Talk:Main Page/Archive 79

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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 79


Special archive

The below represents all the disparate converstions regarding moving the article count from the header of the main page. All archived in one place for easier reference.

Contents


changing the article total to the FA total

It's probably been about 200,000 articles since I last paid attention to the NUMBEROFARTICLES ticker. Given recent noises about focusing on quality rather than quantity, I would like to float the idea of changing the blurb to "X articles featured in English". This would require the creation of a protected template {{FA number}}, or something similarly named, that would be manually updated. Since the number at WP:FA is manually updated anyway, this doesn't seem like a large commitment. Thoughts?

Note that as the article number currently links through to Special:Statistics, either the FA number would have to added there, or we just lose the link and let people get to it via Wikipedia:About, already near the top of the page. - BT 23:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting suggestion... Raul654 23:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this has been suggested before. However, the number of featured articles does not demonstrate anything except the number of days Wikipedia has been in existance. One might as well say "Wikipedia has existed for X days." One could instead say "1,335,738 articles in English, XXX of which are Good or Featured articles." — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 01:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, this has been suggested before. A major problem is that many Wikipedia visitors won't know what "featured articles" (or "articles featured") are (and won't bother following a link to an explanatory page), so they would misinterpret this as the total quantity of articles in the encyclopedia. For users who do know what "featured articles" are, there's nothing particularly impressive about the number (though the individual articles themselves are impressive), and it would seem too self-congratulatory for our main page to contain a proclamation that X articles have attained an arbitrary, Wikipedia-defined status.
I'll also note that there's no reason why a blurb of any kind needs to appear in that space. (There is no gap that must be filled.) This extra line of text significantly detracts from the page's aesthetic appearance, and it was tacked on at the last minute to eliminate the perception that the entire redesign was contingent upon the article count's removal.
Per Jimbo's comments, a recent discussion, and a rough consensus achieved during the main page redesign process, I've removed the article count from the header (by default). If/when complaints appear, let's try explaining the reasoning behind this change and advising users that the article count still appears elsewhere on the page (in the Wikipedia languages section). Alternatively, a logged-in user can restore the article count to the header by adding the following code to his or her personal CSS file (User:Username/monobook.css or the equivalent):
#articlecount {display: block !important}
—David Levy 01:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, and I concur with the "tacked on at the last minute" comment. --Quiddity·(talk) 01:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Lets leave the "number of whatever" to the folks who do it best. --hydnjo talk 01:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC) addendum: And the script works fine for folks (like me) who need the stat. --hydnjo talk 01:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The page looks weird without that number there! :-) I agree with the rationale behind removing the number, though the responses over the next few days could be fun to watch... Carcharoth 02:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just being nostalgic, but I liked having the number up there. It is a reminder of our progress. Also, the massive scope of Wikipedia is one our best selling points and the number of articles is indicative of that. Yes, quality is important, but just because people want to focus on quality is no reason to be ashamed of our breadth. Dragons flight 02:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, nostalgia plays a major role. During the main page redesign process, the most common complaint regarding the article count's removal was that its inclusion was a long-standing tradition.
A great deal has changed, however. Now that we've long since exceeded 1,000,000 articles, the impact of seeing the numbers steadily increase isn't nearly as great as it once was. Wikipedia has established itself as one of the top sites on the Internet. Its large size is widely known, and its numerical growth is indicative of little more than the passage of time.
The popular media have been focusing on Wikipedia's editorial quality (or lack thereof), and prominently proclaiming that we're up to 1,535,270 articles (including an enormous number of stubs and articles tagged for cleanup or deletion) does nothing to alter the perception that we value quantity above all else.
But of course, the article count remains on the main page for all users to see (in the Wikipedia languages section, where it's contextually relevant), and it's very easy to restore its display in the header on an optional basis. —David Levy 03:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
In the recent Wikimania meeting, Jimbo had emphasized that Wikipedia is now focusing on the quality of the articles and not the number. It is true that the number of articles is still an important consideration but to bring this project to the next level, the quality of the articles is now being taken into serious consideration. But I still feel that it is nice to let non-users know about the number of articles currently here, whenever they visit this website. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, but should this be the first thing that we tell them about the project? —David Levy 04:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Reading the "recent discussion" that you linked to above, David, it would seem that it was mainly you outlining your reasons for wanting to remove it, and then a few people opposing you and a few supporting. Hardly consensus. To be honest, as I say below, I think it is a shame that the article count is gone, but I do not feel particularly strongly either way; but I am sure there are people who do. Why not open up a new discussion specifically devoted to the question of whether or not to have the article count at the top of the Main Page, and see what (if any) consensus emerges? Batmanand | Talk 10:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
You overlooked the other recent community discussion that I cited in the same sentence. We received massive amounts of feedback on this issue during the main page redesign process (which was the largest and most heavily promoted discussion about the main page in the site's history). We did reach a consensus to remove the article count from the header, but I personally restored it as a temporary measure (to avoid creating the false appearance that it was an absolute requirement of the redesign). The intention always has been to eventually remove this element (by default) from the main page proper, and that's why the redundant instance (intended to serve as its replacement) was left in place (in the Wikipedia languages section). —David Levy 14:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest to put both the FA count and the Good Articles count.--BMF81 07:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely not. FA and good articles have little to do with the overall quality of Wikipedia. Such articles just get written on random topics because it suits the psychology of a few editors to jump through a set of hoops to get a badge. The vast majority of quality content is not in these articles, and implying that it is denigrates the rest of Wikipedia. As already mentioned there is another type of vanity involved in that most readers do not know or care about this obscure process, so highlighting these numbers would be editor-centric.Calsicol 15:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

bad mistake removing article count

HI. what ARE YOU DOING? removing the article count? Wikipedia has thousands of new visitors every day and now there is no info straight up to suggest the size of wikipedia. While the number of articles is clearly not as important as the quality it is always good no know how the project is epxanding even daily. I SERIOUSLY suggest they change it back. I know that one of the first things that attracted me to wikipedia was seeing how many articles and the sheer size of it in figures which made me very curious to explore it becoming interetsed in the process. If I thought it looked like a standard encyclopedia I probably wouldn't have bothered looking at it. What can we do to make them return it. I also believe if they do not care about the article count at least start improving articles to feature status James Janderson 08:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. 218.212.119.63 08:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The article count remains on the main page. Please see the Wikipedia languages section. —David Levy 08:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a relevant point here, which is that those who already know Wikipedia is very large don't need the article count to tell them this. It is those who don't know that Wikipedia is very large who need to be told about the size. Might I suggest that a short paragraph on the size, types of articles, and the quality issues, is placed only a few clicks away from the main page, on the pages that newcomers are likely to go to sooner rather than later. At the moment the "Overview" link doesn't mention it until halfway down the page at Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia_statistics, though the first sentence does say "the largest reference website on the Internet" (don't we need a citation for that?), the actual number only appears later. Another thing could be to place a "Statistics" link somewhere. At least that would provide a one-click link for those wanting to find out the nuts and bolts of the place, but wouldn't actually shout the number from the rooftops. If there is lots of opposition to this removal of the number from the header box (while still leaving it in the languages bit), then this could be a viable compromise. Carcharoth 09:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
If it counts for anything, I think it is a shame that the number of articles is not displayed at the top of the Main Page. Batmanand | Talk 10:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Not being rude (;well possibly being rude;) No it counts for nothing. Please explain why "it's a shame". There's been valid arguments presented for the 'remove case' and others for the 'keep case'. I'm yet to make a conclusion but I'm being swayed by the quality over quantity arguments above. --Monotonehell 10:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Might I suggest that a short paragraph on the size, types of articles, and the quality issues, is placed only a few clicks away from the main page, on the pages that newcomers are likely to go to sooner rather than later. I use wikipedia more than one year, but I haven't been there so far ... and I think most of newbies wouldn't come there because at first place they want to get know about something not about wikipedia. I agree with opinion, that number of articles should stay on front page - it's impressing just to watch this fast increasing number. And after it can tell something about wikipedia's size. I'think that at least 50% of people agree with us, 50% disagree, but is this really so important not to have it on frontpage. It's just one sentence. -- Adam Z. 11:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not the place to give in-depth arguments (above, I suggest beginning a proper discussion of this; that would be a better place), but in short, three reasons. 1. Like it or not, one of the huge selling points of Wikipedia is the breath of coverage it has, and it is important for the first-time visitor to see this. It might attract more people to become Users. 2. Like it or not, one of the best things about Wikipedia is its breath of coverage. Of course quality is important - no-one is denying that - but quantity is not a "dirty word" and for regular Users to see Wikipedia's expansion for themselves, every time they come to the site, is a great confidence- and morale- (and ego-) booster. The idea that having 1.4 million articles is "bad" in some way, that we might want to kind of "hide" it, is plainly ridiculous. We should be proud of it. 3. Like it or not, when media outlets want to write a story on Wikipedia, many will be lazy and their "research" will be to go to the Main Page. Yes, they could scroll down and see the number there, but again many just will not. As I said above, we should be proud of the number of articles we have, and we want it to be reported as widely as possible. Hence, it should be pride of place at the top of the Main Page. Hope that is enough reason to justify my opinion. Batmanand | Talk 11:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
As note above, we had a rather lengthy discussion about this. The breadth of our coverage is established far more effectively by displaying our primary portal links and featured content on the main page. It also is established when people following outside links to articles on various topics. And of course, people find their desired content on a wide range of subjects by typing simple and varied terms into the search box.
No offense, but your suggestion that a "media outlet" would look no further than the top of our main page for background information is patently absurd.
No one is claiming that we shouldn't be proud of what we've achieved, but the "1,535,270 articles" figure (including a multitude of stubs and articles tagged for cleanup or deletion) should not be our source of pride. —David Levy 14:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article count should stay at the top. Hard as it is to believe, there could still be some people who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia and might just stumble across it somehow (from a link to an article and then clicking the logo to see the "home" page). --Nelson Ricardo 11:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course there are people who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia! That's the most important reason why proclaiming that "we have 1,535,270 articles!" at the top of the page (thereby implying that the sheer number—including stubs and articles tagged for cleanup or deletion—is what we're proudest of) is counterproductive. If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia (as opposed to an indiscriminate collection of information), we need to impress people with the quality of our articles, not the quantity. —David Levy 14:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Removing the statistics to a clumsy and obscure location will do nothing whatsoever to improve article quality. You seem to be engaging in a misplaced snobbery. Historically EB has made great play on its size. Calsicol 15:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm baffled as to how a section of the site's main page could be deemed "a clumsy and obscure location." This has nothing to do with snobbery and everything to do with displaying this information in-context. Shouting it at the top of the page (for no apparent reason other than to brag) is what comes across as vain. —David Levy 16:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Even as a regular, multi-times-a-day user of Wikipedia, I enjoy watching the article count go up. Please, please, put it back! Sven Erixon 12:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

