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. |
Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | → | Archive 65 |
I think Wikipedia will reach ONE MILLION articles sometime on Wednesday 01st March 2006. Why not make the 1,000,000th article about Wikipedia's milestone of actually reaching 1,000,000 articles?? :) T. McLean - Australia.
Hopefully this breakthrough will get Wikipedia's name in the news and help publicise Wikipedia to make it even better!!!
Maybe some of you, could start emailing news companies and stuff or somthin, to tell them that this is going to happen, and compare wikipedia to the likes of how many articles encarta and britannica have. This will ensure the greatest news coverage!!!
Richardkselby 01:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
ONLY 10,000 more articles till a million. Yea!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.83.114.215 ( talk • contribs) 08:01, 2006 February 24 (UTC).
"Iv got an idea. lets invite some great personality for writing the millionth article. lets say UN secretary general or last peace novel prize winner. Leandro (argentina)
I agree Shanekorte 00:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
-- Ancheta Wis 23:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
you cannot "plan" the millionth article. New articles are created by the minute. Patent nonsense is deleted by the minute. It may well be that the millionth article is created several times, because of nonsense deletions. After all is said and done, the millionth article will be a random stub, to be evaluated after recent nonsense articles pushing up the count have been deleted... dab (ᛏ) 11:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The actual millionth article was Jordanhill railway station. violet/riga (t) 23:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
grr. someone tried to mess with the numbers in this discusion, fixing them now Finn 23:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Can we say either "in British history" or "in the United Kingdom's history". It does not make sense to say "in United Kingdom history". After all, you would not say "in France history" or "in Russia" history; the use of "in United States history" is the only exception to the rule. Polocrunch 09:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm very new to this posting business and apologise if this has already been covered or is in the wrong place!
I've been searching wiki pages forever trying to find out if it's possible to add a Wiki search box to the toolbar in one's browser. IF this exists, perhaps it would be something to mention on the Main page so that people would know that this is possible and know where to look for the information. I'm sure it's probably mentioned in some obviuos place, but I've been frustrated in my attempts to find it and there are no links from the main page that seem like the obvious choice to click when looking for such information.
(If this isn't possible, perhaps someone clever might consider implementing it? I know I end up turning to Wiki more and more these days and often use my Google search box as a wiki search box by typing 'wiki xxxxx'.)
Thanks much--and again, sorry if I'm making noise in the wrong places! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.51.49 ( talk • contribs)
Hi!
Why are here no InterWiki-Links to other Mainpages? (Like de:Hauptseite)
-- 84.176.3.145 14:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC) ( de:User:Athalis)
aa: als: ar: bg: bs: ca: cs: da: de: el: en: eo: es: et: fa: fi: fr: fy: gl: he: hr: hu: id: io: it: ja: ko: ku: la: lb: li: lt: ms: nds: nl: nn: no: om: pl: pt: ro: ru: sh: sk: sl: so: sr: sv: sw: ti: tr: uk: zh:
The information presented in the front page is incorrect. Exception is made in case where the mother's life is at risk [1]. FWBOarticle
I don't get it, Wikipedia started working fast again last night, but now it's slow. It's really killing the incentive to edit when I have to wait so long for it to open. I don't think it's a problem with my local server, because every other website works fine. Please fix this really annoying speed problem. JackO'Lantern 17:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
It's still way too slow! Why won't anybody listen? Fix the server or whatever and get the regular Wikipedia speed working again. PLEASE!!! JackO'Lantern 18:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia makes me mad! Why can't we edit or change featured articles!!! Ugh! So much for the website of the people BY THE PEOPLE and for the people! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mizuphd ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 2006 February 23 (UTC).
Perhaps you could change the phrase bomb attack to link to Al Askari Mosque bombing instead of bomb and move the bolding from Al Askari Mosque to bomb attack? Thanks in advance. joturner 00:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The Headline "Over 100 bullet-riddled bodies, including 3 journalists, are found by the Iraqi Police the morning following the bomb attack in Samarra, Iraq that badly damaged the Al Askari Mosque (pictured), one of the holiest sites in Shi'a Islam." is tremendously misleading. It implies that 100+ bodies were found in one place, when in fact it was several separate incidents, which are suspected reprisals for the bombing. How about this:
"Over 100 civilians are killed in Iraq in several incidents suspected to be reprisals for yesterday's bomb attack in Samarra, Iraq, that badly damaged the Al Askari Mosque (pictured), one of the holiest sites in Shi'a Islam."
