Talk:Main Page/Archive 143

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit

I remember a while back, the phrase associated with Wikipedia was "The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit!" Now it says "The Free Encyclopedia." I find this very uninspiring. Can someone please change it back to the way it was? The older phrase better captures the spirit of this encyclopedia. Tr32 (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The top of the main page says "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Algebraist 02:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a better reflection of Wikipedia policy is "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit (the parts that aren't controversial)". But that's just my remaining bitterness over how IP article creation was turned off several years ago as a temporary measure, hasn't been re-enabled since, and how the situation with IP contributors has got even worse since then with the introduction of semi-protection and additional roles like rollback. Anyhow... -93.97.122.93 (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually there are a large number of controversial articles that anyone can edit. Edit: And a lot of relatively uncontroversial articles that are semi/protected. The key thing is whether the articles are frequent victims of misguided editing and vandalism, not whether they are controversial. Also the lack of rollback doesn't stop you editing. It may make it more hard but it doesn't stop it. (Obviously semi-protection does.) Also as you purposely or not I'm not sure hinted at, it doesn't actually say anyone can edit every page. Finally, the anyone can edit bit doesn't actually say anything about anons or not needing registration. Anyone is entitled to register for an account so every if we did remove anon editing, it would arguably remain the free encylopaedia that anyone can edit. It will obviously make people less likely to edit and I understand why some people may not want to register for an account and I'm not proposing we do it, but it's worth remembering 'anyone editing' and 'anon editing' are different things and not mutually inclusive. Technically of course, it's not true that anyone can edit wikipedia. Banned people can't (well they may be able to find a way, but they're not supposed to). And if you want to go to a more complex level when you start discussing anons you have to consider things like the fact you do actually need an internet connection to edit. Ultimately of course, the vision statement is, as with most, more intended to capture the 'spirit' (As Tr32 said) rather then something intended to summarise precisely what wikipedia is. Nil Einne (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
This inspires me to propose a new tagline for Britannia - the encyclopaedia anyone can edit (assuming they are an expert in their field) -93.97.122.93 (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I doubt Britannica (if that's what you mean) allows anyone who's an expert to edit. There's a vast difference between an encylopaedia edited by experts, and an encylopaedia any expert can edit. I do expect anyone can submit corrections to Britannica, and an experts suggestions will probably get more weight, but in most cases I would expert it's someone else, not the suggestor who actually edits the articles. That's simply the way Britannica works. Citizendium is far closer to what you're trying to describe Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Finally, the anyone can edit bit doesn't actually say anything about anons or not needing registration. actually, it does say that. It says it clearly, unambiguously, in the founding principles. The ability of anyone to edit (most) articles without registration,. You can't get much clearer than that. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase "The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit" captures what's actually engaging about the wikipedia idea, and that the most engaging topics to contribute to are precisely the "controversial" ones. Sadly, this article by the guardian on a study by the Palo Alto Research Center (Parc) in California, shows that wikipedia's environment has become more and more hostile towards new users, and there is a clan of established users that is discouraging new people to contribute.--Sum (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Its the old freedom argument isnt it. Do you allow complete freedom, which will either bring complete perfection or complete disaster, or do you allow a carefully controlled level of freedom that satisfies most people and can be increased or decreased depending on the situation (ie. how governments do it and how Wikipedia does it). It prevents total disaster but also prevents a level of perfection.--Willski72 (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the core problems with Wikipedia is that it's not in any way democratic. Rather, it's a mediocracy of the motivated, a tyranny of bureaucracy, with those who 'run' much of it being a minority of self-appointed leaders that entrench themselves in the running of the site. These people are not representative of the silent majority that use the site, they have biases that lead them to influence certain decisions irrespective of whether it's ultimately good for the site (as long as it's good from /their/ point of view), slow down most attempted progress, and are a plague of busy-bodies that are impossible to get rid of and increase by the day. What Wikipedia longs for is a strong, forward-looking, centralised leadership that can make the tough decisions required when necessary that the community can rally around. These people can make decisions that the community has managed to fail at making and be able to do the ground-work necessary to represent the true "average user": whether manage to complete a desperately needed main-page redesign; to fixing the themeing of the site; be a central authority that administrators answer to prevent them using their tools ad-hoc as they do today; or finally managing to make the core Wikipedia functionality usable to the common man, rather than flagged revisions and editing being the utter UI disaster they are, or the laughable mess that is the MediaWiki template syntax. But this won't happen, because those busy-bodies will indicate that their very own version of "consensus" is against it.
Also, Governments don't pretend to have the tagline "The free country where anybody can do anything". -93.97.122.93 (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course we're not a democracy and consensus can change, I'm not sure how one single person would be in charge of four thousand people each of whom edit for their own reasons and in their own free time, as a cost of $0 to the WMF. We have a decision making process, it's called discussion, and your doing it. -Darrenhusted (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Those links to acronyms typify the current problems with the inhabitance of Wikipedia, people who would rather point to arbitrary rules rather than actually think and discuss how things should work in reality. I'm well aware of how Wikipedia currently works, I've been editing on and off for at least half a decade. I don't see why a single person can't be in charge - plenty of other businesses and companies manage quite successfully with that structure. The "you can't manage volunteers" argument is clearly flawed - other well-known successful charities like Oxfam or the Mozilla Foundation have good top-down management. -93.97.122.93 (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
The word democracy isn't an acronym, and CCC is quicker to type, as is NOE. And unlike Oxfam and Mozilla this place does not have a specific aim, other than to record all knowledge, it is too big a task to squash in to some kind of structure. We have Wikiprojects, and admins, but really how would what you think would "fix" WP work? If I'm a new editor would I have to report to a boss who would tell me which pages to edit? Would I have to clock in and out? Would I have to only revert vandals? Oxfam doesn't have people breaking into its shops and trashing the place. Name one other business which has nearly 3 million pages of the internet to manage (not including talkpages and WP only pages), name another organisation in the world with 4000 regular unpaid volunteers, the vast majority of whom never have any physical interaction with another volunteer. WP is unique, and to say that "what it needs is..." is ignoring that the current rules are not placed on editors from "on high", they are the result of years of gradual reform. You want to replace a system of management which it the most inclusive with one decided by a cabal and forced on others? And this will fix things, how? Because people enjoy giving time to something they don't feel part of and feel they have no control over? I linked to those pages because they are the quickest way I could point you to what the community has agreed, then move on to do some editing. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
The point of having rules is not so that we can stop thinking and discussing, they're so we can think and discuss other things. If we had to debate points of policy without ever referring to rules or precedent (Which is simply another form of rules) every single time they came up, then we would never get anything done, because our very finite volunteer-time would be burned debating things that could simply be decided once, given an acronym and then forgotten about for years. APL (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
(to the anon) Amazing. I'm always fascinated by individuals who claim to know what the majority "longs for" (unless you were referring to the programs and documents, not the editors, when you say that "Wikipedia longs" etc.). I haven't noticed myself longing for any of the things you cite in your mini-manifesto, but then, I'm not a majority. I'm also not one of the helpful and cooperatively-minded people you refer to as busy-bodies, although I agree with much of what they say. I suspect that most of the majority simply acquiesces to the policies -- hence their silence.
At the same time, as a relatively new (although logged-in) user, I have added, significantly expanded, and helped save from deletion a number of pages, and the more experienced editors (some of which are far too outspoken to belong to the "silent majority" you describe) have always been very helpful, offering constructive compliments and constructive criticism (both of which are good).
I suggest that one of the following scenarios may be taking place. Either you are allowing a small number of negative experiences (which are inevitable in cooperative enterprises) to color your judgement; you are attempting to use Wikipedia in ways that would be better suited to another website, in which case you're in luck, since there are billions of alternatives; or (most unpleasantly) you may be actually causing problems through selfish behavior, then blaming the consequences on policies and their defenders. I would hope the first scenario describes your situation. If so, please allow positive experiences to eclipse the negative ones. Wikipedia is truly a great, collaborative project that anyone can enjoy and edit... if they choose to cooperate with the community as a whole. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It's a common mistake to believe that "free" here refers to the price or the freedom to behave how you want on the encyclopedia, when it really refers to free content. howcheng {chat} 16:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Freeeeeeeedddddddooooooooommmmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!!! etc etc--Willski72 (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you on that except for the second etc. To that I have to humbly disagree. 04redsox07 (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but we can at least respect his freedom to believe in the need for the second etc. J Milburn (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

