Talk:Main Page/Archive 62

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 62


Contents

Isambard Kingdom Brunel problem

This featured article link is either not working or someone (or a technical bug) has deleted the article entirely - the FA link leads to a deleted page. Bwithh 00:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

typo in the did you know section

The "Olympia" in USS Olympia should be in italics as the name of a ship according to the Manual of Style. Could someone fix this? Dismas|(talk) 00:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone has.-gadfium 05:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


Is the browsebar useful?

This is not exactly about the main page, but it is about {{browsebar}} which is intimately related to the question of usability of Wikipedia. I would appreciate comments on the discussion I started at Template talk:Browsebar#Is this bar useful?. Thanks a lot, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Categories · Glossaries · Lists · Overviews · Portals · Questions · Reference · Site news · A-Z Index

Arts | Biography | Culture | Geography | History | Mathematics | Philosophy | Science | Society | [[Portal:Technology|That is, discussion is underway to remove links from the above bar, as well as remove the bar itself from many of its current locations. We need lots of feedback on this issue, to make sure we aren't about to remove something that gets a lot of use. What we really need to know, is: do you ever use the above browsebar? And if so, how often do you use it and what do you use it for? Please CLICK HERE to tell us. --Go for it! 23:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Perth airport

Perth is not the "only city in the world where aircraft can land in the central business district." Burke Lakefront Airport is in downtown Cleveland, Ohio. You've got to be careful with words like "only." -- Mwalcoff 02:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention London City Airport, tiny STOL-airport, but still served 2M people in one of europe's most important financial districts... Andreala 03:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Perth airport is not in the CBD. Depending on traffic, it could take 20-30 minutes or more to get from the airport to the city. Okay, so it's a lot nearer than Heathrow to London's CBD, but don't expect to walk from the plane and onto St George's Terrace!

Picture of the day/Discussion archive

Tram should probably be linked, eh?

Also, this page is huge, is it going to be archived? Ziggur 04:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see all the admins reading this page and making changes. Jellypuzzle | Talk 18:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The talk page was archived but nobody linked tram. Ziggur 21:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Departartment

Currently, the Main Page says "that /.../ Department of /.../ was the first /.../ departartment in the world". Could someone fix the departartment, please? --Oop 07:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed.-gadfium 08:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The pic of the day looks good enough to eat, even if they are "actually false berries".

PHP MySQL Playground

--TecBrat 00:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Projects link from Sister Projects area

I've been told that the current projects link in the Sister Projects section is to an out-of date page. Is there any way to find out whether the Wikimedia Foundation plan to update that page anytime soon? Is there a better link to use in the meantime? Carcharoth 08:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

special:sitematrix is an ugly version (also includes all projects and languages), however the foundation page is pretty well correct. It doesn't include wikiverity or wikijourniour, but they're pretty much subprojects of wikibooks. Bawolff 01:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrong flag

ITN says "basque flag pictured", but flag of Iraq appears.

Plagiarism!

Since when did Uncyclopedia give Wikipedia permission to blatantly steal the main page design? I better have a good explanation for this... --Lugiatm (talk • contribs) 15:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's the other way around... they copied off of our main page drafts. -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, don't they use the GFDL as well? Batmanand | Talk 18:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
No, they use a Creative Commons license (cc-by-nc-sa), so they are probably shouldn't be using the layout. -Splashtalk 21:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
They probably can because parody is fair use. I'm completely unsure about this and someone knowledgeable on copyright should reply here. --Michiel Sikma 22:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Heading font

Seems that the before the after original request was archived, so I'll mention it again: some of the headers on the new main page seem to have Arial and Helvetica hardcoded as font. I prefer browsing Wikipedia in Verdana because I find it much more legible (mainly due to its large x-height and punch size which seem to really benefit its screen readability). Could these hardcoded fonts please be set to "sans-serif" instead so that I can choose the font in my browser? --Michiel Sikma 22:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I was waiting for someone more knowledgeable to do this, but because that hasn't occurred, I've made the attempt myself. Please let me know if I succeeded. —David Levy 22:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! --Bryan Nguyen | Talk 01:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that works just fine. All the font-family tags have been altered, and there aren't anymore traces of defined fonts in the code. Thanks! --Michiel Sikma 06:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
That change was a good temporary measure. Is anyone working to make new CSS ids so they can be customized? --Yath 18:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Design

