Talk:Main Page/Archive 59

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 59


Contents

1e6 pool

so who won the 1,000,000th article pool? dab (ᛏ) 07:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Anr did. Redquark 07:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Million pool; 52 days off, I come somewhere near 60th :( WP really did keep to its exponential growth for the second half million, didn't it :) dab (ᛏ) 12:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


Why don't we use the notation 1m205 for 1000205 ?

hay

Why would we? It's rather unclear, and it's not like the extra few bits are going to crash the server. GeeJo (t) (c) • 11:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Because it looks dumb? Golfcam 00:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Because it means "1 meter and 205 millimeters". The symbol for thousands is "k" (as in "km", kilometer, 1000 meters). Xibe 15:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Difusal Reflexion

Can anybody go to the article I made called DIFUSAL REFLEXION, and make a discussion about it 'cause I really wanna know what do you people think about it. Do I need to correct something?

Boris

I think you mean diffuse reflection. --Heron 10:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm not really from parts like America or Britain, but I still know english pretty well. I wasn't really sure how do I write that phrase... I thought it was Difusal Reflexion but, oh well... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boky (talk • contribs) 12:54, 2006 March 3 (UTC).

Indoor Games And Sports

Hi, user's of Wikipedia!

I would like you to go to INDOOR GAMES AND SPORTS article and make discussions about what you think about it.

~~Boris~~

Talk:Main Page is not the place for these notices. Please go to the Village Pump. -- PFHLai 13:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

How can I tell people that I created new article if Talk:Main Page is not the place for these notices. Do I need only to say I made new article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boky (talk • contribs).

If you want to make a list of articles you've created, use your own user page. If you want to see what articles have been created recently, see Special:Newpages.-gadfium 20:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

How do I make my OWN USER PAGE?

See your name at the top of the page when you're logged in ? Click it : this is your page. Use "Edit this page" to edit it. -- Xibe 15:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

DYK?

Small question, could someone put a (pictured) next to Italo Santelli in today's DYK just to clarify who that picture is of. :) Staxringold 13:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

DYK never uses "(pictured)". The image always goes with the first entry there. -- PFHLai 13:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

A different entry needs to be moved to the top. The picture of the California clapper rail isn't very good, and you can't tell what it is without clicking on it first. Dave 00:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

And it was old, too. This item has since left DYK. -- PFHLai 20:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)hello

Our featured article of the day has legal problems

Triumph of the Will has a gallery of fair use pictures. There was a notice at the bottom of the article before it was featured on the main page asking readers to view Image talk:1936NurembergRally.jpg and the article talk for a discussion of the various images' copyrights, which appeared to imply the article's images are PD -- a rather poor excuse for not just tagging them as such and uploading them to Commons, which is for galleries (Wikipedia is not for galleries of images). However, the article talk only stated:

Now from what I gathered from discussing both with Riefenstahl and with producer at Synapse Films (they released Triumph of the Will on DVD in the early 2000's) copyright status can and has been avoided in various "versions" of the film (on DVD or VHS or in screening rights). These are versions that may have been held, like the one in the Library of Congress that Synapse utilized as 'public domain' or may have been edited slightly to avoid (is that the right word ?) infringement on Transit (or Riefenstahl for that matter). I have no idea how accurate these claims are but it may help explain why you have so many differing opinions on this matter of who, if anyone, holds the film rights.

The image talk page however, had the input of someone from the German Wikipedia, who stated:

In deWP we tag PD only images older than 100 years. The reason is the fact that nearly all pictures are to be evaluated as photo work and so a protection of 70 years pma is given.

Template talk:PD-Germany, which was cited by the discussion as evidence that the image was PD, has a notice at the bottom stating that the template was TfDed due to terribly inappropriate wording, and this was only rectified by altering the template's text. Furthermore, Image:1936NurembergRally.jpg is not even used in Triumph of the Will. From this, I believe we should assume the images are not PD, as there are very stringent laws pertaining to public domain images, especially in Germany. (There was a discussion on IRC earlier about whether the images are PD -- a British statute was cited, which stated that all German works imported into Britain between 1939 and 1951 were in the public domain, but the film was first released in Germany in 1935. Furthermore, as Wikipedia is hosted in the United States and the Wikimedia Foundation is based in Florida, I believe only United States law applies to it.)