When it comes down to it, anyone can edit any part of Wikipedia. If you have good intentions for a controversial article, it shouldn't bother you to wait a few days to get full privileges. The only people who whine are those who have fairly had their editing abilities revoked for doing something dumb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.160.77 (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why wasting time on terminology? There is no absolute freedom is this world.Alonso McLaren (talk) 07:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There never has been absolute freedom and there never will be, to have absolute freedom you must be outside of space and time. For example you can raise your left arm leftwards, forwards and backwards (straight out) but you cannot do the same rightwards. This takes up time, in the time it took to do this you could have been doing something else, you cannot get that time back, thus you cannot ever be absolutely free, you are always constrained by something.

I'm quite proud of that second etc and i find it a shame that 04redsox07 cannot agree with me! However i am encouraged in the knowledge that J Milburn has "got my back"!--Willski72 (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I respect your right to use/be proud of the second etc, and would offer another redundancy for substitution when you inevitably tire of the double etc. and so on and so forth. =D 04redsox07 (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I am pleased to see that we have come to an arrangement and i, for my part, am happy to accept that you do not agree with my second etc but will respect my right to be proud of it. Thank you and adieu.--Willski72 (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Today's featured article

Why are there so many games that are today's featured article? Or is this a subjective view of me? --213.168.121.113 (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I think you're right. There are a lot of Wikipedian gamers (I'm certainly not one) so we often end up with good (in the general meaning of the term) articles on that topic, the same way we have a lot of good articles about science fiction, quirky subcultures, and popular culture in general. It would be nice if a higher percentage of our featured articles were of a more traditionally "encyclopedic" nature (not that excellent articles about video games are not valuable - they are), but when you have a predominantly young, tech savvy corps of contributors that's obviously going to be reflected in terms of what topics are covered most effectively. Just my two cents, though I think I'm basically mouthing received wisdom here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately Wikipedia has a disproportionate number of people interested in this topic and attempts to wean them onto topics such as knitting and cuisine of Benin have thus far been unsuccessful. Perhaps this appalling situation may improve if you contribute to an article in a topic which you feel is underrepresented. --candlewicke 21:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah the "young, tech savvy corps". I would say that I am the first part of that however on the second bit I fall down terribly. I can barely understand how to comment nevermind edit the article. All i can do is dream, while reading "War and Peace" and drinking a cup of tea......--Willski72 (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at last months FAs there was a majority of FAs regarding people, 7 in total and only 2 articles about games. There were an equal amount of articles on storms, there were also 2 with music themes and 2 with war themes. So last month had a person bias. It is the same this month. So far only 1 game article with one coming up and 5 articles (altogether) about people. As previously stated if you want to see articles about things that interest you, you should help out expanding those articles, as clearly we need more articles that aren't about people.Dark verdant (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
If that's the sample you want to use, then 2 in one month is actually a very glaring bias towards that area. Unless you're really claiming that if you put all things in the world worthy of research and reportage into a big pile, 1/15th of that pile would be taken up by computer games. --86.154.1.217 (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
There hasn't been a film-related FA this month, and the video game industry is now larger than the film industry, so if we'd end up having more video-game FAs than film FAs, it'll probably be somewhat right. Last month there was 1 each from video games and film. If film deserves at least one, so should video games, although video games "might" have a bad rep to the people here... –Howard the Duck 15:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
"Unless you're really claiming that if you put all things in the world worthy of research and reportage into a big pile, 1/15th of that pile would be taken up by computer games." *sigh* That's not how probability or statistics works. If you were to say that 1% of articles should be video game articles, then two in 31 days only gives a statistical significance of 96.2%, which is just about significant if you use the rather foolish significance level of 95%, but only just.Jetekus (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK censored?

wikipedia is censoring F**kin' 'Ell It's Fred Titmus. the proper name is Fuckin' 'Ell It's Fred Titmus. FUCKIN' ELL IT'S FRED TITMUS. this will not stop the childrens ears. and it is not the proper name. F**kin' 'Ell It's Fred Titmus doesnt even work!! there is no reason to censor the front page just because he is only one halve a man. it offends everyone who isnt a full human. and dont censor this page. also the page has sex in it. and encourages birglurs. and encourage drugs addicts. and cricket players. this is abuse of bischits. so make it FUCKIN. and dont make it FUCKING by acident. FUCKIN. i dont understand. censored 1 time. are you going to keep censoring people and then sayin your not censors. i asked nicely why this is hapning.

While the IP user could have phrased his...complaint...better, I am also a bit curious as to why the word is censored in the "Did You Know" Template... That does seem to violate WP:CENSOR. BAPACop (converse) 21:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this can be considered an error since wikipedia is definitely not censored and blatant censoring like this should be against rules. please report at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. -- Ashish-g55 21:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Reported. BAPACop (converse) 21:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:CENSOR states that Wikipedia should be censored if including offensive words and images is done for no purpose other than to offend. However, it seems as though the pseudo-intellectual Beavis and Butthead ("Heh heh...we said "fuck") crowd, with their inability to read a simple policy, have done a good job of playing schoolyard bully and pushing this through in violation of WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CENSOR, and WP:PROFANITY. This encyclopedia is going downhill fast when this sort of this is allowed to happen on a regular basis. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:CENSOR does not say that. WP:PROFANITY, however, says "being offensive is not ... part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission." Of course, the first clause of that sentence states "Including information about offensive material is." Uncensoring the song title is not "done for no other purpose than to offend," it's done to be accurate. Whether or not the band meant to offend is irrelevant. Name-calling and accusing others of failing to "read simple policy" when you're apparently guilty of just that are both unhelpful. Nufy8 (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
so it censoring someone when they try to point this out. if its FUCKIN' it is FUCKIN' dont try to change it to FUCKING or F**CKIN or FUCK. do it right and stop FUCKIN' around and saying wikipedia is not censored when this is allowed to happen. then when somebody says something they are wrong because they asked why it is not FUCKIN'. not fair. be consistant if your using FUCK or FUCKING or FUCKIN' dont add ** everywhere if it isnt there already. --87.134.1.213 (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Whatever next? Gropecunt Lane being on the main page...? Lugnuts (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Dont be absurd! Such a thing would never happen! Wikipedia has fallen to some serious lows in the past but to even suggest that they would have a featured article on something as disgusting as Gropecunt Lane is just despicable! Some peoples dirty minds need a good washing!!!--Willski72 (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Except... it was on the main page. Killiondude (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Might be worth noting that Willski regularly leaves sarcastic comments to threads like this (that is, ones that ask the same questions time and time again). I would imagine he was about at that time and would thus have noted the debate in relation to that article.  GARDEN  18:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Garden you have once again hit the nail on the head, i thought everyone would have realised that by know! (although that would somewhat spoil the fun) One of these days.....--Willski72 (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem :) It is nice to have a bit of comic relief on this page...  GARDEN  11:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

USPGA

Usually after a golfer wins a major it appears in the "In the news" section. Y.E. Yang of South Korea has become the first Asian player in history to win a golf major. I think this is even more notable than usual. 81.153.15.38 (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It is but ITN is currently experiencing a large backlog of some sort. As long as the article is updated it should be posted though. --candlewicke 20:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, its inclusion received an objection from an administrator (third reply here) so you'll have to hop over to WP:ITN/C and disagree there I think. No guarantee you'll be successful though–despite it being a recurring item. :) --candlewicke 20:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I think golf simply isnt notable at all, therefore doesnt deserve a mention. —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 04:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry? Well that's your opinion, but it's not shared by many...  GARDEN  19:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"Other areas of Wikipedia"

I remember a while back that on the main page, where it says "Other areas of Wikipedia", there used to be em dashes; now it's en dashes. How was it decided to use en dashes instead. —96.232.52.200 (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This discussion. Algebraist 16:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Should en-dashes be used in the "A—Z Index" link at the top, too, again for MoS compliancy? (Apologies if this should be elsewhere; I thought I'd just continue the conversation.) 79.71.124.92 (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Whoops, I think it is an en-dash. In that case, my question is moot 79.71.124.92 (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's an en dash. Confirm that using Ctrl-F for find and Alt-0-1-5-0 for an en dash. Art LaPella (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

3,000,000th article soon

Is it possible to specify which will be the 3,000,000th article? / regards Bengt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.121.84.241 (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No. (Unless if you could see into the future :D) YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 11:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Start working your way through this list and you can influence destiny!—although some are a bit far-fetched/fictional. --candlewicke 17:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Will there be a banner on the Main Page for the 3 millionth article? -- 70.134.85.248 (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

s'pect so. If I remember corretcly, there was one for 2 million. YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 19:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Will there be fireworks? Rreagan007 (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
More importantly, will there be cake? Modest Genius talk 22:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
... and beer? JIMp talk·cont 23:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there will be cake.  LATICS  talk  04:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's please not keep it up for too long, seeing how many of those are useless stubs/needing cleanup/POV/lacking references. We'll have cake and fireworks for when we have lots of Featured/Good articles and lists. See WP:Good articles for numbers. Quality not quantity. Reywas92Talk 23:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

How about store-bought sponge cake, a bon-fire & lots of cheap beer for the three million mark and save the black forest cake, the fireworks and the fine champagne for when we get to ten thousand good articles? JIMp talk·cont

I cant wait that long for black forest cake!--Willski72 (talk) 12:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

THE CAKE IS A LIE!!!!! Blah42b10 (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Only around 900 articles to go... --Tone 19:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The 3 millionth article will be mine. I hope you are all prepared to give me 15 minutes of Wikifame. Shii (tock) 19:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, I've been working in hungarien wikipedia for a year and seven months. That will be unbelivable, 3,000,000 articles... I'm very excited about that. Good luck from Hungary. --Pakos (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Right now, only some 440 articles to go. When WP reached its 2 millionth article, several bots had been ordered to submit hundreds of stubby articles in the very last minute. Still, the winner was just another simple editor of flesh and blood... --Hapsala (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, the reason one of those Spanish village stubs didn't make it as number two million is because the people deciding on the two millionth article didn't necessary pick exactly THE two millionth, nor was there even a flawless way to determine which article was exactly number two million. People involved in the process looked at the articles submitted in the few seconds surrounding the milestone, and picked a topic which was started with good, well-researched information and had additional potential. There may have even been a brief vote among the community (probably on this very talk page) between three or four reasonable candidates. This is the way it should be, IMO, as article milestones aren't about which article was first to be that number (what if it's CSD material?), but about the quality of the project itself. --Rave bmp (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC) (former well-established editor)

When we know, it should be noted what article is #3 million. - Jørgen88 (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I say we go create a bunch of BS articles until it hits 3M. :P  LATICS  talk  03:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I bet thats already in progress xD I'd like to see something like 80's sunglasses or List of famous people with a mullet. I got that inspiration by listening to Richard Marx :-D Jørgen88 (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
You know what, there are only about 100 or 10 more articles until it reaches 3,000,000! December21st2012Freak (talkcontribs) 04:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It just reached over 3,000,000 articles. December21st2012Freak (talkcontribs) 04:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And thus, it is done. Now where's my cake? —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 04:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I should been hardnosed, opened up 20 stubs with 20 pre-created stubs and pressed enter :((( YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 04:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank God that it was a real article and not some crap! Smartse (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Who "determined" it? Can you point us to the discussion? Anyway, here are the candidates for 3 millionth:

  1. 22:04, 16 August 2009 ‎Druid's bend (hist) ‎[2,199 bytes] ‎Catfooddogfood (talk | contribs | block) (←Created page with 'The Druid's Bend, also known as The Celtic's Bend, is a celtic knot, dating from antiquity, which was once used to secure and haul the [[sto...')
  2. 22:04, 16 August 2009 ‎Portuguese Fireplace (hist) ‎[2,407 bytes] ‎Simply south (talk | contribs | block) (←Created page with 'The Portuguese Fireplace is a war memorial in the New Forest National Park, near to the village of Lyndhurst, Hampshire, United Kingdom. ...')
  3. 22:04, 16 August 2009 ‎Beate Eriksen (hist) ‎[2,085 bytes] ‎Lampman (talk | contribs | block) (←Created page with '{{Infobox actor | name = Beate Eriksen | image = | imagesize = | caption = | birthname = B...')
  4. 22:04, 16 August 2009 ‎Manor House (Chicago, Illinois) (hist) ‎[1,690 bytes] ‎Zagalejo (talk | contribs | block) (start)
  5. 22:04, 16 August 2009 ‎Nichiji (hist) ‎[3,888 bytes] ‎Shii (talk | contribs | block) (←Created page with 'Nichiji (日持; February 10, 1250–after 1304), also known as Kaikō, was a Buddhist disciple of Nichiren who traveled to Hokkaido, [[Siberi...')

