Talk:Wikipedian

One who merely uses WP is not a Wikipedian. And there is no difference between editing and contributing to WP. .
 * Precisely what I was going to say. I'm a long-term Wikipedian and have never heard of mere readers of the site referred to as that.  I guess contribute, arguably, could imply more than two or three minor edits, which is probably exactly what we do want to imply anyway. I'm going to be bold. &mdash;Joeblakesley 13:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

RFV discussion
diff

This should be a model entry, esp. for attestation. There are 3 senses (2 adj.). That would require 9 cites, or 6 if we have attributive use of the noun for one of the adjective senses. There is but one. What attestation standard applies? Presumably whatever would apply to something like "Middle Earthian". DCDuring TALK 19:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the second adjective sense is subsumed in the first. bd2412 T 02:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Which, in turn, is attributive use of the noun? That would mean we only need 3 cites, of which we already have two. DCDuring TALK 18:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the adjective is an attributive use of the noun. The noun identifies a type of person, whereas the adjective describes anything relating to Wikipedia, person or not (e.g. another encyclopedia having a Wikipedian structure). bd2412 T 21:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Then the name of this article might serve as a cite for the adjectival sense, mightn't it? --Duncan MacCall 22:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It would, but is it durably archived somewhere? bd2412 T 16:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I've no idea. I found it through Google, but much as I hate to admit it I don't have the slightest notion how to find out whether it's stored by it. (With my luck I rather doubt it :/). --Duncan MacCall 18:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The presumption is that only books, scholarly articles, newpapers and magasines (all print, presumed archived in libraries) and usenet (presumed archived at multiple online servers) are archived. The subsets of each found respectively on Google Books, Scholar, News, and Groups are also conveniently verifiable. Thus our practice of heavy reliance on only those items found on the four narrow Google searches rather than Web search which could require case-by-case determination for each citation. The presumption is that blogs and websites, which can be easily modified by the author, are inherently not durably archived. DCDuring TALK 19:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I found out how to get to Google Books, Scholar and News and pasted an example from a search in each onto Wikipedian's citations' page. Does this do the trick? --Duncan MacCall 10:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's exactly how I did it until a few days ago. I have started using, which requires slightly more typing, but no cut-and-paste rearrangement or the order of the components. I haven't tried the other members of the template family. I suspect that there are some cases where it might be necessary to develop less-than-intuitive workarounds or resort to handmade citation formatting. DCDuring TALK 13:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has somehow died out, but shouldn't we come to some conclusion? --Duncan 13:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have provided quotes for one adjective sense, not attributive use of the noun. The noun I would stipulate is in widespread use and has 2 quotes. I haven't found any support for the remaining adjective sense, to wit: "Based on or inspired by Wikipedia." DCDuring TALK 21:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that sense does seem unattestable. --Duncan 21:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's gone. The rest have already been detagged. Striking. &#x200b;—  msh210  ℠  17:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian, Wikimedian, Wikibookian, …
Are there also other derived nouns derived from the other Wikimedia project names? Do you think that they should be added to the dictionary? If these words exist, I think that they should be added. Sae1962 (talk) 08:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)