, and then rename it back to Wikipedia 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 𐩱𐩨𐩥 𐩺𐩣𐩬 (𓃵) 11:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hopefully the payment isn't in Dogecoin... CherrySoda 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry. It'll be in cash and cash equivalents. guninvalid (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Move to Wikivagina, to counteract our pro-male bias. -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 4 § Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. until a consensus is reached. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 00:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

"Semi-Protected" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Semi-Protected has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 20 § Semi-Protected until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 12:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

"Full protected" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Full protected has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 27 § Full protected until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 14:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Updating Vector 2022

Do you often agree that that new information about the skin should be included in history, such as these sister projects, like Wiktionary and Wikivoyage adapting the new skin and minor updates in 2024-2025? If you exactly disagree, please explain why. AmazingWikis4386 (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

"The Wikipedia page" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The Wikipedia page has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 28 § The Wikipedia page until a consensus is reached. Gaismagorm (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Is it too subjective?

I was about to edit what I thought was subjective in the first paragraph, where it brags about its stats as most visited reference work, and I was about to delete it but I wanted to check first to make sure it wasn't subjective. Empirejack182 (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

You will need to build a convincing case the sources given in that paragraph are not reliable. They look good to me. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I read them, they look good. Empirejack182 (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I know this discussion ended, but I wanted to revitalize this because I read the first sentence, which feels a bit subjective or NPOV to me:

Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, written and maintained by a community of volunteers, known as Wikipedians, through open collaboration and the wiki software MediaWiki.

The information is true, but the phrasing seems a bit like advertising/promoting the wiki and too long. I think just mentioning that it is a wiki is enough.

My rephrasing proposal:

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia in the form of a wiki hosted through the wiki software MediaWiki.

I think the open collaboration part can go in other sentences (maybe a new sentence after this should be made?).

Looking forward to everyone's thoughts! :) grafiXal (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Should we add its motto somewhere? I feel like we should but I don't know where. it could fit in the opener or somewhere in articles body. "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" motto as is in quotes. JamesEMonroe (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

"Encyclopedia (iPhone application)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Encyclopedia (iPhone application) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing until a consensus is reached. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 22:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia in a novel

Hi, In the novel Project Hail Mary, an astronaut gives a copy of Wikipedia to an alien as the sum of all human knowledge. I think it would be interesting to mention that somewhere. Yann (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Recent attempts to reduce reliance on primary sources

I believe the last time this was talked about was at Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 25#Too many primary sources. I've recently aquired some books about Wikipedia that I plan to use to remedy this issue. I've spent a lot of the past hour making various edits but I don't think I'll be able to do it all in one sitting. Obviously, I'm being quite WP:BOLD here already so if anyone has any objections to anything in particular feel free to be comment here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Outdated factoid

Wikipedia is now the ninth most visited website, underneath reddit.com; however, the article still states that it is the eighth most visited. I do not have editing access, so please update it. 24.136.20.49 (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be able to update it if you are able to provide a citation to a reliable source. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 July 2025

Review of Changes Wikipedia's Editing Interface Burkett955 (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done I don't understand what you want changed. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's article about itself" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia's article about itself has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 5 § Wikipedia's article about itself until a consensus is reached. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

"Wikipedia’s" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia’s has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 7 § Wikipedia’s until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:54, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

"Wikiepda" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikiepda has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 7 § Wikiepda until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 19 § Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. until a consensus is reached. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 07:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Is the openness section really overly detailed or promotional?

