Talk:Main Page/Archive 83

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 83


Contents

Seady weed dragon

Did anybody else make this spoonerism while reading PotD?.. just me then? :/ --Monotonehell 09:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You're not alone. In addition, because of the bright colours and the poor way Mediawiki thumbnails images, I thought the picture was a cartoon until I clicked to see it in full. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 09:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

archiving

Someone should archive this page. It's already over 129 kilobytes long... In wikipedia guidelines it states that a page should be archived at 32kb... I'm not good at editing so someone else should do it.205.188.116.138 23:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That guideline is for articles... not talk pages or non-mainspace pages. ---J.S (t|c) 00:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Uh, what? We don't archive articles at all. --Descendall 01:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
That's more than Talk:Main Page/Archive 81. 205.188.116.138 is probably right. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I've moved most of the older talks from October to Archive 82. Hope this helps. -- PFHLai 05:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

$10,000 donation to Wikimedia

Did anyone else notice this $10,000 donation by the W. Glen Boyd Charitable Foundation, back on October 10th? Maybe we should have something on it in the Signpost... — BRIAN0918 • 2006-11-08 03:45Z

In the Signpost ? You may want to post at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions instead of here. Hope this helps. --PFHLai 05:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

what is opinion leader and and what is the role of development in the 3rd world countries

ITN wording for US election and Rumsfeld

Pelosi (soon to be speaker of the house) and Rumsfeld (stepping down is big news). Bob Gates is slated to replace Rumsfeld. LILVOKA 17:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


The parties are not currently tied in the Senate. The Dems have 50; the Republicans have 49. Granted the Dems have to win Virginia to get over Cheney's tie-breaker, but the current wording is incorrect. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


The United States midterm elections result in the the Democratic Party winning control of the House from the Republican Party and the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (pictured).'
This wording seems to imply that the midterm election is the cause of Rumsfeld's resgination. Rumsefeld should be in his own sentence or his own little section like before. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.211.4.35 (talk • contribs) .
That's already done (to my satisfcation anyway). On another page, I disagreed with someone who wanted even less connection - the two events happening literally hours apart can't possibly be some cosmic coincidence. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Bigger problem: the the. I would fix it if the Main Page were not protected. Hashproduct 22:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I found it! I saw someone complain about that and I simply could not see it. One of those things where the brain just skips over it (like trying to count the number of f's in a paragraph and skipping all of the "of" occurrences). —Wknight94 (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
How long is Rumsfeld going to be on the main page? Until Wikiliberals are satisfied? Haizum 02:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, finally. Haizum 06:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


Tomorrow's Featured Article - a fault?

The current day in GMT is the ninth, but Tomorrow's edition of the main page shows today's featured content as part of its layout, ref today's featured article of Karen Dotrice and Tomorrow's of the same. Is this a fault, and if so, is this fixable? I'm not sure if this has been the case before now, but. Bobo. 06:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Clear your cache. (Ctrl-F5 on a PC, Apple-F5 on a Mac.) --64.229.178.41 12:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

i think this is a load of crap and that you are so stupid i mean any body could say this adn make it up yo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.187.163.190 (talk • contribs) .

Please avoid personal attacks.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 16:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Heh heh. Consider myself insulted. It's working better now. I blame myself for not knowing how to do these things. Thank you, 64.229.178.41. Bobo. 03:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"Allopath"

Today's (11/9/06) DYK includes "..that Kadambini Ganguly (pictured) was one of the first female graduates in the British Empire and the first female doctor (allopath) in South Asia?"

Any chance we can change "allopath" to "M.D." or an equivalent? "Allopath" is held by some to be offensive.

This old DYK has left the Main Page. Next time, try WP:ERRORS. --64.229.178.190 14:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
At the time I posted it was up. AND it was changed before it went down. My mistake for not signing/putting a timestamp on my comment 67.182.22.63 03:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Medical images and the main page

Having come across the debate again on a page of BJAODN a suggestion - if the image or equivalents appears in "local library" medical encylopedias, use it, if the disease/syndrome/whatever is only described, use a diagram. It might also be useful to have a "medical image some might find unpleasant" warning on the relevant pages with a diagram at the top (ie for those of us who just want to know what "xyz-ism" is but don't want the glorious technicolour images).

That said, there will always be a degree of subjectivity in the matter - we can all think of images we object to (for whatever reasons) - and some "objectionable images" will inspire people in a positive way. Jackiespeel 15:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Remembrance Day

I see that Armistice Day is in the anniversary section of the front page. Would anyone support a change to Remembrance Day and Ode of Remembrance type thing (ie. solemn remembrance of past, present and future sacifices, rather than military history about the end of World War I? Carcharoth 00:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Remembrance Day is there already. --64.229.4.229 01:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh. Time to go to bed, I think! :-) Carcharoth 01:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean to send you away, Carcharoth. I am sure you'll come back refreshed. Sweet dreams! --64.229.226.79 17:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is all messed up!

It keeps displaying in the nostalgia skin. Is anyone else experiencing this problem? It's been like this for the past three hours. Floaterfluss 07:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The easiest way to change it back is to try this link to Special:Preferences, change your skin preference back to Monobook, and purge your cache. Titoxd(?!?) 07:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
THANK YOU SO MUCH!!! Floaterfluss 07:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes, another best FA ever :-)

Euler the Toiler is my hero... long live generatingfunctionology! And Euler's Identity! And the Pentagonal Number Theorem! And gamma! And... oh, there's just too many to name. :-) --3M163//Complete Geek 14:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is Nancy Pelosi not the "In the News" photo anymore?

Donald Rumsfeld's resignation is nowhere near as noteworthy. Past U.S. Presidents have gone through three Defense Secretaries in their terms. The photo should be of Pelosi.

Maybe this answers your question--thunderboltz(Deepu) 14:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is celebrating Rumsfeld's resignation just like it is celebrating the change in Congress. I'm sure these points will remain on the main page into 2008. Haizum 22:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

On this day

Although Armistice Day is mentioned as taking place today, there should be a mention of it being the end of hostilities in World War 1. Motorfix 14:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"1918 - Germany signs an armistice treaty with the Allies, ending World War I on the Western Front." -- Zanimum 15:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

A new wikimedia subsituance?

I want a wiki in which people are able to present experiment reports, preferably using the scientific method. Call it wikiscience or something. This will enable wikipedia to have a source for some statistics or facts. GstrOSx 09:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

A little trick to introduce original research to Wikipedia? It seems this idea will be possible using Wikiversity: [1]. Perhaps you could start a science project there, but I don't think it would be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia.--cloviz 17:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

In the News pictures

Wouldn't be easier for the reader if the images in the 'In the News' section were always placed adjacent to the relevant article rather than the first article. As things are done now, it seems confusing. Hmains 18:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

A problem arises if a short item at the bottom of the list were to provide the image. The formating of the section would be less-pleasing. Gentgeen 05:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Hmains. This is what newspaper layout people call "bad juxtoposition." Right now, Nancy Pelosi appears to the casual observer to be the legislator who was assassinated in Sri Lanka. "Comprehensible" should be more important than "pleasing," and if you want both, just always list the news item with an accompanying photo first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.162.99.230 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC).
The problem with that is the way items are added to and removed from the list. Koweja 01:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, there could be a new image for each top item, but there aren't enough free images for that. —Centrx→talk • 01:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps an image that changes when you hover over text with your mouse, and have it default to the image for the top article? This should take care of accessibility problems caused by the javascript - or if that won't work, have the server randomly pick an image to put up among ones associated with the current items. Koweja 01:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually I liked the previous suggestion of assigning a different color (like light blue) for the news item with the corresponding photo, while the photo remains at the top. I also like the smaller (pictured), but they were all either voted down or ignored. --Howard the Duck 04:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Most people's eyes have been trained by generations of newspapers, TV news programs, and now web sites: when text and a photo are contained within the same module, the photo and text are presumed to go together. In this case, the text of the first item usually wraps under the photo, unambiguously placing them in a single module. The solutions recommended do not resolve this basic problem. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.162.99.230 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 14 November 2006.

This has come up MANY times over the past year. I've made several suggestions;

  • Changing the background colour of the text that goes with the photo to make it obviously different.
  • My prefered option Keeping the latest item with a picture on top until it is replaced by another item with a picture. The items without pictures start in second place in the queue.
  • Replaceing the picture with a generic icon of some sort when the lead item has none.

All of which have been poopooed for no good reason [jokeing ;)] Maybe we should settle this once and for all? --Monotonehell 18:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Option #2 sounds best to me. Option #3 would also work. #1 won't work; people are interpreting this info visually according to convention and you'd be asking them to accommodate themselves to a wholly new convention. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.162.99.230 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 16 November 2006.
Kurmanbek Bakiyev
Enlarge
Kurmanbek Bakiyev
We need small-text image captions. (See ITN mock-up on the right.) --64.229.231.116 15:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I forgot about that suggestion. Detractors of the time cmplained that it took up too much space. I still don't see any problem with it. --Monotonehell 12:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't like it. I see that the photo is of Kurmanbek Bakiyev, but then I ask, "So who is Kurmanbek Bakiyev?" I can find the answer by scanning the entire section, but then I end up ignoring the news items at the top. I also feel like I've done too much work to understand what is going on in this section. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.162.99.230 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 16 November 2006.