Shii (tock) 04:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait until it reaches 4,000,000 articles... December21st2012Freak (talkcontribs) 04:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like User:Abyssal was prepared. Abyssal created about 15 articles all around 4:05 on ancient fossils. Danski14(talk) 04:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't Umbeloceras the 3,000,000th article? --Hapsala (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The rate of article creation jumped so high at that point. what a fun contest. 2,999,997 to 3,000,033 before and after I created articles then checked special:statistics. clickpop (talk) 04:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
No, X! (talk · contribs) wrote a temporary bot that found Beate Eriksen to be 3M. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, ok I'll take your word on that... Do you think the WMF will be doing a press release? I suspect so as they did for the 2 millionth. Danski14(talk) 04:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Wait until it reaches 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 articles in the way future. December21st2012Freak (talkcontribs) 04:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I was here at this time (just for historic reference). Who ate all the cake? :( --candlewicke 04:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Figures it'd be a stub, and on someone I've never hear of before :) Question: does this 3,000,000 article crowning take into account articles merged/deleted before it? I mean obviously this is not going to be problem in a few days, but as we all know there are some articles that get created that end up deleted or merged within a few minutes of creation, and I wouldn't mind knowing if this gets factored into the 3 million calculation statistics. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
No, it just marks the first time {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} exceeded 3M. Icewedge (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Out of curiosity then will an award or mention or something be given to the article that holds the 3,000,000 mark after all the adjustment stuff mentioned above gets sorted out? Or will the adjusted article and contributor behind it end up forgotten in a corner some where so to speak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.211.107.172 (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

 Cargoking  talk  has given everyone some WikiCake! This is a special cake to celebrated the 3,000,000th article. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Many congratulations--Ezzex (talk) 10:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

76.211.107.172, that would not be possible to calculate, as it would be ever-changing. Even since the article was created, many others will have been deleted, redirected, merged and so on, meaning that, already, it is not technically the 3,000,000th article. Our compromise is to list the first article to be listed as the 3,000,000th as our 3,000,000th- even though it is probably only so for a few minutes at most. J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should be focusing on even 3000 FA articles instead.... Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Or 3 million AfDs! Lugnuts (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't agree with you more, Dr. Blofeld, but you don't seem to be the kind of person to be saying that. You and your closest associates have created tens of thousands of those useless one-line stubs. Reywas92Talk 21:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh missed the cake! I was looking forward to that too! I've got be quicker at these things!--Willski72 (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


Oh 3000,0001st! Simply south (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Too bad my bet didn't make it. Bloody internet-less work. LOL –Howard the Duck 08:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I insist that this accomplishment be marked with an asterisk until such time as testing confirms that Lampman was not cheating by using performance enhancing drugs to increase his editing capabilities. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to rain on the party but article number is nothing to celebrate. We may have three million articles but the quality is shocking on some, majbe a majority, of them. I spend a lot of my time fixing up bad edits, bad categorisation, getting stuff deleted, adding stub articles that should exist, correcting spelling, etc. When are we going to get fully fledged flagged revisions up and running to improve the quality of WP? With flagged revisions the quality will improve dramicially. I think. Am having trouble finding an analysis of the German WP experience with flagged revisions. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Everybody knows that. Nobody cares. Big Round Number! Hurray!. APL (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Well I care. I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Flagged Revisions‎‎ for those that do. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Flagged revisions run completely contrary to the concept of a wiki. More importantly, they are not related to the Main Page and so this is not the right place to discuss them. Modest Genius talk 22:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Well to be fair I think the 3 millionth article doesn't really have much to do with the main page either so it's perhaps questionable if this is really the right place to discuss that either. True we did mention it on the mainpage, but the discussion has long since moved on from that and was barely about that anyway. Under some proposals the main page will have flagged revs so it is marginally connected just as the 3 millionth article thing Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Clarification : I only meant that nobody cares in relation to celebrating a big round number. Obviously, for articles 2,999,999 and 3,000,001 quality is more important than quantity. APL (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Write OTD entries in present tense

Proposing this here as it gets substantially more traffic than the Selected Anniversaries talk page. I propose that the OTD entries are phrased in the present tense. Most "on this day in history"-type articles and documentaries I've seen use the present tense when describing events. It seems more natural - if you put yourself in 1930 (for example) and talk about events unfolding in front of you - to use the present tense to describe things as they happen. Also, it greatly reduces verbiage and avoids potentially awkward past tense constructs such as "had had" (amongst others), especially in entries long enough to contain multiple such instances. Thoughts? (Should this go on the Village Pump? Is there a better place for this discussion?) Zunaid 21:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. These are events from the past, not the present. The reason why other sites use present tense is that they are usually links to contemporary reports, not retrospective encyclopaedia articles. The articles themselves are written in past tense. Modest Genius talk 22:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • As stated on the top of WP:OTD, they are in past tense "due to the fact that the Main Page has current events [ITN] and past ones on the same page". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What about the controversy surrounding Caster Semenya, the South African athlete?--41.246.105.58 (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What about her? --candlewicke 23:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured articles and biographies

Just couldn't help but notice that a preponderance of FA on the main page are biographies. I would hope that Wikipedia have more variety of content for FA on the main page. I'm sure there's a wider variety of FA that would be suitable for the main page. I'm not saying that there isn't other content that is being left out, but I am saying that there just seem to be more biographies than other types of articles. Hires an editor (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a perennial complaint (or comment) and is generally met with "FAs are FAs and will all be on the main page, it's a case of which articles are most contributed to". It seems that biographies, music articles and video games crop up a lot on the main page, but the content is generally quite varied.  GARDEN  15:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
See WP:BIAS. Become a member of the project if you're concerned. 79.71.124.92 (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Thus far, out the 24 FAs chosen this month, 8 are biographies, whereas Wikiproject Biography has 726979 articles out of 3 million articles on Wikipedia. So, approximately 24.23% of articles on the site have been identified as biographies, where 1/3, or 33.333 (repeating)%, of FAs this month have been biographies. So, FA this month only contains two more biographies than would be nearly the same proportion of biographies on Wikipedia. In reality, the project has more than 24.23% biographies, as not all biographies are marked with a bio wikiproject banner, so the proportion of FAs is not entirely out of line. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Why has the Main Page...

