Talk:Main Page/Archive 108

message: can we get his ugly mug off the main page? please? --24.252.52.108 16:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, it is not up to you whether his picture is "ugly" or not. Second, please request a feasible replacement if you are really dissatisfied with the picture. —METS501 (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: What you need to do is get some supermodels involved in an international incident, preferably in bikinis... --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply because you feel that the picture is "ugly" is not good a good enough reason to remove his picture. The news still happened, and he was still involved, and we still need an image in the section. Suggest an alternative if you want a change. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Maybe we could have Alberto R. Gonzales? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. Why don't we have a contest: which image, when displayed on the Main Page, will bring protests here the quickest? (Besides fair use, advertising, or tubgirl.) GracenotesT § 01:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No porn pics, please. --74.14.16.66 04:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That wouldn't be very weird. I've suggested a DYK which illustrated the DYK section with the a page (with pictures) of a book of erotic fiction, and History of erotic depictions was featured on the main page last year. Atropos 05:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about grotesque porn photos that happen to be copyvios as well ? --74.14.16.66 05:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: I thought people were complaining about the person being ugly? How is replacing the image with an even uglier one going to help? Nil Einne 08:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder (beer holder). --Monotonehell 13:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, Miss world gone wrong will still have models fighting, so it wnt be that ugly.Tourskin 21:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it might start World War III, and that would be ugly. ;-) · AndonicO Talk 14:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: ditch abdulah. He's been on the front page for like 5 days and its annoying and ugly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.30.68.49 (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You say he is ugly. But there are some Turks out that would die for him. Its there job, like his bodyguard. Some would even love him, and certainly some out there would not find him ugly (lets see, his wife? if hes married). Not me though - I can't stand him, no offence to him. So you see, wikipedia is not a one man show so we can't remove it cos someone says its ugly. What if the ugliest person in the world was involved in a big international incident - do we not post a pic?Tourskin 02:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Lol I say he should stay there until people get so fed up that this discussion gets ugly.Tourskin 21:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who cares if some stupid turks would die for him? How many turks use Wikipedia? Stuff all! What's wrong with Hurricane Felix? What's so imprtant about this guy? --Simpsons fan 66 23:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well when you get turks saying "OMFG THIS ARTICLEIS ANTI TURKISH CURSE WIKIPEDIA!!" on an article you make, u try not to aggrevate them. Anyways the puc has changed - yeah!Tourskin 01:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Halaluyah, so long abdullah. That almost rhymes...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.51.103.64 (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sayonara, Abdullah.  This rhymes better... --74.13.124.222 06:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the first rhyme. Pronounced like "Ah-leh-loo-yah! so long ab-du-lah!" lolTourskin 07:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: Could someone help me on the subject of templates and their function in Wikipedia articles? Just a general question about their purpose. Even a link would be fine.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.79.27 (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A template is a page who's content can be "transcluded" into another page. So if the template said "I am Sam," including the template in a page would produce "I am Sam." This is usually used to create navigational and informational boxes that need to be relatively consistent across a large number of pages. Rather than copy the long code over and over, you just type a certain word and you're done. Atropos 07:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia:Template namespace.  In the future, general questions about Wikipedia should be posted at the help desk. -Elmer Clark 08:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't mean to be a pain, but are these questions suppose to be asked here?Tourskin 02:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are more appropriate places. But this page is the first place that most people find. So if someone does ask a question here don't WP:BITE, if you know the answer and have the time, answer it and point them to the appropriate resources. :) --Monotonehell 01:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whilst I agree with that in principle, it does appear to generate a contravention to the aim of getting peoples questions to the right place. Tourskin 20:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Despite general opinions and point of views, the fact that the Falkland Island are claimed by Argentina can't be ignored in the featured picture text. Take into account that in Argentina, these islands are legally and officially considered part of the Argentine territory.