Talk:Main Page/Archive 92

Archive 85

←

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

Archive 93

Archive 94

Archive 95

Main Page decision

So what exactly was the decision of the move? Simply south 16:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It was rejected. Raul654 16:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Rejected or no consensus was reached? 203.109.240.93 22:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well since no one could ever agree on where the move should go in the first place, and then when weighed up the benefits of a move were very small if non existent, I'd say it was more of a non-starter. --Monotonehell 12:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Will you ask that the next time he says 'rejected', too? — ceejayoz ^talk 17:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh, you thinkin' of the right RM? Everyone agreed it would go to Portal:Main Page, unlike another move. -- Chris is me _(u/c/t) 05:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Brandon Siphoro

Most people who cared agreed on that location, but even in the last days of the last RM there was still debate about location. --Monotonehell 17:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but there was pretty mcuh total agreement on that it is in the wrong location currently. I don't think almost anyone at al disagreed about that. Disagreements were about where it should be and if it was worth the effort. Therefore I think that it is a bit sad that nothing happened. It is hard to argue that the current way is right. Jeltz talk 19:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I largely agree with Jeltz on this. IMHO, the benefits were major and I think most people agreed it should go to P:MP. There was a small minority perhaps that were proposing other alternatives, but from what I could gather, this was largely because they wanted a move but since there were too many opposed to it, they hoped a different alternative might inspire people more. Therefore, I would say there was a consensus if there was a move it should be P:MP, just sadly not a consensus for a move. I'm somewhat doubtful we wll ever reach a consensus so sadly we're going to have to live with the flawed system we currently have. I for one consider the main page issue one of the biggest problems wikipedia has currently, bar vandals, POV warriors, people who don't respect BLP and people who don't respect copyright Nil Einne 10:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is broke, will close in 4 months?

Is this true? If not, why is this Chairwoman bullshitting? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Winterus (talk • contribs) 14:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

“ Wikimedia spokesperson Sandy Ordonez stepped up with this attempt at backpedaling:

"Ms. Devouard's comment was taken out of context," Ordonez claims, although it's difficult to imagine the context in which "might disappear" could be taken differently. "Wikipedia will not be closing any time soon. Ms. Devouard was simply referring to the ongoing, pressing needs for funds that Wikipedia, like most nonprofit organizations, face. Ms. Devouard was attempting to showcase how, because of our global reach, Wikipedia needs to be much more creative in its fundraising efforts."

”

The second paragraph of the article. Unless the Signpost or an official site press release tells us otherwise, we have to believe the verified, sourced, rational statement. I think the general message, though, is donate, and do it now. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No we are not broke - we just raised over a million dollars. Here is our Chair's wording: "At this point, Wikipedia has the financial ressources to run its servers for about 3 to 4 months. If we do not find additional funding, it is not impossible that Wikipedia might disappear". So, Florence is right but there is no need for panic. Wikipedia is not going away. Her point is simply that we will need another fundraiser somethime in that time period. True, if we didn't, the site may go down, but why the hell wouldn't we? --mav 15:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The current costs of running the foundation are listed at foundation:What we need the money for. As described on that page, if the Foundation's expenses remained at 2006 levels, the cash raised from December's fundraiser would last for several years. However, there are a number of ambitious expansion plans in place for 2007. The goal for new hardware alone will swallow the entire proceeds of the last fundraiser. I don't know why all of these new plans are set to occur in the next few months, really, but I'm sure the Board knows what it's doing. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A bug

Did you know that there's no line above "edit this page"? I think there's something wrong with Monobook.css, not sure how long it's been like this. Merosonox 13:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about the border around the edit this page tab at the top of this page - it's present in my browser. --Monotonehell 15:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Main Page Formatting

Is there any boiler plate template for the Main Page layout?Because right now it looks like a penis. It appears the source code here is not clean and needs to be looked at by a doctor immidiatly.(compared to the Italian version of Wiki). I'd like to see the well commented clean code of the Italian Wiki, with the layout, of the English. Anyone know where that file is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roseba (talk • contribs) 15:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Finnish wikipedia

As of 11th of February, there are over 100 000 articles in Finnish wikipedia. --Edvard Majakari 17:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedialang has been updated – Qxz 18:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to teh Finnish Wikipedia :) —Cuiviénen 20:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yay Finland! Nishkid64 03:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

For something random, when you said that, I though you meant "Finish Wikipedia", as in complete it. Lmao...it was funny to me, at least :) DoomsDay349 04:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Lolz, I see why Wikipedia lacks humor now. :P 71.0.240.5 05:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Make Way for Ducklings