I've reverted the bold edit made here by Floating Orb which added maintenance tags to the openness section. I definitely think this article has issues (see the section I started above) but I don't think these tags specifically are relevant. Outside opinions are welcome. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@Floating Orb: your thoughts are welcome as well! I just don't completely understand why you think this information is overly detailed. Is it because there are a few references to primary sources in there and you think that detail is extraneous? That's an issue with the article more broadly and not just that section but I'd understand your position more if that was the case. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking that it really talks about information that only guidelines need to say. Most people don't need to know about the "auto-confirmed" users anyway and if you really want to learn about it you should probably go to a guideline. Some of the section is cited to news, some of it is cited to primary sources (which are guidelines), and some of it is books (that's fine). If the information is primary sourced, then it doesn't actually need to be there that much if nowhere else covers it. Either way, it has over 120 primary sources. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 01:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@Floating Orb: I agree that there's too many primary sources. However, I don't think it's just confined to that one section specifically. I do think that a lot of the content cited to primary sources right now could theoretically be replaced with stronger sourcing. There are actually several books written about Wikipedia. I've been using one of them a lot in the past 24 hours to try and improve the state of things. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, that's good. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 04:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

It's impossible NOT to promote Wikipedia when we are on the website looking at the article for said website. GarethBaloney (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 16:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I see both perspectives here. While the section does have a large number of primary sources, I think the concern about replacing them with stronger secondary sources is valid. At the same time, if the information is genuinely useful and properly cited, it may still serve readers well. Perhaps a balance could be struck, keeping the most relevant details while trimming down anything that seems overly specific or guideline-level. Imharminder (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Does anyone else think anything? Should we put a tag? Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 02:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I think inviting more editors to weigh in makes sense before adding any tags. If consensus leans towards trimming or tagging, I’d support that approach. Imharminder (talk) 04:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 16:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_4.0_International_License 61.19.252.157 (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Promotional lede?

Was looking through the article a while back and saw that the lede was oddly promotional - was hoping it would change, but that isn't the case. I mean, things like Wikipedia exists in over 340 languages and is the world's ninth most visited website. The English Wikipedia, with over 7 million articles, remains the largest of the editions, which together comprise more than 65 million articles and attract more than 1.5 billion unique device visits and 13 million edits per month (about 5 edits per second on average) as of April 2024, Wikipedia has been praised for enabling the democratization of knowledge, its extensive coverage, unique structure, and culture. Wikipedia has been censored by some national governments, ranging from specific pages to the entire site, While the reliability of Wikipedia was frequently criticized in the 2000s, it has improved over time, receiving greater praise from the late 2010s onward and articles on breaking news are often accessed as sources for up-to-date information about those events exist in the lead; there's more promotional stuff than it's history. ^EF⁵ 13:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The wording backs up the accurate and historically pertinent fact that "Wikipedia is the largest and most-read reference work in history", and goes on to describe the work in an encyclopedic fashion. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I know, but two of the three lede paragraphs are for the most part material that could feasibly be seen as promotional. Why does it not expand on the history, or anything else for that matter? The article's well over 70,000 bytes; I'm sure the majority of those bytes aren't just promotional things. ^EF⁵ 13:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Re-reading the words you highlighted, and they all seem applicable to the encyclopedic content and describing the topic to readers. More could be added if well-written, but the parts mentioned seem to summarize the major notability of the work. My 2 cents (or 40 cents adjusted for inflation). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I guess that's fair, lol. Also, I sent you an email a few months ago and clumsily forgot to notify you; that's probably buried somewhere in your inbox. ^EF⁵ 13:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

"The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 1 § The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit until a consensus is reached. A1Cafel (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

"!vote" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect !vote has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 23 § !vote until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia says traffic is falling due to AI search summaries

Recent reports say wikipedia is losing traffic to bots and ai. I think this report is well covered by some sources. Not sure if this is the correct article to add right now. Should we add these infos now? Dagoofybloke (🥀) 16:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Agree God damn Artificial Intelligence. I think we need a separate part entitled "Wikipedia vs Artificial Intelligence" which contains Wikipedia approaches to AI (using policy) and the effects that it receives from it. This new statistics can be included in that part. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

a standalone article for that sounds good. I think for now.. a section "Wikipedia and Artificial intelligence"( Not sure how to title that lol) in this article can be added to summarise the recent reports regarding the loss of traffic to bots. Dagoofybloke (🥀) 16:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

update: just added a section on that. I am not an experienced editor so do check on that. Dagoofybloke (🥀) 17:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

"Weekeepeedeeah" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Weekeepeedeeah has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 26 § Weekeepeedeeah until a consensus is reached. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 09:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

First line

@Randy Kryn Hi, the "first line" should contain "definition", therefore it should follow Occam's razor. So if you think these two definitions:

Wikipedia is a free online multilingual encyclopedia written and maintained by a community of volunteers, known as Wikipedians, through open collaboration and the wiki software MediaWiki.

and

Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia written and maintained by a community of volunteers, known as Wikipedians, through open collaboration and the wiki software MediaWiki.

