Talk:English Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Wikipedia (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's 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 on topics relating to Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Websites / Computing  (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).
 
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on April 18, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on September 24, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.


This article was nominated for deletion on February 18, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Collaboration of the Week[edit]

This article was a former COTW candidate. -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New article total[edit]

I added the new article total Mjal 01:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

US Wikipedia or global site in English language?[edit]

I really dont know if this is the right place to post my question. And I guess that what I will raise - the very nature of the English Wikipedia - has been discussed somewhere. However, I have not been able to find it.

What makes English Wikipedia fantastic for me is, aknowledging that English is the dominating international language, that I find on this page contributers with huge insight in any subjects from around the globe - whereby we get a real global encyclopedia. I have though been involved in several debates where it has been argued that this is a US /Anglosaxon site. For instance some comments on the debate about Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Of course we're only counting votes in English, this is the english language wikipedia. Why would non-english speakers/readers surf it? Please see the archives for more arguments related to your pleading to not be insulted. Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 13:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC) and If you are mortally offended by wikipedia and western values then there is simply no reason for you to visit the english wikipedia, or indeed, any western site.

Why do almost all the other major Wikipedias refuse to publish the cartoons? --Lotsofissues 22:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

They're all un-American and so they don't have our same ideals of freedom of speech. --Cyde Weys 22:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please accept the fact that en.wikipedia.org is a server that follows the laws of the U.S. and the U.K. The Muslims who live in countries where it is not legal to publish pictures, like alqaeda.wikipedia.org, may succeed in erasing the picture. Here it does not work. It is not enough if Mohammed disagrees with being pictured here; Jimbo Wales and the Wikieditors would have to disagree, too.

Well, these are only some examples. I hope someone here can provide me with information abouth wether this discussion has been taken. As a non US or UK citizen defining the nature of English Wikipedia is decisive for wether I should contribute here. Bertilvidet 13:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Anybody in here, who has an idea where I could raise these questions??? Bertilvidet 09:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the English Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia written in English. It is surely not intended to be an encyclopaedia of the English-speaking world, promoting the prevalent worldviews of the countries that make it up, but inevitably, because most of the contributors come from those countries, an unintended bias results. One of the biggest problems of the English Wikipedia is its domination by editors from the USA, a worrying proportion of whom don't really know anything about the rest of the world and have no intention of learning, as exemplified by the appalling piece of trolling by Cyde Weys above (it may well have been a joke of course, but there are many people who actually hold those attitudes). It's worth remembering that the English Wikipedia has a very large number of contributors for whom English is not their first langauge, mainly from mainland Europe, who have contributed a huge amount. The problems of the English Wikipedia can be addressed by encouraging greater participation of editors from outside the English-speaking world, so please help us and contribute your time and skill!

Problems with the sources buissiness[edit]

Is alot of the sources for the claims would be other Wikipedia pages, which I think is frowned upon (IE. Don't use Wikipedia as a reference for Wikipedia articels). 68.39.174.238 07:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

A diff to a Wikipedia project page should be fine, as this work is basically a self-reference, as long as you treat it as an external link and use the permalink from the page you're referencing. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Statistics[edit]

We need a "milestones" section, similar to the one on Spanish Wikipedia. How do you find dates of milestones?

Weasel words[edit]

This article uses weasel words. For example:

The English Wikipedia has been accused of systemic bias resulting from most of its editors being technologically-competent English-speaking people living in developed countries.

By whom? Let's not hide behind the passive tense. To help the reader form an opinion of the veracity of such accusations, we need to state the origin, nature, and prevalence of such supposed accusations. In its current state, the sentence is semantically void.

Sometimes, editors whose native language is not English have been criticized by editors whose native language is English for making edits with poor grammar or other language mistakes.

Sometimes? How often is sometimes? Are there any statistics to show whether or not there is a basis for the criticism; in other words, do editors with English as their first language really inject fewer linguistic errors than others?