While there is nothing wrong with letting new users see the current number of articles, placing that number at the top of the main page says something fundamental about Wikipedia's priorities: quantity of articles is the most important aspect of Wikipedia. During the site's early days creation of new content was very important but now that there are well over a million articles, with a thousand or more new articles created each day, the need to create new articles just to have content has passed. Instead, the development of encyclopedic quality articles needs to become at least as important as the importation of new content. This change in direction from emphasizing quantity to considering quality to be just as important requires an adjustment in the project's culture. Removing the advertisement at the top of the main page that emphasizes quantity over quality is part of the needed cultural change, and as such should be viewed as a necessary evil. --Allen3 talk 14:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit conflict]Responding to Batmanand: 1) I didn't realize that we were trying to "sell itself"; I thought we were trying to make a better encyclopedia. And why is it "important"? I imagine that a casual user would be most interested in if a particular topic is covered, not that he/she could get to 50,000 other articles in two clicks. 2) I am a regular user and my ego is not boosted. An increase from 400K to 500K is amazing; 1.2 million to 1.3 million, not so much. It's not so much "bad", as you phrase it, as not particularly interesting. 3) Ummm... you want to cater to "media outlets" that won't click on the invitingly bold Wikipedia?
The ticker was added back when Wikipedia was encouraging editors to churn out articles and reach a level of parity in coverage with Brittanica, etc. (See the Main Page in December 2001.) Then we spent a while being pleased we had more articles than Brittanica. Now it's just unsporting to compare number of articles. If the best argument that can be made for the ticker is that it has always been there and it gives some users warm fuzzies to see a number that is so large that it hardly bears comparison, that's a pretty weak argument.
Going back to the post that kicked this discussion off, the number of FAs is not impressive, which is the reason to use it, if anything. When Wikipedia was bending its efforts to cover major topics, it openly acknowledged that it needed more articles. The ticker at that point was clearly a "editing help requested" notice rather than a "we rule!" proclamation. If insufficient breadth is no longer a concern and attention is now on improving the quality and sourcing of articles, it would be entirely within the norms of the project to put up a number based on quality. The two current quality rating systems, obviously designated subjectively as is "article", are WP:FA and WP:GA. If the number of GAs was much larger than of FAs, an argument could be made for using the bigger number. It is not and a featured article ticker is the likelier candidate. I am not particularly attached to this idea and am fine with the ticker being removed from the top altogether. However, there is an argument to be made for a switch rather than a removal. - BT 14:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
A key difference between the article count and the "featured article"/"good article" counts is that the former is an objective (albeit relatively irrelevant) statistic. The latter are based upon arbitrary criteria and subjective applications thereof. Therefore, displaying such a statistic would make it appear as though Wikipedia is patting itself on the back by awarding a self-invented honor to X number of articles and announcing this on its main page as a means of promotion.
Our current system of highlighting specific featured content on the main page is a much better means of conveying our true objectives, and it doesn't detract from our other good (if not "good") content in the manner that shouting the quantity of featured articles would. —David Levy 14:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes it does. I disapprove of the whole FA process, which doesn't focus effort on doing things are a most important for readers. It is a vanity-driven editor-centric process and should not be given one jot of extra prominence. Calsicol 15:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
If you don't wish to scroll down to the Wikipedia languages section, you can restore the article count to the header by following the instructions provided above. —David Levy 14:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
That's an utter and useless irrelevance as only a miniscule number of users will ever discover it. Calsicol 15:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that "only a miniscule number of users" will ever read past the main page header unless we shout "1,535,270 articles" at them? —David Levy 16:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Please put it back Being able to see Wikipedia growing is highly motivational. The current location of the item is absurd as that section is for Wikipedia's in other languages. Calsicol 15:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest giving this some time, see if you get used to the main page without the article count at the top. It was strange at first, last night to see it without the article count. But, now I'm used to it and okay with not having it up there. I too would like more emphasis placed on quality than quantity. I don't think anything is needed, but might be open to the idea of putting the featured article count there. Perhaps, we can bring article count back for milestones. And, maybe we can stick in in the Community Portal, instead of at the top of the main page. --Aude (talk contribs) 15:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
if anything, giving the FA count is even more arbitrary than giving the article count, seeing how FA standards fluctuate over time and across projects. If you want some informative measure of WP's size (not quality), give its word count (as I've been pointing out for many months...) Fwiiw, I agree that moving the "Started in 2001, it currently contains 1,336,926 articles." bit down to the "languages" section is an extremely bad idea. (ᛎ) qɐp 15:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is it a bad idea to provide this information in the context of Wikipedias and their sizes? FYI, this change was approved (via consensus) and implemented five months ago. —David Levy 16:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
1. Editors should be motivated by something other than seeing that we just added a few hundred more stubs to the pile.
2. In preparation for this event, the section's name was changed from Wikipedia in other languages to Wikipedia languages five months ago. That's more than enough time to introduce the new format. —David Levy 16:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not going to wade into this discussion any further - my views are expressed above, and to be honest they are not particularly strongly held anyway - except to say that there seems to be enough controversy regarding this subject to warrant a separate discussion/consensus-gathering exercise/poll (voting is evil). Yes, it was done five months ago with regards to the Main Page redesign, but maybe it needs revisiting. Oh, and one more thing: David, you have done an amazing job with the Main Page, and your replies on this page regarding what could be seen as attacks on your "pet project" have all been civil and well argued. Let this kind of WP:AFGing continue from all users in all disputes. Batmanand | Talk 16:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your kind words. I welcome discussion, and I don't perceive criticisms made in good faith as attacks. —David Levy 18:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
what I meant by "fwiiw" is that in my opinion it was a bad idea. I'm not going to bite you if you disagree with me on this. I also emphatically repeat that I think the proper information that belongs at the top of the page is the word count. I've settled for the (admittedly irrelevant) 'article' count as second best, but if this is a chance of mentioning WP's size in terms of words (pages, shelf-space), I'll gladly take it. (ᛎ) qɐp 19:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Word count! Thats almost hilarious enough for me to support! ;) (please, oh please, tell me we actually have that as a statistic somewhere...?) --Quiddity·(talk) 19:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
*twitch* 511 million words. alrighty then. --Quiddity·(talk) 19:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
That works out to an average of well under 400 words per article. Wow, think about how many stubs we must have for the figure to be that low. —David Levy 19:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
You say that as if stubs are a bad thing. --Dhartung | Talk 00:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Stubs aren't inherently bad, but full-length articles are better. —David Levy 00:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
my entire point is that "511 megawords" gives you an idea of size, while "1.4 megaarticles" doesn't, unless you also state that your average article has some 400 words. (ᛎ) qɐp 12:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if stating this will make much difference, but moving the article count down was absolutely the right thing to do. I fully agree with Jimbo and have felt for quite some time that we no longer need to focus on number, but on quality. Moving the count isn't a big deal, but it's a start in the right direction to put editing focus where it should be. I have as much fun as anyone watching the count go up, but that doesn't mean it needs to be on the main page. - Taxman Talk 03:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles count

Probably the question has been asked but where is the articles count? :) --Brand спойт 18:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Gone. See the discussion a bit further up the page for details. Icey 18:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
No, it isn't gone. It's right there in the Wikipedia languages section. —David Levy 19:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, the user asking where it had gone obviously didn't scroll down and see it further down. Which makes me wonder how many people do ever read that far down... Carcharoth 22:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

David Levy. Why do you think that removing the article count will suddenly improve the quality of articles? Rubbish. People wil still continue to add new articles and removing relevant information is not going to make people suddenly propel into action to improve existing articles. Remember that the quality articles that exist today were made by new stubs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.102.25.233 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC).

Sure, people will keep adding articles. But, Wikipedia is at a point now where we should shift focus towards quality over quantity. [1] It's appropriate that the main page reflect this, symbolically. --Aude (talk contribs) 20:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that removing the article count will suddenly improve the quality of articles. I think that it will improve the general public's understanding of our project and its goals. —David Levy 21:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not change it to Wikipedia is currently working on 1,338,000 articles in English. This fully reflects our goals whilst providing helpful info.

According to Jimbo, our goal is no longer to work on that many articles, but to work on the quality of articles. -- 64.229.206.90 12:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
See also: #Article Count VOTE DISCUSSION

Article Count VOTE DISCUSSION

See also: #changing the article total to the FA total
See also: #bad mistake removing article count
See also: #Articles count

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)

  • In other words, Wikipedia is about quantity, not quality. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-25 01:07

Put it back:

Juicifer 00:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep it where it is:

Comments

The article count is still there, it's just at the bottom over by the languages section. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 00:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I was about to say the same and even add the "Comments" title!--cloviz 00:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes I know, but it has been hidden away there for silly dogmatic reasons. It is the kind of thing that scientologists would do - do bizarre symbolic in response to the words of the great leader in the hope of pleasing him. Obviously the vote is to put it back where it used to be so it gets seen by people and not at the bottom of 2000 words of discordant text. juicifer 00:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Alright then, you didn't specify that so I thought you just didn't know it had been placed at the bottom. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 00:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
FYI, this change wasn't made to please Jimbo. His recent comments are indicative of a sentiment that's been brewing within the community (which led to a rough consensus on the issue earlier in the year, the implementation of which was partially postponed). —David Levy 04:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and especially not in this case. Simply put, you can't just throw up a vote on a talk page (especially without first attempting discussion) and expect it to be binding based on the votes of random users (which is what you'll get on this talk page). The most you can do is propose a straw poll (after first attempting discussion toward consensus) to see where random users stand on the issue, but of course that is non-binding. See Wikipedia:Consensus. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-25 01:01

I thought this was a straw poll. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 01:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
It's intended to be a straw poll, but not in the standard way.--cloviz 01:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
How do you know the intent of the person who posted the "vote"? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-25 01:26
He didn't suggest that the results would lead to a decision.--cloviz 01:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
He used the word "vote". Nowhere did he call this a "straw poll". I'm supposed to assume that he believed it to be non-binding, despite the strong wording to the contrary? Riiight... — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-25 02:12
Well, "straw poll" is not the first word to come to mind, hehe.--cloviz 02:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

A quick research through Wikipedia in other languages reveals that the quantity of articles is a matter of importance (and pride) for most people. In fact this seems to be the only language without article count on the top. About other encyclopedias, you only read the number of articles in advertisement; Wikipedia is for free. Right, I don't really have an opinion about this.--cloviz 01:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How many of the other Wikipedias have exceeded 1.3 million articles? Seeing the quantity reach 10,000, 100,000 and 1,000,000 (and various other milestones along the way) served as sources of motivation to contribute new articles (which was the intended purpose). Beyond that point, it became little more than a means of bragging about how many articles we have (which really shouldn't be our focus at this juncture). I sincerely hope that the other Wikipedias will act in kind when the time comes. —David Levy 04:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This is silly. Is there serious concern that people will start adding crap to Wikipedia because of some perceived obsession with quanitity? We obviously can't communicate the QUALITY of articles in any meaningful form on the main page; it's not like we're choosing one over another. It wasn't in enormous font or anything either: just a note at the top, and as good an indication as we can concisely give of how far we've come. Plus, it's fun. And really, who ever scrolls way down there to its current location? Unless you're going to another language wiki, there's no reason to scroll past the featured picture. -Elmer Clark 01:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

We can list the number of featured articles and good articles on the main page. The closer those numbers get to the total number of articles, the higher the quality of Wikipedia should be. I'm not suggesting we do this, but it is possible to tell readers something about our quality. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-25 02:09
I think that's a fine idea; since our encyclopedia is edited by anyone, a mere number of articles says nothing about it. Instead, comparing that number to the number of articles considered good by convention, gives an idea of the quantity-quality relation. Wait, that'd end up in a shameful position for Wikipedia. The problem is that good articles are not the only useful ones, they are just oustandingly good ones.--cloviz 02:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's really "shameful". Anyone can create a new article, but there are only a small number of people evaluating Good/Featured articles, so that number will be much smaller. The sooner we deemphasize quantity and emphasize quality, the sooner those numbers will approach the total number of articles. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-25 02:22
Good articles are almost invariably long ones, even when a short one can be perfectly useful for some topics. In this we are underscoring quantity too. If someone looks at the article count and sees an overwhelming difference between the number of good articles and the total, he might think that Wikipedia is full of trash; while some matters are perfectly well with their short, single sourced articles. What about listing the articles without any "bad" tag?--cloviz 02:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Chill out, it doesn't matter to the vast bulk of people —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.86.80.89 (talk • contribs).

  • I'm glad there is someone who can speak for the vast bulk of people. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-25 03:17
    • As an unconcerned wikipedian, normally I wouldn't speak up, but he represents me pretty well. 210.86.80.89 for president! --Kinst 05:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Given the far greater likelihood of hearing from the people who condemn the change than from the people who condone it or are neutral/apathetic (and therefore have no reason to complain), I'm pleasantly surprised by the mild, balanced response. I had expected a major uproar, but it seems as though most users aren't terribly upset. —David Levy 04:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Poll: Keep the article count?

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)

  • You tried to propose a vote that had every appearance of wanting to be binding. People do that all the time, and their votes are regularly and summarily closed by admins or anyone else who understands how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not a democracy. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-25 14:17

Comment

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)

Keep the header where it was

  • Yes Keep the counter for all the reasons set out above. The whole idea of hiding it seems to be some drive by people trying to please the great leader. He proclaimed that the focus is not quality not quantity, so people start thinking up tokenistic (and counterproductive) offerings to try to impress him. Maybe they want internships at the wikimedia foundation, or maybe they just think that Jimbo is really really hot. juicifer 08:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I won't participate in your "vote," but I will point out that you either didn't bother to read the above discussion or you deliberately disregarded the responses contained therein. Again, this change was planned (and partially implemented) in March. Jimbo's comments at Wikimania reflected and drew attention to a pre-existing sentiment from within the community. —David Levy 13:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the fallacious argument. You are essentially ignoring all the previous arguments and recharacterizing those involved as being slaves to Jimbo's will. It has very little to do with what Jimbo says--people have been discussing these changes for years, especially recently, and it seems like common sense that when everyone in the media attacks you for focusing on quantity and lacking quality or reliability, you should try to reduce the importance of quantity and focus on quality/reliabilty. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-25 14:25

Move it to the bottom of the page

  • 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)
    Is it really as much as 60%? I was under the impression it was somewhere in the region of 40%. And I agree, no need to vote on this, the decision to move it where it is has been and gone – Gurch 09:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Polls are evil

  • Polls are evil, especially on Talk:Main Page, where you are receiving the opinions of mostly random users. You cannot simply disregard recent discussions and throw up a vote in the hopes of getting a random distribution that leans in your favor. This poll, especially because it is on this page, is non-binding and essentially worthless. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-25 14:17
    • I think I know what you are trying to say, but part of what you actually say is a bit odd. Random sampling is in fact the goal of most pollsters in order to ensure an unbiased result. Dragons flight 14:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • We are talking about polling on Wikipedia, not political polling of the general public--that kind of polling is fine when you don't care about getting informed opinions, but that is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not a democracy. People who don't know what is going on and are not involved in any discussion have little say in making changes around here. That is part of why polling is evil--it puts everyone on a level playing field, regardless of how much they are in the know. However, some non-binding polling is occasionally allowable, but should be restricted to those who have a full understanding of Wikipedia's past/present/future, and all the arguments of both sides. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-25 14:30
  • So people really discussed for two years about displaying a number or not? Where is that discussion? Don't you see some people still have to say! Juicifer was a bit aggressive in pushing his idea, but let's not treat him as a criminal; remember this policy. About quantity and quality, I want to stress that the FA and the picture of the day are clear proves of our preference for quality; they overwhelm in size the reference to quantity, which would be just a number.--cloviz 17:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No, people discussed for years whether we should focus on quantity or quality. Every time we get close to or pass another milestone, this debate is heightened, and since Seigenthaler, it has become a serious issue. Juicifer believes that the issue just sprang into existence when Jimbo declared "His will", but that is not true. Your claim that the reference to quantity is "just a number" is about as sound as the claim that evolution is "just a theory". Just because it is only a number doesn't mean that most people don't obsess over it, almost as much as they obsess over their edit count. That too is "just a number". — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-25 17:35Z
      • I actually oppose the inclution of this number in the header of the main page too, but for elegance's sake: such isolated fact there would look as a pacifier in the butt, as my mother would say. In other languages they usually have a short introduction to Wikipedia, where they can fit the article count. I don't know why would you debate about this in terms of quality and quantity; I don't think these are really opposites. In fact, quantity and size are forms or quality for many (perhaps most) people. Well I've spent pretty much of my study time talking about this, something that nobody really cares about, hehe. Ah, I didn't catch the evolution analogy either!--cloviz 19:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree we should focus on quality, but I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. The breadth of our coverage is still a major selling point, and I favor keeping the prominent reference. I can't see how including it or not has any impact on editors, so I must assume it is mostly a public relationship move, i.e. we don't want people thinking about how big we are, because we want people to focus on our quality. But that is silly since removing reference to our breadth (a good point) does nothing to actually improve our actual article quality. Dragons flight 20:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