For most people have the same explanatory power, then according to Occam's razor we should select the second one, and we can remove "multilingual". But I don't think so. Because being "multilingual" is a very important aspect of Wikipedia. Please note that the second paragraph does not contain the definition, and follows separate rules. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 07:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Hooman Mallahzadeh. The first line of the second paragraph fleshes out the language edition aspect of Wikipedia, which adequately covers this information. The word "multilingual" may confuse some readers, especially presented so early (first sentence) and adds redundant lead data which is soon presented in a better description. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is singular, while Wikipedia as multiple encyclopedias - its hundreds of language editions - would be plural. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

logging in

It is no good saying you are not logged in without providing an easily accessible link by which to do it 80.41.3.131 (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

A good place to discuss this would be WP:Teahouse. This page is to discuss the article Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

You may want Special:UserLogin (or Special:CreateAccount for creating an account). SeaDragon1 (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia's has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 2 § Wikipedia's until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Video about horrors on Wikipedia

Uploaded by Something Sinister. Legit source? Espngeek (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Fascinating, but not a source in my opinion. Maybe see also? Regards, a most likely very cozy Cooldood5555 ✈️ (let's talk) 03:21, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

No, we don't use non-reliable links as see alsos either. Someone's niche YouTube channel is not anything we need to mention or link to. Meters (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Misattributed/sourced Reagle quotes?

In the "Accuracy of content" subsection, we have Joseph Reagle suggested that while the study reflects "a topical strength of Wikipedia contributors" in science articles, "Wikipedia may not have fared so well using a random sampling of articles or on humanities subjects."

References

Using sarch on the PDF, I am unable to find either of those quotes there (no use of "topical", "random", or "humanities".) Perhaps he said them somewhere else? I've flagged for a failed verification, but this should be cleaned. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

 Self-trout I'm so sorry! I've literally been sleeping at 12-3 AM so my sanity might not be good --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 03:54, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear for those looking on, p-a-a is not apologizing for some thing they've done to the article; they posted a intended-to-be-helpful-but-not-appropriate-to-the-situation response, and then undid it, then posted the trout. (I'm only pointing this other edits don't think they're saying they were the one who posted the material in question, or have done something to correct the matter; the matter is still unaddressed.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Mega Announcement!

I know i am one day late to this, but Wikipedia is officially 25 years old! Show some love, respect and positivity to all editors and administrators. Happy Birthday to the free and ultimate encyclopedia! MainRecline (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:25th anniversary for all of the backstage parts of this. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Chenge name

The lead section should include the full name “Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj” instead of only “Shivaji”, as per proper naming conventions and cultural respect. ~2026-20208-88 (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Did you really need to go to the article for Wikipedia to say this? This talk page is meant to discuss about edits to the article itself, and is not meant to discuss about Wikipedia, or request edits on different pages.

--------

The FAQ of the Shivaji talk page clearly states:

Q: Why can I not add "Shri", "Chhatrapati", or "Maharaj" to Shivaji's name?

A: Per WP:Honorifics and WP:Commonname, in Wikipedia, we refer to people by their commonly used name in the cited academic sources. We do not include titles or Honorifics unless they are commonly used in the cited sources (Shivaji does not fall in this category).

For example, Charles III is referred to as "Charles" throughout, not "King Charles" or "His Royal Highness" or whatnot. We clearly note Shivaji's titles in the article, we just don't repeat them each time his name is written.

