Talk:Main Page: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted edits by 202.78.150.34 (talk) to last version by 1568
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
<nowiki>Insert non-fo[[http://www.example.com link title][[http://www.example.com link title][[http://www.example.com link title][[http://www.example.com link title][[http://www.example.com link title][[http://www.example.com link title][[http://www.example.com link title][[Image:[[Image:Example.jpg]][[Image:Example.jpg]]]]]]]]]]]rmatted text here</nowiki>
<!--


: What you're about to post probably doesn't belong here.

Before you add to this page click back and review the help for the appropriate section for your post.



Otherwise, please scroll down and post your comment at the BOTTOM.

Thanks!!


-->
{{Main Page discussion header}}



== Why can't I edit? ==

Why is the front page only editable by administrators? <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Ali'i|Ali'i]] ([[User talk:Ali'i|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ali'i|contribs]]) 20:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC).</small>
: Please see [[Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why am I not able edit to the Main Page?]]. Hope this helps. -- [[User:PFHLai|PFHLai]] 20:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Please sign your posts using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. Eleven minutes after you asked this, someone replaced this whole page with the message "HACKED". To avoid this happening on the main page, it is only editable by administrators. [[User:Pietdesomere|Piet]] 20:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that would not be a good thing for wikipedia. --[[User:Demonic slave|tyler nelson]] 17:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

::Okay, duh. Next time i'll pay closer attention to details. --[[User:Ali'i|Ali&#39;i]] 21:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Fair use Image on Main Page ==

I hate to be copyright paranoid, but perhaps [[:Image:Queensbridge.jpg]] would work for Featured Article of the Day on the Main Page. Even though it's not as representative of the subject as the current image, it's not fair use. -- '''[[User:Tariqabjotu|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' 00:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

i have also this problem and i dont no i will doing to cominucat iam a new wekipedian
<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:80.249.71.234|80.249.71.234]] ([[User talk:80.249.71.234|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/80.249.71.234|contribs]]) 12:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC).</small>

== Front Page Content ? / Featured Article of the Day is a Joke ==

I don't believe that Wikipedia is putting its best foot forward by showcasing a thug's first album as the featured article of the day. It's low culture, and makes Wikipedia look like even more of a joke than it's already managed to accomplish. - [[User:MSTCrow|MSTCrow]] 15:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
:I happen to agree with MST Crow concerning showcasing a rap album on the front page [[User:Berniethomas68|www.geocities.com/berniethomas68]] 15:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
::Well, we might say no to pop albums in general, but it would be silly to say no to rap albums specifically. Wikipedia is not attempting to define taste and it is not censored. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 15:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

:I totally concur. More proper culture on the front page please. Obviously rap does not qualify because, err, wait... why is that again? [[User:Agentsoo|Soo]] 15:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
:I'm willing to bet you didn't mind when the band Marilyn Manson appeared on Wikipedia front page because you "loved" them according to your userboxes. Marilyn Manson has a squeaky clean image and doesn't have any controversy? I had to laugh at that. All because you don't like a certain type of music or culture doesn't mean it is "joke." --[[User:63.233.41.123|63.233.41.123]] 15:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

:You don't get it. TFA is about the quality of the ''article'' NOT about the value of the topic it covers. Get over it. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 15:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

::Low culture? How racist... [[User:Dposse|dposse]] 16:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
:::You assuming race issues? How racist...[[User:Killerclaw|The General]] 22:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:I initially had the same impression, but the article is really well done. I say keep it.

:Articles are chosen for the quality of the article, not the quality of the subject (which is far too subjective to accurately evaluate). —[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]<font color=green>[[User:Cuivienen/Esperanza|é]]</font>[[User talk:Cuivienen|nen]] 18:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

:I personally dislike rap, but agree that the TFA is an honor given to a "good" article, with good, in this case, meaning well written, not interesting or any of it's synonymns. [[User:AndonicO|AndonicO]] 16:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)AndonicO

I third the motion that Rap is rubbish, anything that promotes derogatory treatment of women, taking of illicit drugs, or general acts of civil disobedience has a negative effect on society, especially the youth who seeing this way of life being 'cool' aspire to becoming 'gangsta' themselves. Since we can't kill rappers to stop them sprouting rubbish (tub pac) a contingency plan needs to be drafted by the governments of the world, but on the balance of guit America needs to front most the blame, they after all being the super power that is Consumerism should house up the 'gangsta's in blocks (ghettos if you will) blocking the transferal of rap from the rappers to the general public putting to an end pants so low theres no need for them, telling people doing drugs IS NOT COOL , shooting people doesn't get you anything but JAIL and through hard work and dedication you can become a core part of a functioning society in a positive aspect, not a negative one. [[User:Faultless|Faultless]] 20:57, 25 August 2006
:I choose to assume that you are joking because if you're not, it's even funnier. [[User:Agentsoo|Soo]] 20:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
:Hmm.. You denounce rap because of the moral implications? That's irnoic coming from a person who says we should kill rappers. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Lordmenace|Lordmenace]] ([[User talk:Lordmenace|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Lordmenace|contribs]]) 21:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC).</small>

== New header ==

I' popped a new header on this page. (Edit second try worked better lol). It's a little longer than the old one, but intergrates the archive box and leaves more room for more archive links. The concept is to be more welcoming to new visitors. Under the [[WP:BRD]] concept; comments? Love hate? --[[User:Monotonehell|Monotonehell]] 16:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

:Very nice. [[User:Dposse|dposse]] 16:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
::Can the "If you want to suggest a Wikipedia article that has been recently updated with current affairs information go to the In the news page." bit be changed so it links to [[Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates]] please? [[User:Batmanand|Batmanand]] | [[User talk:Batmanand|Talk]] 20:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
:::It could, but I purposely linked to the instructional pages rather than the actual suggestion pages. I think it better to send new users to instructions first. The second paragraph on [[Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates]] says "''Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at [[Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page]] will not be put into the live template.''". Which is where I've linked to first. The philosophy behind the header is to give new users a helpful path to what they want. If we really wanted to I supose we could also add the direct to suggestion page links. --[[User:Monotonehell|Monotonehell]] 20:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Maybe its just me, but having the link to the candidates page was enormously helpful on the "old style" talk:Main Page page. But if others disagree, fair enough. I like the rest of the redesign a lot, if that counts for anything. [[User:Batmanand|Batmanand]] | [[User talk:Batmanand|Talk]] 20:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I like the new header on this page. Nice work! [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 21:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
: I like it, too. Good job. I've added a {{tl|TOCright}} to avoid having too much blank space, as the TOC tends to get quite long here. Take it off if it's a problem. -- [[User:PFHLai|PFHLai]] 21:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
::Yes good. I was thinking about that, but then the server went south for the winter last night. --[[User:Monotonehell|Monotonehell]] 07:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
:It looks great. (so, are we usurping the wiktionary logo proposal [[:m:New_logo_for_Wiktionary#.236_.28Faces.29|#6]]? ;) (I like it here, and for there. Did anyone tell happydog?) --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]]·<small>([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]])</small> 21:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
::Oh yes! The logo, Happydog's talky logo is a placeholder I was going to ask if anyone had a better idea for what to put there. --[[User:Monotonehell|Monotonehell]] 07:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It was fine yesterday, now the box for TFA is too big, breaking the nice symmetry in the header and overloading the box with too much information. With such a overkill, people would just scroll down and not read it. 'Too helpful' may become 'not helpful'. -- [[User:64.229.178.241|64.229.178.241]] 18:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
:I added a link to the "requests" subpage, now someone has shortened it but maybe it is still a bit long. Maybe we could drop the line "''Do you think today's featured article is awful? See what you can do about it.''" Although I like it, it doesn't add much since "see what you can do" basically means follow one of the other links. [[User:Pietdesomere|Piet]] 19:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
::The "see what you can do" wikilink goes to the faq that basically tells people to stop complaining about the ''subject'' of an FA, which is good '''if''' they follow it and might stop some of the posts (there's a least two currently on this page) that basically say "I don't like subject X, therefore it shouldn't be TFAd". "Might". :/ But if they do read it they may understand the process better. Which is a good thing.

::I've tried to link to '''informational pages''' only here, so new users first learn about the process and guidlines before spouting their 'original idea'. What I hope happens next is that those informational pages are improved so that the whole pathway for new users is formalised and generally improved a great deal. Wikipedia can be very daunting at first due to the processes and tools that have organically grown out of the concensus ooze. --[[User:Monotonehell|Monotonehell]] 10:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

== What happend to Wikipedia for the last four hours? ==

It was completely unaccessable. Anyone know what happened? [[User:66.0.5.4|66.0.5.4]] 20:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
:The rumor is the people who supply the IP addresses put them back into circulation... --[[User:Monotonehell|Monotonehell]] 20:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

::I would also like to know what happened. [[User:Mathiastck|Mathiastck]] 20:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
:::I heard on the IRC channel that the IP address was removed. [[User:Dposse|dposse]] 20:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


I was going to merely ask this:

Did the wikiwebservers crash & burn f/ several hours today??

[[User:Hopiakuta|Hopiakuta]] 20:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, it does seem that they had, in fact.

Thank You.

[[User:Hopiakuta|Hopiakuta]] 20:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
: Indeed, they did. See [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-August/038096.html this email] for details. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]])</sup> 20:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

::What - only people with AOL IPs were allowed to edit? Um, hello, weird? [[User:Natgoo|Natgoo]] 21:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

::Although I don't know what that says: Thank You. -- [[User:Hopiakuta|Hopiakuta]] 20:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Does anyone know why wikipedia was completely unaccessable for the last four hours?--[[User:Taidawang|Taida]] 22:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you are too lazy to click a link, here it is:

''Somewhere around 17:20-17:30 UTC, Cogent readvertised routing to our primary IP
address block in Tampa, blocking access to the site for most people.

Partway through the period, wikis were placed into read-only lock so the few
people who could access it (mostly from AOL ;) were unable to edit without
review from the public.

The route was temporarily restored around 19:55, and read-write was restored to
the wikis at 19:59.

The old IP range will no longer be available to us as of Monday.

PowerMedium has assigned us a new IP space which is under their control (unlike
the old IPs which were leased from Cogent under an older contract), and we will
be transitioning to them over the weekend.


We have heard several conflicting things about exactly why and how our IP space
got dropped; more will be said when we have firmer knowledge.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)'' [[User:Dposse|dposse]] 22:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Paper encyclopedias rarely flicker in and out of existence. 64.8.1.2
:True, but they also seldom update and correct themselves after publication. ;) -- [[User:Vary|Vary]] | [[User talk:Vary|Talk]] 01:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

:Bahhh- the nerve of that ISP to issue an IP re-numbering on Wikipedia (If that's in fact what happend.) ;-) My ISP has had the nerve to stymed a few of my contributions by renumbering me in the middle of an edit. :-o [[User:CaribDigita|CaribDigita]] 02:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

== Wikipedia going down is notable ==

Wikipedia is sufficiently notable that it going down is notable. Failures in it's service should have their own page, and that page should be linked to from the main page after it goes down. My 2 cents :) [[User:Mathiastck|Mathiastck]] 23:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
:Not really. Wikipedia goes down alot. [[User:Dposse|dposse]] 00:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
::I haven't seen many articles about other - more important - services going down. [[User:Pietdesomere|Piet]] 09:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
:::I haven't seen articles devoted to it, but I have seen plenty of articles mention major times a website went down. If wikipedia goes down a lot that then that fact needs mention in an article. [[User:Mathiastck|Mathiastck]] 22:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

==HELP!!!==

what the hell is wrong with wikipedia? why is it all white and messed up?? [[User:Dposse|dposse]] 03:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
:Guys, all the skins except for the default one is screwed up. Someone needs to fix this. [[User:Dposse|dposse]] 04:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
::Yup, the Wikipedia servers were all messed up. See [[n:en:Wikimedia servers unreachable for 3 hours due to network outage|Wikimedia servers unreachable for 3 hours due to network outage]] for more information. [[User:FellowWikipedian|FellowWikip]]<font color="green">[[User:FellowWikipedian/Esperanza|e]]</font>[[User talk:FellowWikipedian|dian]] 14:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Does this have anything to do with some links (nomraly ones with small words) giving you a small download instead of a page? At first I thought it was a virus, but it only happens here. One of the pages is the login for me, so I can't sign my stuff. -OAM

== Comma ==
THat comma doesnt look right does it?--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 07:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
:Any comma in particular? [[User:GeeJo|<span style="padding : 0px 1px 1px 1px; border : 1px solid #809EF5; cursor: wait; background: #FFFFFF ; color: #99B3FF">GeeJo</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:GeeJo|(t)]]</sup>⁄<sub>[[Special:Contributions/GeeJo|(c)]]</sub> <small>&bull;&nbsp;08:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)</small>

THe one after '''Welcome to Wikipedia''' Sorry I thought it would be obvious--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 09:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

:It's right. If you read the whole sentence (over the two lines), it will read ''"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."''. '''[[User:Daniel.Bryant|<font face="tahoma" color="#086F9A">Daniel</font>]].[[User:Daniel.Bryant/Esperanza|<font face="tahoma" color="green">Bryant</font>]]''' 11:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes Iknow its grammatically correct. It just doesnt look good!--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 14:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

:It looks fantastic. Imagine how the sentence would look without a comma there! --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak]] [[User_talk:OldakQuill|Quill]] 17:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

::I'm convulsing just thinking about it! -[[User:81.132.224.87|81.132.224.87]] 20:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

== Image Upload Help ==

I recently uploaded quite a few photos and put them on their respective pages. Soon after, they were taken down because I did not provide the URL for them, etc. I would like to upload the pics again, but the right way...so what do I do? At the upload page, do I simply just put the URL of the photo? And another thing...I don't understand this: "Images found on websites or on an image search engine should not be uploaded to Wikipedia." How's that make ANY sense? Where else would you find photographs ON THE INTERNET to put ON A WEBSITE?

