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.

can we get his ugly mug off the main page? please? --24.252.52.108 16:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

First, it is not up to you whether his picture is "ugly" or not. Second, please request a feasible replacement if you are really dissatisfied with the picture. —METS501 (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What you need to do is get some supermodels involved in an international incident, preferably in bikinis... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Simply because you feel that the picture is "ugly" is not good a good enough reason to remove his picture. The news still happened, and he was still involved, and we still need an image in the section. Suggest an alternative if you want a change. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget we need a photographer there to take a free photo. And let's throw in some hunks as well for all the straight chicks and gay guys Nil Einne 08:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This talk page seems to unfailingly get a complaint whenever a picture (invariably an ugly one, of course) is on the main page for "too long" :) Gracenotes^T § 00:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could have Alberto R. Gonzales? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Why don't we have a contest: which image, when displayed on the Main Page, will bring protests here the quickest? (Besides fair use, advertising, or tubgirl.) Gracenotes^T § 01:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No porn pics, please. --74.14.16.66 04:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That wouldn't be very weird. I've suggested a DYK which illustrated the DYK section with the a page (with pictures) of a book of erotic fiction, and History of erotic depictions was featured on the main page last year. Atropos 05:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

How about grotesque porn photos that happen to be copyvios as well ? --74.14.16.66 05:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. International models in an international incident. Sounds like Miss World gone ugly!!!Tourskin 07:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

All I can say about such a contest is "THINK OF THE DOMIKUN!!!" Nil Einne 09:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought people were complaining about the person being ugly? How is replacing the image with an even uglier one going to help? Nil Einne 08:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder (beer holder). --Monotonehell 13:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, Miss world gone wrong will still have models fighting, so it wnt be that ugly.Tourskin 21:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it might start World War III, and that would be ugly. ;-) · AndonicO ^Talk 14:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

At least switch it to that Hurricane Felix...Crazy 17:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

ditch abdulah. He's been on the front page for like 5 days and its annoying and ugly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.30.68.49 (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You say he is ugly. But there are some Turks out that would die for him. Its there job, like his bodyguard. Some would even love him, and certainly some out there would not find him ugly (lets see, his wife? if hes married). Not me though - I can't stand him, no offence to him. So you see, wikipedia is not a one man show so we can't remove it cos someone says its ugly. What if the ugliest person in the world was involved in a big international incident - do we not post a pic?Tourskin 02:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Its really just the length of time hes been there; nearly a whole week! We should switch it as soon as more news occurs...Crazy 07:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Gül's election is by now old news. Let's also see what else is new and fit to print. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.196.108 (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You're just keeping him up there out of spite, aren't you? Marshall Stax 20:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol I say he should stay there until people get so fed up that this discussion gets ugly.Tourskin 21:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Who cares if some stupid turks would die for him? How many turks use Wikipedia? Stuff all! What's wrong with Hurricane Felix? What's so imprtant about this guy? --Simpsons fan 66 23:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's now a full week. People have stopped taking newspapers because news on the Net is supposed to be more up to date. He's not ugly; it's a decent enough pic. Turkey right now is a vital place in European and Middle-Eastern affairs; and any shift away from the historic secularism is a big deal. But it's a week! How about Steve Fosset being missing? How about Rafsanjani heading the Ass'y of Experts? Hasn't anything of note (and with a pic) happened in the world in the past week?

Well when you get turks saying "OMFG THIS ARTICLEIS ANTI TURKISH CURSE WIKIPEDIA!!" on an article you make, u try not to aggrevate them. Anyways the puc has changed - yeah!Tourskin 01:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Halaluyah, so long abdullah. That almost rhymes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.51.103.64 (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sayonara, Abdullah. This rhymes better... --74.13.124.222 06:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the first rhyme. Pronounced like "Ah-leh-loo-yah! so long ab-du-lah!" lolTourskin 07:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe people need to learn that wikipedia and specifically ITN is not a news source and is not intended to be? Nil Einne 06:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is this still on the main page news his elections was never almost 2 weeks ago.PRANKSter1977 00:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Could someone help me on the subject of templates and their function in Wikipedia articles? Just a general question about their purpose. Even a link would be fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.79.27 (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Bot 75.70.79.27 06:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A template is a page who's content can be "transcluded" into another page. So if the template said "I am Sam," including the template in a page would produce "I am Sam." This is usually used to create navigational and informational boxes that need to be relatively consistent across a large number of pages. Rather than copy the long code over and over, you just type a certain word and you're done. Atropos 07:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Template namespace. In the future, general questions about Wikipedia should be posted at the help desk. -Elmer Clark 08:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a pain, but are these questions suppose to be asked here?Tourskin 02:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There are more appropriate places. But this page is the first place that most people find. So if someone does ask a question here don't WP:BITE, if you know the answer and have the time, answer it and point them to the appropriate resources. :) --Monotonehell 01:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with that in principle, it does appear to generate a contravention to the aim of getting peoples questions to the right place. Tourskin 20:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Despite general opinions and point of views, the fact that the Falkland Island are claimed by Argentina can't be ignored in the featured picture text. Take into account that in Argentina, these islands are legally and officially considered part of the Argentine territory.--cloviz 01:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

And yet it has been ignored. The fact is, whilst Argentina recognizes them as their Islands, the rest of the world (more or less) recognizes them as British territory, including Britain. What other people think of the Island is largely wishful thinking. Tourskin 05:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Errr... yeah it can. Do we say, "Taiwan, a province of the People's Republic of China..."? —Verrai 05:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

.*Puts down 10 foot barge pole* --Monotonehell 06:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your arguments. We don't say Taiwan is part of China any more than we say Falklands is part of Argentina. Neither of these two is true. Tourskin 07:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

He was refering to the comment about how it can't be ignored by cloviz. Hence the "yeah it can" and his indenting at the same level as you. Atropos 11:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually we do say Taiwan is part of China. See Taiwan "territories administered by the Republic of China (ROC), which governs the island of Taiwan". We don't however say Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China so Verrai was quite... Nil Einne 11:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

He was obviously talking about the PRC too. Don't be a pedant. Atropos 18:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't resist given how worked up about things he tends to get and how he himself likes to nitpick. Plus the fact that he appears to be incapable of following a thread... Also I think it is important people unnderstand there is a big difference between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China. Both claim to be the true China which is what makes the whole thing so ridiculous. Failing to differentiate between the 2 can lead to silly statements (even when the meaning is clear) such as "Taiwan isn't a part of China" whereas as I've already said this simply isn't true since both the ROC and the PRC generally consider Taiwan to be a part of China. Nil Einne 12:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You should really know better than to say that. Its a bit uncivil. Atropos 22:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Atropos, thats what I meant. Taiwan is claimed by PRC but its not owned by PRC. Falklands is claimed by Argentina but its not. Its owned by the UK and governed by itself. Tourskin 18:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