Nice New look. (Hpetwe 01:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC))

  • I wholeheartedly agree. K-UNIT 04:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi can you all, anyone that reads this add xx_boy_crazy_xx@hotmail.com please? thank you

The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit? Then why can't anyone edit the Main Page? -- Zondor 03:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Because it would be subjected to unbelievable amounts of vandalism. The stuff on the main page are the results of many collaberations that anyone can be a part of, and it is the face for the rest of the encyclopedia, it is not an article or a talk page, but provides short summaries and links to those pages that anyone can edit. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Today's Featured Article typo

Canberra is unusual amongst Australian capital cities... How many Australian capital cities are there? I think it should just say Australian cities? ::Supergolden:: 10:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Chris j wood appears to have fixed it – Gurch 12:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
How about Canberra actually IS unusual amongst Australian Capital cities? it is in my opinion and Ive been to most of them lots. How about its the ONLY designed city in the set? I'm sure that there are many unusual attributes, and how many capital cities does a country need to qualify for one of them being unusual? moza 23:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Six states and 2 territories: Australia#States_and_territories. ;-) --Quiddity 01:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

King James errors?

Couple of questions; why is the article called "King James I of England," when James was a Scot, born in Scotland, and King in official capacity of Scotland well before England? Secondly I don't really think it should be, "The first British Monarch ..." As the concept of Britain, and a permanent union of the crowns isn't until 1707. Isn't it far more accurate to say that Queen Anne is in fact the first "British" Monarch?

I would suggest instead, "King James VI of Scotland becomes King of England, and Ireland, unifiying the crowns of the Three Kingdoms for the first time." Or something to that effect.

Kaenei 10:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The 1603 item has been rewritten. Hope it's better now without the word 'British' in the sentence. About the article name, well, check out the talk page, Kaenei. -- PFHLai 16:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How was "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" removed from the Main Page? Not that I want it there, but just wondering how. -- WB 13:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The JavaScript file MediaWiki:Monobook.js removes (more correctly hides) the title and subtitle from the main page. RexNL 15:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you tell me which code exactly, because I'm planning on using it on some other Wiki I'm helping on. Thanks. -- WB 05:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Queen of the North

Someone might want to update the Queen of the North headline in the news section. The ferry didn't hit a rock, apparently -- it hit an island. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 16:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, BanyanTree 19:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Afghan citizen Abdul Rahman faces the death penalty

Does he? To me that sounds like he's going to die. Like he's on death row. But according to all the sources it's not been decided yet. So he COULD die or not. I think this should be changed to something a little less ambiguous like..."Afghan citizen Abdul Rahman could potentially be executed..." User:domfeargrieveUser talk:domfeargrieve 19:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I've changed the wording per your suggestion. It's great to see people pick over the main page with such fine-toothed combs. Do you all do this on other articles too? Harro5 00:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Phenomenons

(In the Jackson 5 section.) Should this be "phenomena"? PeteVerdon 00:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Phenomena is probably more correct, but the sentance is a quote so I think it should be left as it is. Raven4x4x 01:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikinews logo

Does anyone else think that it would be better to use a circular version of this logo (with the left and right segments removed) in the sister projects section? Each image is limited to a width of 35 pixels (with the heights varying greatly), and this causes the current version to be so small that it's virtually unrecognizable at higher resolutions. The actual Wikinews site uses just such a variant as their favicon.ico file (the icon that appears in the address bar) for the same reason, so this is far from unprecedented. —David Levy 01:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's being dwarfed by all the other project logos. —Bryan Nguyen | Talk 04:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The main problem of that suggestion is that you propose using a graphic version that is not the Wikinews logo. It would be better to come up with a sister project listing scheme that allowed the use of the true WN logo rather than alter the logo to fit the current scheme on this page. Davodd 22:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
If that isn't a valid variant, why is it used as the site's official 16x16 pixel icon? —David Levy 22:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you know, Seacliff

It says it operated a missile defense and training, while the article only says training and U-boat defense, and I seriously question whether there was missile defence research done during WWI.say1988 01:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The only missiles available during WW-I were of the Monty Python variety. Of course, there were bombards and the like. My big question is how to find the full article that this little talking point on the main page seems to make reference to. I would rather correct the underlying article (for example: Seacliff Missile Defence) than the main page.