....still not been moved to Wikipedia:Main_Page? What opposition is there to moving it from the main namespace?----occono (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Status quo. In most forms of debate, it is incumbent on the person proposing a change to make a substantial, convincing case for the change. Usually it is not necessary for advocates of the status quo to provide arguments to keep things the way they are - in the absence of widespread consensus that the change is warranted, things stay the way they have been. Granted, in the absence of opposition, the bar for a convincing rationale is low, but one must still be fronted - rarely does "change for change's sake" occur. - So the real question is not what opposition is there, but how will moving the page markedly improve Wikipedia? (What harm does leaving it have, or what benefit would moving it bring?) Simply stated, the opposition is that the reasons for moving haven't been stated convincingly enough yet. -- 128.104.112.102 (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Another reason is that such discussions always seem to eventually die, and archived, with no clear consensus. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
FAQ. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually I have read that, I was sort of looking for a status update on the issue.----occono (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I suppose the question is then, why does this need to be moved? Obviously, the previous issues raised haven't caused enough problems. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The main reason to not move it is because there are lots of links to it. So 'Main Page' would have to be a redirect anyway, so what is the point? Prodego talk 22:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No, Main Page should be a redirect to Homepage if it were to happen, with a message saying For Wikipedia's home page, see Wikipedia:Main Page. there or something like that.----occono (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
But that would be counterproductive, as most editors who would type in "Main page" would be looking for Wikipedia's main page. There's still the question of why we need to change namespaces in the first place. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Dabomb87 (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, it would be nice to not greet users with a portal in the article namespace (thereby confusing/misleading them to believe that such pages belong there). One would think that we'd want to set a good example here (and introduce readers to the "portal" concept), yes? —David Levy 23:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that most casual readers understand the concept of namespaces? And if they do, are incapable of realising that this is an exception to the rule? Modest Genius talk 23:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm saying that we shouldn't actively reinforce a misunderstanding regarding namespaces by leaving our most viewed page in the wrong one. I'm also noting that a move to Portal:Wikipedia or similar would introduce readers to the concept of portals. —David Levy 23:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
That would be massively disruptive, and it's never going to happen. In fact, the belief that Main Page would be reassigned instead of serving as a redirect to the main page's new location (based on a combination of actual proposals to that effect and assumptions that this would occur) appears to be the primary stumbling block that inevitably causes knee-jerk opposition and leads to a lack of consensus. —David Levy 23:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I actually asked this more out of curiousity then a desire to see the change. I was just interested in the issue after reading the FAQ. I actually don't feel it would be that disruptive, but it's not something I'm pushing for. I just like asking unresolved questions :)----occono (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
To be clear, I wholeheartedly support the idea of moving the main page out of the article namespace. In mentioning disruption, I'm referring strictly to the idea of reassigning the Main Page title (instead of retaining a redirect to the page's new location). As I said, this is the sticking point that inevitably derails the move proposal. —David Levy 23:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, well I suppose doing that first and leaving it like that until it's not a problem anymore would be fine.----occono (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe that a proposal to move the main page can have any chance of succeeding unless it includes the explicit condition that the title Main Page would permanantly redirect to the new location. —David Levy 01:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Then I would support that.----occono (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Not broken, don't fix it Modest Genius talk 23:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
A page needn't be broken to be improved. —David Levy 23:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
That's a stub essay (not policy) with no talk page. It seems to exist just to say "Stop being pedantic." I shall carry on with my controversial questions and ruffling of feathers! :) (I kid.) ----occono (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
So? A good idea is a good idea, regardless of where it is written. Modest Genius talk 15:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with that old Aphorism a lot, because something doesn't have to be broken to be improved, plus switching Main Page and Wikipedia:Main Page or Portal:Main Page wouldn't exactly require tremendous effort on anyone's part...My point is I disagree with that applying here, and because it's not policy it can't shut me up. Nah Nah Nah Nah-Nah. (I'm just being funny. Your mileage may vary.)----occono (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:IAR ;) 86.140.40.230 (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
This will basically never happen since millions of outside sites link to the main page. million of people have it saved in favs many more have it set as their homepage. I really see no reason strong enough to disrupt all that. Main Page is not ur avg article that can just be changed. this kind of page can usually not be changed on any big site unless maybe if there was a spelling mistake in name or something lol. at most it will be a redirect which is fairly useless imo. -- Ashish-g55 01:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand this argument. With Main Page redirecting to the new location, every link in existence would continue to function exactly as before. The displayed page would be identical; because of special code that's already in place, there wouldn't even be a "(Redirected from Main Page)" notice. To see what I mean, visit Portal:Wikipedia or Wikipedia:Main page, both of which currently redirect to Main Page.
So what disruption do you foresee? —David Levy 03:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
hmm, maybe you misunderstood. i was opposing original idea. i said redirection is only thing that will work but i find that useless... it wont disrupt anything i just dont see much use of it. -- Ashish-g55 12:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Well, I've noted some of the benefits above. —David Levy 13:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
If Main Page were to remain a redirect forever (as required for the reasons above), there is no redirection notice and no page title, and the URL stays the same in the address bar, what possible point would there be? Modest Genius talk 15:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The deletionists inclusionists purists would've won? –Howard the Duck 15:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Users arriving at the main page via www.wikipedia.org, an interwiki link not specifying the page title, our software interface (e.g. by clicking the logo or "Main page" link), and any internal/external link that was updated (though this would not be essential) would see the new URL (which search engines would pick up as well). Everyone would see the new URL and page title at the corresponding talk page (this one). —David Levy 16:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Do we know if any significant amounts of users actually come through www.wikipedia.org? To me it seems quite useless to pass through there and click English instead of going straight to here./Coffeeshivers (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't have the statistics in front of me (so hopefully someone can cite them), but yes, many users (particularly those who don't know the direct URL) visit the English Wikipedia that way. It's the top Google result for "Wikipedia" and the page reached when someone types "wikipedia.org" in the address bar.
Of course, if the main page were moved, users typing "en.wikipedia.org" (or following such a link) also would reach the new URL (which would quickly replace the old URL in search engines).
Only users typing or following a link specifically to the title "Main Page" would continue to reach the old URL, and for them, there would be absolutely no change to the page. —David Levy 17:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the better question to ask is as David Levy has hinted at, how do people actually come to the Main Page? If you come by www./wikipedia.org as DL has said you end up at the new page. If you come by typing in, a link to, or a bookmark to en.wikipedia.org, you end up at the right place. The only time you end up at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page is if you follow a link, type it in or have a bookmark. Let's analyse these carefully. If you follow a link, things are not going to change immediately since many aren't going to update their links. But many people will over time and sites which don't may die or become of far less interest. I suspect many directories will, search engines will (it's their job), even commercial sites that aren't really directories probably will. Personal websites will probably take the longest of all. But how many people actually follow such links, and how many actually link to the main page as opposed to en.wikipedia.org? I don't have statistics, but I suspect the number isn't that high. What about bookmarks? Well there are probably a few of these. If you create a bookmark (for convience sake let's include those using Firefoxes fancy web suggestion and similar things here) you'll probably create it at Main_Page for now. These aren't going to change. And there's probably a fair few with these although again no statistics. But how long will these last? As people reinstall their OS, upgrade computer etc, some may keep their old stuff, many will just start afresh. And very likely most of these will end up at any new page, since the most likely way you'll get to there is using www./wikipedia, by typing in the en.wikipedia.org or following a search which will take you to the new main page address. And if you don't create your bookmark but rather your browser, OS, whatever comes with it, it's likely the person will likewise create it with the new page, or perhaps even they've always used en.wikipedia.org. And things like the Firefox web suggestion thing may or may not learn on it's own as well. Finally what about people who type in the full address? Well how many are there actually? Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I can't see any reason for them to be a lot. When I want to get to the main page, I just type in en.wikipedia.org. Why bother with the extra stuff? In other words, it seems to me in 1 year, it's easily possible perhaps even likely 75%+ of people will be hitting the new address and with in 5 years, 99%+. Indeed it wouldn't surprise me if in 5 years the majority of people hitting the old address are those who never liked the change and so refused to adjust. In other words, most people will be seeing the correct address. BTW, I'm pretty sure if you look at one of the old discussions, I established that the default page for www.microsoft.com had changed at least once over the years, and possibly other sites. Indeed I'm pretty sure it was something like index.html or index.htm which does not even exist or redirect anymore. In other words, the idea that some people seem to have that a big site is not able to change their default page without bringing down the internet is a myth. Perhaps this is an exaggeration but it does seem to me many people make way to big a deal over what will basically be a change most people aren't going to notice, but yet will pervade the internet until few even remember the 'old days'. Indeed I strongly suspect that many web designers will laugh at how much of an issue this is for us. This doesn't of course justify a move in itself, but IMHO this does establish that any discussion which starts off on the premise that we might as well keep things as they are because most people are still going to be visiting the old address OR the idea the change is going to cause major problems for users or for wikipedia is so clearly on the wrong track. Just for clarification, I'm not saying this is a minor change which should be undertaken lightly. P.S. Google gives 8,580 pages linking to en.wikipedia.org or the Main Page (treated as same thing); 1,520 for en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama; 2,100 for link:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki; 59,600 to www./wikipedia.org; 54,600 for www./microsoft.com; 569,000 for www./google.com Nil Einne (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Nil Einne, I agree with your points (why I think people are overexaggerating how disruptive it would be), but please break that into easier-to-read paragraphs as you see fit :) ----occono (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
woh! thats an article in itself lol. -- Ashish-g55 22:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