--cloviz 01:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet it has been ignored. The fact is, whilst Argentina recognizes them as their Islands, the rest of the world (more or less) recognizes them as British territory, including Britain. What other people think of the Island is largely wishful thinking. Tourskin 05:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Errr... yeah it can. Do we say, "Taiwan, a province of the People's Republic of China..."? —Verrai 05:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand your arguments. We don't say Taiwan is part of China any more than we say Falklands is part of Argentina. Neither of these two is true. Tourskin 07:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was refering to the comment about how it can't be ignored by cloviz. Hence the "yeah it can" and his indenting at the same level as you. Atropos 11:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually we do say Taiwan is part of China. See Taiwan "territories administered by the Republic of China (ROC), which governs the island of Taiwan". We don't however say Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China so Verrai was quite... Nil Einne 11:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was obviously talking about the PRC too. Don't be a pedant. Atropos 18:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't resist given how worked up about things he tends to get and how he himself likes to nitpick. Plus the fact that he appears to be incapable of following a thread... Also I think it is important people unnderstand there is a big difference between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China. Both claim to be the true China which is what makes the whole thing so ridiculous. Failing to differentiate between the 2 can lead to silly statements (even when the meaning is clear) such as "Taiwan isn't a part of China" whereas as I've already said this simply isn't true since both the ROC and the PRC generally consider Taiwan to be a part of China. Nil Einne 12:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should really know better than to say that. Its a bit uncivil. Atropos 22:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Thank you Atropos, thats what I meant. Taiwan is claimed by PRC but its not owned by PRC. Falklands is claimed by Argentina but its not. Its owned by the UK and governed by itself. Tourskin 18:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But this is completely irrelevant which you would have know if you could follow a thread... Nil Einne 12:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I still don't know what u r on about Nil. My point is clear. Taiwan is de facto recognized by the world, even by the PRC as independent. The Falklands Island is recognized by the world, even by Argentina as de facto UK territory. I'm using a comparison here to show that there is no need to say what a minority believe in. Furthermoore, I would like to add that the link on the picture "Falkland Island" had a section about the War in the 80's so it can be known from there what Argentina's views on the Island are.Tourskin 01:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're all agreeing with each other! Tourskin, you are just saying exactly what Verrai said right at the top. Everything else has been people agreeing with each other in an argumentative fashion :) Why not agree to agree and leave it at that? Skittle 13:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Never! I will immediately march back to my HQ and prepare a pre-pre-emptive defensive measure against any potential pre-emptive strike against the Falklands - HAIL RULE BRITANNIA!Tourskin 02:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Because Nil Einne is being unnecessarily rude towards Tourskin. Atropos 03:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nil, I didn't see teh comment above , and good thing too because I would not have given the humorous reply that some users on this page have been asking me to give. I'll do my best not to let your comment get to me. Tourskin 21:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: !!! PLAGIARISM !!! LOL! --Monotonehell 10:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not if ur assyrian, then it becomes 11/10ths of the law. Tourskin 02:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: When these kinds of disputes happen - the two countries involved generally go to war about it.  A lot of people die - and when the dust settles one side is deemed to have won.  That country generally gets to decide what happens to the disputed terratory afterwards...now remind me - who won the Falklands war? SteveBaker 19:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: China? Oooops sorry I should remember to put away my crystal ball before answering questions on wikipedia Nil Einne 17:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  HAIL BRITANNIA!!Tourskin 20:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malvinas 

