Talk:Wikimedian of the Year/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Featured list
Been a while since I promoted a list to Featured list status, but I wonder if this one is close to meeting criteria? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: Thanks for nominating! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
One mention
Perhaps we can mention Satdeep's name 1. --Tito Dutta (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Conflict of interest? We all have a conflict of interest here. :) I'd invite you to make improvements to the article directly. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- I went ahead and removed the edit request. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Alright. --Tito Dutta (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
2020?
I suppose there's still time for one or more people to be named Wikimedians of the Year in 2020, but if not, do we need to place some sort of disclaimer in the article about the lack of award and/or postponement of Wikimania? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Another Believer, It will be announced in 10 days ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 10:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- CAPTAIN MEDUSA, Great, thanks for sharing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Another Believer, congrats ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- CAPTAIN MEDUSA, Thanks for the update. I watched the announcement earlier today. If sourcing allows, we may update Wikipedia's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, too. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Another Believer, congrats ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- CAPTAIN MEDUSA, Great, thanks for sharing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Template:Orders, decorations, and medals of Wikipedia
Should we display Template:Orders, decorations, and medals of Wikipedia at the bottom of the page, which mostly directs readers to project pages, not content pages? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: You've been updating the page quite a bit. Any thoughts here? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Another Believer, Yeah. Seems quite reasonable. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 20:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- CAPTAIN MEDUSA, I've removed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Another Believer, Yeah. Seems quite reasonable. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 20:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Video for WOTY 2021
Victor Grigas (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
2022 changes
---Another Believer (Talk) 15:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Merge articles
Due to this deletion discussion, the article with this name was previously moved to the Wikipedia: namespace. Now that there is a new article here, I guess we have three options:
- Have the two pages separately
- Merge into the mainspace version (is this now sufficiently notable?)
- Merge into the Wikipedia: namespace version
Any thoughts? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't have an opinion about the Wikipedia page, but I'd vote to keep the Wikipedia article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- This page seems sufficient, and the topic is as notable as Wikipedia is notable. Having its own page seems the same as other awards given by notable organizations having their own pages. So merge seems fine, especially since the last discussion is from 2013 and awards have been given every year since which has increased its odds of sticking around and further increased its notability. Randy Kryn 17:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- OK, shall we go ahead with the merger from Wikipedia:Wikipedian of the Year to this article, then? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Please do - be bold! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- OK, shall we go ahead with the merger from Wikipedia:Wikipedian of the Year to this article, then? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, merge complete. I haven't moved this section over, as I'm not sure it's appropriate for a Wikipedia article:
Nomination process: The winner of the prize has always been decided by Jimmy Wales. At Wikimania 2014, Wales announced that from the following year there would be a community-wide process for nominating and deciding on the winner, at User:Jimbo Wales/Wikipedian of the Year 2015. At Wikimania 2015, and again at Wikimania 2016, Wales acknowledged that process has not come about yet, but reiterated the intent to create it.
Table or prose?