S*** on the main page?

I know it's the weekend, and I know Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, but is it really such a good idea from a PR standpoint to have a boldface four-letter word on the main page? (granted, below the scroll line, but still ...) Daniel Case 03:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's not like it needs to be used (it's just one of many slang words for hash) and it looks unprofessional. Gflores Talk 04:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely hate censorship, but this does look slightly unprofessional in my opinion. For the Featured Articles, we don't list the alternative names on the front page, so there isn't really a need to for the Featured Pictures either. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above comments, and I've edited the text accordingly. —David Levy 04:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The idea that all restraint and decency is "censorship" is a heartless insult to people who have suffered from real ideologically motivated censorship. Hawkestone 05:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Today's DYK

Crocodile attacks says: "The Saltwater and Nile Crocodiles are the most dangerous, killing hundreds of people each year in parts of South-East Asia and Africa... Since 1990, at least a dozen people from western countries have been killed by crocodiles"

The DYK shortens it to: "a dozen people have been killed by crocodiles in the last decade".

Excellent summary. Arvindn 03:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, only Westerners are actually people. Can an admin change this ASAP. --Midnighttonight 05:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in correcting that. Initially, I only skimmed Arvindn's post, and I didn't realize that the "excellent summary" comment was sarcasm. —David Levy 05:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The DYK text was an accurate summary of the article until a few hours ago, when User:Stbalbach added that hundred of people in Africa and Asia were killed by crocodiles each year. That is unsourced, although I have no reason to doubt it. I don't want to add an unsourced factoid to the front page, so I'll just remove the crocodile DYK entirely.-gadfium 05:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Being in a sarcastic mood, I'll add that I hope the road traffic accident page talks about how many people are killed on the roads worldwide each year (oh, good! it does!). Carcharoth 00:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Error in today's featured article

Re Jackson 5, the plural of "phenomenon" should not be "phenomenons", right? Even if it's a quotation, it makes us look illiterate. Kosebamse 10:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think its okay. "Usage Note: Phenomenon is the only singular form of this noun; phenomena is the usual plural. Phenomenons may also be used as the plural in nonscientific writing when the meaning is "extraordinary things, occurrences, or persons": They were phenomenons in the history of music." (Source: http://thefreedictionary.com/phenomenons). See also mass noun. -- Zondor 10:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Well then... but I would guess that many readers will disagree with that usage. It might be better to remove that sentence from the front page, if not from the article itself. Kosebamse 10:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Or to simply add (sic) to the quotation. GeeJo (t) (c) • 10:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Feast of the Annunciation not only in western christianity

The very article of Annunciation talks about the eastern equivalent of Theotokos and the equivalent "celebration" of 25 march --161.76.99.106 11:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing my reply, I read what you said wrong. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 14:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Annunciation is celebrated in Eastern Christianity. However, the date of Christmas in Eastern Christianity varies from place to place. So, the date of Annunciation, 9 months before Christmas, also varies and is not always March 25 as in Western Christianity. --PFHLai 21:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

encyclopaedia vs encyclopedia

Encyclopedia is the American English word where as encyclopaedia is the eglish word, Why does wikipedia spell it in the American way when this is the English encyclopaedia not the American English.--Matthew Fenton 12:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You may note it is called wikipedia not wikipaedia. dunno why but thought id point it out. SECProto 15:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I addressed this issue on Matthew's talk page (after I reverted his move of Encyclopedia to Encyclopaedia). —David Levy 15:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

history

the bird sings in the tall oak tree and takes one from me tall oak tree tall oak tree takes one for me.


JACKSON 5

It should read "The Jackson Five was" not "The Jackson 5 were." The Jackson 5 is the collective, singular name of the group (a group is one entity) and the verb "were" does not properly follow. If you look at the article, it uses the "was" and it makes much more sense gramatically. Please change "were" to "was" in the first sentence, and wherever else necessary. - Paulus89 13:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 14:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Properly, this is a BE/AE issue, but AE is probably more suitable for the topic.
James F. (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Belarus

