Talk:Wikipedia

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2024
Anchor Text: the original is broken in live

Broken link: https://rogchap.com/2011/09/06/top-40-website-programming-languages/

Text found in the line : Archived from the original on September 22, 2013. Retrieved September 6, 2011 SpintaDigital (talk) 09:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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.  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

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)


 * ✅ GSK (talk • edits) 06:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

About Wikipedia!
Hi to whoever edits Wikipedia articles!

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”. 🙂

This is what I want to see as an update for Wikipedia and all of its articles, as soon as possible. Craig Lungren (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This page is for discussion of the article about Wikipedia, not for discussion of Wikipedia itself. GSK (talk • edits) 06:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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:VILLAGEPUMP Meters (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:TALK. It is not appropriate to modify your post after it has been replied to. Meters (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Read the link, and drop this. Meters (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I can look at the link, but I won’t drop this. Craig Lungren (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you're not going to drop this, I will open a discussion on you at WP:ANI, because it's becoming more and more clear that you are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia in any meaningful way and that you are treating Wikipedia as a battleground. You are picking fights with people that do not share your point of view, you are ignoring advice to take your ideas to the correct venue, and this kind of behavior is not tolerated on Wikipedia. I really do not want to have to open a discussion regarding your behavior here, but if you keep this up, I will not hesitate to escalate this to the Administrators' Noticeboard. You can choose to do better and to be better. No one but you can make that choice for you. GSK (talk • edits) 01:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

"Copycats"
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)
 * 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)
 * I'll do it. CheeseyHead (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit request
Change from: "Statistical analyzes suggest that the committee ignores"...

To: "Statistical analyses suggest that the committee ignores"...

The plural of 'analysis' is 'analyses'. This is in the section "Arbitration Committee". Buenovale (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hyphenation Expert (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request
Please change from:

"Statistical analyses suggest that the committee ignores the content of disputes and rather focuses on"...

To:

"Statistical analyses suggest that the English Wikipedia committee ignores the content of disputes and rather focuses"...

This is in the section titled "Arbitration Committee".

Reason: This doesn't apply to Wikipedias in other languages. Buenovale (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)