Talk:Main Page/Archive 39

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 39


Contents

Questionnaire

Now, a questionnaire about Uekusa is done in Talk:Kazuhide Uekusa. I'd like to know many various people's opinions. That is to say, it means what you think about him. 3 questions about him are established there. Please tell me your many opinions!! 202.235.132.50 5:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

uh, i don't believe this is what wikipedia should be used for, could an admin look into this and shut it down please? Boneyard 10:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
IMO, there's no need to shut it down, but perhaps a post at the Village Pump to attract people's attention and discuss this on a user's talk page would be more appropriate and practical than posting here on Talk: Main Page. -- 12:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

american history

what was the theme of american history

better to ask about this on Talk: american history. -- 12:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Flag Day

June 14 is Flag Day in the United States. Though the adoption of the flag by the Continental Congress is mentioned as a signficant historical anniversary, the holiday itself isn't mentioned. --Dmleach 13:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

within the letters amoned how many words of minimum 4 letters can be made?

Within the letters a,m,o,n,e,d how many words can be made minimum of 4 letters?

This request belongs in Wikipedia:Reference desk. And about the question, I have no clue. Try posting in the right place. ;-) Ambush Commander 17:33, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
You can make 5P4 + 5! permutations of letters, which I believe is 216. How many of those are actually words, I couldn't say. Nickptar 17:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See anagram, which contains links to several websites which will calculate the permutations for you.-gadfium 22:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4 letters = 6p4*4! = 8640
5 letters = 6p5*5! = 86400
6 letters = 6p6*6! = 4320
Total = 99360 words can be formed

You're double counting there! 6P4 already includes all the permutations of the 4 chosen letters, so there's no need to multiply by 4!.

There's an ambiguity in the question: it's not clear if letters can be reused. If they can, then egrep '^[amoned]{4,}$' does the trick; if not, egrep '^[amoned]{4,}$' | egrep -v '(.).*\1' is needed. Gdr 23:46, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

If you are speaking in terms of simple anagrams, and are not reusing any of the the letters then: ADMEN, AEON, AMEN, AMEND, ANODE, DAEMON, DAME, DAMN, DEAN, DEMO, DEMON, DOME, DONA, DONE, MADE, MANE, MANED, MANO, MEAD, MEAN, MENAD, MEND, MENO, MOAN, MOANED, MODE, MONAD, MONDE, NAME, NAMED, NEMA, NODE, NOMA, NOMAD, NOME, ODEA, and OMEN. There are 37 words all together. 25 of them are 4 letter words.

My dictionary has EOAN, MAND, MODENA, and MONA too. Gdr 21:14, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Borgen Project

How about information on the Borgen Project? http://www.borgenproject.org

  • The link doesn't work for me. - Mgm|(talk) 10:36, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Fixed.--Patrick 12:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Request moved to Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Social_Sciences_and_Philosophy - UtherSRG 13:12, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)


theism, atheism and agnosticism

I would like to discuss about theism, atheism and agnosticism, wherein people who belong to any of this category can come up with their view points. I know at the end its all the faith or the lack of it. But still there can be a few things which might clear up a lot of peoples mind.

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Create a forum on some other website for this purpose. - UtherSRG 12:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
if we're honest, it can be. Start with the archives on Talk:Atheism, that will give you a pretty good picture of what such a discussion will look like. dab (ᛏ) 13:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Such discussions may happen in the course of working out how best to write/edit an article or a collection of articles, but the purpose is the articles, not the discussion. This anon user is asking for a discussion forum, not a discussion about article editting. - UtherSRG 13:39, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Uther is 100% correct -- Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a chatroom, discussion forum, or vehicle for propaganda and advertising. -- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. →Raul654 17:49, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Oh thank GAWD! What would we do without RAUL? user:Category 22:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Considering this a religious debate, would lack of Raul make people worship Rael instead :p --Kiand 22:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

IE and wikipedia.com

your front page looks funny on IE 6. the wikipedia graphc is covered up by some of the language doohickeys

Funny, I was just investigating this kind of thing this morning and it seemed fine in IE 6. I don't suppose you feel like putting a screenshot somewhere so we can have a look? That would be really helpful if you could. (Another solution is to get a proper browser, of course....) — Trilobite (Talk) 17:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As it happens the front page has just been updated in the last few minutes, and incorporates some fixes to the code, although I don't think any of them will directly affect the problem you're experiencing. Is it still doing the same thing? — Trilobite (Talk) 19:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if the anon is not just describing the correctly-displayed Wikipedia icon, which, given its admirably singular design, can be quite accurately said to "covered up by ... language doohickeys".--Pharos 18:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good point, you could be right there. Like most people though, he never got back to us with more information. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Slings, Slingshots, and Catapults

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sling_(weapon)

I' m not english, I put the illustration in this article but I'm not sure than is the same than Sling

Please use the pic where is need

Yug 17:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe that it's a slingshot but I'm no native speaker either. A slingshot might be considered as some sort of sling but it's not what i think of when I hear the word sling. Jeltz talk 19:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'd call that a hand-held catapult. — Chameleon 10:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A sling is similar, but it uses the rotation of a piece of material to throw a pebble or stone. The Biblical David killed Gothiath using a sling, rather than a slingshot. Basically, take the central material part of the slingshot, hold the two ends together, place a stone in the material section and have a sling. In this context, the image is only helpful in that it could be said to be a derivation of the sling. :) Pete.

Added for curiosity: for many practical purposes it is (or has been) desirable to move a stone long distances at some speed. One of the ways to do this is to put the stone at the end of some string or cloth, spin the rock around fast and then let go. This is called a sling. Another completely different way is to use elastic material - use the contraction of a stretched elastic to carry the stone with it. Called a slingshot. Despite the only common factor being that both deal with propelling rocks.

Well, and that they involve a suspended pouch, which is what "sling" means ...

