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 85 | ← | Archive 88 | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | → | Archive 95 |
Why is this not "In the News"? It's a pity that tonight and maybe tomorrow are the last chances to see it in the southern hemisphere before it disappears forever (northern hemisphere had a chance last week). I think we missed a golden opportunity to put something quite pertinent onto the main page while we had a chance. And perhaps a featured picture would not have gone amiss either. Zun aid © ® 08:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been raised before. My suggestion is that we put the relevant dates, or day, on news stories that happened at a particular time (rather than ongoing), such as the hanging of Saddam's half-brother. The reason I think this would be helpful is that web news sections, especially bullet pointed ones, are implicitly taken to be today's main stories, while the 'In the News' section is approximately a weekly review. Besides being informative, it would also be relatively simple and unobtrusive. E.g. :
or
Dast 17:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The actual ITN description should give the date for single-day events. Otherwise, it should indicate the date range, or start date. Some date context must be provided. Simple journalism 101 (and Wikipedia 101 as well) - What? Where? When? Who? How? Why? Don't make things difficult for the reader to understand, and don't expect the reader to go running all over Wikipedia to different articles to find the answers to these basic questions. That is our job as editors. Carcharoth 14:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the most common bacterial disease is gingivitis, not tuberculosis. The article on Tuberculosis gets it right--specifying that it's the most common *potentially fatal* bacterial disease--but the summary on the main page claims that it's the most common bacterial disease period, with no qualifications. -- Lode Runner 22:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe there should be an english and american versions separate to wikipedia as a lot of the content is americanised and as I am english a lot of it takes figuring out which to be frank is not very good to do late at night.-- 99ghorner| Talk 01:26, 9 January 2007 (GMT).
I Think There should be a change, I've done some research and I think there is going to be a Canadian version, I'm not to sure but it would be nice. I Love the idea but I still like doing my searches in other languages, and maby wikipedia shouldn't split but im still for it. EnsignLovel 3:55 January 23 2007
Lets start with a capital "E" for "english", as in North American. However not as in german or french etc (I think - to be confirmed). Osborne. 11:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
We could also make sure that everyone is using the same American dialect. You know, replace all instances of 'pail' with 'bucket,' etc. We could use some of that $0.9Mil we raised to hire a team of linguists to standardise the entirety of the Eng. wikipedia into the same dialect.-- 205.133.240.254 19:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Splitting wikipedia simply due to American or British English would be a ridiculous move. Its not that difficult to figure out the differences - its all the same language! If the spelling differences seem annoying to anyone, it really is a personal thing. The idea of keeping the dialect consistent in an article is a good one, but given the fact that anyone can edit articles, it would be very difficult to implement such rules, unless there are editors whose sole job would be to go around fixing articles. Personally, it seems like a waste of time. Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of people who use and contribute to wikipedia regularly who have learned English as a second language...for them American or British English isn't as obviously different. Bottom line though...wikipedia is here to share knowledge...why would we want to put limitations on that?? Eendrani 13:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I mean if we're to make difference between Am Eng and Br Eng then maybe we should add South African english and Indian English? You got to be really tired or really drunk if you can't understand an Br Eng article?-- NoNo 16:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I think unless it is possible impose global guidelines on how people should speak and write this is a problem that will always come up. Instead of splitting hairs over another communities unique if incorrect spelling/announciation we should just accept to read an authors work how he intended it read.I meanas your average American to say aluminium or the common brit to say hatchet... oh and cricket sucks anyway.