One idea has been to eliminate the page title completely from the URL. The logo, etc. would lead to http://en.wikipedia.org/ or http://en.wikiepdia.org/wiki/ and that would be the Main Page. You'd still have to edit the page somewhere obviously, though.... --MZMcBride (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

New section: Help Wikipedia

I'm no sure if this has been discussed before or not - apologies if it has been as I couldn't find it in the search.

The Main Page is what many people first look at when they come to Wikipedia, even if that's only passing through whilst searching for a specific article. Looking at the page layout, it strikes me that the main sections - Featured Article, Featured Picture, Did You Know, On This Day and In The News are all about sharing the best content that Wikipedia has created.

It might be a good idea to have a main section which focusses on encouraging people, particularly new editors, to help out with the project - pull as well as push. It could also encourage more experienced editors to branch out into new areas. This might take content from WP:T and that page could be used to nominate front page sections. It could be rotating in a similar way (job of the day??) and might cover things like:

  • Writing your first article
  • Requested articles
  • Requested maps
  • Requested photographs
  • Cleaning up articles
  • WikiProjects

Rather than make the Main Page longer, I suggest one of the existing sections is dropped or combined - have we any way of knowing which sections are most popular? Alternatively, you could just have smaller sections - not sure we need quite such a long Featured Article excerpt or quite so many Did You Know entries, for instance. What do you think? AndrewRT(Talk) 15:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I would rather add a link to WP:T next to the "Overview · Editing · Questions · Help" links near the top, or add some of the links you suggest to the "Other areas of Wikipedia" section below the Today's featured picture section. Any proposal to have one of the existing sections dropped or combined would expect some heavy resistance, especially from those who contribute to them a lot. And we've already had lots of previous discussions and proposals of adding more sections to the Main Page (such as a featured list of the day). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
It isn't an accident. The general consensus is that the main page should be for our readers not our editors. Therefore putting an entire new section to encourage new editors is likely to be controversial to say the least Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Note that "anyone can edit" in the slogan is linked to Wikipedia:Introduction and "Editing" just below that is linked to Wikipedia:Tutorial. However, the dedicated page for existing editors to find something new to do is Wikipedia:Community portal and I don't see that changing much, if at all. - BanyanTree 04:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy

Should be on the news section 77.234.159.97 (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree especially since Les Paul's and Corazon Aquino's deaths were on there. Spiderone 07:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It's already at WP:ITN/C—feel free to add your support. Dendodge T\C 07:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"author and poet"

Moved to article talk page Talk:Natalie Clifford Barney#"author and poet" Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Offtopic - rocket in ITN

Am I the only one who keeps thinking the rocket on ITN is a scroll bar the first time I see it? Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, you're not. :-) It's in the same position and has about the same size as a scroll bar, so that's the initial impression the eyes perceive. -- Mentifisto
I'm glad I'm not the only one! Thought I was going mad. Modest Genius talk 18:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Basque Wikipedia

Hi from the Basque Country!
This is a message to the administrators of English Wikipedia or for someone who can help me with this issue:

I´m an user and contributor of the Basque Wikipedia., Basque language is one of the oldest in Europe and the world, it has thousands of years old and is one of the few languages that survived the arrival of Indo-Europeans to Europe. Perhaps being one of the oldest nations or countries of the world not even have our own state, but our language is our homeland and pride. It put us on the map and give a reference recognizable to English speakers, the city of Pamplona (Iruña in basque language), where they celebrate the internationally famous festival of San Fermin is in the Basque Country.

After this brief introduction I would kindly ask you this request:

On July 15, 2009, in the Basque Wikipedia we exceed the figure of 40,000 articles, today (August 26, 2009) we have 42,000 articles, achievement of which we are very proud, because if we compare proportionately the number of speakers of the Basque language (about a million) with other Wikipedia versions of languages spoken in more than one state or nation in the world with millions of speakers is like to be proud.

Because one of the aims of Wikipedia Project in addition to expanding human knowledge worldwide is also to expand the knowledge of all languages of mankind: From the Basque Wikipedia we wanted to make the request to the users and particularly to the Administrators of the English wikipedia would be possible if you put the link to Basque Wikipedia in your English Wikipedia´s language list of everyone in your Main Page ("Languages" section: as is currently the case Galician or Catalan language) and the Wikipedia list of more than 40,000 items that is below your Main Page ("Wikipedia languages" section). Since English is currently the most powerful, influential and widespread in the world (your wikipedia already has 3,000,000 articles), the presence of Basque Wikipedia in your list of the world would be a great help to supervival of our language and their knowledge in the world.

Awaiting your reply.

