Talk:Main Page/Archive 79

message: This really should go back there.  Without a newcomer will simply browse away, thinking Wikipedia is some incomprehensible web hosting service.  That number catches the imagination of anyone who sees it.  
The quality of the articles is more important but that is something people can find out for themselves.  The article count is not.
THAT NUMBER SUMS UP WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS TO THE UNINITIATED!!  I say put it back.  We can vote here. --Juicifer 00:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Count 
VOTE
 DISCUSSION 

message: Juicifer 00:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Put it back:


message: *SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 00:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Keep it where it is:


message: Who crossed out  the vote that I started up there?  Why?  What shocking arrogance - don't cross out .  Shame on whoever did that.  Wikipedia may not be a democracy but peoples opinions carry weight - don't patronize the people who contribute here.  I strongly feel that the number of articles prominently visible is an important element on the main page for the reasons I outlined above.  All the other languages have it.  I'll start the poll again: juicifer 08:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll:  Keep the article count? 

message: Comment here please.
For God's sake return the count it is extremely annoying without it. PLEASE IF YOU ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT WIKI FOCUSING ON IMPROVING EXISTING ARTICLES PLEASE RETURN IT AS WIKIPEDIA IS CURRENTLY WORKING ON 1,346, 000 ARTICLES IN ENGLISH. THIS TELLS EVERYTHING. Since you have removed the count we actually have had an increase in the number of new articles, like 10,000 in a couple of days! Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: * Endorse move to bottom or change to show other statistic (like featured content, words, words per article ... they are all more representative than that silly 1.4 million article we show). 60% of the articles offered on WP are stubs, readers are deceived or overwhelmed when they see such a big number, they think everything is done but when they get to the material they see that it's all pêle-mêle. (Also ... don't vote for everything). Lincher 10:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move it to the bottom of the page

message: Remember this: Talk:Main Page/2006 World Cup poll? --Howard the Duck 17:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something did come of that. No concensus. ;) --Monotonehell 20:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected haha (Wait if no consensus, the scores should have stayed, right? Well nevermind...) --Howard the Duck 04:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very similar. Loads of people want something and then a minority says Wikipedia is no democracy, voting is evil, you don't understand what wikipedia is about, we know what's best etc. It's a bit like communism. In the end it chases people away from getting involved in the decision making. Piet 08:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problems are that voting is evil, discussion is the way to come to consensus but so few people actually are able to argue a point by presenting a case. Perhaps there needs to be a forum for arguments with a set format so people can add their opinions, but with an argument. Something to stop all the "My voice is louder than yours but I'm not actually saying anything" that goes on on both sides of these discussions of late. I supose you can't blame anyone, "the media" these days never presents an unbiased and logical view of anything. *sigh* --Monotonehell 01:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nothing will happen

message: Personally I'd much prefer the article count at the top (statistics about a site is the stuff usually only admins see, so it's symbolic to put it right out there in the open, imho), but I have a suggestion since this discussion has been coming up for ages - in the main page redesign, I think this single topic had more discussion on it than the whole rest of the redesign put together.
Since the only argument against keeping it at the top seems to be a perceived feeling that it encourages WP:AFC-spamming and 'bigger-is-better' mentality, why not test it? We could keep it removed for a short while to see if people actually stop spamming the database? If it makes no perceived difference, then we should put it back, as per the requests.
(PS. this is technically removing information for political reasons, which just isn't nice) -- drrngrvy tlk @ 15:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're adding to an older part of discussion here. This argument has been going on all down this page. I suggested exactly this further down this page There's many more parts to this, keep reading if you wish to catch up. ;) --Monotonehell 05:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Compromise

message: This is a follow-up to a comment David Levy made above about (I think) the archives of the Main Page redesign (a few months ago) being poorly organised. I've been ferreting around and the following links might help:
*Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page - some funny guy has put an inactive tag on the project page! :-)
*Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page - this is the talk page where the links to the archived discussions can be found.
*The final poll and discussion is here - nearly 1000 votes!!
*Searching for variants on "article count", or "number of articles" in those archives brings up a fair amount of the discussion done on the matter. I don't have time to find and link to all of them, but a quick search through the bug fixing session archive found some discussion there.
Hope that all helps! Carcharoth 22:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives of Main Page redesign 

message: :Unless we let Jimbo decide of course, that would save time. Piet 07:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be considerably quicker and easier (and probably less controversial and divisive, oddly enough).  I'm not sure that Jimbo would be willing to intervene in this manner, however.  —David Levy 07:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think he would. Piet 09:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jimbo