The best FA. Ever. (I'm not sarcastic.) --Howard the Duck 07:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. I fear it may reflect the pro-duck POV of some users and the overall pro-duck systemic bias of Wikipedia. ShadowHalo 09:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention duck is always semiprotected... --Howard the Duck 10:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You should BJAODN this. 167.206.204.93 17:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In Poland there's currently a strong anti-duck opposition. --Ouro (blah blah) 20:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

BJAODNed. ShadowHalo 05:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

OMG i'm now famous! I'm on BJAODN!!!! Weeeeeeeeeeeeee......... --Howard the Duck 08:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Summary of DNA article

The summary is taken from a bad version. I would recommend this version. Thanks. TimVickers 02:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Rounded Edges

Why do some of the Wikipedias have rounded corners on the tabs like Main Page and Discussion? 71.0.240.5 05:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Vhell? Vhat is the story here? 71.0.240.5 05:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That happens because of a certain feature of Cascading Style Sheets for Mozilla web browsers, like Firefox and Seamonkey. The attribute is called "-moz-border-radius". Check out this website for more information. On a Wikipedia with rounded edges, the page on which this would be implemented would be MediaWiki:Monobook.css, which is the css file for that Wikipedia. Only admins can edit it. You could do a text search in w:fr:MediaWiki:Monobook.css, the French Wikipedia's css file, for "-moz-border", and see what's up. Hope this answers your question. Gracenotes^T § 05:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's cool, but why only on some Wikipedias? 71.0.240.5 05:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Each Wikipedia can (to an extent) modify its appearance. Some have chosen to use rounded corners, some have not. One of the main arguments for not doing so is that it only works in a minority of browsers. --Cherry blossom tree 12:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

DNA

Hoping zealous overseers do not delete: How can we have a featured article blurb that does not spell out what the abbreviation stands for? --Nélson Ricardo 19:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This belongs in WP:ERRORS! ffm ^yes? 19:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's here now. --Nélson Ricardo 19:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's because firstly, it's not vitally important to know what DNA stands for, and secondly, space in the blurb book is limited, and as a result, there's better ways to use the space than to spell out the phrase "Deoxyribose nucleic acid". Laïka 20:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. We wouldn't want to use up valuable space with the wrong name. (correct name: deoxyribonucleic acid). --Nélson Ricardo 22:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, the summary is taken from a bad version of the article lead and is poorly-worded. TimVickers 21:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Nélson Ricardo 22:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Front page

The "Make way for ducklings" front page article has appeared for the past three days - and when I signed in I got a different page.

I presume this is a minor glitch. Jackiespeel 17:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's probably your cache - nobody else has seen this. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have seen it as well and find it absolutely uncalled for.

How about now? Titoxd^(?!?) 02:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Still there. Hearing about it from friends also. Fixable?

Try bypassing your cache, see if that helps.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I was using different machines - and have a different text now. Jackiespeel 14:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Dixie Chicks ITN

Alright; is it really notable that the Dixie Chicks won 5 Grammys? Unless it was some sort of record, and if it is, mention it. DoomsDay349 00:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

How about instead we just mention that The Grammys took place? That has to be at least as newsworthy as a Swedish skier capturing 5 records. Music is generally more universally well-regarded than football, and we mentioned the Super Bowl.70.113.212.222 03:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There is discussion of this at WP:ITN/C and Template talk:In the news. My own feeling is that the Grammys are noteworthy as the most significant awards in the field of popular music, and the Dixie Chicks were the story in this year's Grammys. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there around 108 Grammy awards given out each year? --Monotonehell 11:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The Album of the Year is the most prestigious annual award in music. Xiner (talk, email) 20:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The Album of the Year is the most prestigious US annual award in music. I'm sure readers elsewhere in the world might think otherwise, Xiner ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.136.195.113 (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

This story may say otherwise. Xiner (talk, email) 18:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

RSS feed

I would really appreciate an RSS feed for the Wikipedia News (and also for some articles of interest). I guess I am not the only one?!. Is there some project ongoing for adding this functionality? --83.248.209.168 12:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RSS. ffm ^yes? 13:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a good idea to have an "RSS feed" notice on the featured article and pic? Something along the lines of