Also, the link should go to the page about the bombing, not the mosque.- Matthew Cieplak (talk) (edits) 01:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Why about the Mexican flag? Gdatta 01:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Is some sort of robot adding this signature to unsigned comments? Or is it a person with too much time on their hands? I have an account at Wikipedia and I sign 99% of my comments. But when I choose not to, I don't want to find my comment altered with this blurb. Thank you.
Today's (Sat. Feb 25) featured picture is showing up wrong--it's last Saturday's featured picture. Osgoodelawyer 00:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering how we can have 3 pictures of the day on one day?? -- T-rex 03:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Most English speakers know this organization as Doctors Without Borders. Would it be a good idea to put this in parentheses after the French name? Thanks. -- Nelson Ricardo 00:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The picture going along with todays featured article seems to be... lacking. Its just a few people standing around. A more appropriate picture may be the orginizations logo, or a more obvious and interesting picture of a member of the group actually doing something.
Greetings, I live in north eastern Ohio and we have peat bogs around here. In one of the excivations there was found an 1l1ven or twelve thousand year old dam and lodge that was built by our furry little friend. No one was interested enough to examine the find and it was ultimately destroyed. that is where to look for this stuff because of the preservation of the material that is burried beneath the peat. Thought you would like to know. GuyPer out
How many volumes would you think it would have? - The preceding unsigned comment was irrelevant to the Main page. I couldn't give a... Castlemaine XXXX who wrote it.
I'm not sure how it should go because I didn't read up on the story or anything but the wording about the Irish Republicans is wrong. schyler 01:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
nevermind schyler 01:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't World Trade Center bombing be bolded and not Ramzi Yousef? -- Bryan Nguyen | Talk 05:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I happened to notice that all links are now underlined. I personally find this very annoying and it makes pages with a lot of links hard to read. Think maybe we could reverse it? Jezpuh 12:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The trapped miners in the Pasta de Conchos mine disaster in Mexico are presumed dead after rescuers encounter toxic levels of natural gas that halt search efforts. joturner 04:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC) The current news item for the Pasta de Conchos mine disaster fails to mention the most important part of the story - that the miners are presumed dead. How about something like...
-- joturner 13:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Today's feature article description for February 26, 2006 says "This would be one of the causes for the declaration of Brazilian independence by Peter I of Brazil in 1823". The declaration of independence happened in 1822, not 1823. The article was already fixed by the time I got there, but the front page still has this.
-- MauricioC 13:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd hardly call the Dublin riots 'major', in any case, it's a subjective word and I don't think it should be included on the main news page. - User:Dalta
It's not correct to use the name Bonaparte for Napoleon with reference to 1814. He was just Napoleon at that point; the Powers had even let him keep the title of Emperor after his abdication. A better link would be Napoleon I. -- Cam 19:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Some people, such as I, are annoyed by reference to a country as a nation. "Nation" is a politically-charged term outside of the United States, and we should be wary of that. The word "country" is perfectly neutral. -- Zhengfu 21:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
In Template:MainPageIntro the link to Wikipedia:FAQ was removed, and Wikipedia:FAQ was merged into Wikipedia:Questions. This is not good - it's too hard to find the FAQ's and Wikipedia:Questions is hard to navigate. So I'm going to re-instate Wikipedia:FAQ and change Template:MainPageIntro.-- Commander Keane 21:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The sails of the Sydney Opera House are spherical surfaces, not hyperboloid. The roof of the Sydney Myer Music Bowl (located in Melbourne, not Sydney)has a hyperboloid roof. Norm Tered
Should we make it bigger? You can't tell too well what it's showing, and it looks sloppy, I think. Clarkefreak ∞ 02:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
On the main page, in the olympic article reference, the word "Defenseman" is mis-spelled as "Defenceman".
