Wikipedia talk:About

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:About page.

Archives: 1, 2
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia There is a request, submitted by Dstyles222 (talk), for an audio version of this article to be created.

See WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia for further information.

The rationale behind the request is: "Requested by Cyclonenim as per comment below.".

See also: Category:Spoken Wikipedia requests and Wikipedia:Spoken articles.

WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia

SimsFanTalk • Centre of Ops • Sign and Get Award is currently recording or editing an audio version of this article.
See WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia for further information.

This notice is dated 15:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC) . If a significant amount of time has passed,
please check with SimsFanTalk • Centre of Ops • Sign and Get Award to see if he or she is still working before removing this message.


[edit] Wikitrivia

I have noticed a number of entries recently sprouting a section called "in popular culture" and containing the most banal information about movies, non-ebrities, TV (mainly US specific), etc. Perhaps someone could create a Wikitrivia site and we could move all that stuff over there and keep Wikipedia for information. I am not saying that all such trivia should be banned, but when you get famous people and places having minimal factual information about them and maximal trivia and references about them, references to references, etc. then something has gone haywire! (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Church Related Selections--- SuperEditors Please Note

I am someone who is interested in comparative religion and particularly interested in Protestant denominationalism. As such I frequently view entries on new and small churches. I myself am not a member of any small church, I am an Anglican. But as an observer I've noted that some entries for small churches are soon deleted while others remain unscathed. Following the discussions it seems that some "editors" rigidly apply Wiki standards so as to delete some entries while the very same standards are not applied.

For example, the "Church of Christian Mysticism" and the "Free Faith Fellowship" are both new small churches. Both had entries fairly similar in tone and approach yet the first remains on Wikipedia and the second was bounced off.

It is not a clearcut policy of NPOV or verifiability, it is a very wobbly standard in actual practice. I urge that the SuperEditors over and above the volunteer editors give this more consideration. Churches should be treated the same, and deleted, or retained on the same set of standards.

I read another entry about a small church which has an entry written from a point of view which is clearly that of a partisan. It remains on Wikipedia. In exploring the talk session I learned that this particular church is litigious in nature so the editors are afraid of editing or deleting the entry. So if a church has a lawyer on retainer it can command a self-serving entry in Wikipedia? Doesn't appear appropriate for a reference resource. LAWinans (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC) PHARMAVY COOOL\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Anglican. The issue on including articles or not generally turns around WP:NOTABILITY rather than NPOV or verifiability. However I would also concede that more recent additions get far more scrutiny than some of the long standing articles when policy was looser. Are you prepared to give examples? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BozMo (talkcontribs) 22:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia vs. paper encyclopedias

To maintain NPOV, it would seem that this section should have a sentence or two on pros for paper encyclopedias. Libcub (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship?

In a couple of discussions I have seen people saying that certain info is classified so they removed it. In one case, an editor was asked to remove something by a branch of the US governemnt/military because it was classified (he did remove it). I was certain that wikipedia could not be censored by any government of any nation, but I'd just like to double check: should classified imformation (even if NPOV, reliably referenced and relevant) be censored? If so, which governemnts? My view was that if a goverment wished to censor some info, they could filter either the specific page or all wikipedia, but they couldn't censor the content itself as it is an international encyclopedia, not specifically bound to the jurisdiction of any one governemnt. If this issue is dealt with elsewhere, sorry but I spent an hour looking for it and couldn't find it. I may have just overlooked it. (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia's servers are in Florida. So we must abide by the US law and Florida's law, otherwise we could be shut down.
But if the content is legal, and sourced, I see no reason to remove it. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I expected that to be the case but I thought it was possible the servers had been relocated to a place with loose(er) censorship laws. However, as they do come under US jurisdiction, I would like to know the extent of legally permissible censorship under US law (I am a student of law in the UK but know little about the US legal process) so that I am aware of this in the future. A specific example: If the US government deems something to be 'classified', to what extent can it legfally censor that information without infringing freedom of speech? Could it force you to remove classified content? (I assume it would first use a sock-uppet to remove info, but if the article was fully protected, could they do something about it?) (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Under wikipedia policy we only contain claims that are verifiable to published reliable sources so anything that is truly a secret is not in a published reliable source and can be deleted on that basis. There is no need or purpose in claiming something is "classified" and should be deleted on that basis. WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Anyone can edit"

I have begun to notice the seemingly countless times that the above phrase is mentioned in a trolling manner to support to try to say that Wikipedia is a cabal for not letting banned editors continue to edit. I propose a brief addition to the text to clarify that anyone can edit - unless they've been blocked and/or banned. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, seeing as it appears no one else is much watching this page, I'm going to make the change myself. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm watching this page :P. I don't mind you adding that clarification though. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Even someone blocked or banned can edit. How do you propose to stop someone from going to a library and editing; or getting a new internet service provider and editing? We can block IP numbers and we can ban identifiable personalities. We have no means of blocking or banning individual humans who are sane enough to edit constructively and peacefully. We can and do block IPs used by children who have no financial means of buying a different IP. We can and do ban crazy people who are incapable of disguising their insanity. WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Children also have means of using a different IP; such as using a school computer, going to an Internet café (they aren't that expensive, at least where I live), using their mobile phone connection, or using a friend's computer. Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
That's why we say, "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anybody can edit". Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

This talk page has 52 KB. This could cause a lot of technical issues so I think we should WP:Archive this talk page. I'd use the subpage method, cut-and-paste procedure. I'd leave the threads started in March 2008 still here, because they might still be active. What do you think? Note: If there are no objections by Wednesday, I will perform the archiving. Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

wikepdia alway gimme a load of rubbish when i was doing research.i m reseaching about marco polo now.when i saw tat long long long composition i m gona faint! i wish wikipedia can make a short composition of all thing (marco polo,stamford raffles etc.)pls~

Sounds good, Puchiko. Thanks. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 07:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Y Done Sorry for the delay. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Active Wikipedians

In the introduction of Wikipedia: about you come across the following statment. "There are more than 75,000 active contributors" However, that is data from Sep 2006, it's pretty out of date... Anyone know where we might find a statistic that reflects data at least up to the beginning of 2008--Sparkygravity (talk) 11:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non profit status in trouble

Based on the obvious political bias of Clinton, Obama and McCain, I don't see how the IRS can allow this organization to be considered a non-profit.