Picture of the day

{{{texttitle}}}

Victoria Crater, an impact crater at Meridiani Planum, near the equator of Mars. The crater is approximately 800 meters (half a mile) in diameter. It has a distinctive scalloped shape to its rim, caused by erosion and downhill movement of crater wall material. Layered sedimentary rocks are exposed along the inner wall of the crater, and boulders that have fallen from the crater wall are visible on the crater floor. The floor of the crater is occupied by a striking field of sand dunes. The Mars rover Opportunity can be seen in this image, at roughly the "ten o'clock" position along the rim of the crater.Photo credit: Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter
RSS Feed

Featured Picture Wierdness

I'll probably get in trouble for posting this on the wrong spot, but it is sort of related to the main page.
Whenever I try to download the high-resolution version of the Featured Picture, it downloads about the top inch of the image, and then quits. Thereafter, it will only download said inch, no matter how many times I try to download, or clear my cache, or cookies, or whatever... What gives?
'WiiWillieWiki→^{(Talk) (Contrib)} 14:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Happens to me too.  H4cksaw  (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Presuming your clearing your cache properly, one possibility is your ISP has a transparent proxy Nil Einne 15:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A what now?  H4cksaw  (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Does it happen to sny other pictures, besides the featured picture? Doppelganger E 14:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, many other pictures...
'WiiWillieWiki→^{(Talk) (Contrib)} 16:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've also noticed in the past couple of days, some pictures in articles haven't been loading at all. I know this isn't a problem with my connection because images on all other sites are showing fine.  H4cksaw  (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please fix the first headline in ITN.

The long name is causing a big gap at 800x600. Xiner (talk, email) 20:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a long name; I don't know what we can do about it. —Cuiviénen 21:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Send him a letter demanding he shorten his name. Sometime in the next 6 months we should get a response. DoomsDay349 21:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's your fault. As it says at Display_resolution#Evolution_of_resolution_standards, "800×600 was the standard resolution until around 2000. Since then, 1024×768 has been the standard resolution" Change you resolution to the standard.dposse 18:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that original research. Using other articles in an argument usually isn't a good idea if they aren't sourced and are factually inaccurate :) --- RockMFR 22:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the standard, the fact is that many people's monitors can't support 1024x768. I could afford a second hand "standard" monitor last month only.--cloviz 01:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I pity the poor people on anything less than 1280x1024. :P Save up for a Dell 3007WFP and get 2560x1600, 30" diagonal. *drool* —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I doubt you'd get a response in 6 months, unless the response is you dying under mysterious circumstances Nil Einne 15:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the main page in 800x600, and while I'll grant I'm not accustomed to how the page normally looks under that setting, it looked fine to me, at least now that it was under the image.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

ITN image

The current "in the news" image, Image:HamiltonStorm07-MP-crop.jpg, is a bit dark, although it's very helpful, at a larger resolution. As a thumb, it's hard to tell what's going on. Could it either be lightened up in GIMP or photoshop (although I can't see how that could be done without looking odd), or merely replaced? I've compiled a list of images at Talk:February 2007 North America winter storm#Loads of images. Images number 9, 10, and 14 look good. Images 12 and 4 were previously used, and image 11 is being used now. I took image number 7, but it's really not that exciting :) And all images shouldn't go in the article, by the way; a gallery may be needed at the bottom. Well, about the main page image, any suggestions? Making a mountain out of a molehill, I know, but the Main Page isn't a molehill. Gracenotes^T § 03:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

File:HamiltonStormEdit1.jpg

Brightness and colors adjusted

I thought that too when I saw the picture. How about this picture? ShadowHalo 06:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, ShadowHalo — that's a big improvement. I've replaced the old one with your lightened version. (I'm photoshop-inept, myself.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Great job, ShadowHalo! Gracenotes^T § 20:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Big Edit Problem

Hello, I am having a problem with editing wikipedia articles. In the last 6 hours, every time I edit a wikipedia article, it doesn't show up in the history tab, and I am just wondering what is going on. Is there like a maintenance issue, or it is a new policy to approve articles, I want to know.--jsalims80 01:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That would only happen in a couple of cases:

1. Your edits have been oversighted, which is unlikely
2. You have made a null edit, which I also doubt
3. Your cache needs to bypassed (or cleared)

3 is the most likely option, and check out WP:CACHE for more information about how to do this. Or if you don't want to get into the details, Ctrl+R or Ctrl+F5 will usually do the trick. Gracenotes^T § 04:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure that's the problem. I had the same thing happen to me recently, and clearing cache did not help. It went away itself after a minute or so. Very disconcerting. Zocky | picture popups 07:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There were a few server sync problems recently. I remember having troubles like this at busy times and then the edit servers went offline for a few minutes while they caught up. Perhaps it's a symptom of this? --Monotonehell 11:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that there haven't been as many edits since yesterday afternoon for some reason.--jsalims80 18:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably still recovering from when the site was down for an hour. ShadowHalo 18:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