I notice that Belarusian presidential election just fell out of the news section. Things are happening there right now (Saturday) of much greater importance than, say, some ferry in British Columbia. Maybe it should come back up? Eixo 16:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a big story. Considering the risks involved to the protesters, the fact that they are still doing it ought to be mentioned. ProhibitOnions 19:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The possibility of big news unfolding in the future is not big news yet. So far we have not seen bloody clashes. So far the government in Belarus does not appear on the verge of crisis. At this stage the story is no longer one of the top headlines in the international news. 172 | Talk 20:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
It's an unprecedented event taking place in Europe's last dictatorship. That's noteworthy right now, we don't need any blood to make it so (though there was plenty of that too, if that's what you're into). It's also on BBC's front page. Eixo 22:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
BBC tends to give disproportionate coverage to European events, as one would expect for a European news agency. Meanwhile, protests concerning disputing elections happen all the time in the developing world, but they typically don't get the attention that Belarus has already gotten on the main page. 172 | Talk 23:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The protests are the news. If news agencies fail to cover issues like this, it's an argument for coverage on Wikipedia, not for ignoring this event, the effects of which could be far-reaching. ProhibitOnions 19:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Where have the links to other language editions gone?

In the old page they were down the left hand side under Toolbox, but now they have disappeared. I cannot find any mention of this in the redesign proposal. How do I find links to other language editions? Do I have to guess the language domain name by trial and error??? Tamino 17:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The links to the other language editions are at the bottom of the page, as they have always been. For a complete list see m:List of Wikipedias The language interwiki links at the left-hand side are generally only there for articles (not the Main Page - though I'm not 100% sure about this), and serve to link you to articles on the same subject written in another language (usually by different people). Carcharoth 18:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Punctuation in the current title

Third text line added to these examples by David Levy 23:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC).

At present we have:

Welcome to Wikipedia,

the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
1,727,132 articles in English

Although grammatically correct as a sentence, the punctuation looks funny in what is, after all, a title. It might look better if we omit the comma and period thus:

Welcome to Wikipedia

the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit
1,727,132 articles in English

I realize that quite a lot of discussion went into the new look. I just find this punctuation a little jarring, somehow. ProhibitOnions 19:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I second this - particularly because the contentious "third line" (see above) doesn't take a similar sentence form. BigBlueFish 21:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I like the punctuation, and I think that the presence of the third line (which isn't a sentence, and therefore should be styled differently) makes it even more important to include. Otherwise, the second and third lines will appear to run together ("the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit 1,727,132 articles in English"). —David Levy 23:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Thirded. The title sets a precedence for correct punctuation on Wikipedia, and to some degree (as it is a prominent reference work), the English language. Punctuation shouldn't be a matter of style, and I don't see the reason for marking this as a sentence. --Grocer 23:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, I don't understand your point. This is a sentence, and any decision to change that would be "a matter of style" (as indicated in ProhibitOnions' proposal). Secondly, how do you suggest addressing the issue that I cited above? (For illustration, I've added the third line to the examples.) Do you disagree that this would be a problem? —David Levy 23:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Except in poetry, sentences are written on a single line. My personal feeling is the header should look crisp and devoid of new convention. If it is to be interpreted as a sentence, the sentence should use the same font size and be written on the same line. Currently, they look like titles. --Grocer 00:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Where are these rules written? Why isn't okay for a sentence to wrap (just as your sentences written above do)? I don't see this as a "new convention." Also, you didn't address my concern regarding the third line of text. —David Levy 01:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes,
but I don't
write like this
when presenting prose.
--Grocer 18:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be implying that the line break is arbitrary and unnecessary. It isn't, as there's practically no horizontal room to spare at the 800x600 resolution. —David Levy 19:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
It's limited by font size and the portals to the side, not by the page width of 800x600. It's a choice to put text that size in a limited area. Look at how the German proposal handles it: [1]. --Grocer 19:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's a choice to utilize such a setup, and this is the choice that was made (following months of discussion and debate). The German proposal incorporates a different approach, and I prefer ours. You're welcome to disagree, but this isn't something that was thrown together overnight by one or two people and implemented without consensus. —David Levy 19:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
If you want my opinion, the article count line looks hokey and out of place, and that's the root of the problem. --Grocer 18:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the article count looks bad and should be removed. —David Levy 19:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
However, I've never been confused as to where the "sentence" in the text ended. --Grocer 18:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Now, by placing the word in quotation marks, you seem to be implying that it isn't actually a sentence. This is false.
Assuming that the current three-line setup remains, do you not agree that removing the punctuation would generate confusion (by causing the second and third lines to run together as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit 1,727,132 articles in English")? —David Levy 19:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
What person hasn't seen such heading & subtitle structure before? --Grocer 18:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The question is not whether such a format is recognizable; it's whether such a setup would be better than the current one. I believe that it wouldn't be.
Your argument seems to be based upon the assumption that we already are using such a setup (with misplaced punctuation). This is not the case. —David Levy 19:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The best solution would be to combine the two lines into: "1,000,000 articles that anyone can edit" or get rid of the article count line altogether. But, I realize that is a different discussion.. --Grocer 18:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The "1,727,132 articles that anyone can edit" wording was tried and rejected during the main page redesign process. Many people opposed the removal of our official slogan, and it also was noted (by me) that this implied that editing was limited to the 1,727,132 existing articles (ignoring the fact that users may author new articles and contribute to the encyclopedia by editing other pages). Yes, we should get rid of the line altogether, and I hope that such a consensus eventually emerges. —David Levy 19:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep punctuation, per David Levy's comments. Carcharoth 00:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This is is more akin to the title and subtitle of on the title page of a book than a sentence. It's more "text as graphic" than sentece. The punctuation should be removed. --Kunzite 00:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Titles used to have punctuation, too - and they used to be complete sentences as well. Keep the punctuation. (But remember, after all, that it's not really a big deal either way.) zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
This exact wording has been featured on the main page (in sentence form) for quite some time. It's merely been restyled to accommodate the new header layout. —David Levy 01:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree to change it. I've noticed the inconsistent grammar before --Joewithajay 11:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