But this is completely irrelevant which you would have know if you could follow a thread... Nil Einne 12:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I still don't know what u r on about Nil. My point is clear. Taiwan is de facto recognized by the world, even by the PRC as independent. The Falklands Island is recognized by the world, even by Argentina as de facto UK territory. I'm using a comparison here to show that there is no need to say what a minority believe in. Furthermoore, I would like to add that the link on the picture "Falkland Island" had a section about the War in the 80's so it can be known from there what Argentina's views on the Island are.Tourskin 01:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You're all agreeing with each other! Tourskin, you are just saying exactly what Verrai said right at the top. Everything else has been people agreeing with each other in an argumentative fashion :) Why not agree to agree and leave it at that? Skittle 13:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Never! I will immediately march back to my HQ and prepare a pre-pre-emptive defensive measure against any potential pre-emptive strike against the Falklands - HAIL RULE BRITANNIA!Tourskin 02:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Because Nil Einne is being unnecessarily rude towards Tourskin. Atropos 03:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Nil, I didn't see teh comment above , and good thing too because I would not have given the humorous reply that some users on this page have been asking me to give. I'll do my best not to let your comment get to me. Tourskin 21:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan does not consider itself a part of the PRC, if thats what you meant. When I say China, I mean the real China of the PRC, the one that is recognized by the vast majority of the world. The ROC is more commonly known as Taiwan, I know this from personal experience from personal experience in England. No one entertains any plans of Taiwan being annexed by the PRC. Thats why the US maintains a presence in the region, to stop China from getting a little to excited. Tourskin 21:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

*Puts down 20 foot barge pole*~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 16:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

!!! PLAGIARISM !!! LOL! --Monotonehell 10:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all! I badly needed a good laugh! In this case the legal truism still applies: Possession is nine-tenth's of the law! Shir-El too 22:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Not if ur assyrian, then it becomes 11/10ths of the law. Tourskin 02:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

When these kinds of disputes happen - the two countries involved generally go to war about it. A lot of people die - and when the dust settles one side is deemed to have won. That country generally gets to decide what happens to the disputed terratory afterwards...now remind me - who won the Falklands war? SteveBaker 19:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

China? Oooops sorry I should remember to put away my crystal ball before answering questions on wikipedia Nil Einne 17:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

HAIL BRITANNIA!!Tourskin 20:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Rights of conquest are hard to argue against, especially in practical terms. Morality, history and geographic proximity are different, often irrelevant, frequently complicated issues. Heh, no-one mentioned Tibet (ducks for cover). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.197.212 (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering where the consensus was for that.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

To make it more clear whats being pictured, can we have the word pictured in bold text like this: pictured on the Main Page. I think it would catch a readers eye and so quickly inform them as to what is pictured rather than just having to read thru all the text. Tourskin 22:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

We've had this discussion twice before that I can remember. Here's how it went both times.

• Bold the text?
• Move the picture?
• Put the pictured item at the top?
• Put the pictured item at the top / bottom in a background highlighted div, and do the same with the picture.
• Several demonstrations followed
• "If it ain't broke", wins the argument.

I gave up. --Monotonehell 09:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Just bold the word picture so that people know from what sentence its from. It aint broken but that doesn't mean it can't use an upgrade. Tourskin 18:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I happen to think that it is broken, since enough people regularly complain about it. --Monotonehell 21:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well so did I initially but i thought that the "it aint broke" argument wins. You are right, it is broke, hence my argument. Making it bold will make it more apparent, will quickly allow a reader who his reading the main page to see what fact or event links with the displayed image. Tourskin 22:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

So can any admins please tell me if making the words "pictured" in bold not be any good?Tourskin 06:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd support bolding the word "pictured". Having seen an interesting picture it currently takes too long (ok, it's a second or two, but it feels awkward) to find the item that refers to it. I think the current concept is fine (keep the layout, and annotate the relevant entry) but the annotation could be made to draw the eye a little more. PeteVerdon 18:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I support always having the blurb that matches the picture at the top, since that's what people are expecting to annotate the picture. Failing that, I support this proposal to highlight the blurb that matches the picture. Right now it looks like Hurricane Felix is a mustachioed man who will lead Turkey. --Sean 00:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This IMO is the most sensible way of handling it. But we've failed to gain consensus on this in the past. --Monotonehell 03:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What does IMO stand for? Lol.Tourskin 04:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In My Opinion.. What does Lol stand for? ;) --Monotonehell 12:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Lots of laughs. A very vital word in the world of text messaging and / or instant chatting online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tourskin (talk • contribs) 20:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure I've always heard/used it as lots of laughs (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/LOL) though I took the question to be in jest anyway. 172.209.158.180 23:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I was joking (note the emoticon). Besides, LOL stands for Laughs Out Loud. Which ironically hardly anyone actually does when they type it. ^{[citation needed]} --Monotonehell 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No it can mean also lots of laughs. Thats what my friends told me when I use to chat with the online. Besides, its not official. By the way, does this :) mean emotion? This may sound stupid but I had no idea why people did it. Anyways back to the main point. Bolding is good and its not like its such a controversial decision. Tourskin 23:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your friends are misinformed and no editing the articles to reflect your POV ;). Back in the dark ages of dial up internet before the Web and BBS chat before that these shortcuts were developed to save on fingers. --Monotonehell 05:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hah! and lol. U can't quote from wikipedia thats cheating! Besides, its a matter of perspective, U didnt make it up and the person who did didn't actually specify now did they? I am having lots of laughs. Besides, laughs out loud is not in the first person form so doesn't make sense to tell someone " oh loughs out loud". Tourskin 06:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well when it was first introduced it was widely know that it stood exclusively for Laughs Out Loud. It's only relatively recently when emoticons and abbreviations moved from BBS chat and IRC to Instant Messaging systems that these backronyms have emerged. I'd add a call for citations but I AM an authority on this ;)

Meanwhile, back on topic... --Monotonehell 10:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you can't prove something like this! Ur arrrogance is making me laugh, u cant prove that it meant laughs outloud! No one can because its the meaning that the user gives. Its not a scientific definition to be found. Tourskin 19:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC) (My arrogance was being faked in order to make you Laugh Out Loud LOL! Monotonehell 01:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC))

Monotonehell, if you're going to admonish people, make sure you get it right :-P I've always thought it is laughing out loud (not laughs out loud or laugh out loud) which is partially supported by wiktionary. Admitedly I was fairly late to the internet relatively speaking I found IRC in 1995 or thereabouts. But I have some evidence to back up my claim, see the wiktionary talk page :-P Nil Einne 16:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh gees. Lol tho!Tourskin 22:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Back on topic

So seriously, can we like bold it? Like, now!? lol.Tourskin 01:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Perhaps we should make a demo page and see what people think? --Monotonehell 01:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, just do it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Admins?! lolTourskin 04:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, "be bold" kind of takes on a double meaning in this case.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Now I'm looking for someone to handle all the flame mail I may get... :P Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really a fan of the bolding. I understand you want to emphasize what is pictured, but I think the bolding is too much emphasis; it's almost screaming at us. This is especially true because it's quite clear what this picture is. No, that's not Abdullah Gül. -- tariqabjotu 21:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Using <small>, like so (pictured) may be a good compromise. CloudNine 21:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that would make it worse. The point is to make it clear where the word "pictured" is so that one can link the pic with the relevent info.Tourskin 22:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Now hang on, only the News section is bolded. I meant to have all teh words "pictured" bolded.Tourskin 22:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Done, at least for now. If it's reverted, I'll be leaving you guys to argue it out, though :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 23:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not think bolding will look good on for what is upcoming on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/September 13:

• 1993 – After rounds of secret negotiations in Norway, PLO leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (pictured with U.S. President Bill Clinton) formally signed the Oslo Peace Accords.

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There are about a couple dozen other examples like that in the selected anniversaries/On this day pages where "pictured with X" or "X pictured" is used instead of just "pictured". Here are a few:

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see this has been implemented. Good work! Modest Genius ^talk 23:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Please change this back. It does not look good at all and all it does is distract from the text. Atropos 00:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we get people to state their support or opposition to this? Someone suggested a possible outcry but in the defence of this change, it has gone without much criticism for quite some time. So how about it? Being the one who put this forward, I Support the boldness here!Tourskin 00:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I Oppose based on the comments mentioned by me, Atropos, and Tariqabjotu. I would rather implement the highlighting proposal discussed last year. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Support, though only bold one word please Modest Genius ^talk 01:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want only one word bolded, then how would you implement that for the examples I previously posted on the right? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well this is how - by only bolding the word pictured! Like originally proposed! I agree with one word.Tourskin 02:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Like this?

