Jump to content

Talk:Main Page

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Solitude (talk | contribs) at 21:25, 4 December 2004 (→bosna). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
The page is to discuss the Main Page only


Archived talk

Archives of older material from this talk page: Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.

The layout of the Main Page underwent a significant redesign, implemented on 23 Feb 2004. Talk archives 1-13 relate to the old design. Archives after this date: 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29.

Talk pages specifically dealing with layout and design, or alternative designs for the Main Page:

Christmas, Wikipedia Main Page and Wikimedia Commons

WikiSanta by Solitude

I suggest upload images and MIDI files to Wikimedia Commons and use them in the Wikipedia Main Page during Christmas. To midi would be added a link to heard it in Commons.

Are you suggesting midis that automatically play when people visit. Cute, but we're an encyclopedia. -- user:zanimum
Midis are not automatically played by Wikimedia. So, don't worry about it. It's optional. You have to click in the link to heard the music.And like optional, I want Christmas midis, that we can optain from the public domain, usign GNU LilyPond and the musical score to obtain the file using LilyPond from http://www.mutopiaproject.org/ --Mac 05:21, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I hope the Christmas decorations are optional, too. And well concealed. This is an encylopedia. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:17, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, like a cute Wikisanta to replace the top left logo, I for one would like to start out the inevitable contest with this attempt ;) -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:32, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
PS. No MIDI, *yugh*!

I like this santa logo, I can include from now in my personal page.
for santa's sake, no MIDI, please! (the logo is nice, though) dab 09:57, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There's two tops to the hat, hanging down? (There seems to be a pom-pom on either side of the Wikipedia globe. I have nothing against this sort of thing, and frankly was going to suggest we consider doing as Google. Max of one like logo every month, and presumably only the English Wikipedia would do it, for the sake of simplicity. But we could have all kinds of things for different holidays and anniversaries. Nothing morbid though, and no cartoons, despite the fact I love cartoons. Just classy things like this. -- user:zanimum
Yes, please. I like this different holidays idea. I though about it initially and begin with Christmas. This is going to increase my culture . Thanks. --Mac 05:21, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why not Chanukah or Kwanzaa? Should we adapt the logo for Thanksgiving or May Day, notable holidays in English-speaking countries? How about not doing any of that at all and keeping it neutral? We ain't Google. The English Wikipedia is in English, not about Western culture. We all know the bias is there, but that doesn't mean we have to advertise it in logos, no matter how much we like Christmas ("Christmas is a time when people of all religions come together to worship Jesus Christ." —Bart Simpson in The Simpsons).
Also, using auto-playing MIDIs qualify people of all religions for spending their afterlife in hell, but that's just my opinion. :-) JRM 11:37, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)
but then only an American would have such qualms about political correctness, so not placing santa's hat will express regional bias ;o) come on, what is the connection between a whacky red hat and "worship of Jesus Christ"? Not that I am very much into the idea, but it is harmless. dab 18:19, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The red hat implies an endorsement of the Christian holiday. -- Emsworth 20:42, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
it implies endorsement of the notability of a bearded elf flying around in a sleigh. dab 09:24, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I like the idea of changing the logo - and why not do it for some other events as well... --Frankie Roberto 23:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Changing the logo is looking for trouble. It brings us into POV territory. If we allow this then why not a menora or the black stone of mecca or ayer's rock (or whatever people call it now). You can't be POV if you don't say anything.[[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 14:44, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"You can't be POV if you don't say anything" — great! How about a new logo featuring this as WP's motto? dab 15:30, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Midi files are not currently possible anyways, see: Wikipedia talk:Sound. Hyacinth

Midi files are possible. I suggest create a repository that can be used by some wikipedians that want to use it. And it's the initial step to make more similar events for different hollidays. So, it would be optional, who want it, can use it. Who no, can not. --Mac 05:21, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that we should make an effort to decorate the Main Page for christmas. Before the usual hacks start up with the "but we're a multicultural ... blah blah ... favouring one over another ... blah blah..." (I've heard it before, numerous times), may I point out a few things:

  • The French Wikipedia decorates at Christmas
  • Major sites like Google and Yahoo! decorate
  • This is the English language Wikipedia, and while I accept not all native English speakers are Christian, a significant proportion are
  • The festive celebrations of the season are celebrated by people of diverse beliefs