"Slingshot" is an Americanism. British schoolboys would call the illustration a "catapult". However, a catapult is also the larger machine used in sieges.

This discussion really ought to go somewhere else. Is there anywhere we 'should' put this image?

What are the risks of Genetically Modified Foods?

What are the risks of GM foods? Will the pesticides in them spread to the insects themselves somehow? Could the herbicide within the crops spread to any nearby weeds? I need this information ASAP for my I.S.U, Thank you for your help :)

Wikipedia is not a reference library. --Kiand 18:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(you could try Wikipedia:Reference desk however)
Pesticides kind of have to spread to insects to kill them (they're the pest that the pest-icide is meant to kill after all) and the herbicides likewise have to spread to the weeds to kill them (they're the herb that the herb-icide is going to kill). It's all kind of tied in with overly homogeneous land use, overuse of pesticides and herbicides, and so on. Ultimately (IMO) the genetic modification is just allowing large-scale agriculture to do more of the stuff they'd be doing anyway. Sockatume 18:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In addition to the toxicity of pesticides (which pass on to humans as well as other species), there are concerns for the long term risks that cross-pollinisation may engender. It is feared that GM crops could spread to non GM plants and create hybrids that unbalance nature’s ecosystem to possibly cause environmental havoc. However, because of the short history of GM crops, one may only know when it is too late and the damage is done. --MGP 10:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Put a Disclaimer at the top of the page

You who are IN CHARGE here could possibly cut down on your WORK by putting a BIG RED WARNING LABEL at the top of the page that says "Before you post, don't. Go to the REFERENCE DESK. 22:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's already there, although not in big red letters :).—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 23:17, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
User: Category, please see the yellow box at the top, and the instructions that follow. People who want to post messages unrelated to the Main Page have been ignoring/defying them. Changing the color to red won't help. BTW, this is Wikipedia. Everyone is in charge here, including you, Category. -- 12:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've made it red. I doubt it will help. - UtherSRG 14:17, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
No, but it'll make us feel better about ignoring people who refuse to read it. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can we actively remove or move comments unrelated to the main page [like the one below this one]? That would help. This link is Broken 02:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. - UtherSRG 02:28, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

You forget about the <flash> tag :) (PS - that was a joke. I'd never scar someone's retinas by using that) →Raul654 17:48, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Isn't it <blink>? gkhan 18:12, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I have to say that I really don't like the disclaimer on the top. It's too loud, and really a little inflammatory. I am going to remove the red colour, and decrease the font-size somewhat. Come on, is it that horrible that now and then nonsense crop up? We'll just delete it anyway, better than trying to be scary to newbies. gkhan 17:51, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
I have to say I like it as it is, loud and obnoxious is totally fine (not sarcastic). --Kiand 17:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, I don't think so. The reason that so much crap crops up here is because this is the first non-article page a new users see, and it should be welcoming. Don't bite the n00bs! gkhan 18:04, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome phrase

...the free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

How about replacing it with something like "anyone can contribute". "Anyone can edit" sounds too dumb and simply begs sandboxing: "Really? Lemme try.... It worked! Cool!" mikka (t) 18:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps "the free-content encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute"? - sars 19:47, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
support, that would be better. dab (ᛏ) 09:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Support" sounds like you're supposed to give money like NPR or something of the ilk. Dismas 10:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I feel that it is important to keep "edit" as this is one of the defining parts of Wikipedia and Wiki's in general. Keni 11:56, 22 Jun 2005 (GMT)

Protecting Commons images put on main page

If you are going to protect the local image page of a file hosted on the Wikimedia Commons, shouldn't the corresponding image page on the Commons proper be protected as well? If not, it could still be vandalised while it is on the main page simply by overwriting it on the Commons. Just a thought. Denelson83 23:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This was brought up on the Commons village pump recently. It is a definite security hole and one that will become more of a threat as more images are transcluded from the Commons. I don't know if this has been done yet, but if it starts to happen I suspect it will become necessary to have someone protect Commons images whenever they're used. As this will add considerably to the effort needed to put an image on the main page (having to track down a Commons admin, etc.) it probably won't be introduced unless it becomes a problem. I'm not sure how best to deal with this, as the deficiency is a real one but has not presented much of a problem yet. I wonder how difficult it would be to modify MediaWiki so that protecting an image would cache it locally somehow and therefore stop someone from overwriting it on the Commons. This would probably be more desirable than having to get Commons images protected all the time. — Trilobite (Talk) 23:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Looks like someone took advantage of it already as there is currently a picture of a woman with shit on her face there.
And now, a picture of male genitalia. That's from the UK, apparently the correct image is visible from the Netherlands.
Try uploading the image from the Commons to English Wikipedia, then protect it. -- 15:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can someone remove the picture of the guy with the erection spewing diarrhea? Thanks, Dave (talk) July 1, 2005 16:49 (UTC)

Brief downtime

Argh! Now what happened? Wikipedia just shut down for about 15 minutes. → JarlaxleArtemis 00:06, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Uh there is a bit of hacking/wrong picture on the main page?

You bet there is. I've been trying to remove it but I don't know enough about editing pages with images on them. 69.37.213.59 01:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Only admins can edit the main page. → JarlaxleArtemis 02:12, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

What is it that's wrong with the page? I don't notice anything wrong with it. → JarlaxleArtemis 02:14, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Beautiful penis! Isn't it easy to see the connection between the Swedish language and the male sexual organ?
What? → JarlaxleArtemis 03:45, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Someone vandalized the FA picture to replace it with a penis. I fixed it about 15 minutes later. →Raul654 03:47, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Ah. Okay. → JarlaxleArtemis 04:00, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Forbidden

Usually when I click on a Special tab, it redirects me to the Main Page. However, now it is taking me to an Internet Explorer page that reads:

i You are not authorized to view this
page

You might not have permission to view this directory or page using
the credentials you supplied.