• 1993 – After rounds of secret negotiations in Norway, PLO leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (pictured with U.S. President Bill Clinton) formally signed the Oslo Peace Accords.

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, looks good to me. Modest Genius ^talk 02:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I still think it looks bad. I see no reason why the italics aren't enough and the rationale given by the proponents – that precious milliseconds are being expended on finding the word pictured – isn't very compelling. -- tariqabjotu 02:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tariqabjotu. In addition, the use of italics to indicate things like this is pretty standard. I've never heard of anyone using bold before. Atropos 02:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Its not about keeping the status quo Atropos. It doesn't matter what was used before, everything had a starting point. Tourskin 03:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the bolding is confusing/looks out of place when used in conjunction with the italics. Doesn't the italics make it stand out enough? Honestly, if you can't tell the difference between italics and regular text in a relatively short amount of time, then something is wrong (probably with me). There are four types of text in this box:

1. Regular text. For words that aren't linked. Duh.
2. Linked text. Text that is linked to a related article. The link is blue (or whatever color the user prefers), standing out from regular text.
3. Bold text. Used in conjunction with a link, this points to the main article related to the news story. It stands out more than regular text because of the bolding and/or the different color of the text. When compared to other links, it stands out more because of the different color
4. Italicized text. Used to indicate what the picture is of. While not more noticeable than linked or bold text, the italics make it more noticeable because it is the only italics in the entire section.

Having bold and italics to represent the picture only makes it blend in more, in my opinion: the bold somewhat blends in/looks sloppy next to the main topic link. I really don't have a conclusion for this rant, except that I oppose the bolding and italicizing of the "picture" text. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 05:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(P.S. After I began writing this, it had already been changed back. Furthermore, many comments have been lodged as "errors" in the ITN template. This doesn't seem to be popular. It was worth a shot, though.)

(Here are the comments, moved from above:) Please, revert the bolded "pictured" - it looks too silly and is not coherent with the rest of the main page. --Camptown 22:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This was decided upon - apparently - on the main page's talk page. I agree wtih you that it looks silly, but should it probably be discussed there before beeing reverted.--Carabinieri 23:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the bold, but Shouldn't it be an all-or-nothing sort of thing? What about DYK and OTD? APL 23:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the second part, but this really belongs at the original discussion at Talk:Main page.--Carabinieri 23:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added the bolding across all three sections, and updated tomorrow's Selected Anniversaries to match (since it'll be live in about half an hour). I've no opinion on whther the change should be permanent or not, but we may as well be consistent about it. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 23:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it simply looks too silly. BTW, a decision of this magnitude takes more reflection, numerous consultations, and prayer. ;) --Camptown 09:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok it looks like half or more people here oppose the idea of bolding. So I guess theres no concensus and the word "pictured" remains only in Italics.Tourskin 21:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Also not exactly an error. But the statement about three Australians' "....greatest military achievement of the war" should make clear, I think, it is referring to WW1. In the article itself this is clear. Pukkie 05:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

But the word war was linked to world war 1 was it not?Tourskin 23:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Easter Egg links are bad and should be avoided. violet/riga (t) 20:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Easter Egg links"? Forgive me, but I've got no idea what that means.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

They are links that go to an article that you wouldn't really expect. This, for example. All links, especially on the Main Page, should be obvious as to their target, and expecting readers to have to click (or hover) on the link is not right. violet/riga (t) 20:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Whats ur point, the link to war was World War 1, there was no easter egg link.Tourskin 21:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't have links like war because it is not apparent without clicking or hovering. violet/riga (t) 21:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes we should thats the whole point of these links - to make it easier to say what you mean, without having to say it. And the fact that its blue means that anyone who has any curiosity will find out. Look, there is no inaccuracy in it, only ambiguity, which is solved by clicking on the link.Tourskin 22:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but that's not the way we should have it. It's detailed at WP:PIPE#EGG. violet/riga (t) 07:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That might be the policy, but I have seen many articles with easter egg links. Very well, if thats the policy then perhaps it shouldn't have that kind of a link. However, I personally disagree. Hovering one's mouse over the link is not much of an effort if one has the curiosity to find out. The way I see it is that:

• If someone is reading something and they don't get it because they don't know what war was going on (as in this case) or what effects someone was on about, they would click or hover over the link or word.

But this is my opinion, and discussing otherwise is another discussion. For now, I withdraw!Tourskin 04:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the main problem with "easter egg" links, and the piped links that are common, is that in any potential future printed version of Wikipedia (or, indeed, in a printed copy of an online page), they would not work, and therefore would leave ambiguity.

Good: "The Grand Theft Auto has sparked considerable controversy". In this case, not using a piped link would lead to nonstandard English wording.

Bad: "Hugo Chávez made a famous speech in 2006".To anyone reading a printed version of this, no information about the speech can be gained other than the fact that it was in 2006.

There are probably better examples of why they are bad, but never mind. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 22:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In the "Did You Know?" section, the following is one of the bullets:

...that Olga D. González-Sanabria, a Puerto Rican scientist and inventor, is the highest ranking Hispanic at NASA Glenn Research Center?

Hispanic is an adjective, and in my experience the use of racial or ethnic adjectives as nouns is derogatory.—Kbolino 08:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster, dictionary.com, and Wiktionary all list it as a noun as well as an adjective. None indicate that its use as a noun is any more offensive than its use as an adjective. Also, your statement "in my experience the use of racial or ethnic adjectives as nouns is derogatory" confuses me...I can't think of any example of this, although there are examples of the opposite, such as "Jew" as an adjective being offensive. What exactly were you referring to? (As an aside, "Hispanic," whether offensive or not, is certainly in common use and in fact is the official term used by the US Census Bureau, and therefore perfectly appropriate for use on Wikipedia.) -Elmer Clark 08:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hispanic is as about as neutral as we can get. We don't need political incorrectness leaving us without any descriptive and yet neutral words.Tourskin 23:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I was mistaken. I honestly had no idea that the use of "Hispanic" as a noun was not derogatory. In my experience--and this may be a regional thing, or simply some gross misinterpretation on my part--all ethnic names used as nouns are derogatory, including Black, Hispanic, and Jew. It has always been (or seemed) appropriate to use them as adjectives (with nouns like person or individual) instead.—Kbolino 05:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is flawed in oh so many ways:

• Jew is a religion, not a people. There are Israelites, and most of them are Jews. However, not all Jews are Israelites (e.g. the Khazars) and not all Israelites are Jews (some are Christian and perhaps Muslim too).

• Black is seen as a derogatory term because Black people are not ethnically related. Black people are classed not because they are ethnically related but because they came from the same huge continent of Africa (its like comparing all people from Asia) and have dark skin. Its in the same class as white people. You don't say that "Einstein is the smartest white guy to have lived". You do however, say that he was the smartest German guy to have lived.

• In my personal experience, Hispanic is a word very commonly used to associate the peoples whose culture and language originate from Spainm or Hispania. These people are consequently known as Hispanics. I have asked people if they were hispanic and they smile and say yes. An equadorian friend of mine didn't mind using the word Hispanic.