--Lord Terrance
I haven't read the above discussion, but I think it's safe to say the problem is rather trivial. Small spelling differences do not cause a comprehension problem, as I assume an even moderately educated reader should realize that "color" = "colour", etc. As for other differences in the language- just make sure to write articles in a way that most English speakers will understand them. Do not use regional phrases and expressions unless absolutely necessary. If you're not sure if a word or phrase is part of your regional dialect, don't worry- someone will eventually get confused by it and will fix it. --- RockMFR 03:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Long term - I wonder what will "eNLGISH" look like in future iterations. American "English" is without doubt a viral amalgam of many different sources. Is it worth the effort to muck about with segregation when the target is shape shifting daily? Grxwikian 03:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC) GrxWikian
I agree - the English language (both British and American and everything in between (NZ, Australia etc etc) is a mongrel language anyway - harvesting words from many other languages. Trying to 'standardise' it would be an exercize in futility. 203.97.51.149 20:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I am an american user and i prefer the British spellings because English game from England.19:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
68.4.61.113
I also have no problem with reading British or American content in an English section. The only problem I see in the future is with spelling but not translation.(Who spells everything correctly anyway?) The English we use in America is plagued with multiple words with the same meaning and multiple meanings for one word. It shouldn't be a problem if British-based words are used in articles as well. Despite our best efforts, the English language is not a masterpeice. As long as we keep slang from both parties out of main articles we should be able to understand the English version of Wikipedia just fine. I beleive that because of the media and advancing technology the English language will be molded together anyway. So why not start here. We don't need to change the languages, just combined them so that every English speaking person can understand the full range of this spoken language. We can do this through the wikipedia dictionary, by citing British or American origin on words that have questionable meanings. Plus it is fun learning different English terminology. Besides if you are worried that each variation of the language will lose it's distinction by combinding these languages, you are forgetting about accents and dialects. =) - Nameless
I'm Canadian and I read a number of American and British periodicals and websites daily. I have no problem whatsoever understanding American and British English, and I'm not necessarily that literate. I don't see the different spellings and use of expressions to be much of a problem. I see it as part of expanding your vocabulary so to speak. For example, if in Canada we sometimes use the word "Chesterfield" instead of "couch" or "sofa", then look up "Chesterfield" on the Internet just as you would any other word that you don't understand. English is surprisingly homogeneous once you get the hang of a few regionalisms and national quirks. To say that Wikipedia needs a split is like saying the Economist or Sports Illustrated needs an American-English or British-English version, respectively. It's completely unecessary. -- Lonesome road 22:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to make a new counter "Categories with only one article" in the special pages? -- 195.197.175.20 (Alphaios) 18:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
It says: "Parliamentary elections are taking place in Serbia, the first elections since Serbian independence in 2006."
Serbian independence?-- Steven X 11:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Can I suggest photos and images on the main page be given a clear caption. particularly in relation to the people in the news section. Today I read the top story about the EU president and saw the photo next to it and thought okay that's him, but when I click the link for more info I see an entirely different photo. The guy on the front page is actually Saddam Hussein's brother. Conceivably both could argue you've tarnished their image and sue ;-) but the lack of clarity is the bigger problem, especially for the first page readers come to. Just a name under the photo would help, a reference burried in a second or third paragraph is not enough. Alternatively you could ensure the photo is always positioned next to the relevant caption but this may be more difficult to ensure.
a good news service though, thanks Pugsworth 01:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
"India Standard Time"???? Is that the best featured article we can use for the main page? There must be some better choice for the main page featured article. I can't say the same for the pics, though---they are good. Seldon1 18:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The capital of The Netherlands is not AMsterdam but De Hague! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.7.54.162 ( talk) 08:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
Or an alternative title: Sandbox link
What i am wondering is, shouldn't the navigation contents bar on the left link to the WP:Sandbox? Simply south 12:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is the most unsafe place to search for information. Luckily, everybody cooperates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.184.170.164 ( talk) 18:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
Hey thanks for that link, they even have a bookmarklet, neato. :) -- 86.138.51.21 12:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's not digress now... I think what the anon was trying to say that anyone can add information to the articles that may be false. A vandal can secretly add an extra zero in a math related article. Also, some students receive failing grades for citing Wikipedia in their papers. (I learned that the hard way...) Ed ¿Cómo estás? Reviews? 01:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that as of now, (see below), whenever the cursor is hovering over one of the options such as "Log In" or "My Watchlist," the options quickly switch to the top left, as if they went from right-aligned to left-aligned in an instant. This is possible an individual error, yet is believed to be an error in the coding for the group.
