Jump to content

Template talk:Wikipedia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Format?

Well, at least on my computer, the History of Wikipedia link overlaps with the MediaWiki link. I'd fix it, but I know fuck-all about how. --Dookama 07:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tjstrf. Or whatever string of letters you. <3 --Dookama 07:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this template when it was added to Conservapedia and noted that Conservapedia was listed under the "Related projects and forks" section. Forks I have no problem with including in this section of the template for obvious reasons, but "related projects" is nebulous to me. Who determines whether it's a related project? What does related mean? Does it signify an official connection between the two projects? Basically, I'm wondering what people think about this section and whether it should be removed entirely or trimmed down to just forks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "related" isn't the best word, but I think we should include in "related projects" any project that is at least one of these things (in addition to the obvious requirements for an article to exist in the first place):
  • directly concerned with Wikipedia (i.e. Wikitruth)
  • a freely-editable Internet encyclopedia, or a concept of one, which inspired Wikipedia in some way (e.g. Nupedia, Interpedia)
  • a fork of Wikipedia (e.g. Enciclopedia Libre)
  • a wiki-based Internet encyclopedia that is not a fork of Wikipedia but compares itself to, seeks to address a flaw in, or can otherwise be seen to be an attempt to re-invent Wikipedia (e.g. Wikinfo, Conservapedia)
Thoughts? – Qxz 20:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned that a template like this is in general too self-referential and too likely to be full of incredibly minor links (Fuzzy Zoeller?). I'm thinking about WP:TFD but I'm not yet fully convinced to nominate it. Either way, I think your fourth criterion is way too nebulous, and needs to be scrapped, since it's going to grow to enormous proportions (SourceWatch should be in, as well as DKosopedia, off the top of my head. Pretty much every current wiki exists to do what Wikipedia does not). The second criterion may need to be refined; in what way did Interpedia actually inspire Wikipedia? They appear to have been two completely separate ideas. — coelacan — 23:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The self ref issue as creator of this wasn't a factor, it was the awkwardness of the history of wikipedia category that was--so I made this, to sort up the 'history of...' issues surrounding WP from birth to the future. I don't think it's actually all that self-referential as Wikipedia and the stories/articles surrounding it are notable--we need to move past the idea that articles on Wikipedia/related to it should come with some special caveats, stigma, or asterisks. They are notable or they aren't, but we shouldn't be treating an article on an aspect of Wikipedia any differently than we do one on a given type of Car or a given aspect of Microsoft, or France, or anything else. That said... I was really curious to look up the history of Wikipedia, and found the base category too hard to track in a somewhat sequential order. so, I made this template. Given how much endless press/attention wikipedia gets, and how much everyone everywhere seems to use it, the idea that people will want to know the history of the site is anything but far-fetched. hence, the need for the template. :) - Denny 23:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but that was only half of my issue with this. It doesn't appear that WikiZnanie, Wikiweise, Conservapedia, or Interpedia belong here. And Fuzzy Zoeller and Joshua Gardner are too minor as well. — coelacan — 01:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I missed GNUpedia in the list of related projects. Certainly it is historically very related to wikipedia. For me it has much more relatedness than Conservapedia, for example. Further, as for forks, sure that WikiZnanie and Wikiweise belong here. Also Interpedia is related to wikipedias history. --Ben T/C 13:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
"Notable related projects and forks" implies that Wikipedia and the listed projects are affiliated with one another. How about "Other wiki-based Internet encyclopedias" for those that are not affiliated with Wikipedia (as posted by Qxz)? As for the membership criteria, the template already indicates that it relates to the History of Wikipedia. I clarified the membership criteria on the template page. -- Jreferee 16:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
wouldn't that be kind of general? We'd technically be able to link every notable Wiki encyclopedia... - Denny 18:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. Do these Related projects and forks need to show up everywhere the Template:Wikipediahistory shows up if they are not really part of the History of Wikipedia? This seems more of a way advertise other options besides Wikipedia, which is not really what the History of Wikipedia template is about. Maybe we could create a separate template something like "competitior of Wikipedia." That way, the participants in each article could decide whether it was appropriate to include template links to competitiors of Wikipedia in that article. -- Jreferee 19:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the harm, since it's all in the spirit of the GFDL we're all built on/supporting anyway... and any editor on any article can contribute to this template, not just their own. :) every single editor on wikipedia is supposed to be 100% equal in voice. :) - Denny 19:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my disappearance, my Internet died on me yesterday afternoon and a project at work called today (well, it's still calling, but I need a break). I agree that "Other wiki-based Internet encyclopedias" is a better title for the section, but that takes things way outside of "Wikipedia history", which is what this template is aiming for, is it not. I say we take out everything but forks and influences that we can cite, such as GNUpedia. Conservapedia, and even Citizendium, have nothing to do with Wikipedia's history — both might in the future, I guess, but definitely not right now. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That was my intention up front. Stuff directly related to the history of wikipedia--people, places, things, and then notable (i.e. they have an account) events related to Wikipedia, to show where it began, went, and is heading. I intentionally didn't want to whitewash and leave out any negative stuff, to maintain NPOV/balance, and because... well, you only learn from your past... - Denny 22:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Alan Mcilwraith and Joshua Gardner