--[[User:RattleandHum|RattleandHum]] 19 August 2006
:You either produce them yourself or ensure that their licence is compatible with Wikipedia. 99% of images you came across on a website or found in an image search are not. --[[User talk:Cherry blossom tree|Cherry blossom tree]] 16:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

: Please see [[Wikipedia: Image use policy]]. Hope this helps.--[[User:PFHLai|PFHLai]] 17:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

== Follow-up on [[Talk:Main Page/Archive 76#Main Page images]]==
Landscapes are fine, but 100x100px often makes portraits too narrow. Can we change it to something like 100x125px instead of 100x100px ? As long as it's not wider than 100px, it's okay for those 800x600 screens, right ? --[[User:PFHLai|PFHLai]] 17:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

:I support that. The 100px ''width'' is the issue on 800x600 screens, but I do notice that ''height'' does become a problem on 1024x768 screens. [[User:Zzyzx11|Zzyzx11]] [[User talk:Zzyzx11|(Talk)]] 20:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

:The goal is to display most pictures (landscapes and portraits) at approximately the same size. Short of calculating the cubic size of each individual image, maintaining a standard maximum measurement (100px or another number) for both the length and width is the best means of accomplishing this. Aspect ratios vary slightly, but the fact that all images are either 100px wide or 100px tall (or both) creates a pleasant sense of uniformity.

:Of course, we can make exceptions for images with unusual aspect ratios. We also give some leeway (especially regarding height) to the pictures from the ''Today's featured article'' section (where our selection is relatively limited).

:Perhaps we could go slightly higher than 100px as our standard maximum measurement. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 23:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, many images are not meant to be displayed as 100px thumbnails. One example would be [[:Image:Popss.jpg]] currently on DYK. Can anyone make out what is being displayed ? Things are so small, I can't see a thing there. Such images such not be used on [[Main Page]]. -- [[User:64.229.178.241|64.229.178.241]] 13:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

::I strongly support a slightly larger 'standard maximum measurement'. 100 is just too small.

::Also, I'd suggest that layouts don't really have to look ''good'' at 800x600, they just have to fail ''gracefully''. --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]]·<small>([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]])</small> 08:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

== Village Pump Link ==

I believe that the link to the Village Pump should be more conspicuous. This page is always filled with off-topics suggestions and complaints because novices that enter Wikipedia through the Main Page see the big "Discussion" link in the top rather than the list of "Other areas of Wikipedia" in the bottom. The new header is very convenient, but it would be even better if people didn't have to click on the wrong link, realize their mistake and then start searching the right place to post their ideas.--[[User:Cloviz|Cloviz]] 01:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
:I thought long and hard about putting a direct link to the pump in the header. I eventually decided against it linking to [[Wikipedia:Questions|here]] instead. The concept is to allow new users to filter through a series of levels until they find the 'correct' place to post. If we put a direct link to the pump I thought it would steer people who would be better off posting at [[Wikipedia:Reference desk|the ref desk]] in the wrong direction.
:We could easily put a link to the pump in the header, if that's what people want. --[[User:Monotonehell|Monotonehell]] 09:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:Maybe better for the nav bar. -- [[User:64.229.178.241|64.229.178.241]] 18:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:It's already linked to from [[Help:Contents]], [[Wikipedia:Community Portal|Community Portal]], and [[Wikipedia:Questions|Questions]] (all linked in the sidebar). 2-click access from everywhere, seems good enough to me. --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]]·<small>([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]])</small> 10:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
::But it seems it has to be obvious. Look at that huge header up there; can you believe people keep posting anything here anyway? In theory this works, but in practice you realize that you are trusting people's intelligence too much! Well, I believe their common sense is right: you enter in a website for the first time, you are in the home page, you want to say something and you see a link that reads "discussion" in the top of the page; obviously, if you don't know how Wikipedia works, you won't expect that discussion to concern the main page only! OK, with that header up there they should realize "their" mistake; but what if we rather attack the problem to its root?--[[User:Cloviz|(clovis)]] 17:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:::I think you're overestimating people ;) They're even worse than that! A significant minority aren't going to read or pay attention to any help/instructions we try to give them, no matter what. They just want to chat, and are going to use the most obvious page there is, to do just that. --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]]·<small>([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]])</small> 02:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Cloviz, the people who wont read anything and just post aren't going to get past this page at all. So they're a 'lost cause'. I've tried to keep the header on this page uncluttered, simple and logical. It should be a kind of flowchart where people who have their eyes glazed over and are looking for a particular subject should be able to see it fairly quickly. That's why it's separated into the six sections like that and "errors" is repeated in each box. The link to [[Wikipedia:Questions|Questions]] comes after they have filtered the five sections first as the pump is for more general proposals and etc. So I think that I have attacked the problem at its root". --[[User:Monotonehell|Monotonehell]] 10:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

== a lot of new zeeland ==

we are all about new zeeland right now. that's cool, though.
:it is fantastic (and it is spelt New Ze'''a'''land). Although, get ready for another when (in a few days time I would think) we get: "The [[List of monarchs of Tonga|King of Tonga]], '''[[Taufa'ahau Tupou IV]]''' dies in [[Auckland]], [[New Zealand]] ending his 41 year reign." --[[User:210.86.87.240|210.86.87.240]] 07:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
::Unfortunately, New Zealand is still outshone by Australia, which has a featured article and a featured picture! :P --[[User:LiquidGhoul|liquidGhoul]] 07:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

::All to the good, I say: English WP can seem Brit- and US-centric [[User:Bedesboy|Bedesboy]] 08:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
:Both NZ and Aussie both have a current DYK entry as well. Australasia finally gets its spotlight! --[[User:Midnighttonight|Midnighttonight]] <small><i>[[User talk:Midnighttonight|Remind me to do my uni work rather than procrastinate on the internet]]</i></small> 09:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
:get ready for tomorrow's featured picture as well. oh, and in the current DYK is another (although most people wouldn't know Featherston is in NZ) --[[User:Midnighttonight|Midnighttonight]] <small><i>[[User talk:Midnighttonight|Remind me to do my uni work rather than procrastinate on the internet]]</i></small> 21:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

== Missing "·" ==

Missing a · between "Help" and "Categories"? Or is there a reason for that? Dunno if this has been asked..thanks. [[User:Aranherunar|Aran]][[User_talk:Aranherunar|heru]][[Special:Contributions/Aranherunar|nar]] 07:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:At most resolutions and font sizes, a large gap exists between the two links in question. ("[[Wikipedia:About|Overview]] '''·''' [[Wikipedia:Searching|Searching]] '''·''' [[Wikipedia:Tutorial|Editing]] '''·''' [[Wikipedia:Questions|Questions]] '''·''' [[Help:Contents|Help]]" appears on the left side of the screen, while "[[Wikipedia:Browse|Categories]] '''·''' [[Wikipedia:Featured content|Featured content]] '''·''' [[Wikipedia:Quick index|A–Z index]]" appears on the right side.) At a relatively low resolution (such as 800x600) or large font size, this is less obvious. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 07:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

::Hmm so that's why - I used the largest font size. Thanks. [[User:Aranherunar|Aran]][[User_talk:Aranherunar|heru]][[Special:Contributions/Aranherunar|nar]] 08:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)



== Sidebar redesign discussion is near a conclusion... ==

'''[[Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign|Announcement]]'''

[[Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign|A discussion is underway which may affect the design of the Main Page]]: '''[[Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign|Sidebar redesign]]'''

--[[User:Nexus Seven|Nexus Seven]] 04:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

== Wikiversity ? ==

WTF is Wikiversity and how come it's a red link? [[User:Ciacchi|Ciacchi]] 15:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
: I came in to say the same thing, wikiversity link is broken, but worked fine last night.
::looks good/works for me [[User:BrokenSegue|''B''roken]][[User talk:BrokenSegue|''S''egue]] 15:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Wikiversity is a MediaWiki project that made the horrible mistake of adding rounded corners to the monobook skin. It makes my designer's blood boil. —[[User:Msikma|msikma]] &lt;[[User_talk:Msikma|user_talk:msikma]]&gt; 21:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
::::I agree with the rounded-corners distaste. [[Devil's advocate|But]] see [[:es:|Spanish]] and [[:it:|Italian]] for (2 variations of) precedent [sadly]. --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]]·<small>([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]])</small> 22:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::I raised the issue at the English Wikiversity's [[v:Wikiversity:Colloquium|Colloquium page]]. One of the site's eight sysops (also known as "custodians") informed me that "none of the Wikiversity custodians seem to be concerned about these sorts of subjective evaluations of the Wikiversity buttons," adding that "the buttons look fine on [his/her] computer" and "maybe [I] need a better display." Another opined that "if [I] have no greater concerns than the appearance of rounded corners than (sic) maybe this isn't the project for me."
:::::That's some welcoming committee! &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 07:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

== Cynna Kydd ... ==

Could we have a worst ''Today's Feature Article'' tommorrow? Like, I don't know, a feature article on Eric, it's a friend of mine, playing smushball in a local team. Actually, I don't think I can have a photo of him worst than Kydd's one... I mean, after Bulsomethin the pokemon, Cynna Kydd the worldwide unknown australian netball player. What the f*** is netball?! Is it another sport invented by a country so they can win a gold medal at the olympics? Something like softball or whatever? :) Ok, how do we can enter the ''Today's Feature Article'' selection so we can avoid those kind of things in the future? [[User:JeDi|JeDi]]
:[[Netball]] was actually developed in the United States. [[User:Tntnnbltn|Tntnnbltn]] 10:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
::HA! --[[User:LiquidGhoul|liquidGhoul]] 11:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, so? [[User:JeDi|JeDi]]
:::It's obviously not "another sport invented by a country so they can win a gold medal". Otherwise Australia and New Zealand wouldn't be the world champions. Can you deduce who would? --[[User:LiquidGhoul|liquidGhoul]] 13:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
::::There's no need to be rude about it. —[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]<font color=green>[[User:Cuivienen/Esperanza|é]]</font>[[User talk:Cuivienen|nen]] 14:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::Indeed. There was no need for JeDi's rant at all. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 22:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
:[[Wikipedia:Today's featured article|here]] is information regarding Featured Articles and the process that nominates one for inclusion on the main page each day, if you want to get involved. I think it's a good FA if it teaches someone something. What point would there be to feature articles that 'everyone' knew about? Where's your sense of curiosity? All the (rhetorical) questions you posed above can be answered by following the link [[Netball]] in Today's featured article. Follow a wikilink and learn something instead of complaining. --[[User:Monotonehell|Monotonehell]] 12:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
::The problem is that this selection is, essentially, performed by one person: Raul654. He is a kind of ''Today's feature article'' monarch, deciding alone what article will be on the main page. And, in two months, I have fall twice in diagreement with his choices. Frankly, I don't think his opinion are more important than mine. It would be reasonable to have a college of people deciding those kind of things, don't you think? At least 3. I'm not saying *I* should decide, but if several people contribute to the final decision, I would find the decision ''more acceptable''.

