Talk:Abstract Wikipedia/Abstract Wikipedia naming contest

Added Engagement rules

Hi all! I added the following few sentences to the engagement rules for the contest: "This contest is for naming the project, not to be used as a soapbox to discuss this or other projects in general. If you want to discuss the project, please go here. Discussion that are not about the name, but about the project, may be moved to that page."

Before I implement the changes, I would like to check if that change has support. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

 Support as proposer. -- DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

 Support ♥Ainali ^talk_{contributions} 15:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

 Support sounds reasonable. —Waldyrious (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

 Support Thanks, --Ameisenigel (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Discussing the project can be part of discussing the name when explaining or arguing why a name does or doesn't fit to the project. The three sentences can be construed to remove any constructive comments that aren't plain votes but explanations in the context of finding a good or optimal name. I think votes are better when they are explained and not mere counts. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: Do you have a better suggestion to phrase it? For example, the argument "that this is only for short texts, not for Wikipedia articles" it just false, but it is repeated in several places. For example, I just went to OpenStreetMaps, zoomed in into Colorado, and picked two random towns: Brush and Wiggins. They both have Wikipedia articles in dozens of language editions. In both cases, the English Wikipedia article seems to be the most comprehensive one, and besides for three further language editions on Brush (Simple, German, and Uzbek) all of them seem entirely generated or generatable from templates. And even the English Wikipedia article for Wiggins in its entirety and for Brush in its majority (besides the sections on History and Culture) is also generated or generateable (we know that because that's what's happened), and the two mentioned sections don't look impossible either. Now, I feel obliged to put that argument on each such comment, which is repeated over and over, which would make the whole page very messy.

The idea in the first round is to generate a lot of candidates and then see what surfaces up. It is not to criticise each proposal in detail, as this is expected to lead to fewer proposal and thus fewer good ideas, but a small number of contributors is using the opportunity to very strongly express their opinion of what the project can and cannot achieve without discussing them in a proper forum first, as was possible for years.

I hope you understand my conundrum, and maybe can even help resolve it? --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• Maybe This contest is for naming the project, not to be used as a soapbox to discuss this or other projects in general. If you want to discuss the project more broadly, please go here. Discussion that are not relating to the name may be moved to that page. Thanks for asking.
• The examples you gave are all just few sentences long except for the third. In the case of the third which I inspected using Google Translate Machine Translation (just entered the url into translate.google) all the extra text that make it longer than a few sentence is not of the type you claimed – for example "and enjoyed frequent visits to "his hometown"" and the selection of the content in the "Culture" section or that section overall can't be generated from WD data and neither the selection of images beyond the one(s) set in the WD item. Other than that, those are all city items where it's relatively useful to have many data points in natural language. This isn't the case for articles like Glymphatic system, Human evolutionary genetics, Culture or most other articles. Maybe there are different notions about what "few sentences" are, the point is you won't get long comprehensive articles like the ones I linked (and also not close to the length of these articles in nonEN Wikipedias). This simply doesn't refute the point made.
• That points made in several comments by the same or different users need to be addressed by making many comments is a reason for why I think argument maps would be very useful for Wikimedia decision-making (structured like this one). That doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to make claims that relate to multiple discussions in those discussions. Instead of replying multiple times, or just leaving it as it is, there would also be the option of moving name proposals with "Wikipedia" in the title underneath one section where the Oppose explanations about the inappropriateness of that in the title could be moved into a discussion about that (affecting all name proposals underneath).
• It wouldn't make the pages messy. Assuming this is a constructive counterpoint – and it may be even when it doesn't refute what's said there – then it would make the page more, not less, constructive and improve the community decision-making.
• Thanks for addressing this. However, a discussion that may be about censoring constructive claims/explanations, to use harsh but imo fitting wording, is not the best place to do address the claims than where the claims are.
• Why would the idea be to make ideas criticism-immune? Why is voting and discussion enabled in the first place if this was just for generating ideas? How would good ideas be able to bubble up if bad ideas are made to bubble up since they can't be criticized? A few sentences of brief succinct criticism is not criticism in detail. Criticism of bad ideas can likewise lead to more ideas as people look for new ideas that consider the criticism and fix/mitigate the issues identified in other proposals.
• What the project can or cannot achieve and what its scope is can be relevant to the proposed name. For example, it's described as an extension of Wikidata right away but most proposals have Wikipedia in the title, not Wikidata. This gives Internet users who aren't Wikimedians a wrong impression of what this is and is somewhat inaccurate. One can view this differently but people should be allowed to explain they vote a certain way and if what they said is flawed or wrong it can a) be addressed by other users and b) be ignored by voters.

Prototyperspective (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I want to answer here in more detail, and will get to it, but there are several conversations ongoing right now, and I might not be able to answer all of them right away. Give me at least 24 hours, and I will have answered them. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I assume one reason why more proposals have Wikipedia in the title, not Wikidata, is that the stated main goal of the project is to provide articles for Wikipedias that currently have a small number of articles. The project will have a visible effect on Wikipedia, but no immediate effect on Wikidata.

The examples I gave were indeed just a few sentences long. That was intentional. Thanks for noticing. I wanted to demonstrate that in many Wikipedias many articles are just a few sentences long, and thus I wanted to argue that this project can achieve goals that are comparable to what we already have in many Wikipedias. I don't expect English Wikipedia to be the first large client using articles created through Wikifunctions.

The third example I gave (the Uzbek article) is in fact a translation from the English Wikipedia article. So yes, what I said about the English Wikipedia article is also relevant here: the sections on History and Culture were originally handwritten (in English), the rest of the article is mostly not.

This demonstrates one issue with this approach: most of the two mentioned articles in English is generated through bots, basically through a system that is more or less the same that will be available through Wikifunctions. So we already know that this system can produce articles that are good enough even for English Wikipedia (although I doubt that will sway the critics on English Wikipedia).

And now this bot-generated article is being translated to another language, either manually or through the help of machine translation, hopefully followed by a manual copyediting and factchecking phase (often not, especially not on Uzbek Wikipedia, as I have learned from a former admin of Uzbek Wikipedia, who resigned exactly for that reason).

Instead of manually translating the bot-generated output, wouldn't it make more sense to "translate" the bot to generate the output in Uzbek in the first place? This would cover all articles generated by the bot, not just the one that happens to be picked up.

Second, instead of letting volunteers run bots on their machines, where the code remains only accessible to them, wouldn't it be nicer to have a shared space where the community can work on these generators together? So that everyone can improve the functions generating these articles?

That's exactly the infrastructure we are working on. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I have moved two proposals (Skynet and FakeWiki) out of the contest. Furthermore, in order to strengthen the spirit of a brainstorming in the first round, and make the voting pages easier to scan, I collapsed the discussion sections. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 10:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, moving these is due and helps the discussions be more focused, easier to go through and constructive. Collapsing the discussion sections also makes sense but then I think the Oppose votes should be moved to the Voting sections as these contain info very important to subsequent voters and because those are 'Votes' as well. Some Oppose votes have already been made in the Voting section or moved there; somebody, even if just for fairness, should move the rest and maybe I will do so. Best decisions are made not when one Cons are moved out of sight but when everyone can see both Pros and Cons (and when flawed cases of either can be and are corrected). Prototyperspective (talk) 12:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

No, please refrain from continuing to move these. I will rename the Voting section as a Support section. Remember, the first round of voting is about brainstorming. To quote: Ideas are noted down during the activity, but not assessed or critiqued until later. The absence of criticism and assessment is intended to avoid inhibiting participants in their idea production. In the second round we will then provide a more visible space for discussion, commentary, and criticism. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Why should votes not show up under votes? Why can you just hide constructive votes unilaterally without any discussion and without any support for doing so? Please either include the oppose votes underneath Voting per the section title and for rational constructive community decision-making and deliberation or don't semi-censor them away by hiding them, thanks. Where is that quote from? The brainstorming Wikipedia article? Since when would content in that article be policy for this community decision-making page? Moreover, brainstorming is mentioned just one time on this page. Furthermore, that is not even at the top and it says Please be particularly friendly and constructive during this brainstorming period. where explained oppose votes are the most constructive type of comments imo and at least constructive. Issues with proposed names should also be able to be pointed out in the first round and it's nowhere specified that such can only be visibly named in later rounds which only undermines the quality and number of proposals overall as well as the quality of proposals that make it into the second round. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

This are the same principles we followed for Wikifunctions naming process, the Wikidata logo, and other such processes.

You write Issues with proposed names should also be able to be pointed out in the first round and it's nowhere specified that such can only be visibly named in later rounds which only undermines the quality and number of proposals overall as well as the quality of proposals that make it into the second round.

Do you have a source for that? The research around brainstorming seems to say pretty much the opposite, to the best of my understanding. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Then why wasn't it like that right away? Why was the page not informing about that then? Moreover, if things have been done in very suboptimal ways earlier that's not a good reason to keep it that way. Deliberation and good-quality decision-making needs both Pro claims and Con claims, not the latter being hidden. The source is that the page we're on the talk page on: it doesn't specify this. It's not (mere) brainstorming to begin with when ideas are being a) discussed and b) voted on so your premise is false. It's also logical that the quality of decisions and proposals suffers if people only ever read about why things are good. Why should the world stop deforesting the Amazon if it only hears about the tasty beef produced there? Obviously the former is needed for quality deliberation and outcomes. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

It wasn't like this right away because we aren't perfect. We followed the previous process, and there this refinement wasn't necessary.

For quality deliberation and outcome we have a second round, where pros and cons will be visibly displayed. This round doesn't make a decision, it merely surfaces a few proposals for the second round. Should a suboptimal proposal flow through the first round, the second round should eliminate that.

I am still curious to see any support for your claim that the quality and particularly number of proposals will suffer if there is no place to note cons. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I mean, the button is called "Support" not "Vote", we did explicitly call it a brainstorm, etc. It sure wasn't perfectly set up. We also didn't have a mechanism for removing proposals. It's a wiki.

It's not that I am completely closed to your arguments -- I am listening. But some proposals have negative discussion sections that are longer than the rest of the proposal section. That isn't the kind of voting this round is aiming for. If we can keep that somehow, maybe there is a solution to also include short, friendly, constructive comments in a more visible way. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Jemand versucht hier mit aller Gewalt jeglichen Dissens zu unterdrücken

Someone is trying to suppress every kind of dissent with all his might
Bei den Vorschlägen wird jegliche Kritik fein säuberlich versteckt, damit ja niemand was negatives auf dieser Jubelseite lesen muss. Das macht den gesamten Prozess komplett invalide und belanglos.
At the names everything that looks remotely like criticism is suppressed, so that nobody should be aware of any negative on this pure jubilation page. That invalidates the complete process her and renders it futile.
Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 16:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

In how many more places would you like to be invited to actually discuss your points instead of merely complaining about being asked to not use the naming process as a soapbox for your complaints? --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Zu jedem einzelnen Namen sollte es eine offene Diskussion geben, über die Vor- und Nachteile. Du möchtest Für Dein Lieblingsspielzeug aber nur Jubel zulassen, das ist inakzeptabel.

There should be an open discussion about every< single name, about the pros and cons. You only want to allow jubilation for your pet project, that's not acceptable.

Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 17:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Nehmen wir beispielsweise Wikiversum, ein vollkommen untauglicher Name für ein solches kleines Projekt, das geht sogar noch über die Hybris von FLOW, mit der übergriffigen und anmaßenden Umbenennung zu Structured Discussions hinaus. Das Wikiversum ist das komplette Wikimedia/MediaWiki-Universum, alle Wikipedien, Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary, einfach alles. Diesen Namen ernsthaft für dieses kleine Projektchen in Betracht zu ziehen ist komplett jenseits von Gut und Böse, das ist undenkbar.

Take for example Wikiverse, a complete unusable name for such a small project. That's even more out of bounds then the hybris that came with FLOW, the intrusive and presumptious renaming to Structured Discussions. The Wikiverse is the whole, all Wikipedias, Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary, you name it. to sincerely think about using this name for this wee project is beyond ridicuolous, it's unthinkable.

Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 17:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

And how many people have voted for it?

I think we can trust the community a bit. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with both DVrandecic (WMF) and Sänger here. Constructive criticism needs to be visible for fostering healthy rational decision-making and deliberation. They were hidden unilaterally without discussion and I think this should be undone at least for Oppose votes. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sänger, @Prototyperspective, @NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh:

You're right, that was a unilateral decision. I apologise, I was unusually tired yesterday.

I would like to avoid two things: a) overly visual weight to the opposes and the arguments, and b) opposes with explanations that involve either incorrect statements (e.g. "this project creates AI generated hallucination and therefore the name FactWiki cannot be taken") or unproven statements (e.g. "this project will never succeed in generating longer content"), as these should be followed by an equally visible answer.

The goal of hiding the discussion was in order to reach a) and b). I am not against stating incorrect and unproven statements (and I certainly don't want to be in the position to make the call whether a statement is one or the other), but I think it is fair to have readers then also see a possible answer to such a statement.

But when such statements get answers, it turns into a discussion, and discussions on-wiki are not known for brevity. And suddenly, what is supposed to be a simple voting page, becomes a large talk page, potentially with dozens of repeating arguments.

So, what about:

• let's keep the discussion collapsed by default, in order to keep the voting page as short as possible
• but OK, let's keep the opposes in the voting list, visible per default -- but preferably with a pointer to the discussion, or a very short, undisputed reason (e.g. "Wikiverse is quite similar to Wikiversity").
• if a reason is debated, we move it to the discussion, and leave a pointer

I hope this sounds like a good first draft to come to shared conclusion.

I will, until we have come to a conclusion, refrain from making or reversing changes regarding what we are discussing. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I concur that this contest is not the place to criticize the project. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 16:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate you addressing things here.

• a) they don't have unfair or too much visual weight – support voters could also explain why they think a certain proposed name fits well or should be chosen. Maybe one could cap the comment and/or the comments beneath it with some max length so the rest of it is only visible at a click but I see no need or substantial benefit of that.
• b) is, as usual, best addressed by correcting the misinformation right underneath it. On Wikipedia this can be problematic as people then accuse you of bludgeoning if you corrected many cases of misinfo because nobody else did/does so but this flawed policy doesn't exist on metawiki. However, regarding inability of the project to generate longer content – it's very due to argue a name doesn't fit because one thinks that in the real world in practice the project is unlikely (not definitely or provably not) to generate articles longer than a few sentences/paragraphs. This is especially the case if the reason(s) for why the user thinks so are briefly explained and not provably false.
• Comments that correct such are equally visible. It's entirely unwarranted, undesirable and near impossible for deliberations to just include statements that are proven.
• I think it is fair to have readers then also see a possible answer to such a statement 100% agree. This is basically the same reason why also oppose explanations and not just support explanations/votes should be visible to readers/contributors.
• It's often painful or feels unjust or not right if people go around making what one thinks are totally false or misleading claims. I can very well understand that. Again, I think the solution is to correct them and hiding them has the same problems where the uncorrected claims are implicit.
• Back and forth turning into longer texts / exchanges is a good point. However, it's relatively rare at least here and isn't a problem nearly as large as what hiding Oppose explanations would do. One could have all comments starting at e.g. the middle of the third comment collapsed for example to mitigate this which is how it's done on Stack Exchange (there are max-char-counts and at some comment the additional ones only show after a click).
• The good point about long nested texts in the Voting section is more a point in principle, not what about what is actually the case here. There's maybe one or two votes with some replies underneath and these are generally quite short and not causing the described problem.
• What you suggested also sounds good to me. Maybe one could have the best counterpoint(s) of an Oppose explanation directly underneath it in a succinct short format.

Prototyperspective (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

reply below --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Diese Seite heißt Namenswettbewerb, nicht Brainstormimg, was soll dann diese plötzliche Einschränkung und das Tieferhängen?

Auf der Seite sollten nur Jubelarien stehen, Kritik versteckt. Selbst komplett absurde Namen wie Wikiversum durften nicht kritisiert werde auf der Abstimmungsseite des Wettbewerbs.

Jetzt plötzlich kommt hier der Schmus mit dem ist doch nur Brainstormimg, da soll keine Kritik an den Vorschlägen kommen, das soll erst später passieren.

Sorry, aber mir fehlt was solche Lieblingsspielzeuge von Xym(WMF)er angeht jegliches Vertrauen, da wurde zu viel Porzellan zertrümmert seitens der (WMF)er in den letzten Jahren. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 18:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

reply below --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

┌─────────┘
@DVrandecic (WMF): What issues do these two comments (one mine) about "Wikibridge" have that you decided to hide them? As far as I can see, both of them are about the name, not the project itself. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 20:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

No issues. That's why they weren't removed. In fact I didn't remove any comments, but I did remove two proposals.

I did hide the comments, as you correctly say (and all comments on all proposals). I hid the comments with the intentional goal to reduce the visibility of criticism. To the best of my understanding, research shows that for brainstorming, the no-criticism rule leads to a higher quantity and quality of proposals.

In the second round of voting, a more critical reflection of the candidates will be offered more visibly. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• This is not mere brainstorming. Thus your premise is wrong and I could end the reply here with your point being refuted. The page is used not for listing ideas but also for discussing and voting on them.
• Research can be wrong, has often been wrong, and may not apply for all situations of the studied thing.
• There is no imperative to unilaterally organize Wikimedia decision-making and deliberation by a few studies without discussion and even retrospectively.
• It's quite frankly ridiculous to state that constructive criticism that may impact people's conclusion about whether or not or how well a name fits the project would reduce the quality of outcomes. I can see how a no-criticism rule makes sense for brainstorming but again this isn't mere brainstorming.
• I strongly oppose your unjust unilateral hiding of comments and oppose votes despite that I'm sure you have the best of intentions.

Prototyperspective (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I continued the discussion above, trying to find common ground. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the spirited discussion! Given that the proposal I made sounds good to both Prototyperspective and NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh, and that it also agrees with what Sänger wrote in the comment for this edit here, I am going to implement that now. I will switch the "Support" back to "Voting", I leave short, uncontroversial Opposes in that section, but anything longer or controversial I move to the collapsed discussion and point to it from the part that is not collapsed. That seems like a compromise we all can be similarly unhappy with. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Shuffling proposals

@DVrandecic (WMF): There's Module:Random, if that's to your liking. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 21:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh, that's brilliant! Do you know how to use it for shuffling a list like this? I'll try to figure it out when I find the time. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I found the Template:Shuffle which seems to be doing exactly that: shuffling the text! Thanks for pointing in the right direction! --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Confusing wording in lead paragraph

The very first paragraph of this page loses me. It says the wiki "will enable users to combine data from Wikidata in order to generate natural language sentences in any supported languages using functions from Wikifunctions into articles". That doesn't appear to be a coherent sentence. What is the phrase "into articles" doing there at the end? Would someone who knows what this wiki is actually supposed to become (I still don't) care to improve the wording of that sentence? - dcljr (talk) 10:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know! I simplified it to "This project will be a wiki that will enable users to combine data from Wikidata using functions from Wikifunctions into articles." I hope it became a bit clearer. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

That has the same problem as before. The phrase "into articles" was the problem, not the stuff before it. Are you're saying that users will be able to do this-and-that, and get text that can be added to Wikipedia articles? - dcljr (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

That they can assemble entire Wikipedia articles. Would that be a better formulation? --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

In that case, just start with the ultimate goal: "… allow users to write Wikipedia articles in any language by combining data from…" (or whatever). But I must say, the goal of writing entire (or even significant portions of) Wikipedia articles in this way seems to be a very… let's say, "lofty" one. Is the technology really up to it? - dcljr (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Theoretically yes, practically we're on the way to it. There are many Wikipedia articles that can be written in such a way -- think about articles about years, or articles about many US towns that have been created by bots, and haven't seen much updates since. Can we capture all articles in such a way, with all their content? No, certainly not, for a long time. Will we be able to provide thousands and thousands of articles with somewhat useful content? Yes, I am very convinced on that, within a very short timeframe. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Cannot hear the audio in the video on this page

Is anyone else not hearing the audio in the video on this page, File:Abstract Wikipedia and wiki of functions.webm? I hear audio in other webm videos, like File:2.1 What is Wikipedia.webm, but not this one (whether played here or at Commons). - dcljr (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that one has audio. It's just the animation, if I remember correctly.

Any way, I don't hear any audio either. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh. I hadn't noticed that the Polish captions were just Polish versions of the on-screen English text. OK. Uhh… Not sure the video actually adds anything to the page. It is a highly abstract depiction of… well, I guess just the relationship between Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Wikifunctions. It doesn't appear to be directly relevant to this new wiki we are naming. (Not surprising, I guess, since it was uploaded in 2020.) - dcljr (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I suggest we remove the video from this page. - dcljr (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I find this contest confusing

I see confusion in the candidate discussions. There are multiple arguments claiming this is not a Wikipedia. However, one of the requirements is that "the wiki can be created at either foo.org or foofoo.wikipedia.org", which hints that is a standalone Wikipedia project.

Is there a resolution on the final presentation of the Abstract Wikipedia contents? Are the questions raised on Abstract Wikipedia/Location of Abstract Content resolved? I think this contest would go nowhere without determining the interface first. MilkyDefer 14:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

The interface is in the works right now. The Location discussion has been resolved. We should refresh the page you mention to make that clear. Thanks! --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I have a similar question. Is "Abstract Wikipedia" dedicated exclusively to Wikipedias or not?

• "Abstract Wikipedia" stores encyclopaedic articles only.
  • It will store textbooks or tour guides in the future.
  • It will not.
    • We will create "Abstract Wikibooks" or "Abstract Wikivoyage".
    • We will not.
• "Abstract Wikipedia" also stores textbooks and tour guides.

Which is the case? -- 魔琴 (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me. @DVrandecic (WMF):. 魔琴 (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we need more projects to store abstract content for other projects too. Just because it is called "Abstract Wikipedia" doesn't mean that it must not contain abstract content for e.g. Wiktionary. Obviously, a name that spells out Wikipedia will from the beginning carry the main task in its name, but I don't think we should consider it exclusionary. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

If so, I might have to kindly raise my concern that the voters may not be aware of this. 魔琴 (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Next few days?

--魔琴 (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh I see. --魔琴 (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean? Have the result? --Henrydat (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Results?

According to the information provided, the vote ended on December 1, 2025. May I ask when the results of the vote are expected? – Gebu (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gebu: It was announced on 4 December. I've edited ths page to mark it as historical and link to the result. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2026 (UTC)