LX (talk, contribs) 16:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

People like me. I frequently make such accusations where they are required. English Wikipedia has a very Anglospheric and limited point of view.89.166.254.61 (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
In nearly every article, there will be bias. This is why Wikipedia is worthless, apart from purely scientific articles which are to be taken with a grain of salt.89.166.254.61 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Use of {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}[edit]

I've removed the use of {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} in the line

It currently has {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} articles.

I think such usage is against WP:SELF, or should be. Any third-party redistributor of Wikipedia will be using a database dump that's slightly out of date. Therefore, in each of their copies of the English Wikipedia article, the statement about the current number of articles in the English Wikipedia will be wrong. —Saforrest 21:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

And furthermore, it does not work right with article history. It will display the current number of articles in any revision, even when Wikipedia gets 10 times as many articles as it had in the day when the article had the template. Georgia guy 01:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Could you please clarify your statement? I do not understand. :-( --WPholic [ talk ] 04:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
He's saying that if you view an old revision with that template, it will show the current number, instead of the number at that moment. --Thinboy00 @159, i.e. 02:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Creation date?[edit]

Alexa say "Online Since: 13-Jan-2001". This article says: created on Jan 15. Which correct? `'mikka (t) 07:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

My guess is the wiki has been open to editing since 15 January 2001, but the domain (originally wikipedia.com) has been registered since 13 January 2001 – Qxz 08:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Metric versus US measurements[edit]

Was there really such a huge dispute about it? I do not remember it and cannot find it. Practical compromises like writing other units in brackets seem easy. Andries

Many things that seemed "huge disputes" at the time have been reduced to obscure bits of forgotten discussion buried away in archives. None of these things are significant enough to be contained in an article; someone removed this particular incident a while back – Qxz 08:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

ha[edit]

"fiercest and most prolonged edit wars" lol. so many good wikipedians lost im sure... (hand to heart): They gave their lives for all mankind!

Indeed, stupid phrase. I've reworded it – Qxz 08:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please reconsider your vote re Simple English Wikipedia[edit]

Please reconsider your vote re Simple English Wikiquote. Your comment with your vote suggests you don't understand what SE Wikiquote is for. It is not about collecting quotes in Simple English. See my user page, for example, for a discussion of the aim of SE Wikiquote. The vote is at meta:Proposals for closing projects Thanks. --Coppertwig 03:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Diacritical dispute[edit]

The Diacritical dispute, between presumeably English-speaking & Non-English (mainley European) speaking Wikipedians (which has been ongoing for about a year Jan 2006 to Jan 2007), should be mentioned on this article. GoodDay 23:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Systemic bias[edit]

Who wrote this information about the systemic bias, and what is the exact meaning? If the English wikipedia is contributed by well-educated non-native English speakers, this possibly suggests that the English Wikipedia will be with better content than for example some other language wikipedias. In the article of systemic bias there was some example of unconscious biasing of white poets, some racist issues, etc. I don't see why all this is relevant. Indeed I think that all well-educated people must contribute solely to the English wikipedia, not because I like or adore the English, but because there must be some process for globalization of human race on Earth. Irrelevant patriotism, chauvinism, racism must be overcome because they don't lead to anything good, and since the current language in which all top rated scientific articles are published is English, the globalization and science must go hand by hand. I don't see why the English wikipedia is biased, the fact that a lot of well-educated editors contribute to the English Wikipedia, should be notable feature, not something that the English Wikipedia should be accused for. And few more comments on the language issue: English comes from England and if spelling should be preferred I think the British one better be preferred. As I said above, nationalism and misunderstood patriotism is never of help. I don't want to offend Americans, but to truncate the English wikipedia into two just because of spelling issues is ridiculous. Humans are equal, there are no better nations, there are only good people vs. bad people Danko Georgiev MD 05:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to undo merge[edit]

Content was merged here from Wikipedia community, which became a redirect to thsi article. I find no place where this was dicussed and a consensus was arrived at. i think this was a bad idea -- the community exists on more than the english wikipedia, and a significant section of it crosses language bounderies. This was discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 July 25#Wikipedia community → English Wikipedia in the context of a proposal to delete the redirect, and several editors also felt that the merge was a poor idea. I therefore propose to undo it unless there is significant opposition. See Talk:Wikipedia community#Proposing un-merge for further discussion. DES (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Its stub!!![edit]

no graphs, no statistic table about wikipedia content (articles about Years , about persons(biography), and so on)--Berserkerus 21:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I see this article and other individual language Wikipedia articles, essentially, as content forks[edit]