How is the grammar inconsistent, and how do you suggest we demarcate the two statements? —David Levy 14:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess another solution would be to make a sentence of the third line. I still like the old "we are working on" idea, so maybe "We are working on 1,727,132 articles in this English version." although that might be too long. The other suggestion I made above works nicely as a sentence too - "This English version has 1,727,132 articles.". Thoughts? BigBlueFish 14:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

David Levy dislikes that phrase; he explains why here.--HereToHelp 19:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
To be clear, I didn't take it upon myself to reject that type of wording. This was extensively discussed during the main page redesign process. —David Levy 19:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
If anyone championed that form of wording it was me. It always grated on me that there was this room for confusion, and so I suggested avoiding "version" and using "English language FOO" or "FOO written in English" rather than "English FOO". Carcharoth 19:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Another possibility, if we want to remove the punctuation, would be to rephrase the first line. We might drop the "Welcome to" altogether; although friendly, it's a pretty overused phrase on the web:

Wikipedia

The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit
1,727,132 articles in English
In this example you don't have a sentence, simply a title and a description. However, before anyone jumps on me for this, note that I didn't mean to (re-)open discussion on the phrasing, just on the punctuation. ProhibitOnions 19:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree. Really, if the punctuation is causing such an uproar, remove the need for it. Welcoming people is all nice and friendly, but this isn't Vegas. Tell people where they are, tell them what it is, give them the wacky article count (because you know that the casual user of Wikipedia really needs that information) and let it be the end of things. The only people who really care about the punctuation are Wikipedians themselves, upon whom the welcome is completely lost.
And, furthermore, if you're going to keep the welcome and the puntuation, let me throw another wrench into the works. It should probably be "Welcome to Wikipedia: the blah blah blah. We have an entirely unnecessary number of articles in English." I was taught that a colon precedes an explanation, and if the first two lines are going to be a sentence, then the last line should be a sentence, as well. But there should be no sentences anywhere. Except in articles, you know.
MusicMaker5376 01:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
First of all I agree about the "English version" point. It had never occurred to me because, well, I'm English in every sense of the word. I protest against the idea of dropping the "Welcome to". The word Wikipedia is out of context if it is dropped. It is then a title, and implies that that page is Wikipedia. You would have to change it to "Main Page" or "Wikipedia Main Page" to avoid that. I think we should move away from punctuation now, per the point that Grocer made above about multi-line prose. The text is going to be on multiple lines, so the lines might as well be recognised to be individual fragments. BigBlueFish 20:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
No, no. That's like saying that the cover for "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is the book, itself. It's not, and no one thinks it is. Much like someone coming to WP isn't going to look at the main page and say, "That's all?" It's pretty obvious by the content of the main page that much more lay beyond. There's a search window. It says there are a billion articles. (Damn! An argument FOR the article count!) I don't think people are going to be wildly confused by the lack of the word "welcome", and, if they are, perhaps it's better that they don't have access to WP. MusicMaker5376 22:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is the name of the book. Wikipedia is not the name of that page. We already have that one. We also already have a heading that says "Wikipedia" (under the logo). To have it again on the main page would be repetition and uninformative. The welcome should stay. BigBlueFish 14:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Bias/Agenda on the front page