So you see, unlike Black people, or Jewish people or even say Christian people, Hispanic people have a lot more in common with themselves than Black people - Most Hispanics speak Spanish, practice Christianity (RC) and have a mediterranean culture. Black people can be Muslim or Christian (besides others), Ethiopian or South African (relatively speaking unrelated) or have any kind of culture.

Furthermoore, there is no "nicer" and "efficient" alternative to describe the people who share a common language, religion and culture and even background.

Respectfully,

Tourskin 06:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Re the first point, see the article Jew and also Who is a Jew?. It's not as clear cut as you indicated Nil Einne 17:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats not my point Nil, in fact my argument is that a category like Jew is very ambiguous, which u have nicely pointed out for me. Hispanics meanwhile are a far more specific group. Tourskin 19:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My argument had nothing to with the ambiguity or specificity of the term "Hispanic." As such, insofar as the person in question is Hispanic (which is a predicate adjective and not a noun when used as such), the definition itself is irrelevant. All that concerned me was the part of speech of the word as used. The dictionaries referenced cited the usage as a noun being acceptable, with no notes about vulgarity or offensiveness. But my perception is unlikely unique, and while it is obviously not universal, it is at least worth consideration.—Kbolino 00:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I was only trying to say that Black, Jew and Hispanic are different, not of the same class. Whether or not its offensive is really a matter of how its intended. In this case it was a descriptive word, not an insult, so it is not derogatory.Tourskin 01:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

However even if a term is intended to be descriptive, it can still be degrogotary in some instances. For example I don't think there is any doubt or disagreement that Ariel Sharon is Jewish. However calling him a Jew is still likely to be considered offensive even thought it may be intended as accurate & descriptive terminilogy. And this has nothing to do with the "who is a Jew" ambiguity but the simple fact that usage of the Jew in that way is associated with bigotry (as our article says). For that matter, black is not necessarily offensive in many circumstances. However nigger to an extreme and negro is at the very least usually considered antiquated. Again this is more related to the historical usage of the words. I personally don't think this is the case for saying someone is Hispanic but my point is for a variety of reasons certain 'descriptive' terminology can still be offensive. Nil Einne 11:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

True, but I also said earlier that there was no better term than Hispanic. Just like u wouldn't call Sharon a Jew first, u would call him an Israeli first. Then if u talked about his religion, jew is the only term available. Derogatory or not, a word must be used if no other "nicer" word can be found. We don't want wikipedia to be "wordless" because of someone's view on political correctness Tourskin 20:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually in most circumstances you would say he is Jewish not a Jew which was my point. Also whether you would refer to him as Jewish or Israeli depends on the context. Ariel Sharon is a bad example in this case but for example let's say he was an Iranian and he became the president of Iran. We might say he was the first Jewish president of Iran. We wouldn't say he was the first Iranian president of Iran... Note that the original posted was not suggesting we don't refer to the person as a Hispanic but that we say something like the highest ranking Hispanic person. I.E. he wasn't saying that we shouldn't mention the person is Hispanic simply that we find another way to refer to the person. I don't think this is necessary but I wanted to make the point that there are a variety of ways to refer to people some are degratory for a variety of reasons and we should be careful about how we word things. Ignoring such concerns because we think it's political correctness is IMHO silly. Yes sometimes people go to far with this but the difference between going too far and not doing enough is a very fine line. Nil Einne 11:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, its the intention that counts and not how easily someone is offended. This is an idealistic approach but oh well. Tourskin 17:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

When the 2,000,000th article is created, how long will it take to know which one it is, and how is the whole process done? Waiting for the more-or-less remarkable milestone. . . 67.41.164.160 02:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

↑P.S.↑: Will there be a modification to the wikilogo (like it's done on most other Wikipedias) celebrating the milestone?

Have a look above - there's a discussion regarding what we're doing when we reach that quantity. And another with a ink to the pool for the gamblers amongst us. --Monotonehell 03:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Although the pool has already closed... :-P Nil Einne 06:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The pool has been closed for a while, rumor has it the reason is related to stingrays and AIDS. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 02:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully that banner will be up soon! Good job, everyone! —Dark•Shikari^[T] 08:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

And now: which article was the 2,000,000th? Is that poosible to establish with certainty? --Camptown 08:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, as aren't articles deleted as well as created at same time, so there could be confusion. Awaiting banner! Phgao 08:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oklahoma State Highway 113 was 2m. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? Where did Gulf crayfish snake fall? --Czj 08:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Banner is up. But it doesnt show here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=history ? Phgao 08:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Main Page banner. --- RockMFR 08:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Also the main portal needs updating. --Camptown 08:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, when I google wikipedia it always says "A free encyclopedia built collaboratively using Wiki software. (GNU Free Documentation License) and with over 1000000 articles." - Will it ever say over 2mil articles? (this is the google link http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-au%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GGLJ&q=wiki Phgao 08:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the 2,000,000th article was generated by User:BOTijo - a bot... --Camptown 08:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends, Anonymous Dissident appears to disagree. But I see that whoever owns that bot activated it at the right time to flood Wikipedia with dozens of new bot-created articles in an attempt to get the 2 millionth article. I tried too, but at least mine wasn't a generic bot article. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 08:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh your article "seems" to be the 2000001st one. Phgao 08:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the line "As always, contributions are welcome to improve all existing articles " going to be put in? (see above discussion) Phgao 08:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope User:Anonymous Dissident is right, why shuoldn't he? ;) --Camptown 08:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Raul654 has put on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions that the 2 millionth article was El Hormiguero Davewild 08:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Now people are saying that it was Sum of absolute transformed differences. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#2_million_articles_2 it's El Hormiguero? Phgao 08:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The "winner" needs a temporay tag, something like this:

.

--Camptown 08:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

How can anyone know for sure? It is very possible that two were created at exactly the same time... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

What matters is when the database transaction itself went in. As far as I know they are handled sequentially, so a true winner should be possible to find. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 08:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You stole the words right out of my mouth :) - databases are atomic and transactional, and therefore it is impossible for two articles to be created at the exact same time. Raul654 08:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It is probably hard to establish who reached 2,000,000 first as there was a substantial "Job queue" at the time. But, I would be happy, if we could agree that the winner was created by a real editor and not a bot.--Camptown 08:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I see. Well then, my hat is off to El Hormiguero... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I posted the news on meta... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

But wasn't El Hormiguero technically created long ago? --Camptown 08:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It had deleted revisions that Alkivar restored, after the article was created. So yes, it is the 2 millionth article. Raul654 08:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Woah waoh!! How on earth did this ever get FA status? And its gonna b a TFA soon? AAAHH! Tourskin 22:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If you don't think it should be an FA, you're free to nominate it for review. I might add, though, that the article in question just went through one in July and retained FA status.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

our FA is an internet meme and our featured picture is two bugs doing the deed. this is truly a banner day for wikipedia. DJRaveN4x 00:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not the first picture of insects mating we've run on the Main Page. Daniel Case 03:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont want to start something I can't finish, so I will pass on the review, and see if there are any moans on sept 7th.Tourskin 00:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Terrible choice for a front page article, whether it is good or not. In my opinion, articles about social memes have no place on the front page of wikipedia--especially ones that are laden with profanity. -- Sammermpc 19:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That has no bearing on its being selected for TFA. The only requirement is that articles being featured, and any article (that's eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia) is eligible for FA status.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* How many times must the argument be made? Featured articles are not chosen based on their subject matter; they are chosen by the quality of article. If you don't like it, then nominate for review, or better yet, write a better one. DoomsDay349 23:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* how many times do we have to hear "that is the policy"? Is there any good reason why we can't change the policy? Front page articles could be given an additional screen to give us articles that are important and encyclopedic. Why not have a list of future front page articles going one week in the future so that we can give them a secondary screen? Obviously FA screen lets a few duds slip by, so a second screen on the opening page of wikipedia would help. Wikipedia has an importance rating on articles, so "all articles are equally worthy" is not a valid response. Sad mouse 03:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There are several good reasons why many users don't want to change the policy. First off, having an artificial barrier that says that a particular article cannot be a featured article discourages editors in that area from improving all the articles in that particular subject matter. After all, TFA is a considerable incentive for many writers, and we don't want to discourage them from improving articles that in some cases are in need of repair. Additionally, not everyone agrees with your opinion that "'All articles are equally worthy' is not a valid response." I for sure don't.