These entries (on this template) are a bit odd. Neither article has any relevance to the history of Wikipedia. They're just articles about subjects who happen to have manipulated Wikipedia as a component of larger scams.

We don't (presumably) list every killer who happens to have a MySpace/LiveJournal account in those infoboxen. Neither article sheds any light on Wikipedia, and neither has led to Wikipedia policy reviews or frothing "Is Wikipedia Fatally Flawed?" editorials like Seigenthaler and Essjay.

chocolateboy 06:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Navbox generic

Bomis?

It strikes me as confusing and useless to the leader to have the entire template begin with what is, at most, a tiny footnote in the history of Wikipedia, Bomis. I would say that based on editorial questions regarding leading the reader through the history of Wikipedia in a helpful way, this should be removed, or at the very least not the first link in the template.--Jimbo Wales 08:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Bomis is part of the history of Wikipedia. Without Bomis, we may not be having this conversation now. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 16:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Could it be simply bc it's alphabetized? it should be, within the sections. That way there is no dispute. Also, everyone seems to be forgetting that the order of inclusion for links (or other equally nit-picky things) in no way is meant to be indicative of importance. You're reading too much into it. It's just a template to build the web. Besides, once again here, removing a link to an article whose subject is an important point of criticism (however inane) by those hostile to Wikipedia looks like censorship, especially when proposed by someone formerly involved with Bomis. VanTucky 21:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Quake AID?

Since the content in the Quake AID article is original reserach which is not supported by any reliable sources, that article probably needs a complete rewrite. Having this very minor footnote in the template for Wikipedia history is "undue weight" by any standards. A very tiny website had a fight with Wikipedia, well it may be important to them, but to the history of Wikipedia? The controversy was, to my knowledge, never covered by any media of any kind, mostly because the whole thing was complete nonsense.--Jimbo Wales 09:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, though catching Quake AID at its game may look good for Wikipedia, it's not really related to the evolution of Wikipedia. VanTucky 21:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

Many of the things mentioned here are fairly or totally insignificant to Wikipedia's history and are not even mentioned in the History of Wikipedia article. Taking out anything not mentioned there would leave just the following.

History of Wikipedia
Main articles Bomis · Nupedia · Wikipedia · Wikimedia Foundation · MediaWiki
People Jimmy Wales · Larry Sanger · Tim Shell · Wikipedia community
Events and individuals Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China · Essjay controversy · Seigenthaler controversy
Related projects and forks Enciclopedia Libre