I thought that wikipedia was supposed to be an un-biased site. However, today's picture dealing with illegal drugs seems only to glorify them and does not mention any of the risks or dangers. I realize that the people who are pressing to legalize drugs have an opinion and want to spread their agenda, but the front page of wikipedia is not the place for it!!! Rmisiak 20:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rmisiak. The caption states, "Many people have claimed that using [hashish] gives them great insights." Well, some would disagree. Having dealt with students who've seemingly come to class "high," I think otherwise. Moreover, the question of glamorizing drug usage is beyond a matter of NPOV. Wikipedia's readership is often very young. There are also legitimate public health concerns about leaving a youthful, impressionable readership with the impression that a substance which is banned and controlled almost everywhere is the way of achieving "insights." 172 | Talk 20:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem here seems to be that, although the picture is a featured picture, the article hashish is of a low standard, and has various tags slapped on it. Maybe the people doing picture of the day need to consider where they source the accompanying text from? Carcharoth 21:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. On a related note, I've noticed from time to time sometimes an overt pro-drugs bias in some of Wikipedia's articles. Responsible Wikipedia editors should be concerned about the possibility that these articles are influencing the behavior of impressionable young people. 172 | Talk 22:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Any articles in particular that you feel deserve an NPOV check, because I am more than willing to do it. Batmanand | Talk 00:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be concerned with harming an "impressionable readership", but concerned with censorship for something factual. People do claim they gain insights, true or not, it's often claimed. As a factual source, I see no reason why this information should be omitted. --Joewithajay 11:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

None of us want to censor these articles. If that is a point of view that people have, then it is worth being cited. However, these articles should state *all* the facts, including the wealth of research which has concluded that drugs are harmful to people. Rmisiak 23:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use of Image:Charlestaylor.jpg

I'm curious why its considered fair use to use a screen shot of Charles Taylor here, when normally we're told in other articles you can't do that unless you're actually talking about the TV program. For instance, in an article which mentions the specific TV address, it could be fairuse to have a pic of that address. But the main page is talking about recent events, unconnected the the TV address (the picture description doesn't even give a date). I'm not really opposed to the image's use here, I'm just getting ever more confused by the inconsistency of fairuse rational. --Rob 21:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Special:Statistics has dead links

The links in "Traffic for all Wikimedia sites: daily, monthly, yearly" no longer work because they now always return with "The connection has timed out: The server at noc.wikimedia.org is taking too long to respond.". Can a friendly admin either fix these links, or remove them please?

(OK, this isn't about the Main Page per se, but Special:Statistics has no talk page, and it's linked very prominently from the top of the Main Page, so I thought this was as good a place as any to mention the issue.) GeorgeStepanek\talk 22:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, I see what you mean. Sadly though, even admins like I can't change that, I think only the developers can do so. Anyone know? -- Zanimum 22:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Admins can change that page (MediaWiki:Userstatstext). I've removed the dead links. —David Levy 23:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Christian Afgan

The Abdul Rahman aricle section on the main page should actually mention that he is Christian. --Shanedidona 23:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Added. Thanks for your suggestion. -- PFHLai 06:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

POTD links to wrong article

Today's POTD links to Arowana not Asian Arowana, the article that actually contains the image. Would an admin fix this? Thanks in advance. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Gflores Talk 01:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Cheers! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


Previous Featured picture

I just noticed this today, never really thought of it before, but why is there no previous or recently featured pictures. There are for featured articles, On this day, archives for did you know and links for the news block. It just seems weird to me that there sn't for the featured picture. Is there a reason this was never added?say1988

Look at the bottom of the Picture of the Day (POTD) box -- click the little word archive. That acts just like the Archives for Selected Anniversaries, Featured Articles, DYK. You can also help out the encyclopedia by Nominating a new image for succeeding days. It's a never-ending process, so you can help out here in a big way. --Ancheta Wis 10:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
wow, me=blind when I posted thatsay1988 03:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

On this day: England-Scotland union

As the The 1707 Act of Union says, the 'Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN'. Today may be the anniversary of the passing of the act by one of parliaments, but it is not the anniversary of the union itself. Could someone please remove or amend this item. StockholmSyndrome 09:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been removed. Thanks for pointing this out. -- PFHLai 23:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Name-adding

I want to add my Name here please, SHIMOZ,B —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.218.194.97 (talk • contribs).