Problems in tensing

In works of literature, films, and video games, many events are incorrectly stated in past tense. As a work of fiction that is immortal, events are properly stated in present tense. It is suggested that users help correct this mild issue. (from a friendly user) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.211.117.7 (talk • contribs) .

We are all editors here, including you. Be bold and make the edits you think are needed. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
You might want to bring this up with WikiProject Television as they are the ones most likely able and willing to fix these problems. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Koweja (talk • contribs) 01:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC).
No that's not correct. to take two examples at ramdom, the Titanic sank when it hit an iceberg: you can't say " The Titanic sinks when it hits an iceberg" 90 years after it finished sinking. Dinosouars roamed the earth two million years ago, not "roams the earth two million years ago". These things have happened, in the past, and have finished happening, that is why it is called the past tense.--Bilbo B 15:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Neither of your examples, though, are works of literature, or in films or video games; which is what the suggestion above refers to. Bazza 16:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
No, they are encyclopedic entries. This is an encylopedia, and user 170.211.117.7 is saying, in effect, in fiction do as you please, on Wikipedia write in the present tense. (assuming "immortal" is a typo for "immaterial") (Or have i totally missed the point of their post?) --Bilbo B 16:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
My reading of the comment was that it is suggesting a style to be used when discussing works of literature, etc. So (appropriately) in the article on The Lord of the Rings, After seventeen years of investigating, their old friend Gandalf the Grey revealed that the ring was in fact the One Ring, the instrument of Sauron's power, which the Dark Lord had been searching for most of the Third Age, and which corrupted others with desire for it and the power it held. becomes After seventeen years of investigating, their old friend Gandalf the Grey reveals that the ring is in fact the One Ring, the instrument of Sauron's power, which the Dark Lord has been searching for most of the Third Age, and which corrupts others with desire for it and the power it hold.. I'm actually not fussed one way or the other, but it's an interesting dialogue. Bazza 18:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Suitably cowed Bilbo retires, tail between his legs lolBilbo B 19:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
So, is there a policy or not? I'd say it was probably holds and not hold but otherwise... I agree with you. Blackjack4124 10:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
There is this Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) it mostly warns against writing about fiction as if it's reality. We must write the actual encyclopedic prose in past tense, so the above would only apply in plot summaries. --Monotonehell 12:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There are arguments specific to Tolkien's works. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Middle-earth/Standards#Tenses. My personal feeling is that it depends on the context of the article in question. Most of the time, writing in the present tense is best in a plot summary, but sometimes there are valid reasons for writing in the past tense. Tenses is something that a good writer should be able to handle, without having it imposed on them. Thus the tenses guideline is a stylistic guideline intended for those who want, or require, guidance. If writing another way is better, don't feel constrained by the guidelines. It might help to consider the following cases: (1) writing a plot summary from the point of view of someone reading the book in the present - use present tense; (2) writing about the internal history described in a work of fiction - use past tense. Carcharoth 14:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

My observation was not specific to Tolkien's works. I only picked the Lord of the Rings text as an example because it happened to be mentioned in the FA (and because I thought Bilbo B would appreciate it!). It could be applied to any work of fiction at all. Having said that, your points (1) and (2) are exactly right. I'm still not fussed — as long as an article is well written and an informative (and entertaining) read, it should be up to the author(s). Bazza 16:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Penley on DYK

The entry for Penley is problematic. Is there any way to link today' "Did You Know" to the Penley Polish Hospital section of North_East_Wales_NHS_Trust? Thanks. Eddieuny 20:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This old DYK has left the Main Page. Next time, try WP:ERRORS to suggest minor changes on the Main Page. -- 64.229.179.9 15:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

short FA blurbs

I really like the short FA blurbs that have appeared the last couple days. It forces the writing in ITN to be a bit more concise. (I admit to having added clauses in ITN items just to make the section long enough to match the neighboring FA.) It also increases the visibility of DYK and SA. More please. - BanyanTree 00:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. The FAs were sometimes becoming mini-articles in themselves. Bazza 18:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Robert Gates???

When I mouse over the picture of Nancy Pelosi, it says Robert Gates. 71.12.182.210 02:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. In the future, please report items like this at WP:ERRORS - BanyanTree 02:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Today's Main Page

Today's FA is huge, and apparently each side of the Main Page is not evenly balanced. I reinstated a news headline at T:ITN, but it appears to not have done much. Can anyone remove a current DYK and use it for another day, if possible? The last one (Lucien Bianchi) is very long, and removing it would definitely put the page back to normal. Nishkid64 00:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Lucien Bianchi can get a spot in the limelight tomorrow. However, the FA is not exceptionally long; I think it is more that ITN is shorter than usual. —Cuiviénen 01:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I'd updated DYK an hour before the Featured Article shifted over, and based the choices on the length of the FA blurb at the time. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 02:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The left side is still longer than the right. Please re-instate one more old news headline on ITN. BTW, tomorrow's FA is even longer! --64.229.231.116 15:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks like unless the right side is made a bit longer, DYK'll only be able to hold two or three items instead of the regular six. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, we added Joseph Kabila to ITN, so I think removing the last one or the last two would fix balance issues on the Main Page. Nishkid64 22:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Tomorrow's FA will be very long, so I've restored the US election-related news. After tomorrow, it should be time to remove it for good. —Cuiviénen 23:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

togo civil war

I am looking for togo civil war information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Porks (talk • contribs) 19:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC).

History of Togo may help. Or, go to Wikipedia: Help desk. --65.95.107.92 19:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
You mean Wikipedia:Reference desk. The help desk is for questions about Wikipedia itself. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 07:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Montreal, Quebec

1817 - The Bank of Montreal, Canada's oldest chartered bank, opened in Montréal, Québec.

There have been three discussions on this topic on this talk page and countless discussions about it in the Wikipedia Community. At this point I will restate the basic fact that in the English Language, Montreal and Quebec do not take accents. These names are the native names used by the native Anglo-Quebecer population, who have lived in Quebec for hundreds of years. Let me clarify in point form:

  • Anglophones have lived in Quebec for hundreds of years, forming a basic part of Quebec society (see Anglo-Quebecer)
  • The Island of Montreal is over 20% Anglophone
  • There are numerous municipalities throughout Quebec and on the Island of Montreal which are majority English-Speaking. Their inhabitants are Anglo-Quebecers and not foreign English speakers.
  • Anglophones form a minority within Quebec but are linked to the larger English-Speaking cultures around them.

Seeing as how a sizeable segment of Quebecers are in fact native English speakers who write Montreal and Quebec without an accent, writing those names in this way reflects both the English-Language norms and the form preferred by the native community when speaking English (even francophones tend to write it without an accent in English).

Montreal and Quebec are not names imposed on these places by modern day Anglophones Imperialists. In fact, calling them Montréal and Québec in the English language is disrespectful to both local customs and the native Anglophone Quebecer population. It is a politicized issue, and in choosing to write these placenames with an accent, Wikipedia's administrators show support for a contentious point of view which many Anglophones consider slightly offensive, demonstrating a lack of Neutral Point of View.

This may be avoided entirely by using the proper English names of Montreal and Quebec, which are accepted in both the larger English speaking community and the native Quebec population (for use in English), and are not considered offensive even to ultranationalists who would prefer the complete removal or assimilation of Anglo-Quebecer population.

I ask, then, why the Wikipedia administration continues to insult not only the Anglophone Quebecer population (by disregarding their existence) but also the Quebec population at large (by imposing their outside view of how things should be written rather than how Quebecers prefer to write them). It is especially troubling that the Bank of Montreal (no accent, but written with an accent in French as “Banque de Montréal”) was founded by Anglo-Quebecers and was originally designed to serve this minority population’s trade interests.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.53.137.52 (talk • contribs) .