Prodigy Kid 22:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please move the obscenity from the section of the lead article that appears on the main page? Postlebury 14:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Um, London didn't have a police force until the 19th century... Totnesmartin
Hello. I am a filmmaker, and I was wondering that if I showed an administrator a local newspaper article that includes a photograph of myself and another local celebrity filmmaker and a summary of my film, would that be enough to have my own Wikipedia page for biographical purposes. I also have a website for my film production company, Gonzo Films, on which you can view the films that I have made. I believe my friends in The River Company ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_River_Company) got their own page in the same manner. Thank you in advance. Michael.m.winters 23:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Ideally, if you are notable enough, someone else would have written an article about you already. We here at Wikipedia generally discourage people from writing articles about themselves or their own organizations. If you honestly believe that you meet notability requirements, the community will eventually respond by making a page. Lobbying for a bio page probably won't get you what you want though. I would suggest this page as a good starting point. Antimatter--- talk--- 21:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I've had a quick look and I'm somewhat doubtful that you meet our notability requirements and I also suspect nor does your film production company. Having a website and being reviewed in a local newspaper is unlikely to be sufficient in itself. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (especially those relating to films, people and music) and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I would also suggest if you are friends with The River Company it is probably wise to refrain from editing the article and hopefully having read the policies and guidelines you'll agree with me. Indeed I'm not even sure if it meets our notability requirements either (I believe you created it?). At the very least, you should make sure you declare your friendship when it's relevant for example, when offering opinions n the deletion. Anyway this isn't really the best place to discuss all this, try the links at the top 203.109.240.93 13:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting to think we should use only American spellings, and not just because I am one. America's population is 5 times more than England (according to Englands Wikipedia article), so why isn't everything American English. If it has 5 times the amount of people, than you could estimate that for every 5 Wikipedia readers, 3 are American, 1 is British, and 1 is from other countries. -- TeckWiz Talk Contribs @ 22:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
See also Talk:Main Page/Archive 90#Wikipedia split?. This relates directly to that discussion. Simply south 00:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that on any given page there are likely to be more ordinary mispelingz than GB vs. AE spelling variances, so maybe we should concentrate our spelling reforms on the words we can all agree are incorrect? TotoBaggins 03:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
LOL - There are many other countries than the UK that use British English. Canada, for example. Kiarasexton 19:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess the English would say that they invented the English language long before America was inhabitated by English speaking people, so that it is reasonable to use "English" English. As an Aussie I find the "English" English sometimes harder to use than the "American" version where words generally are spelt phonetically. Flight Engineer. 9.45 pm Australian EDST.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think it's weird that you need need a seperate account for sister projects. If I am wrong, and you don't need seperate accounts, then I'm confused-- Zramsay 01:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is NOT a democracy, then why do we vote on things here on the talk pages, like the one about the split because of spelling differences between the UK and American spellings, or the one about the moving of the Main Page. What does this achieve? Seldon1 15:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I never said communism was evil. That's a very common misconception. I'm merely stating the closest thing we are to is a communistic form of society...not really my ideal governance, but hey, whatever works. Dooms Day349 21:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Just thought I'd point this out: The logos for Commons, Wikisource, Incubator, Meta, and the Wikimedia Foundation are all simple, but Wikipedia's is a complex globe. Yes, it is the most used site of all the branches, but why does it get a special logo? In addition, the other logos all follow the color sceme of red, blue, white, and green. Again, Wikipedia is different. Firstly, could someone explain this? Second, why not change the Wikipedia logo to fit the other branches' theme? Wikipedia isn't so special--it's just a part of a bigger project, as we all know. Seldon1 17:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Should the featured article not be locked? I realize this is not the greatest article but it has become increasingly vandalized since it's been on the mail page. thegreattim
Wikitravel hasn't been listed alongside the other Wikimedia sites. Could it be added, its a really good site.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.57.87 ( talk • contribs) 19:11, 31 January 2007
"...that when the Young Bengal leader Ramgopal Ghosh was threatened with ostracism for opposing Hindu religion?"
what? I'm so in suspense! Tell me wikipedia! Sdedeo ( tips) 22:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm really not sure about this, and there will be those of you who tell me I'm posting in the wrong place (like I give two f*@#$) but...