Assuming that you mean you want to sign up for an account... see the signup page. --CBDunkerson 11:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

There are [...] articles in the English version.

During the main page redesign process, a great deal of discussion occurred regarding this statement's wording. It was decided that references to the "English version" (and similar phrases) should be avoided. Such a term can imply that a single collection of articles has been (or is being) translated into multiple languages (an "English version," a "German version," et cetera).

It also was pointed out that the use of "English" in this context can be misinterpreted to mean "of or pertaining to England."

For these two reasons, the statement in the Wikipedia languages section refers to "the English language Wikipedia." —David Levy 15:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should link "English" to "English language". But whenever this thing changes I need to change my userpage, too. Plus, I'm busy with an RFA (subtle hint).--HereToHelp 15:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Abdul Rahman

Abdul Rahman is no longer threatened with execution for converting to Christianity. The News entry should be updated to reflect this. PeteVerdon 17:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Updated (not by me). --PFHLai 06:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

"Nigeria agrees to release former Liberian leader Charles Taylor to face war crime charges in Sierra Leone." - front page news info

"On March 25, 2006, Nigeria agreed to extradite Taylor to face war crimes charges in Liberia." - article introduction.

Which is the correct information? The front page and the article have conflicting information. Bsd987 17:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that they are mutually exclusive, but "extradite" is more accurate in this case. I've changed it. - BanyanTree 18:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Um, isn't the point that it's Liberia rather than Sierra Leone? Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Ha! I am so used to looking for corrections of grammar that I completely missed the country names.
Actually, the situation on Wikipedia is about as confused as the real world. Nigeria had previously said that it wouldn't turn Taylor over to face war crimes charges unless the Liberian government requested it. The new Liberian president, Johnson-Sirleaf, recently requested that Taylor be extradited to Sierra Leone for the war crimes tribunal there. Nigeria replied that if Liberia wanted Taylor they were free to come and get him but that, as Sierra Leone hadn't requested an extradition, they certainly wouldn't stick him on a plane there. So now Nigeria and Liberia are squabbling over who has the authority/obligation to send Taylor where. It'd be amusing if it wasn't so pitiful. I'm not quite sure how to word it in ITN without making it a paragraph... - BanyanTree 16:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

New main page headings need work

It's been said a couple of times already in sections marked "heading font", but there's been no response so far. The newly styled H2 elements in the new page layout are among the only page elements that can't be overridden in a user style. That's because they have hardcoded CSS markup rather than being individually named CSS IDs whose markup is defined in monobook.css. This is a serious problem that should be taken care of right away (actually, it should have been taken care of before the new page layout was implemented). --Yath 20:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we re-bold "Wikipedia"?--HereToHelp 20:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it doesn't look right to me unless its bold. Nuge | talk 22:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This is related to the request for a complete code cleanup that is needed here. --Quiddity 22:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Other wiki

How do people get their own wiki? Cheesia

See m:Help:Administrator's Guide and especially m:Help:Installation.-gadfium 02:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
See also Wiki farm. -- PFHLai 06:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
See also Wikia. Ashibaka tock 14:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Error in DYK

Pagans believe "Satan himself" once worshipped on the Harbour's "Auld Kirk Green"

Please see Talk:North Berwick Harbour for why this is almost certainly an inaccurate statement. Could an administrator please alter it while it's in dispute. Thanks. Anne 15:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's worth noting that this is another example of how scholarly standards are sometimes not very rigorously applied at Wikipedia. The author of the article made a leap from his source in asserting that "Pagan lore holds that on Halloween 1590, Satan himself attended a coven on the Auld Kirk Green", and then whoever wrote that DYK section made a further very odd leap in asserting that Satan "worshipped" there. Who would Satan have been worshipping?! Anne 15:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

A thought, by an Avid User

A thought: 3/27/06 J16:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)~~W

I have a suggestion:

Perhaps you could add some type of feature that would come up with a list if an incorrectly spelled word is typed into your search.