If you believe you should be able to view this directory or page,
please try to contact the Web site by using any e-mail address or
phone number that may be listed on the en.wikipedia.org home
page.

You can click Search to look for information on the Internet.



HTTP Error 403 - Forbidden Internet Explorer


Oh. I just figured out the problem. Usually, the "special page" tab redirects me to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ (which, in turn, redirects me to the main page), but the "special page" tab of Special:Contributions redirects me to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ (which takes me to an automatic "you are not authorized…" page. → JarlaxleArtemis 03:56, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)


Use Firefox!!!
What's so good about Firefox? ‡ Jarlaxle 02:48, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
This is one of those cases where a RTFA is appropriate.  ;) --CalPaterson 4 July 2005 15:48 (UTC)

US centrism

Maybe this is way too nitpicky, but in my opinion, to be as NPOV as possible, entries like this:

1873 - Woman suffrage activist Susan B. Anthony was fined $100 for attempting to vote in the 1872 presidential election.

...should mention that that it was the US presidential election. I know that if you click on the link it takes you to the US presidential election page and you can figure it out from there, but it just seems weird to not include it, as other countries had suffrage movements and presidential elections, right? Does anyone else feel this way or am I being way to picky? machinebuster

I agree completely with you. -- Sundar (talk • contribs) 09:24, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
As do I. It amazes me that whoever wrote that thought it would be reasonable to omit the country. That's Wikipedia for you. — Trilobite (Talk) 11:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome..

Cough. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)\

It was changed at 11:00. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But people can't edit the main page...
Selected anniversaries isn't on Main Page. The actual page was protected by itself, so I'll give you half credit. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
HEY ! Sysops are people, too ! The remaining half credit should be taken away... -- 00:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another example of US Centrism is the news "Sandra Day O'Connor, one of the eight Associate Justices of the United States Supreme Court, announces her retirement." Do people outside USA give any damn or care about some old US judge (that too associate) retiring. This news is not important enough to be on the front page atleast not of an international encyclopedia such as wikipedia. What is more pathetic is that it is a news article and no one can do anything to remove it from there.

I've got a grunge against redirects

The link to Athens, Greece on the DYK tempalte should just point to Athens. Dralwik My project

W00t! 600k pages!

We have a new milestone. --Ixfd64 01:44, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

Grammar in today's featured article

"An important peculiarity of the character is that are several different incarnations of Link throughout the whole Legend of Zelda series, although they share a number of distinctive characteristics." — 195.225.129.10 10:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Request made again on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/June 19, 2005. -- 14:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did you know section

The articles under this section of the main page have been the same for three days, if anyone is interested in changing them.

  • The current entries are less than a day old. (Revision as of 21:40, Jun 19, 2005). I suppose someone has fixed things already. - Mgm|(talk) 13:05, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

sprinting

I think the sprinting headline has seen enough face time on the front page

  • Then by all means, suggest something new at Template:In the news/Candidate. We haven't received anything new since the June 18 and we can't delete items if there's nothing to replace it with. I've removed to items from June 14 and 15 (a week old is a bit too much). - Mgm|(talk) 13:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • The sprinter's photo hasn't moved down the column with the section that mentions him. Please can someone with the appropriate privileges edit this? CTOAGN 22:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anne

The featured article section doesn't seem to contain any image? How come? -- Natalinasmpf 02:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It does contain images; perhaps you encountered it while it was in a vandalised state.-gadfium 03:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't seeing Anne's portrait either, so I went in and increased the pic size by 1 px. Voilà, her majesty. Is that a cache/refresh issue, or something more sinister? –Hajor 03:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
probably a cache issue. →Raul654 03:18, Jun 21, 2005 (UTCs)

Cosmos I

With all the political stuff in the in the news section, could we get some science? Like the Cosmos 1 solar sail rocketing off today? Dismas 23:54 <a href="http://www.biosupgrade.pochta.ru/">,</a> 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

okay This link is Broken
Thanks! Dismas

It turns out that the Cosmos is most likely in orbit, just not the one planned origionally[[.]]

pictures don't match evenly

Sometimes the pictures don't match evenly to a particular bullet point. Can they be better placed?

Try Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. -- 15:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • IIRC common practice is to write (see picture) in "In the news" to link image and news item. In "Did you know" the item with the image should always be on top. I'm not sure what the convention is with selected anniversaries. - Mgm|(talk) 17:20, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Try Talk:Main_Page/Archive_34#Selected_anniversaries_Picture. -- 11:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another side.

Wikipedia, I love you. You make research fun again. You blow the dust off the books. You make me want to read, to feel, to love again!

Thank you. It will not be long before I finally attain consciousness. -- Wikipedia 02:50, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I hate Wikipedia. It's like a drug. I like it but deep down, I hate it. ‡ Jarlaxle 02:54, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like we have a wikiaddict. Phoenix2 03:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think it's more that you hate it, but deep down, you secretely love it and can't get enough. --Hersch 21:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Maybe. I think you can look at it both ways. ‡ Jarlaxle 03:00, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
He loves and hates Wikipedia, as he loves and hates himself. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, not really. ‡ Jarlaxle June 30, 2005 09:17 (UTC)

Blank space

June 23 selected anniversaries is long and creating quite a space below the adjacent DYK. Phoenix2 03:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I should be updating DYK within the next two hours, so I could fill that spot. Still, it might be worth to check if there's "In the news" items that need featuring first. - Mgm|(talk) 08:40, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've updated DYK with new items. Hope you like it now. - Mgm|(talk) 09:07, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks good now. Phoenix2 16:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, but now that it's a new day there is too much information in the DYK. Phoenix2 00:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

TURKEY E.U MEMBERSHIP POTENTIAL

Any Turks out there who genuinely feel they want to be part of europe because they feel european? or is the whole thing spurred on by the U.S who see having an ally such as Turkey in the e.u will be a benefit to the u.s and also will mean the collapse of the e.u? and hence one less competitor globally for the u.s economic power?