Under DYK, "Deep in the Heart of Texas" should be surrounded by quotations and not italicized per Manual of Style for titles. I would appreciate an admin making quick work of this problem. Thanks so much! — Scm83x talk 07:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
She wont 'definatly' become the next Prime Minister as currently cited on the main page. She's very *likely* to be after P.J. Patterson steps down.
P.J.steps down (since she becomes the new leader of her party), fresh general-government elections will have to be called, and thats---- where she could lose becoming Prime Minister if her party does not win the *most* constituencies/seats in Parliament. In order for a new carbinet to be selected in Jamaica fresh general elections will have to be called. See Westminster System. CaribDigita 12:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
You know, Gore actually won for popular vote, but Bush for the electorial vote. Now that we have ways to judge the popular vote, I think it should go by that. What do you think? Dragon Expert 19:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Everyone's been so caught up in the frenzy about the millionth article that they forgot how close we were to one million users. Well, today ( February 28, 2006) at 2:02 UTC, we passed the mark with the creation of User:Romulus32. [ [3]] the creation log with this user. Jfing ers 88 03:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Articles are more interesting than user accounts, especially as half of Wikipedia's accounts are just Willy on Wheels suck puppets ;) Zerak-Tul 08:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Just to make this clear to all people outside Wikipedia's community who are reading, this is not a stat endorsed as fact by the Wikimedia Foundation itself. -- user:zanimum edited by user:zamnedix
for multilingual Users or because of domains with the same language it should be possible to seek topics domain-independant, i.e. there should be also the possibility to seek all subdomains for a topic, in case, its a rare topic not everywhere available. so please add 'seek in all countries' to the menu or make it the standard setting
Why Mărţişor in Romania and Martenitsa in Bulgaria are mentioned among selected anniversaries, while Russian/Ukrainian/Belarusian Maslenitsa (which is the same) is not? Why Russian anniversaries are always ignored? -- Ghirla -трёп- 16:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
What is the 1,000,000th article?
WOOHOO! GO WIKIPEDIA! 1 million articles, that is just amazing and mind shattering. -
User:Undergroundpirate
w00t!!
It took just over 5 years for Wikipedia to reach a million articles. If extrapolation continues this same way, it should have 2 million articles in mid-2011, 3 million articles in mid-2015, and so on. This is what my vote on the new Wikipedia:Ten-million pool is based on. Any bad thinking this involves?? Georgia guy 23:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC) PUPILS: TO KNOW AND MAKE MY BET FOR THE TWO MILLION ARTICLE DATE, I LOOKED THE EXPONENTIAL GROUTH OF WIKI. SEEN GRAPHICALY, THE DATE FOR THE TWO MILLION IS AROUND SEPTEMBER 2006. BUT THE MATEMATICAL DATA DOESNT COUNT WITH OTHER VARIABLES SUCH AS THE "ONE MILLION" PROPAGANDA IMPACT WHICH MIGHT BRING MORE READERS AND CONTRIBUTORS. I THINK IT MIGHT COME A BIT EARLIER, 2ND AUGUST. LEEANDRO
Yea... a million articles...thanks to me:P
Okay, so what was the millionth article? By my reckoning (loaded Special:Newpages and Special:Statistics twice), it's one of the following:
The first time I did it, I got Cellular architecture as the millionth; the second time Guillermo Hernández-Cartaya. Unfortunately, articles are being created so fast it's almost impossible to tell which one it is for sure. Someone needs to study the time logs very carefully to determine the exact article it was. I hope the true millionth article won't be a speedy delete. <g> - dcljr ( talk) 23:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
there you go, and that is positive Prodego talk 23:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Now you have all the other languages to make a million for. :p
-- Fox Mccloud 00:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Anyone else see it as ironic that our 999,999th article was One million articles? — Ilyan e p (Talk) 02:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Would someone more fluent in "boxish" than I please figure out why the Archive navigation box is covering up some text on this talk page, and persuade it not to?-- TJ 01:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Today's Featured Article has a stray quote mark before the word 'Mukuntuweap. I Googled the word, and I didn't find anyone else who uses that quote mark for any sense of the word Mukuntuweap. Art LaPella 01:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Where is the Kenya located - which continent? Kenya is located in the continent of South Africa. What are the land climate and vegetation like in Kenya? The land is fairly hilly bt the information i collected but i am not sure.