Surprisingly, this troubling issue of fair use/weak claims of public domain, was not addressed by the FAC which passed this article. When it was first suggested for the main page, I brought this issue up. The article was nevertheless slated for the main page. Indignant, I complained in more detail on the TFA talk, and on the article talk. Now today, lo and behold, the article is on the main page, with my complaint having been totally ignored! Since apparently people think this can be just brushed aside nonchalantly because, y'know, them Nazis ain't ever gonna' sue nobody for using their pictures, I've made this excruciatingly detailed and long comment, and I will cross-post it to wherever I feel relevant. See also Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#Images. Yes, I know, some will scream m:Avoid copyright paranoia. However, we have insisted on removing fair use images from people's talk pages, even though there is a zero chance of being sued for their use (really, will the US Democratic Party sue us for using their logo in a userbox?), so why should we brush this off when an article supposed to be our best work and appearing on our gateway to the world so blatantly violates the provisions of fair use and/or the definition of a public domain image? Johnleemk | Talk 15:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Like you said at the end. Hitler rises from his grave and sues us all. Ashibaka tock 15:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Uh...the copyright holder isn't Hitler. (Just in case anyone took that comment seriously.) Johnleemk | Talk 06:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you know--California Clapper Rail

As the article on the California clapper rail says, it's an endangered subspecies, not species. (Also, "chicken sized" should be "chicken-sized".) While I'm at it, the DYK on S. R. Rao should say that the city is "now" or "currently", not "presently", submerged, as for many of us, "presently" means "soon", not "now", but the other words are unambiguous. —JerryFriedman 17:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The word 'presently' was removed yesterday already. Thanks for pointing this out. -- PFHLai 21:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

DYK: Stars Fell on Alabama

Since "Stars Fell on Alabama" is a song, and not an album, it should be formatted with quotation marks rather than italics (per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music#Albums.2C_bands.2C_and_songs) I've just been noticing an increasing misuse of italics for songs seemingly everywhere on the site lately, I hate to encourage it. --Dhartung | Talk 19:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. DYK is taking the weekend off. I've revised the DYK template anyway, in case it doesn't get updated by midnight on Sunday. Thanks for pointing this out. -- PFHLai 21:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply

How do we reply to comments in this page without creating a new one?

Click the "edit" button to the right of the comment, and start your reply with a : to indent it. GeeJo (t) (c) • 22:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Or click on the 'edit this page' button at the very top of this page, then scroll and type in your reply where appropriate. -- PFHLai 22:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

In the News item isn't neutral

The phrase "enemy combatants" is pro-Bush as it is the term of choice of the Bushites, it implies guilt and it is is a propaganda perversion of the traditional usage of the term. It should read "prisoners". Scranchuse 00:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Is "bushites" a word? Richardkselby 00:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Why was the banner removed

It defintally should of stayed for a week, there is still hype, and I see that page everytime I log into wikipedia, and I go, yeah, I contributed to that! So put it up, until March 8, 2006. --HamedogTalk|@ 00:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Totally. --Banana04131 00:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't seem that anyone outside Wikipedia cares about this milestone. Search Google News for "Wikipedia" and you'll find almost nothing about it. If none or our readers (as opposed to Wikipedians) cares about it, it shouldn't be splashed all over the main page. Keep it to the Community Portal. Redquark 00:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the major media basically ignored it. Golfcam 00:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture update needed

A picture of South Africa is needed for the "In The News" section. I don't think South Africa's new ruling party is going to be running prison camps in Cuba, though you never know. ;) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the same odd thing. :-) The two news items have since swapped spots on ITN. Hope it's okay now. -- PFHLai 21:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

typo in featured picture caption

Cirrus clouds reads "formed at an altitudes".

Fixed. Thanks for spotting that. Canderson7 (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Own user page

(Moved to the talk page of the Wikipedian who asked the question.) -- PFHLai 21:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate featured article