Also, they're hard to accomodate by WP:ASR. All the information on these should be merged.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The top of this page says the article has been nominated for deletion 3 times and the result was keep each time. Some of the small Wikipedia language versions have been deleted. PrimeHunter 21:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

2 million GET[edit]

Why can't I find the two millionth article? There was a link for 1,000,000 GET. --Demonesque 09:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears to have been El Hormiguero. There may still be some final confirmation.--Chaser - T 09:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

¡Ay, caramba! Gracias! --Demonesque 20:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section[edit]

I agree completely with the tagging of the section as needing reliable 3rd-party sources, and when working on it, some mention of the Seigenthaler controversy would be nice (it's covered elsewhere so a summary mention would be sufficient, but it took place here). Also, I'd really rather not cite Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars as a source if there's something - anything - else we can link to. Its a WP project page (which can't be avoided sometimes when writing about Wikipedia I suppose) whose contents are entirely subjective and flagged with {{humor}} at the top, so... yeah. Narco 12:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing that and the info it is citing. That's just plain embarassing. I hope it hasn't been here long. Picaroon (t) 02:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Removed. Picaroon (t) 02:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources[edit]

I've tagged this article with {{primarysources|article}} because it has an overreliance Wikipedia pages as sources. Citing ourself is not bad when done in moderation and to supplement existing reliable sources, but encyclopedic integrity is comprised when we rely so heavily on our own pages to cite so much of the article to. Picaroon (t) 02:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Spelling conventions[edit]

I recently did a search for 'colour' on wikipedia and ended up at 'color'. I would expect that as this version is English Wikipedia and not American Wikipedia, surely the default language should be International English. I feel that as American English is based on the English language, which came first, then surely that alone is argument enough for it's usage as default. Basically I can't understand why one local varient of the language is more dominant that the orginal and more widely used version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.18.253 (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering the word was already spelled color in Latin, you can hardly claim that colour is the older spelling. Be that as it may, English Wikipedia permits both American and British spelling conventions, but expects individual articles to be internally consistent. —Angr 19:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Is 'varient' the English spelling of 'variant'? ;) 138.162.128.54 (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Language[edit]

Does the english Wikipedia always have to use US English? Kitkatcrazy 17:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No. See WP:ENGVAR. —Angr 17:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep this article[edit]

Just in case there is any doubt, in my view this is a totally valid article and should be kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge?[edit]

There's a mergeto tag been on this article for a while to propose merging it with Wikipedia, but I can't find any discussion or reference on it on the talk page of either article. If the discussion's been buried somewhere now with no consensus (or if it never existed) shouldn't the messy mergeto tag be removed now? (Just for the record I don't feel it should be merged - there's English Wikipedia-specific info and stats here that couldn't be included if it had to be merged into the article on the other 236 Wikipedias.) • Anakin (contribscomplaints) 13:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

iw[edit]

{{editprotected}}

You can now add [[no:Engelsk Wikipedia]] (: --80.202.187.178 (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

First edit ever[edit]

Can somebody put a link of the first edit ever made in Wikipedia? 10:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles#Earliest surviving edits and other data --Wulf (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Update needed[edit]

The figures mentioned in this article are old (mostly 2006 or 2007). Can this be updated? --KnowledgeHegemony talk 17:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

#Users and editors says: "The English Wikipedia reached 4,000,000 registered user accounts on 1 April 2007, .... About 250,000 new accounts are created every month, .... About 300,000 editors have edited Wikipedia more than 10 times. Approximately the same number, 300,000 editors, edit Wikipedia every month; out of those, about 50,000 do more than 5 edits and 5,000, more than 100 edits." Can someone update these numbers? Eagle4000 (talk) 07:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee[edit]

I've merged the content from Arbitration Committee (English Wikipedia) to this article in a subsection. I've chosen this route for a number of reasons. The primary motivating factor is that this topic does not seem to warrant a separate article. Undoubtedly this subject has been mentioned upon in the media; however, proof of its existence is not sufficient when determining whether or not a particular topic should have its own article. What's more important is to focus on the significance of the topic. Outside of the English Wikipedia, the Arbitration Committee does not have much significance. It certainly deserves a mention in the English Wikipedia article, but I don't see a strong motivation for it to stand alone.

