Talk:Wikimedia Blog/Drafts/Your First Million Is Never Forgotten

Isn't it better to point to the current versions of the milestones, instead of pointing to the "historical" ones? The changed occurred to the templates made the old Choisy-le-Roi a little ugly to see. --Paginazero - Ø 16:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I know that the missing templates make a bad feeling, but they did not actually carry much information, and moreover they make my point: articles are improved in the years :-) --.mau. ✉ 17:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Shall we add a link to the oldest version available on internet archive? --Cruccone (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure "September 9th, 2005" is a correct date format: isn't it usually either "September 9, 2005" or "9th September 2005"? Maybe just use ISO format 2005-09-09 for a truly global style? There must be a style rule for the blog somewhere, though. --Nemo 20:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• On "anyone can lend a hand": can we please link a page where people can actually find such examples? The WMF has created an en.wiki-only feature at w:en:Special:GettingStarted, but we can choose at w:it:Progetto:Coordinamento/Statistiche manutenzioni and link the old good tools:~erwin85/randomarticle.php. The stubs list has a lot of noise, is "da controllare" still used also for grammatical problems? Otherwise I'd say just use "Da wikificare", it often contains articles in need of basic language improvements. I managed to get it work only with single-month cats [1] or big cats but without recursion [2], can someone add a hidden cat with all tagged articles please? --Nemo 20:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• about date format, my first draft followed the English one and used "9 September 2005", which by the way is the same as the one I see in signatures (here on meta I am using the English interface, because I am lazy and never changed it). About "anyone can lend a hand" I was thinking about people who stumble upon an article with a typo, nothing more. --.mau. ✉ 20:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

  The first edit is the biggest obstacle: once you've tricked one in correcting the first typo it's easy to get more done, otherwise very hard. If it's meant to be a theoretical concept/example ("if you ever saw a typo you could correct it") to make the public understand how Wikipedia works, it's ok, but nowadays editors need to be recruited one by one. Anyway, too late now. --Nemo 07:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)