Template talk:Wikipedia

Wikipedia bots

Should Wikipedia bots be included here? Ypna (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Should Wiki rabbit hole and Wikiracing be included here? Ypna (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Bots, sure, why not. In the 'Community' section which already has the 'Citation needed' link. Bots are friends (not food) and an important part of the Community (at least their creators and operators are, which is what a link would acknowledge). The other two are probably not Wikipedia specific enough for the template. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Ypna (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

"People" section

Should all entries at List of Wikipedia people be included in the template's "People" section? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

• I think that makes sense. It seems like the Wikipedia people here are more or less people employed by Wikimedia in some way, so maybe a distinction should be made here. The header on the left makes it seem like this is for people in the community (i.e., volunteers), which makes me think of unaffiliated editors, so maybe we split out people formally affiliated with Wikimedia vs. volunteers. It doesn't seem like this template or other Wikipedia templates have much activity, so if you agree, maybe we start working on revising this template, User:Another Believer? Upjav (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not opposed to somehow separating volunteers from WMF staffers, but the reason I started this discussion is because this template mentions some, but not all, of the people mentioned at List of Wikipedia people. I guess I wasn't understanding how those mentioned here were selected. Seems a bit subjective to me. I'd love to hear what others think about including more entries at List of Wikipedia people here AND about possibly separating WMF folks from movement volunteers. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• Ah, the sample I clicked on happened to all be WMF folks (for example, the first 8 people are). I'm supportive of including all of the people on the List of Wikipedia People. I was going to add a few articles into the template before I reviewed the talk page and saw that you had already flagged this. Upjav (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
• Since this is a Wikipedia navbox perhaps those people affiliated only with the foundation and never active on Wikipedia shouldn't be listed (there is a {{Wikimedia Foundation}} navbox which may be used as the sole place for their navbox inclusion). I'd be a no on adding all of the listed individuals to the navbox, that seems sort of like adding all the New York Yankees players onto the Yankees navbox. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Another Believer, further thoughts on this? Listing every foundation board member feels tangential but that might just be my bias. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

"Similar projects"

As this template grows, I wonder if the "Similar projects" section remains necessary. Sure, the links are related to Wikipedia but are they about Wikipedia? Do editors think these entries are relevant enough to keep? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Curious for your thoughts here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Another Believer, I've missed this question in the past. If kept then maybe it should be renamed "Forks of Wikipedia" with just the forks listed and other items removed. In either case, Nupedia may be best acknowledged and linked near the start of the history section. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with keeping Nupedia under either History or Related, but the other links are not actually about Wikipedia. I think we should attempt to keep this template more focused on the topic. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good, maybe a list article "Forks of Wikipedia" would be doable and applicable. How about moving Nupedia to a subsection of Bomis in the history portion? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I've removed this section from the template. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

"Honors" field

As this template grows, I wonder if the "Honors" section remains necessary. Sure, the links are related to Wikipedia but are they about Wikipedia? Do editors think these entries are relevant enough to keep? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm a yes on this one, as it covers society acknowledging Wikipedia and the projects overall importance to human knowledge. I'm surprised the section hasn't grown in awhile, maybe my estimate of Wikipedia getting the Nobel Peace Prize by 2024 will span out. The section also contains the monument, a recognized artistic honor. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

But the links direct people to pages about awards, not pages about Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia have an entry about honors received by Wikipedia? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Good point. At a minimum the Wikipedia Monument should stay on the navbox, probably under the same section heading. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree, Wikipedia Monument should remain in the template. I'd move the entry to Related if the other award entries are removed. No need for a whole row dedicated to a single entry. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Or move 274301 Wikipedia to 'Honors' for a two-entry section. The statue seems more than a Related item, as a notable recognition of the project. Then when the Nobel Peace Prize comes (still looking for it) it will be worthy of a full article and added there (is anyone even nominating Wikipedia every year?). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the navbox a few hours later, if a two-entry 'Honors' section makes the cut it might look best as the fourth sub-section of the History section. A Monument, a minor planet, and probably your idea of having an article on Wikipedia's honors as a third entry. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Before we make other changes to the template, do we agree to remove Quadriga (award), Erasmus Prize, and Princess of Asturias Awards as entries? If so, I will remove. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure, you made a good point and the navbox has not been, and would not be, added to those pages. Too bad those have to be lost but, as you've suggested, a Wikipedia honors page would cover those if done well. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done (diff) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Complete change requested in an RfC of the lead at Wikipedia

A wholesale rewrite of the lead to replace the present lead is being discussed at the talk page of the Wikipedia page, which may interest readers of this template. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I've had to revert another total mash of a rewrite of the lead. The discussion is veering towards and then back about changing the entire focus and entire long-term lead (especially the well crafted first sentence) with, surprisingly, very few editors weighing in. Wikipedia is the flagship article of the encyclopedia, I'd think there would be more interest and concern about editors going in one after the other doing total rewrites. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Science Competition

Given the existence of Category:Wiki Science Competition, the established article in Estonian, the possible mentions in other articles on enwiki (the biographical entries about the winners), and the sources in various languages, I am preparing a draft for this topic as well.