message: Just wondering where the consensus was for that.-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 12:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why has the link to [[El Hormiguero]] been removed from the main page? 

message: In the "Did You Know?" section, the following is one of the bullets:
: ...that Olga D. González-Sanabria, a Puerto Rican scientist and inventor, is the highest ranking Hispanic at NASA Glenn Research Center?
Hispanic is an adjective, and in my experience the use of racial or ethnic adjectives as nouns is derogatory.—Kbolino 08:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merriam-Webster, dictionary.com, and Wiktionary all list it as a noun as well as an adjective.  None indicate that its use as a noun is any more offensive than its use as an adjective.  Also, your statement "in my experience the use of racial or ethnic adjectives as nouns is derogatory" confuses me...I can't think of any example of this, although there are examples of the opposite, such as "Jew" as an adjective being offensive.  What exactly were you referring to? (As an aside, "Hispanic," whether offensive or not, is certainly in common use and in fact is the official term used by the US Census Bureau, and therefore perfectly appropriate for use on Wikipedia.) -Elmer Clark 08:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hispanic is as about as neutral as we can get. We don't need political incorrectness leaving us without any descriptive and yet neutral words.Tourskin 23:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: Thats not my point Nil, in fact my argument is that a category like Jew is very ambiguous, which u have nicely pointed out for me. Hispanics meanwhile are a far more specific group. Tourskin 19:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My argument had nothing to with the ambiguity or specificity of the term "Hispanic."  As such, insofar as the person in question is Hispanic (which is a predicate adjective and not a noun when used as such), the definition itself is irrelevant.  All that concerned me was the part of speech of the word as used.  The dictionaries referenced cited the usage as a noun being acceptable, with no notes about vulgarity or offensiveness.  But my perception is unlikely unique, and while it is obviously not universal, it is at least worth consideration.—Kbolino 00:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was only trying to say that Black, Jew and Hispanic are different, not of the same class. Whether or not its offensive is really a matter of how its intended. In this case it was a descriptive word, not an insult, so it is not derogatory.Tourskin 01:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However even if a term is intended to be descriptive, it can still be degrogotary in some instances. For example I don't think there is any doubt or disagreement that Ariel Sharon is Jewish. However calling him a Jew is still likely to be considered offensive even thought it may be intended as accurate & descriptive terminilogy. And this has nothing to do with the "who is a Jew" ambiguity but the simple fact that usage of the Jew in that way is associated with bigotry (as our article says). For that matter, black is not necessarily offensive in many circumstances. However nigger to an extreme and negro is at the very least usually considered antiquated. Again this is more related to the historical usage of the words. I personally don't think this is the case for saying someone is Hispanic but my point is for a variety of reasons certain 'descriptive' terminology can still be offensive. Nil Einne 11:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, but I also said earlier that there was no better term than Hispanic. Just like u wouldn't call Sharon a Jew first, u would call him an Israeli first. Then if u talked about his religion, jew is the only term available. Derogatory or not, a word must be used if no other "nicer" word can be found. We don't want wikipedia to be "wordless" because of someone's view on political correctness Tourskin 20:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually in most circumstances you would say he is Jewish not a Jew which was my point. Also whether you would refer to him as Jewish or Israeli depends on the context. Ariel Sharon is a bad example in this case but for example let's say he was an Iranian and he became the president of Iran. We might say he was the first Jewish president of Iran. We wouldn't say he was the first Iranian president of Iran... Note that the original posted was not suggesting we don't refer to the person as a Hispanic but that we say something like the highest ranking Hispanic person. I.E. he wasn't saying that we shouldn't mention the person is Hispanic simply that we find another way to refer to the person. I don't think this is necessary but I wanted to make the point that there are a variety of ways to refer to people some are degratory for a variety of reasons and we should be careful about how we word things. Ignoring such concerns because we think it's political correctness is IMHO silly. Yes sometimes people go to far with this but the difference between going too far and not doing enough is a very fine line. Nil Einne 11:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hispanic as a noun 

message: Hopefully that banner will be up soon!  Good job, everyone! —Dark•Shikari[T] 08:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, as aren't articles deleted as well as created at same time, so there could be confusion. Awaiting banner! Phgao 08:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oklahoma State Highway 113 was 2m. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?  Where did Gulf crayfish snake fall? --Czj 08:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Banner is up. But it doesnt show here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=history ? Phgao 08:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Main Page banner. --- RockMFR 08:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the main portal needs updating. --Camptown 08:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, when I google wikipedia it always says "A free encyclopedia built collaboratively using Wiki software. (GNU Free Documentation License) and with over 1000000 articles." - Will it ever say over 2mil articles? (this is the google link http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-au%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GGLJ&q=wiki Phgao 08:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems that the 2,000,000th article was generated by User:BOTijo - a bot... --Camptown 08:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends, Anonymous Dissident appears to disagree.  But I see that whoever owns that bot activated it at the right time to flood Wikipedia with dozens of new bot-created articles in an attempt to get the 2 millionth article.  I tried too, but at least mine wasn't a generic bot article. —Dark•Shikari[T] 08:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh your article "seems" to be the 2000001st one. Phgao 08:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Is the line "As always, contributions are welcome to improve all existing articles " going to be put in? (see above discussion) Phgao 08:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope User:Anonymous Dissident is right, why shuoldn't he? ;) --Camptown 08:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raul654 has put on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions that the 2 millionth article was El Hormiguero Davewild 08:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now people are saying that it was Sum of absolute transformed differences. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#2_million_articles_2 it's El Hormiguero? Phgao 08:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The "winner" needs a temporay tag, something like this:
The English-language Wikipedia thanks its contributors for creating its 2,000,000th article..
--Camptown 08:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can anyone know for sure? It is very possible that two were created at exactly the same time... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What matters is when the database transaction itself went in.  As far as I know they are handled sequentially, so a true winner should be possible to find. —Dark•Shikari[T] 08:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You stole the words right out of my mouth :) - databases are atomic and transactional, and therefore it is impossible for two articles to be created at the exact same time. Raul654 08:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is probably hard to establish who reached 2,000,000 first as there was a substantial "Job queue" at the time. But, I would be happy, if we could agree that the winner was created by a real editor and not a bot.--Camptown 08:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. I see. Well then, my hat is off to El Hormiguero... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, I posted the news on meta... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But wasn't El Hormiguero technically created long ago? --Camptown 08:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It had deleted revisions that Alkivar restored, after the article was created. So yes, it is the 2 millionth article. Raul654 08:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  And its 2 million! 