You have given two reasons, neither of which are good. Your first is that people won't bother to work on articles if they are not important enough to reach the front page. I believe this is wrong, most editors do not expect to see their article reach the front page, that is not why they edit, but if it did work the way you believe then people would concentrate on more important articles, which would be good. Your second reason is that all articles are equally worthy which is not wikipedia policy. Go to the article on Cells, it has a high importance ranking as a Biology article. Go to the one on the gene Aire, it has a low importance ranking. By any fair comparison, cells are more important to biology than any single gene, so this is a fair ranking. Getting the important articles up to scratch is the most important priority for wikipedia, an encyclopedia that doesn't mention cells is very poor quality, but not mentioning Aire would not harm anyone. Sad mouse 04:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The list of articles that will be posted is indeed available: Go to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 2007 to see the articles that have been posted, and will be posted this month. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Good to know, but I note that the list is only one day ahead at the moment, and it doesn't seem to be the site for debate about whether an article can be dislisted while keeping FA status, which is my point. FA should be a matter of quality, main page should be a matter of quality and importance. Sad mouse 04:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Then poke Raul654 about that, as he is the one who makes the list. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

In other words, we need a better system, one which pre-screens the articles. Sad mouse 04:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The last few times that this suggestion was brought up, it has resulted in a resounding "It's not broken, so don't fix it." Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees on what is "encyclopedic," obviously, nor does it really matter as long as its "encyclopedic enough" to be included in Wikipedia. The only thing we can be reasonably expected to judge featured articles on is their quality. Atropos 03:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees on anything, that doesn't mean we can't make an effort. Plus wikipedia articles do have importance ranking, you could have an automatic selection from only those FA with Important or higher ranking. Sad mouse 04:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Except that's not how the importance assessments work. The meaning of those tags is relevant only to a particular WikiProject, as it indicates how high a priority the article is in the "improvement queue". They should be held with a grain of salt, as they don't hold any Wikipedia-wide meaning of importance. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

FA status should be held with much more than a grain of salt. The importance rankings are usually quite good, given a category either way. They highlight articles that are important. These should be the wikipedia front pages. Sad mouse 04:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

We can't make an effort. Why? Because its a completely subjective decision. The importance levels are for its importance to the topic of that wikiproject. For example, Jon Corzine is very important in relation to New Jersey, but not very important in relation to Illinois (in this example there's also an absurdly lame edit war over whether or not he's at all important to Chicago). These importance levels are not an attempt to judge how "encyclopedic" the article is.

It is not completely subjective, for example in biology genes are more important than any single gene. There are objective (or at least partially objective) manners for ranking importance. FA status is far more subjective than importance status is. Sad mouse 04:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary. FA status is only granted after a community-wide candidacy, with clearly defined criteria. Importance is granted by WikiProjects, with varying criteria, and in cases, no hard criteria at all. And I'm not sure you understood me: Importance (not FA) assessments should be taken with a grain of salt for this reason. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, most people in this discussion disagree with your opinion of what should be on the main page, ignoring its impracticality. I'm not sure if anyone who's voiced an opinion agrees that only "encyclopedic" featured articles should be on the main page. Atropos 04:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps most people here, but every time a low importance article reaches the front page most of the comments from first time editors are comments saying that it is disappointing for such a low importance article to be the feature page. I guess it all depends on who you think wikipedia's front page is for - is it for the frequent editors who patrol the backrooms and push forward their favourite work? Or is it an entry port for newcomers to wikipedia to show them what an online encyclopedia can do? Myself and (I believe) most wikipedia users believe it is the latter, but it seems that the people who control policy tend to think it is the former. Sad mouse 04:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think its pretty clear that a great majority of readers don't have a problem with "low importance" topics on the main page, considering that only one or two people ever complain. Why do you care? Its a quality article. Its informative. What exactly is the problem? Atropos 05:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Maybe it is for the readers who may not be aware of the existence of a subject, and are surprised by our breadth of coverage? You're talking of having relatively-obscure topics in WP:TFA as a bad thing, which is not necessarily correct, as it gets to show both the level of detail that Wikipedia has, and the fact that Wikipedia is not paper and is not restricted to publish "important" articles. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

(deindenting) I seem to recall reading a comment by User:Raul654 a while back that he'd been avoiding featuring Jenna Jameson on the Main Page as he felt the subject matter was inappropriate (feel free to correct me). I'm not really taking a side, just thought I'd throw this out there. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

A quick search reveals his exact words were: "As far as putting [Jenna Jameson] on the main page, I am undecided, but leaning a bit towards 'no'. IMO, 'History of erotic depictions' was close to the line, but still a few steps inside the boundary. I'm not so sure about Jenna Jamison though."¹ So not quite as strong as I'd remembered, but the point remains. There is a line, and some subjects are clearly never going to appear on the Main Page, FA star or not. Again, I'm neutral as to how this applies to the topic in question. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Note tho that Raul also says that while there are a few topics he doesn't want to list those that he won't be listing precisely because it will be a disincentive to people working on these articles. We can presume Wikipedia and Jimbo Wales are likely to be other examples which will never make it to the main page if they ever make it to FA for a different reason. I'm somewhat doubtful Raul will never feature a topic because it's too obscure tho altho I would expect he tends to prioritise obscure topics lower Nil Einne 11:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

For me, I'm surprised we had such a major reaction compared to say the rather muted reaction to Jake Gyllenhaal. Yet I would say the Bus Uncle incident and particularly its reaction is clearly more important then Jake. Even if he did star in a cowboy movie. If anything it just emphasises why we should avoid importance considerations as much as possible Nil Einne 07:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to chime in as a casual wikipedean on the side of Sad mouse. I think the discussion of importance is apt -- it is true, everything will be very important to some people, but not everything will be important to everyone. I think the featured article on the main page should be an article that is important to the widest number of people. Though the article today, on Fun Home is clearly the object of a great deal of work, I would be much more interested in Graphic Novel (yes, I see, it is not FA, I am just making a point.) I don't know quite what to say though, because looking over the list of FA, it is clear that most are little-less trivial than Bus Man or Fun Home. Hey Ya! yesterday and a marching band tomorrow...you know, I see that there are only 1600 FA. There are just not enough I guess, hah! So it goes. -- Sammermpc 12:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is the Main Page on the main namespace? I think it makes a lot more sense to have on the Wikipedia namespace, in case somebody want to write an article on "Main Page"s. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 22:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length before; it was thought that a Portal was more appropriate... but it still stays as it is, to date. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Homepage. 18.238.7.93 22:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The topic of which namespace to include the Main Page in is a topic that has been discussed to death, resurrected, discussed to death again, resurrected again, etc. See: Talk:Main Page/Archive 90#Requested move, Talk:Main Page/Archive 89#Main page move discussion, Talk:Main Page/Archive 87#Requested move, just to mention a few discussions. Consensus seems to be in favor of keeping the Main Page at Main Page. If someone writes a book called "Main Page", well, we'll take that as it comes. (Imagine if the book contained all discussion so far about the location of the Main Page! That'd be at least 500 pages long, no?) Gracenotes^T § 22:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I might just write an article about a Main Page just for the fun of it. I think that the link under navigation should point to Wikipedia:Main Page.... just to be safe. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 02:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

