Talk:Main Page/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about Main Page. 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.

←

→

Suggestion for appearance of main page

Currently, the main page opens like this:

Main Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Wikipedia is a multilingual project to create a complete and accurate free content encyclopedia. We started in January 2001 and are currently working on 6,908,144 articles in the English version. Visit the help page and experiment in the sandbox to learn how you can edit any article right now.

I suggest a slight change to this:

Main Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Saturday, November 9, 2024

I think that it would make it more "professional looking" if the main page has the current date shown.
-- Paul Rfc1394 03:01, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The day is already shown in the Anniversaries section. --mav 04:27, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

My suggestion Main Page/iTemp has plenty of todays... ilya 00:36, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The main page sucks!!!

Many of the articles linked in the "Encyclopedia" section of the main page are of inferior quality. I propose that we replace those articles (save the couple that are brilliant prose) with a selected listing of brilliant prose. It will look something like Wikipedia:Brilliant prose/temp, but more localized. Objections? --Jia ng 09:56, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea. It means the main page can be a bit more dynamic. At the moment, that section never changes. It also gives a bit more meaning to the brilliant prose page and might make people more motivated to be involved with it. Angela . 10:01, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. I was the one who originally proposed the idea of putting non-timely "Featured articles" on the main page, in the same area as the anniversaries, deaths, etc (see my post on this page - "Great new thought - I want feedback!"). However, I *do* think we should keep the links to topic overviews (history, biology, et al) on the main page. When someone new to wikipedia comes here, they should find links to those major areas. Think like the Dewey decimal system - put the overviews first, then link to specific articles later --Raul654 10:16, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Independent from the question if we are to include them, all articles with a list on Lists_of_articles_by_category should probably provide an easy (and preferably uniform) link to that list. -- User:Docu

Unfortunately, those articles fall short of brilliant prose. The main page should showcase out best articles, because first impressions matter most and determine whether people will continue to use wikipedia as a resource. These topic overviews are not major link farms like our various list of lists. People don't always show up entirely clueless, they may want something speciefic, and the specific topic probably seems a lot more interesting. Also, focusing on topics neglects people - that section provides no clear link to biographies or interesting articles, such as the one on the work fuck. --Jia ng 11:49, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Compromise: Retain the most important categories, but also include a listing of featured articles. About 30% categories/70% articles.—Eloquence 18:09, Dec 31, 2003 (UTC)

How would the rotation work? Every two weeks? How do we determine which tags are important? Or should we just keep the current headings but change the articles listed under them? --Jia ng

How about protecting all pages other than the category articles until they get better? :-) I'm not sure that random readers are looking for brilliant prose in category articles anyway; how many people are going to want to read about chemistry in general, vs using it as a trampoline to a specific topic like oxygen or LSD? If the latter, then those articles' main value is as a descriptive index to the next level of depth, and we should make sure that they connect to everything interesting. Stan 22:34, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I doubt many people actually use that section. How many people here regularly do? Either you hate chemistry and find a link to chemistry repulsive, or you like it and don't need this basic information. The point of the section is to get people engaged and reading our articles. Such overly basic topics fail to achieve this purpose. --Jia ng 02:24, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If you want to get more biographies of living people on the main page, I feel the birthday listings would be a good way. (To reply to some of the previous objections: no it doesn't have to read "Happy Birthday to .." and we don't have to include them with the Historical Anniversaries). -- User:Docu

I agree with an idea of removing our low-quality articles from Main Page. I don't think the classification on it is of any interest -- Handicraft, Family and consumer science, Statistics... no, you're going by a wrong way. I suggest that all this stuff goes to Wikipedia:Browse and we place this link on main page. And look at Main Page/iTemp once again... ilya 00:46, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Misleading opening statement

