Grants talk:Start

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Committee for the allocation of grants[edit]

Dear ones, I would like to know how to be part of the evaluation committee for the allocation of grants, thanks, --Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

That's a good question. I want to know, too--BruneiWMUA (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply


The following discussion is closed.

is this a typo/mistake (duplicate 'community') or am I not understanding a nuance in the text? Child and Youth Safety Policy must be in place for any activity that involves community underage community members. Thanks! Effeietsanders (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Effeietsanders: Fixed, thanks for the catch. :) I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Viewing previous successful grants[edit]

Before the Grants Relaunch Process, there used to be a page listing previous grant proposals which were funded (and also not funded IRRC). It was a good resource to see what to do and what not to do when doing a grant proposal, but as far as I can gather, with the change to an external system for grant applications, such a page no longer exists. Is this correct? InsaneHacker (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I just realized the pre-relaunch pages are still available, so grant proposals from back then are viewable, but it would be beneficial to be able to view approved grant proposals from after the relaunch. InsaneHacker (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yes. It's important to assess quickly the average workload associated with an application. Is it one day one page or one week 8 pages document ? Citing few past fund resquests (not the longest) would define the best practice so to clarify expectations within minutes and wipe out uncertainty. :) Yug (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Light hierarchic improvement[edit]

The following discussion is closed: DoneYug (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@I JethroBT (WMF) and DSaroyan (WMF): Hello there. As I read the Grants:Programs/Wikimedia_Community_Fund#General_Support_Fund_2's section and rotating schedules I noticed some possible improvements for concision and clarity, so I went ahead with some modifications ('It's a wiki'). But since this page is rather a "WMF's staff" page, please review those changes. It's mainly on hierarchy : detailed schedules moved as subsections of #General_Support_Fund_2. I also add group regions per group A and group B (two groups) rather that having to follow each region. I hope it helps. Yug (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Yug: Looks good to me, and thanks for your work. I think these changes are helpful. However, because these pages concern programs maintained by Foundation staff, I'd request that you let us know what changes you'd like to make before implementing them next time. You can bring this to our attention either on Grants talk:Start here or by e-mailing communityresources(_AT_) I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
@I JethroBT (WMF): Got it, I will report future improvements on the talk page an ping you & active staff members as recommended. Thank for the review, too ! Yug (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Current Wikimedia Grants:Regions.
Found one. Add the map of the 8 regions into the same section. File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Funds_Regions.svg. Add the link Grants:Regions on table's title cell "Regions". This later page has an explicit legend. Accronyms such as CEE, SAAR, etc are too opaque for non-meta folks. Yug (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Yug: Add the map of the regions into the same section Which section? Do you mean create a map image for each region page with that region highlighted? I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 03:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
@I JethroBT (WMF): Objective is to convey the definition of each regions to the reader / Grant applicant. Add the existing map in Grants:Programs/Wikimedia_Community_Fund#General_Support_Fund_2 should be enough. Yug (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Yug: Done [1] I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 08:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Fast! Thank you. Yug (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Round 2 calendar adjustment for regions from Group A[edit]

The following discussion is closed.

Dear All,

Based on feedback from the communities, the Community Resources Team proceeded to change the General Support Fund round 2 calendar to March-April for the CEE and Central Asia, the United States and Canada, Latin America and The Caribbean, and the Middle East and Africa regions. Thank you, Mercedes Caso (platícame) 19:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@MCasoValdes (WMF): wouldn't that change (Group A, Round 2: February-March ⇒ March-April) mechanically affect Group B's round two (April-May) ? Yug (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
HiYug, Thank you for your comment. The calendar change of round 2 for Group A does not automatically affect or generate changes to Group B. Mercedes Caso (platícame) 20:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Dr. Subhani here.[edit]

The following discussion is closed.

Dear sir, Happy New Year from Pakistan. This is Dr. Subhani here. We (Dr. Subhani and Amber Osman) were working on the proposal for Wikimedia Research fund and we are already done with writing the propsal. Due to no access of internet since couple of days in our town, we were not able to submit the proposal on time. Kindly extend the date for submission for us as we are from the less privileged town.

Hoping to hear from you soon.