like I said, Homepage. 18.238.7.93 05:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I haven't seen any evidence for a consensus either way. In the absence of a consensus we preserve the status quo but that doesn't mean there's a consensus for the status quo. The distinction between no consensus and a consensus in one direction is an important one IMHO. Nil Einne 13:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Plus, you can't write the article while the main page stays at its current location. And Wikipedia:Main page would not be inline with policy. The only change I can think of which could possibly make policy-based sense is Portal:Main page. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not make it its own namespace? Then all the problems will be solved (or maybe not:)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim (talk • contribs) 19:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, WP:BEANS, Gracenotes --WikiSlasher 13:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the current version. Wherever the links go, I don't know if there's really any difference between the "community" and the "English Wikipedia". In a real sense, the community is the encyclopedia. Are we thanking ourselves? As to the other suggestion above, the contributors weren't really responsible for the 2,000,000th article. A single editor created it, and a small fraction of the community will edit it in the next few days. Just some thoughts, b/c I know the complaints about these things will come anyway.--Chaser - T 08:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia, the encyclopedia, is thanking the volunteers. And I think we are not thanking the person who created the one, 2 millionth article, but rather we are thanking everyone who helped create it, and the 1,999,999 that came before it... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Horay! Good job everyone, and that banner is great! Dfrg.msc 09:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Should there be a link to the 2,000,000th article in the banner? ISD 09:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. If El Hormiguero is eligible (it is actually a recreated article), that should be observed on the banner. --Camptown 09:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I disagree. That would further Chaser's point. It is one of 2 million, and thats what we are celebrating - 2 million. Not the article which was no.2m -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

But the 1,000,000th was observed that way (a link on the main page banner)... --Camptown 09:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Not without problems.--Chaser - T 09:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it does get added, I will still be divided. It is a matter of luck that El Hormiguero was 2m; when an FA-like article is no. (X) million, then I will be fine to place it on the main page. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Generally, putting it there results in vast improvement, at least initially; the attention is bound to get it some interesting additions, and probably helped a lot towards getting Jordanhill Railway Station to is relatively good quality it is now. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 09:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to it. We have oversight to handle that problem and semi-protection can be employed as warranted. If anyone does that, please drop a note at WP:AN asking folks to watchlist it.--Chaser - T 09:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting a new section here because its getting a bit too indented! I think its very important to get the 2 millionth article "up to par" because of the media attention it will undoubtedly get; linking it on the frontpage will probably help considerably in the short-term. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 09:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, ok. But I would advise that it be small, and succinct in the message. How long should the banner stay up? 7 days? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The 2,000,000th article banner on the front page should also show the 2,000,000th article itself, like this:

. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 09:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably more like one or two or three days at most, a week is too long. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 09:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Support, but only for today. As with any milestone, people would probably be anxious to know which article was lucky enough to make it. --Camptown 09:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well ok then. A couple of days. A message proclaiming the 2millionth article. A bit more chearing. Then back to building the pedia. Then back to building up to 3m. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Or rather, then back to improving the existing 2,000,000.... ;) --Camptown 09:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Or deleting some :) but I'm curious is it really two million articles, that is are the #redirect and disambiguous pages discounted?▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 10:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Nup - its 2 mill articles. With rdirects etc. I tihnk we have 10 million pages... see Special:Statistics... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, hmmm I wonder if the Deletionist were faster then the Creationist, we could celebrate the 2,000,000th article over and over again like some twilight zone episode ;-)▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 11:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No we'd need to be in equilibrium for that to happen. Otherwise we'd be going backwards and can celebrate 1.5 million, 1 million etc again Nil Einne 12:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Dark Shikari said: "I think its very important to get the 2 millionth article "up to par" because of the media attention it will undoubtedly get" - I'd just like to point out that the 1 millionth article got very little media attention. Carcharoth 10:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

See also wikimedia:Press releases/English Wikipedia Publishes Millionth Article. I definitely saw a comment somewhere later that confirmed that there was vanishingly little interest in the media about this, but I can't find it now. :-( Carcharoth 11:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I took out the article in question, it turns out there were problems with the script (the data was reversed) - technically we may have got the wrong article. - Mailer Diablo 11:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're right, I don't think the 1 millionth article got much attention. I think people sometimes overestimate how much the world cares about what amounts to boring trivia about wikipedia. Sure wikipedia is one of the top ten websites in the world and people do use wikipedia and mention wikipedia particularly when there's a juicy scandal. But it's not exactly interesting news to the world that wikipedia has reached 2 million articles. Some people are even suggesting that El Hormiguero the Spanish TV show is going to or should have an episode because they were (or may have been) the 2 millionth article. Like Jordanhill railway station putting up a sign saying they were the 1 millionth article? Let's not forget that most people don't visit the wikipedia main page every day. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the current fuss, simply saying I don't think the rest of the world cares as much as some people seem to think Nil Einne 13:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Site notice

Would it maybe be better to remove the banner and post the same message in the site notice? Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That would probably be better. I remember we had just as much debate over the banner at the 1,500,000^th article. --JB Adder | Talk 01:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The site notice is intended to convey important information, not to pat ourselves on the back. I don't care for the current banner, but at least it isn't plastered on every page. —David Levy 01:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Some predictions indicate that List of retired foot fetishists would be the 2,500,000th English Language article... --Camptown 11:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! We have already begun AGAIN, and we just reached no. 2 million today! *shakes head and laughs* -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I was planning to try out for the 2 millionth article too but missed it. I knew it would speed up but I didn't realise it was going to happen that fast :-P Nil Einne 11:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's concentrate on getting 1000 featured pictures (currently 883) instead. MER-C 11:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Or 2500 FAs. Or both. Heck let's go for the trifecta, 1000FP, 2500FA, 5000GA! I somehow think we're going to achieve 2.5 million before we achieve the last two tho Nil Einne 12:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a resource count in Age of Empires... —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll pay you 3000 FA,s 6000 GA's and 1000 FP's - will you be thy ally Vanderdecken ?Tourskin 17:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

A better milestone to shoot for would be to go back down to 1 million articles - having deleted all the unencyclopaedic crap that makes Wikipedia a laughing stock. --81.157.3.9 12:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you learn how to speak German, then, my friend. Gracenotes^T § 18:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I already speak German. Most people don't, though, so I don't see why they should be denied a Wikipedia that is written for them, and not for self-diagnosed Aspergers sufferers. --86.138.178.13 22:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, what a curious phrase. Well, Category:In popular culture, Lists of fictional topics, and WP:AFD constitute a good place to start. (I'd like to the former two depleted via the latter, at least.) Everyone has a favorite topic, and everyone also has a pet peeve. In an open wiki like this, these inevitably conflict. Usually in favor of keeping content, instead of deleting it. Gracenotes^T § 00:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Gosh I agree. We should at least disallow crap like Callista Chimombo. Reywas92^Talk 20:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

this is an excellent suggestion. Especially since the other day's featured article of the day was about an internet meme. -Henry W. Schmitt 20:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Somebody suggested that all sociologists who had been studying the Bus Uncle should have a pay cut... --Camptown 23:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

