...the single-sentence paragraphs, the lack of flow within paragraphs, the broken connections between paragraphs, the weak large-scale architecture in the article, the huge number of references for a paltry amount of data, the lack of distinction between important and trivial facts.
Record a new audio file once it reaches FA standard
Other:
Is it worth having an FAQ like other heavy traffic articles? E.g. "Why should Wikipedia have an article on itself?"
The "sub-articles" that were split off from this article are badly in need of attention, as are several other related articles. The following all need work:
History of Wikipedia — this one in particular is missing information and should be reorganized
Can we get the first three of these into a template somehow?
Many other language Wikipedia articles of questionable notability, particularly the smallest ones. A thorough going through is needed, with non-notable articles being AFD material.
Images: update graph in history section
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Expand : Add information about how well the open model is working. The number of articles protected and its evolution in time. Even better, share of reads (hits) according to page protection status.
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
Folklore: Is This Or Is This Not A Current Endeavour?
Folklore: Is this a current endeavor? I have seen it in one instance but when I looked for it, I couldn't find it as an endeavour; only as pages of the many different cultural references and other relevant information, including detailed definitions and information therefore. Please, if this is a current endeavour, contact me. I am quite interested in this topic! Reikimom333 (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Randy Kryn. I'm just so glad to find such a collection of folklore that is here. It could always use more, and I shall keep the hope for more and future contributions. Reikimom333 (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks, your concern makes sense. This was a new edit and have asked that it be talked-paged if the editor wants to return it. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Erasmus Prize (2015)
The text says in the section "Cultural influence" - awards: "In 2015, Wikipedia was awarded (both) the annual Erasmus Prize, which recognizes exceptional contributions to culture, society or social sciences," It would be good / nice / fair to add, that the prize specifically has been awarded to Wikipedia as a community - the collective enterprise of tens of thousands of volunteers who, worldwide, offer support to build the initiative" (Original text in Dutch: "De prijs werd in het bijzonder toegekend aan Wikipedia als community – de gezamenlijke onderneming van tienduizenden vrijwilligers die, wereldwijd, helpen om dit initiatief vorm te geven." see: website erasmusprijs.org) Thanks! VanArtevelde (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: The link linked under "the original" is supposed to be broken. If you check out citation #2 in the references list, you will see that there are two links: one that links to the original, broken page, and one to a web.archive.org version that is still accessible. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Punctuation error
The end of the third paragraph says “While the reliability of Wikipedia was frequently criticized in the 2000s, it has improved over time, receiving greater praise from the late 2010s onward. while becoming an important fact-checking site.” There’s a period there that should be removed or replaced with a comma. Pittypotty (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I understand that every article’s “talk” page in Wikipedia is for discussing improvements to their Main article and they’re really not a forum for general discussion of the article’s subject. But …
2nd of all, I believe Wikipedia should have a “2nd talk” page for every Wikipedia Article, mainly for General Discussion of the main article’s subject. I may even want to discuss the main subject with Wikipedians only and nobody else on social media elsewhere (such as YouTubers, Facebookers, Quorans, people from X (formerly known as Twitter) and Reddit).
Overall, there should be 3 tabs for every subject on Wikipedia, which are …
“Article”, “Main Talk” and “General Talk”! Then everyone can keep the “Main Talk” page for discussing “Improvements” to Wikipedia’s Main Article only and everyone can keep the “General Talk” page for asking questions and discussing everything else related to the article’s main subject, if it’s not about “how to fix the article’s main page with improvements”. 🙂
Thanks GSK for reminding me of that, and I understand that this current page is for exactly what you said, but I am stating a point that there should be a 3RD PAGE mainly for Discussion of the Wikipedia Article itself! 🙂 Craig Lungren (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And this isn't the right place for that discussion. As the big red box at the top of the page header says: This page is for discussion of the article about Wikipedia, not for discussion of Wikipedia itself. Try WP:VILLAGEPUMPMeters (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one Dude, but it is not at all inappropriate to modify my own post, whether it has been replied to or not. What you said is non-sense and could not exist as a rule.
A message like what you are saying, is so inappropriate to even say. I wouldn’t care if someone else edited their own post after it has been replied to by whoever else. I would not be telling them anything like your non-sense - if I notice the new edit that they’ve made in their own post. 🙂 Craig Lungren (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This section dosen't seem to be very well made. "Russians" dosen't tell me who made it, probably shouldn't even use the term "copycats", it's really short, and even has a red link. It's like it had no research when making it. Should we just remove it or no? CheeseyHead (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's not a good example of Wikipedia editing at all. The title Copycats is just silly. Almost childish. While Wikipedia is still available in Russia, this is hardly news at all. The sources for the Russian version are both rather negative; not the sort of thing we would normally call reliable. The Persian language link is just odd. I'd be happy to see the whole subsection disappear. HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To-do list for Wikipedia:
.svg){kind=small}