One more thing about article count

Sorry about starting another thread about the article count but I have a point to make that I don't think has been addressed. It looks like some are saying that the article count only serzed its purpose when the English version was small and now it's not needed anymore. I think that's fine as long as every wikipedia has reached a million articles. Let's not forget that the English version is often the template for others, and other wikipedias often just follow the English version out of habit. For all we know in a few weeks a new language will start its own Wikipedia and say "welcome to Wikipedia in language X. The end." with nothing about the article count and therefore much less motivation to contribute. Then later on if other wikipedias start to follow along the article count on the front will start to look like something that small wikipedias do to try to make themselves look bigger, etc. IOW I don't see any reason for the change, and we should always keep in mind the effect on other language editions as well. Mithridates 19:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

See, I was right. Glad to see that the article count has been returned to the top. Mithridates 05:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, now we needn't worry about other Wikipedias being inspired to promote quality over quantity. Crisis averted! —David Levy 05:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
That's besides the point, which is that undertaking a change on the English Wikipedia eventually has repercussions on each of the other 200+ languages as well. Making such a change without taking them into account was a mistake. Mithridates 06:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I choose to assume that the other Wikipedias are edited by intelligent people who are capable of making rational decisions for themselves (not by users requiring parent-like supervision). If another Wikipedia chooses to copy us, it's because they've decided that one of our ideas is good. We copy their good ideas too. —David Levy 07:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
No, a lot of other Wikipedias are edited by only a few dozen people who look to other Wikipedias as an example, especially the one here. Before deciding on moving the article count down again it has to be made clear to other Wikipedias that it's a matter of style and that they can do what they feel best. Looks like the Cantonese Wikipedia is back to displaying the article count on the top again. Why argue? The proof is there. Obviously they thought it was going to be the new official standard, switched over, then switched back when we did. They weren't informed. That's what I'm saying. Here's another Wikipedia that wasn't informed, they're talking about it too. Bring them in to the discussion, make it clear that it's a matter of style on this Wikipedia only, and only then will I be neutral on the subject. Mithridates 12:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The editors at the French Wikipedia are entirely informed. Someone noticed our change, decided that it seemed like a good idea, and proposed relocating the article count on the French Wikipedia main page. There is no misunderstanding. We copy ideas from them too.
If there actually are Wikipedias that feel obligated to march in lockstep with us, that's a problem in and of itself. The solution is for someone to explain to them that while Wikipedias often look to one another for ideas, their project-level decisions should be made independently. Their faulty perception that the English Wikipedia (or any Wikipedia) sets official standards that must be followed should be corrected; it shouldn't affect our decisions any more than we're supposed to be automatically affecting theirs (id est not at all). —David Levy 12:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone = who? Mithridates 13:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone fluent in the language in which a particular Wikipedia is written. —David Levy 17:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
And these people exist where? Given your answer it looks like it hasn't been well thought out. Someone somewhere communicating to them sometime doesn't cut it. First find the people, communicate to the other Wikipedias, get feedback from them, and only then we should be making major changes that affect them. Mithridates 05:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And one more

One more thing about the article count: there's no reason to keep the article count on the main page but move it down to the bottom because few enough people even bother to check that far. I often look at the main page to see how many articles there are besides that I only check the featured article, did you know and nothing else. There seems to be a lot of room on the top area there on the right where the link to the categories is located: why not a small bit there that says "total articles: 1,000,000" or whatever the number happens to be? If we're opposed to listing the number of articles on the main page then let's take it off entirely but putting the number that far below helps no one. It leaves the number on implying that the number count is important, while at the same time has it located in a place that most people interested in the number count wouldn't be able to find anyway. IOW it's silly. I suggest a small link on the top right with the number of articles in small font.

Total articles: 1,535,270 <-- like that. Who else agrees? Mithridates 21:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

1. The Wikipedia languages section has included the article count since March (in preparation for its removal from the header).
2. No one has claimed that the article count is entirely irrelevant and should not be disclosed. There's a major distinction between mentioning it in the context of Wikipedias and their sizes and mentioning it on its own (without any contextual justification) at the top of the page. Only the latter carries undesirable connotations.
3. The current layout was designed to accommodate the 800x600 resolution with all OS/browser defaults (taskbar/dock placement, text size, et cetera). When viewed with these settings, the empty space that you've cited is nonexistent. —David Levy 21:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me just register my support for returning the article count where it has ever been. Zocky | picture popups 22:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Support is great, but please give an argument. Support your support lol. This is not a strawpoll. --Monotonehell 23:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's an argument: abandoning tradition in exchange for no advantage whatsoever is stupid. Zocky | picture popups 23:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
How about a non-circular argument? —David Levy 02:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
David, the point is, the thing was always there. If you want to remove it, you should have very good reasons to do that. I have seen no good reasons so far (the silly idea that whether it is displayed has something to do with breadth vs. depth doesn't count). Zocky | picture popups 13:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
People have cited numerous reasons that I believe are "good." You're entitled to disagree, but declaring that opposing viewpoints "[don't] count" is not a particularly compelling argument (nor is the "the thing was always there").
Ironically, you helped to perfect the header format that originally prompted talk of removing the article count. If not for your idea of placing the portal links in the box, it probably would have been abandoned —David Levy 14:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The only valid reason I have seen is cosmetic - the thing is difficult to fit into the current design. But design should follow function, not the other way around. If it doesn't fit, than the design should be improved to accomodate it (even if it was me who proposed it). Since I continue to boldly believe that displaying or not displaying the article count in the header will have zero effect on the breadth vs. depth of Wikipedia, I am simply not convinced that such a change in the layout of information on the main page is called for.
"The thing was always there" certainly is a valid argument. Stability and tradition are important for large and diverse projects like Wikipedia. If something is bad, it should be fixed, but things shouldn't be changed just for the purpose of being changed. Zocky | picture popups 01:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Your chronology is inaccurate. We didn't relocate the article count because of the new design. We proceeded with the new design because there was consensus to relocate the article count.
One thing that absolutely isn't traditional at Wikipedia is stagnancy. Wikipedia is constantly evolving, and we aren't locked into doing something a certain way simply because we've always done it that way in the past. Change for the sake of change is illogical, but that isn't what this is. Numerous users have cited rationales. You're entitled to disagree, but declaring that people's concerns aren't "valid" doesn't negate them. —David Levy 17:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Where did those numerous users cite those rationales? All I can find is you and Brian saying that there's a consensus for keeping it out, and a bunch of people asking for it to be returned. Zocky | picture popups 19:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Where? Right here on this page. (And you were present for the main page redesign.) What discussions are you reading (or not reading)? —David Levy 21:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not wanting to turn this into too personal a reply, but I have to agree with Zocky: I took part in the main page redesign discussion for a good while and I don't see (m)any people who are consistently behind removal. Without trying to offend, perhaps you could quote people rather than just saying 'Numerous users have cited rationales'? I see reasons being given for returning the count to the header, but only a single reason to remove it - that being the assumption that people will 'get the wrong idea' by having a display of size there. Jimbo's opinion can't be considered a reason by itself. Incidentally, you could consider 1.3m as a small number considering Wikipedia is the 'sum of all knowledge' - which would incidentally remind us all of what we still have to do. Focusing on quality doesn't imply hiding away quantity (I always use Wikipedia and I've never even read most of the links at the bottom of the front page). -- drrngrvy tlk @ 08:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to repeat myself ad infinitum. You've just duplicated several arguments (and a false belief) to which I've personally responded on this page. (If you haven't even read all of the replies by the user you're addressing, how can you possibly be prepared to assess what has or hasn't been written by others?) No offense, but context is important. If you can't be bothered to read the discussions, I'm not going to bother quoting them. —David Levy 09:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I read every word on the page (and 90% of the last month of the redesign discussions) and still think the above. The sarcasm is offensive, but no matter. I think this is repressing content - which a noticeable number of people find useful - for unverified reasons. It's a number, just like the nutritional information on food is. It shows a lot about the state of wikipedia and having it out in the open is helpful in ways maybe some can't see. I can't see how it's in the spirit of the site to remove it like this. -- drrngrvy tlk @ 19:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't being sarcastic. "That people will get the wrong idea" is only one of the arguments expressed (including by me), and I've already explained twice that this change wasn't prompted by Jimbo's opinion (which merely reflected a pre-existing sentiment). Furthermore, no information has been "repressed," nor has it even been removed from the main page. It's merely been relocated to a section in which it's contextually relevant. —David Levy 19:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I and other people have repeatedly asked where this was decided. Since there no pointers to such a discussion were provided after several days, and since more people here complain about the removal than support it, I will give this another day and then, if nothing changes, return the article count to the header. Zocky | picture popups 19:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