Please refer to this talk discussion for more details.

---------

I personally, am also an Indian, and I understand why you want this, but Wikipedia editors have already made consensus to keep the article name as Shivaji long before this. Nugs | T·C | (they/she) 04:20, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2026

I need to change grammar, the grammar is horrible, I won't vandalize it, I promise. ~2026-19484-89 (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2026 (UTC) Pls accept

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Question

Just curious: aren't we technically biased on this article? SeaDragon1 (talk) — Happy new year! 17:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

In what way? HiLo48 (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, we are part of Wikipedia. SeaDragon1 (talk) — Happy new year! 17:35, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

How does that make "us" biased? Are you perhaps thinking of something closer to WP:COI? HiLo48 (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. Got those two mixed up. SeaDragon1 (talk) — Happy new year! 03:05, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

There's a big COI banner up there ahaha Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice. My brain just skipped over the banners. SeaDragon1 (talk) — Happy new year! 21:52, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

lol Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 00:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Your signature is a bit... old lol

Also Happy April Fools! (It just became April 2nd for me lol, but whatever) Nugs | T·C | (they/she) 04:30, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't exactly update. It only adds "Happy new year" if it's in January. SeaDragon1 (talk, contributions) 16:14, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Huh Nugs | T·C | (they/she) 06:26, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Is this relevant?

Wikipedia search peak: Nov 2007 (100 searches)
Wikipedia search dip: Jun-Jul 2025 (10 searches) SeaDragon1 (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know *_*JX*_* (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify something here. Those number don’t mean how many times a term has been searched, just the search interest.

Numbers represent search interest relative to the highest point on the chart for the given region and time. A value of 100 is the peak popularity for the term. A value of 50 means that the term is half as popular. A score of 0 means there was not enough data for this term.

OrbitalVoid49 (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Huh. Is it still relevant, though, that the peak popularity was on Nov 2007 and the least was Jun-Jul 2025? SeaDragon1 (talk, contributions) 14:14, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

References

Chenge name

The lead section should include the full name “Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj” instead of only “Shivaji”, as per proper naming conventions and cultural respect. ~2026-20208-88 (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

assuming by the fact you did not create an account and posted this twice, I have a slight suspicion of possible sockpuppeteering. i'm not saying this IP editor is a sockpuppet, but if you want to investigate, go ahead. Theonethatknowsyouripaddress (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Username checks out, lol

But do you really have permissions to read IP's of temp accounts?.. Nugs | T·C | (they/she) 03:48, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

@Theonethatknowsyouripaddress, look at Shivaji. I think since the talk page has gotten semi-protected after a spam of these type of requests, this is what some people are doing.

Based on what someone else said there, this is probably being organized off-wiki. Nugs | T·C | (they/she) 04:27, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

The talk page is not semi-protected presently, but it was at about the time this request was made. Editors watching Talk:Shivaji are summarily reverting off requests of this nature as a case of refusing to read the FAQ or anything on the talk page (an issue that seems to plague any other controversial Indian topic) and as 500/30 violations (as Shivaji cleanly falls into that topic area).

Based on several of the requests making mention of Google, I'm thinking it has to do with displeasure with how Google's Knowledge Graph renders his name, in a manner similar to Muslim fury over their mishandling of "caliph of Islam" questions. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 14:27, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, whatever's going on, it's not just annoying me, but making me mad >:( - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 15:05, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Language family cartogram

Language family cartogram is wrong. Completely different languages included in one family. ~2026-22511-37 (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

While similar languages are separated ~2026-22511-37 (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Can you be more specific, such as by pointing to an article? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:11, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

This may be my mistake. I am the one who rewrote the caption to say that the languages are grouped by family. Prior to my rewrite, the caption said that the languages were grouped by "region of continent", which didn't make sense since English is spoken on 4 continents (America, Europe, South Africa, and Australia).

