Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latin America/The 10,000 Challenge

Defining Latin America

I am on board with this challenge. Just a quick question, how is Latin America defined for this challenged? If you take a look at Latin America#Contemporary definitions, there are different meanings of Latin America. I think this should be cleared on the front page to avoid any confusion. Erick (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Considering that we are not in an article that requires precision, but in a wikipedia project, I think that it would be the best idea to take a liberal definition of Latin America. If it's Latin American for any of the available definitions, then let's consider it Latin American, for the purposes of this page, and that's it. Cambalachero (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I asked because some people get really sensitive over defining Latin America, for whatever reason. Erick (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

South America, Central America and Caribbean, we'll also include French Guyana and Belize and any islands off coast, just a loose term to cover Mexico down to Chile!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Order of articles

I have rearranged the list of articles in an alphabetic order. Right now they are a handful, but I think that having some order would be better in the long run, when the list grows. Cambalachero (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cambalachero: I agree that alpha order looks nicer, I don't object to alpha order itself, but long term it would be difficult due to page size we have to archive after 1000 or 2000. See Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. Plus when the list gets in the thousands it will take quite an effort to scan down the lists to find the alphabetical place. I think we're best with just order of improvement. People will find it easier to just add to the end when it gets big. Unless you're willing to commit to maintaining it all in alpha order yourself of course! I think it's better to just credit the author and not sign after every article too, and page length will be shorter long term that way in kb.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

OK we'll try alpha order and then create a new list after sets of 500 or something. Keep it to unlinked user name credits though, no signing or dates.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Why not both aporoaches at the same time? Create a subsection per letter in the alphabet, then add new entries at the bottom of the corresponding section based on initial of article name. Easy to locate where to update! Regards,DPdH (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Another enhancement would be to move the list of improvements to a separate tab, linked from the main project tab. This would allow for growth without affecting the main tab. DPdH (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The instructions at the moment are confusing, they say "...place newer entries at the bottom of the list..." at the beginning, then "Keep entries in alphabetical order" at the end... You can't do both... Simon Burchell (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

We have changed the ordering system along the way. I have fixed the instructions. Cambalachero (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that confused me as well, which is why I left my addition at the end of the list rather than in alphabetical order. As Dr. Blofeld says, it might get difficult to order articles once we get close to the 10,000 target... ;-) Richard3120 (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It may be complicated to order a messed up list with 10,000 entries, but it is not so difficult to find the correct place or fix a lone badly placed entry in a list that is already ordered. That's why I insisted to make it ordered from the start. I do have some real-world expertise with lists and databases. Have in mind that a potential problem with the "new items at the bottom" system would be that it would be difficult to check is some given article is already in the list or not, and some article may be listed many times if different users make their own edits. Cambalachero (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Your last point is a very good one actually. Richard3120 (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

What are we doing with articles that begin with the definite article? I ask because I see El Progreso Department ordered under "E" and El Concierto under "C" (personally I would ignore the article for ordering purposes). Simon Burchell (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I've kept the alphabetical order, but it does make a lot of sense to organise that per country. Right now, in one go it's visible that many countries are missing, something that would be hidden in a alphabetical order without country sorting. It also shows now nicely how many articles per country are added/improved, which is a nice tracker for the various portals/Wikiprojects that is also organised by country. Some articles may have multiple countries, like the airplane crash of today, which was listed as "Brazil" (because of the airport of origin and the tragic deaths of so many Brazilian players, but it was a Bolivian airline and the crash happened in Colombia). So I've kept the same approach of countries ordered alphabetically; Bolivia first, then Brazil and then Colombia. With a growing list that needs to reach 10,000 it really doesn't make sense to have an alphabetical order without country organisation. Also because many of us (clear from the current authorship) are working mostly by country, with Simon Burchell also touching Mexico and Honduras I suppose). Tisquesusa (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Europe is doing the same (alphabetical per country), Africa and Asia have no alphabetical order, but per addition to the list. Tisquesusa (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Can article addition to list be automated?

Dear project team, I'm finding time consuming to add manually the articles I've improved so can be counted for this WP; time that would be better used improving more articles. I'm concerned that this could also discourage some editors to add their achievements to this list. Is it possible to create a tool that automatically creates the entry for an improved article in this list? Maybe a short WP template that the editor adds in the article's talk page (parameters: country, improvememt summary), and a bot that identifies newly tagged article and adds them to the list, in its correct place, with the info that we're adding now taken from the tag. This could potentially save thousands of hours, even more f the "tool" is shared with other similar improvement projects. Regards, DPdH (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Articles in scope?