Friends, This is listed an important date in March 2 history, but the article on the Manfesto (and the English translation of it linked therein) say the Manifesto was issued March 3. I can't troubleshoot this, but if anybody has a minute, I think it would be nice to clear it up. 64.157.37.247 03:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The current featured article should link "Navajo Formation" to Navajo sandstone, shouldn't it? – Minh Nguyễn ( talk, contribs) 05:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
At the moment, everyone sees the banner there saying we have a million articles with a link to the article. Well, you've seen how quick that has gone up. What I was thinking was that we could have something similar to that up there all the time - maybe put the "collaboration of the week" up there. If we put up a link to an article we thought needed a fair bit of work, i'm sure that would be a decent way to get it expanded. just a thought. (but i think its a good one :) ) SECProto 12:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Are there any thoughts regarding how long this should remain up? — David Levy 20:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the banner was nice, but announcing who was the one millionth article kind of belittles everyone else. Shouldn't every article be just as important as the one millionth since they all made an equal contribution in reaching that number. Pretty cheesy for you guys to make a lottery winner out of the one millionth article.-- M4bwav 00:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the main page should be coloured differently and look cooler. I would prefer some red in it. Does any one else feel the same way? Earl Gray 09:30, 3 March 2006
In the news:
Where's the corruption ? -- 64.229.34.84 22:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I always find seeing the "in the news" section contains a lot of negative headlines. Does anyone agree that there should be at least one headline of 'Good' news?
For example (random headlines): Hurricane hits florida, Murderer jailed, Computer Virus damages 1bn machines, Cure for cancer found.
I know that Bad news is more abundant than good news but as well as educate people, does anyone agree that we shouldnt bum them out as much?!
I'm sure the image we have of Menzies Campbell is more suitable than the flag of the United Kingdom. -- Bryan Nguyen | Talk 02:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not offended personally, but is the image for Triumph of the Will really a good idea? It could easily be replaced with one of the pictures of parading Nazis. Redquark 03:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
In the third Did You Know question, deadlist should be spelled "deadliest". Art LaPella 06:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
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. |
Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | → | Archive 65 |
I think Wikipedia will reach ONE MILLION articles sometime on Wednesday 01st March 2006. Why not make the 1,000,000th article about Wikipedia's milestone of actually reaching 1,000,000 articles?? :) T. McLean - Australia.
Hopefully this breakthrough will get Wikipedia's name in the news and help publicise Wikipedia to make it even better!!!
Maybe some of you, could start emailing news companies and stuff or somthin, to tell them that this is going to happen, and compare wikipedia to the likes of how many articles encarta and britannica have. This will ensure the greatest news coverage!!!
Richardkselby 01:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
ONLY 10,000 more articles till a million. Yea!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.83.114.215 ( talk • contribs) 08:01, 2006 February 24 (UTC).
"Iv got an idea. lets invite some great personality for writing the millionth article. lets say UN secretary general or last peace novel prize winner. Leandro (argentina)
I agree Shanekorte 00:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
-- Ancheta Wis 23:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
you cannot "plan" the millionth article. New articles are created by the minute. Patent nonsense is deleted by the minute. It may well be that the millionth article is created several times, because of nonsense deletions. After all is said and done, the millionth article will be a random stub, to be evaluated after recent nonsense articles pushing up the count have been deleted... dab (ᛏ) 11:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The actual millionth article was Jordanhill railway station. violet/riga (t) 23:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
grr. someone tried to mess with the numbers in this discusion, fixing them now Finn 23:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Can we say either "in British history" or "in the United Kingdom's history". It does not make sense to say "in United Kingdom history". After all, you would not say "in France history" or "in Russia" history; the use of "in United States history" is the only exception to the rule. Polocrunch 09:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm very new to this posting business and apologise if this has already been covered or is in the wrong place!
I've been searching wiki pages forever trying to find out if it's possible to add a Wiki search box to the toolbar in one's browser. IF this exists, perhaps it would be something to mention on the Main page so that people would know that this is possible and know where to look for the information. I'm sure it's probably mentioned in some obviuos place, but I've been frustrated in my attempts to find it and there are no links from the main page that seem like the obvious choice to click when looking for such information.