::And yes, I am curious. Look at my contributions if you doubt of this. But I am not curious at all when it is question of a proutball player being fired by his national team for a scandal about things I don't care! I mean, just read the preview of the article on the main page. This is just uninteresting, '''it's a non-event!''' And what if I create an feature article on Ribery's decision to quit the Olympic de Marseilles, would you think it would has its place on the main page of Wikipedia??? I won't troll on this, it's just that sometimes, I found this main page, which is what people who discovers WP see at first, does not represent the true value of this site.

::PS: did you notice that during the last week, in the ''Did you know'' section, they put 4 articles on the same subject: A french car manufacturer named Simca!! [[User:JeDi|JeDi]]
::::Apparently you are unfamiliar with how things work around here. Before things can be done, there need to be people to do it. People who work hard are rewarded for their work, such as by presenting it on the main page. People who complain nonstop on the talk page while contributing nothing productive are ignored. Get to work and stop complaining. &mdash; <small>[[User:Brian0918|<b><font color=black>BRIAN</font></b>]][[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color=gray>0918</font>]] &bull; 2006-08-20 17:54</small>
:::Have you contributed to an article to get it through FAC. It is not an easy feat, and the people who work hard for that should get their work exhibited. It shouldn't be based on some subjective crap, it should be based on whether it is an FA. All featured articles should get their day on the front page. If it is notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia, then it obviously does represent the true value of the site. If today was my first day of discovering Wikipedia, I would be impressed that such an obscure subject has such a good article. --[[User:LiquidGhoul|liquidGhoul]] 13:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
:::That's a bit of a misunderstanding - Raul654 is the director not the "monarch". Initially for an article to become an FA there's a whole nomination/review/concensus process that involves a lot of editors. Secondly the candidates for the main page process also involves a lot of discussion. Follow the links at the top of this page in the "Today's featured article" section to learn more about the processes involved. --[[User:Monotonehell|Monotonehell]] 13:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
::::You all seem to be missing an improtant point here. If you check out the [[Wikipedia:Featured article statistics|statistics]], you will se that in the last 10 months 304 FAs were created. In those 10 months there were exactly 304 days. That means that articles are being created at a rate of one per day, and as a consequence, there is not much of a "selection process" involved for the person in charge - it's really just a matter of deciding which article is featured on which day.

::::Shouldn't this raise a wider concern though? Allowing for a backlog of FAs - which there probably is - it still seems that at this rate we're not creating enough of them. Are the criteria to strict? [[User:Eixo|Eixo]] 22:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::The only problem I have with this being FA is the fact I nominated [[Thierry Henry]] and it was rejected and after reading this article I can't see how it is much better. It's not really. There both sports people so it's easy to compare and the barely a difference in my opinion. One is rejected on is given FA status. [[User:Jimmmmmmmmm|Jimmmmmmmmm]] 22:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Might have something to do with the fact that T.Henry is actually notable, and people would have certain expectations and know what to ask for. C.Kydd, on the other hand, is much less famous. It's hard to pick on unknowns. --[[User:64.229.176.139|64.229.176.139]] 07:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Nope, the reason why it was rejected was taht it was lacking refernces. That is what the people who object wrote and I think that I agree with them about the lack of inline refernces. [[user:Jeltz|Jeltz]] [[user talk:Jeltz|<small>talk</small>]] 13:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What I'm more concerned about is why are we letting the Female Cyclist Vandal choose the featured article? --[[User:155.45.81.25|155.45.81.25]] 11:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
:Please explain? --[[User:Monotonehell|Monotonehell]] 12:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:: [[User:155.45.81.25]] the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:155.45.81.25&diff=26637977&oldid=26635549 WALRUS] is trolling. -- [[User:64.229.178.241|64.229.178.241]] 18:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I've been called many things in my life but I have to admit that's one of the stranger ones. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 03:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

::::My Raul654 is not a walrus. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a walrus, a communist but he is '''not''' a porn star. --[[User:Marudubshinki |maru]] [[User talk:Marudubshinki| (talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Marudubshinki | contribs]] 06:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:::: [[User:155.45.81.25]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:155.45.81.25&diff=26637977&oldid=26635549 claimed to be the WALRUS]. --[[User:64.229.176.139|64.229.176.139]] 07:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::''My Raul654 is not a walrus. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a walrus, a communist but he is '''not''' a porn star. --[[User:Marudubshinki |maru]] [[User talk:Marudubshinki| (talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Marudubshinki | contribs]] 06:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)'' - Finally, a quote that I recognise! '''Your one true god is [[User:Hunterd|David P. A. Hunter, esq. III]] <sup> [[User talk:Hunterd|Let us to it, Pell-Mell]] </sup> <sub> [[Special:Contributions/Hunterd|If not to heaven, then hand-in-hand to hell]]</sub>''' Hail [[User:Hunterd/OneCone|OneCone International!]] 08:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

== Main Page discussion footer ==

:'' Follow-up on [[Talk:Main Page/Archive 77#Main page footer]].

Brian0918, if you are still trying to set up a {{tl|Main Page discussion footer}} that sinks to the bottom, you may want to talk to [[User:Omicronpersei8|Omicronpersei8]] about his 'Bottomtalkbar'. Happy editing. Good luck. -- [[User:64.229.176.139|64.229.176.139]] 07:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
: Yeah ! It works now ! :-) -- [[User:64.229.224.60|64.229.224.60]] 04:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

:It displays garbage on the screen for those who do not use monobook. Please remove it.-[[User talk:gadfium|gadfium]] 08:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

==Motto of the day==

Hi.

I would like to propose the addition of <nowiki> {{motd}} </nowiki> to the main page, which will show the [[WP:MOTD|Motto of the day]], which has been administered by (unofficially) [[User:Hunterd|myself]], (officially) [[User:Childzy]] and [[User:Geo.plrd]].

What say you (other than for me to reduce the length of my signature...)?

'''Your one true god is [[User:Hunterd|David P. A. Hunter, esq. III]] <sup> [[User talk:Hunterd|Let us to it, Pell-Mell]] </sup> <sub> [[Special:Contributions/Hunterd|If not to heaven, then hand-in-hand to hell]]</sub>''' Hail [[User:Hunterd/OneCone|OneCone International!]] 08:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:I would like to propose the addition of <nowiki> {{motd}} </nowiki> to the main page, which will show the [[WP:MOTD|Match of the day]], a daily football result from around the world. [[User:Pietdesomere|Piet]] 08:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:Sorry, but having a quote of the day was so 1980s. See [[fortune (program)|fortune]].-[[User talk:gadfium|gadfium]] 09:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'll repeat what I said when this was asked at [[Wikipedia talk:Community Portal#Motto|WP:CP#Motto]]. :There is no significant difference between these mottos and [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Humor]]. Please keep it in userspace. --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]]·<small>([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]])</small> 09:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

::Now, now. No need to be abrupt arseholes (this isn't directed at gadfium or Piet). '''Your one true god is [[User:Hunterd|David P. A. Hunter, esq. III]] <sup> [[User talk:Hunterd|Let us to it, Pell-Mell]] </sup> <sub> [[Special:Contributions/Hunterd|If not to heaven, then hand-in-hand to hell]]</sub>''' Hail [[User:Hunterd/OneCone|OneCone International!]] 10:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:::No need for personal attacks. I was being concise; would you prefer I ramble on for many paragraphs about the ambiguity and subjectivity of humour, giving examples of "approved mottos" that I disagree with, and explaining my theory that most of those dont even quality as mottos, but are rather bumperstickers or taglines? Regardless, I'm not so inclined. Simple and straightforward is easier. --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]]·<small>([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]])</small> 11:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

::Speaking of which, Piet: that template won't show football results... '''Your one true god is [[User:Hunterd|David P. A. Hunter, esq. III]] <sup> [[User talk:Hunterd|Let us to it, Pell-Mell]] </sup> <sub> [[Special:Contributions/Hunterd|If not to heaven, then hand-in-hand to hell]]</sub>''' Hail [[User:Hunterd/OneCone|OneCone International!]] 10:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:User space, not front page material. Can you explain how it showcases the best of Wikipedia? and [[User:Hunterd|Hunterd]] please change your signature. --[[User:Midnighttonight|Midnighttonight]] <small><i>[[User talk:Midnighttonight|Remind me to do my uni work rather than procrastinate on the internet]]</i></small> 10:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

::Well, the mottos are debated as to whether or not they are any good... the same is done for Featured Articles, Featured Images, Fatured Lists, etc... Therefore, what mottos are shown are the ''best'' of what '''Wikipedia'''ns can come up with. Oh, and I have changed my signature. I suggest you do the same - it's just as long as my new one (Midnighttonight). [[User:Hunterd|David P. A. Hunter, esq. III]] <sup> [[User talk:Hunterd|Let us to it,]] </sup> <sub> [[Special:Contributions/Hunterd|Pell-Mell]]</sub> 11:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

: Like food, [[humour]] is not appreciated the same way by all people. As such, {{tl|motd}} should stay off the Main Page as long as humour is a key ingredient of it. I'd rather have "Quote of the Day" taken from [[Wikiquote]]. --[[User:64.229.204.28|64.229.204.28]] 13:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

== images on [[:mg:]] ==
:''Moved to [[User talk: Merovingian]]. -- 18:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

== the end of growth in wikipedia ==
[[Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Moved_from_Talk:Main_Page|Moved to discussion page so it gets more attention]]

==The new page header is not an improvement on the last one==
Can we switch it back?--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 00:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
:It works wonders preventing off-topic posts; I only think it should be more compact.--[[User:Cloviz|(clovis)]] 00:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
:Ah, I just noticed the last two entries in this talk page; they are not about the main page. Some people don't bother to read a header, no matter how big or red typed is it. Up [[Talk:Main_Page#Village_Pump_Link|here]] we discussed whether this is the best way to prevent these posts.--[[User:Cloviz|(clovis)]] 01:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

: It seems reasonable to me, except for that little "two people sucking on a jellyfish" icon.--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]][[User:Eloquence/CP|*]] 02:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

:I think it's a big improvement, makes it a lot easier to go to the right place for discussion. The more compact the better, but most of links are very useful. [[User:Pietdesomere|Piet]] 07:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

== ITN update overdue ==

At the funeral of the the late Māori Queen, a new king was selected. Please update ITN accordingly. This suggestion on the candidates' page has been left unattended and ignored. Where are the admins ? -- [[User:64.229.228.203|64.229.228.203]] 05:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
:It would be a good idea to improve the successor [[Tuheitia Paki]]'s page first. [[User:Pietdesomere|Piet]] 07:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

== Enough with eurovision songs in the "Did you know..." ==

Seriously, it seems like there's something in there about some eurovision song more often than not. I never wanted to know about all these songs and their entirely uninteresting quirks that somehow keep getting put up on the main page. --[[User:Someones life|Someones life]] 07:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
:We can take about 3-3.5 DYK updates per day if the admins are efficinet and on the ball - ie 18-20 noms per day. Unless we get 18-20 suggestions which are NPOV, Verifiable, sourced, and long enough, then there is no competition and they get in by default. If you want something more interesting, then please create or dig up something interesting so that the admin can have an embarrassment of riches to choose from. '''[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]]''' <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[User talk:Blnguyen|rant-line]] 07:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
::DYK is going to get more and more pointless and stupid as topics slowly run out.

:Next time, we'd have to make do with [[American Idol]] songs haha. --<b><font color="orange">[[User:Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">Howard</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">the</font>]] [[User talk:Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">Duck</font>]]</font></b> 10:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is getting stale, isn't it time to change the criteria for DYK? I don't think it is necessary to reward for creating new articles when there are over a million articles. I know there are a lot of interesting articles which need to be created, but if it is not the reality that we are getting varied and interesting DYK, then it should be changed. There are so many articles out there that would be of much more worth for the readers of the front page. --[[User:LiquidGhoul|liquidGhoul]] 11:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
:I think there are varied and interesting articles being created, and I don't think we're "running out" (then again I'm [[meta:inclusionism|inclusionist]]). The varied and interesting articles are not getting on DYK because the authors don't know or don't care how to get on there, while a small group of editors with narrow interests do. Maybe we need to get the RA patrol to do more nominating, rather than self-noms. Or somebody needs to run a script that finds all non-stubs created in the last 5 (or less) days.--[[User:Dhartung|Dhartung]] | [[User talk:Dhartung|Talk]] 16:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
::You're not wrong. I have started a tonne of articles, and got the first one on DYK a couple weeks ago. --[[User:LiquidGhoul|liquidGhoul]] 00:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Not enough guys know about DYK, we should have a DYK patrol. '''[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]]''' <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[User talk:Blnguyen|rant-line]] 02:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The criteria for adding something to DYK are too strict. [[user:BhaiSaab|BhaiSaab]] <sup>[[user talk:BhaiSaab|talk]]</sup> 23:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
: Disagree, it needs to be good quality to be on the main page, so you need NPOV, sources, decent length, that's all.'''[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]]''' <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[User talk:Blnguyen|rant-line]] 02:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

== Boxes at the top of this page ==

The lil text boxes do not follow grammar rules very well. Example: "'Did you know...' lists facts from new or newly unstubbed articles to nominate a fact for inclusion see Did you know." Also, "'In the news' items are listed as they are added there is no subjective order." I'd fix it, but I can't reach those boxes in the edit :) [[User:Lovok|Lovok]] 14:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
:Fixed, thanks. [[user:violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 14:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
::OMG! I'm the grammar Nazi and you're correcting ME? I am ashamed, so ashamed. *Does penance* (Thank you) --[[User:Monotonehell|Monotonehell]] 15:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

== Airline Crash ==

Pulkovo Aviation flight 610 has crashed in the Ukraine, I know no article has been created for this yet because it has only been about 5 hours since it happened and details are sketchy still, but is there any way to get this on the ITN section without an article? 170 people dead, 30 bodies found, Anapa - St. Petersburg flight, crashed at 1137 UTC. -- [[User:SmthManly|<font color="black">SmthManly</font>]] / <sup><font color="blue">[[User_talk:SmthManly|ManlyTalk]]</font></sup> / <sup><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/SmthManly|ManlyContribs]]</font></sup> 16:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC) [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5274958.stm BBC source]
:An article exists ([[Pulkovo Airlines Flight 612]]) and is listed on [[Portal:Current events]]. In the future suggest items at [[Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page]]. --[[User:Dhartung|Dhartung]] | [[User talk:Dhartung|Talk]] 16:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
::Oh, I know where to suggest them, I just couldn't find the article in question because I had the flight number wrong and was wondering if it could still be mentioned even without an article. Thanks -- [[User:SmthManly|<font color="black">SmthManly</font>]] / <sup><font color="blue">[[User_talk:SmthManly|ManlyTalk]]</font></sup> / <sup><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/SmthManly|ManlyContribs]]</font></sup> 17:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
:::"In the news" is about how the news has affected Wikipedia articles: it lists articles that have either had major additions or are totally new due to a current event. It is ''not'' about the news itself, and thus cannot list news that doesn't have an article mentioning it. &mdash; [[User:Dark Shikari|<span style="background-color:#DDDDFF; font-weight:bold"><FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Da</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000CC">rk</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#000099">Sh</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000066">ik</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">i</FONT>]] <font color="#000088"><sup>[[User_talk:Dark_Shikari|''talk'']]</sup>'''/'''<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dark_Shikari|''contribs'']]</sub></font></span> 18:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Thanks Dark, that's exactly what I was wondering when I came on here. -- [[User:SmthManly|<font color="black">SmthManly</font>]] / <sup><font color="blue">[[User_talk:SmthManly|ManlyTalk]]</font></sup> / <sup><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/SmthManly|ManlyContribs]]</font></sup> 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Can somebody to make short title more clear to average readers. Too [http://en.for-ua.com/news/2006/08/22/163259.html#comments many people assume] it's Ukranian plane crashed and this misunderstading hurt Ukranian airlines. Can you make it clear that it's Russian airplane crashed '''during transit over Ukranian territory'''. "in Ukraine" is too vague. Thanks in advance. --[[User:TAG.Odessa|TAG]] 21:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
: Try [[WP:ERRORS]]. --[[User:64.229.224.60|64.229.224.60]] 04:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
:: Thanks. Issue was addressed. --[[User:TAG.Odessa|TAG]] 13:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

== Bug ==

Most of Wikipedia displays right for me, but when I go onto the main page, the skin changes and it says I'm logged in as [[User:Rtiru|Rtiru]]! --[[User:Gray Porpoise|Gray Porpoise]] 21:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
:Are you using a public computer or a computer that someone else may have logged onto Wikipedia from? The computer may have cached the Main Page, in which case you should clear the cache (Ctrl-F5 on a PC). —[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]<font color=green>[[User:Cuivienen/Esperanza|é]]</font>[[User talk:Cuivienen|nen]] 21:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
::No, it's my computer. --[[User:Gray Porpoise|Gray Porpoise]] 21:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
:::It's displaying correctly now. --[[User:Gray Porpoise|Gray Porpoise]] 21:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Even if it is your computer, are you sure no-one else has access to your computer? [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 23:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::I'm sure. I'll just wait a few minutes if the problem comes up again. --[[User:Gray Porpoise|Gray Porpoise]] 23:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::This is most likely because your ISP performs some sort of [[proxy cache]], and the user you're seeing had his page in that cache before you did. You may find some help at [[Wikipedia:Advice to AOL users]], who have the same sort of problem. --[[User:Dhartung|Dhartung]] | [[User talk:Dhartung|Talk]] 03:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

== changing the article total to the FA total ==

It's probably been about 200,000 articles since I last paid attention to the NUMBEROFARTICLES ticker. Given [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-08-07/In the news#Wales to upgrade quality of Wiki|recent noises]] about focusing on quality rather than quantity, I would like to float the idea of changing the blurb to "X articles [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|featured]] in [[English]]". This would require the creation of a protected template {{tl|FA number}}, or something similarly named, that would be manually updated. Since the number at [[WP:FA]] is manually updated anyway, this doesn't seem like a large commitment. Thoughts?

Note that as the article number currently links through to [[Special:Statistics]], either the FA number would have to added there, or we just lose the link and let people get to it via [[Wikipedia:About]], already near the top of the page. - [[User talk:BanyanTree|BT]] 23:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

:Very interesting suggestion... [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 23:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

:I think this has been suggested before. However, the number of featured articles does not demonstrate anything except the number of days Wikipedia has been in existance. One might as well say "Wikipedia has existed for X days." One could instead say "1,335,738 articles in English, XXX of which are Good or Featured articles." &mdash; [[User:Dark Shikari|<span style="background-color:#DDDDFF; font-weight:bold"><FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Da</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000CC">rk</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#000099">Sh</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000066">ik</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">i</FONT>]] <font color="#000088"><sup>[[User_talk:Dark_Shikari|''talk'']]</sup>'''/'''<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dark_Shikari|''contribs'']]</sub></font></span> 01:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

::Indeed, this has been suggested before. A major problem is that many Wikipedia visitors won't know what "featured articles" (or "articles featured") are (and won't bother following a link to an explanatory page), so they would misinterpret this as the total quantity of articles in the encyclopedia. For users who ''do'' know what "featured articles" are, there's nothing particularly impressive about the number (though the individual articles themselves are impressive), and it would seem too self-congratulatory for our main page to contain a proclamation that X articles have attained an arbitrary, Wikipedia-defined status.

::I'll also note that there's no reason why a blurb of any kind needs to appear in that space. (There is no gap that must be filled.) This extra line of text significantly detracts from the page's aesthetic appearance, and it was tacked on at the last minute to eliminate the perception that the entire redesign was contingent upon the article count's removal.

::Per Jimbo's comments, [[Talk:Main Page/Archive 77#Article count in the header|a recent discussion]], and a rough consensus achieved during the main page redesign process, I've removed the article count from the header (by default). If/when complaints appear, let's try explaining the reasoning behind this change and advising users that the article count still appears elsewhere on the page (in the ''Wikipedia languages'' section). Alternatively, a logged-in user can restore the article count to the header by adding the following code to his or her personal CSS file ([[Special:Mypage/monobook.css|User:Username/monobook.css]] or the equivalent):

#articlecount {display: block !important}

::&mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 01:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Sounds good to me, and I concur with the "tacked on at the last minute" comment. --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]]·<small>([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]])</small> 01:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Lets leave the "number of whatever" to the [[McDonald's|folks]] who do it best. --[[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 01:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC) '''addendum''': And the script works fine for folks (like me) who ''need'' the stat. --[[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 01:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:::The page looks weird without that number there! :-) I agree with the rationale behind removing the number, though the responses over the next few days could be fun to watch... [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 02:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just being nostalgic, but I liked having the number up there. It is a reminder of our progress. Also, the massive scope of Wikipedia is one our best selling points and the number of articles is indicative of that. Yes, quality is important, but just because people want to focus on quality is no reason to be ashamed of our breadth. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 02:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:Indeed, nostalgia plays a major role. During the main page redesign process, the most common complaint regarding the article count's removal was that its inclusion was a long-standing tradition.
:A great deal has changed, however. Now that we've long since exceeded 1,000,000 articles, the impact of seeing the numbers steadily increase isn't nearly as great as it once was. Wikipedia has established itself as one of the top sites on the Internet. Its large size is widely known, and its numerical growth is indicative of little more than the passage of time.
:The popular media have been focusing on Wikipedia's editorial quality (or lack thereof), and prominently proclaiming that we're up to {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} articles (including an enormous number of stubs and articles tagged for cleanup or deletion) does nothing to alter the perception that we value quantity above all else.
:But of course, the article count remains on the main page for all users to see (in the ''Wikipedia languages'' section, where it's contextually relevant), and it's very easy to restore its display in the header on an optional basis. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 03:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

::In the recent [[Wikimania]] meeting, Jimbo had emphasized that Wikipedia is now focusing on the quality of the articles and not the number. It is true that the number of articles is still an important consideration but to bring this project to the next level, the '''quality''' of the articles is now being taken into serious consideration. But I still feel that it is nice to let non-users know about the number of articles currently here, whenever they visit this website. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]][[User:Siva1979|iva1979]]</font><sup><font style="background:yellow">[[User talk:Siva1979|Talk to me]]</font></sup> 04:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Sure, but should this be the first thing that we tell them about the project? &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 04:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Reading the "recent discussion" that you linked to above, David, it would seem that it was mainly you outlining your reasons for wanting to remove it, and then a few people opposing you and a few supporting. Hardly consensus. To be honest, as I say below, I think it is a shame that the article count is gone, but I do not feel particularly strongly either way; but I am sure there are people who do. Why not open up a new discussion specifically devoted to the question of whether or not to have the article count at the top of the Main Page, and see what (if any) consensus emerges? [[User:Batmanand|Batmanand]] | [[User talk:Batmanand|Talk]] 10:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::You overlooked the other recent community discussion that I cited in the same sentence. We received massive amounts of feedback on this issue during the main page redesign process (which was the largest and most heavily promoted discussion about the main page in the site's history). We ''did'' reach a consensus to remove the article count from the header, but I personally restored it as a temporary measure (to avoid creating the false appearance that it was an absolute requirement of the redesign). The intention always has been to eventually remove this element (by default) from the main page proper, and that's why the redundant instance (intended to serve as its replacement) was left in place (in the ''Wikipedia languages'' section). &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 14:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:I would suggest to put both the FA count and the Good Articles count.--[[User:BMF81|BMF81]] 07:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

::Absolutely not. FA and good articles have little to do with the overall quality of Wikipedia. Such articles just get written on random topics because it suits the psychology of a few editors to jump through a set of hoops to get a badge. The vast majority of quality content is not in these articles, and implying that it is denigrates the rest of Wikipedia. As already mentioned there is another type of vanity involved in that most readers do not know or care about this obscure process, so highlighting these numbers would be editor-centric.[[User:Calsicol|Calsicol]] 15:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

{{seealso|#bad mistake removing article count}}

==HUGE article count discrepancy==
Recently, I raised the issue of the article count lag on the Main Page (this is now archived). Several helpful users replied to me, saying that a lag of up to 100 isn't a big issue. Now, however, the article count is not a LAG, but the exact opposite--the Main Page displays it as 7216 '''more''' than stated at [[Special:Statistics]]. Can somebody please fix this? [[User:202.156.6.54|202.156.6.54]] 08:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:You seem to be viewing an outdated version of [[Special:Statistics]]. Please try [[Wikipedia:Bypass your cache|bypassing your cache]]. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 08:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

==bad mistake removing article count==
{{seealso|#changing the article total to the FA total}}

HI. what ARE YOU DOING? removing the article count? Wikipedia has thousands of new visitors every day and now there is no info straight up to suggest the size of wikipedia. While the number of articles is clearly not as important as the quality it is always good no know how the project is epxanding even daily. I SERIOUSLY suggest they change it back. I know that one of the first things that attracted me to wikipedia was seeing how many articles and the sheer size of it in figures which made me very curious to explore it becoming interetsed in the process. If I thought it looked like a standard encyclopedia I probably wouldn't have bothered looking at it. What can we do to make them return it. I also believe if they do not care about the article count at least start improving articles to feature status James Janderson 08:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:Agreed. [[User:218.212.119.63|218.212.119.63]] 08:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

::The article count remains on the main page. Please see the ''Wikipedia languages'' section. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 08:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:::There is a relevant point here, which is that those who already know Wikipedia is very large don't need the article count to tell them this. It is those who '''don't''' know that Wikipedia is very large who need to be told about the size. Might I suggest that a short paragraph on the size, types of articles, and the quality issues, is placed only a few clicks away from the main page, on the pages that newcomers are likely to go to sooner rather than later. At the moment the "Overview" link doesn't mention it until halfway down the page at [[Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia_statistics]], though the first sentence does say "the largest reference website on the Internet" (don't we need a citation for that?), the actual number only appears later. Another thing could be to place a "Statistics" link somewhere. At least that would provide a one-click link for those wanting to find out the nuts and bolts of the place, but wouldn't actually shout the number from the rooftops. If there is lots of opposition to this removal of the number from the header box (while still leaving it in the languages bit), then this could be a viable compromise. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 09:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

::::If it counts for anything, I think it is a shame that the number of articles is not displayed at the top of the Main Page. [[User:Batmanand|Batmanand]] | [[User talk:Batmanand|Talk]] 10:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::Not being rude (;well possibly being rude;) No it counts for nothing. Please explain '''why''' "it's a shame". There's been valid arguments presented for the 'remove case' and others for the 'keep case'. I'm yet to make a conclusion but I'm being swayed by the quality over quantity arguments above. --[[User:Monotonehell|Monotonehell]] 10:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::''Might I suggest that a short paragraph on the size, types of articles, and the quality issues, is placed only a few clicks away from the main page, on the pages that newcomers are likely to go to sooner rather than later. '' I use wikipedia more than one year, but I haven't been there so far ... and I think most of newbies wouldn't come there because at first place they want to get know about something not about wikipedia. I agree with opinion, that number of articles should stay on front page - it's impressing just to watch this fast increasing number. And after it can tell something about wikipedia's size. I'think that at least 50% of people agree with us, 50% disagree, but is this really so important not to have it on frontpage. It's just one sentence. -- Adam Z. 11:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::This is not the place to give in-depth arguments (above, I suggest beginning a proper discussion of this; that would be a better place), but in short, three reasons. 1. Like it or not, one of the huge selling points of Wikipedia is the breath of coverage it has, and it is important for the first-time visitor to see this. It might attract more people to become Users. 2. Like it or not, one of the best things about Wikipedia is its breath of coverage. Of course quality is important - no-one is denying that - but quantity is not a "dirty word" and for regular Users to see Wikipedia's expansion for themselves, every time they come to the site, is a great confidence- and morale- (and ego-) booster. The idea that having 1.4 million articles is "bad" in some way, that we might want to kind of "hide" it, is plainly ridiculous. We should be proud of it. 3. Like it or not, when media outlets want to write a story on Wikipedia, many will be lazy and their "research" will be to go to the Main Page. Yes, they could scroll down and see the number there, but again many just will not. As I said above, we should be proud of the number of articles we have, and we want it to be reported as widely as possible. Hence, it should be pride of place at the top of the Main Page. Hope that is enough reason to justify my opinion. [[User:Batmanand|Batmanand]] | [[User talk:Batmanand|Talk]] 11:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::As note above, we had a rather lengthy discussion about this. The breadth of our coverage is established far more effectively by displaying our primary portal links and featured content on the main page. It also is established when people following outside links to articles on various topics. And of course, people find their desired content on a wide range of subjects by typing simple and varied terms into the search box.
:::::::No offense, but your suggestion that a "media outlet" would look no further than the top of our main page for background information is patently absurd.
:::::::No one is claiming that we shouldn't be proud of what we've achieved, but the "{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} articles" figure (including a multitude of stubs and articles tagged for cleanup or deletion) should ''not'' be our source of pride. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 14:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that '''the article count should stay at the top'''. Hard as it is to believe, there could still be some people who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia and might just stumble across it somehow (from a link to an article and then clicking the logo to see the "home" page). --[[User:Nricardo|Nelson Ricardo]] 11:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:Of course there are people who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia! That's the most important reason why proclaiming that "we have {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} articles!" at the top of the page (thereby implying that the sheer number&mdash;including stubs and articles tagged for cleanup or deletion&mdash;is what we're proudest of) is counterproductive. If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia (as opposed to an indiscriminate collection of information), we need to impress people with the '''quality''' of our articles, ''not'' the quantity. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 14:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

::Removing the statistics to a clumsy and obscure location will do nothing whatsoever to improve article quality. You seem to be engaging in a misplaced snobbery. Historically EB has made great play on its size. [[User:Calsicol|Calsicol]] 15:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I'm baffled as to how a section of '''the site's main page''' could be deemed "a clumsy and obscure location." This has nothing to do with snobbery and everything to do with displaying this information in-context. Shouting it at the top of the page (for no apparent reason other than to brag) is what comes across as vain. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 16:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Even as a regular, multi-times-a-day user of Wikipedia, I enjoy watching the article count go up. Please, please, put it back! [[User:Sven Erixon|Sven Erixon]] 12:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:While there is nothing wrong with letting new users see the current number of articles, placing that number at the top of the main page says something fundamental about Wikipedia's priorities: quantity of articles is the most important aspect of Wikipedia. During the site's early days creation of new content was very important but now that there are well over a million articles, with a thousand or more new articles created each day, the need to create new articles just to have content has passed. Instead, the development of encyclopedic quality articles needs to become at least as important as the importation of new content. This change in direction from emphasizing quantity to considering quality to be just as important requires an adjustment in the project's culture. Removing the advertisement at the top of the main page that emphasizes quantity over quality is part of the needed cultural change, and as such should be viewed as a necessary evil. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]''&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Allen3|talk]]</sup> 14:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

::[edit conflict]Responding to Batmanand: 1) I didn't realize that we were trying to "sell itself"; I thought we were trying to make a better encyclopedia. And why is it "important"? I imagine that a casual user would be most interested in if a particular topic is covered, not that he/she could get to 50,000 other articles in two clicks. 2) I am a regular user and my ego is not boosted. An increase from 400K to 500K is amazing; 1.2 million to 1.3 million, not so much. It's not so much "bad", as you phrase it, as not particularly interesting. 3) Ummm... you want to cater to "media outlets" that won't click on the invitingly bold [[Wikipedia]]?

::The ticker was added back when Wikipedia was encouraging editors to churn out articles and reach a level of parity in coverage with Brittanica, etc. (See [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/HomePage the Main Page in December 2001].) Then we spent a while being pleased we had more articles than Brittanica. Now it's just unsporting to compare number of articles. If the best argument that can be made for the ticker is that it has always been there and it gives some users warm fuzzies to see a number that is so large that it hardly bears comparison, that's a pretty weak argument.
::Going back to the post that kicked this discussion off, the number of FAs is not impressive, which is the reason to use it, if anything. When Wikipedia was bending its efforts to cover major topics, it openly acknowledged that it needed more articles. The ticker at that point was clearly a "editing help requested" notice rather than a "we rule!" proclamation. If insufficient breadth is no longer a concern and attention is now on improving the quality and sourcing of articles, it would be entirely within the norms of the project to put up a number based on quality. The two current quality rating systems, obviously designated subjectively [[Wikipedia talk:What is an article?#Moved from Talk:Main Page|as is "article"]], are [[WP:FA]] and [[WP:GA]]. If the number of GAs was much larger than of FAs, an argument could be made for using the bigger number. It is not and a featured article ticker is the likelier candidate. I am not particularly attached to this idea and am fine with the ticker being removed from the top altogether. However, there is an argument to be made for a switch rather than a removal. - [[User talk:BanyanTree|BT]] 14:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:::A key difference between the article count and the "featured article"/"good article" counts is that the former is an objective (albeit relatively irrelevant) statistic. The latter are based upon arbitrary criteria and subjective applications thereof. Therefore, displaying such a statistic would make it appear as though Wikipedia is patting itself on the back by awarding a self-invented honor to X number of articles and announcing this on its main page as a means of promotion.
:::Our current system of highlighting specific featured content on the main page is a much better means of conveying our true objectives, and it doesn't detract from our other good (if not "good") content in the manner that shouting the quantity of featured articles would. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 14:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Yes it does. I disapprove of the whole FA process, which doesn't focus effort on doing things are a most important for readers. It is a vanity-driven editor-centric process and should not be given one jot of extra prominence. [[User:Calsicol|Calsicol]] 15:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:If you don't wish to scroll down to the ''Wikipedia languages'' section, you can restore the article count to the header by following the instructions provided [[Talk:Main Page#changing the article total to the FA total|above]]. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 14:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

::That's an utter and useless irrelevance as only a miniscule number of users will ever discover it. [[User:Calsicol|Calsicol]] 15:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Are you suggesting that "only a miniscule number of users" will ever read past the main page header unless we shout "{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} articles" at them? &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 16:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Please put it back''' Being able to see Wikipedia growing is highly motivational. The current location of the item is absurd as that section is for Wikipedia's in other languages. [[User:Calsicol|Calsicol]] 15:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:I suggest giving this some time, see if you get used to the main page without the article count at the top. It was strange at first, last night to see it without the article count. But, now I'm used to it and okay with not having it up there. I too would like more emphasis placed on quality than quantity. I don't think anything is needed, but might be open to the idea of putting the featured article count there. Perhaps, we can bring article count back for milestones. And, maybe we can stick in in the [[Wikipedia:Community Portal|Community Portal]], instead of at the top of the main page. --[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] <small>([[User:AudeVivere|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/AudeVivere|contribs]])</small> 15:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

::if anything, giving the FA count is even more arbitrary than giving the article count, seeing how FA standards fluctuate over time and across projects. If you want some informative measure of WP's size (not quality), give its ''word'' count (as I've been pointing out for many months...) Fwiiw, I agree that moving the "Started in 2001, it currently contains 1,336,926 articles." bit down to the "languages" section is an extremely bad idea. <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛎ''')]]</small> [[User:Dbachmann|qɐp]] 15:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Why is it a bad idea to provide this information in the context of Wikipedias and their sizes? FYI, this change was approved (via consensus) and implemented five months ago. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 16:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:1. Editors should be motivated by something other than seeing that we just added a few hundred more stubs to the pile.
:2. In preparation for this event, the section's name was changed from ''Wikipedia in other languages'' to ''Wikipedia languages'' five months ago. That's more than enough time to introduce the new format. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 16:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

::I am not going to wade into this discussion any further - my views are expressed above, and to be honest they are not particularly strongly held anyway - except to say that there seems to be enough controversy regarding this subject to warrant a separate discussion/consensus-gathering exercise/<s>poll</s> (voting is evil). Yes, it was done five months ago with regards to the Main Page redesign, but maybe it needs revisiting. Oh, and one more thing: David, you have done an amazing job with the Main Page, and your replies on this page regarding what could be seen as attacks on your "pet project" have all been civil and well argued. Let this kind of [[WP:AFG]]ing continue from all users in all disputes. [[User:Batmanand|Batmanand]] | [[User talk:Batmanand|Talk]] 16:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Thanks very much for your kind words. I welcome discussion, and I don't perceive criticisms made in good faith as attacks. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 18:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

::what I meant by "fwiiw" is that in ''my opinion'' it was a bad idea. I'm not going to bite you if you disagree with me on this. I also emphatically repeat that I think the proper information that belongs at the top of the page is the '''word count'''. I've settled for the (admittedly irrelevant) 'article' count as second best, but if this is a chance of mentioning WP's size in terms of ''words'' (pages, shelf-space), I'll gladly take it. <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛎ''')]]</small> [[User:Dbachmann|qɐp]] 19:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Word count! Thats almost hilarious enough for me to support! ;) (please, oh please, tell me we actually have that as a statistic somewhere...?) --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]]·<small>([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]])</small> 19:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:::: *twitch* [http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesDatabaseWords.htm 511 million words]. alrighty then. --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]]·<small>([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]])</small> 19:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::That works out to an average of well under 400 words per article. Wow, think about how many stubs we must have for the figure to be that low. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 19:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::You say that as if stubs are a bad thing. --[[User:Dhartung|Dhartung]] | [[User talk:Dhartung|Talk]] 00:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Stubs aren't inherently bad, but full-length articles are better. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 00:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::my entire point is that "511 megawords" gives you an idea of size, while "1.4 megaarticles" doesn't, unless you also state that your average article has some 400 words. <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛎ''')]]</small> [[User:Dbachmann|qɐp]] 12:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if stating this will make much difference, but moving the article count down was absolutely the right thing to do. I fully agree with Jimbo and have felt for quite some time that we no longer need to focus on number, but on quality. Moving the count isn't a big deal, but it's a start in the right direction to put editing focus where it should be. I have as much fun as anyone watching the count go up, but that doesn't mean it needs to be on the main page. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 03:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

{{seealso|#Articles count}}

== the $13,400 of the Fields Medal ==

In the news should say,"Grigory Perelman refrained from accepting the $13,400 of the Fields Medal."

