Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week

Please do not link to the nominee's user or talk page in the same edit as you add your signature!
Echo will inform them of their nomination and spoil the surprise. Also, please do not include the editor's name in the section heading because it will appear in watchlist notices.

Just type their name using plain text, or use {{noping}}, and we will replace it with {{User10}} in a way that does not notify the nominee.

Archive index

Index 1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by .

Church of St Mary the Great

KylieTastic

Editor of the Week
for the week beginning May 12, 2024

An expert "back of WikiProject Articles for creation queue reviewers" that handles all the hard drafts. Without editors like this, AFC would grind to a halt. Over 12,000 edits to their AfC log page, including processing over 1,000 drafts so far this year, indicates how much they do. One of WikiPedia's most consistent and best AfC reviewers, they are not just taking the easy accepts and declines. They are often working requests from the back of the queue and dealing with the more difficult drafts that others have passed over.

Recognized for

patience, understanding, and a willingness to assist newer editors

Submit a nomination

Requested move 24 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: proposal withdrawn(non-admin closure) John from Idegon (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week → Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Wikipedian of the Week – Change name to Wikipedian of the Week in order to harmonise with Wikipedian of the Year, predatingly founded in 2011 by Jimmy Wales. I would say Jimmy Wales picked the more suitable term, Wikipedian arguably being a more catch-all and more activity-independent term than that of "editor" for a contributing user. Thus highlighting this reward being a little bit of an equivalent albeit strictly by the collective Wikipedia community. For context, see list in Wikipedia:Awards. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Editor of the Week initiative is unrelated to the Wikipedian of the Year, with considerably different criteria. Editor of the Week is focused on recognizing good everyday work by editors. Thus I do not believe it is suitable to rename the Editor of the Week recognition. isaacl (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have any opinions on the matter, but it is probably worth noting that there are 253 subpages of the Hall of Fame, and about another 30 that would need to be renamed. It's not like that should keep us from changing things, but I certainly wouldn't want to be the one to do all those moves. Primefac (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would note that (with only a couple exceptions that I have seen) this is presented for a persons editing of articles. A person can be WotY for other activities like admin work, DRN etc. MarnetteD|Talk 23:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think it's appropriate to show up at a project to which you don't contribute and suggest that they change their name. Lepricavark (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Having been the helmsman to the good ship Editor of the Week for upwards of five years I must say that I am always taken aback by those who want to step in and make changes where they have never visited before. There is no reason or need to harmonize into Wikipedian of the Week. Editor speaks exactly to the gifts and attributes of those 250 individuals that have received the award. and there is no more suitable term than Editor for those that will receive the award in the future. ―Buster7 ☎ 07:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This certainly seems like a solution in search of a problem. John from Idegon (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I might add that even if this proposal made any sense, which it doesn't, it is about 5 years late. John from Idegon (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is very heartening that Buster7 and others have kept this going since we founded it several years ago. This has nothing to do with Jimmy Wales and everything to do with recognizing everyday contributors who go above and beyond. Go Phightins! 19:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It looks more suitable to me, for the two seem completely different. As stated by MarnetteD, WotY may work for admin activities, but EotW is more about content creation. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose EoW and WoY have nothing in common. EoW is an en.Wiki project. As far as I know, WoY is a cross Wiki honour drawn on all Wikimedia projects and takes into account off-Wiki work for the movement. Bestowed (or announced ) by the Founder, I guess it's a pretty important award. However, not to belittle the admirable leadership demonstrated by Buster's meticulous micromanaging of EoW where for the rest, Dennis's WER has all but petered out. People often breeze into a project they have previously not been part of and want to change everything - I see it all the time in the areas where I have been at the helm for years - and of course it's not really an appropriate thing to do despite the enthusiasm that sometimes comes with it. As John says, it's a solution looking for a problem and I look forward to supporting Buster and his teamm in keeping things as they are for a long time to come. EoW is one of the nice things about the en.Wiki, let's not muck it about. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. The picture seems clear; maintain the preexisting name. Just an intentional improvement proposal coming from little detail knowledge into the matter while investigating the context around it. Sorry for disturbing! Thanks for your contributions and keep up the good work! Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Member and Coordinator List

The following is a withdrawn proposal/discussion by the original poster. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing of the discussion can simply undo the closing.

~~Hello all,~~

It was recently brought to my attention (via IRC) that there are two member and co-ordinator lists: Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Members and Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week#Members. This is particularly confusing for those involved in the project. I propose the following:

Keep all of the member and co-ordinator information at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Members.

Add any unique entries in the member list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week#Members to the member list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Members (time-stamp order).