The opening statement on this page says: "Wikipedia is a multilingual project to create a complete and accurate free content encyclopedia." I submit this is a false statement. As of today we are "currently working on 189,911 articles." Of these, how many are recognised as being "complete"? Answer: None. How many will be so recognised a year from now? Answer: None. What therefore is the annual rate of progress towards a "complete and accurate free content encyclopedia"? Answer: Zero. When therefore will we have attained this objective? Answer: Never. How therefore can we say that this is our objective, when the project is strucured in such a way as to make the attainment of such an objective impossible? The opening statement should be removed until we can clarify what the ultimate objective of Wikipedia is and how it might be attained. Adam 10:51, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

- I disagree. First off, I'd like to point out that even though we do not recognize any articles as being 100% complete and accurate, that does not mean that none exist. Second, even if that annual rate is zero, that still does not preclude us from having "a complete and accurate free content encyclopedia" as our goal. Third, I think that statement sums up quite clearly exactly what the goal is (to create the Encyclopedia Galactica). I think the statement should remain, as it. --Raul654 11:00, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- On Raul's first point: if there are articles which are 100% complete and accurate, then why are they not nominated as such and protected against editing, since by definition a 100% complete and accurate article cannot be beneficially edited (unless the reality the article is describing changes)? On the second point, Raul's logic escapes me. What is the point of having a "goal" which cannot be attained? On Raul's third point, I did not say that the goal is not of itself laudable - of course it is. I said that Wikipedia's present process makes it unattainable. Adam 11:14, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  - Allow me to clarify then, if you will. (1) The brilliant-prose articles are, by and large, complete and accurate - Far more so than any traditional encylopedia, anyhow. Hypothetically, if you wanted to lock articles down, you could start there and I doubt many would notice. They don't get changed very often, as there is little to do. (2) I was saying that we can make whatever claim about our goal that we want, even if our annual rate of progress is 0. Yes, it would be an impossible goal, but that does not preclude us from claiming it as one (3) My point was that for newcomers to wikipedia, that statement conciscely (sp?) and thoroughly describes the goal of the project, even if (nearly) unattainable. --Raul654 11:40, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree. A complete encylopedia is unattainable, we should acknowledge that and change the sentence. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I didn't say "a complete encylopaedia is unattainable" - the world is full of completed encyclopaedias. I said it is unattainable given Wikipedia's current processes. I think the processes should change, not the objective.

My initial suggestion would be: Wikipedia is a project to create a multilingual free content encyclopaedia. While this encyclopaedia will never be "finished," because the world it is describing is constantly changing, it will in time have a high proportion of articles which are "complete" in the sense of being accurate, comprehensive and well-written.

Adam 11:43, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I like that, but IMHO, it lacks some of the finesse of the other article. How about:

Wikipedia is a project to create a free content, multilingual encyclopedia. This encyclopedia will never be finished, because the world is constantly changing. In time, however, it will have a large number of articles that are "complete" in the sense of being accurate, comprehensive and well-written. We started in January 2001 and currently have 6,908,144 articles in the English version.

--Raul654 11:58, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Adam's alternative is too wordy, at least for the Main page. I would recommend something more succinct, like:

Wikipedia is a multilingual project to create a comprehensive, free content encyclopedia.

-- Viajero 12:00, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I see where you are going. You propose that we change the word "complete" to "comprehensive". That would seem a reasonable solution. --Raul654 12:03, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Aren't encyclopedias supposed to be comprehensive by definition? Perhaps just "to create a free encyclopedia". We could be modest... Lirath Q. Pynnor

I agree that wording is preferable to the current one. My objective, however, was not just to change the wording but to get people talking about the conflict between objective and process that is currently Wikipedia's fundamental weakness. At the moment there is not a single article which is accepted as complete. If I write an article which says that "two and two make four", someone can always come along and change "four" to "three," or add "except on the planet Glurtz" or "not according to the Book of Mormon." Until we have a mechanism for nominating articles as complete (a category which will always be open to challenge, of course), we will never be able to attain the objective of creating an encyclopaedia, of any kind. Adam 12:13, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