1. The most recent discussions are right here on this page (or linked to in the archive)! What sort of "pointer" do you require? You claimed above that only Brian and I have advocated the article count's relocation, and that's patently false (and proves that you haven't bothered to read the relevant discussions). You also have unilaterally declared that one of the major rationales "doesn't count," which you don't have the right to do.
2. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and your analysis of the response is biased and illogical. You've stated that "more people here complain about the removal than support it." Well, what do you expect?! Why would someone who doesn't mind bother coming here to comment? They probably wouldn't, so of course we're going to see a disproportionately large number of opponents! Despite this fact, we've received a mere handful of complaints (many of them based upon false assumptions) and plenty of support (the existence of which you deny). —David Levy 20:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Umm, it's not a democracy so the number of people for both sides doesn't count, but we also can't distinguish between good and bad reasons, because than we are called biased. Anyway, you initiated a big change, there is obviously no consensus for that big change, so it will be reverted. That's just wiki. Zocky | picture popups 21:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
1. It isn't true that the number of people expressing a particular opinion is entirely irrelevant. It just isn't the sole criterion.
2.You're the one who claimed that the change should be reverted because "more people here complain about the removal than support it." Aside from the fact that you're counting votes (instead of reading the discussions), you're ignoring the fact that opponents are likely rush here to complain (while supporters and neutral parties are unlikely to respond). Nonetheless, out of hundreds of thousands of users, we've received a tiny number of complaints (and a similar amount of support). I've seen numerous instances in which there were much bigger debates regarding the minor rewording of a non-featured article! Considering the fact that we're dealing with the site's main page, the level of controversy has been minute.
3. You claim to have read the relevant discussions (and arrived at the conclusion that there is "no consensus"), but you've yet to explain why you falsely stated that only Brian and I have advocated the change.
4. Note that while I've pointed out misunderstandings and misconceptions on their part (such as the belief that this change was made to please Jimbo and the belief that the article count was removed from the main page) I haven't dismissed my opponents' viewpoints as "bad." —David Levy 23:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
This discussion can go on forever. You still aren't providing any reason for its removal. The only non-cosmetic one I've managed to find in all of the text here is that some people think that not displaying the article count will somehow influence Wikipedia to become more oriented towards quality than quantity. That's quite an outrageous claim, and there's no reason to expect it to be true. OTOH, you are getting rid of the oldest element of the mainpage, and the one that provides continuity with main pages of all other Wikipedias. That makes the change bad. If there are any other reasons, please cite them, don't tell me for the 11th time that other people have cited them somewhere at some point. Zocky | picture popups 23:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The "outrageous claim" is that I and others "aren't providing any reason" for the article count's relocation. You followed that with a rebuttal to a straw man argument that hasn't been made (which you referred to as "the only non-cosmetic one [you]'ve managed to find"). I shouldn't have to recap discussions that you evidently refuse to read, but you've left me with no other choice.
In fact, this issue pertains primarily to our readers, not to our editors. No one (to the best of my knowledge) claims "that not displaying the article count will somehow influence Wikipedia to become more oriented towards quality than quantity." On the contrary, Wikipedia is shifting its focus in that manner. We want our readers to know that, and shouting the article count at the top of the main page conveys a contrary message. That's one rationale.
Another rationale is that the article count no longer serves its intended purpose. It was added not to advertise our impressive size, but to encourage users to boost the encyclopedia up from an unimpressive size. Now that we've done so (and we're shifting our concentration away from quantity), its job is done. It now serves purely as a means of bragging about our ever-increasing size (which now is more indicative of the passage of time than anything else).
Another rationale is the fact that the number is somewhat misleading on its own. Many of our articles are stubs, deletion candidates, or pages otherwise in need of major cleanup. (As our user base continues to expand, this becomes increasingly true.) We have plenty of articles of which to be proud, but this is not directly reflected in the sheer number. It is, however, relevant as a means of comparing the various Wikipedias, and that's precisely the context in which it currently appears on the main page.
All of these arguments were presented above by various users, but you forced me to repeat them. Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for you to explain why you falsely claimed that only Brian and I advocate the article count's relocation. I'm also waiting for you to acknowledge that the people who have responded here (Wikipedia's equivalent of a complaint department) are not an accurate cross-section of the community. —David Levy 02:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
1. I simply don't like the idea of 'corporate rebranding'. Changing a layout for ease of use is one thing, but removal of a traditional piece of content to `send a different message` is another (and it has been removed, or at least 'display=none'ed - the number lower down was already there), especially while there are users argueing to keep it, which there have been all along the way. ImHO, Wikipedia is what it is, and I don't see any evidence proving that the obvious article count influences that much.
2. You have made the assumption that the article count being on the main page was only to encourage growth. That might have been a reason, I'm sure, but I doubt it was the only one; the others - which have been stated in previous threads of discussion - remain, so it serves a purpose.
3. The fact that the number may be considered misleading - again you're making an assumption about what people see in a number - is exactly why there's a link to a more detailed page, on which there is little doubt about the numbers' meanings. -- drrngrvy tlk @ 07:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
1. This has nothing to do with "corporate rebranding." It's merely a clarification of what Wikipedia is (and what it isn't). If we always clung to "tradition" or never changed anything that people argued should be left the same, our main page would look like this.
The article count was placed in the Wikipedia languages section specifically because it was being relocated from the header (a change for which consensus was established during the main page redesign process). I personally restored it to the header in the design as a temporary measure (to avoid creating the appearance that the entire redesign was contingent upon this change). All of this was explained in one of the relevant discussions on this page (which you claim to have read).
2.Please follow the above link (to the earliest version of Main Page in the revision history) and read the introduction: "Welcome to Wikipedia, a collaborative project to produce a complete encyclopedia from scratch. We started in January 2001 and already have about [number] articles. We want to make over 100,000, so let's get to work..."
If you can, please find a version in the revision history that says something to the effect of "We have [number] articles. Isn't that amazing?! Aren't we terrific?!"
Aside from boasting, what purpose do you believe placing the article count at the top of the page (without any context) currently serves?
3. How many users are going to click on the number, and how does this change the "quantity over quality" connotation? Where is it explained that the number includes stubs, deletion candidates and articles requiring major cleanup? —David Levy 08:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Making readers think that Wikipedia is reorienting from quantity to quality is an even worse rationale for changing the main page than encouraging editors in that direction. The other rationales are dubious too. Zocky | picture popups 12:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the rationales for restoring the article count to the header are dubious. Now that the original justification for its inclusion no longer applies, the onus is on you (and those who agree with you) to establish that it serves a valid purpose and does more good than harm. The fact that its inclusion was the status quo doesn't make it sacrosanct, especially given the fact that its removal resulted in a tiny number of complaints (and a great deal of support, despite the fact that most supporters probably didn't comment). This is the new status quo. Now please convince the community that we should add an article count to the main page header (instead of attempting to fall back on the notion that "no consensus"—an assessment with which I disagree under these circumstances—means "we default to leaving the article count in the header forever). —David Levy 13:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The article count may have outlived the orginially envisioned function, but it has obviously acquired new functions along the way. Zocky | picture popups 12:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Such as? Again, aside from boasting, what purpose does it serve? —David Levy 13:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The idea that the number is misleading is based on one understanding of what "article" means, but that's hardly the universal understanding. I have no problems with stubs and articles tagged for cleanup being counted as articles, and I don't find anything misleading in that. Zocky | picture popups 12:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
You, as an experienced Wikipedia user, are familiar with the technical definition of the term "article." An inexperienced user is not. To most people, an "article" is something that's published when it attains the level of quality sought by the publication in which it appears. Placing the figure at the top of the main page implies that each and every article meets a standard worthy of pride. As soon as someone realizes that this isn't the case (which doesn't take long), it implies that we're more concerned with the quantity of articles than their quality. —David Levy 13:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
What's really misleading is that the Main Page doesn't make it clear in a visible place that this is an encyclopedia under development. You even say yourself that you moved the article count back after people protested its removal there, so there was obviously no consensus for that change even there (the fact that you felt that the redesign might not pass because of that change is indicative). Zocky | picture popups 12:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I never wrote any of the above. In fact, while a few people opposed the design because the article count wasn't in the header, the design still would have easily passed. The problem was these few people were flooding the discussion page with complaints, thereby distracting everyone from the overall task at hand. It was easier to simply tack on the article count than it was to continually deal with that issue. Many other changes generated far more opposition (but still not enough to counter the overwhelming support), and they couldn't be reversed without abandoning key design elements. It was nice to have one less thing to worry about. In retrospect, I regret this decision (especially given the fact that some users actually withdrew their support for the new design when the article count was restored to the header). —David Levy 13:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Even if there were a consensus there, no decisions are final and people are disagreeing here now. Zocky | picture popups 12:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
There was a consensus to include the article count in the header, but it was based upon a rationale that no longer applies. No decisions are final, and people are disagreeing here now. —David Levy 13:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
To answer your question, after reading the page again, I still can't find anybody but you and Brian arguing for the removal. Some people said they don't mind, but that's hardly the same thing. Zocky | picture popups 12:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Here are some relevant excerpts:
  • Quiddity: "Sounds good to me, and I concur with the 'tacked on at the last minute' comment." 01:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Hydnjo: "Lets leave the 'number of whatever' to the folks who do it best." 01:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Carcharoth: "I agree with the rationale behind removing the number, though the responses over the next few days could be fun to watch..." 02:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC) / "Essentially, 'no article count' is best..." 23:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Allen3: "While there is nothing wrong with letting new users see the current number of articles, placing that number at the top of the main page says something fundamental about Wikipedia's priorities: quantity of articles is the most important aspect of Wikipedia. During the site's early days creation of new content was very important but now that there are well over a million articles, with a thousand or more new articles created each day, the need to create new articles just to have content has passed. Instead, the development of encyclopedic quality articles needs to become at least as important as the importation of new content. This change in direction from emphasizing quantity to considering quality to be just as important requires an adjustment in the project's culture. Removing the advertisement at the top of the main page that emphasizes quantity over quality is part of the needed cultural change, and as such should be viewed as a necessary evil." 14:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Taxman: "Not sure if stating this will make much difference, but moving the article count down was absolutely the right thing to do. I fully agree with Jimbo and have felt for quite some time that we no longer need to focus on number, but on quality. Moving the count isn't a big deal, but it's a start in the right direction to put editing focus where it should be. I have as much fun as anyone watching the count go up, but that doesn't mean it needs to be on the main page." 03:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • SmthManly (voting to "keep it where it is"): "The article count is still there, it's just at the bottom over by the languages section. 00:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Lincher: 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." 10:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm attempting to assume good faith on your part, but it's difficult to understand how you could have overlooked all of the above comments (in addition to overlooking most of the rationales presented). —David Levy 13:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The other thing, the idea that people come here just to complain, is somewhat valid (although I do seem to remember a great deal of congratulation messages when we deployed the new design). I tell you what: in a few hours, I will return the article count to its place, and if there's no big uproar demanding its removal, we can proceed on the "complaint department" theory and leave the thing in. Zocky | picture popups 12:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Most users weren't bothered by the article count's presence in the header. Rather, they were unknowingly misled about Wikipedia and its goals. If you restore the article count to the header, they'll one again be misled without realizing. —David Levy 13:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a vast assumption, which you can't state as fact, since there's no way of gaugeing how people feel towards the header. We can only rely on what people have said. It seems that the people who want it removed do so for idealogical reasons, but there are reasons to keep it. Even though I've been arguing to keep it, it's not the number I necessarily want, just a link to the stats page. I for one am always checking that page - whenever the site seems slow I use the job queue as an indicator of how intensely used the db is; if the stats page is quick to load but the site is slow then it could mean the squid is the problem; plus, I just like seeing how wikipedia's doing - so having to scroll down is annoying.
That's not to say I don't think having the stats page 'up there' isn't helpful ideologically: as I said before, it's just the site's nutritional information. While the debates go on, could we not at least stick up a link like 'Stats' as part of the header? -- drrngrvy tlk @ 14:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you simply add the code to your personal CSS file to restore the article count (complete with Special:Statistics link) to the header? —David Levy 14:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course, it makes little difference what I write. You have an opinion, and you evidently intend to act on it no matter what. —David Levy 13:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I won't get into a tit-for-tat debate, so I'll start a new block. Zocky | picture popups 16:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Why won't you respond to my individual points (most of which you ignore below)? —David Levy 20:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for providing the list above. As said, I've seen no argument for removing the article count by anybody but you and Brian. Zocky | picture popups 16:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You're still claiming this?! —David Levy 20:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Saying "I agree with the rationale" and "I agree with Jimbo" aren't arguments. Zocky | picture popups 16:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievable.
Firstly, You've paraphrased small, entirely reasonable portions of the users' comments and inexplicably cited them as excuses to invalidate their arguments. Since when is everyone required to come up with his/her own original rationale? When did it become meaningless to express agreement with a position that already has been articulated by someone else?!
Secondly, this wiki-lawyering relies upon a loophole (the aforementioned "arguments" technicality) that doesn't exist. Your initial statement was as follows: "All I can find is you and Brian saying that there's a consensus for keeping it out, and a bunch of people asking for it to be returned." No mention of "arguments" was made; you clearly claimed that only Brian and I had expressed approval of the article count's relocation. You also claimed the following: "You still aren't providing any reason for its removal. The only non-cosmetic one I've managed to find in all of the text here is that some people think that not displaying the article count will somehow influence Wikipedia to become more oriented towards quality than quantity." In addition to the fact that this was a misstatement of one of the primary rationales, you've yet to explain why you didn't recognize any of the other rationales cited above. —David Levy 20:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I should probably read through the rest of the thread, but at this point I agree with David. From what I've read so far, I am struggling to understand Zocky's insistence that only David and Brian are arguing for the removal of the article count. I'd like to thank David for quoting what others have said in favour of the removal, and I'd like to ask Zocky to acknowledge that others do support the removal and are prepared to argue for its removal, regardless of whether two people happen to be doing most of the running. ie. Please add me to the (mostly silent) group supporting those who are arguing in favour of not having the article count there. Having said that, I think the point that the encyclopedia is still under construction is a very important one, and that should be mentioned somewhere. Every day I find gaps in Wikipedia, and every day I am surprised at what it does cover. That is not going to change anytime soon, but as well as not wanting to give the impression that Wikipedia has over a million complete articles, we must not give the impression that Wikipedia is stable and ready to use as an encyclopedia. It is still going through growing pains, but of a different sort to the "not enough articles" sort. Maybe instead of an "X number of articles", there should be a "please help us improve" message, but put in a more subtle way. Or a more prominent disclaimer so that people that stumble across a bad article or a stubby article are not as shocked as they might be. Carcharoth 22:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Allen3 did make an argument, but it was essentially the quantity/quality one that I and many other people have disagreed with on this page. Lincher brings up the argument of it being a meaningless numbers, which I also have disagreed with. You disagree with tradition being an argument, and we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Zocky | picture popups 16:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Do you believe that you possess the authority to disregard arguments with which you disagree? You're acknowledging that these are arguments, but you still claim that you've "seen no argument for removing the article count by anybody but [me] and Brian."
2. I don't disagree with "tradition" being an argument (nor have I disregarded this factor in the manner noted above). I simply disagree with your claim that tradition alone overrides the concerns that justify the article count's relocation. —David Levy 20:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

But from that, you make a mental leap to claim that the current status is now status quo. That's quite a big claim. Right after the change was made, a discussion about it was started and it's still going on. The relevant status quo here is the stable status quo ante, not whatever is currently on the page while the discussion is going on. Otherwise, I could go undo your change now and claim that that's the new status quo that should apply from now on. Zocky | picture popups 16:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

My point is that neither "status quo" is sacrosanct. You've expressed the belief that in the absence of consensus (which I believe exists, despite the influx of arrivals to the "complaint department"), we automatically revert to the state before the change was made. I strongly disagree. I believe that while it's important to justify the removal of the in-header article count, it's more important to justify its continued presence (given the fact that the original reason no longer applies). As you said, "no decisions are final, and people are disagreeing here now." Furthermore, the article count remains on the main page. Where is it written that it must appear at the top? (Please "point" me to that consensus.) —David Levy 20:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a classical case of no consensus for change. You wanted something done, so you did it. Zocky | picture popups 16:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish. This change was decided via consensus months ago. I literally reverted my own edit.
I also believe that consensus has been demonstrated above. The number of complaints has been very low, and the response has been relatively balanced, despite the fact that people who don't usually post here have shown up specifically to complain. (Meanwhile, supporters and neutral parties who don't frequent this page have no reason to come here or post anything.) This absolutely must be taken into account.
And again, where's the consensus for the article count's continued inclusion in the header? This isn't tantamount to a deletion debate. It's more along the lines of controversial text in an article. (If there's no consensus for its presence, it's removed.) There was consensus in the past, but that was under dramatically different circumstances. As you noted, "no decisions are final." —David Levy 20:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You may not think it's a big change, but there are plenty of people who do. Zocky | picture popups 16:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I fully acknowledge that this is an important issue. I believe that while this is a small change on the surface, its positive effects on Wikipedia will be quite significant. —David Levy 20:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not just about tradition, it's about what the main page is for. Should it be nicely packaged to make Wikipedia look as nice and possible, or should it inform prospective collaborator of what Wikipedia is like to work on? Should it look more like a workspace, so that visitors don't get the wrong idea that this is something like Britannica? Should it attract readers or editors? How actively should it promote other projects or not? These are tough questions, and this is just one of the little things that look different from different perspectives. Zocky | picture popups 16:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above, but I don't see how any of those questions apply to this issue. —David Levy 20:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you didn't get reverted so far has something to do with the appropriate pages being protected and the civility of disagreeing admins who didn't want to start a wheel war without a discussion. What we can do is open a structured discussion of the issue somewhere, list and rate pros and cons, and try to make a decision that will stick. That means gathering consensus in civilized and transparent fashion, so that even people who dissagree with the final decision can be satisfied that the community has indeed decided to make such a change. Zocky | picture popups 16:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