Pinging Arief Azazie Zain, the creator of the cartogram, for input on what they think the caption should say. Off and running (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

It seems to be a geographical grouping. Roughly: northern European in blue, southern European in red, eastern European in yellow, Middle Eastern in orange, East Asian in green, Central Asian in grey, Indian in light blue, South/East African in brown, and Caribbean in purple. It is certainly not by language family. CMD (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I have revised the caption per your groupings, with the exception of substituting "Sub-Sahara Africa" for "South/East Africa". Off and running (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

It should be simply "Africa" only those 3

There's no others no other native languages in there, it's only Afrikaans Swahili and Malagasy Arief Azazie Zain (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

It should be Sub-Saharan Africa, because Arabic is the language of North Africa. Off and running (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Um... I should add Egyptian Arabic???

So I should add it to the Sub-Saharan Africa or move the Egyptian Arabic to the Middle East group? Arief Azazie Zain (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Egyptian Arabic would belong in the Middle Eastern group. Off and running (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes it simply should be in that Arief Azazie Zain (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Are you wanna edit the image? I'm sorry I can't edit because Wikimedia Commons is now blocked in Indonesia Arief Azazie Zain (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

You don't have to update the image, but if you do, you can upload to Wikipedia, and then someone else can transfer it to the Commons. Off and running (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

How to upload the image to Wikipedia? I don't know, I have only uploaded through Wikimedia Commons and that cartogram I uploaded through it too Arief Azazie Zain (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Click on the link to upload a file, and then tell the system that the file is protected by copyright, but being uploaded as fair use. If you tell the system that the file is copyright free it will take you to the Commons.

After you upload, you can substitute the licensing tags with the template {{self|cc-zero}}, which is the tag you are using the for the file you uploaded to the commons two years ago. Off and running (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

If I click "Upload media" in my contributions page then it will lead to Commons

But hello where's the link you have mentioned??? There's no link there you should put on your link in your reply Arief Azazie Zain (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

This link, Wikipedia:File upload wizard, allows you to either upload files to Wikipedia (if the file is not copyright free), or to the commons (if the file is copyright free).

So upload your file as if it's copyrighted with a fair use rationale, and then afterwards change the licensing by substituting the template {{self|cc-zero}}. With that template, the file will eventually find its way to the Commons (and if you alert me, I will transfer it myself). Off and running (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello it's me here... what can I help ya? Arief Azazie Zain (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to the ping. Since you're here, I was wondering how come your cartogram is missing the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia. It should have been in the top 88 Wikipedias in 2024, when you generated the cartogram, because the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia crossed the 1 million article mark in July 2020. Off and running (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh yeah I forgot ('^_^) but still, I remembered that Wikimedia Commons is blocked in Indonesia (Indonesia is the country that I'm living now) so I cannot upload the image... maybe some of you can edit but that's all ok? Arief Azazie Zain (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Where is Baby Globe?

I know we all celebrated Wikipedia's 25th anniversary, but where is the adorable guy? Sure he appears on the homepage, not to be confused with the main page, but i want a full answer. UltraAtom (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

meta:Wikipedia 25/Easter egg experiments says the feature is not available after April 6. =( SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo :( F1fan00 (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

You can find all the animations of Baby Globe at commons:Category:Baby Globe. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

A 25 year old is not a baby, don't know why this was even a thing. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

It was a little fun thing Wikipedia did to commemorate their 25th birthday, just so happened to be a Baby Globe, but tbf, it looks too cute :D F1fan00 (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

GA Nomination Proposal

While I have never contributed to the article, i would have to nominate it because it meets almost all of the GA criteria, which is well sourced, has multiple related pages, sufficiently medium-sized, and that it has sufficient history. ~2026-23593-89 (talk) 08:07, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, it is top in multiple WikiProjects, especially Internet Culture, Wikipedia, and Websites. ~2026-23593-89 (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the positive feedback. One item that may cause an issue with GA is the use of "Wikipedia-affiliated and primary sources", which might require wider discussion. CMD (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis While it uses Wikipedia-affiliated sources, it meets almost all of the GA or A-class criteria, according to WP:ASSESS which is why it looks, feels, and behaves like a GA or an A-class article. ~2026-23593-89 (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