How would we celebrate when we hit 100,000,000. It should happen in a few years. Marlith ^T/C 03:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Barbeque. La Jolla Beach. Burgers and Beer galore. Tourskin 03:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Can somone change the color of the thing telling us that the english Wikipedia has hit 2,000,000 articles? I keep thinking I have new messages! --BlooWilt on the wikiprowl, later! 20:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Coming from a guy who has a fake new messages bar on his userpage? Smokizzy (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol me too but I don't really care!Tourskin 21:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you please remove or re-word the statement that Wikipedia wants to thank contributors? I am one of the contriburs and do not want to be thanked by Wikipedia. Andries 23:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No. I think you are trolling. No action will be taken on this request. Newyorkbrad 23:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I am a long time contributor and do not want to be thanked by Wikipedia because I am disappointed by Wikipedia. Expressing this wish is not trolling. Andries 23:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Why in Earth then you continue with your disruptive behavior? If you are disappointed with this project, why bother? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Then I encourage you not to read the message. Then you shall not be bothered by it. In this case, you are not the only contributor affected, and I'm quite confident that most of them DO welcome the sentiment. - Philippe | Talk 23:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Does the community of contributors (Wikipedia) thank its own contributors, like Stalin frequently applauded himself? Maybe the readers should thank the editorial contributors, who should thank the financial contributors? --Camptown 23:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Camptown, you're not serious, are you? Smokizzy (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a good point. Since we added the notice, we are thanking ourselves. Besides, it is always nice to thank the donors :) Prodego ^talk 01:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Or we could just remove the notice that our intended audience (that is, the general populace) doesn't actually care about. Atropos 05:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it really that big a deal? -Elmer Clark 07:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No. --BlooWilt on the wikiprowl, later! 10:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Corporations often celebrate their anniversaries even if it isn't something the customers care about. It is just a small notice so I don't see why anyone should care. It will be gone in a couple of days. Jeltz talk 14:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, remove it. — Adriaan (T★C) 15:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In case no one has noticed, El Hormiguero has been recomended for deletion (and lets face it, it is a pretty bad article), so what is the next article in line if it is deleted? in other words, what is currently the 2,000,001th article? --Simpsons fan 66 05:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it will be deleted. ;) Dfrg.msc 05:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to categorize a brand new article (which the 2,000,000th article is guaranteed to be) as 'bad'. Almost all articles start off in a poor state and get better - and the amount of attention this one is getting will guarantee that it will get better faster than most. The only grounds for criticism at this point are on notability grounds...which it appears to pass. Furthermore, do you imagine that if you sorted all Wikipedia articles by age and picked (say) the 1,000,000th one, that would be the same article from one day to the next? This whole thing is a completely unscientific/unencyclopeadic process - and we should not pretend otherwise. SteveBaker 13:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"...that Eduardo Malapit, Mayor of Kauai from 1974 to 1982, was the first mayor of Filipino decent in the United States?" should read "...that Eduardo Malapit, Mayor of Kauai from 1974 to 1982, was the first mayor of Filipino descent in the United States?" 137.99.115.217 15:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

fixed. Thank you Borisblue 16:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Any forecast : will happen? How many articles where added since yesterday?--88.82.47.45 01:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing a week. When we got to the one million mark a large amount of articles were created right at the end by people trying to create the one millionth article. --Banana 02:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The last thing we need is an army of unverified stubs ruining our day. Tourskin 02:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The only way to stop the deluge is to abolish DYK and replace it with FLs hahaha --Howard the Duck 06:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Where's that page with people betting on what will be the 2000000th article? Capuchin 08:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Two-millionth topic pool.-gadfium 10:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hijack this thread, I was planning to wait a while longer but since someone brought this up. Do we have an agreement yet on what, if anything we will post when we reach 2 million? It would be better to reach consensus now rather then have an edit war on that day. The last discussion fissled out without any real consensus Talk:Main Page/Archive 105#2 million article Nil Einne 11:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree - we need to decide on something a little while before the 2 million point's reached. Also, would it be put up as soon as 200000 is passed, or when there is a consistent count never falling below 2 million (the same policy which stands for moving Wikipedias around in the "Wikipedia languages" section). I'm totally up for sticking my proverbial oar of opinion in. Benedictwest 12:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been discussed at least 3 times in the past couple of weeks but nothing has come of it. It's not really that big a deal considering the actual stats regarding the quality and content of the vast majority of those articles. Wake me when we reach 1,000,000 FAs ;) - Oh I know, when we reach 2,000,000 articles, let's change the main page banner to read "Welcome to Wikipedia,

the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 1,555 quality articles and lots of stubs." ;)

But seriously the best idea so far has been the wording on User:Nil Einne/Wikipedia:Main Page test --Monotonehell 14:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree, but I clicked "existing articles" and got an album by Donny Osmond. If you can fix that then i'm all for it. :p Capuchin 14:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My guess it will happen in one or two days from now, so we need some message to display then. Is some news article prepared for wikinews? A press release? The wording of User:Nil Einne/Wikipedia:Main Page test seems ok, design also more or less. I find the link for existing articles confusing and the linking from contributions to the actual contribution page should be faster. If anyone wants to read more, there is lot of information available, if not, just let him/her contribute. --Ben ^T/_C 18:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

One of two days from now? One or two weeks more likely IMHO. Also what do you mean "linking from contributions to the actual contribution page should be faster"? Nil Einne 10:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to relaize that not all articles are destined to become the best FA's ever. Some of these articles are very specific or are short because there simply is no material. Therefore 2 million is a big deal, just not that big a deal. I suggest what others before have suggested, just leave a not at the top like " wikipedia thanks its contributors for over 2 million articles". Someon has laready suggested this, its not boasting but its nice to know.Tourskin 23:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat reluctant to respond but hopefully you won't take offense since none was intended. No one said we want all articles to be the best FA ever. However the vast majority of articles should be able to reach FA status. If not, they may need to be merged with other articles. Bear in mind there's nothing wrong with an FA being short provided it is well written, comprehensive & meets the other FA requirements. Also, I think the bigger issue is not that we expect every article to be an FA but that many people including me feel there is currently too much emphasis on quantity rather then quality and that if we are going to mention the 2 million articles (a quantity statistic), we should at least encourage editors to think about quality. Note that we currently have around 1600 FAs and 2800 GA. And it's not just the small number of FA and GA but that most articles don't even come close to being resonable quality. Also I originally copied the "wikiepdia thanks..." part in the test on my page but it was changed because some editors pointed out that wikipedia doesn't thank anyone, it can't it's not a sentient entity. Nil Einne 10:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just place it at the bottom to appease the quality over quantity hawks. --Howard the Duck 02:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I thought 1 million was significant, but 2 million isn't really. 5 might be, 10 certainly will be, but 2 million isn't even much of a round number Modest Genius ^talk 14:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Then I guess its just no big deal. We're just part of a culture who enjoy celebrating reaching such large and "round" or should I say "nice" numbers. I mean, how many of you huys felt a difference between 1999 Dec 31st and 1998 Dec 31st? It was all in the mind. Tourskin 19:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Nil, I aint offended anymore, I'm over it for now.Tourskin 19:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant before in my comment, the link named contributions in the box should directly go to a page, where you can contribute (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising), instead of a page telling you about contributing (Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia). If people want to contribute and click the link, don't give them all the fuss.

