Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fiji

Latest comment: 9 months ago by Grnrchst in topic Women in Green's 5th Edit-a-thon
WikiProject iconFiji Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Fiji, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fiji on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Category:Fiji articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussion


Category:Fiji articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Naocobau article stub needs a clean up


Hi Wikiproject members,

I was trying to fix a little bit the Naocobau stub, but the article is a mess. I think that someone with a better understanding of the language could improve it and format it properly. Thanks. Alexcalamaro (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

User script to detect unreliable sources


I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[ Article of things]" ''''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Football bios


The purge of Oceania football (and specifically women's football) bios now seems to be targeting Fiji. If you can add reliable sources to existing stubs it will help them avoid deletion. IdiotSavant (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

BLPs created by User:Davidcannon


There's a discussion on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard about some WikiProject Fiji BLPs. Davidcannon is an adminstrator that has created 600+ articles, many of which are BLPs. Standards were different when the articles were created, so referencing is spotty. In addition, link rot has meant many of the original supporting references were removed (despite many being recoverable). Given Fiji's recent history, many of these BLPs make claims of criminal behaviour (or being a victim of criminal behaviour) which nowdays requires referencing. The upshot is that we have a long and incomplete list of articles which need to be checked and referenced to modern standards. Where the article history includes an edit by Davidcannon with a summary of "dead links removed", the waybackmachine can be used to recover the link. Alternative references may also be able to be found on RNZ or in Fijian media. I've done a few already (since I'm currently doing a bit of cleanup, but can anyone else help? The list includes:

  1. Ben Padarath
  2. Angie Heffernan - done
  3. Sakiusa Tuisolia - done
  4. Viliame Naupoto - done
  5. Willem Ouweneel - not of interest to this wikiproject
  6. Jimi Koroi - done
  7. Pita Driti - done
  8. Ballu Khan - links added
  9. Peter Ridgeway - done
  10. Imraz Iqbal - done
  11. Richard Naidu - done
  12. Meli Bainimarama - done
  13. Litia Qionibaravi - done
  14. Viliame Seruvakula - done
  15. Vyas Deo Sharma - done
  16. Akuila Yabaki - links added
  17. Saula Telawa - links added
  18. Jone Baledrokadroka - done
  19. Naomi Matanitobua - links added
  20. Jale Baba - done
  21. Sakeasi Butadroka - done
  22. Kolinio Rokotuinaceva - done
  23. Lagamu Vuiyasawa - links added
  24. Asesela Ravuvu
  25. Asenaca Caucau
  26. Simione Kaitani - done
  27. Kenneth Zinck - done
  28. Ofa Swann - done
  29. Injimo Managreve
  30. Kaliopate Tavola - links added
  31. Ateca Ganilau
  32. Petero Mataca - links added
  33. Rakuita Vakalalabure - links added
  34. Daniel Fatiaki
  35. James Ah Koy

IdiotSavant (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Project-independent quality assessments


Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Discussion at Wikipedia:Content assessment


  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 21:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply



I am working on helping source Fiji Biographies, and there are so many deleted articles (or perhaps redlinks that weren't made) that's its hindering rather than helping. I'd like to work on grouping articles so they flow nicely, and one easy one to tackle is the Constitutions. Two don't have articles at all, the 1997 one has multiple articles, and the 2013 has one. I am thinking we need one "Master" and maybe spin off 2013 to it's own article - completely open on the naming for the articles. For now, I redirected 1997 to Constitution of Fiji, left 2013 where it's at, and am planning to prod the 1997 template and additional articles. I wanted to make this visible so people could object, I think it's a good way to clean everything up.

My approach at this point has been to avoid removing anything, just find sources, and expand articles, but some cleanup is needed to fix the red links and make the articles easier to navigate and understand. Denaar (talk) 02:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. A lot of Fiji content is a bit of a mess, and the disappearance of early sources due to military censorship following the 2006 coup doesn't help.
I think we need a master article, which should have a bit of constitutional history and information on the present (2013) constitution. We can have articles on the 1997, 1990, and 1970 constitutions linked from there. The mass of content on the 1997 constitution seems excessive, but I'm reluctant to delete content if it can be sourced; can it be merged somehow? -- IdiotSavant (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I was working last night and thinking maybe leaving the 1997 article isn't so bad - but a master article would help, and then link too the 1997 one. But the text of the 1997 constitution was already picked up by Wikisource and there is a link too it: [1]. I haven't had a chance to read through the chapter by chapter bits, but they just seem like summaries of the text. I'm going to leave them for now, but long term I'd like to figure out - is any of that text really important, and then let those individual articles go.
I'm finding sometimes information is just redundant across multiple pages. That isn't always bad, I think a high level summary of events matters a lot in making the articles easy to understand. But sometimes we aren't really loosing something if we can direct someone to another page with the same information. An example - right now History of Fiji covers the same information as Modern History of Fiji but does it better.
Luckily - JSTOR has articles on this time period, and it looks like I might be able to make an account and have access to 100 articles a month. Denaar (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
You can access JSTOR for free through the Wikipedia Library. I've found it very useful for Polynesia pages.-- IdiotSavant (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Women in Green's 5th Edit-a-thon


Hello WikiProject Fiji:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2023!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply