 Hey everyone, so welcome for this session about the Wikipedia in French that has deleted page for pages for deletion. So why, how, what impacts, what happened before? What led to the decision, how the decision happened and then we are we share link to one case of notability debate about an article in Wikipedia that got not really deleted. So Let's start right now. So who I am? So I'm Jean Squire. I'm I'm going to take my own slide. It will be easier for me to read. So I'm Jean Squire. I joined Wikipedia in French in 2009 and Wikipedia in France in 2018. I'm also on Wikim data and commands Morally. I mostly translate from English to French articles like Moon, Coyote, etc. I also have ADHD and autism as per girls. So I try to promote accessibility in the projects so it can be visual in learning our processes between the editors too. So it's not taxing and we don't lose time in conflicts. So I'm also one of the many editors to the main page of a role of Wikipedia in French five years ago. And of course one of the people that contributed to the page for decisions reform last year and this year. So this is a quite difficult topic. I don't know if you can see the image I shared. I know you can't. It doesn't share well. I shared a funny image. Anyway, so I you will be able to find this slide on the at the end of the session on the session page on the Wikimania website. So let's go directly to how we began and we will start with before the reform, the very origin of the procedure and it has been created the 5th of October 2002 by Anther, which later became the CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation, but later no template. It was just text with returns to the line under and just passing with the enter K. And there were got we got see six major issues raised by the community because it last it led to a lot of conflicts, a lot of grief and it remained in other spaces. So we're going to the next section there were a survey helping to shape out this back to eight years ago and that concluded that the procedure name was no longer redevent because it was more supposed to be an it evolved to not ability debate for pages and not something for just for deletions. There are speedy deletion process too now. And this procedure was also used to discuss the merits of categories, templates and other meta pages. This is more a discussion than a vote and there is an ever-lacing debate on the Wikipedia in French about either just voting or studying the merits of the of the statement of the of the debate made the comments. Of course, in other Wikis, it's often the comments, the quality, but it doesn't work like that for everyone because some people are very strict, they're very square in a way to think that it should be votes. We say it's supposed to be deleted or not. So it's also used by default. It's used by default as a maintenance of netability banners that are named in French admittability are verified and they have to be checked quite often. We have editors creating we got editors creating pages for deletions quite often, but they are well not really for deletion. They are well just to be checked for their notability Nobody really wanted them to be deleted. They were just a question like there doesn't seem to be enough sources. Next, we also have the templates what they were saying. So we had the suppression suppression templates that talks about notability and so those have other templates like page conservate, which is for page kept and it says translated. After we propose for notability debate, this page has been kept. You can view the no-close and outshift notability debate sorry bad translation and also it was not a comment for the values for this procedure to cause conflict and resettlement amongst contributors. Newbies are not where felt very hurt to see their page labeled to be deleted. It was something that was very hurtful and it was not very well understood in their guts and for newbies it was more confusing because they were often just starting to contribute. Sometimes they didn't understand very well how Wikipedia works. Sometimes it could have just be an article moved into their draft space in their own user space. So discussions opens in February the 10th 2021 and is closed in mid-January 2022 and the voting opens soon after. We said the voting period for about four weeks ending at midnight at Paris time because most of the contributors are living in France in just statistics. So there is timeline. Yes, it was a very complicated process. It started too really. They were conflicting with other initiatives like for example, I posted first in the bistro the equivalent of the village pep there asking for opinions about ideas for alternate names or the procedure and meanwhile someone else with a lot of enthusiasm and shake and just launch the process the discussions for the voting without checking this further. This was quite discouraging. There are a lot of types with height and love periods and activity. It was very very dried out. There were a lot of topic executions because the topic was just retaining and avoiding very very conflicting propositions for reform of the process itself. Yes, it was over 11 months and it was almost abandoned and at the end we just said, you know what? Just just launch the vote. Let's just set a threshold for voting and let's just launch the vote. It was a vote with the black method by the way. It was A, B, C to chose and an order in the preference number with superior or inferior or equal. So the goals were to remove the stigma or injunction like nature of the current page for deletion, Pacha Suprimi designation. When it's debated without a page, it's acceptable or not able or not. It's mis-translations for me, my bad. And the deletion debates can result in the page being retained to there were a lot of options like moving the page to another sister project like the dictionary. There were things like just a split or a merge and this procedure was used instead of the regular merger split procedures. It could be just a renaming. It will be moved. I