Due to a conflict of interest, I'm uncertain about if or when I'll move it, and I might look for someone to adopt it. In the meantime, could we include the Wiki Science Competition red link in this navigation template? It would provide further indication that there's merit in creating an article on this topic in the long run.

If nobody opposes, I can add it woth calm over the next months. Alexmar983 (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Better if the article is written first since you are working on it, and so it may soon make its appearance on the navbox. Have never heard of this competition, will read your draft page to educate myself, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems the page is actually ready or almost ready for mainspacing, nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Randy Kryn Thank you, but in my opinion, the draft is still far from complete based on what I know. Many of the best sources, roughly those with nation-wide websites or publishers that already have a page on enwiki, are missing. "having a page on enwiki" is not 100% perfect, I might consider creating articles about those publishers if they aren't already present to show to the reader, but I can spot the more reliable ones. By late Septeber, the work should be done.

Just to clarify, I'm not in a hurry: some of these sources are from years ago as well... we could have created it before but I'm simply working on setting up pages for the 2023 editions in the coming months, and based on what I see currently, I believe it's probably adequate to have one article. However, I would never move it myself to ns0 due to conflict of interest.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello. As planned, I have relocated the content from the personal mainspace to the draft namespace, and I will proceed to move it to the ns0 over the next few days--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done I'm pleased with the final result, including the infobox. I believe it can be inserted into the navbox as long as it remains in the ns0 with no template or commment.--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I might insert it on the "love" line even if it's not the same string pattern, people n any case call it "Wiki Loves Science" sometimes.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

about this question WMF never supported WSC as far as I know (maybe a blog entry few years ago?)... Obtaining a sitenotice at the central level has become increasingly complex, prompting local communities to take on the task of promotion entirely. So it's totally community-based. In some countries (e.g. Italy) it was even organized outside of the local WMF-recognized chapter.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Here is the 'About' section which indicates this is a WikiMedia competition rather than a Wikipedia community based event. Since the images can be used on Wikipedia, maybe there is enough overlap for use on this navbox. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedia, not "Wikimedia foundation"... the term wikimedia is used to encompass the Wikipedia people but also the "Wikimedia Commons" people. So, Wikimedia community.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It's exactely like the other ones. The problem is in the name of this template, which starts to be "old". It was probably created when the community was 95% "Wikipedia", nowadays that term Wikipedian is used to be more direct for the general public but it's clearly about Wikimedians. And wikimedians are NOT people related to "WMF". They are all users of all projects and platforms. If you want to be pedantic than the whole "Wiki Loves" line should go because those competitions are based on Commons. so not about Wikipedia, so not about Wikipedians strictu sensu. If you say they are also involved so t's ok, than they are also involved here for WSC... it's a problem of naming of concept probably, I suspect in the anglosphere the use of wikimedia for the community is less present due to the stronger historic role of English Wikipedia as a hub. --Alexmar983 (talk) 12:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, no, the navbox is about Wikipedia. Would you like to change the name of the Wikipedia page too? /s Randy Kryn (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

What? No, I am saying that enwiki is currently using the navbox also as a navbox for the Wikip/media Community as whole. So what it should do on the long term is to exclude that part from the current navbox and creating a new separate one as a spin-off. However, being coherent in the inclusion in this "delicate"/"hybrid"/"metastable" phase will make you get there faster and more linearly. Picking one article and make it "suffer" such disfunctionality won't. The fact that who wrote such article can pinpoint the issue should be a hint of that. In any case, this a cross-language issue and it usually takes time. It takes years for communities to understand that they are adoptig "simplistic" shurtcuts (such as Wikimedia = Wikimedia foundation) or using "out grown" concept (the "Wikipedia community" as only exisiting on Wikipedia is a de facto minority nowadays, most of users are active cross-platforms in some way after the introduction of so-called SUL).--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

In WLE, WLM etc images are also collected to Wikimedia Commons and they are all Wikimedia events. That here is so much the same, that it makes sense to keep them listed together. All in that template or none at all. Ivo (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not opposed to the listing of "Wiki Loves Science", and coming back to this discussion was surprised it's not included already. Just saying, and maybe not saying very well, that the participation of the Wikipedia community should be included and linked on the page, as it already is on all but one of the WLoves articles. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Isn't this information in the lateral infobox? "Organised by: Wikipedia community members". To me that it's an old-fashioned way to say "wikimedia community members" as we usually call ourselves in many languages, but I kept it that way.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)