Agreed. Accent marks removed. Not only per your explanation but because the article names don't include them. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Please excuse my little diatribe. In fact I was only restating the reasons why the Wikipedia Community decided to use those names in the articles in the first place. --70.53.137.53 23:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that line with the accent mark on the letter E. I am rather surprised (and somewhat disturbed) that it would be considered disrespectful or offensive at all. I had no idea how this would be interpreted in such a manner. Please do not read too much into my use of accent marks. That's simply how I spell the words in everyday life, as I do with other loanwords like café, coup d'état, fiancée, resumé, Beyoncé Knowles, Renée, etc. I had no intention of insulting anyone and would like to apologise to anyone who found that insulting. --PFHLai 16:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Not at all on topic, it would make it easier on 'us English speakers' if we did use the accent marks. So we'd now the diference between late and laté... --Monotonehell 10:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the argument is that Montreal is not a loan word — it's the English language equivalent of the French name Montréal. The loan words listed above are spelt that way because there is no English equivalent. Btw, thought it was latte?  :-) Bazza 13:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Shush you, it's also Italian. I just couldn't think of a real example at the time ;) --Monotonehell 18:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I always thought the accent mark is there for pronounciation purposes. --PFHLai 18:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you made me think of one, I always stick an accent on resumé otherwise it's resume. --Monotonehell 18:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
That's not for pronunciation purposes, though. Resumé is a loan word for which there was no English equivalent (like café, etc, quoted above), so it's come from French asis; whereas resume is more of a bona fide English word. Bazza 15:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Resumé is not "from French as is". Each E has an accent mark in French. Only the second E keeps the accent mark in English. English equivalent? How about summary of work history? And coffee shop, spouse-to-be,... etc. --64.229.179.217 19:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
actually, i believe it's résumé Mowens35 21:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Quite right. Apologies, but I simply copied from the original talk. The point above — How about summary of work history? And coffee shop, spouse-to-be — is irrelevant. They are not single words themselves, but give the meanings of foreign words which are used as loan words in English. You don't go up to someone and ask how they met their spouse-to-be — you ask how they met their fiancé(e). And whilst the reply might refer to a coffee shop, it is also just as likely to mention a café. Those are both words imported as is into English, unlike Montreal which is an English word in its own right (the equivalent to the French Montréal). Same goes for cinema (cinéma), beret (béret), desert (désert), and many others. Bazza 14:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The 10k's

There seems to be some disagreement about what to do with the 10k section of the links to other wikipedias that was removed by Raul because he felt it made the language links section too large. The way I see it there are four options, enumerated below, and I think it would help to have people express their preferences and why. Dragons flight 15:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ignore the 10k Wikipedias

Include a section of 10ks in {{Wikipedialang}}

  • This is my first choice, because I like seeing Wikipedias seperated by size. Dragons flight 15:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I would prefer the Interwikis fully removed and the Wikipedialang template lengthened to include Wikipedias with at least 10k if not those with a much lower number of articles. After Raul's recent changes along with the previous change that drastically reduced those listed, a number of other language Wikipedias now do a much better job of promoting the small and growing Wikipedias, and, after previously having been reverted 4-5 times, it is disappointing that Raul seems now to have the upper hand in the war of attrition. I can no longer count the number of times now he has made these fly by night changes and then placed the burden of proof on those who favor the old custom of promoting the other, growing Wikipedias on the already substantial English one. Tfine80 01:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep! I agree on it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.163.1.50 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC).

Include the 10ks in the {{MainPageInterwikis}}

  • I think this is the best option. What does a Wikipedia's size have to do with where in the list it comes. Better to treat all WPs the same and alphbetise them (Quality vs Quantity). The only concern is the total length of the list, there we need an arbitary cutoff. We don't need this scoreboard, it's not very academic and does nothing as a KPI. --Monotonehell 03:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Include 10ks in both interwikis and Wikipedialang

  • This is my second choice. I'd rather not have them in the interwiki bar, even though we have the space, because within an alphabetized list I think it obscures which Wikipedias are the largest (and hence most significant). Dragons flight 15:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I like seeing as much languages as possible, as it is perfectly in line with all the idea of Wikipedia, and the less articles a wiki has, the more highlighting it needs. It is very rare that someone will refrain to click on a language because it has only 10k+ articles, but would have if it had 20k+, so no objections to interwiki.--SidiLemine 16:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see any harm in including small bits on the navigation bar and at the bottom of the page, esp. when their removal gets people upset. --PFHLai 16:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove {{Wikipedialang}}, set interwikis to page body

  • As far as I can tell, no Wikipedia includes both a bottom template and side interwikis. The insertion of {{MainPageInterwikis}} has made {{Wikipedialang}} redundant, and {{Wikipedialang}} should be removed. The length of the interwikis column should be set at "not vertically longer than the body of the Main Page". For example of a decent size, see de:. For a too long interwiki column, see es:. I don't particularly care what the cut-off number is as long as the Main Page is compact. - BanyanTree 00:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What? I don't get it. Are you saying that because there is a list of 33 languages at the left, then the links at the bottom to all 250 Wikipedias should be deleted?? I definitely disagree. I would like to see a note at the top or bottom of the list of languages on the left on the main page, something like "for more languages see below", so that people will notice the links at the bottom and be able to find more Wikipedias. I would also like to see more language links on the left. The Babel page has far more than the Main Page. The more the better! (well, maybe within some limit, but 33 is way too few IMO.) If lots of languages are listed, it makes Wikipedia look good: it gives an impression that Wikipedia is supporting lots of languages, which it is. It will help the smaller Wikipedias grow by attracting non-scroller-downers like myself. Here's an idea: Make the list of languages on the Main Page at least long enough that when someone scrolls down to the bottom of the list of languages in any reasonably common browser window size, then they will have scrolled down far enough to notice the languages box at the bottom of the Main Page. Also replace "in other languages" with "in other languages (more below)" on the Main Page. --Coppertwig 13:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Main Page #German Wikipedia 500,000th entry, Talk:Main Page #Provide a way to get to all the Wikipedias.

Have 5 or 10 languages in the list each day that cycle through all the other Wikipedias

Here's another idea. Would take work to implement it, though. Maybe only worthwhile if it can be automated: below the list of about 33 languages and just above the "Complete list" link, have about 5 or 10 more languages listed. These would cycle through all the other languages. That is, each day (or each week) a different 5 or 10 languages would be listed there, so that even the very smallest Wikipedias would be listed sometimes. By the way, I'm just tickled pink that my suggestion to put a link like the "Complete list" one was taken up, and implemented so fast. What a great community Wikipedia is! --Coppertwig 03:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian Propaganda

The "on this day" entry -- "1988 - The Palestinian National Council declared the independence of the State of Palestine" -- links directly to an NPOV page on the so-called "Palestinian National Council". This is an obsolete, unelected body chartered by the Arab League and trotted out for special occasions. The declaration had no effect whatsoever, and was generally ignored by Arafat's Palestine Authority.

Well, it's on the Main Page, so maybe some people will see it and try to fix up the POV issues for Palestinian National Council. Nishkid64 22:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's end this AGE OLD QUESTION once and for all shall we?

wWho visits Wikipedia more? Americans Or the English? Zabrak 00:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Who cares? Koweja 01:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Well said, Koweja. But I'll address the user's question anyway. If by English you mean people from Britain, then I would assume Americans visit Wikipedia more oftain than the Britons (since there are more people in America than in Great Britain). So...why does it matter, and since when was it an age old question? Nishkid64 01:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems more than half Wikipedia users are American, white and male.--cloviz 04:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
It's apparent people think wikipedians are too white and nerdy... - Malomeat 04:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
*Groan*. In response to the original question, a supermajority of native English speakers are American (See this graphic), so Americans certainly predominate here. On the other hand, it may be that the average Brit visits Wikipedia more often than the average American. —Cuiviénen 15:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, there is no reason to assume we should only count native speakers. There are a large number of second language speakers, especially in Africa and Asia (India in particular comes to mind). Of course, these people may not visit wikipedia that much because they tend to be in poorer countries with less access to the internet and probably less time to access the internet too Nil Einne 09:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The obvious answer - Australians. It should be au.wikipedia.org - only joking :D Blackjack4124 10:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Polish Day?

Is today a sort of Polish day in this project? FA, DYK, and Selected anniversaries all start with Polish entries. By looking at Main Page, one may believe he has come to Polish wikipedia, translated in English. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I also want to complain about the Palestinian bias on 15 November, German bias on 11 November, American bias on 7 November, Malaysian bias on 4 November, Australian bias on 29 October and Sudanese bias on 28 October. Wikipedia is clearly biased towards nations. Piet | Talk 11:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to complain about the Terran bias on Wikipedia. As an English speaking native of Conventia I'd like to see more articles focusing on finger food. --Monotonehell 12:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not a bias but occasional country-centrism. T:TDYK directs the updating admins: "Try to avoid country-centrism and topic-centrism. Wikipedia is a general-interest encyclopedia with a global audience. No DYK installment should have more than two entries relating to one country, topic, or issue, and no more than one is even better." What's the point of this requirement on DYK, if other Main Page templates may cover the same country or topic, as they do today? --Ghirla -трёп- 12:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see the problem. What if the main page contains a bit more Polish information today? Read the articles if you want to know a bit more about Poland. If not, wait until tomorrow and you'll have a new main page. It's not likely that there will be another "Polish day" in the next few years. There appears to be about a 99% chance however, that in the next couple of weeks some other country will - by chance - receive a more than average attention, and a 100% certainty that someone will be here to complain about "Bias". It's so tiring to hear the same remark over and over again - it's just based on nothing. It used to be U.S. bias, U.K. bias, Aussie bias, now it's another country and we get exactly the same complaints. Just accept it: the world is made of countries, about every subject can be linked to some country, now and then more than one subject on the Main Page will deal with the same country. Piet | Talk 15:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Its odd but doesn't bother me- as long as its only one day! Unless it becomes a pattern and we start having to many Poland Days or whatever else Days I can't see a problem. Obviously the English-speaking countries will tend to be overrepresented on the main page as this is the English-language wiki and all the wikis are unavoidably biased or centred in favour of the countries where their languages are dominant. Even still there are enough Anglophone countries that no one should dominate. My point - one Poland Day :-) is okay, just shouldn't happen again anytime soon.--Dreko 17:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think many admins try to control DYK to prevent bias. However with anniversaries, ITN and FA, there is little that can be done. FAs are decided well in advanced and indeed have occasionally been targeted at a special event. However if on the day of a FA, there is also news worth of mention in ITN (as occured with the 'Malaysian bias' when the new Agong was announced on the day we had the FA, AFAIK there were only two issues related to Malaysia) there is little that can be done. If you feel there is bias, you might want to consider what you can do to help. Specifically I suggest you become sort of evil maniac bent on controlling the world (like in movies and cartoons). If you can control world events, then you can prevent this 'bias'. Nil Einne 09:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Milton Friedman's Death

Milton Friedman passed away today. He is a legend in the field of economics and should be in the "In the news" section. His pic should be pictured as well. Why hasn't this been done? Zachorious 21:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I have much respect for Milton Friedman's work in economics (particularly in consumption analysis), I must say that he is not someone who internationally known. Although, his exploits led him all around the world, his death will most likely go unnoticed by most of the world. Nishkid64 22:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Even if he was internationally famous, ITN isn't an obituary page. Quoth our inclusion criteria:
"A death should only be placed on ITN if it meets one of the following criteria: (a) the deceased was in a high ranking office of power at the time of death, (b) the deceased was a key figure in their field of expertise, and died unexpectedly or tragically, (c) the death has a major international impact that affects current events."
Friedman was a key figure in his field of expertise, but his death wasn't unexpected or tragic, nor did it have a major international impact that affects current events. Furthermore, the Milton Friedman article has been pertinently updated only to indicate that he died of heart failure (because there's little else to report). Friedman was a highly notable individual, but his death carries none of the ramifications that justify an ITN entry. —David Levy 22:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention that he died less than 24 hours ago. ITN isn't updated instantaneously. For starters, the related article has to be updated, then it has to be submitted to ITN, then it has to be discussed and approved, then it has to be put into the quene to be added along with God knows how many other stories of the day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Koweja (talk • contribs) 22:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC).
Admins sometimes insert entries on their own (as Rdsmith4 did earlier). Without an advance discussion stage, however, the likelihood of failing to meet the inclusion criteria and having such entries removed by other sysops (as I did in this instance) is greater. —David Levy 22:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Friedman is internationally known wherever people study economics - i.e. everywhere. He should definetly get a spot 'in the news', he is much more well known that the three people who are in 'the news' today: Nadarajah Raviraj, Joseph Kabila, Ségolène Royal. With all due respect to politicians, the world does not end with them.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You do have a point about having too many politicians there, but we should be counting our blessings when there are not so many terrorist attacks, plane crashes and hurricanes to report on ITN. --64.229.220.151 17:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

His influence was quite extensive. If you were to ask on a person a street to name three economists of the 20th century he would definetly be there. Compared to Nadarajah Raviraj, Joseph Kabila, Ségolène Royal his name is way more widely recognized (some people may say for better or worse). He should be in the section. It may provoke controversy but that's not a standard that an information source and an encyclopedia should adhere too.radek 04:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

For ITN, we attempt to adhere to a standard of listing entries for articles that have been substantially updated to reflect major news of international interest or importance. Beyond the fact that Friedman died of heart failure (a common cause of death for people of advanced age), there's little else to report. —David Levy 04:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Ummm, so if George W Bush died tomorrow of heart failure (a common cause of death of people of advanced age) you would not report it, since as you say, ther'ed be little else to report. Come on!!!!!! Don't be silly.radek 05:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Please stop arguing with a straw man and read the inclusion criteria (and #5 in particular). George W. Bush's death would have major international ramifications, so there would be plenty of information to report. At the time of his death, Milton Friedman held no substantial power or influence. —David Levy 05:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Besides that GWB is only 60 and supposedly healthy and fit. His death from heart failure would be a quite a surprise IMHO. Dick Cheney's death from heart failure perhaps less so. Should add that I'd never heard of Milton Friedman before today (I've never studies economics). I assume that people here are correct in saying he's a very well known economist worldwide but I would argue the average person in the street, especially outside the US in recent days is more likely to have heard of Ségolène Royal then Milton Friedman. Of course this isn't that relevant. The criteria for deaths is well established. Besides people are more likely to have heard of David Beckham, Tom-Kat, Britney Spears or Michael Jackson then either Milton Friedman or Ségolène Royal, it doesn't mean we should mention everything they do Nil Einne 09:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Just wanna add that ITN is not a place for obituaries, but for news with more impact than just someone's unfortunate death. --64.229.220.151 17:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The comment that Friedman at 94 wasn't contributing to his field in recent years is bunk. His last contribution to the Wall Street Journal was published the day after his death (previously scheduled), and he was writing articles for scholarly journals in the months before he died (see the Rutgers Magazine article on him here). I think the intellectual impetus for the defeat of communism at the end of the cold war (he advised Reagan, Nixon, and other cold warriors how to defeat the soviet union), and that his works not only were widely read in the Soviet sphere of influence and inspired hope in the people under the communists and after communism fell laid the groundwork for their societies being rebuilt as successful economies. In the 1970s, his intellectual arguments brought about the end of the military draft in the United States! Check Google News, Friedman's death was on the front page of every major American newspaper and most of the major newspapers and television news programs across the globe. I didn't even know who Raviraj was until now. Raviraj might have been killed in his prime in a minor, insignificant conflict (on an island no one cares about) most of the world doesn't know is going on, but Friedman was the mind that gave birth to the greatest contributions to human freedom in 200 almost years. As to the ITN policy...(b) the deceased was a key figure in their field of expertise, and died unexpectedly or tragically. Key figure, yes. Died unexpectedly...everyone could be said to die unexpectedly. Especially so when they were relatively healthy the last time someone spoke to them (like Friedman was a couple of weeks ago when i talked to him last). Heart Failure can have sudden onset, and just because someone is 94 doesn't mean you should write them off as dead before their in the ground...think Jeanne Calment (died at 122) or the legendary 16th century Briton John Parr (150) (who I also add died "unexpectedly" because the food he ate at the king's feast in his honour was likely too rich for him). Your reasonings are specious, and your adherence to an interpretation of policies unsound. —ExplorerCDT 19:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

1. You've made an excellent case for why Friedman's death was worthy of special attention from the news media. This, however, is not a news site. It's an encyclopedia.
2. While sad, an elderly person dying of sudden heart failure is not "unexpected." Had Friedman been murdered or killed in an accident, there would have been more to report than the simple fact that he died. —David Levy 19:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
1. Umm..."In the News" isn't for news...coulda shocked me.
2. So when Gerald Ford dies of the same thing that killed Dr. Friedman, a few months or years from now (i think he's 93 and been out of office since 1977), are you going to ignore him if, say, Britney Spears dies in a fiery car wreck? —ExplorerCDT 19:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
1. Despite its name (which some of us have lobbied to change), In the news is not a news ticker. It's a means of highlighting encyclopedia articles that have been authored or substantially updated to reflect news of international interest or importance. Because there was nothing extraordinary about Friedman's death, only a minor update (to indicate that he died of heart failure) occurred.
2. The death of a former head of state is likely to have a major international impact that affects current events (which enables a substantial article update). In fact, I would support expanding our criteria to explicitly reference former heads of state. —David Levy 20:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately it's hard to come up with good objective criteria for these things, but, now that we've tried to do so, I see no problem in recognizing their imperfections by permitting occasional exceptions according to common sense. For instance, Friedman's work had (and continues having) a vastly greater influence on the shape of world politics than Gerald Ford's, who has been largely irrelevant since leaving office, so this seems like an obvious case for an exception to me. On the other hand, the rules, despite their clear shortcomings, are the rules, and what are they for if not enforcing? A lack of rules obviously engenders chaos, but strict adherence to inadequate rules is no more sensible. What's the proper balance? — Dan | talk 21:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
An exception to the death criteria may have been acceptable if Friedman's article had been substantially updated. If a significant amount of information pertaining to his death's impact had been added, there would have been a valid reason behind the ITN entry. In the absence of such an update (or a new article), even the most important news (meeting all of the other criteria) fails to qualify for inclusion. —David Levy 21:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Main logo

Whats with the main logo being changed to a picture of some guy? Joshlmay 21:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Where? If you're talking about the "In The News" section, that's something different. In the News usually has a picture of a person or thing recently in the news. Nishkid64 22:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Look, up there someone claimed to have seen the White Stripes; it seems this really happens. It would be fun to see it, wouldn't it?--cloviz 23:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
What white stripes? --75.20.216.65 23:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Click the link that Cloviz added. Some user was saying they saw white stripes on the Main Page for a few days, but apparently it fixed itself. Nishkid64 00:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
It isn't clear to me whether this was a reference to literal white stripes or to the musical duo known as the White Stripes. —David Levy 00:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I assumed the duo because of the use of the definite article but who knows.--cloviz 02:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
i knows! it was indeed the musical duo who graced my main page with their pasty skin. --dan 19:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I mean that instead of the main wikipedia logo that is usually in the top left corner of the screen, there is instead (on my laptop at least) a small picture of an apparently Asian male. Doesn't sound like it's happening with anybody else, thats very strange.Joshlmay 01:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Asian male? Wow, that is pretty strange. Nishkid64 02:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I can't see the logo, instead I see text that says Wikipedia. Did you guys kinda remove the logo?-02:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Can you upload a screen capture somewhere, Josh? —David Levy 03:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like something's up with the cache to me. A user on a forum I frequently recently suffered similar random image replacements. Try clearing the cache then reloading and see if it goes away. Sockatume 03:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Female Bias!

The first topic in ITN, DYK, OTD and the featured picture all involve women! Clearly, Wikipedia is being run by a feminist cabal ;-) —Cuiviénen 02:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh no! Good thing we have the picture on ITN. (for now) Nishkid64 02:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I would be more concerned about the pro-contributor bias of this encyclopedia if I were you. Not to mention the anti-vandalism views us users share. ;-) Tennis DyNamiTe (sign in) 02:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

One could just as easily say that there is a Californian bias, with three of the five main page pics. ;) Afn 15:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

searching

I think we should change the way Wikipedia searches a little. Not a major change, just a small one. We should make the search for "a" different than "a/an" or "i" different than "I". And acronyms such as CAT scan (instead of "cat"), except if they are widely used with miniscule letters such as "laser". Randfan 00:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Or "justice" from "Justice". Randfan 00:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The go button is case-insensitive and does most of what you want. I've also changed your heading title to "searching" so my screen reader JAWS doesn't get confused with the actual search form on the page which has the label of "search". Graham87 02:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ségolène Royal

So? I'm sure if we post the same about Hillary Clinton in '08, there will be accusations of U.S. bias. Also, why are we endorsing a candidate? And don't tell me the piece is NPOV. Just having it there is free advertising. --Nelson Ricardo 11:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Nonsense - surely reporting her selection is not tantamount to "endorsing" her as a candidate. MFlet1 11:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • So that means we will or have already reported the candidates of the other parties, right? --Nelson Ricardo 13:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, possibly not all the parties but certainly the main two (Socialists and Gaullists), in much the same way that we would report who gets chosen as the Republican and Democrat candidates in the US elections. In general the parties that are the most likely to win get the most attention. MFlet1 13:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the clarification. I eagerly await to learn who the Gaullist candidate will be (or have I missed that already?) --Nelson Ricardo 13:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Most likely it will be Nicolas Sarkozy. MFlet1 13:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Don't forget that the reason the item is there is because it refers to a major news subject which has a Wikipedia article which has been recently updated. Wikipedia is not a general news service, nor a platform for reporting politics per se. I think, in Wikipedia terms, the interest here is that she becomes France's first-ever female presidential candidate representing a major party, not which part she might be affiliated to. If you think the article referred to is NPOV then you should address it there. Bazza 13:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
            • I suspect NR's complaint is a bit of right-wing politicking. MFlet1 13:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Was my straight-line Democratic vote on November 7 also right-wing politicking? --Nelson Ricardo 19:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This story is blatantly of international interest and the article was updated accordingly before it was placed on the ITN template. If you don't think that the update was sufficiently extensive so as to merit inclusion on the template then argue that point on ITN talk. Apart from that, there is no issue here. Badgerpatrol 19:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

She's cute, so she should be the next president of France. Either her or preferrably, Alizee. All the other news outlets are gaga over Segolene Royal, so why shouldn't Wikipedia follow suit? --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.76.33.8 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 19 November 2006.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a news outlet. --Monotonehell 16:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Featured article vandalism

Can someone fix the serious front page vandalism already - the main article points to a vandalised San Francisco article! (C_California) (ok fixed now finally strange that a featured article was not locked.). Orbitalia 16:12/16:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Don't protect Main Page featured articles. —David Levy 16:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Californian Bias

The featured article, first DYK and featured picture all have something to do with California. Wikipedia is clearly run by Californians.

This joke is getting pretty old. Koweja 20:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... the downside is that this probably isn't a joke. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 03:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
You've got it all wrong. Wikipedia is run by midgets. Pacific Coast Highway {Gobble Gobble! • Happy Thanksgiving!} 03:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The next version of Wikimedia will have an automated feature that sends any talk page edits containing the word "bias" to the bitbucket. --Monotonehell 09:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Jokes here are Bias biased.--cloviz 15:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Czech Wikipedia

Please update main page, Czech Wikipedia now have more than 50.000 articles. :) --Ragimiri 19:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. I have updated the template. Yay Czech Wikipedia! Nishkid64 20:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Interwikis for the main page

I've noticed that the main page doesn't have all the interwikis of the main pages of other wikipedias not even of some of the bigger ones(<10.000 articles). Please someone with admin rights could change that . --Noumenorian 21:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

With the idea of not making the Main Page too long, only Wikipedias with more than 20,000 articles are included. (Arabic is the most recent addition.) This is currently under discussion at Talk:Main Page#The 10k's, above. —Cuiviénen 22:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Why two cars?

In the blub on today's featured picture (cheetah) why does its acceleration have to be compared to two cars (aside from the fighter plane)? I can agree there is a progression from a car to a fighter plane (accelerates faster than a supercar or even a fighter plane), but isn't it redundant to name two cars? Does it really tell much except for the fact that the writer is a car-enthusiast? Just a thought... Cribananda 07:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's because those are the two equally fast fastest cars, so comparing a cheetah to only one of them might be considered bias. —Cuiviénen 16:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Swedish mainpage

The Swedish mainpage was recently moved to the portal namespace, because it is a portal, and not an article... Something to think about on enwiki as well? /Grillo 10:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Kinda addressed in the Main Page FAQ. It's mostly still here due to historical inertia, but if it were moved it'd mean an awful lot of people would need to change their bookmarks :P GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
More likely, we'd have to keep a redirect at Main Page so that all the outside links didn't completely break — which means that a lot of new visitors would have a puzzling "redirected from" message on the top of the first page they visit. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Though I'm pretty sure there'd be a clever CSS "hack" to make it invisible to the punters. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
There's no redirected message at sv:Huvudsida. Of course the redirect must stay! /81.170.235.234 07:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC) (Grillo)

Poo

I just want to thank whoever it was that had the brilliant idea to make a picture of someone's poo in a bowl one click away from the front page. :) --Robbrown 22:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

To be fair it links to the article which contains a small illustration halfway down the page. In an uncensored encylopedia when clicking on a link like human feces one can expect an illustration. --Monotonehell 22:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Almost inspires me to see if I can get a good enough photograph of the subject to have it featured :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 04:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
How did you get there? Nil Einne 09:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Yesterday DYK included the hook: ...that the primary disposal method for human faeces in the slums of Nairobi, Kenya, is the unsanitary flying toilet? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 14:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

We need an evil maniac

Evil maniac
Enlarge
Evil maniac

Since these allegations of country-specific bias keep cropping up, it seems to me we have only one solution. We need to nominate someone to become an evil maniac bent on controlling the world (like in movies and cartoons). Any volunteers? Once this person is successful, he or she can prevent country specific bias by controlling world events. For example, tomorrow's FA is on some American comedy performance. So no events from America that merit inclusion in ITN tomorrow please. The next day it a Russian composer so no events from Russia. Alternatively, we can try asking these guys Bilderberg Group for help...? Nil Einne 09:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

We already have a Benevolent Dictator for Life, although admittidly he is perhaps more concerned with wikifying the world than controlling it. :-) -- AJR | Talk 17:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
But do you see what I mean? If we had an evil manic, s/he could have ensured Alexander Litvinenko wasn't newsworthy either by preventing him from being poisoned or making such a big stories that no one would have thought of putting a Litvinenko story up. Now we just have to wait to tomorrow and Russian bias allegations appears... :-P Nil Einne 11:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

View the Animation

I notice that the View the Animation link on the main page takes the reader to the image page of the image, which includes all the notices associated with the image. Do we really need for the casual reader to read notices about temporary uploading and all the file links associated with it? Wouldn't it make more sense to just transclude the image into a clean and empty subpage which we link to from the main page, so the reader sees only what they expect to see, the animated image? NoSeptember 12:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I created a page for this purpose for today and future animations as needed. Does anyone object to using it? NoSeptember 12:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks that way. That's how all image pages are set up. Clicking on the image twice takes you to a clean page. drumguy8800 C T 15:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I moved the page to Wikipedia:Today's featured picture (animation) and deleted the cross-namespace redirect. —David Levy 15:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks all for setting this up. Where should we add an instruction for future animated POTD's, so that this page and the main page link gets used properly? The next animated picture seems to be coming on December 3rd. NoSeptember 16:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps as a bullet in Wikipedia:Picture of the day#Guidelines? Koweja 16:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
That was a good idea. I've refined a bit further by creating a subpage for today's animation and transcluded it into Wikipedia:Today's featured picture (animation) with a an {{#ifexist}} clause for days that don't have animations so that page can be dynamic. Hopefully that should work out. howcheng {chat} 18:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Much better in the WP namespace. There should probably be an archive so that users can revisit old animations of the day. Gzkn 07:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to be bold in moving pages to the title and namespace you think they belong in. I brought this topic up here because I knew the idea would be vastly improved upon with many people considering it :). Yes, we should have an archive as you suggest. NoSeptember 08:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Bias bias bias

You're all biased to people who bias bias. Nobody's removed a user's joke comment joke about a mediawiki feature planned to send all bias talk to /dev/null! This is atrocious. 80.41.251.238 13:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh? What happened? Nishkid64 22:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Alignment request/tip:

Just a simple request: I would very much appreciate it if the editors/authors would use a 'justified alignment' for the texts, it reads so much nicer! Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MStefSB (talk • contribs) 16:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC).