By all means, let's start a discussion somewhere (not on this page, obviously). I will, however, reiterate my belief that the onus is on you to demonstrate consensus for the article count's inclusion in the header. The fact that it was there for a while (for a reason that no longer applies) doesn't automatically render this the default. I shall apply the same standard to any other main page element that comes into question, even if I personally support its continued inclusion. —David Levy 20:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
David, I've had enough of this repetitive discussion. Zocky | picture popups 23:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
It wouldn't have been nearly as repetitive if you hadn't forced me to repeat all of the comments that you then decided to dismiss. It also wouldn't have been as repetitive if you'd addressed the questions of mine to which you still haven't replied. (Again, why did you claim that no one other than Brian and I supported this change? Why did you deny the existence of various rationales/arguments? Why do you continue to deny their existence even after I've quoted them? Why is the statistic's inclusion elsewhere on the main page—where it's contextually relevant—not an acceptable compromise?) —David Levy 00:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with your assessment that the consensus for this has ever been established, especially since I still haven't seen this discussion that supposedly established this consensus months ago (there was certainly no consensus established on this page).
You can continue repeating the contention that people need to demonstrate consensus for the status quo, but that won't make it true. Please think about what you are suggesting here, and I'm sure you will understand why such a policy is unsustainable on Wikipedia, and in life in general. Zocky | picture popups 23:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The only established consensus in favor of including an article count in the header was based upon a circumstance that no longer exists. The feature was rendered obsolete (by that criterion), and it must now be established that consensus dictates its inclusion for a different reason or reasons. If this cannot be established, there's no valid reason to restore this element. A decision made years ago (the basis of which no longer exists) doesn't lock us into permanently keeping something no longer backed by consensus. Again, think about what happens when it becomes clear that a pre-existing article passage lacks consensus. Do we keep it because there was consensus in the past (based upon information that subsequently became outdated)? No. We remove it because there isn't consensus now. —David Levy 00:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
If you don't revert the change in the next few hours, I will, and we can continue this discussion somewhere else, if you still think it's required. Zocky | picture popups 23:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
As I alluded to earlier, this entire discussion was a farce. No matter what anyone wrote, you always intended to unilaterally disregard all of the support, elevate the tiny number complaints (which accompany any significant main page modification) to sacred status, and revert the change. You demanded that I quote the comments that you either refused to read or otherwise ignored, but you never even entertained the possibility of reassessing your stance. That's quite disheartening.
Regardless of how you ultimately proceed (and I sincerely hope that you'll prove me wrong by reconsidering), I will participate in any continued discussion regarding this matter. If you were to wait until a decision has been reached before editing the main page (as I did five months after the fact), it would go a long way toward establishing that you're acting in good faith. I truly am attempting to assume that you are, but your comments (and lack thereof, in some instances) have made this very difficult. —David Levy 00:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Look, it boils down to this: you and some other people are repeatedly saying one thing, and me and some other people are repeatedly saying another. This means that there's no consensus about this. And I will repeat this for one last time: no consensus means no change (I have more than once said that the original rationale for including the article count is not the only one that applies - the thing has been on the main page for 5 years). Zocky | picture popups
1. You continue to ignore the fact that most of the complaints are from users who came here specifically to complain. (And of course, supporters have no reason to seek out such a forum.) Nonetheless, out of hundreds of thousands of users, how many have complained?
2. No matter how many times you repeat that "no consensus means no change," this simply isn't true. When a page element's inclusion no longer is backed by consensus, this means that there no longer is justification for keeping it. You're clinging to a decision reached by a handful of users (which is all that Wikipedia had at the time) to address the fact that Wikipedia had a handful of articles. The passage of time does not somehow render this sacrosanct. It only increases the likelihood of irrelevance.
3. If you believe that other rationales apply, please establish consensus for them or point me to the discussion(s) in which consensus was established.
4. "The thing" remains on the main page, albeit in a different location. Please point me to the discussion(s) in which it was decided that this statistic must be placed at the top of the page. —David Levy 02:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
As for good faith and lack thereof. I have been with a project for a long time, and I have constructively participated in the main page redesign. If you want to allude that I'm acting in bad faith, you at least need to come up with a plausible motive for me doing so. Zocky | picture popups
I don't want to allude (or even believe) that you're acting in bad faith. That's why I'm trying very hard to assume otherwise. You can assist me in doing so by addressing the points that you've once again ignored (pertaining to the false statements that you made). I'd like to think that these were honest mistakes, but your refusal to comment makes this difficult.
It is clear that you don't seek to harm the project in any way, and I state that with the utmost certainty. —David Levy 02:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, one last time:
1 is a totally useless argument for anything. There is no way to measure things that you're talking about. They're worth keeping in mind, but they have no weight in any decision. Zocky | picture popups 02:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
People come here to complain about every significant change that's made to the main page. (How many of the complainers frequent this page?) The fact that so few people complained about this one is indicative of widespread support/apathy, not widespread opposition. —David Levy 03:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Hmm, there are people who think we shouldn't have FA on the front page (one commented here). Should it be removed? Of course not. Zocky | picture popups 02:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
How is that a remotely valid analogy? Is there a lack of consensus for the featured article's inclusion? —David Levy 03:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Consensus is not just about agreeing to the results, it's about agreeing to the way decisions are made, even if you don't like results. This especially applies to qustions like this one, where none of the answers is objectively correct. Zocky | picture popups 02:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It's objectively correct that the original reason for including the article count no longer applies and no attempt has been made to establish consensus for any alternative rationale(s). —David Levy 03:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, regardless of the original intentions, the main page with the article count was recently passed by a massive vote. That disproves the idea that there's no consensus for the article count to still be there. Zocky | picture popups 02:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The page that people opted to replace also contained this element (rendering it a non-issue)! Furthermore, the redesign was overwhelmingly favored before the article count was added to the header.
Of course, you just got done arguing that we can't be held to a decision that was made five months ago (despite the fact that we can be held to one that was made five years ago). Now you're attempting to cite that very same discussion from five months ago as evidence of consensus. —David Levy 03:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
3. The fact that noone removed it for years after the initial intention (please help us create 100,000 articles) became irrelevant, is a strong indication that there is a consensus for it being appropriate for other reasons. Zocky | picture popups 02:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I never claimed that "100,000" was the definitive cutoff point. The same basic reason continued to be widely cited until we had 1,000,000 articles. Upon reaching that milestone, many people began commenting that we really ought to stop focusing so much attention on quantity. This happened to coincide with the main page redesign.
Of course, this wasn't the first time that the idea of removing the article count from the header was raised. Some people (though not nearly as many) adopted this attitude long before we hit the 1,000,000 article mark. Time and again, their suggestions were shot down by those who cited "tradition" and various other milestones along the way. The sudden community shift was caused by the fact that many people just wanted to hold onto this element long enough to see seven digits. Now that they've experienced the thrill, they're willing to accept that the encyclopedia has evolved past the point of needing this motivator (which does more harm than good). At least, enough people feel that way that there is no consensus for its continued inclusion. —David Levy 03:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
4. See 3. Zocky | picture popups 02:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't address my point. How do we know that there wasn't merely consensus for the article count's inclusion somewhere on the page? When, where, and by whom was it decided that it must be placed at the top? —David Levy 03:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I deeply appologize and poor ashes all over myself for failing to find all the people and arguments on this rather long page. However, since all those arguments have been opposed by equal or greater number of people, who had just as good (and IMO better reasons), they still don't help establish consensus for this change. Zocky | picture popups 02:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
1. Now you're saying that you failed to find these people and their arguments. When last you addressed this point, you acknowledged them but cited the strange technicality that their comments were based upon rationales that they didn't come up with on their own as a reason why these didn't count as arguments (meaning that only Brian's and my comments were arguments). Then, in the same reply, you acknowledged that two other users had posted arguments (which you unilaterally dismissed). I'm desperately trying to understand how these statements (and your new statement on this matter) jibe, but I'm at a loss to make sense of this.
2. I recognize most of the supporters from this and other project pages. Conversely, most of the opponents are people whose usernames I've never seen before. What does that tell you? (This is not to imply that the latter users' opinions count any less on an individual basis, but merely that they aren't a valid cross-section of the community. They came here only because they were upset, and they otherwise wouldn't have commented.) —David Levy 03:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I will now go return the article count to the main page. Zocky | picture popups 02:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
...as you intended to do from the very beginning, no matter what anyone wrote.
Now, where have you initiated the discussion that you proposed? —David Levy 03:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. It's ok when you argue from a 5-month old consensus reached on the redesign page, but it's not ok when I point out that the same argument can be used for the other side. Zocky | picture popups 04:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
That argument can't logically be used in the manner that you claimed. At no point were users asked to approve the addition of the article count to the main page header. They supported a change from one design with this element to another. They also supported a change from a design with this element to one without it, but this I wouldn't make the silly claim that this was why they did so. This is not the "consensus" that I've cited. (I was referring to a separate, dedicated discussion that led up to that point, and I would direct you to it if the pages in question weren't archived so poorly.) —David Levy 04:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
But still, I'll concede on the "complaint department" theory. If not many people complain, I'll assume that only the ones that oppose it are bothering to comment. Or, if a dozen people complain, and I don't know their names, I'll assume that they're not a representative sample of the userbase. Either way, I can count on the silent majority's tacit support. Zocky | picture popups 04:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't appreciate having my words twisted for the sake of sarcastic mockery. —David Levy 04:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Sarcasm aside, this was the wrong way to go about a change like this. I know I have real-life work to do beside Wikipedia, and I'm sure many other editors do too. I don't like it when things like the main page elements change on a day's notice (or without notice, as in this case), and neither do other people who can't be on the site all the time. Zocky | picture popups 04:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Without notice?! This was a direct follow-up to a discussion from August 8–9. I waited two weeks! —David Levy 04:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Rationales for the content of the main page are important and should be worked out, but as said, I have real-life work to do and I don't think that that discussion is urgent. I won't initiate it at this moment, but of course you (and everybody else) is welcome to do it. I'll be happy to chime in. In the meantime, I need to sleep. I have deadlines looming. Happy editing, Zocky | picture popups 04:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, so only restoring the article count to the header was "urgent" (and couldn't wait until after the proposed "discussion" occurred). Now that the main page is back to your preferred configuration, discussion is suddenly unimportant. I see. —David Levy 04:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
David, a total of 6 people commented in the August 8-9 discussion, and an established editor disagreed vehemently. That hardly demonstrates a consensus (plus, it was long inactive and archived [2] at the time you made the change). And, if I really thought that restoring "my prefered version" was urgent, I would have done it a week ago. (BTW, I hope that this comment is short enough that it won't get picked apart point by point.) Zocky | picture popups 05:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
One person (Dan Hartung) objected to the idea (based upon "morale"). I posted a counter argument, and he never challenged it or posted another objection (despite remaining active on this page). No one else objected during the next five days that the discussion sat here, and it was archived (which you seem to believe somehow rendered it meaningless). I waited another 8 ½ days (to provide a reasonable opportunity for someone to revive the discussion if he/she had an objection or concern), and then I implemented the change (and immediately posted an explanation and link to the aforementioned discussion). Now you're claiming that I performed the edit "without notice."
I sometimes type point-by-point replies to ensure that I've addressed all of the person's points in a clear, understandable manner. I wish that you would respond to my posts point-by-point (instead of continually ignoring most of my points). —David Levy 07:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem with that technique is that each of your replies to my points was longer than the point it was replying to. Plus, it looks aggressive and argumentative. In any case, you made a change, I didn't like it, so I reverted it. That's wiki. Now let's finally let other people have a say in this if they wish to. Zocky | picture popups 07:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Once again, you didn't address my points. Please explain how I performed this edit "without notice" and why one negative comment by one person who then withdrew from the discussion meant that I shouldn't have proceeded.
Please also explain why it was appropriate for you to unilaterally overrule this discussion's outcome because you "didn't like it." Consensus is not just about agreeing to the results, it's about agreeing to the way decisions are made, even if you don't like results. Does that sound familiar? —David Levy 08:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The point is that I don't agree with the way the decision was made. As an illustration, and possibly an advice for the future, you could have posted a comment saying "I'm going to do this in 3 days if nobody complains", and proceeded from that. This is my last post on the subject for a while. I'm really looking forward to somebody else weighing in on the matter for a change. Zocky | picture popups 09:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

(continuing unindented) One thing about your arguement, David, is that you're pushing the idea of the article count having been added to the page. Despite what you'vesaid, the article count div at the top of the page was removed and without consensus that shouldn't be allowed to happen. As Zocky says, the page as a whole recieved clear consensus not that long ago. The discussion leading up to it was complex but you can't use parts of it to claim that the article count isn't a part of the accepted main page because it is, just as much as any other part. If I remember correctly, a large number of the people who voiced disliking for the prominent article count eventually gave their support to the current design - only a very small number gave conditional support on having no article count at the top. -- drrngrvy tlk @ 16:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, it's silly to claim that this design's approval can realistically be viewed as a mandate for the article count's inclusion in or removal from the header. I haven't done that. I cited the dedicated discussion that preceded the "election" (the one that led to the article count's relocation in the first place). The "clear consensus" that the page received would have emerged with or without this element. Most people who supported or opposed the design did so for unrelated reasons. —David Levy 17:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If anyone wants it removed they should be making a proposal, gaining support and then doing it (a short discussion isn't a supported proposal). ImhO, the whole 'be bold' should be considered void wherever only admins have the ability. The select few only have the added abilities to protect things, not to experiment with ideas they have. -- drrngrvy tlk @ 16:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I made a proposal right here on this page. It gained support. Only one person opposed (and quickly withdrew from the discussion). I waited two more weeks for additional feedback (which no one chose to provide). Then, and only then, did I proceed. If you believe that I erred (and should have somehow initiated a larger discussion), that's one thing. To claim that I unilaterally decided to bypass the community and "experiment with ideas [I] have" is just plain hurtful. —David Levy 17:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing will happen

Remember this: Talk:Main Page/2006 World Cup poll? --Howard the Duck 17:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Something did come of that. No concensus. ;) --Monotonehell 20:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

Suggested Compromise

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)

  • Another compromise is a weekly updated figure (such as the one at www.wikipedia.org) on the top of the page, linking to the statistics page. Keeping this information in the bottom of the homepage doesn't make sense. Odengatan 21:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this has already been suggested, but here's what I would do, keeping in mind what people on both sides of the argument have been saying. It seems important to (1) not emphasize quality over quantity yet (2) make sure that newcomers realize the breadth of the encyclopedia (as that characteristic is an important part of any encyclopedia). Last time I checked though, no other resource came close to having the same number of articles as Wikipedia. Therefore, why not simply say "Over one million articles in English"? That nice, round number would easily impress any newcomer and would also take the focus off constantly adding to a meaningless number on the main page. The updated count could stay in the languages section. And hey, if Wikipedia reaches two million articles, the number at the top could be changed :) Thanks, Sam 67.86.86.217 02:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Article count compromise