Wikipedia should not be a place to show biased information (or somehow forget to add "all" information) about somehow who is running of office.

Please keep all politics OUT of wikipedia.

Tomstewa (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, and WP:NPOV does too. There should never be biased information on Wikipedia.
However, from the information I've gathered at Non-profit organization, even politically biased organisations can be non-profit. See National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws for an example of a political yet non-profit organisation. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Footnote 11 Dead

Sorry in advance for not fixing the problem myself. I am brand new to editing Wikipedia, and I am just beginning to learn all the editing rules. The dead link is:

11^ Bergstein, Brian. "Felon Became COO of Wikipedia Foundation", 2007-12-21. Retrieved on 2007-12-27.

Could someone replace it or make a note that it's dead?

Smed ( (talk) 06:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Spelling

recognised = recognized organisation = organization Rkinci (talk) 08:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

i likve it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

They are both the correct spelling, I always thought where ever the article originates from it should match that spelling, an article about the US should use the US spelling and articles about the UK should use their spelling etc. --Benpaul12 (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No, actually. Wikipedia uses the UK/US spelling, not both. Im not quite sure which one, however pointing to this article one could assume it is UK english. Makes more sense anyway, as US english is only used in well, the US. Metagraph 11:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Last-Modified Date-Time Stamp

Why does the last-modified date and time at the bottom of a page not get updated when I post an edit even though the editing appears in an article and in its history? Eventually, the date-timestamp is updated, but that may be a week later, give or take. Immediate update would enhance Wikipedia's accuracy. If the delay is to permit internal review of a post before the public might rely on it, better methods would be (a) to show two date-time stamps with a uniform explanation (such as "The later date-time includes material not yet reviewed by certain editors.") (perhaps with only one stamp and no explanation when two stamps would be identical), (b) to block the post from appearing in public until approved and then the last-modified date and time should be immediately updated, or (c) to show the result of editing in a different color or otherwise make it stand out and, one time, edit the all-Wikipedia template to explain next to the last-modified date and time that the date and time do not apply to changes marked in that way. I recommend dual-stamping over blocking and blocking over styling, and over all 3 I recommend quick posting with immediate stamp updating. (I haven't checked whether Talk pages have a similar problem but the solution would be the same.) In the interim, for best accuracy about when the last modification was, I recommend the history page. Thanks.

Nick Levinson (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It should update immediately. I believe this is a caching issue. Try purging your cache (In Firefox: click refresh while holding the shift key). Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not a caching problem at my computer. The page content updates but the date-time stamp on the same page does not update. Caching would not permit update of part of a page but not the other part. I tried your suggestion in Firefox 1.0.4 (shift-clicking the Reload toolbar button) but it didn't make a difference. The pattern is that if an article is edited Monday and Tuesday, the Tuesday edit will appear with Monday's date, and if it's edited again on Friday it will immediately appear with Friday's edit but with Tuesday's date. And the history pages will have correct entries. Perhaps the problem is at Wikipedia's servers, or perhaps it's a misprogramming error. If it's intentional, it detracts from accuracy and should be reconsidered. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archives 2 & 3 damaged?

Is something wrong with pages 2 and 3 of the archives of this Talk page? Perhaps content got deleted by error. There was nothing likely to revert to. See and (both accessed last Thursday). Or were they created before there was anything to archive there and so new archivings wound up on p. 4? Is that perhaps due to a feature or bug that should be reconsidered? Shouldn't what was meant for p. 4 have gone to p. 2 and (if the odd pp. 2-3 were to be kept) pp. 2-3 automatically pushed to be the last archive pages after all other archivings?

Nick Levinson (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Archives 2 and 3 never existed as proper archives, I'm not sure if they should be kept or deleted. There is no discussion there so they could probably be deleted. Archive 3 is a redirect, and not a useful one. --Snigbrook (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I have tagged them for speedy deletion as test pages. --Snigbrook (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for edit to "portmanteau (combination of words and their meanings)"

The best I can tell, about 3 in 4 Wikipedians misuse the word "portmanteau", although it's used correctly here. Part of the problem is giving the wrong definition in articles like this one, so I changed it to the right definition. (A better definition would be longer, but that would be too distracting.) If you want to use a word that doesn't need definition, "blend" is also a correct word here, and would also be fine in cases where "portmanteau" is wrong. Please see the dictionary definitions and discussion at the RfC at Portmanteau_word. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] El Salvador

I want to tell Wikipedia that the translation of the national anthem of El Salvador is wrong because El Salvador is He nor She. It may a big difference. Thank you for your attention —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit it yourself. And get a screen name. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Registering for an account is optional. Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Testing Wikipedia Subpage in Talk Namespace

/Subpage -- please feel free to revert. JimD (talk) 06:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of that? user:Yetmotega/1 Yetmotega (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contact number?

What is Wikipedia's phone number? They're based in San Francisco, but I couldn't find the number online. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Contact Us -Seidenstud (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Most popular page

One thing that I have always wanted to know about Wikipedia is what are the most popular articles. This may not be included for a certain reason, like the most popular is something sexual and not really worth mentioning. Any ideas? --Benpaul12 (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The information is available at However, the top 1000 list hasn't been updated since Februar :( Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)