As a result, I do not see the problem with having some generic form of decoration on the Main Page, so long as it's not a nativity scene or anything like that. How about tangled lights? - Mark 09:31, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And to add to the above statement, may I point out that for a large number of people celebrating Christmas has nothing to do with religion. It is merely a holiday to celebrate the cold and short days in comfort with friends and family. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 10:03, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
It's a shame then that it seems to always be held in mid-summer where I live.-gadfium 21:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oeff, shame on me and my northern hemisphere POV! -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 21:42, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
Alright, as one of those hacks, I accept that the majority argument holds some sway. But I'm even more strongly convinced that we shouldn't do it because everyone else does. Google and Yahoo decorate. Great for them. The French Wikipedia does. Great for them, and let's start a MetaWiki initiative to spread Christmas decoration to all relevant countries! I'm not about to blow the cultural bias argument out of proportion, so I'll just leave it my personal opinion that Wikipedia shouldn't bother with this sort of cuteness. Then again, if people just can't live without it, I'll politely ignore it. JRM 09:22, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)
Re-reading the above, I'd like to add "bah humbug". :-) JRM 09:22, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)
I have some understanding for the 'no excessive cuteness' argument. with all the icons (in stub templates etc) WP is starting to look like a KDE desktop :-\ In any case, I prefer not to have a santa icon for 'reduce cuteness' than for 'no cultural bias' reasons :o) — I agree with the overall "bah humbug" verdict, though. dab 12:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It would be harmless, but it would annoy me. I'm a Jewish atheist and I rather resent the Christmas references that come out every year around this time in supposedly neutral places, like government buildings and public school. Don't make Wikipedia like them, I beg you! Andre (talk) 22:58, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and as for Google, they decorate for lots of other things, like Thanksgiving, Independence Day (U.S.), Canada Day, the Chinese New Year, etc. Andre (talk) 23:00, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind decorating for other significant recurring holidays as well, like lunar new year etc. The problem with Wikipedia is that it's so serious and plain. I think there is too much emphasis on functionality and too little emphasis on aesthetics and atmosphere. As it stands, our current Main Page has all the festivity of a mortuary. - Mark 10:25, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
How far do we take it, though? I'd hate to see Wikipedia getting to the point that it does stuff like black borders to mark an instance of serious terrorism. Encyclopedias aren't, or shouldn't be, fora for public comment. Functional is good. People can go elsewhere for eye candy. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:15, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If we only want people to browse Wikipedia when they are conducting research, then it's fine as it is. If we want people to join in the community, we need to make it welcoming, not boring. - Mark 06:16, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If I found it boring I wouldn't be here at all. Some of us are here because we're trying to get away from the jingles and consumerist superficiality of the mall. Shantavira 11:45, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Svyatoy kolodets

Why on earth would Svyatoy kolodets ("the holy fountain") redirect to this page :O ? dab 10:49, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm (cur) (last) 12:11, Nov 25, 2004 Blankfaze (Svyatoy kolodets moved to Talk:Main Page), maybe Blankfaze can elaborate? -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 11:09, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
Heh, nope, I don't know what it's about. Someone page-move-vandalised this page by moving it to Svyatoy kolodets. I simply moved it back (leaving of course a redirect which I then forgot to delete). BLANKFAZE | (что??) 11:31, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
See this evidence. Ancheta Wis 14:21, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC).

In the top-right of the main page, there is a link named "Text only" which opens a table-free version of the page. The problem is, the table-free versio is NOT text-only -- it still includes images, for instance. The link should be renamed to "Table-free version" or something similar. MCBastos 18:33, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

'Done. →Raul654 10:48, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Christmas 2004

I suggest help with the Christmas 2004 special and include special material in Wikipedia Mainpages. See Wikipedia:Christmas 2004.

Code Typo

On the ninth line ("other languages"), </i> should be </li>. Kdau 00:11, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)


January 2001

Shouldn't 2001 be 2001? --Elijah 06:27, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

From time to time, someone removes many of the not very necessary links in the intro text; later, they creep back in in a form of link bloat. Trying to say as much as possible in a few sentences makes linking to everything tempting, but we should think about that some of the links are really important, like the links telling people about us and our history, about our specialities (editing and licensing) etc. We shouldn't have too much of other links, like 2001 which doesn't provide anything remotely interesting in comparison, to obscure the important ones. ✏ Sverdrup 16:20, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wickipedia/Software catalogue?