Greetings from the Basque Wikipedia.
. --Euskalduna (tell me) 15:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.86.101.120 (talk)

Template talk:Wikipedialang would be the place to ask. It seems there is some existing discussion there, which has stagnated somewhat without any opposition to adding Basque. It might be a good idea to pester an admin to update it. Modest Genius talk 18:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Modest Genius. --Euskalduna (tell me) 15:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.86.101.120 (talk)

The links have now been added (by User:MSGJ). Modest Genius talk 23:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

ITN change

Just an FYI, that there is a discussion occurring about possible changes to the ITN section of the main page, located here: Template talk:In the news#Use of Wikinews. Feel free to jump in on the conversations!
V = I * R (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Disgraceful Ordering

How can it be than under the "on this day" heading Martin Luther King's I have a dream speech is at the bottom of the list ? Now I have nothing to do with the CRM, I'm white, wasn't born when the speech was given and I've never even been to the U.S, but this is one of the greatest human beings ever to have lived the fact this is not at the top of the list is a dirty insult. --86.167.42.79 (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC) RS 24/08/09

It's last because it's the most recent. "On this day" items are ordered chronologically by year. -- Vary (Talk) 15:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh my god...

A picture of the day that doesn't feature an Australian bird! And actually features something from Africa! Well done! I know, I know, we've discussed this before - a systemic bias, where there is greater content from regions where there is a larger Wikipedia community. But a Southern African feature - whoohoo! I look forward to more in the future, mates. Rfwoolf (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, FPs are widely varied. Howcheng, who schedules the POTD's is a highly trusted admin and oversighter. If you want to give him constructive criticism at his talk page, I don't think he would object, but I doubt he'll see your comments here. Thanks. ceranthor 17:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I actually visit Talk:Main Page daily. :) howcheng {chat} 18:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

ITN RfC

Just to let people know, a Request for Comment has been made on the content and operation of ITN, located at Template talk:In the news#Questions for discussion. It's also currently the top item on Centralised Discussions. There's some serious discussion going on of a major shakeup of ITN, and I would like to encourage all those with an interest in the Main Page to take a look. Modest Genius talk 17:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Japan Election

Now I stayed up late to watch all the ashes series, but I will grudgingly admit that surely the historic election that is occurring in Japan as we speak is slightly more notable and should be included on the front page news? M0rt (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You should be asking this at WP:ITN/C. However, if you went over there you would discover that it was nominated two weeks in advance and that it is nearly ready. Also, all elections such as these feature on ITN anyway if nominated and updated in time. --candlewicke 00:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Help

My PC has had an update, and the repairman tinkered with the "Upload Images" and the screen resolution. I have gotten those fixed, but the lettering on Wikipedia is now bright, bold black, instead of regular. How do I fix this?AlbertSM (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You'll want to try asking at WP:HELPDESK. howcheng {chat} 00:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Highlight it all, and then push command+B —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.202.121.248 (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Overuse of pipes in the Main Page

First let me say, no doubt, there are situations where the wikimarkup "pipe" feature is extremely useful. In an article describing someone who never left Kansas, we don't want to have to say he was born in Salina, Kansas, went to school in Manhattan, Kansas, and had a regular sales route that went between Topeka, Kansas and Dodge City, Kansas.

However the feature is much overused. One of my regular cleanup tasks is to change things like [[Oscar Luigi Scalfaro|the then President of the Italian Republic]] to "Oscar Luigi Scalfaro, at the time the President of the Italian Republic". This is much better syntax because it doesn't hide what you're talking about inside the link. It's important always to remember that articles may be printed out, and any information encoded into a wikilink is then missing entirely.

So where do editors get this idea? I'm afraid to a large extent it may be from the Main Page, which is a regular offender. Two egregious examples from today's (2009 Aug 31) Main Page: In did you know, the word topologically is linked to our homeomorphism article, even though what is displayed in the animation is actually a homotopy. And the phrase equal birth rights is linked to LGBT rights in the United Kingdom; a cursory scan of that article does not explain what "equal birth rights" are, exactly. --Trovatore (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

On the last point, one sentence in the article (which dates from before it was posted) says: "On 31 August 2009, legislation granting lesbians equal birth rights in England and Wales came into effect, meaning both parents can now be named on a child's birth certificate." --candlewicke 19:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
OK. The point is that I went to the article and I didn't see it. True, I could have hit Ctrl-F and done a search in the page, but you really shouldn't have to do that — when a pipe sends you to a page, it ought to be obvious why, and moreover it ought to be the only reasonable place that you could be sent. If the second criterion is not met, a pipe is not appropriate; the matter should be spelled out.
Now, granted, because of space limitations, this style of piping is somewhat more defensible on the Main Page than elsewhere, considered in isolation. My concern, or at least a big part of my concern, is that it sets a bad example. --Trovatore (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
You've hit the nail on head; while I think we all would agree that more precision is better, on the Main Page because of space limitations we have to make do and compromise that ideal with the better goal of getting people to the right articles. howcheng {chat} 04:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's not about precision per se. It's about the minimum surprise principle and so on, and I'm also concerned about teaching bad lessons to potential editors who will then be more likely to infect the larger encyclopedia with pipes of this sort. That affects readers, not just editors. I don't know that the problem can be 100% solved, but I would like to see much less use of this sort of pipe on the Main Page. --Trovatore (talk) 07:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
IMO, I'll admit that the egregious examples are a little unclear. On the other hand, a pipe link is useful for something like The [[Imperial Japanese Navy]] '''[[Attack on Pearl Harbor|attacked]]''' [[Pearl Harbor]] in [[Hawaii]]. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a result of editors trying to be too clever; I find myself trying to clear it up all the time. There are a few more examples right now where particular events are linked through general terms e.g. it could be "wins a majority of seats in the Japanese general election" or "the STS-128 mission". This shouldn't prove a problem on the Main Page, but it is a bad example. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Idea

Not sure if this has been proposed before on not, but why not add a section for featured list articles? There is one for Featured Pictures, In the news, Did You know, Featured articles, and On this day. What harm could adding an FL section do?--WillC 13:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. There's no more space.
  2. The lists can't be summarized effectively.
I do like FLs on the Main Page though. Some day. –Howard the Duck 14:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The idea for a featured list of the day has been proposed off and on for several years, such as this 2007 discussion. It always seems to come down to having an actual Today's featured list proposal like this one first, and have it actually up and running for at least several months before we even think about adding it to the Main Page. But so far, this idea hasn't really gone anywhere. Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to create a seventh one. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
And another reason why these proposals seem to die, IMO, is that there hasn't been someone who has emerged and is so extremely dedicated and motivated, like a User:Raul654 for Today's Featured Articles, that he or she is willing to work and maintain it on a consistent basis. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Well there was TonyTheTiger's one that seemed to look quite promising...  GARDEN  20:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll help out in anyway I can to get one up and running. I'm no admin but I have enough expirence that I could be useful.--WillC 01:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK hooks

I'm just curious, is it common that WP uses less than ideal phrasing to intrigue people and get them to read articles? I'm okay with it, I was just curious if it was policy, something WP does every once in a while, or something else entirely. The reason I ask is the spaceship flying turtle currently in DYK. I know "turtle" links to the explanation of what is meant, but I checked the mercury-atlas 8 article first and was amused to find out the reason for it. I'm not criticizing, I'm actually applauding. I thought it was a great way to get me into the article. 04redsox07 (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

When I read that hook, I was reminded of how the Main Page looks on April 1st. So much fun. :D Alphabet55 (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou both - that was my doing. I didn't originally intend for an April Fools style hook, but I'd drawn a blank on actually finding anything else that would make a good hook; it was the first "quirky" thing that sprang to mind. No deliberate intent to decieve, & I'm glad it was so popular!
(You may also like to know that turtles have indeed flown in space - they were the first living creatures to travel out of Earth's orbit) Shimgray | talk | 21:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Recommendatons?