I like the compromise suggestion made above by Odengatan to have the article count appearing weekly. In fact, maybe the space for the article count (or another space) could have a rotating daily set of figures taken from the Wikipedia:Signpost "Features and admins" section and other areas, such as statistics pages? This week, for example, we have: "16 articles reached featured status" - "9 pictures reached featured status". Add stuff like "Total number of articles is X" - "Total number of featured articles is Y" - "Z number of edits were made" - "There are H number of registered editors". This would expose readers to far more than just one figure that shouldn't really be obsessed about as a yardstick to measure Wikipedia by. Does this sound feasible? Are there seven "stats" that could easily be rotated daily, and could be left to update automatically? If not seven, then have x number of stats cycling round and round. This would satisfy those who want to see some sort of article count at the top, and would satisfy those who don't want this to be just about article numbers. Does this sound feasible? Carcharoth 10:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea. --Howard the Duck 11:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I like this idea too though it'd have to be made obvious that they're being rotated as otherwise people will just think it's admins arguing as to what to put on. Jellypuzzle | Talk 11:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Lol... how about a drop-down menu box then we'll select what stat I'd like to look? Well, perhaps its too much, but I still like this proposal. --Howard the Duck 12:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, you misunderstood Odengatan's suggestion (which was to perform a weekly update with a round number instead of keeping a running tally).
Secondly, your proposal seems to assume that everyone who sees our main page does so often. This is not true.
Thirdly, this would create a new problem—the perception that we care more about our own statistics (many of which are trivial or entirely meaningless) than we do about writing an encyclopedia. Meta-content on the main page should be essentially static, serving to assist people in using the site. It's the encyclopedic content that people are here to read, and it would be counterproductive to distract them with self-referential bragging. —David Levy 18:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it should have been clear that I was picking up Odengatan's suggestion and running with it and expanding it in new directions. I have no idea why you think I misunderstood it. Carcharoth 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Given the fact that Odengatan's idea was not "to have the article count appearing weekly" (as you claimed), I still believe that you misunderstood. This, of course, has no bearing on the quality of Odengatan's idea or yours. —David Levy 23:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Oops. I see it now. A static figure that still appears there the whole time, but is only updated every week. That is silly. If you are going to have an article count, having it updating continuously (how often does it update) is the best option. Sorry for the misunderstanding (both of Odegatan and your response). Carcharoth 23:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem. :) —David Levy 23:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Odengatan's suggestion is to have a weekly update instead of a running tally. What do you think of this idea? Carcharoth 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
As the article count would continue to appear in the header every day (but would be less accurate than before), I don't see how this would be an improvement. —David Levy 23:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Carcharoth 23:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Going back to my proposal, the idea of rotating content is by no means new. Both the featured article and featured picture templates refresh daily. Does your comment that not everyone sees the main page often apply in those cases as well? Carcharoth 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
No, because each section's nature never changes. Someone visiting Wikipedia's main page for the first time (or visiting only occasionally) will see a featured article and a featured picture (no matter what the day). The same person would not realize that the article count was displayed only because it happened to be a Wednesday. —David Levy 23:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Both templates are introduced as Today's featured..., which makes it perfectly clear that tomorrow there will be something different. In effect, what I am proposing is a "Did you know" template about Wikipedia. Did you know that Wikipedia has X number of articles? Did you know that Wikipedia has Y number of editors? Did you know that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone? Did you know that Wikipedia was founded in 2001? Did you know Wikipedias are being edited in Z number of other languages? Did you know Wikipedia is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation? Did you know that Wikipedia uses the GFDL license to redistribute its content? Did you know that the Wikimedia Foundation hosts a range of other projects? And so on. Carcharoth 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
It's my opinion that it would be terrible to distract main page readers from the encyclopedic content with a section of rotating Wikipedia trivia. —David Levy 23:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
It does sound much worse the way you put it. I am beginning to agree. :-) Carcharoth 23:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I agree that this is self-referential, and I also agree that self-referential stuff should be kept off the Main Page. Carcharoth 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, we're in agreement. So...why are you proposing this? —David Levy 23:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
But obviously some people do want this sort of stuff. What might reduce opposition to the removal of this sort of stuff, is providing it somewhere else, and in a more imaginative format. Carcharoth 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to the creation of a project page for this purpose (which interested parties could seek out). Just keep it off of the main page. —David Levy 23:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I'll consider that. I agree, keep Wikipedia stats and trivia off the Main Page. For what it is worth, the motivation for me suggesting it in the first place was that if people wanted something like the article stats trivia, then it would be better to have a diverse range of trivia, rather than just have the one thing up there. Essentially, "no article count" is best, "if there are any Wikipedia stats or trivia, broaden them to avoid belabouring a single point", second best, and "curent situtaion with article count prominently used as a benchmark", not good. Hopefully that answers your "why are you proposing this?" question. Carcharoth 23:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Rather than creating a standalone page, another option would be to create a template that could be added to the community portal (perhaps directly below The Wikipedia Signpost). —David Levy 23:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
And talking more generally about self-referential stuff on the Main Page, is the general idea to stuff all the self-referential stuff down the bottom of the page, and put the encyclopedic content up at the top? Carcharoth 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The idea is to provide largely static meta-information that assists readers in using the site (and our sister sites). It is not to present random Wikipedia trivia alongside the encyclopedic content. —David Levy 23:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
If so, then surely some version of this proposal could be aceptable "down there" with all the "Other areas" links and "Sister Projects" and "Other Languages" bits? Carcharoth 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That wouldn't be nearly as bad as placing it at the top, but I believe that it still would be a needless distraction and would convey the wrong message about Wikipedia's goals. Anything that increases the amount of clutter without providing encyclopedic content or helpful (rather than merely fun) project information should be avoided. —David Levy 23:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Why does only having the article count down in the languages section make it not bragging? Carcharoth 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The section's subject is "Wikipedias and their sizes," so the article count is contextually relevant. Conversely, announcing it on its own takes on a dramatically different connotation. —David Levy 23:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
At the moment (and this is a related issue), people wanting an overview have to click "Overview", and the first thing they see is: "Because of recent vandalism, editing of this project page by anonymous or newly registered users is disabled. Such users may discuss changes, request unprotection, or create an account." And reading down that Overview page, it is a mess. Surely it would be a good idea to bring back some brief, static, overview to the Main Page, to give people the basic facts before they are directed off to other pages? Carcharoth 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
You've proposed the introduction of a dynamic (not static) section. —David Levy 23:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
OK. But forget the idea for a dynamic section, and consider that one of the arguments for having the article count was to immediately give people an idea of the size of the project. What would be even better, in my opinion, would be to have a static overview section (maybe make the "Overview" link at the top of the page link to it, and then have the longer overview page linked from this static section. This would allow all the key points about Wikipedia to be summarised on the Main Page in a few short sentences, rather than scattered through different sections, or only found buried in another page. I also found another page with a good overview of Wikipedia statistics, at Wikipedia:Statistics (unsurprisingly). I find that more helpful than Special:Statistics. I know there is a link to the former at the latter, but which do you feel is more helpful for the first-time user? Carcharoth 23:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Reorganizing these pages is a viable option. We could merge, rewrite, replace or supplement any of them. The idea of adding a small overview section to the bottom of the main page is another possibility. —David Levy 23:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Something like Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers you mean? I think that page could potentially be merged to here, or Wikipedia:Introduction. --Quiddity 07:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Something like that. Short, comprehensive and informative, and aimed at new readers. People who want to edit will discover that themselves. Just something telling them what this place is in a few sentences, rather than pointing them to a long page that they might not bother reading. At the moment, the new reader get a few scattered hints from the Main Page what this place is about, but there is nothing clearly stating upfront and in one place the following:
  • When Wikipedia was started
  • How big it is
  • What it is
At the moment the new reader has to either click a link to go and find this out, presuming they have read enough to click the right link, or they have to pull information together from across different sections of the Main Page. Can anyone remember the last version of the Main Page that had an introductory blurb of a few sentences, rather than just the heavily linked welcome message? Carcharoth 22:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Number of articles

I would like to thank the one who returned the number of articles on the main page.

--Meno25 04:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't removed. It was simply relocated to the Wikipedia languages section (where it's contextually relevant). Now it's listed twice again (including at the top of the page, thereby implying that quantity is our top priority). —David Levy 05:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is it contexually relevant there? Why would that imply? So being Wikipedia is at the top it means that the Wikipedia article is our bestest article? --Howard the Duck 06:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The article count is contextually relevant within the Wikipedia languages section because the entire thing pertains to Wikipedias and their sizes. This conveys a dramatically different connotation than proclaiming that we have 1,535,270 articles at the top of the page (without any context at all), which literally places the quantity of articles first (despite the fact that many are nothing to be proud of). The Wikipedia link serves not to boast, but to introduce readers to Wikipedia. (Here's what we are, and you can even edit an article about us!) —David Levy 07:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Its a shame we succumbed to the demands of a vocal minority Rafy 06:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
How was it removed anyway? Was it through discussion? --Howard the Duck 06:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it was. If you have time, please read the above sections regarding this matter. —David Levy 07:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
How exactly do you know it is a minority? Where is your independent research? Calsicol 09:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for returning the article count. I still think it should be changed to Wikipedia is currently working on 1,355,000 articles in English - this way it shows that wikipedia is focusing on improving existing quality. Agreed? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 07:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC) I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT THE ARTICLE COUNT IS FAR MORE USEFUL IF YOU ADD THE WORDS '!!WIKIPEDIA IS CURRENTLY WORKING!!ON 1,355, 000 ARTICLES IN ENGLISH. THIS LETS THE READER KNOW THE QUANTITY OF THE ENCYCLOPEDIA WHILE PROVIDING EXTREMELY IMPORTANT INFO AS TO THAT ALTHOUGH WE HAVE THAT MANY ARTICLES THEY NEED TO BE CONSTANTLY IMPROVED TO PERFECT THEM . AGREED? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 07:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This also relates to the reader that wikipedia is an ongoing project and also encourages people to work on existing articles which I believe is vitally important to reach the unilateral quality of an 'official encyclopedia and shut up the critics. . Ernst Stavro Blofeld 08:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The previous discussion was inadequate to support such a major change and it is entirely right that it has been restored. It looked absurd in the languages section. The next thing is to restore that section to English as at present it only lists foreign names of languages, which is hostile and patronising to the reader, not to mention that as some of the names are indecipherable it simply doesn't convey the Calsicol 09:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

  • How does it look "absurd in the languages section", where it is in context? What purpose would having an english translation of other language names next to each serve? The links at the bottom of the page are for people who understand those languages to go to a wikipedia in those languages. If you don't understand that laguage what reason have you for going there? "hostile and patronising to the reader"? "indecipherable"? The reason they are there is so people who don't speak english can find their own language version. There is no reason to have an english label there, other than to satisfy people's curiosity, and that can be satisfied by hovering over the link for the international two letter abreviation. Bottom line - that section is not intended to help you. --Monotonehell 23:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I am very disappointed that it was returned. It just shows that the majority of editors want to play games instead of writing a quality encyclopedia. I will not be reading Wikipedia again after this. You can play your numbers game while I focus on other projects commited to quality. Many pop culture articles like the Simpsons can have hundreds of articles to the subject while minor works can have one stub. The article ¨count¨ to inaccurate when you consider all the cruft out there. I gave Wikipedia too many chances, but six months after the big milestone we should be saying ¨Yes, we have all these articles and lets start getting them up to scratch but no you want to play games. I am not a teenager anymore like most of the editors around here, I have to do quality work. When the web 2.0 bubble bursts next yearball these teen game websites like Myspace, Youtube, Wikipedia and Digg will fade away as the Internet gets ruled by grown ups again! --82.46.9.168 12:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

  1. The article count on the main page prevents you from doing quality work?
  2. You base your opinion on the whole of Wikipedia upon the comments and actions of these 7 people above?
  3. The Web 2.0 will be there next year?
I'm speechless. Piet 12:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Archives of Main Page redesign

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:

Hope that all helps! Carcharoth 22:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Planning the article count discussion

I've created this pre-discussion section to solicit feedback on how and where the subject should be addressed.

