File talk:Size of English Wikipedia broken down.png

Update

I suggest the Stephen Colbert (who?) bit is dropped - out of date - and citation needed is expanded to c.75% of the whole. --Dweller (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, almost all the "Pokémon characters" have been merged into lists. Still funny though! Tezkag72 (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

awesome

that's all, really. just a seriously awesome image. (though i do agree with the above poster that perhaps the "citation needed" section should be beefed up a bit now...it's really all i seem to see lately) --ocrasaroon (talk) 06:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it extra funny to me is "Some village in the US with a population of 3 you've never heard of." Of course, I also like having them; but it must be frustrating to the Europeans who didn't have some automated bot take the census data and generate unknown thousands of settlement articles. --Bobak (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I think we should take this as a model and shape Wikipedia around it. The division of different categories makes sense, moreso than the current break down we have. Certainly, more weight should be given to "Bush is teh gay LOL", a section that currently isn't well represented on the 'pedia. We can also use this model to see that our current coverage of "Urban Legends" is far too large and should be condensed.

What we need is a system, which I'll start initiating post-haste. Stage 1 is to remove articles in over-represented sections. That means a lot of "Unfunny memes" will be deleted (I'll create new CSD criteria or make myself an admin, whatever). Stage 2 will be the creation of poorly represented sections. Hence, the creation of more "Lording it over Britannia" and "Libel" articles.

If anybody would like to help me with this process, please sign up below or on my talk page. I don't think I'll need the help as there's only about 11 million articles to go through (a bot can delete most of these in a day or so) but if I ever do, it'd be cool to know who to go to.

Thanks! And wish me luck! Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 21:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Box Proposal

Here is a new box proposal:

"Mumbo jumbo about how infringing on copyrighted photos is 'fair use'"70.27.145.183 (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policies on using copyrighted images are more strict than most. If an article has too many "fair use" images, tag it with {{non-free}} or fix it yourself. If an image is tagged as being free but isn't, list it at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files or fix it yourself. Reach Out to the Truth 04:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]