message: You have no sense of humour whatsoever and little wit Levy.  You have (you will note) made the same silly points that I just ridiculed you for making, yet again!  You are beyond parody.  And yes Levy, I must be a total imbecile who thinks that because the birds fly ergo they are planes, since I like you have no sense of humour or proportion.  
Do you know what the word patronize means my little Levy?  It means to talk down to someone, as though they are your inferior.  FYI Levy, FYI.
Look, I can see what you have been trying to do.  Since March you have been trying to get the article count removed/hidden out of sight.  You know that you would never win a vote on the topic, so you try to piggyback the idea into the "main page" reform, your ideas were predictably rejected.  You later add the article count at the bottom as well, in preparation for your next manoeuvre.  Ah patience!  You wait 3 months, in your boxer shorts, watching downloaded Seinfeld episodes, and then you strike - mid-August when everyone is at the beach, "they'll never notice" (sinister laugh) and if they come back from the beach and complain I'll tell them that this is the new status quo, and will only ever get changed by consensus, and if someone starts a straw poll on the topic you will say "polls are evil" and cross it out.  And all this effort because you (as Cartman would say) have a boner for Jimbo, and you think that this will please him in the way you dream of doing when you lie in bed. Well you didn't plan on this wikipediatrix walking in and catch you in flagrante delicto!  (That means with your pants down Levy by the way.) 
You have tried on numerous occasiosn to stop this debate reaching some kind of satisfactory conclusion.  You have suggested no way to put it to any kind of vote or wider community scrutiny.  You have behaved in an manner unbecoming of an admin, you have been arrogant, condescending and unproductive.  You have threatened to sanction me for starting a MfD debate on the Article Count, when this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.  I am not worried by this at all.  Everyone with a brain will immediately see what you have been trying to do (hide your unpopular change from wide scrutiny), and laugh at you.  But mainly, they will become aware of the issue, and many will (like me and many other above) work to stop you doing it.
So Levy, this is it, until you nominate for MfD (or equivelant solution of your choice) and get a strong consensus for deletion we have nothing more to discuss.  I have heard your Jimbo's-tush-licking argument and you have heard my numerous erudite and accurate rebuttals and rejoinders.  YOU NEED A CONSENSUS TO DO THIS. 
*So, If you ever (while I am a wikipedian) remove the article count from the top of the main page without a strong consensus, a super-majority of opinions, I will nominate it for MfD and put you for up censure.
*GET A CONSENSUS!!!  PERIOD!!!!  juicifer 06:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final response to windbag Levy (I hope) 

message: You have no sense of humour whatsoever and little wit Levy.  You have (you will note) made the same silly points that I just ridiculed you for making, yet again!  You are beyond parody.  And yes Levy, I must be a total imbecile who thinks that because the birds fly ergo they are planes, since I like you have no sense of humour or proportion.  
Do you know what the word patronize means my little Levy?  It means to talk down to someone, as though they are your inferior.  FYI Levy, FYI.
Look, I can see what you have been trying to do.  Since March you have been trying to get the article count removed/hidden out of sight.  You know that you would never win a vote on the topic, so you try to piggyback the idea into the "main page" reform, your ideas were predictably rejected.  You later add the article count at the bottom as well, in preparation for your next manoeuvre.  Ah patience!  You wait 3 months, in your boxer shorts, watching downloaded Seinfeld episodes, and then you strike - mid-August when everyone is at the beach, "they'll never notice" (sinister laugh) and if they come back from the beach and complain I'll tell them that this is the new status quo, and will only ever get changed by consensus, and if someone starts a straw poll on the topic you will say "polls are evil" and cross it out.  And all this effort because you (as Cartman would say) have a boner for Jimbo, and you think that this will please him in the way you dream of doing when you lie in bed. Well you didn't plan on this wikipediatrix walking in and catch you in flagrante delicto!  (That means with your pants down Levy by the way.) 
You have tried on numerous occasiosn to stop this debate reaching some kind of satisfactory conclusion.  You have suggested no way to put it to any kind of vote or wider community scrutiny.  You have behaved in an manner unbecoming of an admin, you have been arrogant, condescending and unproductive.  You have threatened to sanction me for starting a MfD debate on the Article Count, when this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.  I am not worried by this at all.  Everyone with a brain will immediately see what you have been trying to do (hide your unpopular change from wide scrutiny), and laugh at you.  But mainly, they will become aware of the issue, and many will (like me and many other above) work to stop you doing it.
So Levy, this is it, until you nominate for MfD (or equivelant solution of your choice) and get a strong consensus for deletion we have nothing more to discuss.  I have heard your Jimbo's-tush-licking argument and you have heard my numerous erudite and accurate rebuttals and rejoinders.  YOU NEED A CONSENSUS TO DO THIS. 
*So, If you ever (while I am a wikipedian) remove the article count from the top of the main page without a strong consensus, a super-majority of opinions, I will nominate it for MfD and put you for up censure.
*GET A CONSENSUS!!!  PERIOD!!!!  juicifer 06:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Final response to windbag Levy (I hope)