Maybe an article about the band would be okay, but having a featured article about a song makes Wikipedia look like its just for kids. Golfcam 00:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured articles are chosen on the quality of their writing, not their topics. As long as the topic is suitable for Wikipedia (could survive AfD), it is eligible for featured status. Ideally, all articles would be featured. If there are other articles you'd prefer to see featured, please assist in improving them and then nominate them at WP:FAC. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Not all articles which get featured status should be eligible to be on the main page. One of the purposes of the main page should be to enhance Wikipedia's reputation, and this sort of thing damages it. There are at least a couple of hundred featured articles which haven't been on the main page yet, and almost all of them are about more reputable topics. If I worked for Britannica and I wanted to select a main page feature which would damage Wikipedia's reputation, I might well have chosen the one that is being used today. Golfcam 02:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not damaging--you're old--the planetary generational gap leaves you convinced that no one cares about this trivial subject. I know you are arguing that pop culture subjects are not part of the encyclopedic canon, making the site look unprofessional, but the real reason you protest is your lack of familiarity. Lotsofissues 02:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm seventeen, but I know what a lot of people think about Wikipedia and how that puts them off and makes them deliberately put other people off and how that damages it because it doesn't improve as fast as it should. And I know that an article about a single by some second or third tier Brit band isn't the same thing as an article about The Beatles. It's kind of like having a featured article about some boring small town instead of NYC. Ideally all articles would be of featured standard, but only those on major topics would hit the main page. Golfcam 13:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The Smiths is a "idiot freak band"? The fact that you think an article about a single is boring doesn't mean everybody else does. I don't. I found the article interesting. And the people who have replied to you here don't find it boring either, apparently, so your fear seems unfounded.--Wormsie 12:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The comment by Wormsie may have been responding to a vandalised version of Golfcam's comment. I've reverted the vandalism.-gadfium 07:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the problem at all. How does this damage our reputation? Should we automatically exclude certain categories of articles from our main page just because they seem childish? There are certain things which will not be featured any time in the near future (for instance, articles on vulgarities like fuck), but I don't think songs are among them. (Full disclosure: I've been responsible for getting several songs featured, including on the main page, and I'm technically still a minor, so maybe since Wikipedia isn't just for kids, my opinion is worthless.) Johnleemk | Talk 06:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't exclude subjects, we should exclude articles about trivial parts of them. So Nirvana or The Beatles or rock music would be okay topics for the main page article, but not singles with almost no exceptions. Today's article will be used against us by librarians and academics who spot it. I have personal experience of this with my school's librarian, when we had main page feature about some girlband from Estonia I think it was, that hadn't even had major international success. Golfcam 13:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
But singles are a category onto themselves. And I think any article selection for the front page would upset someone while greatly pleasing another. I still don't see the problem with this. As long as we're not putting any one category of article on the front page too often, it shouldn't matter. Johnleemk | Talk 14:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
So according to your line of argument, it's fine to feature Science, but Sodium Chloride should be kept well away from the main page? And dismissing The Smiths as a second or third rate band really does betray your ignorance of the subject.--Cherry blossom tree 17:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I said tier not rate, though looking at the article, with The Beatles and The Rolling Stones on the first tier of Brit bands, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd etc on the second and so on, fourth or fifth tier would be more accurate. But I wouldn't have objected if it had been the article about the band that had been on the main page. It was the article about one of their SINGLES that was on the main page, and that's fancruft. Sodium chloride would be fine on the main page, but an article about a really obscure chemical compound wouldn't. Golfcam 21:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
So going by your logic, Wikipedia should avoid advertising its great breadth as one of its advantages, since this great breadth is all crufty. Johnleemk | Talk 01:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
That's a perversion of my logic. It is garbage to say that Wikipedia's great breadth is all crufty or to imply that I have made any such suggestion. If you have chosen not to acknowledge that this is a trivial article, it is obviously a waste of time to make any further attempt to convince you. Golfcam 03:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not a perversion at all. I think it's wonderful that Wikipedia can not only have an article on items as trivial as pop singles or minor chemical compounds, but can rank such articles among its best. You obviously disagree, as you think we shouldn't be putting these articles on the main page. Where's the perversion? Johnleemk | Talk 03:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I was going to say something like what was said by John just now, about how great it is to see an "obscure" article can be good enough to be a Featured Article. People who see this will say to themselves "Man, if such a good article was written about this, then I can only imagine what the articles about major stuff are like!" EdGl 04:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
or perhaps they will say to themselves "Man, if such a good article was written about that rotten apple, then I can only imagine what the other rotten apples look like!" human nature is a many varied thing. There can only be 3650 featured articles in the 10 year life of this project, so choose carefully? Thats not enough to please everyone, so maybe stratafication is a good policy to apply. The real question is: are there sufficient articles of the standard required, 0.3% of current total. Personally I dont see any issues with the current system and no change required. Better to work hard toward creating the best article you can and nominating it, than look for what's wrong.moza 00:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Boston Massacre

It is worth noting the British troops were also pelted with rocks.