I suggest that we create a dedicated subpage. The discussion should be structured in such as manner as to determine whether or not consensus exists for the article count's continued presence on the main page (and if so, in what location). It should not be based upon the assumption that the article count's presence in the header is the "default" condition (with a "no consensus" outcome mandating that it remain). In other words, we need to ask whether the article count should be included, not whether it should be removed. That's the only fair course of action, as the community's current opinion is far more important than a decision made by a handful of people several years ago to address a circumstance that no longer exists. —David Levy 05:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Could there be a rule that editors must learn how to make a logical point and argue properly before they may post? ;) I'm not sure if having a fait d'compli biased toward one side or another is a fair process. Rather I'd suggest a multi stage process, one where people make suggestions, with justification, for alternate solutions. Then a second stage where the merits of each proposal are calmly and rationally argued. No "I want it this way so that's the way I want it" opinions will be tollerated. People have opinions, that's great, but they need to back up their point of view with reasoned argument.
Hopefully this argument model will help build concensus, instead of the usual slanging matches we get into here. Possibly all carried out on a subpage. --Monotonehell 06:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
David, you're saying one side should not be the default condition, so you want your own side to be the default condition. Doesn't make sense, sorry. There are two possibilities: consensus - not likely - and simple majority vote. Saying no consensus means you are right is not correct. Piet 07:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm saying that there either is consensus for the article count's inclusion or there isn't. If there is, okay. If the consensus is that it should be made larger and brightly colored, so be it. But if there's no consensus, there's no logical reason to fall back on one that existed in the past. We need to treat this just as we would treat a proposal to add something new to the main page. (Given the fact that the original reason for displaying the article count no longer applies, this isn't far from the truth.)
"Because it's always been there" is not a valid reason to include something on our main page. It must be established via consensus that the article count presently serves a valid purpose (and does more good than harm). To suggest that the onus is on others to prove that we shouldn't include something on our main page—simply because the opposite was true years ago—doesn't make sense.
Of course, I'm not claiming that only one side need present its case; it's important to carefully weigh the arguments against each other. My main point is that "no consensus" means "no consensus to include the article count in the header," not "no consensus to remove the article count from the header." —David Levy 07:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, you are the one that changed behavior that existed for years. As a general rule, changes should be driven by consensus. Saying that X is "not a valid reason to include something on our main page" or that it "does more harm than good" are arguments for change. As you know, a variety of people support that change, and consensus may well rest with the people advocating change, but the burden of establishing consensus should rest with the people advocating change. Dragons flight 08:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the above is true "as a general rule," but not in this case. This isn't a situation in which there are two ways of doing something that must be done (such as the choice of keeping an article's original title or moving it to a different title). This is a situation in which we must decide whether to include something or not include something. If that "something" isn't backed by consensus, we should err on the side of not including it (just as we would if the issue were raised for the first time). As I commented previously, this is analogous to an article passage for which there once was favorable consensus. If it's determined that there no longer is consensus (because many users believe that the information is outdated), do we retain the text (simply because of a consensus that existed in the past)? No. We remove (or modify) it because there isn't a consensus now. Wikipedia is constantly changing and evolving, and we mustn't allow arbitrary technicalities to override common sense.
Moreover, the decision to include the article count in the first place was made under a very different set of circumstances. Wikipedia was tiny (both in the number of users and the number of articles). Very little discussion was involved (as was typical), and its intended purpose was to serve as motivation to boost the quantity of articles above a pitifully small amount. That rationale has long since expired, and it has never been demonstrated that consensus exists for any other rationale. We've become caught in a causal loop in which the article count has been there for a long time because we can't remove it, and we can't remove it because it's been there for a long time. We need to break free of this vicious cycle, and that can only be accomplished by starting fresh and determining what the community's opinion is now.
I'll also point out that this isn't an all-or-nothing proposition; the article count's relocation to the Wikipedia languages section is a compromise between leaving it at the top and removing it completely. If both of the extreme options lack consensus, isn't it logical, fair and reasonable to take the middle ground? —David Levy 09:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I fear only the people who want to remove it would call that middle ground, because it's what they want. Nobody sees it at the bottom of the page.
I'm not sure about your rationale for claiming we need consensus to include the article count, and not to remove it. I still think a majority vote would be fairer. It makes the result more random, but frankly I think for most people (including myself) it's not such a big issue and we'd better just accept whichever result rolls out. A bit like American elections... The important thing is that a decision is taken and accepted by everyone. Piet 09:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Votes are no way to come to a conclusion here. You just get a lot of uninformed opinion. What we need is a REAL debate. With a point of view put forward and measured for its worth by argument. Also not a lot of strawman and other such locigal falicies. A proper reasoned debate is the only way to come to a logical and useful conclusion. Otherwise we just end up with a whole lot of unthoughtout stuff put on the main page in an organic manner which leads to organised chaos. Whereas what we need is content that's there for good reason. --Monotonehell 11:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
So many arguments have been put forward and I don't think anyone has changed his mind. What you say sounds nice but the debate will only attract a few people, who will not reach consensus, and will claim that lack of consensus means they win. The whole thing is mostly a matter of taste anyway. If the people who vote are uninformed, fine. I don't even want their opinion, just their vote. Why is it you accept that the leaders of your country are chosen by uninformed people, but the article count on the main page is suddenly too important to be left to uninformed people? You underestimate other people, they are quite capable of thinking for themselves. Present the points of view, organize the vote and accept the result. Too much time is wasted talking. Piet 12:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Consensus comes from discussion, not voting. See Wikipedia:Consensus. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-01 13:25Z
No, no, sometimes nothing comes from discussion. But a vote will always lead to a decision. Piet 13:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
A vote for a country's leader and the design of a web page a worlds apart. Your government, once elected, does not hold a vote for every decision they make. The reason there needs to be debate is for people to put forward their opinion with reason. A vote is just a lot of people's opinions. A debate, if handled correctly, comes to a conclusion as there supportable reasons behind the outcome. The reason "nothing comes from discussion" around here of late is the dicussions are never debates, they are just shouting matches. People need to understand a speaker's point, think about it and then respond. Not just form "teams" of "us and them", this is not state politics it's a project. --Monotonehell 04:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


I think a dedicated subpage should be created with a summary of the history of the article count and links to various previous discussion. And people should then be asked to present their arguments in favour and against, with further discussion taking place separately from the summary of the main arguments. After a set period of discussion (weeks to a month) to allow people to form/change their opinions, we come up with a set of three or four ways to move forwards, and people then cast their votes to decide which option to go for. Carcharoth 11:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds...pretty good, actually. I agree with Carcharoth, unless there is any reason that his/her idea is unfeasible. Smith Jones 20:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, since I suggested pretty much this above. ;) --Monotonehell 04:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


Jimbo

Unless we let Jimbo decide of course, that would save time. Piet 07:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
No, I don't think he would. Piet 09:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Focus people

This whole topic is very lame. I'm depressed by the whole thing.

  • 1. The article count is the primary way people understand what wikipeida is, it impressed people, and in one 7 digit number differentiates the crappy looking "main page" from a regular ads link page, and from the various mirror sites that scrape our free content.
  • 2. It is present in every language wikipedia. While it does not tell you about about the quality of the individual items it tells you about quantity. Quantity is a major part of Quality when talking about an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia with only 1000 articles (though they are excellent quality) is IMHO far inferior to to one with a million mediocre articles. So when talking about an encyclopedia QUANTITY IS PART OF QUALITY!!
  • 3. As is mentioned on the stats page, since no-one could ever read all of wikipedia, stats must be used to give an overview. Nothing else on the main page serves this purpose.
  • 4. While I fully agree that our prime focus at this stage should be on quality of articles not quantity, our goal is to become a repository of all human knowledge. We are nowhere near achieving that goal. There are 15 million species on our planet with more found every day each one needs an article. There are numerous 20th century heads of state without articles. Itunes offers music from 100,000 performers -they all need articles. Go to the missing encyclopeia articles and see how much stuff wikipedia does not have. Encarta has articles that we do not have! 1.3 million articles is nowhere compared to where we need to be.

If David Levy would like to remove the article count from the place where it has been since wikipedia had 300 articles he should make a sub-page and put that sub page up for AfD. This will get the issue discussed by loads of people who will all be able to contribute their POV. I suggested that a poll above which Levy crossed out saying "wikipedia is not a democracy". Well, decisions are made. how are they made? We try to get a consensus - if that proved hard, we use polls, and the (super)majority rules based on guidelines that have been set out through past discussions and votes. Wikipedia is not a democracy, because we try and reach amicable consensus first, and anything can be done/undone by our benevolent dictator Jimbo and his team. Using this glib and condescending phrase as an argument against a poll is twisted logic. Many people have contributed to wikipedia Levy (100's of millions of man hours; thousands of entire lifetimes!), and they all have a stake in what goes on here. You have NO RIGHT no make changes to the fundamental presentation of the site based on NO CONSENSUS. So put it to a vote Levy put in on the AfD list (what harm can it do) get consensus, a supermajority, as always and I will be glad to see it go. Don't try playing games as you have been above on needing a supermajority to "not remove it" though that is cute I must say. Doing this will focus the discussion and lead to a swift conclusion. If you wont do it, I will. juicifer 23:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't know why you're implying that I've attempted to unilaterally impose my will upon the community. Many people wish to remove the article count from the header.
Secondly, I don't know why you're acting as though the article count was removed from the main page. This never occurred, nor have I ever advocated such an action.
Thirdly, I don't know why you're posting false claims about me. I never crossed out any of your text, nor did I contend that leaving the article count in the header requires a "supermajority."
Lastly, while I didn't seek to resume debating this matter until the formal discussion was initiated, I'll note that your comments actually bolster your opponents’ argument. That "the article count is the primary way people understand what [Wikipedia] is" is quite troubling. We should be impressing people with our articles' quality, not with a misleadingly inflated quantity (which includes countless stubs, duplicates, deletion candidates, and articles that are very poorly written). —David Levy 23:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
You're ignoring juicifer's main point here: the strict quality/quantity dichotomy is completely misleading when dealing with an encyclopedia! If I need to find out who Joe Schmo is, it's no help to me no matter how well written the article on atomic line filters is. Eixo 00:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, I haven't set out to debate the article count's merit (or lack thereof) at this juncture, though I encourage you to read the other recent discussions in which I and others did. —David Levy 00:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, to be honest with you I'm not gonna read the whole thing, cause that would probably drive me crazy, and I don't really care that much. But I've read enough to see that no-one has raised the elementary point that juicifer just made. Instead people seem to endlessly repeat the mantra, in your words: "we need to impress people with the quality of our articles, not the quantity". I think we need to "impress people" with a good, useful encyclopedia. And you need two legs to run. Eixo 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
While the number "1,535,270" is useful for drawing comparisons between the size of this Wikipedia and the size of another language's Wikipedia, it isn't a remotely accurate gauge of the quantity of decent (or better) articles. By placing this statistic at the top of the page (without any context), we clearly imply that we have 1,535,270 articles of which we're proud. That simply isn't true, and I see no valid reason to mislead users in this manner. Then, when people realize that many of these pages are rubbish, they naturally assume that quantity (not quality) is our primary concern. (After all, we're bragging about rubbish!) —David Levy 01:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the op: good! I've often wondered why a million has been thought of as the magic number whereby Wikipedia is suddenly HUGE. Let's also not forget around 400 billion stars in our galaxy times around another 300 billion or so galaxies in the universe, each with a few dozen planets, millions of asteroids and who knows what else. And for more local concerns, well, Wikipedia doesn't even have an article on each subway station in Seoul yet. We've got a looong way to go. Mithridates 01:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
No one has claimed that Wikipedia is anywhere near complete. It is, however, no longer small by encyclopedic standards. (That condition—not the desire to impress people—was the original reason behind the article count's inclusion in the header.) Meanwhile, "1,535,270" is not a remotely accurate count of our decent (or better) articles. We're literally bragging about pages of which we should be embarrassed, thereby reinforcing the notion that we care more about quantity than we do about quality. —David Levy 01:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me but the fact that a person somewhere would spend their free time here writing about something that they know (stubby or not) just for the sole purpose of increasing the base of knowledge we have here makes me feel something closer to proud than embarrassed. Mithridates 06:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not embarrassed by stubs. (I've even written some.) I'm embarrassed by obvious duplicates that never get merged and poorly written articles that never improve. I'm even more embarrassed by the fact that we lump together the decent articles (including stubs), obvious duplicates (which artificially inflate the figures), poorly written articles, and sheer rubbish facing deletion, proudly announcing the combined total (as though quantity is all that matters). —David Levy 07:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


Pfffffffffffffff. Piet 01:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is just 5 years old; I think it's quite natural for her to go (with an infantile tone) "Look, Britanny, I have more articles than you!!!:þ". Let's admit that it's not very elegant to introduce a numerical fact in such prominent place, right under the title. Isn't it pretty much like "1,953,214 clients", "your are the visitor number 000000057" or "39 days without tornadoes"? This is a troll attracting topic as well!--cloviz 02:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to McPedia, 1,535,270 articles written! ;-) --hydnjo talk 00:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Just create and improve articles

Why don't we just create and improve articles and leave the article count alone. It is virtually harmless. Or if we will really remove the article count, lets use the default procedure. If we will use a different procedure, then we'll have to formulate a new procedure from consensus, not some other's POV on how we should resolve this. After all, this is senseless. What harm will it do if Wikipedia has an article count? Will it turn people away. Moments ago Wikipedia was down. Why? Probably because of the traffic it gets, and you'll tell me we are turning people away.