And if the book of mormon did indeed say that two and two does not make four, that would be encylopedic and worthy of inclusion in the article. --Raul654 12:30, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- And certainly "2+2=4" would be a better way of stating that. Lirath Q. Pynnor

This is a wiki, if you want to have articles which cannot be edited; go and start your own website. Lirath Q. Pynnor

That is the answer I usually get when I raise this issue, as if the sacredness of the wiki must be placed above all other considerations. It amounts to saying that process is more important than product, which cannot be true in the long run, since process is pointless unless there is product. And I did not say that articles should not be edited. I agree that the collective editing process is a very creative one. But it must have an end point, otherwise nothing will ever be created. WP at the moment is not an encyclopaedia, however much some WPians may kid themselves that it is. It is a mass of material which could become an encyclopaedia, given some modest changes to the editing process. And of course I do have my own website [1]. Adam 12:36, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The process is the product. The Wikipedia (and other similar projects) are the only encyclopedia on earth that contains current events, and this is a good thing. User:KellyCoinGuy

Well the, why don't you recruit contributors and editors at your website? I don't understand why you want to close the wiki down. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Adam, I think the point we are making is that for pretty much any article you can name, there is *always* more to write. And what's the harm in not locking an article down? Yes, someone could potentially come along and change it. That's what watchlists and recent changes are there for - to make sure everything is done in the open. --Raul654 12:53, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Vandalising my user page is about the standard of debate I have come to expect from you, Lirath. I hope you found it therapeutic. Adam 13:28, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

right'o captain... Lirath Q. Pynnor

For what it's worth, I think that, regardless of the "point" of Wikipedia (and this is a whole can of worms I don't want to get into) the point of the main page is to welcome people to the site and to encourage them to stay and contribute. I think the current intro text does that. To say "This encyclopedia will never be finished...", even if true, is not going to help persuade newcomers that this is a valuable information resource or a worthwhile use of their time. HappyDog 02:19, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well as the person who largely wrote the opening over a year ago, I would have to agree. My intent all along was to have a very quick statement to orient newcomers and show off our progress. That is all. Longer statements like the one proposed above are more than welcome on the about page. But that level of detail really isn't appropriate for the home page of any website ? that is why websites have about pages. --mav 04:36, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Depressing

It's really depressing to see 'Recent Deaths' as #2 in the prime listing every time I connect to Wikipedia. Granted a few people like that sort of thing .. but couldn't it be put somewhere near the bottom?

(Seeing that a favorite actor died is really a 'spoiler' on his or her films, too...)

mfc

I agree. I think the category ought to be abolished. When someone really famous dies they can go in the News category. Perhaps there could be a "recent obituaries" button to click somewhere. I also think there are too many Anniversaries, and many of them are pretty tenuous (I saw "Australia" on the current page and, as an Australian, wondered what anniversary this was. It turned out to be the 103rd anniversary of federation, which is a completely unremarked day in Australia - our National Day is on 26 January.) The extra space should be used for more (good) New Articles and also a random selection of "Brilliant Prose" articles. Adam 15:31, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We all die. It really isn't news when somebody dies of natural causes. Thus we have separate listings. --mav 00:13, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Is is news when famous people die, even if they are elderly and die of natural causes (it will be big news when Reagan or the Pope dies). But that isn't really the point being raised here. It is the rather negative impression being created by having a list of Recent Deaths on our front page. Adam 00:27, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Nope. The passing of most people who are on Recent deaths is not really newsworthy. You just happened to mention two that would be newsworthy. Most are not since they are not that famous. There is nothing wrong with honoring the dead with their own section - it actually encourages the creation of articles on those people. Nothing negative about that. --mav 19:12, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Indeed there is nothing wrong with a section for the dead, or even one for the newly-dead. But why does it need to be 'in your face' on the Wikipedia main page? mfc

