Category talk:Wikipedians

From Battlestar Wiki, the free, open content Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia and episode guide

How is it that Joe B. got his name to appear without the User: bit in front of it, but the rest of us retain it? I'd rather be sorted under D, than U, really. I realize this is a minor thing. I just thought I'd wonder out loud. --Day 14:26, 29 August 2005 (EDT)

Actually, I just did it in the normal namespace (i.e. without the "User" prefix. I do, however, plan on rectifying this. So please don't follow my wiki faux pas. Thanks! -- Joe Beaudoin 22:44, 29 August 2005 (EDT)
Noted. I'll keep my eye out. Thanks. --Day 00:21, 30 August 2005 (EDT)

What is a Wikipedian?

I just realized that I'm not, really, a Wikipedian. I have never contributed to the Wikipedia proper. That's, admitedly, a rather strict definition, but I thought I'd ask: Is this supposed to be a listing of users here who also contribute to the Wikipedia in order to differentiate its self from the user listing? Or is it supposed to be a listing of the more regular contributors to this site? --Day 05:31, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

Marianne also brought this up recently: why is category called "Wikipedians" while we're not Wikipedia? --Catrope(Talk to me or e-mail me) 11:13, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, I agree...while it's supposed to be more generic to describe a wiki user (no matter the software type), it still gives the notion that Wikipedia is the end-all-be-all places for editing. --Spencerian 11:32, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
I'd never really thought about it, as a "Wikipedian" to me is anyone who contributes to any Wiki, not just Wikipedia, but I can see where it could be confusing. JubalHarshaw 12:18, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
More of a question... if we didn't want to call ourselves Wikipedians, what should we call ourselves? -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New 17:26, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
What about "Galactipedians"? Anything with "Battlestar" in the name would sound odd. Alternatively, something neutral like "User". Works well; like "male/female user" or "french user". All in all, I never had a problem with the category, but now that people say it, it's a bit strange. --Serenity 17:37, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
"User" works, "Galactipedian" works also and amuses me more so my vote is for the latter :) Personally I feel "Wikipedian" does technically refer only to Wikipedia, though by that same technicality "Galactipedian" would be mildly odd, but it's a real nice play on words :) Marianne 05:13, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
Galactipedian is amusing, and is better than anything I can presently think of. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New 08:50, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
Galactipedian has my vote as well. Unfortunately, moving categories isn't possible (yet, there are plans do implement that in 1.11), so we'd need to delete the old cats, recreate them under a different name (e.g. "Galactipedians (UK)"), and update all links. --Catrope(Talk to me or e-mail me) 09:16, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
I like Galactipedian, too. Shouldn't be hard to work up a bot to reclassify that, I'd guess. --Spencerian 10:51, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
Most of the categorylinks to Category:Wikipedians and friends are template-generated anyway. Just edit the template and you're almost done. It's really just a dozen of people who manually added the category to their user page. --Catrope(Talk to me or e-mail me) 16:10, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
Galactipedian it is. Catrope, honors? Shane (T - C - E) 16:38, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
Sorry, was away for a few days. Thanks for offering anyway. --Catrope(Talk to me or e-mail me) 14:30, 24 June 2007 (CDT)
The only reason I don't like Galactipedia (otherwise its cute)is because ideally I would like to see a merging of Wikipedia with all other wikis into a true "Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy" [1] (Douglas Adams) which seems to of come out about the same time that Galactica came out, if and only if... wikipedia itself was distributed (physically) and allowed more than one style. For instance, I think its nuts that wikipedia has to have the same color scheme for all articles. Philpotomous 01:19, 7 August 2007 (CDT)Philpotomous
An über-encyclopedia is nice... but not feasible, more due to human constraints than any technical ones. (Wikipedia has problems with quality control, policing vandalism, and the like now... and that's with articles they deem notable enough for inclusion!) As for the color scheme thing... speaking from experience with MediaWiki, it's more a technical issue. I'm sure it could be implemented, but there are so many other things that take precedence, such as a good WYSIWYG editor to make wiki editing easier to name one. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New 19:37, 7 August 2007 (CDT)


I originally deleted the Wikipedian category and all its sub-categories (and changed all people who added it manually), but it seems some people think of themselves as Wikipedia users too, even if that was never the intention of the category. So I restored the main category and added a line to the User Data template about adding it manually. But I don't think it's used very often, so we don't need to bother with all the sub categories. --Serenity 08:57, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Right. No problem with that, I think. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New 11:16, 16 August 2007 (CDT)