Well, details are in the article. The snowballs came before the rocks, right ? -- PFHLai 02:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

"escalated" into violence?

From anniversaries: " Boston Massacre: The pelting of snowballs at British soldiers during a military occupation soon escalated into violence in Boston." ... Um, hate to break it to y'all, but pelting a snowball at someone is violence. Minor violence? Sure. Possibly painless? Sure. But hurling objects at someone counts as violence. how about replacing "violence" with "blooshed"? 24.243.188.42 02:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thought about it, but 'bloodshed' seems too strong a word. -- PFHLai 02:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Blood ... was shed. That's bloodshed. People died. In any case, the pelting with snowballs, and apparently rocks, is indeed violence. Normally, I wouldn't make such a big deal of this, but given the ... left-leaning tendency of a lot of articles, we have to watch for when people try to insert subtle bias like "protests good, law enforcement bad". 24.243.188.42 03:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I gotta agree, between not mentioning the throwing of rocks (a much bigger deal than snowballs) and that, it makes it sound like the British started firing on the colonists just over a few snowballs - not quite how it happened. "Bloodshed" is much more accurate, and the rocks certainly were a significant enough part to be worth mentioning. -Elmer Clark 03:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay. It's now "escalated into a riot". Hope everyone is happy. -- PFHLai 03:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The snowballs were thown by Patriot boys, who would throw the snowballs, and then yell, "Lobsters!" Dragon Expert 20:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

minor fix

On the front page, UNCUT should be italicized since it's a magazine. Gflores Talk 06:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Italicised as suggested, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles). Thanks for pointing this out. -- PFHLai 06:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Too many donation links

Methinks it looks slightly obtrusive to have no fewer than three links for donations (one in the navigation sidebar, one immediately under the welcome text, and one in the top right corner which seems to be visible only to the not-logged-in users). Could we perhaps do with two? Kosebamse 07:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen the re-designed MainPage ? The link is only found on the sidebar. -- PFHLai 00:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
That's okay. I had no intention of donating regardless.

Forum

Is there a forum like page in Wikipedia where i can ask questions about editing,articles or general issues? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Archird (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia:Village pump. Johnleemk | Talk 08:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there going to be a celebration about the landmark no. of articles?

Is there?

There was a banner for a couple of days. It was taken down because the way the mainstream media ignored the event made it look too self-refertial. Nothing else is required really; there is still an immense amount of work to be done, because most of the articles are pretty poor. 62.31.55.223 23:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

ITN

the United States (pl.) release. 83.176.59.235 15:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The United States is generally treated as a single entity unless it's an action of each state within the union. Compare to sentences like "Twenty dollars is a lot of money." Dave 00:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe that up until the American Civil War emphasized that the country was one nation, indivisible, it was commonly treated as a plural: "The United States are..." - BanyanTree 19:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay Article

The news is that the names of these prisoners has been released. Is there any way we can link to those names from the main page or help people find it more easily on the GB page? I had to look for a while....

California Clapper Rail

  1. I've capitalised this in accordance with the long standing agreed convention on bird species.
  2. Why isn't it Californian?

jimfbleak 07:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for spoiling the Acadamy Awards for us Australians planing on watching it tonight

--Greasysteve13 08:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You really should have stayed away from all news sources. --Nelson Ricardo 11:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, pretty much.--Greasysteve13 11:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
you could migrate to NZ, yeah right..moza 11:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Now you can stay away from the TV and spend more time here at Wikipedia ! Isn't this great !?! :-) -- PFHLai 20:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It was your own fault. Besides, why are you only blaming wikipedia?? If you went to any website that had news, you would have been spoiled as well. dposse 20:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. But I didn't think Wikipedia cared that much.--Greasysteve13 02:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, even if you opened up Google or Yahoo, they'd have links at their main (news) page. --Madchester 22:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia contains spoilers. Evil Monkey - Hello 00:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Crash link

The Crash link is wrong in the ITN section. It should be [[Crash (2005 film)|Crash]] not [[Crash (2004 film)|Crash]]--HamedogTalk|@ 12:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No, (2004 film) seems to be correct from reading the artcile Crash. It premiered in 2004. How it can get an award now I don't know. Jeltz talk 13:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
From the article: "Although it premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2004, it did not qualify for the 77th Academy Awards, as it did not play at least one week in L.A. in 2004 as Academy Award rules require. It did not open in L.A. until the following spring, thus the film qualified for the 78th Oscars.". Evil Monkey - Hello 20:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. right?