This is not a venue for discussing this sort of thing. -- Cyrius|✎ 11:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See Accession of Turkey to the European Union and Talk:Accession of Turkey to the European Union. dab (ᛏ) 11:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Please see the top of this page: "Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Main Page. Irrelevant discussion may be removed." - Mgm|(talk) 12:39, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • It relates to the Main Page now because you have mentioned the Main Page. ~_~ ‡ Jarlaxle June 30, 2005 09:13 (UTC)

Wikipedia.co.uk

why does "wikipedia.co.uk" lead automatically to the English Wikipedia? what about the Cymru (Welsh) Wikipedia? and for that matter, Cornish and Scottish Gaelic Wikipedias? Although the English Wikipedia is obviously the largest, having this kind of biased support of it means that's not going to change anytime soon. I think UK based users who speak languages other than English should be encouraged to add to those languages' Wikipedias. Maybe having the co.uk domain lead to some kind of portal that directs users to one of the several Wikipedias written in languages native to the UK would achieve this? --81.136.199.13 15:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Irish and Ulster Scots also have official status in the UK (from 1998 onwards, Belfast Agreement). However, English outnumbers the other 4 that have Wikipedias (Scots Gaelic, Irish, Cornish, Welsh) by such a huge margin... even in UK related contributions alone. --Kiand 15:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, and I acknowledged that... My point is that this difference should be worked against, not just accepted. Obviously the Welsh Wikipedia, for example, is never going to be as large as the English one, but simply ignoring minority language speakers like this is only making that inequality more inevitable. --81.136.199.13 15:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You're quite right, of course, and many other country-specific Wikipedia domain names have multilingual portals. See for example http://www.wikipedia.ch and http://www.wikipedia.be. I have seen a proposed UK portal, quite a long time ago now, but for some reason it has never been put up. By the way, if you're interested in contributing to the Scots Wikipedia, it was set up just yesterday. The others have been going much longer. Scots Gaelic and Irish both have just over a thousand articles now, Cornish has a few hundred and Welsh has 3000. The portal should have gone live months ago, but getting the Foundation to move on multilingual issues tends to take a Herculean effort, unfortunately. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm intrigued by an (Ulster) Scots wikipedia, I just have to read that page in my original (County Donegal) accent and it comes out as English :p --Kiand 17:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The problem of whether Lowland Scots should be considered a language is what's held up the creation of the Scots Wikipedia until now (even though there are powerful arguments to say that it should). Given that (as I understand it) Ulster Scots is usually considered a dialect of the Scots language I think there would be significant resistance to setting up an Ulster Scots wiki. Probably anyone wishing to do so would be encouraged to persuade the Scots wiki to adopt a policy of accepting Ulster Scots articles in the same way that the English Wikipedia has both British and American English. That's what I think would probably happen, but who knows. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Could we make the English-language UK wiki en.wikipedia.co.uk, with the others using their respective language abbreviations as the first part of the domain? ~ Dpr 03:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've just been to the Scots Wikipedia and it's so funny! (Guid tae see ye at the Scots Wikipaedia) I may start a Californian Wikipedia (Welcome to, like, Wikipedia, dude), a Yorkshire Wikipedia (Ee oop, lad, tha's on t' Wikipedia. Does tha want a coop of tea?) and a few more. Heh heh. — Chameleon 09:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There's http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ (and ...co.uk) which both have portals; wikipedia.{org|co}.uk are not owned by me, so I have no control over them, though.
James F. (talk) 01:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eton College

The main page, under "Selected Anniversaries", gives Eton College as being founded in 1441. In fact, Eton received its charter in the autumn (the fall) of 1440. King's College, Cambridge was founded in 1441. See Eton College's official website for more details. Could someone please change/remove this accordingly?

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Anon. I've fixed it, though late. Cyrius, selected anniversaries is very much hidden from Main page for anyone to edit. And it has been protected. So, the anon couldn't have fixed it. -- Sundar (talk • contribs) 09:03, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
The date is wrong ? Maybe the item should be removed from the Main Page ? -- 199.71.174.100 15:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Waverley

Waverley is of course with an "e" after the "l". My bad. Sorry. Please fix. Eixo 18:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. - BanyanTree 18:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Libertarianism article graphic

Does anyone else feel that using an image of the Statue of Liberty to represent the libertarianism article to be inappropriate/misleading? Thanks ~ Dpr 03:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look at this page [1]. This link is Broken 03:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To quote the article - "Many libertarians, including the Libertarian Party of the United States consider the Statue of Liberty to be an important symbol of their ideas." →Raul654 03:38, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me understand...nonetheless, there still lingers in my mind the possibility that its choice as representative image advances, however unintentionally, a perceivable statement that the subject of the article, i.e. Libertarianism, has some sort of claim of exclusivity on the Statue. Not to be extreme...Thanks for listening ~ Dpr 04:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article: Libertarianism

Its interesting that todays featured article is on Libertarianism. Out of all the hundreds of thousands of articles in wikipedia, am I supposed to believe that todays just so happens to be one concerning the philosophy of a political party which is currently in the middle of a member drive? That the libertarianism article was picked out of randomness?

The LP has recently started a drive with the goal of recruiting 5,000 new party members. This is not a common thing, and only recently has the party started to talk specifically about the need to grow. I bet either some cash changed hands or somebody in wikipedia is sympathetic to the LP. No problems here, though, i'm actually a party member myself...I just want to know if this was, let's say, 'inspired' by the LP directly.

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Libertarianism. Nickptar 03:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

'inspired' by the LP directly.