The mathematician has spent a lifetime on his work and now they want to give him a risible amount of money. It would cost him a few thousand dollars for airplane tickets, hotel expenses, and taxi fares in Spain. It is an insult. Take a look how much Nobel Peace laureates get (a meaningless award with lots of money).

Also, Perelman didn't say he wouldn't accept part of the $1,000,000 of the Clay prize if it were awarded to him.

Please add the $13,400 to the In the news.--[[User:Patchouli|Patchouli]] 12:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

: First, details should be left in the article. Moreover, [[Grigori Perelman]] has apparently also quit his job and disappeared. It's not just about the money. --[[User:64.229.227.18|64.229.227.18]] 12:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
: BTW, invited speakers at big conferences, like that one in Madrid, often get reimbursed for their travelling expenses. --[[User:64.229.227.18|64.229.227.18]] 12:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:: The announcement regarding the Fields Medal is ITN-worthy. Perelman's eccentricity is not. Patchouli, don't forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. -- [[User:64.229.4.34|64.229.4.34]] 15:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

== Feature with spoken link ==

I noticed that today's feature article [[Watchmen]], has a link to a spoken version. The project pages for Spoken Wikipedia mention that Daily feature articles with spoken versions will cause the link to the spoken version to appear on the front page. Where is said link? [[User:CBDroege|CB Droege]] 18:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
: Should've asked for this at [[WP:ERRORS]] yesterday. --[[User:64.229.206.90|64.229.206.90]] 12:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
::Sorry, I wasn't sure if it was an error with the FP, or one with the Spoken Wikipedia project page [[User:CBDroege|CB Droege]] 18:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

== Articles count ==
{{seealso|#changing the article total to the FA total}}
{{seealso|#bad mistake removing article count}}
Probably the question has been asked but where is the articles count? :) --[[User:Brandmeister|Brand]] [[User talk:Brandmeister|'''<font color="Black">спойт</font>''']] 18:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=71286107&oldid=70803499 Gone]. See the discussion a bit further up the page for details. [[User:Icey|Icey]] 18:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

::No, it isn't gone. It's right there in the ''Wikipedia languages'' section. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 19:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:::To be fair, the user asking where it had gone obviously didn't scroll down and see it further down. Which makes me wonder how many people do ever read that far down... [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 22:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

David Levy. Why do you think that removing the article count will suddenly improve the quality of articles? Rubbish. People wil still continue to add new articles and removing relevant information is not going to make people suddenly propel into action to improve existing articles. Remember that the quality articles that exist today were made by new stubs. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:81.102.25.233|81.102.25.233]] ([[User talk:81.102.25.233|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/81.102.25.233|contribs]]) 20:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC).</small>

:Sure, people will keep adding articles. But, Wikipedia is at a point now where we should shift focus towards quality over quantity. [http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,126659-c,webutilities/article.html] It's appropriate that the main page reflect this, symbolically. --[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] <small>([[User talk:AudeVivere|talk]] [[User:AudeVivere/Contributions|contribs]])</small> 20:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:I ''don't'' think that removing the article count will suddenly improve the quality of articles. I think that it will improve the general public's understanding of our project and its goals. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 21:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not change it to Wikipedia is currently '''working''' on 1,338,000 articles in English. This fully reflects our goals whilst providing helpful info.
: According to Jimbo, our goal is no longer to work on that many articles, but to work on the quality of articles. -- [[User:64.229.206.90|64.229.206.90]] 12:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

== An anachronism ==

That military fellow in the photo next to the notice of the William Wallace anniversary doesn't look much like Braveheart. I don't know who he's supposed to be, but the placement makes it look like a bleedin' anachronism. -- [[User:Christofurio|Christofurio]] 20:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
:LOL. Fixed. ~~ '''[[User:Nickptar|N]]''' ([[User talk:Nickptar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Nickptar|c]]) 23:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
: [[User:Christofurio|Christofurio]], if you don't know who that's supposed to be, try looking for the words ''"(pictured)"'' in the text. Or move your cursor to the image to get the ALT text on screen. Or click on the image. Whether the picture is next to just the first anniversary, or first two anniversaries, or all five anniversaries depends on the size of one's screen and the chosen font size. -- [[User:199.71.174.100|199.71.174.100]] 02:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
::Given that the first person in the list and the picture are both military leaders, some confusion is very likely at first glance. ~~ '''[[User:Nickptar|N]]''' ([[User talk:Nickptar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Nickptar|c]]) 11:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
::: Considering the wardrobe of Antonescu in the picture ? It should be obvious he was not the guy in the 1305 event. -- [[User:64.229.206.90|64.229.206.90]] 12:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

== Wikipedia languages ==

I noticed how small the foreign language versions of wikipedia are compared to the english version. I was wondering whether there are any automated translation programs that could create pages for the foreign language versions of wikipedia and translate the content from the english pages into them. Even if the translation was a mess, it would provide a lot to work with. Plus editing grammer is much simpler and quicker than generating new content.

-anon
:That's one perspective. At [[Wikipedia:Translation into English]] it's recommended that one should never use machine translation to create an article. That said, the languages for which the best machine translation is available (e.g. French, German) are Wikipedias that are fairly successful on their own and there's no need to discourage editors there by "helping" more than is needed. Many of those editors have a working knowledge of English anyway and certainly many use the English Wikipedia as a resource. Anyway, have a look at the [[Wikipedia:Embassy]] project. --[[User:Dhartung|Dhartung]] | [[User talk:Dhartung|Talk]] 04:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

:Most translators will tell you fully automated [[machine translation]] takes more work to fix the errors in than just translating directly. What professional translators do use is machine aided translation and translation memories to help speed up the process. But as machine translation improves perhaps we will get to the point where just a bit of final editing will be needed to produce a good translation. We're not there yet. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 17:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

== Underlined links ==
Who put the underlines on the links? Is this some sort of a change? --[[User:Alexie|Alexie]] 23:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:That's a glitch that sometimes manifests. Please try [[Wikipedia:Bypass your cache|bypassing your cache]]. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 23:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

::<strike>Nope, doesn't work.</strike> Well, would you look at that. Opening it in a different window worked. I'm using Firefox with this, and I was using Internet Explorer when the underline glitch appeared. --[[User:Alexie|Alexie]] 23:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Given the frequency of this problem, should it be included in the header or the FAQ? --[[User:Midnighttonight|Midnighttonight]] <small><i>[[User talk:Midnighttonight|Remind me to do my uni work rather than procrastinate on the internet]]</i></small> 00:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
* I hummed and harred over including that in the header. An early draft had it in but we are limited for space, so I had to leave out quite a few of the less often reported annoyances. --[[User:Monotonehell|Monotonehell]] 06:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


:It happens to me infrequently but regularly, usually just for a couple of hours, and I'm using IE. It doesn't bother me so I haven't changed my preferences or anything, but I think it's still curious ''why'' it happens. BTW it's not happening to me ''now'', I don't know if it's still happening to the previous poste. Usually my experiences of it are consistent with other users, even with other browsers. --[[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 00:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

::FYI, this also occurs in reverse. (I have underlined links enabled, and my links' underlines sometimes disappear.) Bypassing the cache always works for me. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 00:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

== An important suggestion ==

I suggest making the database of wikipedia (3.7 GB) downloadable so that it can be downloaded and burned into CDs and then distributed to people who don't have a fast internet connection.Just imagine having the biggest encyclopedia in the world on your computer. By the way, I don't mean downloading just a small part of wikipedia, but I mean the whole encyclopedia.

meno25

:Everything is downloadable at http://download.wikimedia.org in the form of an SQL dump, but that's not a usable format for most people. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 01:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

:It would help with photos and other multimedia, but the vast majority of Wikipedia is text. The advantage of having access to the ''latest'' version seems greater than having ''immediate'' access to an obsolete version. Regardless, [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_on_CD/DVD someday a CD version will be available], probably as an offshoot of the Wikipedia 1.0 project -- a stable collection of core topics and important articles. Also, take a look at the [http://www.soschildrensvillages.org.uk/charity-news/education-cd.htm SOS Children CD version of Wikipedia]. --[[User:Dhartung|Dhartung]] | [[User talk:Dhartung|Talk]] 04:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Why would anyone want Wikipedia on their computer? Most of its articles are produced by non-specialists and tend to be poorly researched. In an ideal world, Wikipedia would be closed down immediately and global education saved from dumbing down even further. Save up some money and buy yourself a proper encyclopedia! <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:193.62.51.220|193.62.51.220]] ([[User talk:193.62.51.220|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/193.62.51.220|contribs]]) 13:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC).</small>
: [[User:193.62.51.220]], Wikipedia will be less bad if there is less vandalism from your IP, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encapsulation&diff=prev&oldid=58760661], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_management&diff=prev&oldid=52287743], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freeserve&diff=prev&oldid=71140776] ... -- [[User:64.229.206.90|64.229.206.90]] 13:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

== Awesome featured articles lately. ==

Compliments to whoever chooses them. Illmatic? Watchmen? Icons of a more intelligent, underground popular culture and great articles at that.
:Rather compliment to whoever creates them; they are chosen for their quality, not their content.--[[User:Cloviz|(clovis)]] 12:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

== RE: In the News: Fields Medal ==

In the line "Perelman has apparently declined the award." the word "apparently" seems inaccurate, implying that whether he has declined the award is in dispute, a claim that the sources do not back. "Perelman has declined the award." would be more accurate.