  • Sorry, the page has been moved since my original posting. --HamedogTalk|@ 12:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"Indian" leads to disambig. page

In the "Did you know" section, the link for Indian in the Jatin Das note leads to a disambiguation page; and is thus ambiguous. It should point to [[India]]n --RealGrouchy 22:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks, fixed.--Pharos 22:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
good work pharos —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.152.197.33 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 2006 March 9 (UTC).

Dangers of Editing

I find this 'edit yourself' organisation dangerous. When you reserach information on Wikipedia, you can get anything, not necessarily the truth, because any random person can put what he wants! How do we know what is true and what is extremely true?

This is irrelavant to the Main Page, move your coments somewhere else. --Terence Ong 12:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It's all faith. ;D --204.38.169.4 13:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
To:Terence Ong. Yes, we still have to tell people every day that the system potentially has its problems but seems to produce good results. However, your attitude stinks. Obviously, this guy is new to the place. Why not be a little more courteous? "Move you coments[sic] somewhere else." is just plain rude. --JohnO 15:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Overview_FAQ. For more discussion see Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections or simply the article on Wikipedia. Unlike other sources, any random person can also correct a mistake... Zarniwoot 01:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

THE NEED FOR MORE PICTURES

Hey, guys, I've seen so many different articles without pictures when they are needed. For example, it's not hard to find a photo of a footballer/tennis player/any other person in Google Images, so why not have them on as much articles about people as possible? Same with everything else. It'll take you some 3 minutes, but will serve people for ages.

Of course, I'll do my part too! Lars 16:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of those pictures are copyrighted so they can't be used. Osomec 16:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes its hard to get enough freely licensed pictures of sports personalities not to mention other well known people. Notably User:Rdikeman has contributed quite a few, but we could do with many more. As it happens, there is an interesting picture of a professional golfer going through Featured Picture Candidates at the moment.
We almost certainly have more pictures available that we aren't currently using. No doubt if you worked through Commons:Category:People and its subcats like Commons:Category:Sportspeople you would find pictures that aren't illustrating the appropriate article on Wikipedia. -- Solipsist 17:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

1,010,010 aritcles

Just thought it was a nice looking number that wouldn't last on the main page for long! Robdurbar 16:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Still here half an hour later. Mark J 17:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It's just as well we're not counting in binary. -Splashtalk 01:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Meh it would be 11110110100101011010... not that much different

Chile Article -- Template needs fixing - anyone?

I know this isn't the place but I have no idea who designed these new infobox templates they break the second you update anything... Chile needs a quick fix. I myself generally keep away from doing anything with those templates. I'm not certain what someone was trying to update but it would be nice if there was a tutorial on those templates. CaribDigita 17:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Opps. Jamaica's needs updating as well The image part... Jamaica CaribDigita 23:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • CaribDigita, you'll get a much better response at the Village Pump. This talkpage here is intended for discussions related to MainPage contents only. -- PFHLai 19:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Add a Link to "About Wikipedia"

Wikipedia starts out great for users who only want to find information. When they naturally want to go beyond that and find out how to contribute to Wikipedia, there is no easy way of getting indoctrinated. The Community Portal is fairly indimidating, and seems oriented to those already initiated into the Wikipedian community.

The "About Wikipedia" page, however, is very useful as an introduction to everything Wikipedia, including how users can get the most out of the encylopedia contents, to how would-be contributors can contribute. Yet this Wikipedia jewel is hidden at the bottom of the page in very small print - hardly easy navigation.

My simple recommendation is for the Main Page to add a link to "About Wikipedia" to the Navigation box on the left of the page, immediately under "Main Page".

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About

TClose

Isn't it right up at the top as the 'Overview' link? There's also a brief introduction at the 'anyone can edit' link. That bunch of links up at the top containing Overview and Questions seems adequate to me. 81.157.152.22 17:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Varanasi Bombings

Possible update to In the News to add info about this? link

Certainly important enough and relevant enough to merit a mention. Kaushik twin

I have created an article 2006 Varanasi bombings. Please link to it. - Ganeshk (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Possible text for the In the News Section can be found here Portal:India
As I'm not able to edit the Main Page would someone else please do the same. Kaushik twin

Next time, please post suggestions for ITN at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Thanks. -- PFHLai 19:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. - Ganeshk (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

DYK Peter Joseph Lenné

..that Peter Joseph Lenné's gardening academy in Potsdam was the first school to teach garden architecture in a scientific manner?