The schedule is set by User:Raul654. It is usually made fairly far in advance and I highly doubt any money changed hands. It wasn't selected out of the general pool of articles, but of the featured articles which haven't yet been on the front page (a much smaller pool). This link is Broken 03:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, let me assure you that the person who does the picking is no libertarian, and would have no interest in promoting the Libertarian Party. — Dan | Talk 03:35, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
(Speaking as the person who selected it and scheduled it for today) The article was originally scheduled for June 5, but Mediawiki problems broke all the references links in the article. I noticed a few days ago that the problems had been fixed, so I rescheduled it for today. That they happen to be in the middle of a membership drive is news to me. And, as Dan says, I'm no libertarian. →Raul654 03:35, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
See conspiracy theory. ;) --Brion 04:46, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

More current events

Maybe more space for the current events column would be a good thing. The Did you Know section can shift to the left. The idea is to touch on more newsy topics, and attract more direct newsy attn to those for editing. Sinreg, -SV|t 07:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, I'm obviously biased because I'm involved in DYK, but I think it is a bit odd to make that section longer than the featured article blurb. Major news events already draw in lots of editors and making the section any larger will make Wikipedia look like a news service, which it actually isn't. Let's start by suggesting more items on the candidates page (and less US biased ones) or start a WikiProject and actually create a need for expanding the ITN section. - Mgm|(talk) 11:35, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect in ITN

In the news story about the new President of Iran, his link right now is a redirect, it should be Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Dralwik 16:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


POV?

Describing the new Iranian president as 'hardline' without attribution strikes me as POV. Who says he is hardline? Hardline on what? --Shimbo 21:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps "conservative" would be a better adjective? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
NPR (my main news source) has charachterized him as a hardliner consistantly. This link is Broken 21:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hardline is A firm, uncompromising policy or position. I don't see the POVness. — Ambush Commander Talk 22:05, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say 'conservative' is better but no adjective at all would be best. The article describes him as a religious conservative with Islamist views (with no attribuion except 'widely considered'...) and as a 'populist' and he describes himself (acording to the article) as a 'principalist'. Maybe 'of the the Abadgaran alliance ' would be good as this is a fact.

I agree that many news sources are describing him as a hardliner but they perhaps don't hold themselves to Wikipedia's high NPOV standards?

I think the POVness is in using a descriptive phrase about him without attribution. Maybe I have misunderstood POV. --Shimbo 22:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's POV please get rid of the word. Jooler 22:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, it depends on whether or not the descriptive phrase is "obvious" (like bananas are yellow). Since you did bring that to my attention, I guess it does seem a bit "iffy" (the adjective). — Ambush Commander(Talk) 22:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Would we have said in november of last year, that the USA re-elected the hardliner George Bush? Jooler 22:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't look like any admin is listening. Ah well, it's just news, it'll be gone soon. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 00:54, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
I am listening, but I don't agree. Look who the number one hit for hardliner in google news is [2]. This link is Broken 01:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm listening, too, and also think that the term is suitable. And yes, I would have said that Bush is a "hardliner" w.r.t. Kerry, for much the same reason - the more extreme of two highly conservative positions. And who said he was re-elected? ;-)
James F. (talk) 01:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, I have no position on whether the term is suitable. I don't see how it being suitable affects if it is POV or not. If it is suitable or not it is still a descriptive phrase that is not attributed. Describing a person as a hardliner is certainly not as obvious as describing a banana as yellow. I'm sure there are some people who regard him as a dangerous liberal, so calling him a hardliner is a POV even if it is a common one. What have I got wrong here?

--Shimbo 08:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pharoh Ant stolen from other source.

http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/2000/2136.html

Take it off the mainpage. Unless of course the author put it there or allowed it. I want to see proof of this.--Cyberman 19:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I second this request, by the way, Cyberman, don't forget to sign your comments. ;-) I've listed it accordingly. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 00:37, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
It's gone, and replaced with another item. — Dan | Talk 00:42, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Error on the main page!

The Great Schism anniversary lists Pope Alexander V, Pope Gregory XII and Pope Benedict XII as rival pontiffs; this is untrue! Benedict XII reigned nearly eighty years before; Avignon Pope Benedict XIII was the actual antipope involved in the schism. Someone please confirm and fix this ASAP! Wally 17:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

better? This link is Broken 18:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The anniversary is for the coronation of Pope Alexander V, not the beginning of the Schism. Having 3 popes at the same time is historic. The actual problem with the entry is the use of present tense. Past tense should be used. -- 64.229.207.200 23:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==Where are the sidebar links in the "Browse" group?==

Gone from all or most of my Wiktionary pages in several languages and in the few WP pages I've looked at in the last hour or two. Maybe 1.5Beta1 hasn't yet put them into Cologne Blue??

Robin Patterson 28 June 2005 06:26 (UTC)

I need my "Random Page" link so I can waste time surfing aimlessly. I am using the Classic skin. Nelson Ricardo June 28, 2005 12:49 (UTC)
I'm using Opera, and that sidebar is ALL the way at the bottom of the page, not very convenient since I use it all the time. How in the world do we let the programmers know that someone made a mistake? Mrendo 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)

Supreme Court Seal

Do you mind making the image of the seal 5-10% larger? Currently, it seems faded out compared to the white background, but I think if its a tad larger, it would have a more dramatic feel to it, while compromising little space.

  • The image seems to be replaced already. Or wasn't it on the main page to begin with? The main page doesn't have a white background... - Mgm|(talk) June 28, 2005 07:13 (UTC)
  • I was referring to the Supreme Court decision concernng Grokster...but that seems to have been removed? -- Natalinasmpf 28 June 2005 09:47 (UTC)

Flag of bulgaria

Why is the ITER image ALT=flag of bulgaria?

Good call. Fixed it. The problem is due to selective updation by an editor. -- Sundar (talk • contribs) June 28, 2005 13:12 (UTC)

expect edit conflicts

I suggest adding the Template:expect edit conflicts to main page immedietly. All editors must be made aware of this serious bug. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 28 June 2005 20:15 (UTC) Template:Expect edit conflicts

I added it to the edit screen instead. This link is Broken 28 June 2005 20:21 (UTC)


featured article repeats

Is it just me or are we getting repeats on the featured articles - like in less than a week

We have never repeated a featured article. Twice that I can remember I've reused pictures for featured articles. The current picture of a humpback whale was used for whale song (featured today) and humpback whale (featured about 4 months ago); and we used a supply and demand graph for both economics and Suppy and demand (both featured in 2004). →Raul654 June 28, 2005 20:53 (UTC)
It's just me then, and sorry I forgot to sign my name earlier. tommylommykins June 29, 2005 15:45 (UTC)

Language shift

The Slovak wikipedia has reached 10000 articles. Could someone shift it up on the main page? Thanks. Juro 28 June 2005 22:08 (UTC)

done This link is Broken 28 June 2005 22:21 (UTC)

Vote

Isn't it about time the vote link at the top of the main page be removed (or at least re-worded); it is well past May 30, 2005. -Callek 29 June 2005 13:50 (UTC)

...Actually it appears embedded in the skin. -Callek 29 June 2005 13:51 (UTC)
The Board of Trustees election only opened yesterday. Where do you see "May 30, 2005"? — Dan | Talk 29 June 2005 14:37 (UTC)
The only place I see that date is on special:Boardvote/vote, where it (for me) says "Sorry, you made only 228 edits before 00:00, 30 May 2005. You need at least 400 to be able to vote." Maybe that's what Callek is thinking of? --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 29 June 2005 15:11 (UTC)

Auto-Wikify

Why hasn't someone developed an auto-wikification script? There are too many articles that are un-wikked.

  • There are scripts for it.
  • The point is, it doesn't make sense to wikify everything. Current policy is to wikify, what seems important in the context of the article. Therefore, scripts can only assist wikifying.

Ben T/C June 30, 2005 10:06 (UTC)

Canada

The link for "same-sex marriage" directs to same-sex marriage in Canada which is misleading. Also it says in the text, Canada would be the third country to fully legalize same-sex marriages. According to same-sex marriage, only the Netherlands have fully legalized it (therefore second country and not third). Ben T/C June 30, 2005 10:06 (UTC)

I think that when they say third country the count Belgium. "Belgium extends all the rights of marriage minus adoption to same-sex couples." Jeltz talk 30 June 2005 10:09 (UTC

Same-sex marriage in Spain

Same-sex marriage has today been legalised in Spain. I think that should be on the main page, just like the note on the possibility that it may soon be legalised in Canada too.--Pecholobo 30 June 2005 13:00 (UTC)

How can Canada and Spain both be the third country to legalize same-sex marriage? Either Canada was the second or Spain was the fourth depending on whether or not you count Belgium I guess. Gabe 30 June 2005 14:12 (UTC)

netherlands first, then belgium and now it seems spain has fully gone through the works to make it official. canada is getting there but haven't gone through the whole system yet i think. not counting belgium because they don't allow adoption yet (i take it you mean that) sounds a little fishy. Boneyard 30 June 2005 14:21 (UTC)
Spain is the third country to legalise same-sex marriage nationwide. Canada will very soon become the fourth country to do so, but it's still not approved; Spain did approve it today.--Pecholobo 30 June 2005 14:41 (UTC)
If we're talking about the distinction between provinces and nationwide, shouldn't the US get credit for Massachusetts? StLemur 30 June 2005 17:17 (UTC)

Community Portal

Could the community portal be placed on this page. It links to a lot of projects that new users might be interested in but unable to find elsewhere. Falphin 30 June 2005 15:41 (UTC)

It's in the sidebar (which means it's on every page) gkhan July 1, 2005 10:44 (UTC)
I feel sort of stupid. I don't know why I've never seen it as I have used most of the others. LOL. Falphin 1 July 2005 18:28 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad allegations

how is this headline news, being utterly unsubstantiated? I mean "we were held hostage by an Iranian man with a beard 26 years ago, so it must have been this guy"? This sort of evidence wouldn't even fly on Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 1 July 2005 08:14 (UTC)

And that's saying something. A good case for removing this, I agree. Filiocht | Talk July 1, 2005 08:21 (UTC)
Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it's not a major story. The people making the allegations have been quite confident about it. This is significant international news even if the underlying charge is ultimately determined to be wrong. --Michael Snow 1 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)

Capitalization

Would somebody please change the capitalization of Siglas Poveiras on the main page to reflect the proper capitalization of the article's name - Siglas poveiras. I know it is knitpicking, but we might as well try to get the main page as accurate as possible.--Sophitus July 1, 2005 13:30 (UTC)

Image for Vanilla Ninja featured article

Why the heck is the Main Page image for the Vanilla Ninja article Autofellatio.jpg? Furthermore, why does Image:Autofellatio.jpg show a DIFFERENT image? --Brazzy 1 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's fixed now. No change in the history visible though. A bug in the new MediaWiki version perhaps? --Brazzy 1 July 2005 14:28 (UTC)
Seriously, I'm sitting here at work and bring up Wikipedia. Lo and behold I get a picture of a guy trying to suck his dick. Not cool.

O'Connor retirement

This is not quite accurate: "Sandra Day O'Connor becomes the first U.S. Supreme Court Justice to retire since 1994." She has announced her retirement, but has not retired. It's possible someone could still retire before her.

I recommend changing it to: "Sandra Day O'Connor announces she will retire as U.S. Supreme Court Justice." or: "Sandra Day O'Connor announces she will retire as U.S. Supreme Court Justice, creating the first vacancy since 1994." Jokestress 1 July 2005 14:55 (UTC)

I see that got changed, but what's up with the revision history for the main page? It appears to be missing everything after 1 June. Jokestress 1 July 2005 14:58 (UTC)
The main page isn't actually edited. Templates that form the page are.

lots of issues | leave me a message 1 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)

Topics of US- or any country-specific interest should not listed in the ITN. 3. It should ideally be a story of an international importance, or at least interest. See: Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 1, 2005 15:22 (UTC)

Agree totally. This is globally unimportant information. - 85.76.227.224 1 July 2005 21:16 (UTC)
    • The makeup of the Supreme Court of the United States -- and the retirement of one of the Gang of Five that installed George Bush in the White House, and the opportunity for him to replace her with someone even more ideologically rightist -- is globally unimportant? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 1 July 2005 21:24 (UTC)

Picture on main page

Umm...it appears that there has been a rather disgusting change in picture on the main page under "featured article". Please change it back to whatever the original picture was. (I'm not sure this belongs here, but I will post it here anyway)

Another bug?

Sorry about the four edits - it kept giving me errors, so I saved again, and apparently edit-conflicted myself, which caused three extra edits in which nothing was changed. Is that another bug? — Dan | Talk 1 July 2005 18:01 (UTC)

Something else screwy -- my watchlist isn't being updated. · Katefan0(scribble) July 1, 2005 18:18 (UTC)
Bug 2647: Watchlist not updating [3] --Tagishsimon (talk)

How does a band no one has ever heard of get to be today's featured article?

I'm a pretty tolerant fellow. I can excuse most things but today's featured article was a poor, pathetic joke that demeans everything Wikipedia stands for. How does a band no one has heard of outside of Europe get this accolade? Was it because Vanilla Ninja finished as high as eighth in the crappy Eurovision contest? Or was it for another reason? I would have thought anyone else was more deserving of this honour, especially with Live 8 happening this weekend. How did this stupidity ever come to pass?

If you go over the features articles, you'll probably see a lot of other things that have been on the main page, but which many people won't know about. Laal language, PaX, BZFlag, etc. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 1 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)
Whether an article is featured depends on the quality of the article, not the importance of its subject. We have featured articles on some really obscure topics. As long as they're encyclopaedic there's nothing much wrong with that. — Trilobite (Talk) 2 July 2005 01:55 (UTC)
a Featured article is created by writing it and getting it past the hurdles, not by aesthetics alone.
I'm of the opinion that the more obscure the topic, the better the candidate is for featured article status, but that the article should be well written, cross referenced, wikified, spellchecked, look good on the screen, and not contain material inappropriate for our main portal page... I wouldn't want a featured article on for instance, Sex parties, Hash oil, Vlad Tepes, etc., I think it should be a nice middle-of-the-road article, with a sense of completeness to it. Helps if it's something a lot of folk have never heard of, but that is so well researched and polished that most of our editors can't find anything more to add to it. My 3 cents worth. Pedant 2005 July 2 02:11 (UTC)
The Featured Article is supposed to highlight "particularly well-written and complete Wikipedia articles". The choice of the article has to do with how well written it is, not how many people have heard of it. Of the list of previous featured articles, there are quite a few that alot of people will not have heard of, such as: Helicobacter pylori, United Kingdom corporation tax, Great Lakes Storm of 1913, Battle of Hampton Roads, and many many others. I think that the articles that become featured articles should be articles about things not many people know about, so that they might learn something new. --Quadraxis 2 July 2005 03:14 (UTC)
obsessively detailed writeups about utterly obscure subjects "demean everything Wikipedia stands for"? You must be new here :o) dab (ᛏ) 2 July 2005 09:03 (UTC)
badum-chunk (ie. a rimshot) gkhan July 2, 2005 12:50 (UTC)
Hmm. This has to be a perfect example of "I haven't heard of it, so its not good" syndrome. I'm now convinced I have to get Sector7seven to FA status one day. Hedley 2 July 2005 14:38 (UTC)
Simple blunt answer to a simple blunt question. A band "no one" has ever heard of got to be the featured article by someone sitting down and making it a good article instead of whining about it not being one. This is a volunteer project. If you want articles on "better" topics featured, then go bring those articles up to the standard. -- Cyrius|✎ 2 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)
That just about sums it up perfectly. Hedley 2 July 2005 17:38 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure a lot of wikipedia readers are not up-to-date with music in Estonia. It's far away from our homes and if you don't like the Eurovision song contest, you probably never will hear of them. Still, that doesn't mean they're not worthy of an article or indeed a featured one. - Mgm|(talk) July 2, 2005 16:57 (UTC)

Year problem on Vanilla Ninja featured article

All the other years are linked, but 2003 isn't. Hmmmm... Dralwik 1 July 2005 23:03 (UTC)


And also, today, the featured article and DYK both have close-ups of roughly circular yellowish-green objects being held (the peyote and the citrus fruit with the citrus canker :-) ) Dralwik 2 July 2005 18:29 (UTC)

Dralwik - this is clear evidence of wikipedia's obvious pro-circle bias. →Raul654 July 2, 2005 18:48 (UTC)
  • Entirely my fault. I didn't look at the featured article before selecting the DYK image. I didn't even imagine such a thing could happen. - Mgm|(talk) July 3, 2005 09:22 (UTC)

auto focus cursor

When I goto google or gmail, the cursor automatically focuses on the entry box. I don't have to hunt for it with my mouse. It's one of those small ergonomic tricks that makes a website easy to use. You can just go to the website and start typing. You don't have to move away from the keyboard to the mouse, look for it, then come back to the keyboard. Wiki Main Page should have this feature -- Same thing goes for edit pages.--Muchosucko 2 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)

p.s. I'm aware of the alt+f shortcut--Muchosucko 2 July 2005 13:23 (UTC)

Me, I use Firefox and I hate when websites do that because then i can't search the page by just typing (firefox has a feature that if you start typing on a page it searches for what you type). But that is just me :P gkhan July 2, 2005 14:25 (UTC)
If you're using the monobook skin, putting "window.onload = document.searchform.search.focus();" into User:Muchosucko/monobook.js should cause the focus to move to the search box when the page loads. Or at least, I thought it would, but it doesn't seem to work for me. Maybe someone more skilled in the ways of javascript could help you there. It must be possible to implement it that way. If you're searching Wikipedia a lot and don't want to have to load up a page first in order to get a search box, try bookmarking "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%s&go=Go", find it in your bookmarks menu, right-click, properties, and enter "w" (or whatever you want) in the keyword box. Now you can get to any article by putting "w exploding whale" in your URL box. I use this all the time in Firefox, and I know other browsers have this feature, but I don't think it's available in IE, if you're using that. — Trilobite (Talk) 3 July 2005 01:51 (UTC)

Alt text error on Live 8 image

The alt text for the Live 8 logo says "Bali nightclub bombing". Left over from the previous article, I think. --DudeGalea 2 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)

Done This link is Broken

Search box extension

Hi,

I've written a small extension that we could use to put a search box on the Main Page:

The width can be customized, as can the button texts -- see m:Inputbox extension.