The current main page feature article (Mozilla Firefox) is POV. And tacky, Even though I like open source software, something dissing IE shouldn't be the feature article. We have more 'encyclopedic' material. rmbh 09:20, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

You can address your concerns on the talk page of the article in question, at any time can an article be marked as POV by adding the {{POV}} to the article, but be sure to point out your criticism in detail on the talk page when you do. Also note that articles are not featured arbitrarily, they undergo due process at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, so it is a good idea to monitor that page if you want to help keeping Featured articles NPOV. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 10:07, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Tehran mispelled as Teheran

I've never seen Tehran spelled any other way, so please excuse my ignorance if it is spelled correctly. Tim 20:53, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: inaccuracy/POV on main page

The few words of the featured article section on the main page states: "Mozilla Firefox is a free web browser". Although I am a long-term fan of Firefox (from before Phoenix 0.1), I think this should be changed to reflect that most people believe that Firefox (at least in the form available at [1]) is non-free, and it should be noted that the Mozilla Foundation refuse to state, as Wikipedia has, that it is free.

You should at concede that this statement is very POV & should at least be changed to state that its freedom (or lack thereof) is in dispute. (In fact I'm just replying to an email from RMS on Firefox's lack of freedom.) I meant to comment on this in talk: Mozilla Firefox a couple of weeks ago. I will do so now.

Table-Free Not For Me or Anybody...

Really, I think this is just extra clutter and worst of all, it's in the most noticeble part of Wikipedia. How many people will seriously have such a subpar browser (like Links)? 1%? What's that. No? 0.5%? What, even lower? 0.2% of viewers? Not even that,!!?? Hmmm... Maybe we are alienating most people while trying to please everybody. Sure you do not have to use it, but the more things you see that you do not use, (or have to use) the more intimidating, and unusable the site will become/ Exigentsky

I'm one who has a sub-par browser - Internet Explorer on an iPaq, most recent version as far as I know, although it doesn't seem to have a version number, built in to Rom with Windows Mobile 2003 SE. This is not the same as IE 6 on a Windows desktop system. I use Wikipedia through the wireless connection built into the iPaq, and the main page was *very* slow to load, so I switched to the table-free version. In the last few days, the normal main page loads quite acceptably for me, presumably due to the changes away from tables within it. (I'm not using the iPaq to post this now. I usually only browse with it, not edit).
I could download a better browser, but there are no decent free browsers (as far as I know) for iPaq/Pocket PC. I am looking forward to a Pocket PC version of Firefox.-gadfium 01:36, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If there is a table-free version, it should not be so prominent.
It's very useful to have a low-bandwith/table free version for people accessing Wikipedia from a wireless/cell phone or WAP phone. It should be quite prominent so that first-time users locate it quickly without giving up in frustration trying to find the link. Also in general a text browser friendly option should be provided for general web accessibilty. Just because you don't know many people who don't use IE or Firefox/Mozilla, doesn't mean they don't exist. --Lexor|Talk 04:27, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
I know many people using Opera, Mozilla, Firefox, Konqueror and derivatives, not one of them uses table-free. I understand it's useful for some, but I think it should be in the preferences, not the front page. Exigentsky 07:46, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
lynx, w3m, Blazer (for Treo 600 and PalmOne phones) all benefit and/or require the table free version. --Lexor|Talk 10:50, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Even the 'tabled' version looks nice in lynx; that's not the problem. it's more for mobile gadgets: imho, the table-free version should also be lighter. people accessing it are likely to pay for the byte transferred (gprs), and don't want to download the links to a zillion "WPs in other languages" every time they access the main page. dab 11:52, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Editing the Main Page Unfriendly

Too many sections are not up to date enough, and documentation is lacking.

Even Wikipedia:Editing_the_main_page is outdated and has not been changed to fit the new design. Exigentsky

To state the obvious (someone has to) - we aren't feeling an great pressure to make it easy for people to edit the main page. In fact, when we have done so, it's usually an open invitation for abuse and vandalism. →Raul654 09:10, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
That doesn't mean it should be left like this, and I can't seem to fix it. -Exigentsky 14:26, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

What's with all the clutter? Just when Wikipedia became more usable...

Why does the Navigation box have a link to "Current events', this is easily acessible through the Main page and anyone interested can add this to their bookmarks themselves. This is only extra clutter. Remember the clutter of the old design? I hope it's not heading that way. Exigentsky 04:11, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Election banner?