: I agree. It's now a statement of fact that he has declined it [[User:Ade1982|Ade1982]] 09:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

:Fixed. ~~ '''[[User:Nickptar|N]]''' ([[User talk:Nickptar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Nickptar|c]]) 11:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

: Should've used [[WP:ERRORS]]. Please see instructions at the top of this talkpage. --[[User:64.229.206.90|64.229.206.90]] 13:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

== What a slap in the face! ==

Mercury is featured and called the smallest planet on the same day that poor Pluto is demoted. Poor, poor Pluto. --[[User:Nricardo|Nelson Ricardo]] 00:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
:And in ''on this day'', it says Voyager 2 passed Neptune. ''the last planet in the solar system''', sorta. [[User:Hyenaste|Hyenaste]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User_talk:Hyenaste|(tell)]]</sup> 00:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
::Not to mention the oncoming suicide of Pluto in the news.--[[User:Cloviz|(clovis)]] 00:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Ah yes, poor, poor pluto. What about poor Mercury! The true smallest planet has been stripped of its title for 76 years by some poser "dwarf planet" trying to pass itself off as one of the cool guys. I think it's due time for Mercury to be credited for its achievement as the TRUE SMALLEST PLANET! -- [[User:SmthManly|<font color="black">SmthManly</font>]] / <sup><font color="blue">[[User_talk:SmthManly|ManlyTalk]]</font></sup> / <sup><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/SmthManly|ManlyContribs]]</font></sup> 00:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Actually, now that I've read the "smallest planet in our solar system" bit, it does seem pretty damn mean. Who decides what articles go which days again? --[[User:Kinst|Kinst]] 00:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::To be fair about that, this article was schedule about two weeks ago, long before this ever came up. It's placement is purely coincidence. -- [[User:SmthManly|<font color="black">SmthManly</font>]] / <sup><font color="blue">[[User_talk:SmthManly|ManlyTalk]]</font></sup> / <sup><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/SmthManly|ManlyContribs]]</font></sup> 00:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::I see. Poor Pluto though... --[[User:Kinst|Kinst]] 01:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::[[Image:Headstone.train.arp.jpg|77px]] Here lies, Pluto. <font face="Lucida Grande">[[User:Pacific Coast Highway|Pacific Coast Highway]] <sup>{[[User talk:Pacific Coast Highway|blah]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pacific Coast Highway|Snakes on a Plane]]}</sup> 01:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)</font>

Just for the record - the mercury article was updated within hours of hte IAU's decision - this is somethign we should be slapping ourselves on the back for -- I wonder how long it'll take [[Encyclopedia Britannica|that other reference]] to update. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 01:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9110154 Not long it would appear. [[User:Jmount|Rafy]] 02:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Weird, my print edition still shows Pluto as the 9th planet. And the U.S. only has 48 states. &mdash; <small>[[User:Brian0918|<b><font color=black>BRIAN</font></b>]][[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color=gray>0918</font>]] &bull; 2006-08-25 03:10</small>
::Nope - "[Mercury] is the second-smallest major planet (after Pluto), having a diameter of about 3,030 mi (4,880 km) and a mass about one-eighteenth of Earth's." [http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9371890] Clearly they are an unreliable source. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 02:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

:::See, this should be included in the Signpost or better placed as it is -1 for Britannica on that one. People need to know that we are faster and more reliable. [[User:Lincher|Lincher]] 03:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
::: http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9371890 is still not updated two days after the IAU vote. Maybe someone should report this to [[EB:ERRORS]]. -- [[User:199.71.174.100|199.71.174.100]] 19:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

==Planet bias==
What is with the blatant pro-astronomy bias?! 3 of the 4 sections of the main page reference planets of the solar system. &mdash; <small>[[User:Brian0918|<b><font color=black>BRIAN</font></b>]][[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color=gray>0918</font>]] &bull; 2006-08-25 00:03</small>
:Agreed. From now on, no more articles about anything in the universe. --[[User:Nricardo|Nelson Ricardo]] 00:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
::We can still have articles about fictional stuff, since those are in our heads, not the universe. And [[free lunch]] can stay, since there's no such thing as an it. &mdash; <small>[[User:Brian0918|<b><font color=black>BRIAN</font></b>]][[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color=gray>0918</font>]] &bull; 2006-08-25 00:06</small>
:::Um, where is your head? --[[User:Nricardo|Nelson Ricardo]] 00:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
::::In the pile of purposely-dumb jokes you didn't get. :) &mdash; <small>[[User:Brian0918|<b><font color=black>BRIAN</font></b>]][[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color=gray>0918</font>]] &bull; 2006-08-25 00:09</small>
:::::The answer is obvious - the [[Greys]] have taken control of the Foundation and are using the main page as a propaganda forum. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 00:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::Is today Wikipedia Astronomy Day, or what? The astronomers have taken over this place! :o) [[User:Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh|Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh]] 00:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::You'd think they'd get [[Zeta Reticuli]] to featured status then... or maybe, they're trying to warn us about something!!! Perhaps Pluto, angry and depressed from its demotion today, is planning on flinging itself past Neptune (as Voyager 2 has done), and kill Mercury! HEAD FOR THE HILLS... oh wait, that's not going to help, is it? -- [[User:SmthManly|<font color="black">SmthManly</font>]] / <sup><font color="blue">[[User_talk:SmthManly|ManlyTalk]]</font></sup> / <sup><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/SmthManly|ManlyContribs]]</font></sup> 00:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::::I'm hoping to see at least 4 Pokemon articles on the front page tomorrow, to redress the balance. [[User:Agentsoo|Soo]] 20:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

== vi.wiki ==

Reached 10,000 milestone. Add it to Main Page. --[[User:Haham hanuka|Haham hanuka]] 09:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
:Done. Congratulations! -- [[User:SmthManly|<font color="black">SmthManly</font>]] / <sup><font color="blue">[[User_talk:SmthManly|ManlyTalk]]</font></sup> / <sup><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/SmthManly|ManlyContribs]]</font></sup> 13:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

: I've alerted [[wikipedia:signpost|signpost]]. -- [[User:Zanimum|Zanimum]] 17:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

==Wikipedia hacked??==
Someone has managed to hijack http://en.wikipedia.org and http://www.wikipedia.org to a for-profit search site of some sort. I was able to get to this page by linking in from the netherlands one. I was unclear how to get this information to someone who can do something about it. [[User:155.91.28.231|155.91.28.231]] 21:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
:Well it's working now. Maybe you mistyped it? [[User:Hyenaste|Hyenaste]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User_talk:Hyenaste|(tell)]]</sup> 21:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
::It's definitely working now. [[User:Sandwich Eater|Sandwich Eater]] 22:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

:::There are various mispelled sites like http://www.wikpedia.org/ (without the second letter i) and http://www.wikipdia.org/ (without the e) out there. I don't know what this is called though, but there's an article about this on Wikipedia somewhere. --[[User:HappyCamper|HappyCamper]] 01:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
::::[[Typosquatting]]. [[User:Evil Monkey|Evil Monkey]] - [[User talk:Evil Monkey|Hello]] 02:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

== Article Count <s>VOTE</s> DISCUSSION ==

This really should go back there. Without a newcomer will simply browse away, thinking Wikipedia is some incomprehensible web hosting service. That number catches the imagination of anyone who sees it.

The quality of the articles is more important but that is something people can find out for themselves. The article count is not.

THAT NUMBER SUMS UP WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS TO THE UNINITIATED!! I say put it back. We can vote here. --[[User:Juicifer|Juicifer]] 00:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
*In other words, Wikipedia is about quantity, not quality. &mdash; <small>[[User:Brian0918|<b><font color=black>BRIAN</font></b>]][[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color=gray>0918</font>]] &bull; 2006-08-25 01:07</small>

===<s>Put it back:</s>===
[[User:Juicifer|Juicifer]] 00:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

===<s>Keep it where it is:</s>===
*[[User:SmthManly|<font color="black">SmthManly</font>]] / <sup><font color="blue">[[User_talk:SmthManly|ManlyTalk]]</font></sup> / <sup><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/SmthManly|ManlyContribs]]</font></sup> 00:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

===Comments===
The article count is still there, it's just at the bottom over by the languages section. -- [[User:SmthManly|<font color="black">SmthManly</font>]] / <sup><font color="blue">[[User_talk:SmthManly|ManlyTalk]]</font></sup> / <sup><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/SmthManly|ManlyContribs]]</font></sup> 00:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

:Wow, I was about to say the same and even add the "Comments" title!--[[User:Cloviz|cloviz]] 00:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

::Yes I know, but it has been hidden away there for silly dogmatic reasons. It is the kind of thing that scientologists would do - do bizarre symbolic in response to the words of the great leader in the hope of pleasing him. '''Obviously the vote is to put it back where it used to be''' so it gets seen by people and not at the bottom of 2000 words of discordant text. [[User:Juicifer|juicifer]] 00:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Alright then, you didn't specify that so I thought you just didn't know it had been placed at the bottom. -- [[User:SmthManly|<font color="black">SmthManly</font>]] / <sup><font color="blue">[[User_talk:SmthManly|ManlyTalk]]</font></sup> / <sup><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/SmthManly|ManlyContribs]]</font></sup> 00:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

:::FYI, this change wasn't made to please Jimbo. His recent comments are indicative of a sentiment that's been brewing within the community (which led to a rough consensus on the issue earlier in the year, the implementation of which was partially postponed). &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 04:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, [[WP:WWIN|Wikipedia is not a democracy]], and especially not in this case. Simply put, you can't just throw up a vote on a talk page (especially without first attempting discussion) and expect it to be binding based on the votes of random users (which is what you'll get on '''this''' talk page). The most you can do is propose a [[Wikipedia:Straw poll|straw poll]] (after first attempting discussion toward consensus) to see where random users stand on the issue, but of course that is non-binding. See [[Wikipedia:Consensus]]. &mdash; <small>[[User:Brian0918|<b><font color=black>BRIAN</font></b>]][[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color=gray>0918</font>]] &bull; 2006-08-25 01:01</small>

:I thought this was a straw poll. -- [[User:SmthManly|<font color="black">SmthManly</font>]] / <sup><font color="blue">[[User_talk:SmthManly|ManlyTalk]]</font></sup> / <sup><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/SmthManly|ManlyContribs]]</font></sup> 01:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

::It's intended to be a straw poll, but not in the standard way.--[[User:Cloviz|cloviz]] 01:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

:::How do you know the intent of the person who posted the "vote"? &mdash; <small>[[User:Brian0918|<b><font color=black>BRIAN</font></b>]][[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color=gray>0918</font>]] &bull; 2006-08-25 01:26</small>

::::He didn't suggest that the results would lead to a decision.--[[User:Cloviz|cloviz]] 01:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::He used the word "vote". Nowhere did he call this a "straw poll". I'm supposed to assume that he believed it to be non-binding, despite the strong wording to the contrary? Riiight... &mdash; <small>[[User:Brian0918|<b><font color=black>BRIAN</font></b>]][[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color=gray>0918</font>]] &bull; 2006-08-25 02:12</small>

::::::Well, "straw poll" is not the first word to come to mind, hehe.--[[User:Cloviz|cloviz]] 02:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

A quick research through Wikipedia in other languages reveals that the quantity of articles is a matter of importance (and pride) for most people. In fact this seems to be the only language without article count on the top. About other encyclopedias, you only read the number of articles in advertisement; Wikipedia is for free. Right, I don't really have an opinion about this.--[[User:Cloviz|cloviz]] 01:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

:How many of the other Wikipedias have exceeded 1.3 million articles? Seeing the quantity reach 10,000, 100,000 and 1,000,000 (and various other milestones along the way) served as sources of motivation to contribute new articles (which was the intended purpose). Beyond that point, it became little more than a means of bragging about how many articles we have (which really shouldn't be our focus at this juncture). I sincerely hope that the other Wikipedias will act in kind when the time comes. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 04:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This is silly. Is there serious concern that people will start adding crap to Wikipedia because of some perceived obsession with quanitity? We obviously can't communicate the QUALITY of articles in any meaningful form on the main page; it's not like we're choosing one over another. It wasn't in enormous font or anything either: just a note at the top, and as good an indication as we can concisely give of how far we've come. Plus, it's fun. And really, who ever scrolls way down there to its current location? Unless you're going to another language wiki, there's no reason to scroll past the featured picture. -[[User:Elmer Clark|Elmer Clark]] 01:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

:We can list the number of featured articles and [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good articles]] on the main page. The closer those numbers get to the total number of articles, the higher the quality of Wikipedia should be. I'm not suggesting we do this, but it is possible to tell readers something about our quality. &mdash; <small>[[User:Brian0918|<b><font color=black>BRIAN</font></b>]][[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color=gray>0918</font>]] &bull; 2006-08-25 02:09</small>

::I think that's a fine idea; since our encyclopedia is edited by anyone, a mere number of articles says nothing about it. Instead, comparing that number to the number of articles considered good by convention, gives an idea of the quantity-quality relation. Wait, that'd end up in a shameful position for Wikipedia. The problem is that [[wikipedia:good articles|good articles]] are not the only useful ones, they are just oustandingly good ones.--[[User:Cloviz|cloviz]] 02:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I don't think it's really "shameful". Anyone can create a new article, but there are only a small number of people evaluating Good/Featured articles, so that number will be much smaller. The sooner we deemphasize quantity and emphasize quality, the sooner those numbers will approach the total number of articles. &mdash; <small>[[User:Brian0918|<b><font color=black>BRIAN</font></b>]][[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color=gray>0918</font>]] &bull; 2006-08-25 02:22</small>