I thought this article worked better as a table, rather than prose (see this revision), but this was reverted by @Everymorning. My rationale was that we have one entry per year, with a name, picture and reason, and given the fixed nature of that information it made more sense to format it as a table than prose, where we have we end up repeating 'received' and 'in', and we have a picture of one recipient that takes up the same amount of vertical space as the prose for all recipients. What do you think? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Just FYI, I didn't revert that edit AFAICT, Another Believer did. [1] Everymorning (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Please accept my apologies, you're right! Mike Peel (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yup, I converted back to prose and much prefer prose over a table because there is more content here than just years and recipients (or nominations). But, this has come up with other awards lists. For example, some Grammy Award articles are Good articles (Concept Music Video, Disco Recording, Female Rap Solo Performance, Hard Rock/Metal Performance Vocal or Instrumental, Hawaiian Music Album, Male Rap Solo Performance, Performance Music Video, Rap Performance, Soul Gospel Performance, Male or Female, Zydeco or Cajun Music Album, Video of the Year), while others are Featured lists (Alternative Music Album, Bluegrass Album, Contemporary Instrumental Album, etc.) I guess it just depends on the award's longevity? I figured prose was better for including honorable mentions, too. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- And, keep in mind, this article still needs to be expanded. Only 2016 is described in detail. I think the prose will look better once content is expanded for each year. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Please accept my apologies, you're right! Mike Peel (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Bah, I turned it back into a table before I saw the discussion here. Anyway, I do prefer the table format; there really shouldn't be more than a few sentences of explanation here about the rationale for the award. Any more detail should be in the recipient's article. (An example of this format is, say, List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry, which includes a sentence of explanation for each recipient.) The prose for this article should cover aspects of the award itself, such as how it is chosen and what is actually awarded. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
"Wikimedian of the Year"
Sourcing for "Wikimedian" instead of "Wikipedian"? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- The infobox descriptor says ""[M]ajor achievements for Wikipedia". It's been Wikipedian of the Year, and if the name has changed it probably shouldn't be changed as the descriptor of past recipients per accuracy. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: this Wikimedia Foundation blog post does use the phrase "Wikimedian of the Year" for what that's worth (referring to Felix Nartey). It should also be noted that Wikimedia UK awards the "UK Wikimedian of the Year" award that is totally unrelated to this one. [2] IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 22:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- So, should the lead say Wikimedian of the Year (formerly Wikipedian of the Year)..."? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe this should be taken to the Jimbo Wales talk page. There seems a bit of confusion about the name, and when the name change occurred (if it has), and either Wales or someone there could clear it up. And I'd think during all of this time it's been 'Wikipedian of the Year' that the awardees should be credited with that named award, the one they were given. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- But we base Wikipedia articles on secondary press coverage, not Jimmy's talk page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- True, since this is a public in-site page. You'd think the person that named the award and hands it out might know something about its name, but that's the Catch-22 of Wikipedia. Kind of like The Newsroom episode where the producer was trying to get her Wikipedia page corrected. Thanks for the reminder. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- Wikimedian of the Year is a Wikipedia article like any other, not a project page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- For what it is worth, I confirm that the Wikimedia Foundation and Jimmy both refer to (and have for the past couple years) this honor as "Wikimedian of the Year". The change began a few years ago and was changed in 2017 on all materials we utilize. The official announcements in 2017 and 2018 both utilized this phrasing. --GVarnum-WMF (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- Then the previous awards, before 2017 when it was changed, should probably be listed as 'Wikipedian of the Year' per their awards and award ceremonies. I've added the original name in the page text. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- For what it is worth, I confirm that the Wikimedia Foundation and Jimmy both refer to (and have for the past couple years) this honor as "Wikimedian of the Year". The change began a few years ago and was changed in 2017 on all materials we utilize. The official announcements in 2017 and 2018 both utilized this phrasing. --GVarnum-WMF (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- Wikimedian of the Year is a Wikipedia article like any other, not a project page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- True, since this is a public in-site page. You'd think the person that named the award and hands it out might know something about its name, but that's the Catch-22 of Wikipedia. Kind of like The Newsroom episode where the producer was trying to get her Wikipedia page corrected. Thanks for the reminder. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- But we base Wikipedia articles on secondary press coverage, not Jimmy's talk page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe this should be taken to the Jimbo Wales talk page. There seems a bit of confusion about the name, and when the name change occurred (if it has), and either Wales or someone there could clear it up. And I'd think during all of this time it's been 'Wikipedian of the Year' that the awardees should be credited with that named award, the one they were given. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- So, should the lead say Wikimedian of the Year (formerly Wikipedian of the Year)..."? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: this Wikimedia Foundation blog post does use the phrase "Wikimedian of the Year" for what that's worth (referring to Felix Nartey). It should also be noted that Wikimedia UK awards the "UK Wikimedian of the Year" award that is totally unrelated to this one. [2] IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 22:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Source for LGBT?
ResolvedCurrently the table summary for Emily Temple-Wood mentions LGBT-related work. I don't doubt the claim whatsoever, but I have limited access to text in the citations and I don't see details or verification. Can someone confirm which source mentions her LGBT work? I'm mostly curious because I'd like to add an update to the newly created LGBT and Wikipedia entry, if possible. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Editors have not been able to find sources confirming Temple-Wood's LGBT-related work, so I have removed mention of "LGBT" from this entry, per Talk:LGBT_and_Wikipedia#Wikimedian. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)