I really think that Main Page is a place for neither Deaths nor Anniversaries. I'm a bit tired saying it... but if you look at Main Page/iTemp you may get some insights... ilya 00:50, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Looks nice but boy is that HTML hell gone wild! Impossible to edit and there is no category scheme. Also, to say that anniversaries are not important is to say that history is not important. Sorry, but you will get little traction with that line. --mav

I see no connection between respect to history and the idea of remembering some events because they occured exactly 547 years ago. I found 5 historical links on current Main Page and 7-8 on mine (with 1 especially featured), so it looks like history is important enough for me. HTML source is being clarified right now. As for categories, I haven't found too much good articles among our categorical ones. If somebody wants to know about cell, he can type cell in the Search and there is no need to Biology. It could be, if this article was especially good written, but this is not the case. And I plan that categories go to Wikipedia:Browse. ilya 01:58, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

recent marriages would be less depressing.

... and sooner over :-)

An idle question re: New Articles

I'm curious -- When you guys are looking at articles to add to the "New Articles" section, what criteria do you use to pick? Personally, I look for articles that have name recognition, that also have a certain minimum length (approx 1000 byes or more). I'd like to know what factors everyone else considers. --Raul654 09:16, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

My own criteria are:

> ~~2000kb~~ 2000 bytes in length
reasonably complete
decently edited and formatted
a good mix of topics (trying above all to avoid US-centricity)

Sometimes an article fits all of the above criteria but its name is impossibly long. As for "name recognition" this is getting increasingly more difficult as WP's coverage improves. -- Viajero 10:09, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

2000 kilobytes, eh? That's 512,000 characters - or (by my estimate) around 130 pages. That's a helleva new article ;) --Raul654 10:23, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Are characters 4 bytes each? Κσυπ Cyp 19:45, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes. --Raul654 21:41, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't usually complain about the US-centric nature of much of Wikipedia (it is a unipolar world now after all), but is the publication of the memoirs of a long-retired baseball player really the top news story in the world today? Adam 07:04, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As I posted to the Village pump:

Just saw this on slashdot - Bush to Announce New (manned) Missions to Moon, Mars. Think it deserves a place on the main page, but I wouldn't know what article to link to. But it's great news nonetheless --Raul654 05:27, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

--Raul654 07:06, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Tintin

It's Tintin's 75th birthday. Please include on main page. Thanks - Hemanshu 04:40, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I suggest improve the Wikipedia software. If I type http://wikipedia.org/wki/gnopernicus (without i in wiki) instead of http://wikipedia.org/wiki/gnopernicus , I recieve the message :

"Not Found The requested URL /wki/gnopernicus was not found on this server.

Apache/1.3.28 Server at www.wikipedia.org Port 80"

I suggest improve the message to recive :

"Not Found The requested URL /wki/gnopernicus was not found on this server.

You are redirected to Wikipedia Main Page (in your language) in 20 seconds.

Apache/1.3.28 Server at www.wikipedia.org Port 80"

The message could be in the user´s natural language better.

That's actually not the wikipedia software, it's just that the apache web server is running with its default error documents - what it should do is print a (better, branded) message, and then redirect (after maybe 5 seconds) to the main page, or (if we're being clever) the search page. -- Finlay McWalter 12:34, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Reference desk

Would anyone oppose adding a link to the Reference desk to the first paragraph, as in: Wikipedia is a multilingual project to create a complete and accurate free content encyclopedia. We started in January 2001 and are currently working on 6,908,144 articles in the English version. Visit the help page and experiment in the sandbox to learn how you can edit any article right now. You can ask any general questions about information at the Reference desk. Dori

I don't think that's a good idea. The reference desk is not one of the aims of Wikipedia and shouldn't really be something we are drawing attention to. We don't want to become some place for answering random questions. Angela . 18:49, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