For example, if I type in "hohobo oil", the search comes back "no results found".

If you added a line where the user could add that to a list of "commonly misspelled/mistyped words/phrases, then then the user could link that misspelled word/phrase to the correct word/phrase after they revised their search.

So, to continue my example, after figuring out that the correct spelling is "jojoba oil", I could add or "link" "hohobo oil" to jojoba oil, so then if someone else ever does a search for jojoba oil but spells/types it as hohobo oil, a page will come up asking "is this what you were looking for?" with the correct spelling.

I would be willing to help in any way possible!

I think that, if done effectively, this would increase the ease of use and broaden the audience of users, basically, make it simpler and easier to find something on Wikipedia!

Avid User

Glad that you are willing to help in any way possible. A more attentive audience awaits you at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). --64.229.206.2 18:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
That sounds very similiar to a redirect. (basicly It redirects you to the correct page if you type it in.) Happy editing. Bawolff 03:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

2006-03-27 noon ET main news item is WRONG

"Abdul Rahman, a Christian in Afghanistan, is acquitted of apostasy from Islam, sparing him from a possible death sentence." This is not true. He was not acquitted at all; his case was "returned to prosecuters" as inadequately prepared (which isn't even "case dismissed"). He remains in custody and could be subject to a second trial. All of these terms have specific meanings ("acquitted" for example means "affirmatively found to be innocent or not guilty [or not proven guilty, in some legal systems] by a jury, judge or tribunal".) —This unsigned comment was added by Smccandlish (talk • contribs) 16:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC).

His current status seems unclear, but is not correct to say he was acquitted. --Cam 17:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

frog

Why does the main page feature an article about frogs, while the image is a toad? See toad for the image. —This unsigned comment was added by 134.58.253.131 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC).

A toad is classified as a frog. The order is 'Anura'. --64.229.206.2 18:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I switched out the picture to avoid confusion. I think the new one looks better anyways. BrokenSegue 18:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured article protection

shouldn't the featured article be protected? its being attacked by vandals currently

We never protect the featured article. BrokenSegue 19:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
They always are, but it makes it clear to new people that anyone can edit wikipedia, which might not be so clear if they could only "View source". I suspect a lot of our new editors start off by putting "Hello!" in the feature article of the day. Another benefit is that it allows people who do RC patrol to tell the new "today's featured article" without ever viewing the main page just by the sudden surge of vandalism. :-) --W(t) 19:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Shopping Mall

"...that the Westfield Brandon is one of only five shopping malls in the U.S. state of Florida managed by the Australian Westfield Group?"

5 shopping malls seems quite alot, and doesnt warrent the word 'only' (in my opinion). how about removiving it? Dave 20:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about where you live, but in the U.S. cities have multiple malls, so since Florida is the 4th (I think) most populated state in the U.S. five shopping malls isn't really that much. Tennis Dynamite 21:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Regular editing of the Main Page design

Since the redesign came into effect, it seems like there's been a lot of tweaking here and there of the Main Page design, especially in the last week. Despite the community having reached a consensus, the page looks fairly different to what everyone voted on (see the difference). Okay, I realise it's not radical. I also realise that WP is not a democracy, and that any new redesign takes a while to settle in. But I do feel like there needs to be a level of consistency, especially now we're in the Alexa top 20. The main page is being seen by millions of people daily, and it looks almost amateurish when the name of the website flicks between being bold and unbold, text appears and disappears, etc.

Basically, what I'm asking is: when can we expect the main page to settle on one style that everyone is happy with? Nuge(talk) 23:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

1/2 the people will tell you "never, this is the nature of the wiki".
the other half will tell you "right after I make this one last change..."
the final 50% will tell you "it's a lightbulb, they burn out." --Quiddity 02:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia = amateurish
Wikipedia ≠ professional, so no big deal.

Nashville flag in DYK

Please change the wording of this item to "...Native American, believed to be Cherokee chief Oconostota, holding a skull?" to make it clear that Oconostota isn't the skull. Gazpacho 02:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/i/Talk%7EMain_Page_Archive_62_bc7a.html"