I also suggest removing Interpedia since it was a plan for a project that never existed and never had anything to do with Wikipedia. Is there any objection to this? More relevant links to have here would be UseModWiki, Florence Nibart-Devouard, and all of Wikipedia's sister projects. Angela. 04:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As soon as Angela's name showed up on[1] this template she wants it removed. She removed her name from the above template.[2] :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
That's not true. I've never edited the template. Try checking the actual page history. Angela
It is true. You have edited the proposed template above which I was referring to. You have removed your name and Citizendium from the above template. Do not try to misrepresent my statements. Try checking the template above. It does not look good what you are doing. Please stop. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Take a very close look at the above proposed template. Angela's name is missing.[3] She intentially removed here name from the above proposed template. A serious COI. This kind of behaviour is frowned upon in the community and is considered poor taste. Respectively, :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 18:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a proposal on a talk page. It isn't the template itself. Angela. 18:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
She also wants the article on her deleted.[4] She has also removed the most notable fork of Wikipedia , Citizendium. Very interesting. Its not going to happen. Is this a COI? Hmmm. I recommend we close this section. This is a quick resource for readers to become familiar with the history of Wikipedia. If we listen to Angela, we would essentially dismantle this resource list. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
If no one with a COI can edit this, we have a problem since the entire Wikipedia community are linked here, so I guess that means no one in the community can edit it... Or perhaps we could look at a more objective way of deciding what's in this template by seeing what is actually mentioned in an article about the history of Wikipedia. It's totally irrelevant for one ex board member to be linked here when none of the current members - not even the chair - is mentioned. Citizendium is irrelevant to the history of Wikipedia since it has had no impact on it whatsoever, as opposed to an actual fork like Encyclopedia Libre which did. Angela. 17:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This template is more than just about the history. Read it more carefully. There is a "Related projects and forks" section too. Nice to see you have singled out Citizendium. This confirms you have bias and a COI. If you continue, I may be forced to report your COI to the noticeboard. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't single out Citizendium. I removed everything that was not mentioned in the history of Wikipedia article. Angela. 18:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Angela singled out which article she really wants removed from the template, "Citizendium,"[5] which is part of the "Related projects and forks" section. Angela is quick to talk about the removal of Citizendium - a rival to Wikipedia![6] Oh. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 19:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you joking? How have I singled out Citizendium? I removed 7 of the 8 supposedly "related projects". You're the only person singling out Citizendium. Angela. 01:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
You just singled/pointed it out again. Wow. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
While it is clear that Angela has not to date had some pattern of POV edits on the template (to my knowledge anyway), I am in strongly opposed to the deletions she is proposing and especially to removing her name from the template (I placed it there FYI). However, she should be commended for proposing any controversial changes first rather then just making them. But she absolutely fits the bill for inclusion in this history template, and as a public figure that is the subject of a bio article and a key party in the history of Wikimedia projects it is laughable to think she has the right to keep a low profile by removing herself from the template. The other names of the Foundation board members are not linked bc their articles are redirects to the Wikimedia Foundation article. While they may even be hostile to Wikipedia and its sister projects, Wikitruth and Conservapedia (as well as the others) are by their very definition forks of Wikipedia. Without Wikipedia, they simply would not exist. Removing those projects hostile/unflattering to Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects is providing more fodder for the criticisms of the projects that these morons are pushing. As to the "impact on Wikipedia" argument, the links included in the template are not there bc they have had a significant impact on Wikipedia. They are there bc they are directly related to the history of Wikpedia, that's why the title of the template is "History of Wikipedia" and not "Wikipedia Influences" VanTucky 01:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I am glad Angela did not edit the live version of the template. Anyhow, the comments she made to remove the fundamentals, related, and/or the history of Wikipedia articles is very questionable in nature. Have fun. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, but I do support Angela's suggestion to add Florence Devouard and Wikipedia sister projects. Oh, and as of now, Angela is mentioned in the History of Wikipedia timeline. VanTucky 01:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
As it has been a while and no one has commented on these particular points, I'll go ahead and add the above links. If anyone does object and hasn't said so yet, feel free to revert the changes (of course) w/o starting an edit war, and we'll discuss them. Cheers VanTucky 21:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiZnanie

How is it a related project or fork?--Imaginationac (Talk | Edits | Email) 06:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

style

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Wikipediahistory&diff=prev&oldid=152954876 Navbox style

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Wikipediahistory&diff=next&oldid=152954876 Navbox generic style

Here are two different styles above. Which is the preferred style for this history template. Please discuss. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  20:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia community

