This page is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries 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.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Puerto Rico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to Puerto Rico 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.Puerto RicoWikipedia:WikiProject Puerto RicoTemplate:WikiProject Puerto RicoPuerto Rico
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain
This page is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This page has archives. Topics inactive for 365 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.
I suggested the creation of a logo for the main page and remain convinced that is the best way to start. Let's hear what the others would like to see included in that. - Caribbean~H.Q.08:04, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me we need a "north". That is, what target area/s were mentioned by those who expressed interest in "refreshing" the Project? I followed the BunnyBowl contest link given, but don't see an answer to that question. In addition to target areas, were any particular issues, concerns, or improvements that needed to be made stated beyond the mere addressing of, for example, adding or updating articles? What objectives were they seeking to achieve? what results were expected? what are we aiming for?
Also, I don't mean to go crazy with semantics here but, if those who expressed interest in "refreshing" the Project categorized it as a "refresh", by calling it a "revamp" now I am afraid the goal may now be shifting to take it one notch beyond "refreshing" as revamping sounds something more aggressive. Am I wrong in my interpretation?
I applaud and support HQ's logo idea above; a logo unifies a group behind a common cause, is becomes a symbol of a concrete idea, serves a common purpose, and provides something for contributors to feel connected, gives everyone involved something to look up to. However, we need a "north" beyond a mere logo which, again, I agreed is an important first step. My question is, after the logo, then what? Mercy11 (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Back in the day, I did use the word "revamp" while proposing the creation of some task forces, the idea being that we could gather some help from people outside WP:PUR in certain areas. Entertainment, sports, politics (sigh)... That kind of thing. It would not have affected our main scope, just the way in which we coordinated the improvement of certain topics, making it less aleatory by introducing some MoS recommendations for how to structure articles by area, prevent prose slanting due to visitor influx for election years/big events and that sort of thing. But, for some reason, the idea was confused with the creation of new guidelines, which wasn't really the point. I didn't want more bureaucracy, so the idea was dropped. That was then, this is now. I think that we need a facelift, but larger changes will require consensus and, above all, purpose. - Caribbean~H.Q.07:37, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not much came out of that 2015 comment... I did reach out to the Center for Advanced Studies of Puerto Rico and the Caribbean about collaborating with us and allowing access to their collection of dozens, if not hundreds, of unpublicized theses. But they declined due to perceiving Wikipedia as a "non academic" entity. There was also some confusion about what exactly task forces would "enforce" if they were created, which wasn't really the idea, and the discussion sputtered out. I do like your idea for the logo! - Caribbean~H.Q.21:24, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I found the discussion from back then because I searched the history of this page for "logo"; was thinking that maybe the project had a logo at one time or another and that's how I found the discussion on revamping. So yeah, I'll put a map border around this image and see how it looks. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone for jumping in. Going back to what @Mercy11 said, I agree we need a north before anything else.
@The Eloquent Peasant, thank you for putting that logo together and for finding that 2015 discussion. That research energy is exactly what this project needs. And @Caribbean H.Q., I hear you that a logo is an important first step for group identity. I agree. My feeling is just that Puerto Rican culture is so visually alive, the colors, the art, the energy of the island, and I’d love for our logo to capture that. I think we get a stronger logo if we nail down our mission first and then design something that reflects it. That way it actually means something.
On that note: what should that north be? Here’s where I land. The Spanish-language Wikipedia coverage of Puerto Rico is embarrassingly thin compared to the English side. Content about us should be strongest in the language most of us speak on the island. On top of that, there’s a growing movement on the island right now around digitally preserving our culture and history, and the people doing that work aren’t just in academia, they’re in community orgs, cultural spaces, grassroots efforts. Wikipedia should be part of that. We might need to do some education around Wikipedia (i remember during my school days in the island had a terrible reputation) but with some strategic partnerships with local orgs, talent and historians, we could muster high interest for the project. If we bring in editors from both the island and the diaspora and build something with real structure, there’s a path to formalizing as a Wikimedia user group, which opens doors to grants and events on the ground.
But first, we need to nail down our mission and then an audit of what exists, what’s missing, what needs work. That gives us a real workplan. @Caribbean H.Q., I’m curious what you learned from the 2015 effort and what you’d do differently this time.
One last thing, promise! I don’t want us to fall into the trap of endless discussion. Wikipedia culture can lean that way and I think that’s partly why past efforts fizzled out. Can we set a goal of having a mission statement by the end of February? That gives us two weeks to hash it out and something concrete to show for it. Comecoquito (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Call me a pessimist, but the one thing that I learned from that 2015 exercise was that we can't count on the administrative personnel of these institutions to understand the importance of Wikipedia when it comes to the massification of information. There's an intellectual elitism there that doesn’t see the average Google search as a learning experience for Juan del Pueblo. With that said, I know that the professors themselves don't necessarily think this way, many are in fact open to innovation, and that could make a difference. Every year, about 12,000 students are enrolled in the UPR alone, all of them must take basic redaction classes in both English and Spanish.
It may seem like a pipe dream, but if we manage to recruit a dozen or so professors for an experiment where the students are tasked with improving a random Puerto Rico-adjacent stub/start class to B class in a semester, it will make an enormous difference. At a cap of 15-20 students per semester, this would deal with about 99% of our stubs in a decade (the rest being articles that are difficult to expand due to other limitations). If we get them to do this both in English and Spanish, that could be halved. However, selling the project is tough, believe me. I tried to emphasize that editing Wikipedia not only teaches the average student basic redaction skills, but also familiarity with HTML coding and APA referencing formats… That met with blank stares. And its not without pitfalls, we would need to keep a vigilant eye to avoid copyvio and AI hallucinations from making it on the mainspace. We would also keep a fraction of those students as regular users after the semester, which would keep the WP healthy.
Re: Spanish, I must admit that mine isn’t the best. While I was born at San Juan, my formative years were at FL, and my syntax appears to be irremediably reversed when it comes to noun placement and subject/verb order (as explained by my peers while publishing academic articles in the past). So, as a writer, I'm not sure how useful my work can be. With that said, there is no reason why this WP can't be integrated with the Spanish one. Ideally, improving one topic in either language would result in a translation of similar quality being published in the other (maybe WP:ITW would be interested as well). But, for that to happen, we need to keep track of these changes. The first step would be to identify which articles require work in both languages and what topics are in Spanish that aren't here (and vice versa). We will probably need a bot operator to run those tasks and keep us informed. - Caribbean~H.Q.18:59, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve got to knock on the right doors. There are institutions that want to collaborate, and a lot of people are taking online cultural preservation seriously now (it took them a while, sure!). The real issue isn’t interest, it’s editors. My main wiki is the Spanish one, and there are barely any boricuas there, which obviously translates into a massive content gap across the board. So when I say “revamp,” I mean getting the group moving, spotting those gaps, and actually working on them. I’m already doing that with WP:LATINOS, and I can help connect you with orgs that could serve as a bridge to this wikiproject, Oscar_. (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Those are great news! The MAP has been working on their institutional alliances for decades, they can be an enormous bridge connecting us to academia. On my part, I can handle any legal matters that require attention, and may be able to get some people from the Politécnica or the CIAPR to help us with the more technical topics. - Caribbean~H.Q.01:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(←) I have been reading on what it takes to become a Wikimedia group, its not unlike running a small non-profit corporation. But besides establishing the "north" that was mentioned by Comecoquito, they also require the participants to meet at least once before pursuing recognition. I would argue that June or July are good months to hold this meeting. - Caribbean~H.Q.23:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
