This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 115

←

Archive 119

Archive 120

Archive 121

Archive 122

Archive 123

→

Archive 125

Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive.

001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207

can we get a break from hurricane articles on the main page? PLEASE?--24.85.68.231 (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Blame WikiProject, they're brilliant. I don't find them particuarly interesting either, but someone must... J Milburn (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There'd be LOTS more once july comes along (at least on ITN). --Howard the Duck 13:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We need more contributors in different fields of interests. Start working on articles on topics of your choice and make them FA quality.... Just complaining won't help much. --74.14.21.182 (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It also helps information about the subject is abundant, especially on cases such as this (North American hurricanes), which makes it an easier task to cite info. Cleaning the article up with a lot of citations already is a significantly easier route for an FA. --Howard the Duck 16:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

English Wikipedia now has more than 500,000 "assessed" biographical articles. --Camptown (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What has this got to do with the main page? Also, that's 500,000 talk pages with pointless unhelpful spam. Not exactly something we should be celebrating -62.172.143.205 (talk) 12:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait... How many biographics articles do we have? If we have 500k assessed even assuming we have assesed every single one that means about 1/4.5 of our articles are biographies? I never realised it was that extreme Nil Einne (talk)

Er the wikiproject you linked to seems to suggest there are 430k assessed and 70k unassessed Nil Einne (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The bio WikiProject also counts articles about bands and a lot of groups/organisations under its scope. J Milburn (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, there are lots of biographies that don't have the template on their talk page. Puchiko (Talk-email) 18:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

However, its likely that those without the template are unassessed. Random89 16:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I make a redirect to here? If possible, I plan to make Main Article with the following:

1. REDIRECT Main Page

I fear that some users would confuse that for the main page. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There are already many redirects to the main page, no harm in another one. J Milburn (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Roughly 1 person every other day on average. -- Naerii 19:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the number of people who have viewed the article. Because the article doesn't exist the number is very low (people who search for the term don't get included in these statistic, just the people who get to the edit window). Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Several cities worldwide will turn off light. Sydney has just begun as one of the world's first cities. What about a black main page at Wikipedia to support this protest against climate change? As far as I know Google will do so, too. 85.178.35.174 (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't take a stance on things like this, and we don't 'decorate' the main page to go along with holidays either. It's good idea, but not a Wikipedia thing, sorry. J Milburn (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

See Earth Hour#Google for the google info (though google.com is not currently black for me? but google.ca is). See also Blackle.com#Criticism for why it isn't helpful to go black permanently. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone removed the Google section from that article. -- Naerii 19:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Decorating the main page or any other page will create lag. So making it simple is better. Otherwise users with slow internet will lag a lot. Jaewonnie (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm, displaying black in place of white would certainly not cause lag... -Elmer Clark (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You never know... :P Jaewonnie (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with J Milburn, we are an encyclopedia, our job is to give information in a neutral manner, blacking the main page only serves to disrupt that neutrality. Troplock (talk) 07:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to being a source of potential confusion for users. Meanwhile interested parties could compile a news item or article about it: aims, organizers, impact, etc. Happy Editing! Shir-El too 16:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why does the discussion page of the Main Page/Tomorrow display questions from 2006? Is there a problem with the system? Troplock (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been fixed now. Maybe that's why a link was red a while ago. --Howard the Duck 08:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, best regards, Troplock (talk) 10:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please change it. Thank you, Shir-El too 16:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see the discussion in WP:Errors at the top of this page Nil Einne (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Im having some trouble with this. I just joined. Im very interested on the wikipedia. How do i edit pages? Or can i even do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smilehun24 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Press the 'edit this page' button on any page you think you can improve. -- Naerii 21:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It is probably worth noting that the main page is protected, so only administrators can edit it (this is due to potential vandalism to the most visible page on Wikipedia). However, the vast majority of pages are editable by anyone. Happy editing! nneonneo (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Next time, please be so kind that both of you comply with the above template; thank you. Tourskin (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Welcome. -Elmer Clark (talk) 09:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Comply with what template? -- Naerii 16:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The one that says that you're only supposed to use this page for Main Page related queries. But I don't think it matters now... Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, pls be nice to newbies. --74.13.129.178 (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