About removal of mission statement from leading paragraph

Hello, @Randy Kryn (author of revision with removed quote from lead paragraph (not needed there, and one of many quotes. please discuss on the talk page, thanks summary) and everyone else that is interested. I think the sentence (that I had recently added to the article):

"According to Jimmy Wales, its mission is to make the sum of all human knowledge available to every person in the world"

Is not out of place at all in the article. Maybe it's not needed in the leading paragraph(s), but I think it should be in the article. I think that the the argument that it is one of many quotes is not a good reason to remove it, because it is not just a quote: it's why Wikipedia was created (said by one of its two creators), and its primary reason of being, so I think it should be part of this article (the sentence is also very similar to WMF's mission statement).

This is my opinion about the topic. Consensus will decide if the sentence is restored to the article (or not), and in what place. MGeog2022 (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm usually on the fence about mission statements due to lots of them being vague pablum, but this is one that has persisted and drove things and issued by a founder. IMO should be in the article and probably in the lead. North8000 (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

The lead is meant to be a broad overview of the article hitting the key points; this has no business being there, period. I would further oppose its inclusion anywhere in the article, unless there's any secondary commentary about the extent to which WP has or hasn't lived up to this goal. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:28, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Not the correct quote, and not in the lead paragraph, maybe add the correct Wales quote later in the lead or in the background section. This is an encyclopedic article not a promotional statement. Secondly, the quote is from 2013, long after Wales (might as well call him in, Jimbo Wales issued his well-known definition "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." That's the early and truest definition. Within its language it implies 'all languages' ("every single person on the planet"). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the statement is not promotional at all: it's about Wikipedia's mission, not about if it has been accomplished or not. If it was about its degree of accomplishment, it could be considered as self-promotion, since it's highly subjective.

In this context, the sum of all human knowledge obviously means the sum of all notable human knowledge. Depending on where you put the threshold of notability, it can be considered that the target has already been fully accomplished, if you put a low threshold. If you increase the threshold, it can be considered that we are in a work-in-progress to achieve it, and that we are very likely to arrive there in the future. If you put a vert high threshold, it's almost certain that the target will never be achieved. But it's evident that Wikipedia has already accomplished its mission for some level of notability, and is in a perpetual work-in-progress to gradually increase that level over time (that is, the mission statement is not just a promotional slogan or a fantasy).

By the way, the same statement is present, for example, in the initial paragraphs of Spanish Wikipedia's article about Wikipedia (and it was not added by me, there):un mundo en el que cada persona del planeta tenga acceso libre a la suma de todo el saber de la humanidad (a world in which every person on the planet has free access to the sum of all human knowledge). MGeog2022 (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the bold letters, @Randy Kryn: I see, the exact words were not those from the original quote. Maybe the cited source changed some words, or maybe Wales also said the other sentence in another moment (but this would not make it relevant enough if it's not clearly mentioned as Wikipedia's primary mission in, for example, an official WMF site, or in several reliable external sources). MGeog2022 (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you MGeog2022 for bringing this topic here. It seems to have agreement that's it a good idea to include a mission statement sentence on the page, the discussion seems to be about which one and where to place it. The quote you added was from 2013, made in an interview, and not the "official" defining quote highlighted above, which includes everything that Wales later quoted in the 2013 interview but in an earlier and better known form. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn, you're welcome :-). Yes, I found the statement was missing in this article, when compared with, for example, Spanish Wikipedia, as I mentioned. Let's hope this discussion arrives at the best option, to later apply it. MGeog2022 (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I support the inclusion in the lead of Jimbo Wales's 2013 quote on Wikipedia's mission. The 2013 quote is more succinct than the banner quote appearing in WP:ABOUT, making it more appropriate for use in the lead. The 2013 quote does not contradict the banner quote in WP:ABOUT, so I don't really understand the objection to using it. Off and running (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