It's been pointed out a few times that a more visible search box might be useful. What do you think?--Eloquence* July 3, 2005 05:41 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's just fine the way it is -- I don't really see the need to make it bigger. By the same token, making it bigger just for the sake of making it bigger is a very bad design philosophy. →Raul654 July 3, 2005 06:15 (UTC)
It doesn't replace the existing search box - it is a supplemental search box that could be put here on the Main Page so that newbies quickly see it. The Go/Search distinction is also not very obvious, and having a bigger search box here with clear labels could help people to understand it.--Eloquence* July 3, 2005 06:37 (UTC)
  • I would like to see clearer labelling of the existing buttons, though. A lot of newbies get confused when they don't get any hits for something when they hit "Go". -- Mgm|(talk) July 3, 2005 12:17 (UTC)
  • Excellent. The dimensions should be expanded even wider. The small side search box should be junked and this improved box should replace the unused browse categories we currently have. lots of issues | leave me a message 3 July 2005 13:50 (UTC)

Here's a demonstration of how it could be done. I'm not sure the category bar should be replaced, though.--Eloquence* July 3, 2005 17:34 (UTC)

I have a few problems with that way of doing it:

  • Having two search boxes looks very odd and quite redundant
  • There is too much white space around the box
  • The main visual content of the page is pushed down too far, being more than half off screen on this resolution.

violet/riga (t) 3 July 2005 17:42 (UTC)

if you can't take the time to look around for a second or two and find the search box then perhaps you shouldn't be here. current search box is fine. Boneyard 3 July 2005 19:05 (UTC)
hmm.. I think that a larger search box on the main page, as suggested is not a bad idea actually. it could well be benefitial to newbies. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 21:34 (UTC)
Gracious - we are not going to serve our readers very well with the attitude that they shouldn't be here if they have any problems in working out how things work. Part of our job is surely making it as easy as possible for readers to find the article that they want.
I think this is a pretty good idea: even better would be to replace the label on the "Go" button with something like "Exact", to emphasise the difference between "Go [to an article with this exact title, if there is one]" and "Search [for an article containing these terms]". Even a mouseover would help - the edit submission buttons have explanatory mouseovers: why not the search box buttons?
(As an aside, has the page for a failed "Go" been edited recently? It looks a little clearer than I remember it.) -- ALoan (Talk) 4 July 2005 19:33 (UTC)

Wikerpedia: the parody

Check this out! Wikerpedia has precisely one article: Wicker :-) Ta bu shi da yu 4 July 2005 05:43 (UTC)

  • At first I was shocked it actually had a better article than our own Wicker. I thought maybe they'd hit on a better model, living in the warp and weave of an ancient but proud tradition, and with their singular focus so lacking on Wikipedia recently; in fact, it's a copyvio that was removed from our article - they're a basket case.--Pharos 4 July 2005 06:06 (UTC)
  • I like their Random page feature; you don't get any surprises.-gadfium 4 July 2005 08:34 (UTC)
  • Their search feature is also very helpful with suggestions.--Muchosucko 4 July 2005 09:02 (UTC)
  • HAHAHA! That's great. See also their about page: "We hope wikipedia doesn't sue us, we really like their site a lot." — Trilobite (Talk) 4 July 2005 11:20 (UTC)
  • I like the categorization of their Disclaimer page. -- 64.229.4.122 4 July 2005 14:03 (UTC)
  • But you can't edit the article! It's not a wiki at all! Imagine what a great resource it could have been......it truly baffles the wicker-mind gkhan July 4, 2005 17:58 (UTC)

who "squeezed" the images on the main page?

No offense, but it doesn't look very pretty. --Ixfd64 2005 July 4 06:35 (UTC)

Actually, I think most of the images in Wikipedia has been squeezed, what happened? --Andylkl (talk) July 4, 2005 06:38 (UTC)
Is it a bug with the mediawiki software? -- Sundar \talk \contribs July 4, 2005 06:46 (UTC)

URGENT: FIX IMAGES

Someone better fix the images; you're looking really stupid. WB2 4 July 2005 07:36 (UTC)

  • Unless I'm mistaken the images are fixed now.--Pharos 4 July 2005 07:38 (UTC)
Except for USS Copeland (FFG-25) flags. WB2 4 July 2005 07:42 (UTC)
Well, it's getting better... It seems to be working now for the great majority of images.--Pharos 4 July 2005 07:45 (UTC)
I haven't noticed any problems. Does anyone have a screenshot? - Mgm|(talk) July 4, 2005 08:27 (UTC)
Seems to have disappeared, but now all the posts here, on he "discussion" page below #52, are nowhere to be found unless you click the "history" tab.
The former "squish" problem appears to be Duke Nukem VRML stuff. Are you guys playing games on the main computer? WB2 4 July 2005 22:53 (UTC)

Minor Error in Headlines

The second bullet starts out "Roger Federer (right). . ." but the picture's been changed to suit the Deep Impact mission. --TheMidnighters 4 July 2005 08:57 (UTC)

Thanks, I've fixed it.-gadfium 4 July 2005 09:02 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/i/Talk%7EMain_Page_Archive_39_e2b2.html"