All I can see is experienced users aiding a new editor, I'd like you to point out to me what you think is not nice. Troplock (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it was aimed at Tourskin... 81.157.46.230 (talk) 11:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Troplock (talk) 07:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I said please and thank you, how much nicer do you want me to tell them to do the right thing?I am <s>a neutral editor</s> Assyrian and proud of it (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, 10,000,000??? Awesome, Wikipedias! Hadn't thought of a global language count before, so this is impressive to me. Gotta start working on 10,000,000 more, now! Kreachure (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If anything it shows how weak the other language wikis are as the English Wikipedia takes up nearly 1/4 of those 10,000,000 articles. -- Naerii 17:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, it shows how much crap we have on this one. J Milburn (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Also shows how much more room for expansion there is globally. Joshdboz (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only that but the top 10 (including English) represent about 6.5/10 million Nil Einne (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And we have 12M pages overall (articles plus other crap) while the German WP has just over 2M pages *swoon*. What's taking all the space?! On the other han,d we have 212M edits while the de-wp has 45M, snigger. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Pages and pages of deletion discussions, talk pages for most articles, and thousands of useless user subpages make up a lot of that, I would imagine. Oh, and redirects. J Milburn (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

So, no woohoo then? :P Kreachure (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well we can try to get the woohoo back. How about creating articles about Tennis racquets and stuff :P (yah its lame...but still). And I'm to noob to know how to cite references otherwise I would've already made them. Jaewonnie (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, with the page-wide orange box at the top of the main page, I keep thinking that I have new messages. Lovelac7 02:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I find it highly suspect. I bet it was written about dildos but who wants that banner on the frontpage?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, Wikipedia! Whoa, 10 million articles! Great job, keep working! -- MR.CRO95 (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

yes, congrats Wikipedia and for the Sloan grant.......and I noticed in checking out the 10 millionth that, although the current number of articles in English is updated with each one, the numbers for the leading other languages are not..... and, after checking out Deutsch/German, I see there are over 430,000 more than stated on the MaIN PAGE.....

(I wondered how yu oculd be at 10,000,000 with the second so far behind and the leader at only 23% of that total)

maybe someone is considering updating tht info on the home page...seems like a great time....

67.163.141.14 (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read the main page carefully, you will find that our largest category is for wikipedias with more then 300 thousand articles. The German and French (2nd and 3rd largest) wikipedias have 730,454 and 641,061 articles respectively, which are indeed more then 300k so there is nothing outdated or incorrect about the categorisation. The reason we don't include a larger category is because it looks silly with a category only containing say 2 items Nil Einne (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

10M overall main page banner

Template_talk:Main_Page_banner#10M_overall -- Zanimum (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

the template should say "was the 10 millionth article".--24.109.218.172 (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

10 million? Yes ... but

10 million articles is an achievement ... if you don't take into account all "non really encylopedical" articles... I mean, in "traditionnal" encyclopedias such as Encarta, Univers or Brittanica, you'll never find articles about episodes of TV series ... I mean you'll find an article about the Simpsons but that's it. Still, I think that wiki is an outstanding tool which shows us that knowledge is not limited to the english language.Mitch1981 (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think that having articles about the works of Shakespeare is encyclopeadic? If so - then to write about Shakespeare and not about The Simpsons is POV. They are both works of fiction - they are both enjoyed by similar numbers of people (well, that's a guess - but I'm pretty sure Shakespeare would lose out if we put it to the test). Most importantly - I absolutely guarantee that more of our readership find the Simpsons articles useful than find the Shakespeare articles useful. This even-handed approach to having articles means that we can actually answer the questions people truly have on a day-to-day basis - something that Encarta, Univers and Brittanica cannot hope to achieve. Our neutrality (and lack of snobbery) is what makes us the success we are. SteveBaker (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No "buts" about it!

In all this flap two very important points are being ignored, and I quote: "In December 2007, the German magazine Stern announced in an independent study of 50 articles that the German Wikipedia was more accurate, complete and up-to-date than the longstanding print encyclopedia Brockhaus. In April 2007, a study conducted by the Hewlett Packard Information Dynamics Laboratory found that the best articles on the English Wikipedia are those that have been edited the most frequently, by the largest number of people. It concluded that the correlation between article quality and the number of edits validates Wikipedia as a successful collaborative effort."

In another study (I missed the citation) over 70% of English Wikipedia articles were found accurate - about on a par with printed encyclopedias!

As to the above caveat about "traditional" encyclopedias, I prefer this: that I do not have to find 5-10 different out-of-date reference books to track down anything I need or want to know!

LONG LIVE WIKIPEDIA! GOD BLESS JIM WALES and the other mad GENIUSES who came up with WIKIS!!! Shir-El too 17:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Are we done yet?