How on earth do you teach garden architecture in a scientific manner? It's a misuse of the the term scientific and featured on the front page doesn't exactly do wikipedia any favours. --Denoir 22:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Good point. I've changed it to say "to formally teach garden architecture" - does that work? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Much better :) --Denoir 02:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Anniversaries

Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson's correct abbreviated title is Lord Nelson not Lord Horatio Nelson which would be the name of the hypothetical younger son of some imaginary Duke whose family name was Nelson. Dabbler 00:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed as suggested. Thank you for pointing this out. -- PFHLai 19:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Battle_of_Badr

I hope I am not the only person who sees the irony of the top feature article on the Battle_of_Badr featuring Muslum's conquest of a much larger Pegan army from Mecca, opposite the top news story, featuring religous violence in the holy city of Varanasi. Perhaps this is off-topic for the main page discussion, but I can't help expressing sadness at the sorry state of human affairs. Will we ever learn?

Discovery in a day

The anniversaries section today says that on this day some years ago, Kepler discovered the third law of planetary motion. Huh? You don't discover something like that until years, possibly decades of observing data or reading collected data. Is March 8 the day he settled on its final form? The day he first proposed it? Thought of it? The day it was published in a journal? They day it was submitted to a journal? No discovery of a scientific law happens all in one day. The article on Kepler doesn't specify which. Can we clarify this entry please? 24.243.188.42 02:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Google shows that the third law of planetary motion was published in 1619 in Harmonice Mundi. The Wiki article states that it took 2 decades to find the form of the 3 laws. This would make March 8 the anniversary of the day he settled on its final form -- by extensive number crunching (two decades worth). --Ancheta Wis 05:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Note: The Kepler article Revision as of 08:36, 9 March 2003 stated the initial March 8, 1618 discovery (and the confirmation on May 15, 1618). But it has apparently been dropped from the article. By the policy of Selected anniversaries we need to reinstate this fact into the article. --05:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. --Ancheta Wis 11:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yay!

Just to say, a fine featured article . Since people often write OMG Waht a stupid aticle!111!, I thought I'd commend the choosers, and the wikipedia in general, for such a dimensionally trancendental choice. 57.66.51.165 12:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. --MattShepherd 14:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Spanish wikipedi

The spanish Wikipedia just passed the 100k articles, you should move the link with the rest of the 100k+ wikis. IiiI, [[]] 15:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved up (not by me). BTW, Congrats ! :-) -- PFHLai 19:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks =)
What was the 100,000th article? --Grocer 21:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
From my limited Spanish, I'd say they settled on Slint. -- user:zanimum
Actually was Emperor Ingyo. --- Dralwik|Have a Chat My "Great Project"

Unlinking overlinked dates

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) advises against making stand-alone year numbers into links, i.e. 1999 is preferable to 1999. To quote: "years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so". I think that the year dates given in the "Selected anniversaries" section of the Main Page should follow the style guide, as these date links do not "clearly help the reader to understand the topic". They should be unlinked. This might also discourage the overlinking of dates in other articles.

I know it's only a style guide but I thought the point worth making. Sliggy 20:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say DYK is exempt from that, at least on the front page. The years might not be of great use right now, but as DYK is seen by many more people than an average article, and most people reading it actually are interested in "what happened in year XXXX", I think the links should stay.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, in an article, what other things happened in the same year elsewhere may be irrelevant. Over-linking is to be discouraged. However, I don't think that 'Manual of Style' applies to lists, such as those in the "Selected Anniversaries" section on MainPage. A reader browsing through a list of events is not following a story as one would be reading an article. --PFHLai 06:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I know that's what the style guide says and I agree with it, but there are so many people who link years that resistance seems futile. Carina22 19:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the Main Page ought to be an exception to this guideline, as it is the first thing new visitors will see, it may encourage them to explore the depths of Wikipedia more thoroughly, especially in a list like this. Dansiman 07:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you know...red rain in Kerala teaser

I don't think this belongs in the "Did you know..." section as these usually and should show facts and not "might have"s and maybes How are articles chosen for this section anyway? --Johnny 0 22:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that article is crap. Phr 01:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
You two may want to join the discussion in progress at Talk:Red rain in Kerala. --PFHLai 06:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


