Template talk:Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Wikipediahistory)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Wikipedia (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's 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 on topics relating to Wikipedia.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Sister projects[edit]

What is the point of having links to the sister projects' articlces about Wikipedia? If they should really be there at all they should link to their respective Wikipedia article. But to me it feels like that's what {{Wikimedia Foundation}} is for... Skalman (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems like this is the way other templates do it too... I don't see the point, but I guess that's a much bigger discussion. Skalman (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I strongly support having the sister project links. It helps the reader and other researchers and editors find additional information on the topic. — Cirt (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I've removed them. WP:NAVBOX does not allow for external links, and the specifics of sister projects has been debated at a recent RFC. See WT:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#RFC: Should Sister Project links be included in Navboxes? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted RobSinden, these links have been on this template since 2009, so must have been seen by thousands of Wikipedians and admins who didn't remove them or complain. The RFC will be appealed, and they should stay until that appeal runs its course. The RFC decision is about a guideline, and valid exceptions are allowed in guidelines, and something in place since 2009, and on such a prominent template, seems to qualify as a valid exception. Randy Kryn 14:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Randy, you're being disruptive and WP:POINTY. You requested that I remove it from here, which I did, and you promptly reverted it, so clearly you only asked me to remove it to allow yourself to make a point. Your refusal to accept community consensus regarding sister projects in navboxes is beyond a joke. This has been explained to you on your talk page at great length. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Please keep your insults on hold as this question runs its course. The question has taken on new significance because of the use of the sister-project links on this template since 2009, something which wasn't known until the very end of the Rfc and other discussions concerning this topic. There is no disruption, and no joke (or beyond....what is beyond a joke? Satire? Good satire, maybe, which has no connection to what I've found to be an important connection concerning the long-term extent of the sharing of valuable data and informative links between the sister-projects), but working through a process which hopefully will continue to enhance several projects at once. Randy Kryn 19:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Randy, there was no insult. You are being pointy - you encouraged me (almost goaded me) to remove the links from this page only so that you could revert my edit. If that isn't pointy, I don't know what is. And the discussion has run it's course. It seems to be a case of WP:IDHT from you. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Pointy? I pointed out, obviously, that this template has had the sister-project links since late 2009, a fact which came into the Rfc discussion too late for editors to take it into consideration in their comments and decision. The only data they had was that Wikiquote and Wikisource had been put on hundreds of templates for a year, providing links to an amazing amount of work done by our sister-project editors, and that nobody complained, until you did. But the voters on that question weren't privy to the fact that each and every sister-project link had appeared on the Wikipedia template, the sites home template, for over five-and-a-half years, and nobody complained. If that isn't an already-existing exception to the guideline (a guideline, not a policy) then I don't know what is. On my talk page the closer has commented and given routes to reopen this discussion, so it is a long way from over. Maybe all of the Below links to our sister-projects aren't needed on the templates, but assuredly appropriate links benefit the project while assisting our sister-projects to share their creations. I'm not alone in thinking that after five-and-a-half years (without a complaint!) that this exception to the template guidelines has already left the barn and been grandfathered in. At a minimum the question probably deserves, because of this new evidence of the concept's successful use on the widely-viewed Wikipedia template since 2009, more discussion and deliberation. Randy Kryn 3:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Nobody complained? I can see two objections above. And no, the closer just advised your options. As it stands, the discussion is over. There was a full RFC on this. We'll revisit this if you get the decision overturned. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Besides yours the above "complaint" reads more like a question, which was answered, and no more came of it until you decided the accepted practice wasn't consistent with your vision of templates. Mine includes a bit wider latitude in data, and it seem for five-and-a-half-years the thousands of people who viewed the site's main template agreed. Randy Kryn 14:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
You cannot assume any "agreement" just because no-one bothered doing anything about it or just didn't care (we all know how unloved navboxes are). There's been an RFC on this and it was found by consensus that we are not allowing sister project links in navboxes. Leave it alone. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, since nobody complained then the use of these links was established. The closer of the Rfc question himself said he missed the late addition of the fact that the sites home-template, this Wikipedia template, had included those links since 2009, and has offered several routes for appealing the decision. Almost all of the consensus comments pointed to the roundabout "it's in the guidelines so it must be the way things are done", while the pro-use editors gave mentioned benefit after benefit, explaining how the inclusion of these items helps the reader, helps researchers, and shares the good work of editors of sister-projects with many more people. Thanks for your advice to "leave it alone", but no, the data has been on this template since 2009 and is a valid piece of evidence in this ongoing discussion, a piece of evidence not seen by the Rfc commentators or the closer. Randy Kryn 10:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2015[edit]