Just to further clarify the project's scope: are any/all type(s) of new or improved pages relevant for inclusion? E.g.: disambiguation, redirect, category. I think they should, as these "minor" pages certainly contribute to improving overall quality of LatAm content in Wikipedia. Thanks, DPdH (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we should better leave those out. Although that work contributes, the main focus is in the articles themselves, not in the structure that Wikipedia has built around them. Listing edits in DABs, redirects and categories would simply inflate the numbers. Cambalachero (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Order

Hi all, I've just listed my achievements, but it is said that an "alphabetical order" is preferred. To me that doesn't make much sense. The best order I'd say would be per country, as the flags are used to show that and then it is clearly visible which countries of Latin America have a lot and which can be included to have a wider scope. Alternative would be per user or by quality. Alphabetical is the least informative order imho. Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at #Order of articles. Cambalachero (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Invites to other users

Seeing the challenge and the other challenges (Europe, Africa, etc.) that are far ahead in percentages, I think it's a good idea to invite more people with knowledge/affinity with Latin American articles, by using pinging here. It is less "in your face" to ping the users here than to "spam" all the talk pages (no worries, @Richard3120:, I liked you did it, but others might not be so enthusiastic about Talk page "spam").

@Eio-cos:, @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, @Wikirictor: can contribute a lot to this. Jo-Jo Eumerus writes and expands fantastic (GA(N)) articles about volcanoes, lakes, etc. in mainly Bolivia, a country that is not described yet (apart from the airplane disaster today), Eio-cos writes extensively about archaeology of pre-Columbian cultures, an area where there's lots of room for improvement and expansion too and Wikirictor is a historian with expertise and/or interest on/in prehistoric caves, e.g. the prehistoric caves with cave paintings in another un(der)represented country; Cuba, need to be added. Tisquesusa (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Stubs

I have added a new section with the main stub categories, and proposed stubs to expand from each one. Those proposals are generated by AnomieBOT from the main stub category or one subsection, and get renewed each four days (much more than that would demand too much from the bot). Cambalachero (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Templates

Just a query as to listing templates - I see some have appeared on the list; I have created some navboxes but have not listed them here - my preference would be that they are not listed, since they are not actual improvements to content, rather tools for navigating existing content, and would skew the percentage. Anyone else have any thoughts? Simon Burchell (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and I have said so earlier. This page should list only articles, and not pages in other namespaces (including, but not limited to, templates). Cambalachero (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red 2017

Should the articles created during the Women in Red edit-a-thon be added here, as well as in the rest of the 10,000 challenges? --Jamez42 (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jamez42! If they are within the scope of this challenge, you may certainly add them to both places. –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Murder of Joey Fischer

Hi everyone. I wrote Murder of Joey Fischer in early 2017, but I'm not sure if it qualifies as an article related to Latin America (specifically WikiProject Mexico). The murder happened in Brownsville, Texas, border city with Matamoros, Mexico. However, the assassins were from Mexico and the case reached high-ranking Mexican officials too. I have it within WikiProject Mexico in the article's talkpage, but I rather get a second opinion. Thank you. MX (✉ • ✎) 14:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Tough choice. I think it should fall under the 50,000 Challenge (United States), since it happened in the States. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I've added it at 50,000 Challenge (United States), thanks! MX (✉ • ✎) 14:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Qualifying articles

So I have just found this project today, but I've been adding content about Mexican subjects for years, hundreds of Latin America related articles, a bunch after this challenge was started. Can I could articles I created AFTER the challenge started but BEFORE I even knew of it's existence? MPJ-DK (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Quick count is about 100 articles since Oct 2016. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. If you want to be pedantic, the start date for this Latin American Challenge was the 21st of October 2016. Nat965 (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Then that'll be my start date, thank god there are tools to track contributions or I'd outta luck. Thanks for the prompt reply MPJ-DK (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

"Wiikipedia:WikiProject Latin America/The 10,000 Challenge" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wiikipedia:WikiProject Latin America/The 10,000 Challenge. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 15#Wiikipedia:WikiProject Latin America/The 10,000 Challenge until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Scope of this project

FYI Pizzaking13, Cobblet, and anyone else wondering about the scope of this project... last month I wrote on the talk page of Dr. Blofeld/Encyclopædius, who set up this challenge, for clarification about what was to be included, as it's clear that the likes of Jamaica do not fall under any accepted definition of "Latin America" – his reply makes it pretty clear that he intended that any country and island from Mexico southwards is to be included, whether it's Latin American or not [1]. Just putting this here for future reference to head off any arguments and edit wars about the map on the main page, or whether certain countries should be included in the list. Richard3120 (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Re "clear" and "accepted": per Latin America#Contemporary definitions, "Latin America" is sometimes used to mean "all of the Americas south of the United States". That is how I understand the term as it is used here. In any case, we have welcomed contributions from Anglophone areas of South America and the Caribbean towards this challenge ever since its inception, and I don't see how excluding them now would help us improve Wikipedia. It's not even like there's a separate challenge for those areas. Cobblet (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, and I said as much on the thread I linked to – any challenge which includes these countries and stimulates participation in creating and improving articles for them is to be welcomed. That's still a bizarre definition above, though... Jamaica really isn't Latin American at all. Richard3120 (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will mind if you replace every instance of "Latin America" on the challenge page with "Latin America and the Caribbean". But from the very first discussion on this page and from the list of past contributions, it is clear the challenge is meant to include every part of the Caribbean. Cobblet (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Retroactive?

Hi! Just found out about this project and decided to join. I have a few already-existing articles that would fit here. Just wanted to make sure I was allowed to retroactively add them in. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)