"Sea birds are birds that have adapted to a marine environment." Sounds a touch presumptuous.
Perhaps "Land birds are sea birds that have adapted to a non-marine environment."
I mean, how does anybody really know?
Chicken or egg? -- J o h n O 01:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was No consensus Duja ► 10:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
All the arguments for moving/keeping appear to boil down to this:
Monotonehell does an excellent job of breaking things down into objective fact, theories, ideology, etc., but I think this is a good introduction to the debate. — DragonHawk ( talk) 13:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
As a bipartisan wikipedian (I'm willing to be swayed either way) I can offer my summary of how I've seen this discussion so far. Firstly I'll cover any technical reasons for the move, then ideological reasons, then cost verses benefit ...
No one has really focused on the actual costs verses the actual benefits as yet. Some have been offered, but they haven't been quantified.
So that's where we are at the moment. None of the arguments from either side are particularly compelling in themselves. There is not a weight of argument for one case or the other in total. The only thing left is to quantify the costs of the move verses the benefits and apply some kind of utilitarian judgement after all the evidence is collected.
So what are the benefits? What are the costs? Please don't just throw an unquantified opinion in here, we need hard numbers and facts if we are to weigh them against each other... -- Monotonehell 06:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Iknow i am starting to dig a very deep pit but i am starting to think Portal:Wikipedia is a better option. Look at the foreign Wikipedias. Simply south 23:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
What is the topic supposed to mean? What about Portal:Main Portal or Portal:Main? FirefoxMan 01:26, 28 January 2007 (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 85 | ← | Archive 88 | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | → | Archive 95 |
Why is this not "In the News"? It's a pity that tonight and maybe tomorrow are the last chances to see it in the southern hemisphere before it disappears forever (northern hemisphere had a chance last week). I think we missed a golden opportunity to put something quite pertinent onto the main page while we had a chance. And perhaps a featured picture would not have gone amiss either. Zun aid © ® 08:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been raised before. My suggestion is that we put the relevant dates, or day, on news stories that happened at a particular time (rather than ongoing), such as the hanging of Saddam's half-brother. The reason I think this would be helpful is that web news sections, especially bullet pointed ones, are implicitly taken to be today's main stories, while the 'In the News' section is approximately a weekly review. Besides being informative, it would also be relatively simple and unobtrusive. E.g. :
or
Dast 17:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The actual ITN description should give the date for single-day events. Otherwise, it should indicate the date range, or start date. Some date context must be provided. Simple journalism 101 (and Wikipedia 101 as well) - What? Where? When? Who? How? Why? Don't make things difficult for the reader to understand, and don't expect the reader to go running all over Wikipedia to different articles to find the answers to these basic questions. That is our job as editors. Carcharoth 14:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the most common bacterial disease is gingivitis, not tuberculosis. The article on Tuberculosis gets it right--specifying that it's the most common *potentially fatal* bacterial disease--but the summary on the main page claims that it's the most common bacterial disease period, with no qualifications. -- Lode Runner 22:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe there should be an english and american versions separate to wikipedia as a lot of the content is americanised and as I am english a lot of it takes figuring out which to be frank is not very good to do late at night.-- 99ghorner| Talk 01:26, 9 January 2007 (GMT).