OK, someone else did not like the idea, so I'll drop it. I am still curious as to how Village pump is more popular than the Reference desk with regard to general questions not about Wikipedia. Dori | Talk 18:07, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the reference desk is one of Wikipedia's best features and should be linked from here. I mean, I think it's astoundingly useful. Sure, it might not be part of Wikipedia's mission, but participation there is voluntary. To answer your question, Dori, I think the village pump is more popular than the reference desk because it is better publicized. → Raul654 18:12, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

If you believe the reference desk is important, then you could make it more prominent in places like the contact us page, but I feel very strongly that something so unconnected to the aims of the project should be mentioned in the introductory paragraph on the main page. You may think it is one of Wikipedia's best features, but other people will think other pages are and want to link their favourite page from the main page, which would obviously be highly inappropriate. The reference desk is already linked to from here and I don't think it needs to be made more prominent, though perhaps the link wording could be changed to make it clearer that the page is a place to ask questions. Angela . 19:23, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

News values

I am in total agreement with Adam Carr's comment (Jan 9) that the link to Pete Rose (an American baseball player?) should not be on the main news page - Wiki is still fundamentally US-centric. Do contributors really need reminding that the US population is only 300million, a small fraction of the 6.4billion world population? This is effectively censorship by the back door; important global stories and issues are not being covered, while trivial news issues are given prominence. Those of us who are fortunate enough to live in rich developed countries should make an extra effort to think globally and give time to 'third' world issues. The majority of people in the third world do not have access to clean water and sanitation, let alone computers and the internet, so wiki is (inadvertently) by its nature, biased towards the developed world and our news 'values'. Maybe there should be some positive discrimination on the news page to reflect wiki's global reach? :--User:158.152.227.115 11.55, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

In general, I agree. There is certainly no lack of news from the rest of the world. However, the articles listed in the "In the news" section have to meet certain criteria set forth by Selected Articles on the Main Page:

be listed on the current events page
the current event needs to be important enough to warrant updating corresponding article
the article must be updated to reflect the new information (but remember: Wikipedia is not a news report)

Additionally, we don't want to link to stubs from the main page either. Presently, there aren't too many news items listed on current events that meet all the above requirements. The Pete Rose article does meet these requirements, even if only a small part of the world cares about it. As soon as items are found that do meet these requirements, I'm sure the Pete Rose article will be superceded quickly. In fact, the QM2 is in the news, so I'll add that to the main page right now. --Minesweeper 12:12, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. --mav

158 - how is wiki US-centric? It is just a technology and philosophy. --mav 17:21, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(Assuming that's not meant as a joke/play on words - such things do not travel well over text) I think 158 was referring to Wikipedia and not the Wiki-Wiki concept. → Raul654 17:51, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Yes - I know that. It is a pet peeve of mine when people call Wikipedia Wiki - as if Wikipedia where the only one. --mav

But it's a natural mistake to make. With no intended insult to the other wikis, Wikipedia has by far more traffic and mind share than any of them do. →Raul654 11:33, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

I understand that the select articles on the main page are there to showcase your good work, but it could also be of use in driving the development of articles. See for an example the french concept of article of the week. It is listed on the front page, but at the beginning is very stubby. I removed the baseball person and put in Sudan, but got reverted because it is just a stub and the news was not reflected in the article. It could have driven the development of Sudan, though. WDYT? --snoyes 18:25, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You've probably looked at my suggestion for Main Page so I won't bother you repeating what I think should be and should not be on it. Brief comment: Article of the week +!, not news service +, no baseball +, the value of culture is determined by number of its people -, extra effort to think globally +- (better write good american-centric articles about India then no at all) ilya 15:31, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Logo for Chinese New Year

I put forward my great suggestion of creating a smooth and unique logo of Wikipedia on the day of Chinese New Year! This will show the multiculturalism and demonstrate the great arts of Wikipedia and shows the greatest internet population in the world the appreciation from Wikipedia. Thank you for considering. From now Wikipedia should have an unique logo for every holiday!!!!!!

Yeah!!!!!!

