Hi! Do you know if theres any effort to centralize efforts again to work on EU articles? Elections are coming up soon and prbbly some articles will need updatingm Chefs-kiss (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chefs-kiss! I am not aware of this, but there could be. Wikipedia:WikiProject European Union or its talk page should be the place where to look for it. If there is no such thing yet, you can definitely start a discussion about it in the Project talk page. Yakme (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in working on drafts that anticipate the upcoming EP elections? I'm trying to gather editors ahead of time, so we can have an established format and idea of what should be included. I'd like to work on:

1. An article about the new EP parliament, similar to Ninth European Parliament --> Medium

2.The European Commission article will need to be updated when the new commission --> Large

3. There will need to be an update like on the Collage itself, similar to the von der Leyen Commission --> Large

4. An update on President of the European Commission --> Small

5. Update the High Representative of the European Union --> Small

Let me know if you are interested! Thank you so much for your contributions! Chefs-kiss (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced has a higher value than developed. Italy is not a developed country but an advanced one. It is no coincidence that IMF describes Italy not as a developed country but an advanced one. Thanks a lot Simplyred90 (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Simplyred90, I had not noticed that the sentence about Italy being developed was already mentioned above. Anyway, to be precise, according to the WP article Developed country, Italy is a developed country. Also, "advanced" or "developed" countries are synonyms. When you write "developed country" do you actually mean "developing country"? Yakme (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You did the right thing).Simplyred90 (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP: Split does not mention anywhere that someone cannot open and close the discussion. In addition it mentions that 7 days is the standard timing. Chefs-kiss (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chefs-kiss: I have not found the point in WP:SPLIT where it's mentioned that the standard timing is 7 days. Anyway given that other editors intervened afterwards, it means that it was not enough and it was too soon to close. Yakme (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the process relies on consensus, I sought out the page regarding determining consensus. From that the WP: WHENCLOSE policy recommends 7 days (albeit it is for RfC) however it adds that "if the discussion stopped, and editors have already assessed the consensus and moved on with their work". Given that I had not received any comments and given that it seemed like there was no disagreement (not contentious) I closed it. However in your estimation when do you think one should close the discussion? Chefs-kiss (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a closure is actually needed, if more similar comments appear in the next days. It looks like the consensus is forming quite easily. (In general I take ~2 weeks as a typical time for a slow discussion to consider it done, unless of course the discussion is still active) Yakme (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Awesome thanks for your advice. Tried looking briefly at Arbcom to see but I didn't find anything at first glance. To clarify though. 2 weeks since the last comment or 2 weeks total? Also should I do a draft before making the actual split? A draft with what would be new article? Does it have to go through the normal procedures of article creation as well? Sorry for all the questions Chefs-kiss (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this issue is at the level of Arbcom. I think it's quite easily solved if we wait a few more days to see whether consensus is confirmed (I meant 2 weeks total). Once it's confirmed I think that you can just create a new article without passing through a draft. You can follow what it's written in WP:PROPERSPLIT. Yakme (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Chefs-kiss (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work on improving the Berlusconi article. Apologies for moving your update message, as I didn't know if you wanted it to be part of the workshop area. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuzheado no worries! Yakme (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 June 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Silvio Berlusconi, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]