I've redirected the article to this one and merged in the relevant content. Some of the content has simply been removed altogether as it is either irrelevant for this article (the history of the Committee should be on a project-space page) or already covered elsewhere (the Controversies section is already covered in two separate articles).

If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to put a note below or ping my talk page. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Concur. This was given undue weight (especially blatant in the infobox) and deeply lacked secondary sourcing, like this article actually, and another one, recently deleted; or the sources weren't terribly accurate, so it was really not worth it. And from a content organization point of view, it makes more sense to include it in this article, to allow its development, than having a spin-off with scarcely sourced, disunited, 'pushed-in' content. It may merit its own article in a few years, or dozens of years, if Wikipedia evolves well, but not yet. Cenarium (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I have secondary references for the article (book references). I haven't had time to add them as of late, and when I was about to, it was redirected. Syn 16:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Please, add them to this article if appropriate. It is highly needed. Cenarium (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee → Current Members[edit]

This section states that:

When initially founded, the Committee consisted of 12 arbitrators divided into three groups of four members each. Since then, the Committee has gradually expanded to its current size of 18 seats.

Actually, there are 14 active and 1 inactive participants. Please, see Current members. –pjoef (talkcontribs) 07:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Languages[edit]

American v. British English is currently presented as a "controversy" that outweighs all others, and takes up a sizeable part of the entire article. WP:WEIGHT issue here. If that even merits a sentence, in historical perspective, I'd be surprised. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's insignificant. 138.162.128.55 (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Pioneering edition[edit]

The English Wikipedia was the first Wikipedia edition and has remained the largest. It has pioneered many conventions, policies and features that have been adopted by other Wikipedia editions. These include "featured articles",[1] the neutral point of view policy,[2] navigation templates,[3] the sorting of short "stub" articles into sub-categories,[4] dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation and arbitration,[5] and weekly collaborations.[6] In turn, the English Wikipedia has adopted features from the German Wikipedia, and from smaller editions.

The English Wikipedia is commonly known as the pioneering edition. Per IAR we should inlcude this information or at least the Pioneering edition section. QuackGuru (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ English Wikipedia (2007-01-30). "Featured articles". Retrieved 2007-01-30. 
  2. ^ English Wikipedia (2007-01-25). "Neutral point of view". Retrieved 2007-01-30. 
  3. ^ Wikimedia Meta-Wiki (2007-01-29). "Help:Template". Retrieved 2007-01-30. 
  4. ^ English Wikipedia (2007-01-19). "WikiProject Stub sorting". Retrieved 2007-01-30. 
  5. ^ English Wikipedia (2007-01-27). "Resolving disputes". Retrieved 2007-01-30. 
  6. ^ English Wikipedia (2007-01-30). "Article Creation and Improvement Drive". Retrieved 2007-01-30. 

New York Times resource[edit]

Wikipedia to Go Dark on Wednesday to Protest Bills on Web Piracy by Jenna Wortham January 16, 2012, 5:00 pm; "The wave of online protests against the Congressional efforts to curtail copyright violations on the Internet is gathering momentum. Wikipedia is the latest Web site to decide to shut on Wednesday in protest against the two Congressional bills, the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, and the Protect IP Act, or PIPA.