(If this isn't possible, perhaps someone clever might consider implementing it? I know I end up turning to Wiki more and more these days and often use my Google search box as a wiki search box by typing 'wiki xxxxx'.)
Thanks much--and again, sorry if I'm making noise in the wrong places! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.51.49 ( talk • contribs)
Hi!
Why are here no InterWiki-Links to other Mainpages? (Like de:Hauptseite)
-- 84.176.3.145 14:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC) ( de:User:Athalis)
aa: als: ar: bg: bs: ca: cs: da: de: el: en: eo: es: et: fa: fi: fr: fy: gl: he: hr: hu: id: io: it: ja: ko: ku: la: lb: li: lt: ms: nds: nl: nn: no: om: pl: pt: ro: ru: sh: sk: sl: so: sr: sv: sw: ti: tr: uk: zh:
The information presented in the front page is incorrect. Exception is made in case where the mother's life is at risk [1]. FWBOarticle
I don't get it, Wikipedia started working fast again last night, but now it's slow. It's really killing the incentive to edit when I have to wait so long for it to open. I don't think it's a problem with my local server, because every other website works fine. Please fix this really annoying speed problem. JackO'Lantern 17:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
It's still way too slow! Why won't anybody listen? Fix the server or whatever and get the regular Wikipedia speed working again. PLEASE!!! JackO'Lantern 18:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia makes me mad! Why can't we edit or change featured articles!!! Ugh! So much for the website of the people BY THE PEOPLE and for the people! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mizuphd ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 2006 February 23 (UTC).
Perhaps you could change the phrase bomb attack to link to Al Askari Mosque bombing instead of bomb and move the bolding from Al Askari Mosque to bomb attack? Thanks in advance. joturner 00:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The Headline "Over 100 bullet-riddled bodies, including 3 journalists, are found by the Iraqi Police the morning following the bomb attack in Samarra, Iraq that badly damaged the Al Askari Mosque (pictured), one of the holiest sites in Shi'a Islam." is tremendously misleading. It implies that 100+ bodies were found in one place, when in fact it was several separate incidents, which are suspected reprisals for the bombing. How about this:
"Over 100 civilians are killed in Iraq in several incidents suspected to be reprisals for yesterday's bomb attack in Samarra, Iraq, that badly damaged the Al Askari Mosque (pictured), one of the holiest sites in Shi'a Islam."
Also, the link should go to the page about the bombing, not the mosque.- Matthew Cieplak (talk) (edits) 01:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Why about the Mexican flag? Gdatta 01:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Is some sort of robot adding this signature to unsigned comments? Or is it a person with too much time on their hands? I have an account at Wikipedia and I sign 99% of my comments. But when I choose not to, I don't want to find my comment altered with this blurb. Thank you.
Today's (Sat. Feb 25) featured picture is showing up wrong--it's last Saturday's featured picture. Osgoodelawyer 00:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering how we can have 3 pictures of the day on one day?? -- T-rex 03:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Most English speakers know this organization as Doctors Without Borders. Would it be a good idea to put this in parentheses after the French name? Thanks. -- Nelson Ricardo 00:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The picture going along with todays featured article seems to be... lacking. Its just a few people standing around. A more appropriate picture may be the orginizations logo, or a more obvious and interesting picture of a member of the group actually doing something.
Greetings, I live in north eastern Ohio and we have peat bogs around here. In one of the excivations there was found an 1l1ven or twelve thousand year old dam and lodge that was built by our furry little friend. No one was interested enough to examine the find and it was ultimately destroyed. that is where to look for this stuff because of the preservation of the material that is burried beneath the peat. Thought you would like to know. GuyPer out
How many volumes would you think it would have? - The preceding unsigned comment was irrelevant to the Main page. I couldn't give a... Castlemaine XXXX who wrote it.
I'm not sure how it should go because I didn't read up on the story or anything but the wording about the Irish Republicans is wrong. schyler 01:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
nevermind schyler 01:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't World Trade Center bombing be bolded and not Ramzi Yousef? -- Bryan Nguyen | Talk 05:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I happened to notice that all links are now underlined. I personally find this very annoying and it makes pages with a lot of links hard to read. Think maybe we could reverse it? Jezpuh 12:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The trapped miners in the Pasta de Conchos mine disaster in Mexico are presumed dead after rescuers encounter toxic levels of natural gas that halt search efforts. joturner 04:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC) The current news item for the Pasta de Conchos mine disaster fails to mention the most important part of the story - that the miners are presumed dead. How about something like...