The 10 million articles banner looks too much like "you have new messages". How long does an arbitrary self-congratulatory milestone have to last for? BigBlueFish (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I vote for 3 days total. Any other thoughts? Dragons flight (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

How about one of those "hide" buttons like on the wikimania banners? Troplock (talk) 07:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Howabout just removing it altogether?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm for that plan to, lets just drop it, it looks terrible, and its very debatable weither 10,000,000 articles is a good thing or not. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 08:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Note that the 10mth article was created at the beginning of the 27th, making it 4 days 9 hours gone; the press release was 2 days 11 hours ago. I'm not too fussed when it goes but at least by tonight does seem reasonable. BigBlueFish (talk) 09:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like consensus to me. I'm removing it. J Milburn (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. J Milburn (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Since April Fools Day is coming up, can we have some reminder not to create false articles? 68.100.224.185 (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No, just a sack full of editors and admins ready to tag, revert and delete. J Milburn (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok then...68.100.224.185 (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

the april fools blurb epically fails. its not funny.--24.109.218.172 (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. It is funny as fuck. Mike R (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet another lame front page.. and to think people work on this throughout most of the year? *rolls eyes*. - Boochan (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't get what's not funny. What's all the lame? 68.100.224.185 (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The front page (apart from the news section) are meant to be "funny" , but tend to fail miserably every single April the 1st. - Boochan (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I second that. How about one really funny and somewhat plausible main article or something else tactfully put among real pieces, rather than an over the top page like this the next time? 66.65.42.76 (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That is real, that's the point. Nothing in the main page is false. J Milburn (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not say it is false, I said it is over the top and unfunny. Repeating that it is all true does not make it any funnier. The thing is, it tries too hard to be unbelievable and as a result coherence is lost. It was a pain to read Ima Hogg piece where even the sentences did not make sense and people were so obviously trying hard to be unbelievable with the other pieces that you lost interest immediately. I was suggesting that instead one may try what BBC did with the spaghetti trees pieces back in 50's or 60's, which is real funny and entertaining. Well if you think that is not original enough, I will have to ask what is so original about making an April Fool's joke, and then keep repeating the same joke each year. 66.65.42.76 (talk) 07:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's supposed to tell the truth in an unbelievable fashion that people think it is a lie. That is why last year was so epically awesome. The Placebo Effect (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)'Did you know?' is also not meant to be funny. OTD, FA and FP are, though. J Milburn (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK is meant to be funny too; we were just late doing the update today. howcheng {chat} 03:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Ya know what we should do? Under the news section, we ought to say that the US government has nationalized Wikipedia. Wikipedia now belongs to the government.  Marlith (Talk)  00:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, because that wouldn't be true. The point is that everything on the main page is still true. J Milburn (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure we can find something MORE ridiculous or funny. What's currently on the main page is ḸΆṃΞ68.100.224.185 (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, well, we did do the Brittanica thing a few years back. But the times have changed.  Marlith (Talk)  00:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Further proving why humor can't be created by committee. Cigarette (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC) I completely agree68.100.224.185 (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I admit the blurb wasn't particularly inspired work, but a few people claimed to like it. If y'all are so goddamned funny, get involved and go write something knee-slappingly silly next year.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Silliness ≠ comedy. If you want to make a joke, make it within the confines of Wikipedia's style and rules. Otherwise it seems crass. The featured picture I like because it's a ridiculous subject treated just like any other page. Here's the problem Wikipedia faces: We don't want to turn off those who may not be familiar with AFD, so we can't use blatantly false information told in the traditional Wikipedia editorial voice. On the other hand, we shouldn't be displaying a sophomoric sense of humor, because then we're just some kids wearing their clothes backwards to school. This, I think, leaves two options: a joke about Wikipedia itself that does not tarnish its image as a provider of information (I thought the Encyclopedia Britannica joke was a good concept), or something like last year's George Washington, inventor of instant coffee, wherein one uses subtlety (or tries to) to playfully misdirect without giving misinformation. The Ima Hogg blurb is just silliness. Cigarette (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, nothing in the Hogg blurb is false (check the article if you dispute this), though that I concede it is unsubtle and unrepentantly silly. As I said, you are most welcome to apply your sophistication toward a superior joke next year.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. We learned about Ima Hogg in Texas History back in middle school. I've also visited her house a few times. It's legit, even though her name is weird. --Jmatlock (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How about we just blank the main page. It seems any time anything is on the main page, it's worthy of dozens of complaints.-Wafulz (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Talk:Main_Page/Archive_121
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.

---