I Think There should be a change, I've done some research and I think there is going to be a Canadian version, I'm not to sure but it would be nice. I Love the idea but I still like doing my searches in other languages, and maby wikipedia shouldn't split but im still for it. EnsignLovel 3:55 January 23 2007
Lets start with a capital "E" for "english", as in North American. However not as in german or french etc (I think - to be confirmed). Osborne. 11:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
We could also make sure that everyone is using the same American dialect. You know, replace all instances of 'pail' with 'bucket,' etc. We could use some of that $0.9Mil we raised to hire a team of linguists to standardise the entirety of the Eng. wikipedia into the same dialect.-- 205.133.240.254 19:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Splitting wikipedia simply due to American or British English would be a ridiculous move. Its not that difficult to figure out the differences - its all the same language! If the spelling differences seem annoying to anyone, it really is a personal thing. The idea of keeping the dialect consistent in an article is a good one, but given the fact that anyone can edit articles, it would be very difficult to implement such rules, unless there are editors whose sole job would be to go around fixing articles. Personally, it seems like a waste of time. Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of people who use and contribute to wikipedia regularly who have learned English as a second language...for them American or British English isn't as obviously different. Bottom line though...wikipedia is here to share knowledge...why would we want to put limitations on that?? Eendrani 13:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I mean if we're to make difference between Am Eng and Br Eng then maybe we should add South African english and Indian English? You got to be really tired or really drunk if you can't understand an Br Eng article?-- NoNo 16:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I think unless it is possible impose global guidelines on how people should speak and write this is a problem that will always come up. Instead of splitting hairs over another communities unique if incorrect spelling/announciation we should just accept to read an authors work how he intended it read.I meanas your average American to say aluminium or the common brit to say hatchet... oh and cricket sucks anyway.
--Lord Terrance
I haven't read the above discussion, but I think it's safe to say the problem is rather trivial. Small spelling differences do not cause a comprehension problem, as I assume an even moderately educated reader should realize that "color" = "colour", etc. As for other differences in the language- just make sure to write articles in a way that most English speakers will understand them. Do not use regional phrases and expressions unless absolutely necessary. If you're not sure if a word or phrase is part of your regional dialect, don't worry- someone will eventually get confused by it and will fix it. --- RockMFR 03:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Long term - I wonder what will "eNLGISH" look like in future iterations. American "English" is without doubt a viral amalgam of many different sources. Is it worth the effort to muck about with segregation when the target is shape shifting daily? Grxwikian 03:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC) GrxWikian
I agree - the English language (both British and American and everything in between (NZ, Australia etc etc) is a mongrel language anyway - harvesting words from many other languages. Trying to 'standardise' it would be an exercize in futility. 203.97.51.149 20:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I am an american user and i prefer the British spellings because English game from England.19:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
68.4.61.113
I also have no problem with reading British or American content in an English section. The only problem I see in the future is with spelling but not translation.(Who spells everything correctly anyway?) The English we use in America is plagued with multiple words with the same meaning and multiple meanings for one word. It shouldn't be a problem if British-based words are used in articles as well. Despite our best efforts, the English language is not a masterpeice. As long as we keep slang from both parties out of main articles we should be able to understand the English version of Wikipedia just fine. I beleive that because of the media and advancing technology the English language will be molded together anyway. So why not start here. We don't need to change the languages, just combined them so that every English speaking person can understand the full range of this spoken language. We can do this through the wikipedia dictionary, by citing British or American origin on words that have questionable meanings. Plus it is fun learning different English terminology. Besides if you are worried that each variation of the language will lose it's distinction by combinding these languages, you are forgetting about accents and dialects. =) - Nameless
I'm Canadian and I read a number of American and British periodicals and websites daily. I have no problem whatsoever understanding American and British English, and I'm not necessarily that literate. I don't see the different spellings and use of expressions to be much of a problem. I see it as part of expanding your vocabulary so to speak. For example, if in Canada we sometimes use the word "Chesterfield" instead of "couch" or "sofa", then look up "Chesterfield" on the Internet just as you would any other word that you don't understand. English is surprisingly homogeneous once you get the hang of a few regionalisms and national quirks. To say that Wikipedia needs a split is like saying the Economist or Sports Illustrated needs an American-English or British-English version, respectively. It's completely unecessary. -- Lonesome road 22:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to make a new counter "Categories with only one article" in the special pages? -- 195.197.175.20 (Alphaios) 18:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
It says: "Parliamentary elections are taking place in Serbia, the first elections since Serbian independence in 2006."