::::Good articles are almost invariably long ones, even when a short one can be perfectly useful for some topics. In this we are underscoring quantity too. If someone looks at the article count and sees an overwhelming difference between the number of good articles and the total, he might think that Wikipedia is full of trash; while some matters are perfectly well with their short, single sourced articles. What about listing the articles without any "bad" tag?--[[User:Cloviz|cloviz]] 02:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Chill out, it doesn't matter to the vast bulk of people {{unsigned|210.86.80.89}}

*I'm glad there is someone who can speak for the vast bulk of people. &mdash; <small>[[User:Brian0918|<b><font color=black>BRIAN</font></b>]][[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color=gray>0918</font>]] &bull; 2006-08-25 03:17</small>
**As an unconcerned wikipedian, normally I wouldn't speak up, but he represents me pretty well. 210.86.80.89 for president! --[[User:Kinst|Kinst]] 05:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comment''': Given the far greater likelihood of hearing from the people who condemn the change than from the people who condone it or are neutral/apathetic (and therefore have no reason to complain), I'm pleasantly surprised by the mild, balanced response. I had expected a major uproar, but it seems as though most users aren't terribly upset. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 04:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

=== Poll: Keep the article count? ===

Who crossed out the vote that I started up there? Why? What shocking arrogance - don't cross out . Shame on whoever did that. Wikipedia may not be a democracy but peoples opinions carry weight - don't patronize the people who contribute here. I strongly feel that the number of articles prominently visible is an important element on the main page for the reasons I outlined above. All the other languages have it. I'll start the poll again: [[User:Juicifer|juicifer]] 08:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
*You tried to propose a vote that had every appearance of wanting to be binding. People do that all the time, and their votes are regularly and summarily closed by admins or anyone else who understands how Wikipedia works. [[WP:WWIN|Wikipedia is not a democracy]]. &mdash; <small>[[User:Brian0918|<b><font color=black>BRIAN</font></b>]][[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color=gray>0918</font>]] &bull; 2006-08-25 14:17</small>

===Comment===
Comment here please.

===Keep the header where it was===
*Yes '''Keep''' the counter for all the reasons set out above. The whole idea of hiding it seems to be some drive by people trying to please the great leader. He proclaimed that the focus is not quality not quantity, so people start thinking up tokenistic (and counterproductive) offerings to try to impress him. Maybe they want internships at the wikimedia foundation, or maybe they just think that Jimbo is really really hot. [[User:Juicifer|juicifer]] 08:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
:*I won't participate in your "vote," but I will point out that you either didn't bother to read the above discussion or you deliberately disregarded the responses contained therein. Again, this change was planned (and partially implemented) in March. Jimbo's comments at Wikimania reflected and drew attention to a pre-existing sentiment from within the community. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 13:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
:*Thank you for the fallacious argument. You are essentially ignoring all the previous arguments and recharacterizing those involved as being slaves to Jimbo's will. It has very little to do with what Jimbo says--people have been discussing these changes for years, especially recently, and it seems like common sense that when everyone in the media attacks you for focusing on quantity and lacking quality or reliability, you should try to reduce the importance of quantity and focus on quality/reliabilty. &mdash; <small>[[User:Brian0918|<b><font color=black>BRIAN</font></b>]][[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color=gray>0918</font>]] &bull; 2006-08-25 14:25</small>

===Move it to the bottom of the page===
* '''Endorse''' move to bottom or change to show other statistic (like featured content, words, words per article ... they are all more representative than that silly 1.4 million article we show). 60% of the articles offered on WP are stubs, readers are deceived or overwhelmed when they see such a big number, they think everything is done but when they get to the material they see that it's all pêle-mêle. '''(Also ... don't vote for everything)'''. [[User:Lincher|Lincher]] 10:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

===Polls are evil===
*[[:m:Voting is evil|Polls are evil]], especially on [[Talk:Main Page]], where you are receiving the opinions of mostly random users. You cannot simply disregard recent discussions and throw up a vote in the hopes of getting a random distribution that leans in your favor. This poll, especially because it is on '''this page''', is non-binding and essentially worthless. &mdash; <small>[[User:Brian0918|<b><font color=black>BRIAN</font></b>]][[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color=gray>0918</font>]] &bull; 2006-08-25 14:17</small>
**I think I know what you are trying to say, but part of what you actually say is a bit odd. Random sampling is in fact the goal of most pollsters in order to ensure an unbiased result. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 14:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
***We are talking about polling on Wikipedia, not political polling of the general public--that kind of polling is fine when you don't care about getting informed opinions, but that is not how Wikipedia works. [[WP:WWIN|Wikipedia is not a democracy]]. People who don't know what is going on and are not involved in any discussion have little say in making changes around here. That is part of why polling is evil--it puts everyone on a level playing field, regardless of how much they are ''in the know''. However, some non-binding polling is occasionally allowable, but should be restricted to those who have a full understanding of Wikipedia's past/present/future, and all the arguments of both sides. &mdash; <small>[[User:Brian0918|<b><font color=black>BRIAN</font></b>]][[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color=gray>0918</font>]] &bull; 2006-08-25 14:30</small>

*So people really discussed for two years about displaying a number or not? Where is that discussion? Don't you see some people still have to say! Juicifer was a bit aggressive in pushing his idea, but let's not treat him as a criminal; remember [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|this]] policy. About quantity and quality, I want to stress that the FA and the picture of the day are clear proves of our preference for quality; they overwhelm in size the reference to quantity, which would be just a number.--[[User:Cloviz|cloviz]] 17:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
**No, people discussed for years whether we should focus on quantity or quality. Every time we get close to or pass another milestone, this debate is heightened, and since Seigenthaler, it has become a serious issue. Juicifer believes that the issue just sprang into existence when Jimbo declared "His will", but that is not true. Your claim that the reference to quantity is "just a number" is about as sound as the claim that evolution is "just a theory". Just because it is only a number doesn't mean that most people don't obsess over it, almost as much as they obsess over their edit count. That too is "just a number". &mdash; <small>[[User:Brian0918|<b><font color=black>BRIAN</font></b>]][[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color=gray>0918</font>]] &bull; 2006-08-25 17:35Z</small>
***I actually oppose the inclution of this number in the header of the main page too, but for elegance's sake: such isolated fact there would look as a pacifier in the butt, as my mother would say. In other languages they usually have a short introduction to Wikipedia, where they can fit the article count. I don't know why would you debate about this in terms of quality and quantity; I don't think these are really opposites. In fact, quantity and size are forms or quality for many (perhaps most) people. Well I've spent pretty much of my study time talking about this, something that nobody really cares about, hehe. Ah, I didn't catch the evolution analogy either!--[[User:Cloviz|cloviz]] 19:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
***I agree we should focus on quality, but I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. The breadth of our coverage is still a major selling point, and I favor keeping the prominent reference. I can't see how including it or not has any impact on editors, so I must assume it is mostly a public relationship move, i.e. we don't want people thinking about how big we are, because we want people to focus on our quality. But that is silly since removing reference to our breadth (a good point) does nothing to actually improve our actual article quality. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 20:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

==== One more thing about article count ====

Sorry about starting another thread about the article count but I have a point to make that I don't think has been addressed. It looks like some are saying that the article count only serzed its purpose when the English version was small and now it's not needed anymore. I think that's fine '''as long as every wikipedia has reached a million articles'''. Let's not forget that the English version is often the template for others, and other wikipedias often just follow the English version out of habit. For all we know in a few weeks a new language will start its own Wikipedia and say "welcome to Wikipedia in language X. The end." with nothing about the article count and therefore much less motivation to contribute. Then later on if other wikipedias start to follow along the article count on the front will start to look like something that small wikipedias do to try to make themselves look bigger, etc. IOW I don't see any reason for the change, and we should always keep in mind the effect on other language editions as well. [[User:Mithridates|Mithridates]] 19:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

==== And one more ====

One more thing about the article count: there's no reason to keep the article count on the main page but move it down to the bottom because few enough people even bother to check that far. I often look at the main page to see how many articles there are besides that I only check the featured article, did you know and nothing else. There seems to be a lot of room on the top area there on the right where the link to the categories is located: why not a small bit there that says "total articles: 1,000,000" or whatever the number happens to be? If we're opposed to listing the number of articles on the main page then let's take it off entirely but putting the number that far below helps no one. It leaves the number on implying that the number count is important, while at the same time has it located in a place that most people interested in the number count wouldn't be able to find anyway. IOW it's silly. I suggest a small link on the top right with the number of articles in small font.

<small>Total articles: {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}</small> <-- like that. Who else agrees? [[User:Mithridates|Mithridates]] 21:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

:1. The ''Wikipedia languages'' section has included the article count since March (in preparation for its removal from the header).
:2. No one has claimed that the article count is entirely irrelevant and should not be disclosed. There's a major distinction between mentioning it in the context of Wikipedias and their sizes and mentioning it on its own (without any contextual justification) at the top of the page. Only the latter carries undesirable connotations.
:3. The current layout was designed to accommodate the 800x600 resolution with all OS/browser defaults (taskbar/dock placement, text size, et cetera). When viewed with these settings, the empty space that you've cited is nonexistent. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 21:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me just register my support for returning the article count where it has ever been. [[User talk:Zocky|Zocky]] | [[User:Zocky/Picture Popups|picture popups]] 22:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
: Support is great, but please give an argument. Support your support lol. This is not a strawpoll. --[[User:Monotonehell|Monotonehell]] 23:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
::Here's an argument: abandoning tradition in exchange for no advantage whatsoever is stupid. [[User talk:Zocky|Zocky]] | [[User:Zocky/Picture Popups|picture popups]] 23:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
:::How about a non-[[Begging the question|circular]] argument? &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 02:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

==Attention: What you're about to post probably doesn't belong here==

That's according to the header at the top of ''this'' page. Which could well be true but the ''probably'' bit seems a little heavy handed to me. --[[User:Melburnian|Melburnian]] 00:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
: If we take out the "probably" then it would be worse. ;) It's just a last chance catch all to try to help people find better help for questions that won't get answered here. Considering the high percentage of posts we still get here that "should be" elsewhere despite the big red glaring text at the top of the page and the notice you noticed. ;) (I count 17 out of 44 topics) --[[User:Monotonehell|Monotonehell]] 01:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
::I understand the problem, but I think something along the lines of "Attention: What you're about to post ''may not'' belong here" is nicer (and more accurate if 27 out of 44 are "on topic" ;) )--[[User:Melburnian|Melburnian]] 03:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
:::What if it says "Attention: Please make sure what you're about to post belongs here by browsing the links provided", or something catchier than that, but you all get my drift. -- [[User:SmthManly|<font color="black">SmthManly</font>]] / <sup><font color="blue">[[User_talk:SmthManly|ManlyTalk]]</font></sup> / <sup><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/SmthManly|ManlyContribs]]</font></sup> 03:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
:I noticed, too. It is a bit on the rude side. --[[User:Nricardo|Nelson Ricardo]] 04:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


==Featured Articles...why are so many of them full of typos and other errors?==

I have been reading the featured articles for some time now and find them very interesting, but I am somewhat surprised at the standard of editing of many of them. If an article has been deemed worthy of appearing on the main page of the Wikipedia, surely it is not too much to ask that whoever sets up that day's page checks the articles for basic things, like spelling, grammar and typos? It does the image of the Wikipedia no good at all to feature articles that contain such glaring errors. I proof them when I have time, but it's something we shouldn't have to do to a featured article that has made it to the front page, as it were. Please note, I am not commenting on the factual content of the articles, rather the quality of their presentation to a potentially huge audience. I know also that it may be seen as a sneaky way of getting everyone to proof read more articles, but proofing is better done ''before'' publication ;-) --[[User:Phil Wardle|Phil Wardle]] 05:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:59, 27 August 2006

Insert non-fo[[http://www.example.com link title][[http://www.example.com link title][[http://www.example.com link title][[http://www.example.com link title][[http://www.example.com link title][[http://www.example.com link title][[http://www.example.com link title][[Image:[[Image:Example.jpg]][[Image:Example.jpg]]]]]]]]]]]rmatted text here

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=72146876"