This article currently (since July) redirects to English Wikipedia, which isn't helpful. Shouldn't it be removed from the template? Rigadoun (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia and Uncyclopedia? Certainly not forks. They're both sort of "anti-wikipedias" (one has a blatant POV and the other's explicitly a parody) - I'm not sure I'd call these "related projects". Any objections to deleting them? -- Rick Block (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I strongly object. A fork does not entail a positive outlook on Wikipedia. Conservapedia forked from Wikipedia for the express purpose of creating a conservative encyclopedia, but otherwise based on our model. Uncyclopedia is a fork, because it's a parody of Wikipedia. They're both forks just like Citizendium is a fork. VanTucky Talk 20:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The point is not about "positive outlook on Wikipedia" but any substantive relationship. Neither of these are actually forks in the sense that they started with Wikipedia's content and continued. They use the same software, but it's open source software, so quite literally anyone can use it. I don't think the intent of this list is to include all projects that use this software, or even all "encyclopedia" projects that use this software (there are lots of them), but rather projects that are in some way related to Wikipedia. Most of the rest are Wikimedia projects (clearly related). Citizendium was started by Larry Sanger who was one of the folks originally involved in starting Wikipedia. Conservapedia and Uncyclopedia have no relationship to Wikipedia at all, as far as I'm aware. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Um, how is a direct wiki parody of Wikipedia (expressly stated to be so) and a wiki encyclopedia based on our format but created directly and definitively in opposition to this one not related? Conservapedia's founder always describes the creation and execution of that site in terms of how it isn't Wikipedia. Without Wikipedia, these projects would never have been created. These sites are important stepping stones in the history of Wikipedia, their creation had a tangible impact on the project, as evidence by the loads of media coverage. VanTucky Talk 00:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd be interested in other opinions about this, but I'm not buying your reasoning. A direct wiki parody (expressly stated to be so) is no more relevant to Wikipedia's history than Saturday Night Live's skits are to the history of the Presidency of George W. Bush. Wikipedia is certainly relevant to the history of both Uncyclopedia and Conservapedia, but I don't think relevance is symmetric. Mentioning either of these in a template appearing on every Wikipedia related page strikes me as an extreme example of undue weight. I suspect we're not going to agree on this. I'm willing to wait for some others to offer their opinions. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If you read some of the previous discussion on this, you'll see that it's pretty split usually. But so far people seem to have bowed in favor of my point of view. You're welcome to file an RFC if you like. VanTucky Talk 03:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

There appear to be two issues here: 1)Should there be a Related projects and forks section on the template; and 2)If yes, what should it contain. As regards the first question, that has been discussed above. There are mentions in the History article of related projects and forks, so it would seem appropriate to have such a section on the template. The second question then looks at the content of the section. I hear the argument that content in the section should also be present in the main article. If the content is not notable enough to be mentioned in the main article then it would be inappropriate to simply append it to the section on the template as though the template were a trivia list. A rigorous approach needs to be taken otherwise the template will contain too much trivia and cease to be useful. Neither Uncyclopedia nor Conservapedia are mentioned in the article. Should they be? Uncyclopedia is a spoof which may be mentioned in passing as a sign of Wikipedia's success - however that is already adequately covered in the article by reference to more serious material. I see no valid reason for Uncyclopedia to be mentioned in the article, let alone in the more selective template. Conservapedia, however, could be mentioned in the main article as an example of editorial difference, the same way that Citizendium is mentioned. However, it is not vital, and the Citizendium reference is perhaps enough. An editor may decide to make reference to it in the article, and at that time consideration may be given to including it on the template, but currently, with no mention in the History article it seems inappropriate to list Conservapedia on the template. Neither article is included in the main or subcats of Category:Wikipedia. It is difficult to see any solid justification for inclusion of these two articles on the History of Wikipedia template, and this may be an example of creeping listism. I would also suggest a good scrutiny of the other articles listed on the template to ensure that all of them are mentioned in the article, and are pertinent to the history of Wikipedia, rather than merely sharing a name, software or other tangential non-pertinent relationship to Wikipedia in general. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing Wikia and WikiWikiWeb as "related projects"

I've removed these two projects because they are barely mentioned in History of Wikipedia, and because:

  • For Wikia, I think it's important to be sensitive to criticism that Wikipedia somehow "favors" Wikia or supports it or otherwise is influenced by it. Wikia is clearly not a fork of Wikipedia, and it clearly is not related in the sense of covering the same topics, any more than any of the other of thousands of wikis out there are "related" to Wikipedia.
  • For WikiWikiWeb, this was clearly an inspiration for Wikipedia, but I think it's appropriate to simply mention it (as is the case now) in the History of Wikipedia article, not to more prominently feature it on the template. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Uh, Wikia is very related to Wikipedia. It's fundamentally a for-profit branch of the WMF in all but name, so... no, it doesn't cover the same topics, but it's still related. Dookama (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikispecies?