I notice a lot of sites are using recommendtions. I think wikipedia could do the same. Example: I spend a couple hours looking at the Metallica wiki page, then an hour looking at the Disturbed wiki page. When I visit Wikipedia the next day, i go to the wikipedia main page and there's a little box that says "Wikipedia Recommends" and it has the Wolfmother, or Rage Against the Machine pages listed there.

Basically I am suggesting some kind of wiki history tracking system that suggests what pages to look at next. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Example974 (talkcontribs) 22:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The right place for new proposals will be the Village pump. The guys there will be able to answer you. Greetings. --Tone 22:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Most Boring Featured Article Ever

Is this the most interesting featured article anyone could find? Why don't we put Gropecunt Lane back up there? At least people wouldn't fall asleep at their computer terminals. 74.192.194.29 (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a source for the people falling asleep at their computer terminals. --candlewicke 02:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What is boring to one person (ie you and me) is of great interest to another, especially those who managed to make it a featured article, you cant have funny ones all the time!--Willski72 (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking about the Cochineals? Not only boring, but highly disgusting. I'm sick of this pro-insect&arachnid bias :( 80.123.210.172 (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Consider the fact that articles like that are commonly featured. Yowuza yadderhouse |meh 16:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Consider WP:BIAS. And I agree with Willski72: cochineal, to me, is interestiing; to others, evidently, it isn't. 79.71.113.135 (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Lobbying on Wikipedia?

The last two sentences of today's lead are not attributed to sources or expanded upon anywhere in the article. I feel as if a neutral article about an interesting and widely used dye has been hijacked to serve someone's agenda. I feel that the featured article process has let the readers down, because things like that are supposed to be against the style guidelines for all articles, let alone "best of the best" content. I also don't see anywhere near the size, depth, or revision history in this article that I have come to expect from other good Wikipedia articles. Wnt (talk) 06:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The article was promoted three years ago, and standards have sharply risen since then. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Link to the introduction instead of the community portal in the sidebar

Please see and comment here on this proposal. Thanks, Cenarium (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ricardo Montalban

Not ideal for a Khan article, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ricardo_Montalban_in_Fiesta_trailer.jpg is public domain. I hate to see a pictureless FA. --Nricardo (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Although it is public domain, the major objection is that it is a screenshot from the trailer of an entirely different film. That would be more confusing and cause more problems and complaints. At least with a pictureless FA, we do have a consistent standard reason. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Someone would have to do some pretty fancy photoshopping to make that image appropriate for use with this article. I believe this image might work. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, the Star Trek logo is not nearly illustrative enough (of the subject in question) to be of encyclopedic value in this instance. —David Levy 04:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I personally support the addition of the ST logo- it's better than nothing, and it's strongly related to the character. I'm amazed the logo isn't already used in the article, in a navbox or the like. J Milburn (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
How would the logo be anything other than decorative? In no way would it illustrate or otherwise provide any information about the character. To me, that doesn't seem better than nothing. —David Levy 19:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN! @harej 08:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hope he's on the X Factor tomorrow night... he Khan Singh... (snigger)  GARDEN  19:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article Picture

Why is the FA picture not showing up? Is this just my computer? 165.91.166.231 (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It works fine for me, but it is 13 MB. Is it possible that it is just not loaded yet? J.delanoygabsadds 18:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the IP is referring to the Khan Noonien Singh blurb. If that's correct, the answer is that we don't have an image for this article, because any such image would be copyrighted and we don't use copyrighted images on te Main Page. That means we sometimes run a featured article with no image, as we're doing today. It's not an error. Gavia immer (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
As a minor correction, we do use copyrighted images on the main page, provided that they're available under suitable free licenses. We don't use non-free images (apart from those owned by the Wikimedia Foundation) on the main page. —David Levy 19:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
You are, of course, correct. Gavia immer (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article for september 7th

shouldn't The Homebrew Channel be featured tomorrow ? Chickenator (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that it isn't a WP:Featured article, definitely no. Nil Einne (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You can certainly work to get it to that stage, though. (Won't happen by tomorrow, but definitely can happen by a year from tomorrow, if not sooner.) Check out WP:Article development, WP:Featured article criteria, and the pages linked therein. P.S. Today's Featured Article is usually scheduled from a few days to a month ahead of time - see WP:Today's_featured_article and links on that page (like WP:Today's_featured_article/September_2009) to see what they will be. -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:AVOID violated

One item in "On this day" Sept 5 violates this policy. Admins please check.--yousaf465' 03:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you be more specific please? --candlewicke 04:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The 1972 event I'm refering to.--yousaf465' 04:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
What exactly is the problem? Nohomers48 (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
It has be reloved now.--yousaf465' 07:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I presume that was a misspelling of removed? And I think (s)he was referring to the inverted commas around "Black September". 79.71.113.135 (talk) 08:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
It's all about the brill

if i may say s myself this is a brill site :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.127.113 (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we cover a few more topics than just brill. howcheng {chat} 21:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(groan!)--Willski72 (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record, he was talking about the use of the word 'terrorist'. -- tariqabjotu 17:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Aw yes, lets not call those people terrorists. Lets not call them what they are. Thats just cruel. Lets call them widdy-wadders. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 21:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've heard many names for terrorists in my time but never have i heard one as good as "widdy-wadders". If thats not going to put you off being one i dont know what is!--Willski72 (talk) 10:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's go the whole PC-hog and call them "trepidation promoters" or "encouragers for alarm". 79.71.113.135 (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The life removal squad. --candlewicke 19:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
It's almost a chess move: "Autopilot landing, the Qaeda variant". But I would support seeing "Life-removal Squad" somewhere on the main page. April fools' day, maybe? 79.71.113.135 (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this at the time but didn't say anything since no one else did. The issue was calling Black September a terrorist group, not the specific group of people involved terrorists or the attack a terrorist attack. You will note that while the article calls the people terrorists, and the attack a terrorist attack, it calls Black September a militant group as does the Black September article. To use a more modern example the al Qaeda article does not call them a terrorist group although we do call the September 11 attacks a terrorist attacks. WP:Words to avoid does caution against calling things terrorist in the passive voice. While I'm not that familiar with discussions, I presume this is fairly normal practice. It is sometimes clear per WP:NPOV and WP:Undue that it's accurate to call something a terrorist attack. Calling a diverse group a terrorist group however raises many more complications. Nil Einne (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)