Talk:Jimmy Wales

Date/age issue

There is a date/age issue in the second paragraph of the "Early life and education section". "When he was three, in 1968" cannot be correct if he was born on August 7 or 8, 1966. In 1968 he was either one or two, not three. Timothy Cooper (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

That Daily Beast source says "When he was three, his mother bought a World Book Encyclopedia from a door-to-door salesman..", so no year mentioned. I am unable to open the first source, The News Courier, either original or archived, so can't see what it says. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 Returning to this, the other source says: "Doris Wales’ husband, Jimmy, wasn’t sure what she was thinking when she bought a World Book Encyclopedia set from a traveling salesman in 1968. Their first-born son, also named Jimmy, was not yet 3." So the cited sources disagree about whether he was 3 or not yet 3.  Mystery Merrivale  (talk) 05:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Jimbo

Sure we need to mention he’s username in the intro? Barely any sources mention it, and it isn’t a common name given to him. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Errrm, the article opens with: "Jimmy Donal Wales (born August 7, 1966), also known on Wikipedia by the nickname Jimbo Wales..." So that's the 15th word in? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

What? That’s my point. It’s in the intro. Yet it’s a username without any real-life importance. (I mean that it’s not notable enough to be mentioned in the intro. It’s not a common name, it’s his username). Jimmy Wales has no special rights! Down with the dictatorship! Encyclopédisme (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood your comment. I think it's been there for quite a long time. And I think it probably makes him more accessible, to editors and readers alike. I also can't imagine anything much less like a dictatorship. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Inform yourself better before making bold claims with no factual truth (see: Dictatorship of neo-socialism). As to Jimbo Wales, you might think I’m a picky asshole, and I might think it myself, and it might be true, but clearly this goes against policies, or more generally the way biographies are written. This is just a guy who created an online encyclopedia, might be this one, who knows? That this guy is also coincidentally a user on Wikipedia should not be in the article, and definitely not in the intro. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

What an wonderfully enlightening essay, full of "factual truth". Thank you so much for sharing that. And yes, what an amazing coincidence that is - an inventor occasionally using his own invention. Who knows, maybe that nice Mr Musk will be using "X" before too long? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: This biography is like any other. The username Jimbo Wales, is not a common way of calling him, and is not described enough in the sources to be notable. Encyclopédisme (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

And this is an article Talk page, like any other. So, as per WP:BRD, we need to arrive at a consensus to remove that detail, instead of just edit warring? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Sorry. Then let’s discuss. Taking aside what I said before, I did genuinely want to discuss if his username, which is not really notable in any way, should be mentioned in his article. Considering that, yes, genuinely, this article is nothing special, and if Elon Musk was editing Wikipedia, his account would not be mentioned. In other words, stating that he edits Wikipedia under Jimbo Wales, provided there is a source, can be added, but having Jimbo Wales in the intro just seems a little bizarre. He is not commonly referred to as such, and the Wikipedia:Glossary has nothing to do at the very top of an article. He is not commonly referred to as such, only in Wikipedia, and only by those who know he is there. Encyclopédisme (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Experience shows that no good comes from new editors popping in here and poking the bear. I know it's terribly unfair that Jimbo gets special treatment just because he founded Wikipedia but most of us have learned to live with it. See WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR for why rules that generally apply are not always applied if there is a good reason to do otherwise. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I get it. Again, sorry if it seemed that way. What I find frustrating is that what I said on my first message was serious, I genuinely want to discuss if we need to put his username in the Intro. It legitimately feels bizarre. It’s not a common name by which he is called, I also know that Wikipedia "rules" are just recommendations, and I also do not care that much about this intro. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore every single rule… This sums it up perfectly. I am legitimately asking if we can keep a not commonly known username of an online encyclopedia, as an alt/name of Jimmy Wales, in addition to making it sound professional by writing "is known on Wikipedia", instead of "known on Wikipedia by his username". And in fact, it makes this article a lot less professional, seriously, I’m not kidding. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

New Scientist Jimbo nickname source, took about 20 seconds to find this one. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I better shut up now shouldn’t I? Cheers, and happy new year. Encyclopédisme (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking forward to Twitterpedia. Now that might well be a dictatorship? But at least we'd get updates 25 times a day. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

For the next time this comes up, Encyclopédisme (talk · contribs) was CU indeffed and globally locked on 27 June 2024. Johnuniq (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Hatnote

JLCop recently removed the hatnote. [1] I reinstated it for now but I do think this subject is worth discussing, given that projectspace links within mainspace are generally discouraged. I noticed that Steven Pruitt also has a similar hatnote but that this is not the case for the average person listed at List of Wikipedia people. Thoughts? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete. JLCop (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• A link to a 2012 RFC discussion about this issue which doesn't seem to have been closed or concluded (first item on the page). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• I removed this before seeing this discussion. This is a clear case of WP:NOELBODY, as the edit notice itself says. I also removed the hatnote from Steven Pruitt, for the same reason. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Given recent events, I think it's best to stay away from this article going forward just to be on the safe side. I appreciate the input from others in this discussion. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC using Template:For to link User:Jimbo Wales and WP:JIMBO

I propose that we add something like this to the top of the article, as Jimbo has an information page other than user page, and there are many other mainspace articles related to Wikipedia that links to internal pages like this.

For the personal user page and related internal page, see User:Jimbo Wales and WP:JIMBO.

There was a previous discussion on this, editors refused to link the user page in the article itself because it would constitute an exception, but the new proposal using a "for" template to link the user page does not constitute an exception per above. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per the previous discussion, this is still a blaring WP:NOELBODY violation. It shows internal strength to not let our guard down when writing about Wikipedia, and instead write the article in the exact same way we would about unrelated subjects. In no other context would it even be conceivable to link to someone's official website at the very top of the article rather than at the bottom in the "external links" section, so we must not do so here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  WP:NOELBODY only applies to MOS:BODY and not WP:HAT though, and this is an internal link, not jimbowales.com which would belong at the bottom. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's only a "internal link" because you're letting your guard down in exactly the way I said not to do. Please read the edit notice: "This article relates to Wikipedia itself. Please note that links to non-article namespaces should be treated as external links and not included in the body. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so references to it must comply with WP:ABOUTSELF." * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  That edit notice exists in other pages such as Wikimedia Foundation, Vandalism on Wikipedia, Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia, etc and still use hats containing internal links. Do you suggest to remove those hats? Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Pinging participants in #Hatnote @Clovermoss @JLCop @Randy Kryn

  Pinging participants in #Jimbo @Encyclopédisme @Martinevans123 @Johnuniq

  Let's see which is the consensus on this. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Whoever this Noel Body is, I just don't trust him. Whatevs. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Per the newly added COI section on my user page, I don't think I'm the best person to be commenting here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Pppery, non-article namespaces are treated as external links in articles related to Wikipedia itself. Also, the fact that other pages also use these hats isn't a good argument, and I would suggest also removing them: someone searching for our project page Wikipedia:Conflict of interest most likely isn't going to type Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Newer 2024 image?

Not sure whether or not it'd be right from me to change the infobox portrait myself, so I decided to ask y'all here. I propose that the current 2023 image (which has an admittedly distracting blurry background) is changed to a newer, fresher image from the 2024 Wikimania. Below are my proposals. I personally favor Option C.

• 
  Current image
• 
  A
• 
  B
• 
  C
• 
  D

Nursultan Malik^(talk) 21:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)