Now a compromise: can our programmers display only the articles that are "clean" (like those which are not in cleanup, AFDs, Prods, Speedy deletes, with cats etc.)? Perhaps we will have a much leaner figure than the current 1.3 articles. --Howard the Duck 15:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way to estimate/calculate this overhead? Perhaps it can be factored into the count permanently. I think this whole topic has become moot anyway, there's to many people emotionally attached to the count which stops us having a reasoned discussion about it.
Actually what's wrong with just saying something like:
Welcome to Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit,
with over 1,000,000 articles in English.
That gets over the quantity fact without the poor incentive metric of a ticker. --Monotonehell 02:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. This could work as a compromise. Keep the 1,000,000 figure linked to the Special:Statistics page, and update the figure when we reach milestones (1,500,000 and 2,000,000 for example). Or update every 100,000? Carcharoth 15:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd favor the 100,000 interval. --Howard the Duck 16:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Google, with millions billions and now trillions of pages cached. C'mon, do we really need to do that? --hydnjo talk 21:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Surely that is not the way to remove that... we need to establish consensus (and if no consensus, default is too keep, unless we agree on another way, by consensus.) --Howard the Duck 02:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
We keep pages for which no consensus exists. We do not keep text for which no consensus exists. —David Levy 04:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
We need to cite this. So if there's no consensus on a text on any page, we won't keep it? Also, what's {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}? Can this be added to WP:MFD? If we can add this and a decision via consensus is attained that we'll have to follow it. --Howard the Duck 07:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
If a portion of a page is not backed by consensus, it typically will not be allowed to remain in that form; it will be removed or modified to address the community's concerns. That there was a favorable consensus at an earlier point in time doesn't lock the text in place until it can be proven that an unfavorable consensus exists. If there isn't a favorable consensus now (perhaps because the situation has changed), that's a problem.
{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} is part of the MediaWiki code. —David Levy 07:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Can we list {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} at MFD? Is it deletable? --Howard the Duck 07:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
No. (Sorry, I thought that this was implied.) —David Levy 07:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Then it is not just text; it's a MediaWiki code. So your "delete if its a text" analogy may not work here. --Howard the Duck 14:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I wrote nothing about deleting the software feature (or even no longer using it). I was referring strictly to the specific instance of text that appears at the top of the main page. That this happens to be generated partially via MediaWiki markup is irrelevant, as no one has proposed the removal of said code. —David Levy 16:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
But the text appeared because of Wiki markup. So it not only just plainly text. It's like saying lets remove {{Wikipedia:Today's featured article}} and if there;s no consensus, any admit can remove it because it's not text? Ha! And I'm still not convinced that we are turning people away with the "1,535,270 articles in English" blurb at the top. Heck, Wikipedia was down again, lol. --Howard the Duck 03:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you aren't making very much sense. You referenced the possibility of nominating {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} for deletion (if this were possible), and I'm trying to explain to you that no one wishes to remove {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} from Wikipedia. What you're saying is tantamount to claiming that we must list a template at WP:TFD and establish consensus to delete it, when all that's desired (by some) is to remove it from a specific section of a specific page (not from the entire site). —David Levy 03:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that we'll have to use the default (that is, if no consensus, keep) mechanism for the article count because it is not just a "text". --Howard the Duck 03:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, no one has proposed that {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} be removed from the site. What appears in the main page header ("1,535,270 articles in English") is just text, and how it's generated behind the scenes is entirely irrelevant. —David Levy 04:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Levy! Please stop talking nonsense and pedantically debating straw men of your creation (no-one is suggesting deleting the code/no-one wants to remove it completely/still at the bottom blah blah blah). Since the article count was put on the main page, wikipieda has grown by 14,000%! You therefore need a full discussion and a strong 70% minimum consensus to remove it. There is no point discussing this anymore. If you remove the article count at any point in the future I will nominate the article count as MFD (unless this has already been done). So you can stop repeating yourself on and on, there is no point doing it here. You want to delete>: nominate it for an MfD - otherwise forget the whole idea. No doubt you will now tell me that it cant be MfD'd. Don't bother, I see no reason why a part of a page can't be considered a "miscellany for deletion", especially a part of the main page, I think people will understand. juicifer 21:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
My explanations to Howard the Duck had nothing to do with the fact that the article count would continue to be displayed near the bottom of the page. I was addressing the suggestion that the code itself be nominated for deletion. You claim that I "want to delete," but no one seeks to delete anything. If you attempt to list {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} at MfD, I shall consider this a WP:POINT violation and respond accordingly. As for Wikipedia's immense growth since the article count was placed on the main page, I suggest that you read our correlation implies causation article. The pathetically low article count (back when it existed) undoubtedly served to motivate the creation of many new articles, but implying that it was the sole factor is ludicrous (as is your declaration that we would need "a strong 70% minimum consensus to remove" text not backed by consensus, as though consensus is based on vote-counting). —David Levy 01:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Final response to windbag Levy (I hope)

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)

Article counter talk archived for size

I've archived the lengthy discussion here. I know there was still some ongoing recent discussion, but it wasn't really getting anywhere.

Here's a summary, as far as I have followed it. (Sorry if I have misrepresented anyone or missed valid points) The motivation to move the article count came from Jimbo's comments and began with this. Edit: The original-original motivation occured during the major discussion during the last main page redesign that was never acted upon completely. (Thanks David Levy for reminding me of this)

The move case basically boils down to:

  • A constantly updating counter is a mis-motivational metric emphasising quantity over quality. Removing its prominence on the main page will help focus attention toward improving and merging articles instead of adding more separate stubs (many of which should be merged or removed).
  • EDIT: Or another view point for the same case is more to do with perception of visitors than the effect on editors.

The keep where it is case basically boils down to:

  • Disputing the causal effect of such a metric.
  • It's a long standing tradition and a source of pride.


There is currently a stalemate and no consensus. So several compromises have been suggested:

  • Replacing the auto updating counter with a statement like:
Welcome to Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit,
with over 1,000,000 articles in English.
and updating it only at major milestones, perhaps every half million.
  • Trying to work out what the extra overhead of AfD and poor stubs is and factoring this into the counter.
  • Having the figure update less often (weekly, monthly)
  • Having a rotating set of figures that offer more and different information (Number of FAs, GAs, FPs, "This week X more articles reached FA status" or similar)


If you wish to continue this discussion, go ahead. But if you've not read and understood all the previous points now archived you're probably going over old ground which is not helpful.

(Self appointed authority over YOU! - joke)--Monotonehell 05:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


Three points:
1. Again, the idea of relocating the article count did not stem from Jimbo's comments (which merely reinforced an existing sentiment). This was planned months ago.
2. To me, this relates more to the message conveyed to readers than it does to the behavior of editors. I'm not sure that removing the article count from the header would encourage editors to shift their concentration from creating new stubs to improving existing articles, but I am sure that it would help to counter the widespread perception that Wikipedia cares more about quantity than it does about quality.
3. You omitted the compromise that was agreed to twice (and reverted by Zocky after a tiny handful of complaints appeared): relocate the article count to the Wikipedia languages section (where it's contextually relevant). It was placed there in March (purely in preparation of this event). —David Levy 06:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay,
1. Oops you're quite right, I forgot about the previous discussions during main page redesign that Carcharoth managed to dig up here *fixed*
2 *eyes glaze over* *re-reads* Okay... *fixed*
3 My whole summary is about moving the article count to there instead of REmoveing it alltogether. So... okay. But yeah. *hides* Was there ever a "third case" of "remove it altogether"? --Monotonehell 07:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes. It was my idea to move it to the Wikipedia languages section as a compromise. In the lengthy discussions that were just archived, some people still advocated removing the article count from the main page. It's important that the relocation be viewed as the compromise that it is (and not as the extreme opposite of inaction).
Thanks for the revisions! :-) —David Levy 11:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Look Levy, I have made my final comments on this matter at the end of the archived discussion. In abstract, if you remove the top article count again without an MfD debate (or similar solution) I will put it up for MfD and you for censure. The current version of the main page was settled by the biggest vote wikipedia has ever had. Any change you make will need a vote. Live with it. To quote you It was my idea to move it to the Wikipedia languages section as a compromise, er no Levy, you have claimed above that you put the count at the bottom a few months ago - when you deleted the top count you didn't move it, you deleted it. And who are you to make this compromise? Anyway, that's it from till there is vote. juicifer 13:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

1. I removed the article count from the header after such a decision was reached in two discussions (one during the main page redesign process and the other on this page last month).
2. When Zocky reverted this change (falsely claiming that it had been made "without notice," and later indicating that he simply didn't like the result that had been reached—despite the fact that he had just finished lecturing me regarding the importance of respecting results that we don't like), did I wheel-war? No. Did I threaten to? No. I agreed to participate in a new debate before the article count was even restored to the header, and the discussion to which you first posted the above threat was initiated by me for the purpose of setting up such a discussion.
3. Again, no one seeks to delete {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} from Wikipedia. If you list it at MfD, this will be an obvious bad faith action / WP:POINT violation (and I will respond accordingly).
4. When the article count was placed in the proposed design's Wikipedia languages section, it was simultaneously removed from the header. This relocation—not redundancy—was the explicit purpose of adding it to that section. When I indicated that the compromise was my idea, this is what I was referring to. I did not unilaterally "make this compromise." Consensus was established at that point. When the relocation plan was postponed (because it complicated an already complicated situation), the redundant article count was left in place at the bottom as a transitionary measure.
5. Your archived declaration that we would need "a super-majority" or "a strong 70% minimum consensus to remove" text not backed by consensus is a gross misunderstanding (or deliberate distortion) of how Wikipedia works. Consensus is not determined by simply tallying votes, nor must a "vote" be held before any changes can be made (especially changes that reflect a lack of consensus for whatever is being changed). This is not a black-and-white, winner-take-all issue, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Please read Wikipedia:Consensus.
6. I just noticed the reply that you improperly added directly to the archive, which is full of false claims and personal attacks. I shall address your statements (minus the name-calling and other insults) below. —David Levy 00:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Juicifer's misplaced message

For some reason, Juicifer decided to post a reply directly to an archive page. I just discovered this, and I've pasted it below (for the purpose of responding to the non-personal attack portions). —David Levy 00:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Final response to windbag Levy (I hope)

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)

David Levy's reply

[ignoring most of the personal attacks]

"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."

The above claims are entirely false. It was not my idea to remove the article count from the main page (which I have never advocated). It was my idea to compromise by moving to the Wikipedia languages section instead, and this generated a rough consensus.

"You later add the article count at the bottom as well, in preparation for your next manoeuvre. Ah patience!"

Again, this is utter nonsense. The article count was relocated from the header to the Wikipedia languages section. (I did not add it "later.") I personally restored it to the header (to eliminate the distraction created by the handful of people who objected) and left the second instance in place (to allow people to become acclimated to its presence in that location). Yes, this was in preparation for subsequently revisiting the postponed issue, as I plainly stated at the time. There was nothing devious or sinister about it.

"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)"

I waited until I felt that enough time had elapsed for people to become familiar with the new Wikipedia languages section (complete with article count). I then initiated a discussion on the matter (right here on this page) and waited two weeks before acting on it (during which time one person objected and quickly dropped out of the discussion).

"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."

1. I've already explained that my "this is the new status quo" comment only meant that neither status quo is sacrosanct.
2. This is the second time that you've falsely claimed that I crossed out your poll. Again, I never crossed out anything that you wrote.

"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.)"

I'll only address the above to once again reiterate that this has nothing to do with pleasing Jimbo. (It's odd that you simultaneously claim that I'm motivated by comments made by Jimbo last month and acting on a secret plan that I've had for months.)

"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."

Again, the discussion to which you posted this reply (entitled "Planning the article count discussion") was initiated by me as a means determining how to put this matter before the community for wider scrutiny. Please go back and read it from the beginning.

"You have threatened to sanction me for starting a MfD debate on the Article Count, when this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do."

1. No, this is not "a perfectly reasonable thing to do," given the fact that no one wishes to delete the article count (which, as I've explained, isn't even technically feasible).
2. I did not threaten to sanction you. I informed you that "if you attempt to list {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} at MfD, I shall consider this a WP:POINT violation and respond accordingly." My response would be to close your bad faith nomination.

"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."

Again, no one has advocated any sort of deletion. Why do you refuse to accept this fact?

"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."

"Consensus" != "a super-majority of opinions," nor is this a situation with only two possible outcomes. Please read Wikipedia:Consensus. —David Levy 00:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Great, thanks for fisking my personal attack on you, you clearly are a very clever person. I therefore have nothing more to discuss with you on this matter since I am now certain that you would never delete (delete - oh sorry i mean MOVE to the bottom!!, oh sorry not delete - it will still be there blah blah blah) something that was certified by a vote involving 1000 people without some kind proper due process (MfD or equivalent.) You have now been told this by a number of people including admins, your hasty change had to be undone by another Admin, since you refused to do so. If you were to do the same again to a page that gets 25% of wikipedia' traffic I would very much hope that you would deprived of your adminship. juicifer 18:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
"I therefore have nothing more to discuss with you on this matter since I am now certain that you would never delete (delete - oh sorry i mean MOVE to the bottom!!, oh sorry not delete - it will still be there blah blah blah)"
Are you under the impression that I've been citing the article count's continued presence elsewhere on the main page as evidence of its non-deletion? If so, you've inadvertently combined two separate issues.
On Wikipedia, the term "deletion" refers to the removal of a page (an article, a project page, a category page, a template, et cetera); a file is actually deleted. It does not refer to the act of removing text from a page. I've been disputing the suggestion (first made by Howard the Duck) that someone actually seeks to delete {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} from the database.
"something that was certified by a vote involving 1000 people without some kind proper due process (MfD or equivalent.)"
1. You continue to demonstrate a misunderstanding of Wikipedia process. While people voted, that was not a majority/plurality "vote." It was a debate/discussion to determine consensus, and consensus favored the new main page design with or without the article count in the header.
2. Again, I initiated the discussion (entitled "Planning the article count discussion") to which you responded with your "personal attack" for the purpose of setting up a new discussion on this matter. How can you possibly claim that I seek to block such community input?!
"You have now been told this by a number of people including admins, your hasty change had to be undone by another Admin, since you refused to do so."
Again, my change followed a discussion on this page in which one person opposed the article count's removal from the header and immediately withdrew from said discussion. I waited two weeks before proceeding. How was that remotely "hasty"?
When Zocky took it upon himself to overrule that discussion's result because he personally disagreed with it (despite the fact that he had just finished lecturing me regarding the importance of respecting results that we don't like), did I revert back? No. Did I threaten to? No. Even before Zocky reverted, I already was attempting to organize a new discussion on this matter.
"If you were to do the same again to a page that gets 25% of wikipedia' traffic I would very much hope that you would deprived of your adminship."
Why are you treating me as though I've forced my preference on the community and refused to accept contrary feedback? Why must you threaten me against doing something that I haven't done and have absolutely no intention of doing? Why are you posting outright untruths regarding my conduct (such as the false chronology, the elaborate conspiracy theory that you couldn't possibly believe, the claim that I've attempted to block discussion and unilaterally impose my will, and the claim that I "crossed out" your poll)? Why did you feel the need to include comments that served no purpose other than to insult and degrade me? —David Levy 05:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No offense intended to anyone, but I propose this discussion be continued somewhere else. I have a feeling few people will have the desire to get involved in it anymore. The personal part can be continued on the user talk pages, and if the discussion concerning the article count has to be revived we'd better create a subpage for it. My respect to Monotonehell for trying to put a stop to it, too bad it didn't work out that way. Piet | Talk 07:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/i/Talk%7EMain_Page_Archive_79_132b.html"