Then, wikipedia is growing, which is good – even though some say its big enough (though it's not paper?). Seemingly an endless discussion... To cut it short, most of us calculate in decimal systems, ${\displaystyle 2\times 10^{6))$ is a number that is round and nice and putting some notice on the main page won't hurt, I hope we can agree on this. --Ben ^T/_C 23:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say linking to Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia is better than a link to http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising. Contributing money is not the only way to contribute to Wikipedia. In fact contributing your time to improve articles is equally as important as providing funds to support the system. The page outlines all the ways one can contribute. --Monotonehell 13:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

How about this:

The English-language Wikipedia thanks its contributors for creating over 2,000,000 articles!

.

This was the template used for 1,500,000 articles, just stick it at the very top, like [[1]].--74.13.102.155 00:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok if we don't use the above template (which was what was in my mind) this should do certainly:

.

Its not thanking anyone, but has achieved the objective of making all know wikipedias army of unreferenced stubs lol.Tourskin 02:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

OK everybody, just 10,000 more articles to go. We can probably reach that in around a week. jj137^Talk 21:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I still think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nil_Einne/Wikipedia:Main_Page_test seems the best version. Phgao 03:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Its good but I think teh above template stands out more. In any case, the message is similar and "efficient".Tourskin 04:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the message should emphasize the personal contributions of the many people, i.e. instead of "wikipedia has now" or "wikipedia has created" the message should say, "[WP thanks] contributors for creating over 2,000,000 articles". It could add something like "Help now to improve existing articles or consider donating" (without wanting to be more obtrusive), example:

The English-language Wikipedia thanks its contributors for creating over 2,000,000 articles!
Help now to improve existing articles or consider donating

.

--Ben ^T/_C 13:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Either of the above three articles has my "vote".Tourskin 02:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

How about "Wikipedia now contains over 2,000,000 articles thanks to people like you." --Monotonehell 03:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I don't like the "people like you" thing. The words people like you seem very informal. And maybe its me but it sounds sarcastic, especially if a vandal was to read it. Lol that would be funny. Tourskin 03:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's supposed to sound informal. The point is that "anyone can edit". - Also I didn't use the sarcasm emoticon ^ so it wasn't sarcasm ;) (that's the I'm joking emoticon) LOL! --Monotonehell 05:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Change it back lol it was hilarious!!Tourskin 06:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I dislike any phrasing of the form "Wikipedia thanks its contributors..." - it implies that Wikipedia is something separate from it's contributors. There is an important message here: Wikipedia is the sum of its contributors. (Either that or Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - which is an inanimate object that can't thank people). Let's stick to the facts - User:Nil_Einne/Wikipedia:Main_Page_test does it for me. SteveBaker 17:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Its not the message that bugs me here with Nil's design its the template - it doesn't stand out as much as it should. In my opinion anyway. Tourskin 19:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What about using the text proposed by Nil_Einne and the design shown above? Greenshed 21:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

A wonderful compromise. I agreeTourskin 22:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep - Nil's words are what is important to me - I'm not too concerned over the design. SteveBaker 19:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

We need to have it stretched over the top, have it the same width as the rest of the page, so the Main Page doesn't look segmented.--74.124.31.158 20:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Less than 5,000 articles to go! jj137 21:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

We should not update the article number count to encourage new article creation. I am being serious. New articles would be created freely without donations. We should cheat by temporary setting the article count number under 2 million for a few weeks (even the actual number of articles is much higher) so many new articles would be created. It is just an idea. Anyone? 71.175.58.61 00:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm strongly opposed to that. We'd really rather people focus on improving articles rather than creating new ones, so if we were to alter the number count in some way (which I would strongly recommend against) it would be increasing it to over 2,000,000 so we can refocus on improvements. —METS501 (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I had already know that we should not do this because of the reasons you said. I was just brainstorming.71.175.58.61 00:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree the yellow is probably better. The only reason I chose the green design is because I copied it from the original proposal User:Smurrayinchester/2000000 by Laika who felt the yellow was too bright Nil Einne 06:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the yellow stands out more. Btw, taking into account increased article creation as we approach 2mil, when will the mark be reached? Phgao 06:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, less than 2,000 articles to go. I'm not encouraging tons of random articles be created, but simply pointing out a fact. jj137^Talk 03:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow!! Less than 300 articles to go! I wonder if we'll hit it today? :) --DogGunn 07:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions so far

I'm assuming we have something approaching consensus to include a short line in the main page message template. So here are the suggestions so far...

1. The English-language Wikipedia thanks its contributors for creating over 2,000,000 articles!
2. The English-language Wikipedia has created over 2,000,000 articles!
3. The English-language Wikipedia thanks its contributors for creating over 2,000,000 articles!
   1. Help now to improve existing articles or consider donating
4. Wikipedia now contains over 2,000,000 articles thanks to people like you
5. The English language Wikipedia now has over 2,000,000 articles.
   1. As always, contributions are welcome to improve all existing articles

A couple of those go over two lines, not sure if that's good or bad. Number five seems to have gained the most praise. --Monotonehell 02:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

When I read number five, I keep thinking instead of "contributions", "contributers", would contributers be better as it emphasises people? But then if the person had not contributed yet, they wouldn't be a contributer would they? Phgao 06:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Number 5 is my favorite. I like that it asks people to contribute, but I dislike number 3's solicitation of donations in big print on a boilerplate.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 15:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Support 5 as it is factual, marks the 2M and points to the task of improving exisiting articles. Strongly opposed to 1 and 3 as an encyclopedia cannot thank anyone. Greenshed 18:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Support 5, ditto.Tourskin 20:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Support 5, now itll happen in 10 inutes!K14 07:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

2,000,000 mark reached

Yes! We did it! Well done to everyone! ISD 08:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well done everyone, what a great achievement! --DogGunn 08:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't leave us in suspense, which one is #2,000,000? 70.254.23.2 08:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • There is a discussion about that down below. It is believed to be El Hormiguero, but there is still some confusion. ISD 08:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
      • YEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWW!! 2 million!!! Take that Britannica :D --Taraborn 12:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Why doesn't the front page link to the two millionth article like it did at 1000000? --The monkeyhate 15:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't get too exited. 2 Million is just another number. The Userboxer^Complain/_ubx 01:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I was right

I had been expecting this to happen which was I started this up again and was trying to attract people to the discussion. I probably should have posted to the VP but forgot. No one noticed this discussion as such when the time came the banner was posted based on the 1 millionth article example and people are now debating the wording again and the improve existing article bit has been completely ignored. Admitedly we forgot to consider how we would mention the 2 millionth article in our discussion but anyway... :-P Nil Einne 11:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, yes I was about to post a similar point. We've been talking about this for ages and no real interest. But when we reach the point, someone unilaterally puts something up oblivious to any talk here. Such is life. --Monotonehell 11:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the notice is great now. Unilateral but good ideas to put links to English Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia. One thing is still, what somebody mentioned before, that wikipedia shouldn't stand as an artificial entity thanking its contributors (making a division between wp and contributors). Maybe Thanks to all contributors, wp has now over 2 mil articles. --Ben ^T/_C 15:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I was right, it happened in September, close to labour day, (and also isn't terribly far from my birthday either). Anyway, congradulations! Do you think the press will mention it? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's hilariously reflective of Wikipedia itself that the banner has changed about ten or twelve times. Battle Ape 06:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Which one

Which one is the 2,000,000 article? Richardkselby 01:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see this sorted once and for all. Tphi 12:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

3,000,000?

So it took Wikipedia five years to get one million articles, and only a year and a half to get the second million. Anyone want to join the discussion about when you predict the third million will be reached? I'm guessing October 2008, just a little over a year. --QQQ (9-11-07) —Preceding unsigned comment added by QQQ (talk • contribs) 19:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This page really shouldn't be used for idle guessing games. Leebo ^T/C 20:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)