Best, Dr. Subhani 15:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

For archive happiness: this is now resolved as the applicants reached out to us and we found an appropriate solution.

Grants:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/26/en[edit]

Regarding translation segment Translations:Grants:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/26/ja, do you mean

  • Travel and participation fees for organizers? ->(主催者の)旅費滞在費と参加費

-- Omotecho (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

OpenReview website broken?[edit]

I tried to save a review but I get "Error: An unexpected Error occurred". I'll try again in a few days... --Piotrus (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Update. Tried on another assigned review, same problem. At least the text is saved, but not the checkboxes. Piotrus (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Clarity for rounds 1 vs 2[edit]

Round 1 is currently October. Round 2 is March. Could we invert those, so Round 1 is March, round 2 is October. Being more logical it would avoid misunderstanding. While the Grant page have been recently revamped and still modernized, it's the ideal time to push for such improvement. See Grants:Programs/Wikimedia_Community_Fund#General_Support_Fund_2. Yug (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Yug: Thanks for this feedback, and I can understand why this manner of numbering would be disorienting. The round numbers reflect the order of rounds according to the Wikimedia Foundation's fiscal year, which begins on 1 July and goes until 30 June the following year. Once a fiscal year is over, our team has a new budget for our funding programs for the next fiscal year. One possible solution here could be to name the rounds based on the month applications are due to avoid this issue of numbering altogether. I'll need to discuss this possibility with the Community Resources team, but what do you think about this approach? I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Or by season 😉 Automn vs Spring.
Your idea to take out the counter intuitive numerals is a good lead yes. Yug (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Yug: Thanks, I'll see what we can do about these changes. Season is probably not going to be workable since it will only be relevant to one hemisphere of the world or the other. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

🤯 True Yug (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Technology fund, 2022[edit]

The Technology fund will be launched in 2022. People interested to be pinged when this fund opens can list their usernames below :

Orabs1996 Orabs1996 (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Usability testing[edit]

Does the Research Fund ever get requests to do usability testing, like to advise volunteer editors on how standard templates are seen and read by users? It would seem like a good match but I don't know if it's closer to work for hire than a grant for which academics would apply, though it would have incredibly practical use for our encyclopedias. czar 23:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Czar: Thanks for your question. The Wikimedia Research Fund has only just launched its first round, so there haven't been any definite patterns in submissions as of yet that we can report on at this time. In terms of whether the proposal is a good match, it depends on whether the proposal meets both the basic eligibility criteria and the more specific selection criteria. You may consider reaching out to research_fund(_AT_) for more details, and potentially to get more direct feedback on your idea. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

multiple support[edit]

Because multiple john was been reported to fixing the promoted action and take action but no body help Sumonkamrul32 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Sumonkamrul32: Hello, I'm sorry about the issue you are having. This space is dedicated to discussions around the Wikimedia Foundation's funding programs, and am not sure if we are able provide support for your issue. If you let me know more about your situation, I might be able to direct you to the right place. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Core Metrics[edit]

The new Wikimedia Community Fund-application introduces Core Metrics which are similar, but different to, the old Global Metrics and Grant Metrics. Is there a central documentation (similar to the two earlier links) for these new metrics which we can link to when talking about them? /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@André Costa (WMSE): Thanks for your question. Documentation around this framework for Core metrics is available on the application guides provided for the Wikimedia Community Fund programs. I would recommend referring to the documentation in these guides for the General Support Fund or this guides for Rapid Funds as needed and review the Learning, sharing, and evaluation section for relevant documentation on these metrics and examples. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

translation segment T:68: Stipends for Wikimania[edit]

@I JethroBT (WMF): Wikimania information is piece by piece available, please have a look and update if required: The translation segment <!--T:68--> is for stipend paid for Wikimania attendee. But, that box is shown in English on /ja page, so does it mean that piece of translation original is not tweeked yet? Maybe since in numerical order, that segment appears after T:69? -- Omotecho (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Omotecho: <!--T:68--> itself appears in Japanese (ウィキマニア奨学金). The main text doesn’t belong to <!--T:68-->—and this was the problem, namely that it didn’t belong to any other translation unit either. I’ve marked it up now, so you should be able to translate it. Thanks for bringing the translation to 100%! —Tacsipacsi (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Omotecho: For clarity, did this refer to a translation for a page on Meta or on one of the separate Wikimania wiki pages? I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Done Yes, talking about which has been solved per diff=23539472&oldid=23352087 on Grants:Start, or the front page to this talk. @Tacsipacsi: thank you so match for the very fast pitch in (= Cheers, 0-- Omotecho (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Update for 2022?[edit]

Nutshell: Research fund open ; Tech fund awaiting strategic priorities, will open after July 2023.