Serbian independence?-- Steven X 11:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Can I suggest photos and images on the main page be given a clear caption. particularly in relation to the people in the news section. Today I read the top story about the EU president and saw the photo next to it and thought okay that's him, but when I click the link for more info I see an entirely different photo. The guy on the front page is actually Saddam Hussein's brother. Conceivably both could argue you've tarnished their image and sue ;-) but the lack of clarity is the bigger problem, especially for the first page readers come to. Just a name under the photo would help, a reference burried in a second or third paragraph is not enough. Alternatively you could ensure the photo is always positioned next to the relevant caption but this may be more difficult to ensure.
a good news service though, thanks Pugsworth 01:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
"India Standard Time"???? Is that the best featured article we can use for the main page? There must be some better choice for the main page featured article. I can't say the same for the pics, though---they are good. Seldon1 18:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The capital of The Netherlands is not AMsterdam but De Hague! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.7.54.162 ( talk) 08:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
Or an alternative title: Sandbox link
What i am wondering is, shouldn't the navigation contents bar on the left link to the WP:Sandbox? Simply south 12:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is the most unsafe place to search for information. Luckily, everybody cooperates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.184.170.164 ( talk) 18:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
Hey thanks for that link, they even have a bookmarklet, neato. :) -- 86.138.51.21 12:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's not digress now... I think what the anon was trying to say that anyone can add information to the articles that may be false. A vandal can secretly add an extra zero in a math related article. Also, some students receive failing grades for citing Wikipedia in their papers. (I learned that the hard way...) Ed ¿Cómo estás? Reviews? 01:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that as of now, (see below), whenever the cursor is hovering over one of the options such as "Log In" or "My Watchlist," the options quickly switch to the top left, as if they went from right-aligned to left-aligned in an instant. This is possible an individual error, yet is believed to be an error in the coding for the group.
Prodigy Kid 22:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please move the obscenity from the section of the lead article that appears on the main page? Postlebury 14:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Um, London didn't have a police force until the 19th century... Totnesmartin
Hello. I am a filmmaker, and I was wondering that if I showed an administrator a local newspaper article that includes a photograph of myself and another local celebrity filmmaker and a summary of my film, would that be enough to have my own Wikipedia page for biographical purposes. I also have a website for my film production company, Gonzo Films, on which you can view the films that I have made. I believe my friends in The River Company ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_River_Company) got their own page in the same manner. Thank you in advance. Michael.m.winters 23:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Ideally, if you are notable enough, someone else would have written an article about you already. We here at Wikipedia generally discourage people from writing articles about themselves or their own organizations. If you honestly believe that you meet notability requirements, the community will eventually respond by making a page. Lobbying for a bio page probably won't get you what you want though. I would suggest this page as a good starting point. Antimatter--- talk--- 21:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I've had a quick look and I'm somewhat doubtful that you meet our notability requirements and I also suspect nor does your film production company. Having a website and being reviewed in a local newspaper is unlikely to be sufficient in itself. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (especially those relating to films, people and music) and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I would also suggest if you are friends with The River Company it is probably wise to refrain from editing the article and hopefully having read the policies and guidelines you'll agree with me. Indeed I'm not even sure if it meets our notability requirements either (I believe you created it?). At the very least, you should make sure you declare your friendship when it's relevant for example, when offering opinions n the deletion. Anyway this isn't really the best place to discuss all this, try the links at the top 203.109.240.93 13:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting to think we should use only American spellings, and not just because I am one. America's population is 5 times more than England (according to Englands Wikipedia article), so why isn't everything American English. If it has 5 times the amount of people, than you could estimate that for every 5 Wikipedia readers, 3 are American, 1 is British, and 1 is from other countries. -- TeckWiz Talk Contribs @ 22:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