Thank you. Logochinaguy

As far as I know we don't do logo changes to observe any special events, be they religious or calendar-related. The french wikipedia does, howerver: http://fr.wikipedia.org --snoyes 22:28, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the idea has been discussed with relation to the English Wikipedia but there was some opposition to it on the French Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Announcements/French Christmas logo and the related mailing list thread. See also the discussions at fr:Utilisateur:Guillaume Bokiau/Logos and fr:Utilisateur:Tarquin/Wikipedia est international. Angela . 23:40, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Er... I believe that Chinese New Year should be declared somehow on the Main Page! It promotess great multi-culturalism! I mean Google looks great with all their logos, my friends!!!! This must be taken into serious consideration!!!!!!

I'm entirely confident that Chinese New Year will show up on the Anniversaries section of the main page. Beyond that, someone with talent needs to draw the appropriate alternate logos. And as part of our great multiculturalism, it's only fair that, like google, we have logos for lots of specific events. Unlike google, we're considerably more multicultural, and it's quite reasonable for members of any number of major religions and national groups to expect representation in a similar manner. So we'd need quite a lot of said logos. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's a lot of work, and not something I see anyone jumping up to do. -- Finlay McWalter 20:47, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Great!! ilya 01:45, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Paul O'Neill

Shouldn't the fallout over Paul O'Neill's book be listed on the main page under recent events? -- iHoshie 04:29, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I was just thinkin the same thing. It is now added. --→Raul654 05:44, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

That article needs to be updated with that info and a recent date links needs to be added. "January" isn't specific enough. Please update that article or take it off the Main Page. --mav 05:17, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Recent date of what? What date is there to pinpoint? --Jia ng 05:19, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

When the book will be published, when the issue was reported by X media outlet, when the Bush Admin counter-attacked. Basically, 'who said what when'. --mav

Featured Articles

The new "Featured articles" section on the front page is missing a   in between the words. On my browser, it appears like

200,000

We're approaching aritcle 200000 really quickly. Any plans of what we'll do? I'm willing to work on a press release. -- user:zanimum

I intend to submit a story to slashdot. If it gets accepted, we can roast marshmellows on the servers and sing camping songs :) →Raul654 16:13, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)

Heh. You might want to submit it a few days before it happens—the last time I submitted something to Slashdot, it was 3 or 4 days before I saw it pop up. They've become less relevant over time by mere virtue of their large input queue :-p —Mulad 20:51, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

meta:Wikimedia's first press release is already scheduled to be released when the whole project hits 1/2 million articles (maybe in a month or so - can't tell since wikistats are over a month old). IMO we should not be distributing two press releases one right after the other. Our current server situation is dire until the end of the month. PLEASE DO NOT DISTRIBUTE A PRESS RELEASE UNTIL THE SERVER SITUATION IS FIXED. --mav 05:31, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Also, please consider not posting anything to sites like slashdot or kuroshin. Same arguments as mav made above. --snoyes 06:30, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yea, I agree. Slashdoting already ricketty servers would probably not be a good thing for them. Just for the record, we're adding about 500 articles a day, 3500 a week. That means that we'll probably hit 200,000 right around the end of January. If that trend continues, it'll be a bit less than 2 years before we hit half a million. →Raul654 11:16, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

What was mav talking about, 1/2 million? In all the Wikipedias combined? Even with Talk:, User: and Wikipedia: pages, stubs and redirects, there's only 300,000

The combined article count for *all* languages. Follow the link to the press release on meta and read it. --mav

The current count is 198,000 and change as of 1/28 so I think it will be first week in February. Anyone taking bets? I'll pick noon of February 5. -- Paul Rfc1394 17:58, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Looks like it will be February 1 or 2. -- Rfc1394 04:08, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki-Namespace for Selected Articles