DYK: Tomitaro Makino

This is grammatically incorrect: ...that botanist Tomitaro Makino, despite dropping out of grammar school, named over 2500 plants and be called "Father of Japanese Botany"? I suggest changing "be called" to "has been called" or "is known as". Dforest 06:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed now. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Position of search

please can we have search higher up when using the Lynx browser. Apart from that, and the download speed, wikipedia rocks. -- Anon 20:30, 9 March 2006 (GMT)

Hi there, sadly Wikipedia has so many readers, searching the project is slow on any browser. Thanks for you comments, though. -- user:zanimum
Um, the speed of the resulting search has nothing to do with the question posed, which was can the search appear earlier in the source of the page. Which I believe would require some tinkering with the main mediawiki engine. CSS is used to reposition the search near the top of the viewpoer in graphical browsers, but for source-ordered keyboard navigation and text-only browsing,it remains near the end.

dramatic 08:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Water on Saturn

Wow! Liquid water on a planet far away from the sun! I wonder if life once exsisted on it? Dragon Expert 20:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That is a matter of much debate in the scientific community. You may find this interesting: Europa, a satellite of Jupiter that may harbor life. --- Dralwik|Have a Chat My "Great Project"
If life once existed on it then it surely still does - as it still has liquid water. See for example Lake Vostok. Thue | talk 07:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, no one is completely certain that Lake Vostok has life, either - but all three (Europa, Enceladus and Lake Vostok) are exciting possibilities. —Cuiviénen 17:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

So, what do you think of the Main Page election?

Is it being handled well?

Is anyone here not aware of the election?

Should there be an announcement of it at the top of the current Main Page to make sure that everyone gets a chance to vote and comment?

Just curious.

--15:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Go for it!, there's already an announcement on the 'Community bulletin board' at the Community Portal. This should be sufficient. -- PFHLai 16:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikkipedia Courses (?)

Someting that might greatly increase the utility of this site is to have soomebody(s) come in and organize the articles into self-taught courses on specific subjects.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.90.16.18 (talk • contribs) .

You might be pleasantly surprised after checking theWikiversity. They only recently started, so they don't have much to offer yet, but if you are truly interested you might consider lending them a hand.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 18:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Cryptology --> Cryptography

Someone might want to switch up the link for the FA of the day as it seems to be a redirect. JHMM13 (T | C) 23:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the link in the Marian Rejewski article? Best to just edit it. Phr 01:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Well I suppose this is now meaningless. But the link to Cryptology was a redirect to Cryptography. Just polishing the front page. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

recently featured articles

Yesterday's featured article was Marian Rejewski but the list of recently featured articles skips over it. Can someone fix that? I guess the list isn't automatically generated. Phr 00:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Correction completed. --Allen3 talk 01:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


Port deals

I was sitting here messing around on Wiki with the news on when I hear it say that the UAE is turning over control of the ports or something like that. Should this be in "In The News?" schyler 13:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

certainly. thougt it was. its everywhere else.DanielDemaret 13:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
It was on the main page three days ago, see Dubai Ports World controversy. κаллэмакс 16:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


Michelle Bachelet

Why no mention of the fact that Michelle Bachelet has been inaugurated as President of Chile? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ricardo Lagos (talk • contribs) 21:44, 2006 March 11 (UTC).

A proposed headline is already on Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. ... Her election win was already on ITN 2 months ago. If we allow repeaters, this item should be on ITN soon. --PFHLai 08:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Intentional secular bias violates WP:NPOV

On the current main page, events are highlighted for todays date, 12 March. The first event on this list is said to have occurred in 512 BCE on the main page, yet at the page for 12 March it says 512 BC. A quick look at the edit history for 12 March reveals that the notation was always BC and wasn't changed to BCE. This leaves one option, that an administrator editing for the main page changed the notation from BC to BCE out of his own personal bias. WP:NPOV strictly states that no bias shall be used, whether against religion or pro-religion. Also, the Wikipedia Manual of Style states that it is no more proper to use the CE/BCE notations than it is to use BC/AD. I believe that bias is unacceptable at Wikipedia, and especially not at the main page. Please restore this immediately. CrazyInSane 02:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC).