See also Talk:Main Page/Archive 90#Wikipedia split?. This relates directly to that discussion. Simply south 00:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that on any given page there are likely to be more ordinary mispelingz than GB vs. AE spelling variances, so maybe we should concentrate our spelling reforms on the words we can all agree are incorrect? TotoBaggins 03:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
LOL - There are many other countries than the UK that use British English. Canada, for example. Kiarasexton 19:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess the English would say that they invented the English language long before America was inhabitated by English speaking people, so that it is reasonable to use "English" English. As an Aussie I find the "English" English sometimes harder to use than the "American" version where words generally are spelt phonetically. Flight Engineer. 9.45 pm Australian EDST.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think it's weird that you need need a seperate account for sister projects. If I am wrong, and you don't need seperate accounts, then I'm confused-- Zramsay 01:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is NOT a democracy, then why do we vote on things here on the talk pages, like the one about the split because of spelling differences between the UK and American spellings, or the one about the moving of the Main Page. What does this achieve? Seldon1 15:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I never said communism was evil. That's a very common misconception. I'm merely stating the closest thing we are to is a communistic form of society...not really my ideal governance, but hey, whatever works. Dooms Day349 21:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Just thought I'd point this out: The logos for Commons, Wikisource, Incubator, Meta, and the Wikimedia Foundation are all simple, but Wikipedia's is a complex globe. Yes, it is the most used site of all the branches, but why does it get a special logo? In addition, the other logos all follow the color sceme of red, blue, white, and green. Again, Wikipedia is different. Firstly, could someone explain this? Second, why not change the Wikipedia logo to fit the other branches' theme? Wikipedia isn't so special--it's just a part of a bigger project, as we all know. Seldon1 17:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Should the featured article not be locked? I realize this is not the greatest article but it has become increasingly vandalized since it's been on the mail page. thegreattim
Wikitravel hasn't been listed alongside the other Wikimedia sites. Could it be added, its a really good site.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.57.87 ( talk • contribs) 19:11, 31 January 2007
"...that when the Young Bengal leader Ramgopal Ghosh was threatened with ostracism for opposing Hindu religion?"
what? I'm so in suspense! Tell me wikipedia! Sdedeo ( tips) 22:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm really not sure about this, and there will be those of you who tell me I'm posting in the wrong place (like I give two f*@#$) but...
"Sea birds are birds that have adapted to a marine environment." Sounds a touch presumptuous.
Perhaps "Land birds are sea birds that have adapted to a non-marine environment."
I mean, how does anybody really know?
Chicken or egg? -- J o h n O 01:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was No consensus Duja ► 10:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
All the arguments for moving/keeping appear to boil down to this:
Monotonehell does an excellent job of breaking things down into objective fact, theories, ideology, etc., but I think this is a good introduction to the debate. — DragonHawk ( talk) 13:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
As a bipartisan wikipedian (I'm willing to be swayed either way) I can offer my summary of how I've seen this discussion so far. Firstly I'll cover any technical reasons for the move, then ideological reasons, then cost verses benefit ...
No one has really focused on the actual costs verses the actual benefits as yet. Some have been offered, but they haven't been quantified.
So that's where we are at the moment. None of the arguments from either side are particularly compelling in themselves. There is not a weight of argument for one case or the other in total. The only thing left is to quantify the costs of the move verses the benefits and apply some kind of utilitarian judgement after all the evidence is collected.
So what are the benefits? What are the costs? Please don't just throw an unquantified opinion in here, we need hard numbers and facts if we are to weigh them against each other... -- Monotonehell 06:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Iknow i am starting to dig a very deep pit but i am starting to think Portal:Wikipedia is a better option. Look at the foreign Wikipedias. Simply south 23:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
What is the topic supposed to mean? What about Portal:Main Portal or Portal:Main? FirefoxMan 01:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)