I would like to suggest to use the MediaWiki-Namespace for the selected articles, so that each user can edit this section and donk't have to ask an admin. We used this in the German Wikipedia and had no problems with vandals... --Coma 13:43, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The german wikipedia is much smaller, thus less prone to vandalisms. I have not seen that many requests for changes of the messages by non-admin users. It's not that much trouble for admins to make those changes on behalf of the other editors. The messages are part of the interface, much more public, and if the vandals learned of them and could change them, I guarantee that there will be trouble, and we'll end up having to protect them one by one anyway. A good place to ask for changes is either at WT:MNT on on each page's talk. Dori | Talk 19:04, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

the german wikipedia is not so much smaller... we will have 50.000 articles soon.
finding out, how to change this site would be too much work for a destructive person, i think.
you can try out, and if you have too much vandals you can change it again.

regards --Coma 01:24, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It still might be cleaner if we had a protected MediaWiki page for Selected Articles. That way the history of the Main Page would not have 5-10 edits a day in it. But then again, I'm not sure if the Main Page's page cache would be updated by changing the Selected Articles MediaWiki page. The result may be that anons don't see the changes! --mav 09:20, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Rating Articles

I think it is a great idea to rate all articles according to their accuracy, organization and application. The author of the article that gets the highest rating will be commended. -- Paradox76, ur old friend.

For what? It's not like articles are written by only one person. --User:Ashibaka

That is true. I could purposely edit all the highest rated articles, and avoid the lowly rated articles like the plague, and with your idea, be rated the most scholarly person on Wikipedia. I'd like to say I am, but I'm too humble to admit it. :) -- user:zanimum

Anniversaries

I really enjoy the Anniversaries section of the main page. Is there any reason we can't have it two lines long anymore? Kingturtle 06:05, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well we kinda gave up the second line to make room for a 'Featured articles' line... --mav 09:21, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Actually I kinda miss the second line too. I'll go ahead and add it and see if it causes a fuss. --mav

Think that I already saved a couple lines by changing the divisor of the second half from 58 to 53%. --Jia ng 09:33, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Main Page layout

Isn't working properly in Opera versions 7.20+ - the community box is all stretched! --Steinsky 23:54, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's a known issue, and appears to be a serious bug in later (7.1+) versions of Opera's handling of R->L fonts (in this case, it's the arabic text). It works fine in opera 6 and earlier versions of opera7 (but still broken in 7.23, which I think is the latest). Apparently the later versions of 7.x have a number of significant rendering issues with lots of websites. A look at the (gnarly, but legal) HTML source for the main page shows the problem really is an opera rendering bug. While we do try to support every possible version of every browser, there are limits, and our not having R->L fonts in table cells is beyond ours. I believe there are any number of bug reports filed at opera software. -- Finlay McWalter 00:01, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

ann miller died

maybe someone could create an article for Ann Miller so we can include her on the main page. Kingturtle 22:58, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Done. Angela . 00:24, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

On a minor note, the 'Spamming' article has been moved to Spam (e-mail). Might that link be updated some time? -- Fennec 23:09, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

done --snoyes 23:18, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

India

Change India to Constitution of India. - Hemanshu 07:44, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Done. Angela . 17:40, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

We need Wikipedia in the Al Bhed language. --Armus Aran

See the instructions at Wikipedia:Create a new language in Wikipedia. You probably need to contact the mailing list. Angela . 18:26, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

Selected Articles

Can people please make more of an effort to keep the "Selected Articles" area neat? I often stumble on some very ugly looking layouts. When I have time, I make asjustments to help make the rows line up. But I don't have the extra time lately. Sincerely, Kingturtle 03:46, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedians by number of edits

Can we please update Wikipedia:Wikipedians by number of edits? This list is totally outdated. How hard is this to update, anyway? It can't stress the server that much. -- user:zanimum

I'd like to see this too, since as I started contributing after the last update. -mhr 22:25, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There's no point asking this here as it's not something sysops can do anything about. SQL queries were disabled because someone tried to run this query on nl. Angela . 18:39, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

"New Articles"