improved the little page, the template for this quite recently by getting inspired by the Wikipedia. So we got the results. So there were two questions and for the first question, there were the Wikipedia page for deletion that will be not titled Wikipedia Notability Debate. Sorry, mis-translations. We are retracting renaming. And the division, there was also a proposal that was kept in the discussions and also put into the voting pages about whether or not keeping the division for expression's opinions to keep deletion, etc., like merging and other options. And people prefer to keep this while personally, while I understand it can be too cluttered with too many comments, I think the choice to put the keep and delete options first is rising the debate because it suggests it should be these two options and maybe it could be proven in some way with more user interface tools in the future, maybe I don't know. And so we had consequences with the case study with a notability issue with the page named Macronet or in English the verb to Macron. And I'm going to try to share this to Michael. I'm going to share the link for the chat so everyone can see this page and how it's ordered currently. And so you can see how it works. So I posted the link to Telegram or maybe I can paste directly to... So how does it work? I just try to open feed loop. I posted the link on your Telegram. All right, maybe you can open in the tabs, please, it's just a page of Wikipedia in French. So Macronet was a verb about something about a world known in the world of Ukraine. And it was a word mostly created by the recurrents in their own words, in their own language because there were Emmanuel Macron, the French president currently that appeared and said it was very deeply concerned. And it was not something about very direct consequence, very outcome. Basically the person is very concerned, says, is talking a lot, discussing a lot, but there is no result at all from this talks and just talking, talking and just nothing. And actually the page was better suited for the dictionary in French. And if you screen below to there were discussions and there were the opinions named Avis in French and there were some kept and massively, massively the delete option was used for a page that was supposed to be moved to a sister Wiki. So this is an interference issue, maybe there is an a bit issue from everyone that just used to post the error to keep on to delete and without really processing the outcome. In the delete, you have a lot of transfer to transfer to move the page. And it's so it posted in under the wrong section, it should be posted and under the other issues and other reasons possible. So what I mean is a lot of people on the page voted for a transfer or voted for a deletion, but it wasn't really for a deletion. It was mostly to move the article to the Wikipedia, sorry, the dictionary in French. So now it was, we had the results and it was deleted and I'm not sure whether or not it was, it was really kept. So yes, it's not on the dictionary in French. So I'm going to share this with Michael so you can have the link too. And so yes, so Macron, to Macron, it's a neurology and it's, it can, it can mean to show to be worried about a situation but doing nothing concretely or faking help. And it was already present in the French media and it was already kind of transition in French too and it's also a word available in Korean. So yes, in conclusion, there are, it's a process that was the change of the name quite led to a lot of changes in the template. It helped a lot to streamline what we mean with the procedure but people don't seem to quite understand how the page of the process to give opinions, to give discussion is working. There are, there is a lot of text and the user interface doesn't seem very friendly for this and I think a lot of, and I think a lot of things are still complicated and some point of tensions between user still exists. But at least one point of tension is solved. And I think I remember that some named up for the procedures in other language, Wikispedias are more about notability and real discussions than votes or to delete pages. I think it will be quite very useful for communities that still have the page for deletion name to today to consider to change their name to for example the Wikipedia in English. Is it worth it to keep such name? Isn't it confusing for newbies and maybe helpful in general for any kind of editor to say, hey, I passed, I started a page for deletion process for your page but it's just, it's not for deletion, it's just for checking. It's still helpful. So I'm finished here. So I think we only have a few minutes left. So if you have questions for me, so please write them down. Do pages still get deleted? Is it just cosmetic? Pages still get deleted but the presentation, the section where a little change, for example, I added a lot of changes with an overcontributor that should have the cost picker with me but couldn't make it unfortunately. And we changed quite a lot at the starting templates used to initialize the notability debates. So we made the language a little simpler. I think it's better word and no but it's still, I think, too chatty. It's not very well organized. There are not images to lead people to have something clear and easy to read. It's not very accessible, I think. Other questions, I'm going to check also the etherpad. We don't have anything for question for the speaker there. Question in and swear tab has nothing. So I'm leaving you when we need to write down any possible long question. There's a lot of reeling noise. Is it better now? What is the speaker on username, please? GN square. I'm going to write it down myself. Doesn't work. I've got a few compatibility issues. So if you want to talk with me, I'm going to be available in the networking space. So we could chat more freely and without the time constraint. So thank you for everyone's. Thank you for bearing with me despite the issues with the slide and the screen sharing. And see you in the networking space. Bye.