== Misspellin (irony) ==

It seems to me that the most commonly incorrectly spelled words (all throughout Wikipedia) are those like "nationalization". People keep spelling these kinds of words with an "S" instead of a "Z", and it drives me nuts. Just for the record, it's nationalization, not nationalisation. - dogman15 01:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Nationalisation is the European method of spelling it, and since we make no distinction on American vs. European, so long as it is consistent throughout, it's perfectly acceptable. DoomsDay349 01:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)r

You're far from the first person to think that an American English / British English difference is a grammar mistake (although it's a bit amusing every time said errors are noted). -- tariqabjotu 02:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I always find it funny when someone "corrects" and entire article and then some other equally ignorant sort "corrects" it all back. Such a waste of time. --Monotonehell 11:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do we keep presenting the -ise/-ize spelling differences as British English vs American English? That is a gross oversimplification of the matter. I'd have thought at least a mention of the French/Greek origins of the spelling would be an improvement. Even better would be to point people to how this is covered in Wikipedia at American and British English spelling differences#-ise / -ize. (The rest of that page makes interesting reading as well.) You could also read what the Oxford English Dictionary editors have to say about it: Ask Oxford.com - Are spellings like 'privatize' and 'organize' Americanisms? Their answer, in short? "No, not really." Carcharoth 13:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It still says that now -ize is standard in American English and -ise is preferred in British English. So it's not wrong to present it as British English vs. American English. Thanks for pointing out this detail; I personally didn't know about this matter that well. --BlacxthornE 08:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any sort of discussion of the reasons for the differences between American English and British English is necessary here. All that Dogman15 needed to know was that it's a spelling from a different region, not an actual mistake. If he wants to know more about the subject, I'm sure he's bright enough to look it up. ShadowHalo 15:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

dogman15, the guidelines can be found at WP:ENGVAR. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It stemmed from Webster (unsure if it was Meriam) changing a lot of English spelling after the United States formed as an independent nation. So in a sense they are Americanisms, but not Americanisms in the sense of "ya'll" or "kinda". DoomsDay349 00:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, y'all has the apostrophe placed inbetween the "Y" and the "A," because you are removing the letters "O" and "U". sorry...its was the Texan in me that notcied that...Theturtlehermit 01:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Zzyzx11 is right to point Dogman15 to that Wikipedia guideline, which explains very well how this sort of concern is handled. As for whether it was Webster or Merriam, did you follow the link I gave? Here it is again: Are spellings like 'privatize' and 'organize' Americanisms?. It was Webster. Carcharoth 01:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thou art all using the wrong language, it is a travesty that you seek to dispel the wonder of English with your tripe-filled slang tounge! I am outraged. 84.71.158.191 12:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Now now, no need to go that far (despite being English myself).--CarrotMan 16:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As a true English patriot, you should be aware that "Thou art" is the second person singular. For plural, you want "you are" </pedantry> Algebraist 14:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Question based on same topic: is it appropriate for teachers (in america) to take of points on a term paper bacause you used british spelling?Eddisford 18:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that's an area in which the individual teacher has some license (or licence). The fact is that in the United States, US spellings are appropriate. An American newspaper editor would correct British spellings in an article, just as a British editor would correct American spellings. When in Rome... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 12:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

An English friend was writing a technical book for an American publishing house, he was told that it was OK to use common British English spellings like "colour" as everyone would recognise them as such, but that obscure words had to follow the American rules, or there would be "letters to the editor". Rich Farmbrough, 23:16 20 February 2007 (GMT).

I would say it's silly for points to be deducted for using Commonwealth spellings in the US or for using US spellings in the Commonwealth for normal school and university course work, except for English specific work. At the very least, I would say students should be warned if a teacher or lecturer is going to be so pedantic. Of course, a lot of work nowadays is done on computers anyway so it's easy to avoid such an issue altogether Nil Einne 10:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes reading theses discussion groups is more educative than reading in the actual Wikipedia itself. Yours Britta / Germany Thanks --217.249.235.18 01:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Regarding the deduction of points for Commonwealth spellings, I've had friends with that problem, usually friends who learned English as a second language outside America, where British spelling is favored. Is the true same in the Commonwealth? Personally, I want to change articles to reflect the spelling if the article is specifically English, or America to reflect the local language. There was a Wikinews article several months back that quoted several American politicians, but the quotes used British spelling, making it somewhat humorous. Zidel333 06:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

minorities

This has nothing to do with the things mentioned before. I am so annoyed that I never ever see anything about minorities on the main page. For Black History Month you've had nothing. What's with that??

The one two days ago was Sly & the Family Stone, accompanied with the quote "there are two types of black music: black music before Sly Stone, and black music after Sly Stone". ShadowHalo 03:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles don't appear by magic, they are the result of many editors all doing their own thing. If you want to see more of <insert pet topic here> you might like to join in and contribute. --Monotonehell 08:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: Ethnic minorities is general country or region specific. There is quite a large number of Africans in this world for example. Contributors primary contribute in things that interest them or they know about as you might expect. Therefore, we have a strong bias to the developed world, the English speaking developed world in particular and as the US makes a big proportion of this, we have a strong US bias. And again, within the US we are obviously biased to the 'majorities', even more so since the minorities tend to be less well off. And we are also biased to popular culture things compared to more serious subjects. The way wikipedia works this is not unexpected as I've explained. The whole point of this IMHO is that personally, I think we should be more concerned about our poor coverage of the developing world then minorities. From memory there is an outstanding bounty or whatever to bring any African country up to FA status, perhaps someone might want to tackle that. Nil Einne 10:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia, not an American encyclopedia. We do not observe Black History Month because the vast majority of the world does not observe Black History Month. —Cuiviénen 17:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

OK whatever, let's be real. If we did the research you would clearly see a trend. Be real about this.

What do you mean? What trend? ffm 21:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps you (the unsigned editor, I mean) could do the research. APL

Sorry but Wikipedia:Original research is not welcome on wikipedia (what you want to research I'm not sure but it doesn't matter) Nil Einne 10:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

what "minorities"? Wikipedia is, in fact, written by a minority of the geeky sort (the encyclopedia that slashdot built). Short of world population I really cannot think of a single article that isn't about a minority in some way. Black History Month is just another US topic, and we all know the US are vastly over-represented ITN :oP dab (𒁳) 14:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're expecting, but a quick glance at the Main Page reveals we have information regarding events all over the world – from Dhaka (Bangladesh) to Turkmenistan to Guinea to North America to Sweden. The accusation that we don't talk about "minorities" (and really, what does that mean? The USAmerican context is quite narrow). -- tariqabjotu 16:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Family day in Saskatchewan too

just a minor nitpick, but Saskatchewan, Canada also has Family Day, whichtuytuiyti is mentioned in the linked article, but is not mentioned in the "on this day" section. 142.165.47.149 20:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This belongs in WP:ERRORS. ffm _{on 2007-02-19 21:59}

which might be moved...63.215.29.113 03:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Which is irrelevant until it is or isn't. — ceejayoz ^talk 17:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

But whether it moves or not a response consisting soely of "This belongs in WP:ERRORS." can easily be construed as biteing, which is why we're talking about moving it to begin with. 198.179.243.50 17:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been moved anyway but I disagree it's biting. Perhaps it would have been better to say :This might get a better response in..." but the reality is, unless your an admin you can't fix it an moving it IMHO is a very bad idea so all you could do is suggest to the person where they should post and let them decide what to do. If they decided to repost in WP:ERRORS then good, if not tough. Nil Einne 11:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

All five DYKs today are about the US or US-related subjects. Are you seriously telling me that there were no other DYKs available on non-American topics? I refer those who select DYKs to the rules and regulations, specifically the bit about avoiding choosing too many examples that relate to the same topic or geopgraphic area. This is by no means the first time this has happened. When previous charges of US-centrism have been raised, many editors (mainly American) have scoffed. I suggest they stop to think for a minute: Wikipedia is supposed to be international. The US-centrism will alienate many readers. 82.32.238.139 13:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

We're updating them as I speak. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

OMG BIAS! Like we haven't heard that one before... – Qxz 16:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (and no, I'm not American)

Meh. Its a fluke, it'll happen from time to time. Instead of complaining, how about writing articles on some other topics and then proposing them as DYKs?--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends. Yes it's somewhat of a fluke. But is it a fluke because there was no suitable candidates or because an admin didn't take care? If this was about FA or FA & ITN or something, I would probably agree it's silly but IMHO when it comes to DYK, IMHO for the benefit of all (including the sanity of admins from the complaints) we should try to avoid it whenever possible. Nil Einne 10:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of DYK candidates, IMHO, and choosing non-U.S. topics isn't that hard. --Howard the Duck 09:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

FA count off Main Page

I just realized that the newly implemented cascading protection of the Main Page is the cause of the problems we've been having with the Jmax-bot FA and FFA counts. The workaround solution we had devised to avoid the circus of trying to get admin privileges - putting the count in a js user subpage - no longer works. I have reverted to the pre-automated count format. The bot should function normally again, though we've lost the updated number. - BanyanTree 15:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that there's several templates which aren't included on the main page but are cascade protected via their parent's talk page. I should have taken note at the time as I've forgotten where it was now. --Monotonehell 01:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the most recent discussion at the bot talk, js pages are specifically excluded from cascading protection and the bot owner's computer died recently. When things get sorted out, we'll try again. - BanyanTree 05:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I remember it again, why is this Template:Main Page toolbox cascade protected? --Monotonehell 07:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This should answer your question. Viridae^Talk 08:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Number of articles of Wikipedia

Now that the move of this page to Portal:Main Page (which is the correct name space in my opinion) has been rejected, we have a problem. The NUMBEROFARTICLES magic word shows shows the wrong number of articles. The correct number is less than the shown number by one which is the Main Page, so, I suggest that developers or anyone with enough programming experience establish a new magic word that can show the number of articles minus one or may be reprogram the current magic word. I am not sure whether this is possible or not from the technical point of view but if we can do it then we can leave the Main Page in the Main name space and in the same time the Main Page will display the actual and correct number of articles. In case of rejecting this suggestion, please state the reasons. Thank you. --Meno25 17:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Also the pages that aren't subpages here will add to this total. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think being out by one in a total of 1.6 million is worth worrying about. Especially since the count is always out by more than that anyway - the number is usually cached and the actual figure changes many times a minute as pages are routinely created and deleted. I don't see any reason why all those main page variants shouldn't be moved out of the article-space, though. --Cherry blossom tree 18:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I respect your point of view, Cherry blossom tree, but Wikipedia is an accurate encyclopedia. For example if we increased the number representing the mass of Earth here in Wikipedia by, say, one in a million that's a number which is not worth worrying about, but this will make Wikipedia inaccurate. --Meno25 18:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don’t think we have updated the mass of the earth to reflect the loss in mass due to the most recent satellite launched into space. Just pointing out that it's not a good example, at least not in support of your side of this argument. - Arch NME 07:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I think he's saying that the article count isn't accurate to that level (1 article) anyway so why bother. CaseKid 19:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the main page, the statistics software currently has no method of detecting disambiguation pages, stubs, or stublists according to Wikipedia:What is an article?. So the article count is very much more inaccurate than +/- 1. Plus of course as Cherry Blossom said, the article number may be a couple of minutes old. And imagine all the vandalism articles that haven't been caught yet, the hoaxes, the copyvios. The article number on the main page should only be used as a guide. It should probably only be reported to the nearest thousand :-). Evil Monkey - Hello 20:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The article count is not precise anyway. And no, we're not moving the main page. Zocky | picture popups 21:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, counting or not counting this page is less than the margin of error of our approximation of the margin of error. It's no big deal. ShadowHalo 21:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank for all who participated here. You are right. There is a bigger margin of error any way, so, there is no practical benefit in correcting the Statistics by one. --Meno25 08:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that a new Magic Word wouldn't be needed anyway, since {{#expr: {{NUMBEROFARTICLES:R}}-1}} would give you the number you wanted. timrem 05:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've often thought that we should include it thuswise: {{#expr: {{NUMBEROFARTICLES:R}}*0.95}} with the 0.95 being the percentage of those "other" non-article pages, stubs, AfDs etc. But I don't know if we could actually work that out. Or would it be a stable number rather than a percentage? Nobody knows... --Monotonehell 05:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• If someone can figure out a precise definition of what an article is, then the developers may be willing to listen to changes. Currently, it is anything that isn't a redirect that has some links or a comma within it, IIRC. Titoxd^(?!?) 08:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's a nice definition: Any page in the article namespace that isn't a redirect, has at least one link to another Wikipedia article and doesn't start with Main Page (which would be a non-issue if we moved them to Portal:Main page) --WikiSlasher 09:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Including disambiguation pages? The Placebo Effect 20:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't include disambiguation pages either as they are just usually "This can mean that, that or that." Can't become real "articles" and we certainly wouldn't ever be able to make them featured (not as far as I know anyway). --WikiSlasher 11:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Look what I started. dogman15 03:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)