There should be an ArbCom election banner either on the main page or on the Community Portal page. --Ce garcon 04:27, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As has been said repeatedly - the main page is for our readers, not our users. The community portal is more appropriate. →Raul654 04:34, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Well then there should be one on the Community Portal. As far as I know, right now there isn't one there either. --Ce garcon 04:38, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've been asking for this on the village pump (proposals) page. We need to spread the word about this demand for a proper democratic election. It's not if all Wikipedia users don't get a chance to hear about it and take part if they wish.WikiUser 21:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
From the village pump page:"I've seen that banner and it's a good idea. Can some Administrator, a helpful one like say Angela, put it on the main page. These elections are for arbitrators who'll be there for 1, 2 or 3 more years. Everyone ought to get a chance to know about it. From the endorsments and oppose/comments pages it seems that it's only the usual active people that are involved at the moment.WikiUser 21:47, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) "

Print version of the main page

The print version of the main page includes {{newpagelinksmain}}:

The links are expanded to ugly, useless pieces of text on paper. Also, the new CSS version is completely messed up in printing, on both Firefox and Win2000 IE6. JRM 12:17, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

Not sure what you are referring to, but I assume with print version you mean the "table free" version? I do not see any lenghty list with categories in that view, do you have screenshots of that issue? The CSS version indeed looks messed up in print preview, I'm not a CSS expert so I don't know how easy that is to fix. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 12:30, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Sure: go to Image:Main page print preview 2004-11-30.jpg. This applies to both Firefox and IE (though they give slightly different previews, obviously.) I am assuming that this is WYSIWYG, of course, and that it's not a mistake of either browser (I haven't actually printed it, mind you). JRM 12:54, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
It also occurs to me that we are probably talking past each other; for the record, I mean the print preview of the vanilla main page as it pops up in your GUI browser), not any alternate versions. (And contrary to what might be expected, this has been known to print rather nicely—for some revisions. :-) JRM 13:04, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
I tried putting an "@media:print" styling in the template to hide it, but it didn't seem to work. Maybe we could get a Developer to add a class in the print stylesheet that will hide it... - IMSoP 18:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Spoilers on main page?

Template:Spoiler Are spoilers acceptable on the main page? I want to post something about Ken Jennings (on Jeopardy) loosing after 75 episodes, around 8 PM tonight. It would be up after the game, as to not be a spoiler for EST viewers, but this would be a spoiler for the rest of the continent. And, even if it was posted once Hawaii saw it, then it would still be a spoiler for some international countries that don't air the show immediately.

But then, it's not really a spoiler, as anyone who watches Ken and surfs the net or reads a newspaper already knows about his loss. There's 598 newspapers who've printed an article on the topic.

So, what do I do? -- user:zanimum

I presume you mean adding it to the In the news section? One of the guidelines for ITN is that the topic needs to be internationally important or at least interesting. I highly doubt someone doing well on a game show in the USA qualifies, seeing enough people complained when ITN featured Dan Rather's resignation, which I think has more international impact than Jeopardy. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 21:02, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Where do you intend inserting such local trivia? It's not suitable for "In the news", and too current and not fitting the purpose (I would think) for "Did you know". zoney ♣ talk 21:12, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
http://demo.wikinews.org
He has broken every worthwhile record in international television game show history, and has tested the limits of "celebrity". -- user:zanimum
Well, my reaction was who? (Ken Jennings) what? (Jeopardy), and I expect the reaction of most other non-Americans would be the same... [[User:MikeX|MikeX (Talk)]] 11:28, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
As was mine. Can't see why this would feature on the main page at all. Filiocht 15:34, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Battle of the bulge..Jeopardy connection?

Ken Jennings finally lost on Jeopardy, as I understand it one of the Daily doubles he got wrong was "What is Bastogne?". This morning, the Battle of the Bulge is the Featured article?

Coincidence?

According to the page history for the template, I scheduled Battle of the Bulge at 01:35 Est on Nov 30. The news about the Ken Jennings loss did not break until 18:00 that day. So yes, it is a coincidence. →Raul654 16:02, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
Technically Raul could have been in the Jeopardy audience the day Jennings lost, I believe it was taped somewhere in September, and planned this way ahead! But that's pure speculation, I do not believe Raul is capable of such an evil scheme ;) -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 16:13, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

The Plague: Need help!

I moved this query to the reference desk. JRM 09:39, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

George Galloway allegations

Since the allegations that George Galloway was in the pay of Saddam Hussein made it onto our main page last year, it seems only fair that we should report with equal weight the fact that a court has found that the allegations were libellous. Please could an administrator copy the relevant news item from current events onto the main page. Thank you. GrahamN 2 Dec '04 (not logged in because I've forgotten my password)

I would say the earlier news story shouldn't have been on ITN - it's a quite local UK issue really. As I doubt Wikipedia's ITN is even now very high profile as regards a news source, I think it's reasonable enough not to bother bringing this up. It's not like someone is going to be irate about us not reporting the court finding him innocent - and after all, we didn't make the original allegations. I would hope that the previous allegations were presented as such in our news item! zoney♣ talk 21:54, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've no idea what you mean by "ITN". You are quite right that the original story did not merit inclusion on our main page. That is exactly why it is important to give equal prominence to the correction. GrahamN 2 Dec '04

Wikijargon, ITN = In The News. Confusing if you're familiar with the other ITN admittedly! zoney ♣ talk 23:01, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "local UK issue" in this context. It's a series of allegations affecting the former government of Iraq, several other Middle East governments and individual that backed Galloway's Mariam appeal, one very highly respected U.S. newspaper, and the Canadian former owner of the Daily Telegraph, as well as an MP in the UK Parliament. Looking at In the News today I see that prominence is given to "United States President George W. Bush chooses former New York City police commissioner Bernard Kerik to succeed Tom Ridge as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security." This is of equal interest, in my opinion, but it could easily be argued that it's a "local US issue". --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You can be sure if the verdict had gone the other way there would be none of this talk about it being a local UK issue! I've just discovered that you no longer have to be an administrator to amend the "in the news" section, so I am adding this story in place of the one about the death of the Dutch aristocrat, which was intersting, but relatively obscure for international readers. I hope this is not a breach of any new policy that I'm not aware of. Thanks. User:GrahamN 3 Dec '04

Go for it. I agree we should redress the balance. Filiocht 13:15, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Lorne 'Gump' Worsley

I noticed on a cross reference that there was no entry for Gump Worsley so I did one. Now it is apparent that there are two - see Canadian hockey players then search Gump Worsley.

There should not be two. (Above entered 01:09, 3 Dec 2004 UST by 205.206.187.4]])


I took care of this by merging the two articles. If you go to Lorne Gump Worsley now it should redirect you to the merged article. Please review it and let me know if I got anything wrong. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:38, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Typo on main page.

"asking Congress curb" should be "asking Congress to curb"


Mention on main page Wikipedia is largest encyclopedia (continued)

On 13 Nov I proposed the following changes ("the world's largest encyclopedia" and "growing")to the main page :

Welcome to Wikipedia, the world's largest encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a growing, free-content encyclopedia in many languages that anyone can edit. In this English edition, started in January 2001, we are working on 7,007,653 articles. Visit our Community Portal to find out how you can edit an article, or experiment in the sandbox.

Compared with the present version:

Welcome to Wikipedia, a free-content encyclopedia in many languages that anyone can edit. In this English edition, started in January 2001, we are working on 7,007,653 articles. Visit our Community Portal to find out how you can edit an article, or experiment in the sandbox.

It seems like many people are initially skeptical about the idea of an encyclopedia editable by anyone. I think these proposed changes introduce readers to why Wikipedia is important, not just another unofficial internet information repository. They also strongly define Wikipedia as a progressive phenomenon, which I think is very psychologically powerful: 'good now, and getting better.'

It looks to me like these additions will not push the introductory paragraph past the 3 lines it currently occupies on the main page.

The "largest encyclopedia" page I created for this proposal tries to give a concise summary of the limitations of comparing article count or word count with traditional encyclopedias (quality and authority).

Read the largest encyclopedia page. I think it's time Wikipedia acknowledged this achievement. --Nectarflowed 10:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The problem with this (as you do point out on the page) is that quantity doesn't equal quality. Putting this in sets us up for easy ridicule when people notice that some more-or-less major topic has no article, a short article, or a verbose but crappy article (all of which has occurred and does occur from time to time), and then comparing this with articles on minor topics that have an inordinate amount of detail. Add to that that Wikipedia is not your standard encyclopedia: as Wikipedia observes, we include some things that aren't typically part of an encyclopedia, and our claims of being the largest include these "non-encyclopedic" (from a traditional POV) things. We could state the word count along with the article count (though even this smacks of quantityism), but I think that's as far as it should go. "Largest encyclopedia" is still too controversial to go on the main page, IMO.
Finally: I think we should put first and foremost that Wikipedia is free, not that it's the largest. JRM 13:58, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)


also, a lot of these words are from the 1911 Britannica (a debt not acknowledged so prominently), and other works of reference from the 1910s. you could argue that WP is a 1910s encylopedia with random additions of 2000s popular culture and crankiness >.< WP is not a direct competitor of the Britannica (yet), and the Britannica is not a direct competitor of WP (ever). [[User:Dbachmann|dab (T) ]] 18:42, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sister projects

Hello, today i created a new template for all sister projects for german wikipedia, commons and wikinews. Perhaps you can have a look and transfer it to this main page if you want :-) See: template for commons, all the textless images are stored there. --Bdk 08:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=8133430"