Where is it? - rst20xx (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Events

As this navbox appears on several pages, I think the "events" section should be entirely removed. And anything not already located at History of Wikipedia be merged there. - jc37 21:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Renaming to "Template:Wikipedia"

The contents of this template are already FAR away from what history is, so lets rename it to "Wikipedia" and make a general Wikipedia-realted topics template from it.--Kozuch (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge - Template:Wikimedia Foundation

The pages should be either merged, or the Wikimedia project row should be deleted from this template.--Kozuch (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The latter done.--Kozuch (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Watchdogs"/Critics Section

Who, besides the groups themselves, describes them as watchdogs? What consumer protection do they actually offer? They could be more aptly described as discussion forums. And as for critics, there are a lot of people/groups who would fit that bill. KnightLago (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The edit did not match the edit summary. The edit summary gave the misleading impression that too many critics were added. QuackGuru 22:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that Wikipedia has been criticised by many people, but what makes these three special? Some would argue that because many Wikipedians edit the three sites and probably the reason why only these three were added, which doesn't really constitute a neutral point of view. If we were to include all critics of WP, the template would need its own page. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I've semiprotected The Wrong Version (note that "semi") of this. (I have no strong opinion on which version should be kept). If you want to argue about it, feel free to comment here. – iridescent 22:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • They're "special" because they're notable, we have articles on them and they fit within the general topic of Wikipedia. We're here to inform and templates like this are meant to provide navigations within topics, which includes linking notable criticism. naerii 22:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • InformationWeek described Wikipedia Review, along with Wikitruth, as being a "watchdog" site, "dedicated to scrutinizing Wikipedia and reporting on its flaws".1 naerii 22:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I have a great idea. Maybe we should start a new template called Critics of Wikipedia. For now, a few notable critics is par for the course. If the list gets too long we can always start a new template. Or we can stick to the notable critics for this template. QuackGuru 22:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
What do editors think of adding Encyclopedia Dramatica. QuackGuru 22:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think criticizing / watchdogging Wikipedia is the major purpose of that site. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
They don't fit within, nor are they a part of Wikipedia, they only talk about it. Thus, they don't belong in the main Wikipedia template. If you want to create a template called Critics of Wikipedia go ahead. We also already have Criticism of Wikipedia linked, so why do we need to recognize these 3 websites when there are dozens and dozens already? These should just be added to the see also section of the main article. KnightLago (talk) 01:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you name 3 of the 'dozens and dozens' of sites that are devoted to criticising Wikipedia for me please? naerii 10:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
And how many of these have articles... Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Notice that wiktionary:watchdog defines a watchdog as "a person or organization that monitors and publicizes the behavior of others (individuals, corporations, governments) to discover undesirable activity." I would say that those three sites fit perfectly the definition of watchdog, changing the name to wiktionary:critic is just silly, since the most accurate definition that would fit those sites is "One who criticizes; a person who finds fault". The definion of "watchdog" fits those sites waaaay better, accurately and descriptively.

Also, you can find some sources for use of "watchdog", (altought seeing how the spam filters bitches about freerepublic.com and israelnewsagency.com I suspect that some wikipedians will complain about the quality of these sources :) ) so this is not totally original research, like Computer world[7] and free republic [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1808275/posts] for wikipedia-watch, Isreal News Agency for Wikipedia Review [http://www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediaisraelnewsleydenwarcensorship480722.html]. Also, wikipedia review calls itself a watchdog site on its own page, and Brandt is described as a watchdog on a blog by Times journalists [8] --Enric Naval (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia#External links gives a broad overview of sites that have been critical, but that is besides the point. The real issue here, as said above, is that these 3 sites don't fit within, nor are they a part of Wikipedia. Thus, they don't belong in the main Wikipedia template. I think they should have their own paragraph or see also in Criticism of Wikipedia, but to go further down line from that article to then identifying individual critics or even watchdogs (per Enric) in the main Wikipedia template goes too far. KnightLago (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hehe, it's funny how when someone proves one point wrong you move onto another (equally wrong) point. Let's clarify:
  • WRT your first point; yes, they are 'watchdogs' as per the sources provided by myself and Enric above;
  • As for the "dozens of other sites", the external links you mention are sites that happen to be critical of Wikipedia occasionally as part of their other reporting activites. There is a different between "sites that have been critical" and "sites that are devoted to discussion, criticism and monitoring of Wikipedia";
  • Why are they special? They are notable;
  • What does "fit within Wikipedia" actually mean? If you mean "fit within the topic of Wikipedia" then yes they do fit in, as these sites are relevant, have occasionally played roles in pivotal points in Wikipedia's history (for instance, the Essjay thing first broke on WR);
  • If you still don't believe they are relevant to the topic of Wikipedia, read (as one example) Wikipedia_Review#Involvements:

"nor are they a part of Wikipedia" -- neither are "Related projects and forks". Are you going to remove those as well under the same rationale? rootology (T) 17:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the template supposed to actually be good for finding articles worth seeing? Encyclopedia Dramatica has some actual relevant criticism if you can be bothered to dig through the crap. Conservopedia, too, probably has more relevant criticism than any of your blog-sourced 'watchdogs'. Should we add the Register, too? At least the crap articles on Wikipedia there are deliberately written badly, unlike WR. John Nevard (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Where to start:
  • Under the definition of watchdog any published work offering analysis and commentary fits. So everyone in Criticism of Wikipedia#External links falls into this category. But again, besides the point.
  • As for being critical of Wikipedia occasionally and all the time... I don't think the distinction really exists. The majority of links are from organizations who are professional critics that act as watchdogs all the time. The New York Times and Cade Metz don't publish articles or maintain a forum everyday, but the fact remains that they, like WR, cover and monitor Wikipedia. WR has the distinction of being a forum. If you want to change the field to forum and then add WR I would be fine with that as that would make them unique from everyone else.
  • Many subjects of articles are notable. They are not listed in the template. See immediately above and below.
  • How are they relevant enough to rise to the level of the main Wikipedia template? They write or post in forums about it? As mentioned, other organizations such as the journal Nature, and those who covered the blocking of Qatar (just to name a few), hell the whole Events section is about controversies covered by major news sources to which Wikipedia reacted. We don't list everyone in the template, we keep them in their respective articles. The same with the Essjay thing. We have Essjay's idiocy linked already in the template. Their role can again be discussed there.
  • There are many sources, as discussed above, that have arguably played more important roles in the history of Wikipedia and are not included. So I don't quite think the sources are on your side.
  • Looking at the Related projects and forks, some of those should definitely be removed.
Is everyone here a WR regular? KnightLago (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You might as well ask "Is everyone here a WP regular?". It would have the same relevance. Have any of those sites in the external links been described by third-party reliable sources as 'wikipedia watchdogs', like WR, Wikitruth, and Wikipedia Watch have? naerii 21:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sure I could find sources for major news organizations being called watchdogs. Again, I don't see the distinction here. Do you have more than one single post from a blog calling all three of them watchdogs? Again, there is no need to have these 3 in their own sections when there are main articles already in the template. Lets try to come to some consensus here. How about moving WR to the related projects (could be renamed) and trimming the section. And then removing the critics/watchdogs section. I am trying to work towards some compromise here. KnightLago (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please remove Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story

{{editprotected}} Please remove the Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story link from the template at this time. The article has been deleted. JBsupreme (talk) 08:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The speedy deletion was declined, so it is still an article, please come back after it has been deleted. MBisanz talk 11:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I've full protected the template indef, probably at the Wrong Version, but this edit warring over a template used in the article space is unseemly to the project. Reach a consensus here in the collaborative talk space, and then flag another uninvolved admint o make an {{edit protected}} request or unprotect the page. Edit warring is unacceptable. MBisanz talk 20:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies - I clicked the little "e" button from an article and didn't see the template was protected. I added "MyWikiBiz" to the list of related projects and forks, reasoning that if Veropedia and WikiZnanie are worth inclusion, so is MyWikiBiz. This seems to be unrelated to the edit-war, so I haven't self-reverted but will self-revert if anyone asks me to do so (or should any admin wish, please feel free to revert me). Neıl ☄ 08:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
MBisanz has asked me to revert myself and take it to the talk page, so I have done so. Is there any objections to adding MyWikiBiz to the related projects? This does not appear to be related to the part of the template the edit war is about. Neıl ☄ 08:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Particularly as since the protection, there five days have elapsed and there has been no discussion whatsoever vis a vis resolving the dispute. Neıl ☄ 08:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I was one of the people arguing above, and I ceased discussing it as don't care enough to debate the inclusion of Wikipedia Review, et al, ad infinitum. I have no problems with you adding MyWikiBiz. naerii 08:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, the page was protected for one day earlier. Nobody discussed anything during this time and when it was unprotected identical edits were made. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
If nobody objects in a few hours, I will re-add the article - thanks. In the meantime, regarding a compromise for your above issue, how about simply adding Wikipedia Review, Encyclopedia Dramatica and Wikitruth to "Related projects and forks", also? Let the reader determine whether they are "watchdogs" or "critics" or whatever. Neıl ☄ 09:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. There are a lot of Wiki's, they are all kind of related to WP, are we going to add all of them? Why is the one you want to add unique? I am ok with the 3 in the related section. KnightLago (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I would say MyWikiBiz, Wikipedia Review, and Wikitruth are sites worthy of inclusion because they exist solely because of Wikipedia. There are a lot of wikis, yes, but merely "being a wiki" wouldn't be sufficient, I'd say. ED is more borderline. Neıl ☄ 13:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, how about we add the 3 we have been discussing plus MyWikiBiz to the related. I don't think ED fits in the template. We would then need to pair down the list. The following are the articles currently in the related section.
Just after a brief glance I think we should keep Citizendium, Interpedia, and Wikia. Bomis and Nupedia should already be covered in the history of Wikipedia. The others seem to be forks. Thoughts? KnightLago (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Why would we need to reduce the list? Forks are worthy of inclusion. The ones you give above plus Wikipedia Review, MyWikiBiz, and Wikitruth should do it. Neıl ☄ 10:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. KnightLago (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, seeing as we have consensus, and it is broad, someone wanna give me an edit to make? MBisanz talk 14:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we are in agreement to add Wikipedia Review, MyWikiBiz, and Wikitruth to the related field. But let's wait until Neil returns so we can make sure we are on the same page. KnightLago (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll hold off, looks like a simple enough edit MBisanz talk 15:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. For proprietry's sake, MB, I'll leave the edit for you to make. Neıl ☄ 08:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 Done. MBisanz talk 17:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