Check your user preferences, MStefSB. --64.229.220.151 16:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Specifically, Preferences-->Miscellaneous (Misc). Nishkid64 22:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Slow news Day(s)??

ITN hasn't been changed in almost 48 hours I think. There must be something interesting happening in the world that deserves a mention. Antimatter 17:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been a rather slow-moving section for quite a while now. It's unfair to say that it should be updated every time a new story hits the presses, since the primary motivation behind listing items is the existence of a recently updated article. But I think the main reason is probably a lack of admins willing to muck in there (I include myself in this category), perhaps because of its status as the most-complained-about section of the Main Page, with accusations of bias, lack of relevancy, accuracy, images, etc. cropping up almost every time a new item appears. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
What has happened in the world in the last two days that is notable? Zippo...unless you consider the whole Alexander Litvinenko-Russia incident significant in the world. Anyway, once something important happens, ITN will be updated. Nishkid64 22:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I just thought it was worth mentioning....wikipedia (and wikinews) is my primary news source...it's almost as if the world is slowing down so that I can catch up with it...strange. Antimatter 01:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Haha. Take advantage of it while you can. Nishkid64 02:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Ian Thorpe, who won 11 world championship titles in swimming, the most by any athlete, has just retired.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe for Portal:Swimming. It's been a slow news week. Nishkid64 02:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually...this may be a good sports-related ITN. I'll try it. Nishkid64 02:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Better than Alexander Litvinenko? Skittle 02:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Litvinenko is not even verified. He's making claims that it was government who poisoned him, but no one knows. Even though it sounds ridiculous, I bet people would complain we were anti-Russian if we put up "Former KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko accuses Russian government of poisoning him..." Nishkid64 02:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's see... I've just updated the Vietnamese Wikipedia's ITN section to include NASDAQ's bid to buy out the London Stock Exchange, Kofi Annan's call against intervention by Somalia's neighbors into the Somali Civil War, the APEC and G20 summits that wrapped up on Sunday, and India's test of the Prithvi Missile System. There's plenty going on. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of those sound pretty good, perhaps some of them should be added (if a bias complaint can be averted) Antimatter 07:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There's also Obrador vowing to establish a "parallel government". All this stuff's on Current events. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

We could, in theory, augment the ITN section with a line of links to currently hot topics, without them being necessarily updated. We could even put "please update this page" tags on them, to get more people involved in topics that need work. Zocky | picture popups 14:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
If we are not requiring updating for items on ITN, what's the difference between ITN and [[Portal:Current events/{{CURRENTYEAR}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}]] besides the daily automatic refreshing at midnight UTC? We should put "please update this page" tags on pages linked from Current events to get more people involved in topics that need work. Pages that got well updated would then get "promoted" into ITN. --64.229.223.162 17:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The difference would be that these wouldn't have a full sentence each but just a link to the page. For today, such a line could look like:
In the news: Sino-Indian relations · Nuclear fusion · Politics of Nepal· Lopez Obrador
Zocky | picture popups 18:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
You mean just one line at the bottom of ITN? I see. I support this. But I suggest changing "In the news" (already at the top of the ITN template) to "Other news". --64.229.223.162 19:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
These days, DYK is more popular than ITN. Maybe the two sections should swap spots on the Main Page. --64.229.223.162 17:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The current layout is based upon the thematic connection between the two left-hand sections and the even stronger thematic connection between the two right-hand sections (which collectively justify the green/blue color-coding). —David Levy 18:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, we can swap the green and blue bars, too. --64.229.223.162 18:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Russian security service accusation

"The Russian security service denies any involvement." This is almost the same as saying that they are probably involved. After all the CIA will say they're not involved either but you're not mentioning this. Please just remove that line. Piet | Talk 13:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've shortened the news item to just plain facts. Speculation about culprits and motivation is better left to sourced statements in the article. Zocky | picture popups 15:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

German Wikipedia 500,000th entry

See also: Talk:Main Page #The 10k's

Well, the German Wikipedia is about to have its 500,000th article. Should a new section on the frontpage be created for it? After all it's 10 times as big as the Wikipedias with 50,000+ entries. Jrielaecher 13:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

We already decided that there were too few Wikipedias with 100,000 or more articles to warrant the existence of a separate section, so it's highly doubtful that we would create a special section for the German Wikipedia alone. —David Levy 13:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The French Wikipedia would join it fairly soon. IMO half a million is a pretty special milestone or are we gonna wait a decade until 10 Wikipedias reach that mark? Jrielaecher 16:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
As a point of reference, the "100,000" level contained nine Wikipedias when it was eliminated from the section. —David Levy 18:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


The section is a bit misleading as it is. The 50k+ heading doesn't really describe well wikipedias that are an order of magnitude larger than that. We can't let the visual balance of sections trump functionality. Maybe we should go for something spacey, like the following (relative sizes based on the 4th root of the number of articles). Zocky | picture popups 17:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

1. That could easily be misinterpreted as an indication of the individual languages' levels of importance.
2. It's ugly and distracting (IMHO).
3 The idea is to link to reasonably large Wikipedias in different languages (which are useful to different people). Someone seeking the Telugu Wikipedia probably won't benefit from knowing that the German Wikipedia is much larger. We use tiers to increase the ease of finding the languages most likely sought, to avoid leading people to believe that all Wikipedias are roughly the same size, and to clearly convey the current cut-off point (which exists due to size concerns). —David Levy 18:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Why is "English" listed? —David Levy 18:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I like it. I find it artistic and sort-of humourous. Probably not politically correct, unfortunately. Maybe you could add all 250 Wikipedias to it, scaled to number of articles, and put it on a sub-page somewhere just for fun. I'd like to see what it would look like with the little ones in it too. Any maybe more variety of colour. --Coppertwig 02:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It's just a random suggestion, and English is listed purely as an illustration. But concerning your points, any ordering or choice of languages can be construed as ordering them by importance. Whatever we use, we can add an explanation and make it clear what it means. But the point is that the current heading "50k+ articles" is misleading at least for de and fr. They have a good chunk of a million articles, not "more than 50 thousand". Maybe we can drop the whole number of articles scheme and say "10 largest wikipedias" or something. Zocky | picture popups 18:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
1. The current setup is much clearer, especially to someone with limited English comprehension. Anyone familiar with Arabic numerals should be able to understand that the Wikipedias are divided by size.
2. The levels have now been changed from 50,000 and 20,000 to 100,000 and 20,000. —David Levy 18:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
What's Esperanto doing on the 100,000+ list though? Jrielaecher 21:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Coming to think of it, this design does indeed make it easier to link to the largest wikipedias, without dividing languages into classes by importance. In that regard, it's not much worse than the current scheme. Zocky | picture popups 18:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
See above. —David Levy 18:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
That scheme is irredeemably ugly. It scalds the eyes. Raul654 19:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. —David Levy 19:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it ugly, but too informal. Besides that, it's funny to imagine what the balance paranoids would do about that.--cloviz 22:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The 'scalding the eyes' image is actually quite nice. Well, for 5 seconds maybe. What would be better is if the different wikipedias expanded and contracted at random, giving the impression they were rising from the page towards you, and then falling back again. All to a suitable tune of course. Maybe Twilight Zone or Night of the Living Dead? :-) Carcharoth 03:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Add <blink> as well. Titoxd(?!?) 05:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I was bashing around for that "50,000+" listing because there were already several Wikipediae with more than 250,000 articles. I wasn't heard, but after it was changed back to 100,000 recently all I can say is: Don't change it. The French Wikipedia will have 400,000 articles very soon, as the third largest WP it should be within the same group as the German one. An own section for one or two entries doesn't make sense. --32X 22:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I would also create the 500.000 section. --Nrainer 11:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfree image on the Main Page

Is this kosher? Don't we have a policy of no unfree images outside of articlespace? - crz crztalk 16:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images have appeared on the Main Page before as well. This happens only when the TFA has no free image to accompany the summary.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 16:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Heheh... the main page IS in article space :) 80.41.251.238 11:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Functionalism in "Did you know..."

