Talk:Wikipedia

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)