Please remove Cool Freak's Wikipedia Club from this template. This is a relatively small Facebook fan group for wikipedia, and has no affiliation with Wikipedia. Lxplot (talk) 08:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with "relatively small" given the sourced numbers, and it's quite clearly a valid entry, in its role as Wikipedia reflected into human culture. Stamboliyski (talk) 09:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done - Stamboliyski's said it all. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 11:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, this page no longer exists. Could it please be removed from the template? Lxplot (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Done. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 21:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Lxplot (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Which section is best on the template for 'Wikipedia Monument' and '2015 Erasmus Prize'[edit]

I'll likely come back soon to post on the sister-project question, but right now will ask if the Wikipedia Monument and 2015 Erasmus Prize, which are now in the History section, should be moved to the 'Community' section. The Monument was dedicated, and the Prize awarded, to the Wikipedia Community, justifying inclusion in the Community section. Yet the two items are also prominent parts of Wikipedia history, justifying inclusion in the 'History' section. Stay as they are in 'History', move to 'Community', or include in both? Randy Kryn 19:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thought about it, and I'll move them to a new section 'Recognition and honors'. The Monument was erected in 2014, the Erasmus Prize occurred in 2015, so it may be that Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community are entering into a phase where, after establishing itself and stabilizing in a daily growth-pattern, more people and organizations will realize the value of the project and further formal recognition will come. Does a new section seem appropriate? Randy Kryn 16:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Addition of Andrew Lih to "people" section[edit]

I added Andrew Lih to the template as a person related to Wikipedia and Wikimedia, but, if anyone finds that to be inappropriate, please let me know. I wasn't sure whether that category is intended for board members/execs only or if it extended to people whose notability significantly relates to Wikipedia. Upjav (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Why does Andrew Lih even exist as an article? I don't see any earthly way he meets WP:PROF. ‑ iridescent 19:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Seedfeeder[edit]

Should Seedfeeder be included here somewhere? If added, please add the navbox to the Seedfeeder article, which is currently marked by an "orphan" tag. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

This is perhaps another article that shouldn't exist - would be opposed to including it. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree. If no-one has provided some actual sources other than that single Huffington Post article within a couple of days, I'll AFD it. ‑ iridescent 19:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
AFD here, although I've no real doubt that the "keep, it exists" crowd will turn up in force for this one. ‑ iridescent 17:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I shouldn't assume, but it looks like the article will be kept. Does it have a place in this template? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't think so - should be limited to people who are significant to Wikipedia, not just significant Wikipedians. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks, Nikki! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I re-added Seedfeeder. He can be considered significant to Wikipedia, as he provided images for our sexuality articles, and is notable because of this. Some of the previous opposition to its inclusion are concerned about notability, which has been established through the AfD. SSTflyer 04:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hundreds if not thousands of people have provided images for our articles; that doesn't mean we should include every one in the template. We need to establish better inclusion criteria than simply "has edited Wikipedia", as that facet is better represented by the category. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: But he is notable for his contributions in this area, and his notability has been established through a fairly recent AfD discussion. SSTflyer 03:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting he should be excluded from the template because he isn't notable on Wikipedia (ie. because he fails WP:N), but rather because he isn't notable to Wikipedia. AFDs establish the former, not the latter. Notable Wikipedians should be catalogued using Category:Wikipedians; people who are more significant to Wikipedia should be included here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Request edit on 19 July 2016[edit]

Please add https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Wiki_topics to bottom of current template.

2601:183:4000:D5BD:E14D:CF71:8A19:4158 (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe you meant adding a see also link to Template:Wikipedia/doc, which isn't semiprotected. (Toggling) — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 18:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)