At Grants:Programs/Wikimedia Research & Technology Fund the research grant program closed 8 months ago in January 2022 and there is no notice here about when the next cycle begins.

Any updates on which of the previous round of applicants were selected, or when the next round of funding will open? Bluerasberry (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

The next cycle is now open: You can also view the funded proposals from the last cycle on that page. ELescak (WMF) (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
@ELescak (WMF) Any update on when the Technology Fund would be open? SD0001 (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
We do not have an update on when the Technology Fund will open. With new leadership in the tech and product department we are waiting to ensure the fund will be aligned with priorities. The technology fund will not launch in the current fiscal year July 2022-June 2023. Thank you. KEchavarriqueen (WMF) (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thank KEchavarriqueen for this feedback ! We can plan better now. Yug (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Link dead? #General Support Fund does not take me to list of rounds[edit]

@JethroBT_(WMF), hi, I see a link in the sentence just above the blue Apply button:

  • The Program Officer will also support in understanding what round of funding would be suitable to apply for.

The link, or #General Support Fund" is supposed to take me to #Rounds:

  • can you change the link to appropriate page/section please?
  • for translation sake, will you tvar the link body (left part) accordingly?

Omotecho (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC) pinging JethroBT_(WMF) 02:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Timeline for "Wikimedia Technology Fund"[edit]

Hi there, I have come to the grants pages a few times this year but the technology fund pages continue to say "coming soon". Is there a timeline for these? ·addshore· talk to me! 16:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Me too. Any updates? Sophivorus (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Pinging @I JethroBT (WMF) & @KEchavarriqueen (WMF) who I have seen replying to other threads here. ·addshore· talk to me! 23:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Sophivorus and Addshore: Thanks for checking in with us about the Technology Fund. We don't currently have a schedule or timeline for when this funding program is expected to begin, so I will remove the "coming soon" language until we have more certainty about when the program will begin. We had hoped launch this program much sooner, but due to a number of factors mostly internal to the Foundation, have not been able to do so. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Many thanks for the update. ·addshore· talk to me! 15:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Is it appropriate to tell someone that might be suitable for this program to apply for to the Rapid Fund in the interim? The example I have in mind relates to a QuickStatements Lexeme creation feature that's been languishing on Phabricator for four years (task T220985) and that'd be useful both in Wikimedia projects and outside of it - it was brought up on our affiliate's mailing list. GreenReaper (talk) 10:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@I JethroBT (WMF) and KEchavarriqueen (WMF): I have heard that "The Technology Fund was permanently placed on hold. It means that we will not launch it in the near future. This means that we cannot fund long-term software development projects." replied by WMF. Does this mean that the Technology Fund is permanently closed and what is the alternative fund that developers could apply for? Thanks. SCP-2000 11:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I have the same problem and I'm maintaining some longer-term projects. Due to various reasons, such as the number of development members, insufficient funds, etc., it is impossible for me to complete all development goals in the short term at once. I would like some periodic and sustainable funds.
However, I noticed that the only ones I could find suitable for me to apply for so far seemed to be the Rapid Fund. But in the introduction, it mentioned that:

Proposals that depend on multiple or continuous Rapid Funds for long-term maintenance or development goals are generally ineligible.

Does this mean that we don't have any friendly help for long-term development projects? In other words, we can only wait for the long period of full feature development to be completed, and cannot get any financial help for post-maintenance. Rowe Wilson Frederisk Holme (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@SCP-2000 and Rowe Wilson Frederisk Holme: Thanks for your questions. While the Rapid Fund program offers some possible opportunities for funding small-scale software development as Rowe has pointed out, there is no such alternative for specifically funding large-scale or continuous software development at this time. More information on eligibility for this kind of work in the Rapid Fund program is available here: Grants:Project/Rapid#Eligibility_criteria. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your reply. I understand that there may be some difficulties, but it is bit disappointed that there is no alternative for funding long term development. Whether it is short term or long term development, it is valuable to the Wikimedia project and it would be great to see support for their project. SCP-2000 13:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@I JethroBT (WMF), KEchavarriqueen (WMF), SCP-2000, and Rowe Wilson Frederisk Holme: hello,
You may find the template {{Grants}} useful for guiding grants requests. This template is too little known. Feel free to share and update boldly this template which gather a clear map and properties of available WM grants. Yug (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Yug: Thanks for preparing this table, for working to update it, and the invitation to boldly update it! This table is fairly comprehensive and shows some useful points of comparison. I'll share it with the Community Resources team to see if and where it might make sense to integrate it in our documentation pages. A few initial points of feedback just from my personal perspective:
  • Rather than provide an estimate of the length of the application in A4 units (applications are rarely printed out these days), I think it would be better to link directly to the application itself.
  • It will be very difficult to provide comprehensive information on "What we fund" in a table format, if only because the scope of movement activities and eligible expenses or is excessively large, so I would prefer linking to sections in each funding program where this scope is described. I don't support providing a few examples in these sections without more substantial context, because historically, people unfamiliar with the funding programs have misunderstood this we only support certain expenses.
  • If we move ahead with this, I suggest we use this to replace the general information on the Grants Meta-wiki page, which has not been actively maintained. Furthermore, I would want to message affiliates to invite them to add their info to this table as well.
Once I've discussed this with my team, I'll let you know how we plan to move forward. Thanks again for your work! I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Yug: Thanks for your effort. However, Jethro has already stated that "Rapid Fund program offers some possible opportunities for funding small-scale software development" rather than long term development. TBH this comparison table is bit useless for the current problem of lack of support for long-term development. Thanks for your understanding. SCP-2000 17:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Grant Fund disturbing comments[edit]

Hello ABruszik-WMF, CAlmog (WMF), I JethroBT (WMF), DSaroyan (WMF), DGuedri (WMF), User:JChen (WMF), JStephenson (WMF), KEchavarriqueen (WMF), MCasoValdes (WMF), VThamaini (WMF), Jtud (WMF), MJue (WMF), RSharma (WMF), AGary (WMF),

Following my request for answers here, I am requesting to know the accounts of "series of banned users that I am associated with". There are allegations laid against me at this Grant talk that my account is "associated with a series of banned users" by YPam (WMF) and I am yet to get answers on the list of the "series of banned users that I am associated with". Further comments there makes me feel that my privacy during the application may be compromised because I was directed to where I did not apply. I want an assurance that my privacy is intact and to know the list of the "series of banned user associated with me". Sagbosam (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

2023 proposal cycle?[edit]

Last year, Research Grants were due December, 2022. Will there by another cycle this year with proposals due December 2023? Hexatekin (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@KGordon (WMF) just drawing your attention to this question. JStephenson (WMF) (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for tagging me here, @JStephenson (WMF).
@Hexatekin, there will be another cycle this year though dates for proposal submissions have not been finalized. We expect to confirm these dates by the end of the month and I'll make sure to follow up here when that is done. KGordon (WMF) (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hello @Hexatekin, I am happy to announce that the Wikimedia Research Fund will be accepting applications until December 15, 2023. Detailed submission instructions will be shared by November 15, 2023 on the Meta page. For a sample of last year's stage I submissions, please check the archive.
You can also review previously funded proposals here:
Feel free to get in touch if you have any questions! KGordon (WMF) (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
A specific time due on Dec 15th is not listed. This information would be useful. Hexatekin (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Is my Rapid Fund grant request live?[edit]

