Wikipedia talk:Brooke Vibber Day

This page 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.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles

Holidays

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays articles

Salute you

I Bhadani salute you - Brion Vibber. I also wish you all the best! BTW, I learnt of this fact from Wikipedia:Esperanza. --Bhadani 13:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brion

So, Since today I'm flying from Singapore towards France, I'll have three dinners. À ta santé ! ♦ Pabix 03:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto

I checked this page to see whether it reflected this user's recent change in name (and presumably gender), and I'm happy it was. But what happened to the obligation to greet one another in Esperanto on Brion/Brooke Vibber Day? Steinbach (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an Esperanto speaker, I am indeed sorry to see the mentions of Esperanto by Jimmy Wales go away, because Esperanto played a major role in Brion's early involvement with Wikimedia - particularly the introduction of Unicode into MediaWiki several years before Unicode got mainstream, motivated by the language's phonetic spelling and the corresponding use of diacritical characters. Read here an account by the founder of Esperanto Wikipedia. I oppose that the passages of Jimmy Wales' declaraion of Brion Vibber Day hinting at Brion's involment in and passion for Esperanto had to go away recently, apparently just because of someone's feeling uneasy about the eponym's birth name having been used in the relevant sentences. Blahma (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unsubstantiated renaming

I know this is not an article in the main namespace, but Brion Vibber Day has become a part of Wikimedia history and this page is a documentation thereof. And as some recent edits suggest, the holiday has been established as Brion Vibber Day for 20 years and there is a substantial historical track of it having been celebrated under that name, both its English and Esperanto equivalent (see e.g. Google, Twitter). I oppose changing its name just because its eponym apparently recently changed name. There is currently not a single Google hit for the name this page has been moved to. Some people may well decide to start celebrating it under a different name as of today, but I don't think a change should be imposed beforehand here on Wikipedia in an attempt to pretend that this is already the established name or, even worse, that there has never been a different name for the holiday before. Blahma (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blahma, you're very much deadnaming Brooke by trying to push the former name. I suggest you retract your statement. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am just a Wikipedian, not an expert on LGBT, so thanks for the link. I am OK with someone's changing name, but at the same time against any attempts at retroactively changing the past (be it for propaganda, right to be forgotten or pretending a name never existed before). I very much appreciate B. Vibber's pioneer achievements - and am possibly one of the few who have been popularizing till this day and even been recently celebrating the Day within my community, so I can't see how I could be doing this to "deny, mock or invalidate" anyone's identity - yet I still believe that going as far as pretending that Jimbo had established a Brooke Vibber Day on June 1st, 2004, i.e. twenty years prior to the name change, and without even mentioning how the holiday had been called through all that time (as is the current state of the page), is a historically untrue, misleading statement.

As I am apparently not the one who should decide on the holiday's name though (who is? Jimbo?), I will limit myself to asking that the name the holiday has had for twenty years, and under which it has entered history including written sources, be at least mentioned somewhere in the page text, for historical context (preferably along with a date by which it had been valid), should the holiday indeed get "officially" renamed too.

Thanks for tolerating my opinion and considering my request. Blahma (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a trans woman, I'm obviously not the most impartial and I really try to avoid GENSEX disputes, so sorry in advance, but I absolutely think we should respect Brooke's wishes and avoid her deadnane as much as possible. Of course, if this were an encyclopedic article, we would likely(?) follow WP:NAMECHANGES and use the common name, whether it's the deadname or Brooke. But this is not an encyclopedic article, it's a projectspace page more akin to an "official website", and we should respect her wishes. But that's just my opinion. ^Queen of _Hearts 22:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained removal

@Seddon: Why did you remove the decree section that is incorporated on all the other holiday pages? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine because it included Brooke's former name. But I've checked with Brooke on Mastodon and she said that taking the approach we'd take in mainspace—quoting but with bracketed name/pronouns—is preferable to truncation or omission, so I've restored it thusly. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 21:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that was the thinking as well, but I am concerned about this kind of presumption and radical change with no discussion. Even at that, it's not obvious to me that the person who has the day namesake gets ownership over these documentation pages, but it is certainly wise to get the courteous check-in. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and to be clear, I support being bold as well as the rename, in case that was ambiguous. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, as this is my decree, I fully endorse it. When I heard the news, I immediately went to this page to make the change myself, and only regret that I was too slow to have the opportunity!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good deal. Thanks for responding and being supportive. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABrooke_Vibber_Day&oldid=prev&diff=1215347271 ??? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: I think one of us must be misreading something here. The way I read it: Seddon originally switched to a paraphrase based on an assumption of what Brooke would want. Brooke clarified that she preferred the full citation, and that's (as you've noted) the standard practice regardless, and so I reverted. Seddon signaled no objection (and in fact off-wiki thanked me for resolving the matter). Jimbo then came here and said he "endorse[d]" the current version and "regret[ted] that [he] was too slow" to make the change. Even you, in your post at the start of the thread, were in favor of keeping the citation. Where, then, are you getting a consensus to return to the paraphrasing approach? To me this reads as the exact opposite, unanimous consensus to maintain the citation, with former name bracketed out as we would in mainspace. I have no doubt you're trying to do the best and most respectful thing here, but I think there must be some misunderstanding. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 21:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the timing on this sequence of events is wrong. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which part? You made your edit 3 hours after Jimbo's comment above. This is what the article looked like (and, with respect to the part in question, had looked like for 10 days) when Jimbo commented. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 21:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]