<rambling>
100.000 articles Will we have 100.000 articles in a few days? This depends on wether we do have *any* articles (like a magazine or newspaper) or entries (like an encyclopedia). I think the number itself is not the point. Stubs? Yes, we do have stubs. So what? Any encyclopedia has them. Opened one lately? I just went to my bookshelf and opened one of the "Brockhaus" (big German quality encyclopedia) volumes at a random page, and guess what I found? We're not saying "we have 100.000 complete, detailed, perfect, bullet-proof articles", we say "we have 100.000 articles". We even link directly to our definition of "article".
Vera Cruz Well, I never had any quarrel with him/her/it. I noticed some strange activity on Recent Chages, but that was it. On the other hand, I *am* tempted to ban "Vera Cruz" just to reduce the amount of incoming mails. If it's Lir (prove!), or harming the 'pedia (subtle or not), I say get rid of it.
Images After DW told me some weeks ago in a rather commanding tone that some images I uploaded were too large and to dark (images that I had already downsized, filtered and dust-removed), and started to replace them with tiny thumbs, I found myself rather displeased with the current image handling, both by software and by people. Did anyone notice that lots of our images have no source or PD explanation given? That we have double/triple images of the same thing/person? That there are "x.jpg", "x (small).jpg", "x (large).jpg", etc. and no handling of the different sizes?
Consensus Great thing. We talk about the different options, argue a little, and finally agree on the way to go. Except we don't. Anyone know a country or big company that is successfully run by consensus? I don't. Dictatorship or voting. Pick one.
</rambling>
That's it for today ;-)
Magnus