"Wikitruth" and "wikipedia review" are hardly "projects". This description does not seem at all accurate. Citenzium etc are, but these are discussion boards. Projects have aims and objectives, discussion boards do not. I suggest these be removed from a "project" list, it is misleading.--Troikoalogo (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say project is a fairly broad term, and Wikipedia Review does have a defined mission statement/objective; see the article. As does Wikitruth. Neıl ☄ 08:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Neil. KnightLago (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

whitespace after protection template

{{editprotected}}

Causing a blank line when transcluded. Delete the carriage return between the noinclude and the start of the template on the first line, please. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Done Stifle (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Change request due to protection

{{editprotected}} Please add Deletionpedia to "Related projects and forks". --Explodicle (T/C) 13:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the nature of the edit war that generated this protection, I'd want to see more discussion before doing this edit. I don't have a major objection, though. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the link should be added because Deletionpedia directly addresses one of the most controversial topics on Wikipedia - Inclusionism vs. Deletionism (for which there is already a link). There have been heated debates here and on Slashdot now, and the article itself has been mentioned in a few news sources. I think it's significant enough to add, but agree that this is a matter of opinion... If anyone else has any input on the matter, I'd like to see it. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
     Done fish&karate 14:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Academic studies about Wikipedia

{{editprotected}} Could someone (by this I mean admin) add this to the template? -- Taku (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Watch

As we agreed to add Wikitruth, Wikipedia Review, etc, I would suggest adding Wikipedia Watch for completeness - any objections? fish&karate 14:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined not to. Aside from a single Certain Page, the site is rarely if ever updated any more, and in any event is a tiny site (9 pages) consisting of one man's opinions, rather than a true "criticism site". I'd question the value of even keeping our article on it, to be honest. – iridescent 15:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Well those aren't good reasons when all of these sorts of templates will add pages even if they're tiny one-sentence stubs and nothing else. The only valid reason I can see not to add it to the template is that the Wikipedia Watch has lots of outing on it and that's well iffy at best, but it's enough that I'm not going to chance editing this template to add it myself. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Did you read my comment? It's nothing to do with the Wikipedia page, it's the fact that aside from Hivemind, Wikipedia Watch consists of eight pages, none of which have been updated for months. – iridescent 22:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, my comment addressed and rebutted all that. See the first sentence and the first half of the second sentence. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests for removal

The WikiZnanie link is completely mysterious to me. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia, other than Mediawiki software, and its article in Wikipedia is under question for notability and for not citing any sources.

The Interpedia link is quaint, but for a failed project, which doesn't even demonstrably show linkage to Wikipedia, it seems to be cluttering this template.

I understand how Veropedia was an important part of this list of related projects, but this particular project is suspended now (visit their "coming soon!" website to see). I suggest its removal, with no prejudice against restoration when the site becomes viable again.