-- joturner 13:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Today's feature article description for February 26, 2006 says "This would be one of the causes for the declaration of Brazilian independence by Peter I of Brazil in 1823". The declaration of independence happened in 1822, not 1823. The article was already fixed by the time I got there, but the front page still has this.
-- MauricioC 13:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd hardly call the Dublin riots 'major', in any case, it's a subjective word and I don't think it should be included on the main news page. - User:Dalta
It's not correct to use the name Bonaparte for Napoleon with reference to 1814. He was just Napoleon at that point; the Powers had even let him keep the title of Emperor after his abdication. A better link would be Napoleon I. -- Cam 19:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Some people, such as I, are annoyed by reference to a country as a nation. "Nation" is a politically-charged term outside of the United States, and we should be wary of that. The word "country" is perfectly neutral. -- Zhengfu 21:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
In Template:MainPageIntro the link to Wikipedia:FAQ was removed, and Wikipedia:FAQ was merged into Wikipedia:Questions. This is not good - it's too hard to find the FAQ's and Wikipedia:Questions is hard to navigate. So I'm going to re-instate Wikipedia:FAQ and change Template:MainPageIntro.-- Commander Keane 21:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The sails of the Sydney Opera House are spherical surfaces, not hyperboloid. The roof of the Sydney Myer Music Bowl (located in Melbourne, not Sydney)has a hyperboloid roof. Norm Tered
Should we make it bigger? You can't tell too well what it's showing, and it looks sloppy, I think. Clarkefreak ∞ 02:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
On the main page, in the olympic article reference, the word "Defenseman" is mis-spelled as "Defenceman".
Under DYK, "Deep in the Heart of Texas" should be surrounded by quotations and not italicized per Manual of Style for titles. I would appreciate an admin making quick work of this problem. Thanks so much! — Scm83x talk 07:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
She wont 'definatly' become the next Prime Minister as currently cited on the main page. She's very *likely* to be after P.J. Patterson steps down.
P.J.steps down (since she becomes the new leader of her party), fresh general-government elections will have to be called, and thats---- where she could lose becoming Prime Minister if her party does not win the *most* constituencies/seats in Parliament. In order for a new carbinet to be selected in Jamaica fresh general elections will have to be called. See Westminster System. CaribDigita 12:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
You know, Gore actually won for popular vote, but Bush for the electorial vote. Now that we have ways to judge the popular vote, I think it should go by that. What do you think? Dragon Expert 19:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Everyone's been so caught up in the frenzy about the millionth article that they forgot how close we were to one million users. Well, today ( February 28, 2006) at 2:02 UTC, we passed the mark with the creation of User:Romulus32. [ [3]] the creation log with this user. Jfing ers 88 03:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Articles are more interesting than user accounts, especially as half of Wikipedia's accounts are just Willy on Wheels suck puppets ;) Zerak-Tul 08:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Just to make this clear to all people outside Wikipedia's community who are reading, this is not a stat endorsed as fact by the Wikimedia Foundation itself. -- user:zanimum edited by user:zamnedix
for multilingual Users or because of domains with the same language it should be possible to seek topics domain-independant, i.e. there should be also the possibility to seek all subdomains for a topic, in case, its a rare topic not everywhere available. so please add 'seek in all countries' to the menu or make it the standard setting
Why Mărţişor in Romania and Martenitsa in Bulgaria are mentioned among selected anniversaries, while Russian/Ukrainian/Belarusian Maslenitsa (which is the same) is not? Why Russian anniversaries are always ignored? -- Ghirla -трёп- 16:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
What is the 1,000,000th article?
WOOHOO! GO WIKIPEDIA! 1 million articles, that is just amazing and mind shattering. -
User:Undergroundpirate
w00t!!