How do you people decide what articles are included in the "New Articles" row? ... Would my recent creation, S2, qualify? It's a pretty insignificant topic, I know, but ... -- Timwi 18:07, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Any article which meets the guidelines at Wikipedia:Selected Articles on the Main Page can be added. Snoyes has added S2. Angela . 18:39, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

NOEDITSECTION

I've added __NOEDITSECTION__ to stop the edit links as the page looks much better without these. Sections can still be edited by right clicking them. Is this ok? Angela . 00:24, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

The __NOEDITSECTION__ is showing up on the rendered Main Page. Oops, I think! --—Morven 00:34, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, that shouldn't happen. It seems that if you have disabled right click section editing in your preferences then you will see it rendered. I've reverted it. Never mind. Angela . 00:38, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

This is now fixed, so I've re-added it. Angela . 23:31, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

Sister projects

How about adding wikitravel.org [[2]] to the sister projects list?

Agreed. Done. →Raul654 10:42, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

(Who says there aren't any sysadmins on at 5:45 AM EST? ☺)

Sorry, they are not a sister project to Wikipedia since they are not a Wikimedia project. --mav 12:11, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

agree with mav. it has nothing to do with Wikimedia. Optim 13:15, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why haven't we taken them under our wing? They are NPOV and all. - user:zanimum

I expect it's primarily because they operate under a Creative Commons license, and not GFDL. --HappyDog

No. That's not why. I've already asked and the reason is that there is no real point to it right now - esp given our server issues. They have had very little to worry about in that regard. But the founders are very open to the possibility to joining Wikimedia in the future (probably when the CC-by/sa and GNU FDL are compatible). Evan (one of their founders) is an active MediaWiki developer and also a Wikipedian. He stated that it simply never occurred to him that Wikimedia might want to support a wiki travel guide. --mav 10:54, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Vanity, vanity

I am rather pleased with Laocoon and his Sons. I nominate it for "New Articles." Adam 15:11, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Done. -- Viajero 17:01, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion for Wikipedia:Celebrating 200,000

I suggest putting a link to Wikipedia:Celebrating 200,000 on the main page, a place where people can congradulate each other and express the wikilove. Specially because I feel we'll soon be suffering a slashdotting. →Raul654 01:53, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

That link is still acting as if the page isn't there, and it's annoying me. Maybe this edit will force it to be re-checked. - IMSoP 02:03, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

New list?

Can someone update Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits? -- user:zanimum

zanimum, please read the answer I gave above. Asking again doesn't change that. Angela . 18:06, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

Abdul Khan

Could somebody please amend the "Abdul Khan" link on the main page (under "In the news") to read "Abdul Qadeer Khan". The latter is what the man is universally known as; there are rather a lot of Abdul Khans in Pakistan! -- ChrisO 09:57, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Done. Angela . 10:08, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

That was very quick. Thanks. -- ChrisO 10:22, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ricin

I'd like to suggest changing the link [[United States Senate|Ricin in the Senate]] to simply [[Ricin]]. - Seth Ilys 21:41, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not until ricin is updated. --mav

New articles: Not too short

Marzipan... delicious, but the article is pretty small to be on the main page at 621 bytes. (Mmmm, 621 bites of marzipan, mmmm... *ahem* excuse me...) I don't know that we've ever made it formal policy, but I seem to remember some discussion a while back that 2,000 bytes or more is prefered as minimum size for a new article featured on the front page. What do others think? -- Infrogmation 18:25, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I've replaced it with the Hawkfish article which also has a pretty picture. - snoyes 18:37, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've never liked marzipan. --HappyDog

Wikipedia language list

Could someone, please, add the bulgarian Wikipedia to the language list. --Borislav 06:56, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sure. As the list is in native languages, please tell us what "Bulgarian" is in Bulgarian. Cheers, Kosebamse 09:56, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Български is the Bulgarian word for Bulgarian. --webkid 13:49, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Kosebamse 14:26, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)