Template talk:Wikipedia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Wikipedia (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.
Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 

Wikipedia bots[edit]

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

Should Wiki rabbit hole and Wikiracing be included here? Ypna (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
 Done Ypna (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"People" section[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

  • 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)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]

"Similar projects"[edit]

Unresolved

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)Reply[reply]

"Honors" field[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
 Done (diff) ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Complete change requested in an RfC of the lead at Wikipedia[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]