Add any active co-ordinators from Dennis's post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Members to the co-ordinator list Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week#Members, put that list where Dennis's post was at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Members, and either hat (below the current/updated co-ordinator list) Dennis's note or move Dennis's note to the bottom of that page.

Best regards,

~~JustBerry (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Buster7 Isaacl Lepricavark Mark Miller John Carter (blocked as of posting) Go Phightins! Doctree Adjwilley SlimVirgin As a courtesy, I am pinging any listed co-ordinators (in the event that you are not already following this page). Also, feel free to comment on if you wish/do not wish to continue co-ordinating for this project. --JustBerry (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe everyone who expressed interested in the Editor of the Week recognition initiative should also be compelled to state interest in the Editor Retention wiki project, or vice versa. Thus I don't feel the two sets of lists should be combined. Furthermore, it's more important for people to chip in and help out; the names on lists are secondary. (Witness your earlier proposal about to-do lists; unless someone's expressed interest in following up week after week, it isn't going to go anywhere.) isaacl (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacl: My aim was to clear up a confusion that had come up earlier on IRC. Thanks for reminding that the two projects are distinct. --JustBerry (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While the Editor of the Week is indeed organized as an editor retention initiative, it comes down to people can be interested in one without being interested in the other. I don't know what was discussed on IRC, so can't comment on it. (As previously discussed, it's unnecessary to ping me on this page.) isaacl (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on IRC was informal, but the confusion regarding the two different listings brought them to my attention. And, yes, I had forgotten that you do follow this page; it's been some time, hasn't it? --JustBerry (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note I didn't mean to re-open the conversation; it was just an edit conflict at the time. Feel free to close it again if you like. isaacl (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page.

Nominations archive

Regarding the archiving of nominations: to-date we haven't done this, essentially because the initiative is biased towards accepting nominations by default. Thus a nomination archive would just replicate the Hall of Fame. Although I can think of some specific cases where an archive might be useful, so far they haven't come up, and I think it may be just unnecessary overhead at this point. isaacl (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Projects usually archive past work in case they need to refer back to it, rather than deleting it and hunting for it later. It's only one click if using a user script. There isn't a mandate regarding one has to archive, but I don't see the harm in doing so for future reference. @Buster7: (I don't know if WER pages are on your watchlist by default as well.) Thoughts? --JustBerry (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am familiar with this approach. Nonetheless, personally I feel that the benefit gained is not worth the effort (there is a distinct shortage of volunteers). isaacl (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the archive notice from both nomination pages and marked both archive pages for deletion (at least until a few more editors have chimed in). I can see your reasoning for the accepted nominations page. For the current nominations page, perhaps we should at least keep a list of users that have declined their nomination with a diff linking to their declining (see Buster7's comment on Gerda's being nominated three times). --JustBerry (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it will be helpful to keep track of those who have declined to receive the recognition (there is one person who disagreed with the Editor of the Week idea and so refused the recognition, and others like Gerda who prefer to let someone else have it). isaacl (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reworked todo

For those of you who may have found working through the todolist a bit tedious in the past, Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/todo/weekly should now seem simplified and better formatted with the new preload functionality and templating. Feedback is welcome! --JustBerry (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your changes, are you planning to keep the to-do list up to date each week? I'm a bit concerned that if you find other priorities in a couple of weeks, as happened a year ago, then there'll be a stale to-do list right on the main Editor of the Week page. isaacl (talk) 11:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JB. Not wanting to sound at all un-appreciative, I must say that I find the to-do list completely unnecessary and burdensome. I'm thankful that you have come onboard and have brought fresh ideas and a vigor for change. But... Let me take this moment to say... I'm 70 years old. I've edited WP for 10 years now and my interests have dwindled to managing the Editor of the Week awards. It's pretty much the only Wikipedian thing I do now. As you start to do more and more of the daily chores for EotW, my purpose for being here lessens. The changes that came about thru your input (and the other tech savvy editor whose name I forgot) last year really helped the process of awarding. They were a welcome addition. The to-do list is not. In plain English... I don't think Isaacl or I need a to-do list. We've done pretty well without one for years.―Buster7 ☎ 13:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't looked that closely at the to-do list before... Having each task as a separate page that gets transcluded seems like overkill, as well as having a separate page for the recipient name and the week which is only used in the weekly to-do list itself. As I've said before, though, since I'm not doing the week-to-week tasks, whatever those doing the awarding decide upon is fine. But... as of yet, it's still Buster7 doing most of the chores, so an approach that works well with his workflow is needed. And based on those who have helped out before, virtually no overhead is better. The important part about co-ordinating is talking about who's doing what, so each contributor can plan ahead accordingly. isaacl (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]