It took just over 5 years for Wikipedia to reach a million articles. If extrapolation continues this same way, it should have 2 million articles in mid-2011, 3 million articles in mid-2015, and so on. This is what my vote on the new Wikipedia:Ten-million pool is based on. Any bad thinking this involves?? Georgia guy 23:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC) PUPILS: TO KNOW AND MAKE MY BET FOR THE TWO MILLION ARTICLE DATE, I LOOKED THE EXPONENTIAL GROUTH OF WIKI. SEEN GRAPHICALY, THE DATE FOR THE TWO MILLION IS AROUND SEPTEMBER 2006. BUT THE MATEMATICAL DATA DOESNT COUNT WITH OTHER VARIABLES SUCH AS THE "ONE MILLION" PROPAGANDA IMPACT WHICH MIGHT BRING MORE READERS AND CONTRIBUTORS. I THINK IT MIGHT COME A BIT EARLIER, 2ND AUGUST. LEEANDRO
Yea... a million articles...thanks to me:P
Okay, so what was the millionth article? By my reckoning (loaded Special:Newpages and Special:Statistics twice), it's one of the following:
The first time I did it, I got Cellular architecture as the millionth; the second time Guillermo Hernández-Cartaya. Unfortunately, articles are being created so fast it's almost impossible to tell which one it is for sure. Someone needs to study the time logs very carefully to determine the exact article it was. I hope the true millionth article won't be a speedy delete. <g> - dcljr ( talk) 23:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
there you go, and that is positive Prodego talk 23:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Now you have all the other languages to make a million for. :p
-- Fox Mccloud 00:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Anyone else see it as ironic that our 999,999th article was One million articles? — Ilyan e p (Talk) 02:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Would someone more fluent in "boxish" than I please figure out why the Archive navigation box is covering up some text on this talk page, and persuade it not to?-- TJ 01:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Today's Featured Article has a stray quote mark before the word 'Mukuntuweap. I Googled the word, and I didn't find anyone else who uses that quote mark for any sense of the word Mukuntuweap. Art LaPella 01:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Where is the Kenya located - which continent? Kenya is located in the continent of South Africa. What are the land climate and vegetation like in Kenya? The land is fairly hilly bt the information i collected but i am not sure.
Friends, This is listed an important date in March 2 history, but the article on the Manfesto (and the English translation of it linked therein) say the Manifesto was issued March 3. I can't troubleshoot this, but if anybody has a minute, I think it would be nice to clear it up. 64.157.37.247 03:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The current featured article should link "Navajo Formation" to Navajo sandstone, shouldn't it? – Minh Nguyễn ( talk, contribs) 05:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
At the moment, everyone sees the banner there saying we have a million articles with a link to the article. Well, you've seen how quick that has gone up. What I was thinking was that we could have something similar to that up there all the time - maybe put the "collaboration of the week" up there. If we put up a link to an article we thought needed a fair bit of work, i'm sure that would be a decent way to get it expanded. just a thought. (but i think its a good one :) ) SECProto 12:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Are there any thoughts regarding how long this should remain up? — David Levy 20:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the banner was nice, but announcing who was the one millionth article kind of belittles everyone else. Shouldn't every article be just as important as the one millionth since they all made an equal contribution in reaching that number. Pretty cheesy for you guys to make a lottery winner out of the one millionth article.-- M4bwav 00:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the main page should be coloured differently and look cooler. I would prefer some red in it. Does any one else feel the same way? Earl Gray 09:30, 3 March 2006
In the news:
Where's the corruption ? -- 64.229.34.84 22:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I always find seeing the "in the news" section contains a lot of negative headlines. Does anyone agree that there should be at least one headline of 'Good' news?
For example (random headlines): Hurricane hits florida, Murderer jailed, Computer Virus damages 1bn machines, Cure for cancer found.
I know that Bad news is more abundant than good news but as well as educate people, does anyone agree that we shouldnt bum them out as much?!
I'm sure the image we have of Menzies Campbell is more suitable than the flag of the United Kingdom. -- Bryan Nguyen | Talk 02:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not offended personally, but is the image for Triumph of the Will really a good idea? It could easily be replaced with one of the pictures of parading Nazis. Redquark 03:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
In the third Did You Know question, deadlist should be spelled "deadliest". Art LaPella 06:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)