The link to Functionalism in DYK goes to a disambig page. It should go to Functionalism (architecture). Can someone correct this? MrVoluntarist 17:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Try WP:ERRORS. --64.229.223.162 17:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be some buttom up top linking people there so they'd know to go there instead? I didn't see one, but I could just be blind today. MrVoluntarist 17:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a link near the top of this page, and one at the footer. --64.229.223.162 17:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
No, you're not blind, MrVoluntarist. You just missed it. It's alright. The link used to be in a red box. Maybe we should restore the red box. --64.229.223.162 17:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I assumed he was talking about the main page, not the discussion page for the main page. The problem is that once someone has decided to report an error, he (okay, me) will go to the discussion and then immediately report it, which is where that kind of thing has historically been done. It would just make sense for the error-reporting link to be on the main page, at least for me. Even here I have to read through a number of options. It should be more prominent, since it's probably the most common thing that shouldn't go here, but people would think should go here. Sorry again. MrVoluntarist 17:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It's okay. No need to apologize. Maybe we should restore the red box with the link to WP:ERRORS. --64.229.223.162 18:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It's okay the occasional person trying to report an error will go straight to the [+] button without looking for the help boxes, nothing can be done about that. As MrV points out, it's SOP on normal pages. The current header and footer catch a lot more people and send them to the 'correct' places than the old red box. The current header is the result of about a month's tweeking and interviewing people who continued to post here. It also stops inciting vandals who took the warning as a WP:BEANS. --Monotonehell 06:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay now this is weird: why doesn't the correction that was just made to functionalism's link appear in the main page's history? Or in the DYK history? MrVoluntarist 17:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see that in the DYK history. Try emptying your cache. --64.229.223.162 18:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I love wikipedia"""""

Colbert as "featured article"

Surely a better article could be found than that? Calling what Colbert did as 'satire' doesn't adequately describe it. This was supposed to be entertainment, but was turned into an outright attack which amused only democrats...and not all of them. To say it was controversial, likewise falls short of the mark. Did someone pay to have this article featured? Brian Pearson 17:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I completly agree, I thought at first the Main Page was vanalised; an article whose lead uses words like 'mocked' has problems from start. The FA vote was 11:4, with significant objections not addressed; this should not be our Featured Article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's politically charged, but it certainly qualifies as a good article...I would say FA quality. Well referenced and fairly objective. The subjectivity lies in the fact that it was chosen as featured article of the day, not necessarily the content of the article itself. Featured articles frequently raise controversy like this, but I didn't even know there was an article on this subject at all....now the fact that it is featured only goes to show what a remarkable process of information exchange took place to bring the article to its current condition. As far as being a testament to the use of Wikipedia as a compendium of knowledge, I say it was a good choice. (although the fact that it wasn't published as the featured article of the day until after the midterm elections is an issue of some sensitivity) Antimatter 20:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

People, please stop and think before you make comments like that. Some FA's may be controversial, but I assure you, all FA's have been systematically approved and proofread by several Wikipedia editors. It exemplifies some of Wikipedia's finer articles, and does not take into respect the controversiality of the article. Nishkid64 23:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Something I had read soon after this performance was over is in the article: Time magazine TV critic James Poniewozik thought that Colbert's critics missed the point. "Colbert wasn't playing to the room, I suspect, but to the wide audience of people who would later watch on the Internet. If anything, he was playing against the room." Poniewozik called the pained, uncomfortable reaction of the audience to Colbert's jokes, "the money shots. They were the whole point."[8] This is key to the controversy, that the audience was not in that room, but on the Internet. It was the perfect chance for the ultimate publicity stunt and advertisment rolled into one for Colbert to make money on a CD. Brian Pearson 03:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson

Provide a way to get to all the Wikipedias

See also: Talk:Main Page #The 10k's
See also: Talk:Main Page/Archive 82#Where are the interwiki links?
See also: Talk:Main Page/Archive 80#Why are there not links to Wikipedia in other languages on the main page

For each language Wikipedia, surely there must have been a time when it had only 1 article. I like the idea of encouraging the small wikis to grow. Here's an idea: On every page, or at least on the main page, at the bottom of the list of languages at the left, have one more link marked "...other". It would link to a page that has a list of every language Wiki, even the ones that are just starting and have only 1 article. It would link to an article on that Wiki, it doesn't matter much which article, even if the Wiki doesn't have a Main Page, because once you've navigated to that one article, you can then start creating pages and writing articles for that Wiki. At the moment I'm frustrated because I don't see any way to find a list of all the languages. The Wikipedia:Babel page has the most that I've seen, but I suspect there may be more. There should be a way to find a list of all of them. And it should not be too hard to find. One link from the home page is not too much to ask, I think. --Coppertwig 02:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean a link like this? It's in the Wikipedia languages section on the main page (labeled "Complete list"). —David Levy 03:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
We keep getting requests like this, and yet so few people participate in the discussion at Talk:Main Page #The 10k's. Sigh.... --64.229.220.196 07:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, OK. Just before coming back here, I looked more carefully at the main page and discovered that links to all the Wikipedias can be found by scrolling down. OK, so the link is there. I found it (after having participated long enough on Wikipedia to establish user accounts on several language Wikipedias and have over 250 mainspace edits in the English Wikipedia.) If you keep getting requests like this, why not put a note just above or below the list of languages on the main page, something like "for more languages, see bottom of page"? When there's a list of languages at the left, it sort-of implies that those are all the languages, unless you say "more below" or something. OK, I'll check out the 10k discussion. --Coppertwig 13:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
sigh, I have no idea who put the interwiki links back. We used to have no direct interwiki links, and all (10k+) links in the page body. I agree that the way it is now is just confusing, let's get rid of the interwiki panel again please? dab (ᛏ) 13:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I've always felt that the sidebar links were redundant and unnecessary. It's only now that I realize how confusing, misleading and harmful they are (falsely implying that these are the only other languages with Wikipedias and discouraging readers from finding the Wikipedia languages section and the Complete list link contained therein). Because of this, I've removed them. If someone knows of a hack that would enable the requested Complete list link to be added, that would be a different story. —David Levy 18:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for listening. That's part of it; I would also like to see something in the part of the Main Page that's usually visible without scrolling down. One more link could be added, along with "Main Page, Community Portal," etc. or in "toolbox", a link saying "Other languages". I would prefer to have it go to a page with the Active Wikipedias template at the top. It would serve two purposes: it would show people how many languages there are, (and let them access them, even the ones that have the most need of articles being added); and it would also help with navigation when zipping around from one language Wikipedia to another putting in interwiki links. (I do read enough of the articles to make sure they're the same subject before putting in the links.) Preferably I would like to be able to get from any page in one language Wikipedia to another language Wikipedia with only two clicks and no scrolling down. Maybe three clicks. Actually, I can manage this by setting the home page of my browser to a user page of mine on Meta with the Active Wikipedias template in it, but I'm thinking it would be helpful to others as well as myself (if I'm on a different computer or want to set a different browser homepage for other purposes) to put in a language link near the top (of the main page or of every page) as I described. --Coppertwig 05:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Or, right where the interwikis would be on the main page, you could put something like "other languages, see below". Some people will be looking for them there, for example if they've seen various numbers of languages on other pages and want a complete list. --Coppertwig 05:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
As alluded to above, I'm not sure that this is technically feasible. If it is, I agree that it would be a good idea. —David Levy 06:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Where are the templates that define the section "Main Page, Community Portal," etc. for every page?
I tried to work out a hack that could be used on the main page, but it didn't quite work for two reasons. See the interwikis on my fr:Utilisateur:Coppertwig. If you click on "English", you get a redirect to a page with a list of all the Wikipedias. Two problems: (1) I don't want this interwiki link to be displayed as "English"; I want it to be displayed as "more ...". I don't see how to do this. (2) In order to get the Active Wikipedias template to expand, I have to use a page on meta, but I don't see how to make a direct interwiki to meta, so I used a redirect, but when I click on it, the redirect doesn't automatically and immediately redirect, which could be confusing for the users as well as putting in one more annoying click when trying to navigate around quickly. This is a more minor problem which can be solved by copying over the source for the Active Wikipedias template (but it would have to be kept up to date).
Here's an awkward way that both of these could be worked around: create a dummy language Wikipedia called al (for "additional languages") displayed as "more...". al.wikipedia.org would have only one page, Languages, containing the information in the Active Wikipedias template, which would have to be kept up-to-date. Then [[al:Languages]] would display in the interwiki as "more..." and link to the page with all the Wikipedias. Wait, "more..." would have to be multilingual. Instead of "more..." it would have to just say "..." or "-->" which hopefully would be understood by users of many languages; dots might not even be seen. Maybe this is too awkward. A better way is to edit the templates that define the basic stuff that appears on all pages. --Coppertwig 13:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
It probably would be better to ask the MediaWiki developers to add the desired functionality. —David Levy 13:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
On the main page, I can "view source" but not edit; I don't see how to even "view source" for the stuff at the left. However, surely someone can change these things. Here's one suggestion: At the top, where it says "1,497,884" articles in English", append "; 250 languages", which would link to a complete list of Wikipedias.
Another problem! When you click on "1,497,884" articles in English" you get to a special page which says "Wikipedia currently has 1,497,941 articles." This gives a very definite impression that Wikipedia exists in only one language. I think I was fooled by this early on in my Wikipedifying. This special page should say instead "The English Wikipedia has 1,497,941 articles." and also provide a link to the complete list of Wikipedias. This would be in addition to having a link from near the top of the Main Page to the complete list. Thanks again for listening. --Coppertwig 13:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The "250 languages" idea seems a bit awkward (because the accompanying text refers strictly to this Wikipedia), but I've revised Special:Statistics. —David Levy 14:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but it's really not much better. It seems to state that Wikipedia is "written in English". I don't see why words mentioning other languages can't be added, even if there is some technical reason why a link to a list of other languages can't be added. For example, when it says this excludes user pages etc., why can't it say this excludes the Wikipedias in other languages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coppertwig (talk • contribs) 14:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC).
The page indicates that this Wikipedia is written in English, and I added an entire section about Wikipedias in other languages (including a link to the complete list). I don't understand the above complaint. —David Levy 14:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I am the one who added the sidebar interwikis a while back after many weeks of people complaining "where are the interwikis" and noting that every other Wikipedia had at least some interwikis on their main page. Most of the people at the time thought this was a good idea. I'm not going to war over this, but I would like to express my preference for having some rather than none. Figuring out a way to have a "complete list" option would be even better (perhaps modeled on Italian Main Page's extra sidebar box rendered through a CSS trick). Dragons flight 18:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I am the one who added the sidebar interwikis a while back after many weeks of people complaining "where are the interwikis" and noting that every other Wikipedia had at least some interwikis on their main page.
All of those interwiki links are on the main page.
I'm not going to war over this, but I would like to express my preference for having some rather than none.
It's problematic when users interpret "some" as "all."
Figuring out a way to have a "complete list" option would be even better (perhaps modeled on Italian Main Page's extra sidebar box rendered through a CSS trick).
That's precisely the type of hack to which I was referring. If it could be applied here, I wouldn't object to restoring the interwiki links to the sidebar. It also would be nice to add a box for the sister project (à la the Italian main page). —David Levy 18:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
To elaborate, I think it is signifcantly more problematic to force readers to find the interwiki links in an unfamiliar place (the very bottom of the page) than it is to confuse them by presenting some incomplete selection of the available languages on the sidebar. Dragons flight 19:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Keep in mind that the people most in need of the interwiki links (new users) are the same ones who likely have no preconceived notion of where they will be. Upon finding them in the sidebar (and possibly not realizing that the list is far from complete), they might not notice the "Complete list" link that they otherwise would have found. —David Levy 19:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I suspect the vast majority of users familiarize themselves with Wikipedia by googling into internal content pages, where they will learn to expect sidebar interwikis. Past comments strongly suggest to me that most users will overlook the interwikis at the bottom of the main page. In the current version, maybe more people will find the "Complete list", but I believe far fewer will find any interwikis, which is what I believe makes your version worse. You slightly increase the visibility of the complete list but strongly decrease the visibility of all the other major Wikipedias. I think that is a bad trade off. Dragons flight 20:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Users already familiar with interwiki links from articles are aware that the largest Wikipedias exist and capable of finding them. They might not, however, be aware that the smaller Wikipedias exist. —David Levy 20:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
We had 30+ links there before, which is far more than most articles and already served to make people aware of more wikipedias than most people would otherwise notice. We could always add still more links (though eventually some largely arbitrary cutoff would still be required). I just don't see trying to promote the existence of the complete list as the kind of goal that justifies removing useful and awareness building information from the sidebar. Dragons flight 21:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't perceive the list as doing more good than harm when it misleads people to believe that the Wikipedias referenced therein are the only ones that exist. After all, the smaller ones are the ones most in need of new editors and least likely to be linked from our articles.
I've examined the code behind the Italian Wikipedia's extra sidebar box (which evidently originated at the German Wiktionary), and it's a bit too complex for me to fully grasp (especially given the language barrier). I'm certain, however, that someone will be able to adapt it for our use. That will render this issue moot. —David Levy 21:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I've now installed an "Other languages..." link to the bottom of the interwikis through javascript (tested in recent versions of IE and firefox). You may have to clear your cache to see it (Ctrl-F5 on IE/Firefox for Windows). Dragons flight 22:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

1. I changed the link to "Complete list" (to match the link from the Wikipedia languages section and eliminate redundancy with the Other languages heading), but my attempt to add bold text (via the <strong> tag) failed. (The link disappeared.) Do you know of a way to accomplish this? —David Levy 22:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why that failed, and I would have expected it to work. I used <b> in some of my test runs and that worked, but I decided to drop it because I felt bolding the complete list, when absolutely nothing else in bolded in the sidebar, made it stand out disproportionately to its significance. Dragons flight 18:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'd like to give that a try. To me, it seems important for that link to stand out (given that it differs significantly). At the moment, it blends in to an extent disproportionate to its significance, and someone could easily overlook it. —David Levy 18:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
It turns out that I simply wasn't waiting long enough for the link to load after clearing my cache. Either tag works. —David Levy 19:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
2. This isn't the method used at the Italian Wikipedia. Users with JavaScript disabled/unsupported still see the interwiki list without the special link. Can you please switch to setup that we discussed (which displays all or nothing)? —David Levy 22:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how to display all or nothing without applying some really ugly hack (like moving all the interwiki links into javascript). Dragons flight 18:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I was under the impression that the method used to display the sister project links at the Italian Wikipedia (all via JavaScript) would be implemented here. I don't see how that's any uglier than the current hack (which results in the extra link appearing after all of the other links appear). —David Levy 18:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Even if I could figure out a way to do it, you may recall that I think something is better than nothing, so this is the default behavior I prefer for the few percent of users who might have javascript disabled. Dragons flight 18:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
As you say, this affects a relatively small number of people, but my opinion of which evil is the lesser of two is unchanged.
Ideally, the ability to add a custom link would be added to MediaWiki (eliminating the need to use any sort of hack). —David Levy 18:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This hack to put the complete list on the sidebar looks really good. Good work, DF and DL! The update to Special:Statistics looks good as well. Now, when will the proposed new sidebar be ready... ;-) Carcharoth 01:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Dragons flight: You did it! Thank you! thank you! thank you!
Thank you to David Levy too!
In the long term, some other pages may start having so many languages people might not want to list them all, so it would be nice to have a "complete list" option that doesn't necessarily go to all active Wikipedias but goes to all the pages equivalent to that page. Depending on how that is done, it could also simplify the adding of interwiki links; when adding one more language you wouldn't have to log onto 100 Wikipedias to put in the interwiki links, you could just add the new language to a list for that page that is accessed by equivalent pages in all the Wikipedias. If such is feasible. Thanks again! --Coppertwig 03:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect terminology

I posted this on the Error page, but felt mentioning it here might be beneficial. There seems to be a lax practice on Wikipedia to refer to anything British as English, and link appropriately. After 1603 there's the union of the crowns, but it's still legally fine to refer to England and Scotland seperately. No problem there.

The problem is referring to events after 1707 as "English", and linking to England or such. There is no England as a sovereign entity after the Act of Union. No Scotland either. It's Great Britain.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaenei (talk • contribs) 07:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC).

The continued ignorance of the difference between England/Britain (and it really isnt that hard to understand) is one of my pet gripes on wikipedia. siarach 07:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
England and Scotland did not cease to exist in 1707, and many things can still be accurately described as English or Scottish. Zocky | picture popups 10:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Your right but the above user is accurate. England did cease to exist as a sovereign entity. It doesn't mean it isn't an entity. The issue is not that things can't be described as English or Scottish but that people think English means the same thing as British which is simply not true and use the words interchangebly. Nil Einne 05:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


One can continue to describe things as English or Scottish, people do. But when the Royal Navy, which draws and has drawn manpower, taxes and ships from across Great Britain and its sailors are referred to as English, that's just simply wrong. It's merely the point that Scotland and England(& Wales) together are Great Britain, together with Northern Ireland are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and not simply "England." It's just question of simply terminology.

Kaenei 13:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Blackbeard

Somehwat connected to the entirely valid gripe above - It should refer to British sailors, not English. siarach 07:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

My pet gripe on wikipedia? Too many people who don't read instructions at the top of this talkpage. The Error Report really isn't that hard to find. --64.229.220.196 08:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/i/Talk%7EMain_Page_Archive_83_5b63.html"