The Wikiweise link is also questionable. Its article in Wikipedia is under question for notability and for not citing any sources. And Alexa.com ranks it as the world's 394,446th most popular website. What are we doing here? Creating a dumping ground, or a usefully crystallized set of links? -- 65.2.1.201 (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I support such a clean-up.--Kozuch (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
This list still seems funny and incomplete. 209.117.47.251 (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia CD Selection should be added to the group "Usage of content" (the group contains external stuffs that uses Wikipedia's content). Logo of Wikipedia and Wikipedia neologism are also relevant, isn't it? Thanks···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 15:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I added a link to Infobox in the first section of the template, but another editor objected, and I can understand that perspective. Is there another section of this template, that Infobox could be mentioned within (possibly along with the 2 items mentioned above)? Or is there another navbox that it might belong in? If not, no worries. (Maybe at a later time, when more RSs have realized that Google's Knowledge Graph is clearly mimicking us... ;) –Quiddity (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

We could transmorgify "History" into "Cultural Impact" or similar and move both cn and neologism (and "in culture") there, but I'm not sure the other two would fit at this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be a redlink in the template -- should that be removed?

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I am surprised the article was deleted with so little discussion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Snow (attorney) (2nd nomination). Without an article the redlink should be deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2015

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)
 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'

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)

Sister projects

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)

Addition of Andrew Lih to "people" section

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

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

Please add https://wiki.riteme.site/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)

Do all WMF Executive Directors belong on this template

With this edit, the editor Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) (editcount over 80K, 12 FAs) added the current and past two WMF EDs to this template. The is no mention of Wikipedia in the job description. Nikkimaria dismissively says to others "take it to the Talk page" but she does immediately impose her will upon the template. Look at Nikkimaria's "gaming the system" edit comment: "rv troll". While calling it a revert, she slips in all three names. All three are already on Template:Wikimedia Foundation. The three are:

Gardner was on this template for a while, and then finally appropriately got removed. Nikkimaria got triggered on this matter because Tretikov's name was removed. The three BLPs and user account histories provide no evidence of any notable involvement with Wikipedia, either directly or indirectly. There are many other WMF people who are not involved with WP. For instance, Mike Godwin - MGodwin (talk · contribs) - (400 edits) has said many times to the effect of following rather mature and reasonable statement: "I refuse to discuss encyclopeadic content". Based on the other people rejected on this Talk page, these WMF EDs are not appropriate. Those three names should be removed. It seems that Nikkimaria has an agenda and that she is trying to impose her will upon the community. What are we supposed to do? Compose a filksong of this song and replace the content of every page within the "Wikipedia:" namespace with those lyrics? That edit should be reverted and Nikimaria should be warned not to play such games again.--172.56.32.146 (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

This is at least the third iteration of this IP that I've blocked for patronizing sexist remarks to and about women. Acroterion (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Eurika! That makes it intuitively obvious to the casual observer that those three names belong on this template. Our eternal gratitude for your remarkable and erudite contribution Mr. Admin. You name should name should be memorialized in bronze juxtaposed with that of Sir Andrew Wiles.--208.54.32.154 (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
It means that you may not contribute, no matter how many times you change your IP. Acroterion (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Listen to Wikipedia

Should Listen to Wikipedia be included? Ypna (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, for sure. I didn't know an article had been write. Please do the honors. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I added it to the References and analysis section. Ypna (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Steven Pruitt added to 'People' section

After a revert because Pruitt isn't a WMF official I pointed out that the section name 'People' is linked to 'List of Wikipedia people' where, in the first sentence, the descriptor mentions 'editors'. Should we add Steven Pruitt back to the 'People' section? (of course!). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Also add Adrianne Wadewitz or any other major editor who both has a page and that page mentions Wikipedia editing prominently. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I removed Steven only because I know that I and Adrianne had been removed. I have no opinion on whether all three of us (and anyone else) should be removed: only that the two of us were in the past, so the same standard would apply to Steven. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
And of course Justin Knapp as well (edit conflict, was here to add that suggestion to the discussion). Let's get them all in here. There are eight winners of the Wikipedian/median of the Year who have pages, and they are already listed on that page which is included in the section. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Let's not do that. See discussion re: Seedfeeder above. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

XOWA

This is another offline wikipedia software, may be added after Kiwix. Uziel302 (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Depths of Wikipedia

Should Depths of Wikipedia be included? Ypna (talk) 09:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

"That's a bingo", probably in the section 'Content use'. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Agree. Archiving this section since the entry appears in the template. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

"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)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Wikipedia/Archive_1&oldid=1201904342"