message: Why is the Main Page on the main namespace? I think it makes a lot more sense to have on the Wikipedia namespace, in case somebody want to write an article on "Main Page"s. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 22:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed at length before; it was thought that a Portal was more appropriate... but it still stays as it is, to date. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I might just write an article about a Main Page just for the fun of it. I think that the link under navigation should point to Wikipedia:Main Page.... just to be safe. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 02:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: like I said, Homepage.  18.238.7.93 05:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree. I haven't seen any evidence for a consensus either way. In the absence of a consensus we preserve the status quo but that doesn't mean there's a consensus for the status quo. The distinction between no consensus and a consensus in one direction is an important one IMHO. Nil Einne 13:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, you can't write the article while the main page stays at its current location. And Wikipedia:Main page would not be inline with policy. The only change I can think of which could possibly make policy-based sense is Portal:Main page. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: I don't know about the current version. Wherever the links go, I don't know if there's really any difference between the "community" and the "English Wikipedia". In a real sense, the community is the encyclopedia. Are we thanking ourselves? As to the other suggestion above, the contributors weren't really responsible for the 2,000,000th article. A single editor created it, and a small fraction of the community will edit it in the next few days. Just some thoughts, b/c I know the complaints about these things will come anyway.--Chaser - T 08:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia, the encyclopedia, is thanking the volunteers. And I think we are not thanking the person who created the one, 2 millionth article, but rather we are thanking everyone who helped create it, and the 1,999,999 that came before it... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Horay! Good job everyone, and that banner is great! Dfrg.msc 09:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should there be a link to the 2,000,000th article in the banner? ISD 09:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. If El Hormiguero is eligible (it is actually a recreated article), that should be observed on the banner. --Camptown 09:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I disagree. That would further Chaser's point. It is one of 2 million, and thats what we are celebrating - 2 million. Not the article which was no.2m -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the 1,000,000th was observed that way (a link on the main page banner)... --Camptown 09:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not without problems.--Chaser - T 09:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if it does get added, I will still be divided. It is a matter of luck that El Hormiguero was 2m; when an FA-like article is no. (X) million, then I will be fine to place it on the main page. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Generally, putting it there results in vast improvement, at least initially; the attention is bound to get it some interesting additions, and probably helped a lot towards getting Jordanhill Railway Station to is relatively good quality it is now. —Dark•Shikari[T] 09:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be opposed to it. We have oversight to handle that problem and semi-protection can be employed as warranted. If anyone does that, please drop a note at WP:AN asking folks to watchlist it.--Chaser - T 09:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm starting a new section here because its getting a bit too indented!  I think its very important to get the 2 millionth article "up to par" because of the media attention it will undoubtedly get; linking it on the frontpage will probably help considerably in the short-term. —Dark•Shikari[T] 09:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, ok. But I would advise that it be small, and succinct in the message. How long should the banner stay up? 7 days? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The 2,000,000th article banner on the front page should also show the 2,000,000th article itself, like this:
The English-language Wikipedia thanks its contributors for creating 2,000,000 articles.The 2,000,000th article is El Hormiguero.
. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 09:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably more like one or two or three days at most, a week is too long. —Dark•Shikari[T] 09:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Support, but only for today. As with any milestone, people would probably be anxious to know which article was lucky enough to make it. --Camptown 09:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well ok then. A couple of days. A message proclaiming the 2millionth article. A bit more chearing. Then back to building the pedia. Then back to building up to 3m. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or rather, then back to improving the existing 2,000,000.... ;) --Camptown 09:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Nup - its 2 mill articles. With rdirects etc. I tihnk we have 10 million pages... see Special:Statistics... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks, hmmm I wonder if the Deletionist were faster then the Creationist, we could celebrate the 2,000,000th article over and over again like some twilight zone episode ;-)▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 11:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No we'd need to be in equilibrium for that to happen. Otherwise we'd be going backwards and can celebrate 1.5 million, 1 million etc again Nil Einne 12:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: See also wikimedia:Press releases/English Wikipedia Publishes Millionth Article. I definitely saw a comment somewhere later that confirmed that there was vanishingly little interest in the media about this, but I can't find it now. :-( Carcharoth 11:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I took out the article in question, it turns out there were problems with the script (the data was reversed) - technically we may have got the wrong article. - Mailer Diablo 11:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: The site notice is intended to convey important information, not to pat ourselves on the back.  I don't care for the current banner, but at least it isn't plastered on every page.  —David Levy 01:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 2,000,000th article banner 