The question we should ask is how much secondary coverage it has received and how much focus that coverage gives it. WP:MISSIONSTATEMENT doesn't mean we can never include mission statements; it means we should generally avoid covering them via WP:ABOUTSELF, lending them weight only when covered by secondary sources, and only to the extent that they're given weight by secondary sources. --Aquillion (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Here are a couple of articles I found evaluating Wikipedia's mission statement:

1. Paper by Mesgari et al.. The very first sentence in the abstract says "Wikipedia might possibly be the best-developed attempt thus far of the enduring quest to gather all human knowledge in one place"
2. A 2014 essay in the Oxford Internet Institute that critiques the Wikipedia mission statement saying that "The sum of all knowledge is a laudable goal, but let’s make sure we focus more explicitly on the diversity of knowledge whilst we get there".

So there is definitely secondary coverage to Wikipedia's mission statement. Off and running (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Please note that WP:MISSIONSTATEMENT is an essay, not an official policy. The affirmation that mission statements rarely provide any insight into the organization, what it does, or the impact it has is the personal opinion of the user or users who wrote it. I agree that this can be true for many organizations, but not necessarily for Wikipedia, where there is evidence that the mission is being followed (always considering that we are talking about notable, relevant knowledge, known by humanity in the 21st century; the sum of all human knowledge is obviously impossible to achieve). MGeog2022 (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

There has been no further comments on this for the last week. It seems that, at the moment, there is no consensus that the quote is suitable for the leading paragraphs, but it also seems that there is for including it in other part of the article. The text should be the exact quote as said by Jimmy Wales in 2013. I only have one problem: I can't find a suitable place in the article, other than the leading paragraphs (or the history section, but I think that such a statement doesn't belong to the history section: it's about Wikipedia's mission, not just a sentence that was said at some moment in the past).

Any ideas are welcome (of course, any editor wanting to add it in a suitable place is also welcome). MGeog2022 (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

A few thoughts. The most prominent statement by a founder carries a lot of weight. I don't have the more though knowledge to determine whether nor not the statement is question is that. Second, mission statements define the mission and influence activities accordingly. IMO it's not relevant to this discussion whether or not the mission has been achieved. Next secondary coverage is fine to use as a criteria in a discussion but it is not a requirement for inclusion. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Deletion?

Wikipedia's Wikipedia page is a conflict of interest.

It cannot be made correctly in good faith. For this reason, we should not have it.

All of us editors will only want to speak positively about it and dismiss any controversies or criticisms. We can't be unbiased, so we should just not have a page on Wikipedia itself.

Thoughts? ~2026-25027-46 (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

There's no evidence all editors will only want to speak positively on it. At any rate, it is for many editors one of many hobbies they'll feel positively for, and we have articles on those hobbies as well. Ultimately, all articles are generally worked on by those with interest in that topic. CMD (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I second this. Not everyone who edits the wiki likes the wiki. Of course, such a wild claim was made by a temp account. One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 14:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2026

Please include Baby Globe in the article, since it is a character to celebrate Wikipedia's 25th anniversary/birthday It is good to include him into the article (with reliable sources) so readers would read that small sub-section. ~2026-23593-89 (talk) 04:31, 18 April 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. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 11:12, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

the temp account isn't asking for something to be replaced, it's asking for something to be added. One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 14:23, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Edit Request: two words need fixing

In the article, please change "other,s" to "others," and "futu,re" to "future,". (There is only one instance of each.) Thanks. ~2026-10237-39 (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for reporting EvergreenFir (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

"Wikipeedea" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipeedea has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 6 § Vikipaedia + Wikipeedea until a consensus is reached. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 19:22, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

"Extended-confirmed protected" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Extended-confirmed protected has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 13 § Extended confirmed protected until a consensus is reached. Mathguy2718 (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Bias

This is a pretty long article, and has a substantial section on Bias. Some of what could be there has been put into an article on Ideological bias, but perhaps it would be better for all this to be put into one article on bias. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2026 (UTC)