It is at Grants:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/Rapid Fund/Reliable newspaper module for Wikipedia Globalization courses (ID: 22271301). It is tagged as draft and I've no idea why and how to make it not a draft. I submitted it in August, it is now November, and I was wondering if the draft status is delaying its assessment? Piotrus (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@KGordon (WMF) @JStephenson (WMF) - can someone get back to me? TIA. Piotrus (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Piotrus, apologies for missing this. I forwarded this question to our Community Resources team. Someone should get back to you here soon. KGordon (WMF) (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hello Piotrus, your Rapid Fund is not live because you haven't submitted it. When you open your draft request, there is a "Submit application" button on the bottom right corner. You need to submit it, so that it is considered for review. Before submitting, please take a look at the Rapid Fund round timeline and adjust your application dates accordingly. You can contact us at eseap_rapid(_AT_) for any questions. --DSaroyan (WMF) (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@DSaroyan (WMF) I cannot located such a button, I use CTRL+F as well as my Mark I Eyeball. The only button I see is the blue Endorse buttonin the bottom left. Confusingly, the top says "This is an automatically generated Meta-Wiki page. The page was copied from Fluxx, the grantmaking web service of Wikimedia Foundation where the user has submitted their application.". It was my understsanding that I submitted the application in Fluxx, and the metawiki page created is a record of the submission? I'll update the dates in the meantime. Piotrus (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Piotrus, you will find the button on Fluxx where you have put the draft and not on the Meta page. Any changes should also be made on Fluxx; please do not update the Meta page manually. Here's a quick screenshot. --DSaroyan (WMF) (talk) 09:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@DSaroyan (WMF) Thank you, that's helpful. I think I was able to updaste it now. I'd suggest adding some note to the mediawiki page about how to finalize the draft, maybe linking to the screenshot you linked to above. Piotrus (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Piotrus, great, I'm glad it was helpful. There is a section in the "Final message" section in the application form with a help video and instructions on how to submit. I think I might have missed it. --DSaroyan (WMF) (talk) 10:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Let's Connect September 2023 report?[edit]

Is this report out somewhere? Is this program still active? Bluerasberry (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Problems caused on Wikidata[edit]

I wanted to elevate this discussion. If these contributions are indeed related to this grant, then the fact that we have already deleted many of them and are poised to delete the remainder should be a matter of some concern. Should we be making grants if they're just going to waste time and resources and give people a bad impression of our projects? Bovlb (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

See also continuation in Grants_talk:Project/Rapid#Assessing_grant_proposers_as_Wikidata_trainers. Bovlb (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Suggest new categories for research proposals beginning March 2024[edit]

At Grants:Programs/Wikimedia_Research_&_Technology_Fund/Wikimedia_Research_Fund#Review_submissions the grant designers set up a category for "Submissions by Regional Focus", but the majority of submissions are classified as Category:Wikimedia_Research_Fund_applications_in_FY_2023-24_-_Regional_Focus_-_No_identified_focus.

I am looking at these entries in this category, and think they would better be described as "policy", "design", "global infrastructure development", or "community insights". "Region" is not a fit.

Perhaps in the next round have another category for submissions which are neither specific to a Wikimedia project nor a region. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bluerasberry.
I'm Kinneret, Lead Research Community Officer on the WMF Research Team and the workflow chair for the fund.
Thank you for this feedback! This is the first year we created categorizations for the submissions in hope that they are helpful for people exploring the different submissions. I agree that the categories were far from perfect. We will improve this for the next round and I'll make sure we keep in mind the descriptions you suggested. KGordon (WMF) (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Use of open review website[edit]

I was just curious about what some of these grants were, and wanted to read the proposals (I was wondering what Grants:Programs/Wikimedia_Research_Fund/Edit_History_Growth_Rate_Analysis was about). However it seems like you need an OpenReview account to do so, and the site will only let you register if you are currently at an institution. (This does not feel very "open" for a site called "OpenReview"). Could the PDFs of grant proposal be uploaded to commons and linked so that the rest of us could read them? Bawolff (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Bawolff,
We are currently in the Stage II review period and we needed to restrict the viewing of the proposals for this time. All proposals will be reopened for viewing via the OpenReview link in a few days. KGordon (WMF) (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why is Israel included in Western and Northern Europe[edit]

Geographically Israel is neither in Western or Northern Europe. --Minilammas (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply