Talk:Wikimedia CEE Spring 2016

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Please use the discussion page to add aims which would be meaningful for your community, to comment the already set aims and methods, and also add new methods to achieve these aims. I would like to introduce prizes to CEE Spring, which would allow us to influence participants and reach the aims more easily. --21:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)



  • at least one excellent article created or significantly edited during the contest per country on average
--Lord Bumbury (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comment Actually a mix of qualitative and quantitative and highly dependent on community customs on each and every wiki. E.g. on Estonian wiki people do not vote for featured articles - no article can be that good according to Estonian standard. --Kaarel Vaidla (WM EE) (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are planning to join this year with Austrian Wikipedians / German-language WP, but this would be an unattainable goal for us. Achieving excellent articles in the German-language WP can be painful, frustrating, and sometimes even close to impossible. Not a good idea to demand this from our volunteers. --CDG (WMAT staff) (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This just means that smaller communities with lower criteria should write more QA :) It is proposed that this metric is calculated on average from all countries. --Papuass (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then ;-) Thanks for clarifying --CDG (WMAT staff) (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • at least two good articles created or significantly edited during the contest per country on average
--Lord Bumbury (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comment Same as above, however sometimes good articles are chosen in Estonia, but really-really rarely. As a result, this metric is hard to use in a meaningful manner. At the same time it can be used to measure quality of contributions made in some regional wikis, where voting for good articles is not that rare. --Kaarel Vaidla (WM EE) (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot stop myself from reminding that Wikipedias are divided by languages, not by countries. --Base (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, also Wikimedias are divided by no particular reason, do you have a good proposition how we shall use the words country, language, region and affiliate (chapter / user group) in CEE Spring? --Lord Bumbury (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • at least one article with at least 300 words per active editor (>5 edits per month) per participating country (~5500 as of December 2015) on average
--Lord Bumbury (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comment@Лорд Бъмбъри: I am of the firm opinion that this needs to be an average of 300 words of content written if total contributions were divided with number of active editors. That way, you'll allow for the very active ones to compensate for those active ones that will not participate (and there will be lots of such). --B. Jankuloski (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comment@Bjankuloski06:, I took this from the rules of Wikipedia Asian Month, but I like your idea. We can do it like that, too. I'll change the words in the aims for now, but we are still open to further comments. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • rather equal distribution of newly created and significantly edited articles about every country in every language according to:
  • A / B > 0,5 for 75% of participating languages, where
  • A = minimal number of created and significantly edited articles about a country
  • B = maximal number of created and significantly edited articles about a country
--Lord Bumbury (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea, Adeliine! I've started with one in twenty, what is usual for etwiki? --Lord Bumbury (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comment Last year with Wikimedia CEE Spring 2015 on this % was actually 0. However on different competitions it varies. Around 5% (like you say) on bigger competitions (like CEE Spring is), but may go up to more than 50% in small-specific competitions (like Psychology editing bee on --Kaarel Vaidla (WM EE) (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This raises the question about who should be considered a new user. E.g.: 1) someone who has created an account years ago but has never edited anything? 2) someone who has uploaded a picture or two but not written anything? 3) someone who has worked a little on other projects (Wikidata, Wikispecies, Wikibooks) but not Wikipedia? 4) someone who has done schoolwork once on Wikipedia but nothing else? --2001:7D0:4342:C701:D6C:12A3:3FB0:C758 17:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This suggestion is a little bit foggy. Do you mean at least 30 photos used by each participant, at least 30 photos per participant, 30 photos per article, or 30 photos altogether? Option 4 seems to be too easy, options 1 and 3 are unrealistic, and option 2 might be principally achievable but quite hard. Lets say five people come and register as participants but write just a stub each and add no photos; should someone throw themselves under the bulldozer to save the metrics, adding 5*30=150 photos to the articles, or should the organizers disqualify those participants? --2001:7D0:4342:C701:D6C:12A3:3FB0:C758 17:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some kind of contribution to Wikidata. Most likely it will not be adding statements and items about foreign countries. But you can add labels and descriptions for items from region. For example - add labels for all cities in Latvia in Bulgarian. The problem wit this is that ir is musc more work for languages which use Cyrillic letters and also it is hard to measure, would need to write a specific tool for it. WMSE organisez this for food items d:Wikidata:Menu Challenge.
--Papuass (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Improvement of the regional partnership in Central and Eastern Europe
--Lord Bumbury (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comment Yes, yes. But having some smart targets here would be useful ... Number of communities involved, number of communities with "active" or "off-wiki" participation (participation in writing blog posts, securing prizes etc.), list of projects that have evolved from CEE Spring etc. --Kaarel Vaidla (WM EE) (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kaarel Vaidla (WM EE), please proceed to defining those SMART aims :). --Lord Bumbury (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improvement of partnership with language groups and collaboratives external to CEE.
--Kaarel Vaidla (WM EE) (talk) 08:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comment Organizing CEE Spring on other Wikipedias ourselves or even better, find organizers from respective communities and collaboratives to do so. --Kaarel Vaidla (WM EE) (talk) 08:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Methods to achieve the aims[edit]

  • The creation of excellent and good articles can be supported by creating such rules that stimulate the creation of such. If only the number of bytes count, then participants naturally choose many easy to be written short to average length articles.
--Lord Bumbury (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In Estonian Wikipedia, excellent articles are not chosen at all and good article choosing process is incredibly slow and chaotic. Contest rules can't have any effect on this. In our case it could be better to have some kind of rule/prizes about the length of articles. Adeliine (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps rules for certain language can differ? For example we can have good and excellent articles were applicable, and simple length criteria otherwise? I really like quality aims, as some languages already have a lot of articles and need to focus on improvement of existing ones. This is however hardly doable in the thematic weeks, as writing an excellent article would require far more then a month of work in most cases, and another month or two for verification procedure. PuchaczTrado (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually,in last year CEE Spring and also in our (Polish) thematic weeks - there were two prizes - for number of articles which are of minimal size and quality and for articles which were accepted to the "Did you know" section on our main page. Selection of "Did you know" is a social one - i.e. one can suggest any new articles to this section and at least 3 other wikipedians must accept it. When there are more proposals than place - the selection is made upon which articles got more support. Anyway - each Wikipedia is a bit different - so forcing general rules for all of them might be tricky. For example for our - Polish part - I would rather opt to stay with what we developed for thematic weeks. Polimerek (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Polimerek:, thematic weeks are really great for this kind of contest and it would be of course desired to utilise them. On the other hand I believe that they need some refreshing, so they would not end up just as a copy of 2015 edition (take in mind, that thematic week usually don't repeat every year, and set of countries for CEE would be very similar if not the same). The excellent/good article side contest would, in my opinion, encourage wikipedians who usually spend more time on writing articles, and therefore rarely participate in thematic weeks. PuchaczTrado (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I deem it a good idea to have differences in some rules based on the community. I think that the editors of excellent and good articles would not follow the thematic weeks. I imagine that editors A, B, and C write every week about a different country, while D does not follow that and writes and excellent article on one topic. Do you think we could achieve that by a combination of prizes? --Lord Bumbury (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least one article per active editor can be supported by not organising concurrent article contests for the participating communities.
--Lord Bumbury (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Estonian Wikipedia is probably going to have another contest (translation bee) overlapping with CEE Spring like last year, but like last year, during the month of overlap same (suitable) articles could be submitted to both contests. Adeliine (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Polish Wikipedia has already full calendar of thematic weeks which include contests as well. PuchaczTrado (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather equal distribution of newly created and significantly edited articles about every country in every language can be supported by organising thematic weeks. Selective statistical analysis has shown that this worked in 2015.
--Lord Bumbury (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thematic weeks are great for advertisement and distributing the articles, but as I stated under the first dot we shouldn't force creation of good/excellent articles during this very short period. PuchaczTrado (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sub-challenges, e.g. articles on music or theatre or culture or museums of all countries in the region.
--Lord Bumbury (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Getting new users to participate can be supported by offering a special prize for one or two best new users in a local contest. Wikimedia Estonia has done it for years in our contests. The risk of "old editors" creating new accounts to get the prize can be lessened by requiring the winner to reveal their identity to the jury, as many "old editors" are known to jury/chapter/community leaders. Adeliine (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe we can also make a parallel CEE-oriented upload-a-thon with the same rule: upload pictures from other CEE countries, not from your own. This can attract some newbies to contribute with photos first, and we can encourage them to try editing, too... Spiritia 09:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is most certainly possible and a good way to encourage photo contributions. However, I would like to see these media files not just uploaded to Commons, but also linked to relevant articles. Would this still be newbie-friendly? --Kaarel Vaidla (WM EE) (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]



I think prizes should be quotable books in general and there should be a set of prizes for each country in following categories:

  • Highest number of bytes per language
  • Highest number of articles about a country – a book about that country in a preferred language by the winner
  • Most equally distributed articles about all countries
  • Highest number of bytes per sub-challenge – a book about the topic of the sub-challenge
  • Highest number of words in all languages about Struve geodetic arc (with prizes from the Tartu Old Observatory, see comment by Kaarel further down and the discussion about it).
--Lord Bumbury (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We will prepare our little gifts for more productive guys. --Mr. Zabej (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Shall there be a WikiCamp for the winners? --Lord Bumbury (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comment After reading report from last year I am a bit unsure about the effect CEE_WikiCamp_2015, as I also have not had any feedback from Estonian member who participated. Maybe Bojan can give a better and more convincing insight? Also what are reactions from other participants? --Kaarel Vaidla (WM EE) (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, It would be useful to make an opportunity for several first places and for 1-2 local volunteers who will organize local the WikiSpring contest to participate in further Wikicamp. For example, 2-3 people a country. --Mr. Zabej (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was very low interest of Wikicamp in Latvia. I find books as prizes more motivating for our community. --Papuass (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Information about CEE Spring can be published in English and local languages.


The domain has been "bought" (for 0 zl.) and can be used for publications accompanying CEE Spring, which can be useful for motivating more and also new contributors to participate.

--Lord Bumbury (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Social Media[edit]

The CEE Spring Facebook page can be used for motivating more and also new contributors to participate. The reach of the Facebook page can be extended by making a (week-long) coordinated advertisement of it on the sitenotice of the participating Wikipedias.

--Lord Bumbury (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the sitenotice: Will there be a general sitenotice design that we can then translate into every single language or should we design sitenotices for every single wiki? Braveheart (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing days[edit]

Macedonian Wikipedia just finished our first editing day on the January 17th, 2016, part of our activities connected with Wikipedia15, so I want to raise an idea about organizing sub-challenges in our contest in which we could have a editing day(s) about different country every day. What are your opinions? --Ehrlich91 (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the difference between this and thematic weeks? --Lord Bumbury (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you have right, it`s just a variety of thematic weeks, but with scope of more areas combined and in one day. --Ehrlich91 (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could be cool if we could make social media work for us in this case. We could define two days of (let's say) (Republic) Macedonia and publish this at the Facebook page of the contest on Day 1. Then people could post their created articles and inspire others to write the same articles in other languages. Editors could also ask about a translation of an interesting article in a language they know (e.g. a Slovak Wikipedian asks about a translation of an article about Macedonia in one of English, German and Czech, and then a Czech Wikipedian translates it from Macedonian to Czech. We could try this also with themes like "Museums by country", etc. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely we should try this, because we already see that social media works, especially in the case of #100wikidays. --Ehrlich91 (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas from different communities[edit]

Dear local organisers (Adeliine, Beko, David1010, DenisaRucaj, Ehrlich91, Friend, Papuass, Spiritia, Vodnokon4e), would you please ask your communities about their wishes and ideas from this year's edition of CEE Spring and add their answers here in the next days? I thank you very much in advance :) . --Lord Bumbury (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special articles[edit]

Last year we had some experience with Belarussians in common thematic week where we wrote not ordinary articles about Belarus and Ukraine, but only for participants' request. This time I propose for every interested participant from CEE region to create list of articles which he/she wants to be translated in other languages. Articles should be connected with country of participant and other CEE countries. I have started to create my own list. Please look at it and share your ideas. --Visem (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struve geodetic arc[edit]

200 years ago Struve geodetic arc was started and so there are some celebrations in Estonia. As this memorable ensemble makes part of Unesco Heritage and is connected to several CEE countries (namely, Estonia, Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine, but also Finland, Norway and Sweden) it could be a special topic for this year's competition. I have already spoken with our good friend from Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2015 Wikidojo, namely Tartu Old Observatory and they could donate their books as prizes for best editors on this topic. What do you think? Is it too specific or doable? --Kaarel Vaidla (WM EE) (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this idea, too! I'd like this sub-challenge to happen. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this topic already well covered across many language versions of Wikipedia (46 if I counted correctly)? What would you expect to achieve by this? I think that it is not a good idea to give special prize for working on a single article, as it would generate chaos and possible many edition conflicts. PuchaczTrado (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you PuchaczTrado for your comment! I agree that this "object" has allready articles in numerous languages, but there is certainly room for improvement - no good article or featured article in any of these and information about a chain that was created in 50 years is rather superficial. That is why I proposed this. On the other hand it may be questionable, if such topic should be part of Wikimedia CEE Spring.
It could be possible to organize a separate editing day on this topic (with some people working on sections of main article and others taking care of red links) and this could be another tradition we have in Wikimedia CEE - e.g. organize a thematic editing day on each and every country with possibility to determine article to be edited beforehand or not ... --Kaarel Vaidla (WM EE) (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Places of tourist interest[edit]

During Wikimeetup in Vinnytsia on January, 23, User:Gikü from Moldova mentioned that during our Wikiexpeditions we visit many places of interest, but not so famous in Ukraine and abroad. So there is an idea to put special category of articles for translation which may be interested for tourists who travel in CEE countries with objects that are not famous. By example, several objects in Ukraine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and many many others. And other countries have a lot of places worth seeing. So, let's translate articles about them in our languages! --Visem (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Create an article about each and every country in the region challenge[edit]

Last year it was popular among some editors to create articles about each and every country listed and most probably this will happen this time too. Should we announce it as a challenge? Should we give a small special prize for all these editors as a bonus? What could be the prize or reward that would present our region the best? --Kaarel Vaidla (WM EE) (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I like this idea a lot! Hm, we already have the prize for Most equally distributed articles about all countries - is it not the same? --Lord Bumbury (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It can be. I would just like to see each and every person who has done that to get a small souvenir. Most equally distributed articles about all countries - sounded for me like a bigger prize for contributor who writes a lot about all of these ... --Kaarel Vaidla (WM EE) (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also support the idea of diversification of the topics by adding the sub-challenge of writing articles about the most possible countries. Spiritia 07:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This idea is certainly better then Most equally distributed articles about all countries, as it would not prevent an editor form writing more articles about given country he has good sources on (as he would be punished for doing so, which is generally bad, as we want more content in the first place). PuchaczTrado (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that if we have both prize categories (Most equally distributed articles about all countries and a number of sub-challenges) it would be bad? --Lord Bumbury (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just can't imagine a fair rules to determine Most equally distributed articles about all countries winner. The only logical one would be to give prize to the person who hasn't wrote a single thing in whole contest. But perhaps you have an idea how to do this reasonable? PuchaczTrado (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Tool[edit]

As I understand it, we need a tool where one can choose a set of users and present their contribution in bytes added and bytes removed / number of articles created and edited in a specific set of articles. Is that correct? Or am I missing something? @Base:, @Александр Сигачёв: - is this doable? --Kaarel Vaidla (WM EE) (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let us not forget User:Ilya. And we need a cross-wiki tool which goes through all articles with a certain CEE Spring template on their discussion pages and counts the number of created and significantly edited articles as well as the number of bytes and words added per user. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have the criteria yet? So that it's know what to count. --Base (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we know that the information we generally gather from participants is a) username and b) list of articles created.
We also know that at least in part reporting should be done according to global metrics, which includes: a) number of active editors (5+ per month) involved; b) number of newly registered users, c) number of media added; d) number of articles added or improved; e) total bytes added and/or deleted in these articles.
That means that we need a tool, which can a) query activity of provided set of users (whether they are doing monthly 5+ edits or less) and print relevant statistics: x active users, x not active users; b) query account creation log of provided set of users (whether it is prior to CEE Spring start (21.03.2016) or it was done during CEE Spring) and print relevant statistics: x new users, x already registered users; c) query all media added by provided set of users to provided set of articles during competition period (21.03.2016-31.05.2016) and print number of media files added to these articles; d) query text added and deleted by provided by set of users to provided set of articles during competition period (21.03.2016-31.05.2016).
Having this would already be quite good. What do you think? --Kaarel Vaidla (WM EE) (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As long the tool is good and allows us to track our progress, I am quite agnostic on whether it has something to do with global metrics or not. But surely I do not want to condemn some poor programmer to writing a uselessly complex tool only for us to be able to say that we have used global metrics. The tool ought to allow us find the winners according to the rules of the contest, nothing else. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so once we have the prize awarding criteria, unless someone wants to take this, I am going to write a bot. I will also think on what a template should look like (the fact that it just should be is undiscussable, but it looks that it probably will also need parameters for specifying country, topic the article is about as well as additional boolean for that Arc thing and perhaps something else, so that the bot can just read the data from it instead of trying to get it whatever else way [honestly cannot imagine which else it could be done]). Perfectly the output should look like a per country table listing participating users as rows and having metrics as columns. Perhaps (I probably need to duplicate it in some section above) there'd also have to be place for some manual marks to then be filled by humans if we'd have such. I will focus on those metrics we will have in criteria, but if it happens that I will have spare time and will, I am not against adding there whatever else (up to number of letters "[zз]" in 3rd words of sentences starting with "[TТ]" or anything else of completely no use :) ) --Base (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we see what Asian Month used? --Papuass (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, for some reason I overlooked this conversation, sorry. Putting templates on discussion pages of articles will not fly on de-wp, solely for the reason that discussion pages are not used in that way. Users will write down the articles they created on one of the project pages though, will that suffice for the metrics you are aiming for? Braveheart (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that complicates things for sure. The listings should be OK though in general, but it will take me time to teach bot work with them instead of using templates, thus this will be of lower priority right now. The listing should contain the article name, the topic and the country it's about and the author's nickname (especially for articles improved) in some parsable format (unified at the least, so that bot will not need to know that PL, Polonia and Poland is the same thing). --Base (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a status update: I am somewhat late but the work is over 50% in progress. I should be able to provide some data tomorrow probably, but it is all complicated a lot because of situations like above: people want to use lists, some want Education Extension, I am yet to check whether those who stick with template have the templates provide all data needed (country, topic, author for improved ones). I hope that the delay would not be of bad consequences as there's little what to show at the very start anyways. --Base (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Base: I think it's easiest if you define a format that the data you want to process should be in, and we'll see how we can get that data into the defined format (parallel to the template solution). Would that be doable? BR, Braveheart (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Braveheart, well if you say so, something like User:Base/Example templates/CEES article row would be perfect. You may translate the parameters and stuff when port that to dewiki. Is that fine with you? Do not hesitate to ask if you need any help too. --Base (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That looks doable, really depends on how many ppl actually decide to participate ;-) We have a similar list on de-wp, so reformatting it shouldn't take too long. Braveheart (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Braveheart, so what is the current status of all it? Have you created the listing with a template like this? If no, do you have any listing or whatever else record of articles created as part of the contest? Could you point me to those, please? --Base (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Base, the current list is here - the third column doesn't count since it's only use is to reserve certain articles. But the statistics page already lists the number of articles created in a specific language. Wouldn't that list be more suitable? Braveheart (talk) 07:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another status update: I mostly spent the past 2 days contacting local organisers so that they have the infrastructure (the template, or a solution like the above one), so did actually code just tonight. Things are also complicated by e.g. Romanians putting the template to random pages. Nevertheless I am planning to have the rawest output tomorrow, please do not worry in case you rely on the tool for your evaluations. --Base (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so far here's how it looks. To be improved considerably.

--Base (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • [[]]

Further collaboration[edit]

I have been thinking about making CEE Spring even more viral and increase notability of CEE on "external" Wikipedias. That means that I would like to see further collaboration with Iberocoop and WikiFranca, i.e. other active collaboratives in Wikimedia movement. I think we should present them idea of having a CEE Spring also on Spanish/Portuguese/Italian and French wikipedias. What do you think?

Last year there was also discussion about having this competition on English Wikipedia. Does anyone have a good idea about how this could work? --Kaarel Vaidla (WM EE) (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we wish to have CEE Spring in Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and French, then we could as well organise it in all languages. It would be beyond my ability to imagine things. We tried to reach out to German, English and Spanish communities for the Archives Challenge, but most active were editors from the CEE Region. Unless you have some very bright idea how we could push CEE Spring beyond the limits of our region, I'd drop it. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about something like the en:Wikipedia Asian Month, which was globally advertised. Not sure how much human resource this required on the organizers' side, but we can probably ask, and ask for help (judging from the page histories: AddisWang, SuperHamster) We need to prepare one publication for the Foundation's official blog (I can cooperate on this). Spiritia 07:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special rules for language versions without a country (a.k.a. Esperanto)[edit]

Variants for Esperanto:

  1. Do not write about country of your current residence
  2. Do not write about country where you issue a citizenship
  3. Do not write about Poland (Esperanto's land of origin)
  4. No restrictions

--Ochilov (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with no restrictions. It would also be interesting what would find a place in Esperanto's list of articles to be written in all other languages. Information about the language, its founders, and more such, perhaps? --Lord Bumbury (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Лорд Бъмбъри, I also support the last option. Yes, we can make a list with anything related to Esperanto - history, language itself, culture (literature, movies, music), famous people, builings and statues etc. --Ochilov (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On Estonian Wikipedia we did not have "writing about your own country restriction" last year and actually only people who wanted to do all CEE countries wrote an article about Estonia too. So I would go with "no restrictions" option for Esperanto Wikipedia. I also support creating a separate list about Esperanto. It is a special topic for CEE region. --Kaarel Vaidla (WM EE) (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of at least 100 articles[edit]

So, are we going to prepare a completely new list for this edition, or use the old one. Do we have any statistic to what extent where those propositions used? And can we get rid of the Women category please? It led to some controversies on Polish Wikiepedia, as many Wikipedians (me included) had seen it as a sexist, artificial and not encyclopaedic (as people goes into encyclopaedia because of their achievements, and not because of their sex). PuchaczTrado (talk) 08:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lists were used to some extent. Information in a table can be found on meta page from last year.
In Estonia also having a special "Women" list has raised controversy and is rather seen as sexist, artificial and not encyclopaedic as well. This sub-category was created in nrelation to WMF campaign, but this sub-section could be merged with other more encyclopaedic divisions. What are other opinions? See discussion from last year on respective meta page. --Kaarel Vaidla (WM EE) (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If specific list of women is considered controversial by some communities, how about still keeping it in the form of a sub-challenge (similar to what Ijon did in the 100wikidays). I guess this is a suitable way to both have to pie and eat it. Spiritia 17:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft of rules on international level[edit]

Hi, Assuming that Wikimedia Polska will be a payment processor for the grant on the international level and reading the discussion above I suggest the following set of basic rules:

  1. CEE Spring 2016 is a set of local contests, without prizes on international level, however internationally coordinated by coordinating committee.
  2. Local contest must be organized in a way to select winners before [date of deadline]
  3. In order to join the CEE Spring 2016 a chapter, an established or not-established user group must:
    1. Select one person as a coordinator; this person must be ready to reveal to the Wikimedia Polska office his/her full name, contact address and bank account number to be used for money transfers
    2. Prepare the set of rules of local contest and provide a translation to English or at least general description in English of the rules to coordination committee for acceptance.
    3. Prepare a list of at least 100 articles in at least 5 categories about their countries to translate/create before [date of deadline]
    4. It is up to local organizers to decide about method of selection of local winners, however it must be clearly defined and accepted by coordination committee.
  4. The prizes in the contest are books or other reference materials (journal subscription, CD's, paid access to professional databases etc.) - useful for writing articles in Wikipedia.
  5. It is up to local organizers how many prizes they want to offer, but the overall sum for all of them in each country must not exceed 400 USD [or different sum]
  6. Local organizers must first buy the prizes themselves and collect invoices for them issued for Wikimedia Polska.
  7. Local organizers must create a protocol of the process of selection of winners, calculation of overall costs, collect the invoices proving the purchase and send it to Wikimedia Polska and coordinating committee.
  8. Wikimedia Polska will reimburse local organizers after acceptance of the protocol, invoices and calculation of overall costs by coordination committee and accountant of Wikimedia Polska.
  9. The reimbursement will be sent as money transfer to the bank account provided by local organizer.
  10. The points 4-9 are applicable only for those chapters and user-groups which want to be reimbursed by grant processed by Wikimedia Polska. The chapters and user-groups willing to fund their own prizes are free to do it as they wish.

Polimerek (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see these as very good set of points for managing the funds of the grant. One thing that can be an issue is that the responsible organizer has to put aside prize sum from personal money with a small risk of not getting refund (screws up something in reporting to WMPL). Working with coordination committee will mitigate the risk, though. I am not sure about different prize amounts for different countries. It makes sense for smaller prizes in smaller communities. Maybe we can agree that winner in each country gets equal sum, but there can be more prizes in larger communities? --Papuass (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that buying prizes from your own pocket could be painful, but see no other option to proceed. I.e. buying all prizes by Wikimedia Polska directly does not scale - that would be too many payments even with the help of international team. The pre-payment to local organizers is very risky and would probably signing formal agreements in order to have the legal tool to get money back in case of any problems. Regarding structure of prizes - I would leave to local coordnators - it could be just one prize or 10 small prizes. 400 USD for books is quite a lot of money, so I expect most coordinators will divide it. But we can say - write that it will be reimbursement for one prize for up to 100 USD and more prizes for up 400... Polimerek (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I accept points 1, 2, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 immediately.
On 3.2: I do not consider a translation in English needed. Someone from the organising committee will be able to understand the texts in any CEE language with a little help from a friend or their most liked machine translation software. Translating in English would create needless work for local organisers.
On 6: We have to think about some option for local organisers who cannot pay 400 USD from their own pockets. This is the amount of an average monthly salary or more in many CEE countries and we cannot expect that from every community, especially from smaller ones. I do not know how to solve the problem, though, and would like to know how many communities are affected by this particular problem.
--Lord Bumbury (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For 3.2 - we can change it to "Prepare the set of rules of local contest and provide the rules to coordination committee for acceptance." - so if committee will receive the rules in a language they don't understand (for example in Albanian) it could ask for translation in order to accept it :-) Anyway we will need at least one person in each country able to communicate in English in order to be able to check if everything is OK with payments. Invoices can be in local languages but at least they must be briefly explained in English in order to be maintainable by our office. For 6: I really see no other option. Polimerek (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, deadline time then :). For point 2 - 15 June. For 3.3 - 15 March. Is that manageable? --Lord Bumbury (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to have a more remote deadline on determining winners if we go with quality articles side contest. PuchaczTrado (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. Shall we go for 30 June? --Lord Bumbury (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a third thought, on point 4: "The prizes in the contest are books or other reference materials (journal subscription, CD's, paid access to professional databases etc.) - useful for writing articles in Wikipedia." - I would rather prefer that we left some freedom to the local communities on deciding what their prizes will be. There are some communities, which give away vouchers for book stores, which is easier and, after all, a good novel can motivate people to write an article about the novel, another one about the author as well as many articles about all the places in it. Polimerek, would you be fine with that? --Lord Bumbury (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vouchers are problematic from legal POV - as in fact we could simply have money prizes - but money prizes (and also vouchers) are problematic as it is formally an income - so winners should pay Polish income tax. But definition of the prizes could be broader as long as they are defined goods not money. Polimerek (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does that also apply to prizes handed out outside of Poland? Vouchers are quite common in contests in Austria. Braveheart (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that it only applies if prizes are managed via WMPL (for countries without chapter or similar situation). --Papuass (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These is a draft of the rules on international level for communities, user groups and chapters which decide to be part of the international grant, which is planned to be 400 Euro per community and would be handled by Wikimedia Polska. If you use your own chapter's funds, you can have whatever prizes you want. My wish is that we have a well structured and internationally coordinated contest and I think it would be good if most communities participate at this grant. I have already prepared almost a whole grant proposal which I will publish later tonight. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, tomorrow. We are almost on schedule, though :). --Lord Bumbury (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Grant application is ready: Grants:PEG/Wikimedia CEE/CEE Spring + I just expanded budget part and think we can officially submit it. Polimerek (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gender related goals[edit]

Лорд Бъмбъри, how did thoss gender related goals aims found their way to the list:

  • Total number of female participants: 200
  • higher number of newly created and significantly edited articles about women than about men
  • Closing the content gender gap (correlates with the quantitative goal about articles about women)?

First one is certainly better stated then at least half of participants. But the two remaining? Why can't we have regional event without trying to prove someone POV (Point of view)? Anyway, who made those aims up? How do you plan to determine gender of a user who does not state it in their profile (or writes as IP)? What do this ideological issue have to do with Central Europe? PuchaczTrado (talk) 08:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also Grants talk:PEG/Wikimedia CEE/CEE Spring. Лорд Бъмбъри answered that female editors will be tracked by post contest survey. --Papuass (talk) 10:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PuchaczTrado, at least half of participants will not happen, I expect many more than 400 participants and therefore 200 girls would not be half of all participants. I expect around 30% girls, but I am not quite sure, therefore I've defined it as that. If you find enough people (e.g. more than half of the local organisers) sharing your opinion we could change that.
Closing the gender gap is a strategic aim of the Wikimedia Foundation and if we want a grant for our contest we could use it to solve part of that particular problem while we are resolving our other problem of not having enough articles about our region in our languages. The aims were defined mostly by me and affirmed from the international organisation team.
Please keep in mind that these are aims for the whole region and not for every country, i.e. if there are 3000 articles on people in the whole region and there are 500 in Poland, and all 500 are about men, then the aims can be reached if in some other countries the editors write more about women. Basically these aims will be easily achieved exactly because we do not have a big problem with the gender gap or content gender gap in our region, compared to other regions. So please do not consider it as an ideological issue which has nothing to do with Central and Eastern Europe, but as a possibility to show the world that we do not have this issue.
Papuass is right that we would conduct a post contest survey via Qualtrics. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Лорд Бъмбъри If I remember correctly Wikipedia is edited by volunteers, and they are free to choose their subject as far as it is feet for encyclopaedia. How do you plan to convince them to write less about men and more about women, and why do you think that such artificial biasing of articles subjects is desirable? PuchaczTrado (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PuchaczTrado:, as far as I remember you are right about Wikipedia being edited by volunteers, I would just add "mostly", because of the PR agencies who are trying it every now and then. This project has ten aims - 8 quantitative (2 of them are defined as "could", which is wishful thinking) and 2 strategic aims. So, although you only have eyes for the aim higher number of newly created and significantly edited articles about women than about men, it is only a "could"-aim, on which our success will not be measured. The strategic aim Closing the content gender gap is indeed a strategic aim of the Wikimedia Foundation and since we are asking for a grant, which would help us succeed in reaching the other aims, we can also do our best to help the WMF reach its strategic aims, which by definition are also others, because we chose them to represent us. I am sorry that the method for achieving this aim was not part of the corresponding section, I've added it (and it is "Higher number of newly created and significantly edited articles about women than about men" can be reached by popularising such topics via the social media, the international blog and, if local coordinators like it, via the national blogs.). There will be what you call "artificial biasing of articles subjects" during this contest in order to reach all the aims. As an example - we cannot reach a certain number of excellent articles if we do not produce such rules, which will motivate editors to create excellent articles. Best regards, --Lord Bumbury (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Лорд Бъмбъри: can you point me where is this strategic aim about making number of bios of man and woman equal on Wikipedia? I could find only one about rising woman editor percentage to 25%. PuchaczTrado (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are misinterpreting this. The goal of this contest is not to reach 50/50 balance in all biographies in Wikipedia. The goal here is reduce the current imbalance by possibly creating more women topics than men during the contest. However there is no requirement for judges to value a participant higher if he creates more women biographies than other participants. --Papuass (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation, @Papuass:. These could have been my words. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Papuass:, @Лорд Бъмбъри: can you still inform me how this goal found its way to the list? Where was it discussed. I'm curious where are decisions made regarding CEE shape. And still, I would like to read about gender contnent gap as a strategic aim for Wikimedia, even if it is not supposed to be 50/50. Couldn't find it anywhere. PuchaczTrado (talk) 06:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe, that since thee is International Women's Day in March, many language versions of Wikipedia are actually doing separate action regarding woman. There is no need to extend it up to 3 months with CEE.PuchaczTrado (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all - I was asked to comment here to clarify the foundation's strategy around gender and content. A few thoughts/comments:
  • First, my comments are mostly about the Foundation's strategy, and not the Movement's strategy; the strategy focus areas of CEE could be different from the WMF's. I encourage you to really think about what are the needs and focus areas for CEE and really focus on that to help set your targets.
  • As you might know, we are currently working on a new strategy right now. You can see the report with the findings of the community consultation. One of the approaches that emerged within the "communities" area is "Reduce harassment issues and the gender gap to facilitate a safe, welcoming, and supportive environment for

contributors and editors." So you can see there is a merger here; its not just about the gender gap, but also about creating a welcoming and supportive environment. I am curious to hear how this fits CEE's current focus areas?

  • I can't recall there being a specific aim to increase "gender content". Right now, the only way that we can measure gender content is using biographies of women. Beyond biographies, it is impossible to call something "gender" content, since gender is mainly about personal identity of people, and not things. So, the best way is to measure how many women participate in an event, which is why we included this as one of the Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire/Funding/Evaluation additional metrics required for the inspire campaign.
  • Also, from the previous strategy, there is an overall goal for: "Support healthy diversity in the editing community by doubling the percentage of female editors to 25 percent and increase the percentage of Global South editors to 37 percent." Just some numbers that might help you with setting targets.
I hope this helps this discussion and goal setting! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, by now we know that PuchaczTrado wants us to remove the aims about gender gap and content gender gap. We took the category "Women" from last year's contest, so for me it seems that last year there was a consensus that the category is needed and therefore we came up with the aims about that. We would be glad to get the opinions of more local organisers on this topic. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Лорд Бъмбъри: I wouldn't call this discussion a consensus. PuchaczTrado (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Writing articles about women is something that we as a movement need to emphasize more. But still, it's only a small part on most lists, so you might as well complain that we're campaigning for more nature or geography articles ;-) Braveheart (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we agreed that Women section should be removed and articles integrated in other sections. Some found it offensive to have a "special" category for women. --Papuass (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since every country assembles its own list I'm not quite sure who agreed to what exactly. Braveheart (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Module and template for Structure pages[edit]

Hi! I have created a module and template for Structure pages. See small example here. --Voll (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thank you! I'm going to use it in a minute! --Lord Bumbury (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A letter to local organisers[edit]

Dear local organisers of CEE Spring (User:Papuass, User:Ehrlich91, User:David1010, User:DenisaRucaj, User:Vodnokon4e, User:Spiritia, User:Beko, User:Adeliine, User:Friend, User:IvanaMadzarevic, User:Ранко Николић, User:Zygimantus, User:Ochilov, User:Mr. Zabej, User:Artificial123, User:Geraki, User:RepliCarter, User:Gikü, User:drbug, User:Braveheart, User:Lišiak, User:Aktron, User:Саган),

today we learned that not each and every one of you knows about the grant proposal[1] running. If you wish to help us organise the contest in a more coordinated way, please put the contest page[2] and the grant proposal page[3] in you watchlist, join the list for Wikimedians from Central and Eastern Europe[4] and like the Central Eastern European Wikimedia Community page on Facebook[5]. These are the places where information about the contest is shared and discussed.

Please pay attention to the fact that if the grant proposal is accepted then each participating community would receive 400 Euro as prize funds, subject to the international rules:

  1. CEE Spring 2016 is a set of local contests, without prizes on international level, however internationally coordinated by coordinating committee.
  2. Local contests must be organized in a way to select winners before 30 June 2016.
  3. In order to join the CEE Spring 2016 a chapter, an established or not-established user group must:
  1. Select one person as a coordinator; this person must be ready to reveal to the Wikimedia Polska office his/her full name, contact address and bank account number to be used for money transfers
  2. Prepare the set of rules of local contest and give them to the international coordination committee for acceptance.
  3. Prepare a list of at least 100 articles in at least 5 categories about their countries to translate/create before 15 March 2016.
  4. It is up to local organizers to decide about method of selection of local winners, however it must be clearly defined and accepted by the international coordination committee.
  1. The prizes in the contest are books or other reference materials (journal subscription, CD's, paid access to professional databases etc.) - useful for writing articles in Wikipedia.
  2. It is up to local organizers how many prizes they want to offer, but the overall sum for all of them in each country cannot exceed 400 EUR
  3. Local organizers will first buy the prizes themselves and collect invoices for them issued for Wikimedia Polska.
  4. Local organizers must create a protocol of the process of selection of winners, calculation of overall costs, collect the invoices proving the purchase and send it to Wikimedia Polska and the coordinating committee.
  5. Wikimedia Polska will reimburse local organizers after acceptance of the protocol, invoices and calculation of the overall costs by the coordination committee and the accountant of Wikimedia Polska.
  6. The reimbursement will be sent as money transfer to a bank account provided by the local organizer.
  7. The points 4-9 are applicable only for those chapters and user-groups which want to be reimbursed by grant processed by Wikimedia Polska. The chapters and user-groups willing to fund their own prizes are free to do it as they wish.

On behalf of the international organising team, Nikola Kalchev / User:Лорд Бъмбъри

Croatia and Slovakia[edit]

Hi. Some countries that participated last year aren't on the list this year. Croatia would like to participate again. How we can do that?--Fraxinus (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Fraxinus:, you can still make it! See section duties to find list of tasks. You can get a part of prize pool (up to 400 EUR) for local contest, just be quick (this week) with Croatian list (mostly can reuse the one from last year) and local contest pages. --Papuass (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lišiak:, I've added Slovakia to Template:Wikimedia CEE Spring 2016 Article Lists by Country, because you are participating, although you are not being part of the grant. Please add the article list about Slovakia at Wikimedia CEE Spring 2016/Structure/Slovakia. Thank you! --Lord Bumbury (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rules on local level[edit]

As we (Latvians) do not have long history of article contests with prizes, I want to have consultation about rules I have written:

  1. Any user can participate in contest, jury and other organizers are not entitled to prizes
  2. Articles shall be created between March 21, 2016 0:00 EET and May 31, 2016 23:59 EET
  3. Article should be notable, well formatted and should include references
  4. Article can not be machine translated or written in very poor language
  5. Article should not be copyvio, contain long citations or plagiarism
  6. Article has to be about CEE topic
  7. Articles about Latvia will not be included in contest

We plan to award prizes in categories:

  1. Most contributions during contest (one or more users)
  2. Best new contributor (has less than 400 edits before start of contest)
  3. Best article created during the contest
  4. Lottery between all users who have created at least one article about each country (should we include non-participating countries?). It would be their responsibility to register their progress in covering all countries in dedicated page.

Can you point out important things I have missed? For jury I plan to approach some old time users who decide not to take part in contest. @Polimerek:, how do these look? --Papuass (talk) 10:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In general the rules are clear and good. Depending on whether you only count bytes or number of articles or have a qualitative analysis organisers could get prizes.
Notability, no machine translations and no copyvio is obvious, because else they will get deleted anyway, but it is good that you write it down, so that newbies do not make those mistakes.
The prize categories are fine for me, awarding of prizes from the international grant is subject to its approval. Would it be four equally high prizes? --Lord Bumbury (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In our local contest we have just a point saying that articles need to follow all Wikipedia rules, especially NPOV, WER and clean copyrights. The rest seems to be OK. Polimerek (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
About prizes: There would be pool of books. Winners would pick their favourite one in order (1) Most contributions (2) Best article (3) Best new user (4) Lottery. Still have to think about details, as 400 EUR would buy more than 4 books. I will publish rules for prizes after the grant is approved, of course. --Papuass (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Contests on de-wp usually follow the rule of awarding points for creating articles and changing a set number of words/characters in an article. We'll probably put more emphasis on creating articles this time around (2 points) and hand out 1 point for every 300 words changed in an existing article. The article quality is difficult to judge and takes up a lot of time, which is why we don't include that. Usually, other users will help out with formatting if necessary (but that's probably less common in smaller communities). Braveheart (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Communication with the local organisers[edit]

Hello, @Papuass:, @Ehrlich91:, @David1010:, @DenisaRucaj:, @Vodnokon4e:, @Spiritia:, @Beko:, @Adeliine:, @Friend:, @IvanaMadzarevic:, @Ранко Николић:, @Zygimantus:, @Ochilov:, @Mr. Zabej:, @Artificial123:, @Geraki:, @RepliCarter:, @Gikü:, @JukoFF:, @Braveheart:, @Lišiak:, @Aktron:, @Саган:. I was wondering whether it would be better if we had a mailing list or a Facebook group next to this talk page. Please let me know what you prefer: Meta / Mailing list / Facebook group, and I will (if needed) create one. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook Group would be best. I have a problem that my e-mail provider won't let me to have more than 34 000 e-mails and I keep it somewhere at 33 600 recently. --Aktron (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For me any option is acceptable. Beko (talk) 07:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any of those options will suit. --Papuass (talk) 08:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mind either. Braveheart (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer mailing list. :) --IvanaMadzarevic (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For me it does not matter, any option is acceptable.--David1010 (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer mailing list or facebook group. --DenisaRucaj (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was one person telling that a mailing list is more useful than Facebook, please subscribe to this one: --Lord Bumbury (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joined. JukoFF (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Module:WikimediaCEETable generates the article lists. This was primarily developed by User:Voll. I added a few more elements, notably counts and the links for map, gallery and timeline.

I was wondering which features you actually find useful. If there is demand, I could also include a query to list the statements on items at Wikidata.

Personally, I'm mostly active at Wikidata. If you have questions about Wikidata, I can try to answer them. I hope this supports your project in one way or the other. --Jura1 (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful if the lists could show which articles were created or significantly (= over 300 words difference) edited during the contest (21 March to 31 May). Thank you and User:Voll very much for this module! --Lord Bumbury (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is possibly directly in the module.
However, when watchlisting a specific page with an article list and activating "Show Wikidata edits in your watchlist" Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist one generally sees articles that are newly linked to the Wikidata items on that page. You can query that information from the recent changes table as well (last 30 days) [1]. The result might need some rework. This could at least give you the newly created articles. --Jura1 (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From quarry, one might be able to get current article sizes for all used items.--Jura1 (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO User:Botik script is better tool for this task. See pages under Wikimedia_CEE_Spring_2015/Structure/Statistics, I think Alexander made nice and comprehensive calculations. --Voll (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I reanimated old bot - see Wikimedia CEE Spring 2016/Structure/Statistics --Alexander Sigachov (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! This is a good way to see which articles from the lists were created. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jura1, can you add Esperanto, please? We also participate ;) --Ochilov (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Jura1 (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jura1, thank you very much! You are awesome! :D --Ochilov (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way Jura1 thank you so much. You have converted my small hammer in an enterprise machine-tool. Really. :-) --Voll (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will this "enterprise machine-tool" be able to take articles into consideration which were not in the article lists but have the {{:d:Q22927112|Template:CEE Spring 2016}} on their talk pages? Base might be interested, too. The possibility of manual addition of data for participating communities who decide not to use the template but just create their own table would be useful, too. He is working on something similar. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a question about the User:Botik tool. --Jura1 (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is not desirable for Ukrainian part of the contest as we give more points if the articles created were taken from the lists on /Structure. This means we consider this list to be stable till May 31.--Ата (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Ата. It would be important to have a stable version of the lists from the 21 March and a current version, which can be compared to the first one. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do I understand correctly that the template is designed for a maximum of 500 articles? JukoFF (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. It happens because only 500 expensive call allowed at the content page. You can create subpage like Polish editors. --Voll (talk) 07:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have exactly 498 :) but does not work. JukoFF (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, to do so in Poland does not work, an error occurs. Also there is an error on the main page of the Polish list. JukoFF (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Up to 400 should work. Not sure why we can't get up to 500. After that, it needs to be split into subpages. --Jura1 (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I added be-tarask to the table, but how it updates articles which exist already? --Renessaince (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voll, Jura1, there is a problem there: lang works as 'be_x_old' but sitelink should be 'be-x-old' (apart from that fact that transition to 'be-tarask' should have been done long ago but it haven't). Please help with that. --Ата (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I also tried to abbreviated the column header. Not ideal, but otherwise it will have thrice the size of the other columns. --Jura1 (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My geatest thanks! --Ата (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Small edit to Press release 2, please propagate to your local translations[edit]

Hello, @Papuass:, @Ehrlich91:, @David1010:, @DenisaRucaj:, @Vodnokon4e:, @Beko:, @Adeliine:, @Friend:, @IvanaMadzarevic:, @Ранко Николић:, @Zygimantus:, @Ochilov:, @Mr. Zabej:, @Artificial123:, @Geraki:, @RepliCarter:, @Gikü:, @JukoFF:, @Braveheart:, @Lišiak:, @Aktron:, @Саган:.

Please note that a small edit was made to Press Release 2, which should not yet sent out to media, but probably already translated to your local languages. Please, edit your translations or adapt accordingly. This message will be cross-posted to the FB group and the mailing list. Spiritia 13:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Why were the translation tags removed? It's incredibly difficult to promote this project when its landing page is only availabe in English. Braveheart (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Braveheart, I removed them before moving the content of the page to subpages. Now the page is translatable again. --Ата (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! :-) Braveheart (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome newcomers![edit]

Be-tarask Wikipedia joined CEE Spring 2016. That means +1 project and +0 countries to the list of participants. --Ата (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian Wikipedia joined too.--Fraxinus (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! :-) --Lord Bumbury (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining the CEE Spring 2016 template to newbies[edit]

Today, I realized that the instruction of "place the template "CEE Spring 2016" is not going to work for new editors, who are not supposed to know how we transclude templates in pages, and what a template is among all. So, I added a simple instruction for newbies after this sentence, which provide this instruction in a (hopefully) comprehensible way.

If you are new to Wikipedia:
1. Copy (Ctrl + C) the following piece of wiki code: {{CEE Spring 2016}}
2. Open the talk page adjacent to the article you wrote (Alt + Shift + T).
3. Paste the piece of wiki code (Ctrl + V).
4. Save the edit (Alt + Shift + S).

As a result, the talk page of your article must contain the following message:

The article „...“ is created or expanded in the frames of the international contest "Wikimedia CEE Spring 2016".

You can take the idea and adapt it in your wikis accordingly. Spiritia 22:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

200 words[edit]

How do you tackle the '200 words' rule? Is it fair to count all the words in an article, including bibliography, citations, image descriptions, infoboxes etc.? My assumption is no, and to avoid misunderstandings, I suggest specifying '200 words in the main body of an article'. The question arose when I read this article, with less than 100 words in the main body and a lot of bibliography. --Gikü (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is 300 and as far as the international organisers are concerned it is according to the bot, written by User:Base, User:BaseBot/CEES/MMXVI. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is just
        int words = pt.split("[\\p{Po}\\p{Z}\\p{S}\\p{C}]+").length;

at the moment. I have taken it from WAM's tool where they had

        $regex = '/[\p{P}\p{Z}\p{S}\p{C}]+/u';
        $cnt = count(preg_split($regex, $text));

for non-CJK wikis. I have changed \p{P} to \p{Po} so that words with hyphen are not double (or triple) counted but all the rest needs thinking. I would love it to be just main body, but I am not sure I know how do define what *exactly* main body is even if we are not speaking about regexes but just using English. As to 200 or 300 or whatever I do not care, I can add more columns if you need them in some of the outputs. --Base (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian problem[edit]

Hi all,

It looks like we have a new political problem in the CEE... I have noticed that Bosnia is not participating this year and tried to invite local community (which is already hard given that there is no organised group and that they were inactive last year). I found a volunteer but he later wrote that he cannot promote the contest where Republic of Srpska is considered as a country. I am not sure if all Bosnian Wikimedians share this opinion but looks like having Republic of Sprska and Bosnian Wikipedia involved at the same time is problematic. It is interesting to discuss how we can deal with this — NickK (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also discussion here. --Papuass (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't notice that the discussion is going on there, thanks — NickK (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Munja, User:Palapa, would at least one of you add your name to the list of local organisers? Thank you very much in advance! --Lord Bumbury (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Munja (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Dear organizator of Wikimedia CEE Spring 2016 (Ата, Magalia, Ochilov, Лорд Бъмбъри),

Since the project aim is "to support article creation about every country in the region", i think that Kosovo should be part of it, because is in Central and Eastern Europe. Recently, new states were added to the project, I think it's not late for Kosovo to become part of this project.--Liridon (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not late, as soon as local organiser keeps an eye on his project and makes it work :) See Wikimedia CEE Spring 2016/Participants#Duties --Ата (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Ата.--Liridon (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ата in collaboration with wiki-community of Kosovo, I created all pages required in Duties, tomorrow will start to promote and inform our community to participate. Can you add in main timeline, and inform other organizers to add Kosovo in ther timeline.--Liridon (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Country vs language vs Wikimedia affiliate organization[edit]

This is a copy of a message on the CEE Wikimedia Community group on Facebook. It has been slightly changed based on the feedback I received there, in order to be more clear that it is a proposal for future contests, not for the 2016 edition

I've been following the latest additions to participating entities in Wikimedia CEE Spring with increasing confusion. For me, the current system does not scale very well. It seems the criteria for inclusion in the contest is only the existence of a Wikimedia affiliate organization or even of a single individual that can provide the list of articles, regardless of the geographical area covered by that affiliate.

We all know that politics are complicated and the Wikipedia cannot completely stay away from these complications, but in this instance I feel that we shot ourselves in the foot big time. Choosing to go with chapters instead of countries or languages has brought both difficulties in explaining to participants what they are writing about and an unhealthy competition between subjects in various regions and the countries themselves. It seems very difficult fore a non-wikimedian to understand something like: "We're writing about stuff from CEE. This week we recommend writing about Russia and Bosnia, and next week it will be about Bashkortostan and Republica Srpska and the week after that about Esperanto"

We should acknowledge the fact that chapters are not well known outside their respective area of interest and also that it's not chapters who write articles, but individual volunteers.

Thus, I propose that future editions of CEE Spring be segmented either by country (as in sovereign state) or by language, but not both. It should be the responsibility of the organizers to ensure an equilibrium between the different interests in that country or community.--Strainu (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think too that is a bit confusing, and I hope to be improved in the upcoming years. I appreciate the idea, and the project goals, but it would be better, regardless of whether a country is part of the competition or not, to have a list (for countries in Central and Eastern Europe). Also, I think that the best way to compete is within a community of a language (no matter from where he is), because most of the countries that participate have more than one language, and there are also more than one countries which have same language.--Liridon (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
regardless of whether a country is part of the competition or not, to have a list - then again, the lists are created by volunteers, not payed staff. It would kill of any motivation if we create a list for a country/language prematurely. It would also get very political if we restricted certain user groups from participating, just because another country/chapter/user group already claimed that language. After all, it's not about languages or countries, but the culture, society, geography, etc. of a region/country. A list for Tyrol for example would be very easy to achieve and contain many aspects that are not represented in a otherwise Vienna-centred Austrian culture. Braveheart (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Creating list isn't an issue, and because it is more about culture, society, etc, we together can collaborate and make them. "just because another country/chapter/user group already claimed that language" - not true, a language cant be claimed by chapter/user-group, which are simply groups of Wikipedians but do not represent the community of that language.--Liridon (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Creating list isn't an issue - how so? How would a collaborative effort look like? Braveheart (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Braveheart actually there are lists of more than 100 articles for each country, and I dont expect all of them to be written in all languages, which means volunteers need only to update minor changes every year. BTW this year I created lists for both Kosovo and Albania with two other Wikipedians, and it took us 3-4 hours for each country to complete.--Liridon (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I very much doubt that we will only have to make minor updates to the lists. But that's maybe a discussion to be had at the CEE Meeting in August, after we have the end results? Braveheart (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of the lists is to make them collaboratively - as large part of the community should participate in the creation as possible, so that the most needed articles to describe the country/region/language find their place on the list. The topic is a good one for WMCON, Wikimania and the CEE Meeting. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought for a day before I wrote this. TLDR: Where there is content, there should be cooperation.

The name is not important, the content is. We have this very nice article writing contest named CEE Spring, which is all about the culture, politics, sports, and people of the region. We defined the region by the communities participating at Wikimedia Central and Eastern Europe. At least one German laughed at us for that. According to our very own encyclopaedia, Central Europe includes Germany and Switzerland, as well as to a lesser extent Italy and Liechtenstein, all of which are not part of our regional cooperation. Eastern Europe is even weirder. There are plenty of definitions of Eastern Europe, geographical and cultural, religious. Ah, we all know that it's complicated.

A discussion was led under a rather innocent Facebook post. Among the comments were we're already expanding the limits of the "CEE" way more than geographers and/or politicians and I think we need to stop, we need more discussions about our future and that we need to stop "expanding" our region above the geographical limits, we should remain in these loose CEE region borders, but we can work with other communities outside region on individual projects, and There is a lot of countries and pseudo-countries in Wikimedia CEE, we don't need more. I disapprove. Our cooperation is not about geography or politics. There is no expanding for the sake of expanding. We should not ever say we don't need more.

We have to put content in the centre of our discussion. Rich Bulgarians sent their children to study in France in the 19th century, French was a language spoken by Russian nobility in the 18th century. Germany had a part in the Eastern Bloc for four decades. Finland and Estonia share a lot of common culture. The Vikings were often seen in Eastern Europe, for good or bad. Not to speak how large the Ottoman Empire and Greece were at different points of history. This is part of the history of CEE, too. Common Central and Eastern European culture does not end with politics of the Eastern Bloc, and therefore we should not consider geography and politics, but content. If there is content, there should be cooperation. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Лорд Бъмбъри, that's a very insightful and idealistic point of view, however it misses some important practical issues:
  • despite what you seem to think, I don't believe we should limit participation because the contest is the brainchild of Wikipedia CEE, but because the name identifies the scope of the contest, thus it is extremely important to align it with what is actually happening within the contest. I have nothing against writing about arabic subjects for instance, but such a contest should be called Arab Spring.
  • as a corolar to the above, you need to remember that regional organizations within the Wikimedia movement are mostly created based on a shared language (Iberocoop, WikiArabia). Since we don't have the benefit of a shared language, we need to identify something that links us, or we will dilute into irrelevance; vague connections dating back to the 19th century are not enough IMO. Perhaps the lack of identity with the region was the reason why nobody from Wikimedia Israel joined this initiative? It would be interesting to find out. (for the newcomers: this is a reference to the Facebook discussion)
  • you talk about common history, East Germany and the Ottoman empire, but conveniently leave out the real elephant in the room: the fact that unanimously-recognized states, partially-recognized states and regions within states are given the same status in this contest, causing confusion for both organizers and participants.
  • finally (and not very important IMO, but the WMF team might disagree :)) is the financial issue: if I understand correctly, the distribution of prizes is strictly based on what local organizers define as "their turf", not on objective divisions (which in Wikipedia can only be language versions).
The "secret sauce" of the WLM contest (arguably the first truly international contest within Wikimedia) has been clear and simple rules backed-up by significant support from the international organizers in the first years. WLE has takes this recipe and expanded on it. CEE Spring on the other hand looks a lot like the latter-years WLM, a federative contest with little international coordination. It could fare much better with clearer rules and/or an international component.--Strainu (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strainu, we are trying to lead two discussions here. But firstly, thank you for calling my point of view idealistic. Being an idealist is a good thing.
Question 1: what should we write about in CEE Spring
Question 2: which is the best future of Wikimedia Central and Eastern Europe
On Question 1: I agree that it is confusing to have countries (like Romania), regions (like Republic of Srpska, Bashkortostan and Sakha) and languages (Esperanto). It never occurred to me while preparing the contest that this might be a problem. I acknowledge that it is one for a number of organisers and communities, and I will be happy to be part of the implementation of every community decision on this point. Please offer new rules and we will discuss them.
On Question 2 (to quote the Facebook discussion again – we need more discussions about our future and that we need to stop "expanding" our region above the geographical limits, we should remain in these loose CEE region borders, but we can work with other communities outside region on individual projects, and There is a lot of countries and pseudo-countries in Wikimedia CEE, we don't need more) I reiterate that cooperation must be based on content, irrespective of politics, geography, and other factors. I would be happy to read your opinion on this point --Lord Bumbury (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm only interested in Question 1 here. I'll leave Q2 for Wikimania at the earliest, since we need more input to extract the various ideas. I propose we continue the discussion on Q2 here.
For Q1, my proposal is to divide the lists by language (aka wiki). The reason for this approach is that people sharing a common language often also share a common culture, sometimes much more than people living in the same country, but speaking different languages.
Each list can be claimed by one or more organizations or persons (representing various countries/regions/whatever), who are responsible of the fair distribution of the subjects between themselves. If needed, the organizers can allow for larger lists from languages claimed by more than 1 user group (but no more than 125-150 ideally). If the various organizations cannot agree on the number of articles, that language cannot participate in the contest (this sound drastic, but cuts short on any issues with the prizes at the end of the contest).
Promotion should be made by language ("this week we're writing about the Bulgarian language" or something like that), and the prizes should be offered per project.--Strainu (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content translation extension loading[edit]

d:Wikidata:Europeana Art History Challenge adapted the article lists to use a landing page to load en:Special:ContentTranslation.

If you click on a link (e.g.) at d:Wikidata:Europeana_Art_History_Challenge/Italy#translation, you get to a landing page with the possibility to select a source article.

The elements could be adapted to work for this as well:

If there is interest, maybe TheDJ, Multichill and Wittylama can help you with the details. Personally, I don't know much about the extension. It could work by copying and adapting most elements listed above. --Jura1 (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of the article lists[edit]

Last evening User:NickK and User:Antanana told me that in the Bulgarian article lists one can find that a Bulgarian, not called Brown, was apparently the inventor of Brown's gas. Also, that articles, which do not exist in languages different from Bulgarian are rather improbable to be translated or created in other languages, especially if their sources are in Bulgarian only, too. This made me think about the quality of the article lists. Last year they were created mostly in a hurry and this year many participating communities decided to use the lists from last year, a practice, encouraged by me, too. I think it is time to discuss reverting the lists to what they were meant to be - lists of 100 articles, which the community creating them wishes to see in each and every Wikipedia in the region; lists of 100 articles, which describe the country or region or language that they are describing in the most detailed way. Should we do that, should we do it immediately or rather next year? --Lord Bumbury (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Next year. At local wiki, we try to emphasize that the article lists are a starting point only, and one can write about anything related to CEE. So far, it's working well.
When we were developing the article lists for Romania/Moldova, we threw out there lots of articles, and then selected primarily the ones that a) have an equivalent in English or Russian, and b) have poor coverage in CEE Wikipedias. I think it could serve as a recommendation (not a rule!) for the next year's article lists. --Gikü (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We did the same in Austria. It's a bit more work to check coverage in the CEE region and if it has a long(ish), but it's easier for participants to get started. Although transliterations of cyrillic names are still a bit difficult, maybe we need a help page for that next year. Braveheart (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CEE Spring Blog is now multilingual[edit]

Dear local organisers of CEE Spring (Papuass, Ehrlich91, David1010, Kaiyr, DenisaRucaj, Vodnokon4e, Spiritia, Beko, Adeliine, Friend, Ата, IvanaMadzarevic, Ранко Николић, Zygimantus, Ochilov, Mr. Zabej, Artificial123, Raviaka Ruslan, Geraki, RepliCarter, Gikü, JukoFF, HalanTul, Braveheart, Lišiak, Aktron, Саган, Wertuose, Magalia, Fraxinus, Rapsar, Rapsar, Liridon, Liridon, Munja, attention Base, who gave the idea for this), the international CEE Spring blog ( is now multilingual, which means that you can create blog posts in your language and they will be posted on the blog. It would be great if you would create posts in your language and English, so that other local organisers could translate your posts in their languages. Please contact the international organising team (User:Ochilov, User:Ата, User:Magalia and User:Лорд Бъмбъри) with your blog posts. We promise we will take action in 24 hours of handing in the blog post. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous ideas what are Central Europa and Eastern Europe[edit]

That's not encyclopaedic, thats ricdiculous. --Matthiasb (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not; these are the communities participating in the regional partnership Wikimedia Central and Eastern Europe. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Now that the event is over the real work starts ;-) I've noticed a few discrepancies between the two stats pages:

For one, the number of articles written about a country differs, depending on which stats page you use. Botik puts the number of articles written about Poland at 379, BaseBot thinks it's 494. Where does this margin come from?

Second, we're missing a few stats for our report that would be handy to know:

  • How many articles were changed/improved in an article list?
  • How many articles in a country's article list were written in a specific wiki?
  • How many users participated in creating/changing articles in a country's article list?
  • How many users from a specific wiki participated in the event?

Best, Braveheart (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding differences in stats: If someone writes an article from lists and does not put a template in talk page (like multiple wikis did), it appears on Botik's page, but not on BaseBot's. However, Botik does not include any article outside lists. --Papuass (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but wasn't the list the only source of translatable articles? Or did certain wikis expand on the suggestions to include anything related to a specific country? Braveheart (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some wikis have translatable articles not from list. --Artificial123 (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article lists were only meant as a place for inspiration. The participants were allowed (from the point of view of the international organisers) to write about any topic, connected to the other participating communities. The statistics, which are relevant for the evaluation are those by Base's bot. Botik's statistics will be used to make a comparison to last year, when they were the only ones available. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Base: for de-wp, do you need a list of articles or how can we include it in the stats? Best, Braveheart (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If someone need this: here is a PetScan query to find all articles with a CEE Spring template in a wiki (just change lv to your language prefix), ordered by article size. --Papuass (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User winning two prizes[edit]

Kosovo has a user winning two categories, are there rules about this, can he get two prizes? --Arianit (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think local organizers have to decide. --Artificial123 (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is up to local organisers to decide. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Arianit (talk) 08:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

I want to thank you for the fantastic prizes I just received for winning the Week of Women in Science and Education. The prizes are great and it was really sweet to add some beautiful postcards! Thank you once more - it was a pleasure to participate! :)--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of best articles[edit]

Please add the best articles to the results page, so that we can 1) show off and 2) check whether the first two goals of the project were met. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure how we're supposed to do that with no excellence candidacy (usually a pointless exercise on de-wp) and no jury to pick a winner (the first three were selected by points awarded). Pick the longest one instead? ;-) Braveheart (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is up to you as local organiser, Braveheart. It is not a formal process, so proceed as you like :). If the longest article is well sourced, then it might easily be the best anyway. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]