You bring up a good point, but as I am not an admin, I cannot make the change. Question: On wikipiedia, is BCE or BC preferred (also CE vs AD)? Has this issue alread been decided (I cant imagine that it hasn't)? -Reuvenk[T][C] 02:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia guideline, neither is preferred. Either one can be used but the one that was in place originally (hence BC in the case of 12 March), must remain as such unless a vote decides otherwise. See the Manual of Style: Dates and Numbers for details on the guideline. CrazyInSane 03:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC).
The Manual of Style says that either notation is acceptable, but only one style should be used consistently on any given page. This appears to be the only use on the Main Page at present, so the manual of style is adhered to. How is it bias to use the academic standard for date notation? I can appreciate that some might find the religious notation to be undesirable, but BCE seems a most neutral term.-gadfium 03:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually no, it's not the only term that is used at the Main Page at present. Go to the Main Page Archives and scroll down to the archive for 10 March. the 'BC' notation is used here. This shows that whoever edited the 12 March selected anniversaies violated WP:NPOV and this is NOT ALLOWED on Wikipedia—someone please change this, it offends me. CrazyInSane 04:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC).
That was on March 10th. The MOS guidelines are for within articles. This is not an NPOV violation. I find it illogical to complain about insufficient reference to a specific religion as being a lack of neutrality, and personal offense is a rather poor argument for change. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Knowledge_Seeker, it against the MOS to change era notation on any article without proper consensus within its Talk page or other discussion area. Since the Main Page gets its information about 12 March from the 12 March page which originally (and still) uses the 'BC' notation, it is against MOS to alter this for no reason and without discussion for your own personal satisfaction. I can not see how something like this should be left on the website. It's easy to change. Also, the Main Page is an article. CrazyInSane 04:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC
I cannot find any justification in the Manual of Style for your claim. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
CrazyInSane, I'm sorry you are offended, but please reconsider your position. There are far more important issues to worry about than date notation. You could help build an encyclopedia here in many ways, but arguing over this issue is trivial.-gadfium 04:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
It may be trivial to you, but everything that violates WP:NPOV and the MOS is seen as of equal importance to the system. Writing "Hitler is a F*!^#*$ BAS^!&$" on the Adolf Hitler page is no more/less against WP:NPOV than using 'BC' over 'BCE', when viewed from a Wiki-policy standpoint. CrazyInSane 04:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I think most people would disagree with you. Perhaps you could ask some of your friends whether they agree with your last statement.-gadfium 04:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, no offense, but that Hitler comparison sounds crazy. Coffee 04:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC) Haha...no pun intended... Coffee 04:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I understand that most people are not going to see the big deal in this but I do. It still violates the rules and therefore should be removed. The Hitler comment was meant no offense against anyone but the system doesn't see it as any more against WP:NPOV than the 'BCE' incident. CrazyInSane 04:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Godwin's law.--cj | talk 04:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I've changed BCE to BC. Coffee 04:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I changed it back, as I disagree with these sorts of changes, especially for reasons such as personal offense or that it's no worse than vandalizing Adolf Hitler—though of course I will not re-revert should someone else change it. I still cannot see how the use of BCE/CE violates NPOV—I find the logic bizarre. I don't understand your comments about what the "system" sees, but I think editors see a big difference between those two modifications, and that's what's important. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Considering the line in the Selected Anniversaries section is about an important temple in Judaism, why would we use 'Before Christ' ? They don't go well together, do they ? The article uses BCE and CE (until some anon. user changed them to BC and AD a few hours ago -- I've just reverted it.) The line in the Selected Anniversaries section should use the same. -- PFHLai 08:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The complainer's name is "CrazyInSane". 'Nuf said. --Nelson Ricardo 18:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake! Yes, the user is being silly about it, but everyone else is being very agravating. The complaint was not that BCE by itself was POV (let us leave that discussion for elsewhere), but that changing from BC to BCE, when BC was the original, throughout a page/article is NPOV. Especially when it is done without discussion or justification. And while this is, of course, not as bad as more obvious vandalism, it shows a lack of loyalty to the principles of NPOV (probably a bad wording, but I can't think how else to put it), a sort of chipping at the spirit of it. And this is worse because presumably it was done by an experienced user, if it is on a protected page. 57.66.51.165 16:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

history#2

this is boring from history to history it really doesnt matter but the reason why im doing this is because i think the past or so called history doesnt matter because kids are not very fond of what has already passed and i dont either have anything to do with history or anything like that.

I am a kid, and I am perfectly fine with reading these Featured Articles. These articles are shown on the front page, for their great writing quality and the information they give. It's not like you have to read them you know, so stop complaining and read a great article about the Golden Age of Video Games or something like that. That's history too, you know. Cerealchan 00:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/i/Talk%7EMain_Page_Archive_59_aed0.html"