message: Would it maybe be better to remove the banner and post the same message in the site notice? Greeves (talk • contribs) 20:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would probably be better. I remember we had just as much debate over the banner at the 1,500,000th article. --JB Adder | Talk 01:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Some predictions indicate that List of retired foot fetishists would be the 2,500,000th English Language article... --Camptown 11:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no! We have already begun AGAIN, and we just reached no. 2 million today! *shakes head and laughs* -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was planning to try out for the 2 millionth article too but missed it. I knew it would speed up but I didn't realise it was going to happen that fast :-P Nil Einne 11:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Or 2500 FAs. Or both. Heck let's go for the trifecta, 1000FP, 2500FA, 5000GA! I somehow think we're going to achieve 2.5 million before we achieve the last two tho Nil Einne 12:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a resource count in Age of Empires... —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll pay you 3000 FA,s 6000 GA's and 1000 FP's - will you be thy ally Vanderdecken ?Tourskin 17:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I suggest that you learn how to speak German, then, my friend. GracenotesT § 18:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already speak German. Most people don't, though, so I don't see why they should be denied a Wikipedia that is written for them, and not for self-diagnosed Aspergers sufferers. --86.138.178.13 22:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, what a curious phrase. Well, :Category:In popular culture, Lists of fictional topics, and WP:AFD constitute a good place to start. (I'd like to the former two depleted via the latter, at least.) Everyone has a favorite topic, and everyone also has a pet peeve. In an open wiki like this, these inevitably conflict. Usually in favor of keeping content, instead of deleting it. GracenotesT § 00:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Gosh  I agree.  We should at least disallow crap like  Callista Chimombo.  Reywas92Talk 20:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: this is an excellent suggestion. Especially since the other day's featured article of the day was about an internet meme. -Henry W. Schmitt 20:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody suggested that all sociologists who had been studying the Bus Uncle should have a pay cut... --Camptown 23:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How would we celebrate when we hit 100,000,000. It should happen in a few years. Marlith T/C 03:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Barbeque. La Jolla Beach. Burgers and Beer galore. Tourskin 03:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2,500,000th article? 

message: Can somone change the color of the thing telling us that the english Wikipedia has hit 2,000,000 articles? I keep thinking I have new messages! --BlooWilt on the wikiprowl, later! 20:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Coming from a guy who has a fake new messages bar on his userpage? Smokizzy (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lol me too but I don't really care!Tourskin 21:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can  you please remove or re-word the statement that Wikipedia wants to thank contributors? I am one of the contriburs and do not want to be thanked by Wikipedia. Andries 23:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I think you are trolling. No action will be taken on this request. Newyorkbrad 23:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a long time contributor and do not want to be thanked by Wikipedia because I am disappointed by Wikipedia. Expressing this wish is not trolling. Andries 23:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why in Earth then you continue with your disruptive behavior? If you are disappointed with this project, why bother? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Then I encourage you not to read the message.  Then you shall not be bothered by it.  In this case, you are not the only contributor affected, and I'm quite confident that most of them DO welcome the sentiment.  - Philippe | Talk 23:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the community of contributors (Wikipedia) thank its own contributors, like Stalin frequently applauded himself? Maybe the readers should thank the editorial contributors, who should thank the financial contributors? --Camptown 23:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Camptown, you're not serious, are you? Smokizzy (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It is a good point. Since we added the notice, we are thanking ourselves. Besides, it is always nice to thank the donors  Prodego talk 01:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we could just remove the notice that our intended audience (that is, the general populace) doesn't actually care about. Atropos 05:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really that big a deal? -Elmer Clark 07:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  --BlooWilt on the wikiprowl, later! 10:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