99.181.142.231 (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee[edit]

Second paragraph needs to be edited for grammar and accuracy. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 10:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Short en[edit]

Unlike in most languages, which have only one edition, Wikimedia Foundation seems to be promoting several English Language editions, including Simple English Wikipedia, Wikipedia CD Selection, and Wikipedia Zero. The present article discusses the first, but not the others. Ought these and any others that may exist be listed near the bottom? Jim.henderson (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello pickles![edit]

Hello pickles! This article should be moved to the Wikipedia space as the article relates to Wikipedia itself. It has no encyclopedia content, it's like an encyclopedia book that has an article on its own self. I will not check back here for updates/comments. Regards. 98.178.218.226 (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

That's good, as your comment really doesn't deserve further response. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Misleading info about the number of files[edit]

Te number of files (853,815) in the table is misleading to a reader. Wikipedia can use the 17 million files from Commons.···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 10:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

But we're not documenting the Commons files, because this article is about English Wikipedia, and therefore only documents files hosted on English Wikipedia.  drewmunn  talk  10:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello drewmunn!. Thanks for your reply. But, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a file hosting website; so it is likely that the reader would think of the number as "files used" rather than "files hosted". For instance, none of the images used in this very article is from Wikipedia.···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 13:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
But as I said above, this article is about English Wikipedia. Just because we can link to images in other locations doesn't mean they're hosted here. "files used" would be both difficult to calculate (every Wikipedia can link to files on every other Wikipedia), but also wildly inaccurate in the terms of this article.  drewmunn  talk  13:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
A Wikipedia language can only use its own media files and Commons files. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Completely true, I was back in the Commons. Anyway, my point regarding this being English Wikipedia's page, therefore documenting files stored on English Wikipedia stands.  drewmunn  talk  14:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction[edit]

Wikipedia began in January 2001, yet this line in the introduction claims "The first Wikipedia articles were created between September 2001 and January 2002". Laval (talk) 02:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

WMF content initiatives[edit]

This is a good source of information regarding the Public Policy Initiative (English Wikipedia only) and the Wikipedia Education Program (which is more than English Wikipedia, but is mostly English Wikipedia afaik). John Vandenberg (chat) 16:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

LANGUAGES SERVING THE UNIVERSITY CAREERS LANGUAGES SERVING SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE LANGUAGES SERVING SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH My long university professorship experience tells me that languages at universities must serve the career specialties, as every knowledge line has its particular terminology and/or slang. The University professional formation high level demands that the students must deeply know more than only one language; foreign languages other than the mother one for the on-going globalization process being strongly needed. At the University, the scientific language applied to careers is the only way toward success. The competion among universities all over the world is a real fight to survive. The same way for their professionals. The globalization process has always been an inexorable condition to survive, Otherwise, non-globalized ones are condemned to the ostracism and/or to perish. Of course the cybernetic communication/information technology knowledge is the other powerful tool to globalize the people. Needless to say that only-one language professionals are not being accepted by the business world. And, at the Universities, the graduating mastership and doctorate students are being required to submit their research jobs in,at least,two languages. It is understood that one of them being a foreign language, traditionally, the English Language. ENGLISH FOR ACCOUNTANTS AND AUDITORS is my contribution to the above proposal. Professor CPC Josè Ramìrez Carbonel San Isidro, February 27, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.120.117 (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Spanglish[edit]

Should the continuous arguments between Spanish-speakers and English-speakers about the terms "America" and "American" be added to controversies? This is English Wikipedia not Spanish Wikipedia.122.1.124.211 (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Blatant deletion of important, relevant and reference-backed content (without any discussion) by User:Chealer.[edit]

Recently, User:Chealer has, without any discussion and consensus, deleted a lot of content that is important and relevant for this article, and is backed by valid references. As seen in this difference between revisions, in the section on assessment of articles by quality and importance, he had deleted both the table and bar-chart showing distribution of articles by quality and importance, and also the pie-chart showing importance-wise distribution of articles. As seen here, he has deleted this content in the Wikipedia article too. All this is clearly inappropriate, and a straight insult to the (lot of) effort and time involved in the work of other editors. I have restored what I think is appropriate (and it took a lot of time, as simply undoing those edits was not possible due to "conflicting intermediate edits"), but User:Chealer may again attempt to carry out such activities. He has been performing deletion edits for a long time on various articles. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 04:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Archived ANI regarding User:Chealer

--EngineeringGuy (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Chealer's edits, again[edit]

Chealer, I invite you to discuss your edits here. You are misusing the failed verification tag a the ref does indeed support the data presented. What, exactly, is your qualm with this? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: If you think "the ref does indeed support the data presented", explain how. And please, avoid vague section titles. --Chealer (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The ref has the numbers presented in the table. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Uh... it hopefully does. Unfortunately, that table is our reference. The content it is supposed to source is a pie chart. --Chealer (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Statistics is the ref. Doing basic WP:CALC, the percentages shown in the pie chart were derived. For example, FA/(total articles) = 5,340/4,904,167 = 0.1088%. The pie chart needs updating, but the table supports the percentages in the pie charts. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Uh, that's right... except nobody's challenging the quality pie chart. The tag is flagging the supposed "Importance-wise distribution" pie chart. --Chealer (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Same WP:CALC is used, just using the bottom totals in the table. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

So how would these bottom totals support the data presented? --Chealer (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I am unsure what you are asking. The bottom totals are the total number of top, high, mid, low, and ??? ranked pages. The pie chart displays these same data from the table in a different form. It shows the percentage breakdown of total pages by ranking.
  • There are 44794 top-ranked pages out of the 4904167 total pages. 44794/4904167 = 0.0091 = 0.91%.
  • There are 157236 high-ranked pages out of the 4904167 total pages. 157236/4904167 = 0.0321 = 3.21%
  • There are 602685 mid-ranked pages out of the 4904167 total pages. 602685/4904167 = 0.1229 = 12.29%
  • There are 2421084 low-ranked pages out of the 4904167 total pages. 2421084/4904167 = 0.4937 = 49.37%
  • There are 1678368 ???-ranked pages out of the 4904167 total pages. 1678368/4904167 = 0.3422 = 34.22%
EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean by "x-ranked pages" (for example, by "top-ranked pages")? --Chealer (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not going to humor these questions much further. The page rankings are explained in the article here and, as the links in the table show, based on categories like Category:High-importance_articles. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree. I think the matter has been thoroughly and exhaustively explained. Thank you for your patience EvergreenFir. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Chealer is just trolling. And wasting time. --115.69.241.217 (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
That does not answer the question. In the specific message I questioned, what do you mean by "x-ranked pages" (for example, by "top-ranked pages")? --Chealer (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Chealer has been doing more than just change headings in the table, and putting failed verification tags. As seen in this edit, this user disabled automatic updating of the table at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics by de-linking it from the original at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/OverallArticles (where it is updated daily by User:WP 1.0 bot). Edit summary says "freeze pending fix for User talk:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/OverallArticles#Incorrect column header". There seems to be no problem with the table; but even if there is, there is no need to "freeze" (i.e. disable auto-updating of) any thing, as it is not going to help. --Engineering Guy (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Please avoid making things even more complicated than they already are. This has already been written on Talk:Wikipedia#Disabling_auto-updating_of_the_table_at_Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team.2FStatistics, as well as on the appropriate talk page. --Chealer (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Interwiki linking broken?[edit]

For some reason, when I attempted to interwiki link, which worked in the VisualEditor, it broke and hid the text I linked. Yobot noticed this, but didn't replace the text I wikilinked, so I reverted its change. The links were still broken, however, so I reverted my change, which fixed it. Is this normal interwiki linking behavior? Or have I encountered a bug? Sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia, so maybe I'm just doing things wrong. Any help is appreciated. –Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 22:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it's just that if you try to add an interwiki link to a Wikipedia in another language the way you did, it just ends up in the "Languages" sidebar, potentially overwriting an existing link. To prevent that and have it work as intended, just add a colon before the language code, like so: [[:ang:<article name>]]
Espreon (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Alright, thanks! Before I do so, Espreon, do you believe these edits would be useful? In your opinion, should I add this linking? Naturally, others can weigh-in or provide their input, even after I make the edits, but seeing as you are following it now, what is your input? I hope you don't mind me asking. –Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 23:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I added in the interwiki links as best I could. The suggestion above by Espreon simply redirected to the enwiki article about German Wikipedia and Dutch Wikipedia. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 18:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)