message: In case no one has noticed, El Hormiguero has been recomended for deletion (and lets face it, it is a pretty bad article), so what is the next article in line if it is deleted? in other words, what is currently the 2,000,001th article? --Simpsons fan 66 05:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it will be deleted. ;) Dfrg.msc 05:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's fair to categorize a brand new article (which the 2,000,000th article is guaranteed to be) as 'bad'.  Almost all articles start off in a poor state and get better - and the amount of attention this one is getting will guarantee that it will get better faster than most.  The only grounds for criticism at this point are on notability grounds...which it appears to pass.  Furthermore, do you imagine that if you sorted all Wikipedia articles by age and picked (say) the 1,000,000th one, that would be the same article from one day to the next?  This whole thing is a completely unscientific/unencyclopeadic process - and we should not pretend otherwise. SteveBaker 13:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2,000,000th article deletion 

message: "...that Eduardo Malapit, Mayor of Kauai from 1974 to 1982, was the first mayor of Filipino decent in the United States?" should read "...that Eduardo Malapit, Mayor of Kauai from 1974 to 1982, was the first mayor of Filipino descent in the United States?" 137.99.115.217 15:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed. Thank you Borisblue 16:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo in "Did you know?" 

message: I'm assuming we have something approaching consensus to include a short line in the main page message template. So here are the suggestions so far...
#The English-language Wikipedia thanks its contributors for creating over 2,000,000 articles!
#The English-language Wikipedia has created over 2,000,000 articles!
#The English-language Wikipedia thanks its contributors for creating over 2,000,000 articles!
##Help now to improve existing articles or consider donating
#Wikipedia now contains over 2,000,000 articles thanks to people like you
#The English language Wikipedia now has over 2,000,000 articles.
##As always, contributions are welcome to improve all existing articles
A couple of those go over two lines, not sure if that's good or bad. Number five seems to have gained the most praise. --Monotonehell 02:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I read number five, I keep thinking instead of "contributions", "contributers", would contributers be better as it emphasises people? But then if the person had not contributed yet, they wouldn't be a contributer would they? Phgao 06:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Number 5 is my favorite. I like that it asks people to contribute, but I dislike number 3's solicitation of donations in big print on a boilerplate.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 15:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support 5 as it is factual, marks the 2M and points to the task of improving exisiting articles.  Strongly opposed to 1 and 3 as an encyclopedia cannot thank anyone.  Greenshed 18:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: Yes! We did it! Well done to everyone! ISD 08:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get too exited. 2 Million is just another number. The UserboxerComplain/ubx 01:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2,000,000 mark reached

message: I had been expecting this to happen which was I started this up again and was trying to attract people to the discussion. I probably should have posted to the VP but forgot. No one noticed this discussion as such when the time came the banner was posted based on the 1 millionth article example and people are now debating the wording again and the improve existing article bit has been completely ignored. Admitedly we forgot to consider how we would mention the 2 millionth article in our discussion but anyway... :-P Nil Einne 11:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, yes I was about to post a similar point. We've been talking about this for ages and no real interest. But when we reach the point, someone unilaterally puts something up oblivious to any talk here. Such is life. --Monotonehell 11:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the notice is great now. Unilateral but good ideas to put links to English Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia. One thing is still, what somebody mentioned before, that wikipedia shouldn't stand as an artificial entity thanking its contributors (making a division between wp and contributors). Maybe Thanks to all contributors, wp has now over 2 mil articles. --Ben  T/C  15:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I was right, it happened in September, close to labour day, (and also isn't terribly far from my birthday either). Anyway, congradulations! Do you think the press will mention it? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 00:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's hilariously reflective of Wikipedia itself that the banner has changed about ten or twelve times. Battle Ape 06:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I was right

message: Which one is the 2,000,000 article? Richardkselby 01:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see this sorted once and for all. Tphi 12:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Which one

message: So it took Wikipedia five years to get one million articles, and only a year and a half to get the second million.  Anyone want to join the discussion about when you predict the third million will be reached?  I'm guessing October 2008, just a little over a year. --QQQ (9-11-07)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by QQQ (talk • contribs) 19:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page really shouldn't be used for idle guessing games. Leebo T/C 20:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3,000,000?