Talk:Main Page/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 7 |

Archive 8

| Archive 9 →

Table with problem

I tried making the articles on the main page fit for an 800x600 display, but failed. Someone else needs to fix it (it looks fine while previewing, but falls to pieces after saving...). -- Notheruser 13:18 15 Jun 2003(UTC)

Broken links on the Main Page?

Are we allowed to use nonexistant links on the main page? ilyanep 15:30 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

No. Only articles that are more than 500 bytes (usually about twice as much as a min). --mav 08:35 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

What's a min? ilyanep 15:18 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Italicization

Why are some links italisized and others not? Is this a form of discrimination? MB 21:41 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Remember, there's nothing wrong with discrimination qua discrimination, despite the ideas that a recent deranged alleged Canadian tried to cram down our throats. The italicized ones are titles; even the one that looks like it's just Ed Sullivan is really The Ed Sullivan Show. -- John Owens 23:12 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Arabic link

Question for Arabic-speaking person: Shouldn't the arabic link be [http://ar.wikipedia.com/ ‮العربية‬ (Alaraby)]; isn't alif-lam-ayn-ra-ba-ya-something be transliterated Alaraby? كسيپ Cyp 16:03 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Random slogans

A little javascript could display random slogans on the main page, currently we only use

The Free Encyclopedia

but I thought some others could be

The Net Within The Net

Everything 2++

NeverNeverPopUpLand

Pizza Puzzle

Suggestion for list

How about a List of adulterers?

Antonio Mr Temptation Martin

Reference Desk categorization

Wikipedia:Reference Desk is not for those who want to write articles but for those who want Wikipedia to ask something. In other words, it's for readers and not editors. So why is it under the heading "Writing Articles"? -- Paddu 14:05 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

PC Magazine article

GOOD NEWS Just thought I'd spread the good news--- Wikipedia is PC Magazine's site of the week. Here's the link. [1] - user:zanimum

Thanks, but it has been in Wikipedia:Press coverage. --Menchi 21:42 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Computer science categorization

Would someone who is able please move "computer science" from the applied section to the science and mathematics section, and then add "software engineering" to the applied section? This would show the fact that they emphasize very different things, and that software engineering is a very important field. Thanks.

Done -- James F. 23:18 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Isn't SE considered a legitimate subject that not only began as Comp Sci studies, but also as a program in the Computer Science College/Faculty/Department of universities? --Menchi 23:30 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't know about othe uni's but at Drexel University, it was started by the engineering college (at the time CS was not part of the engineering college). Although, the CS department started a SE graduate degree previous to the SE undergraduate degree started by the engineering college. MB 23:39 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

... and? Civil engineering is studied in the physics departments of many universities, but this does not stop it being an application of mathematical 'hard science' principles, rather than a hard science in and of itself. Being an applied science does not an 'illegitimate' subject make (indeed, your very use of the word is significantly POV :-)); that SE is the application of the mathematical aspects of CS (which, at least IME, are normally thought of as the totality thereof) is what is under ponderance here. Yes? -- James F. 23:43 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Are you claiming that computer science is a natural science? What aspect of nature does it illuminate, precisely? (See also Talk:natural science.) -- Oliver P. 23:54 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that; mathematics and derivative/associated fields are not concerned with understanding of aspects of nature (and haven't really been so for well over a century now) but are advancements of themselves for their ownsake. Of course, this can then be applied to create the branches of first-level applied mathematics, also known as natural science (though biology is applied chemistry, which is itself applied physics, ...). However, I will revert my change pending further discussion -- James F. 00:15 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

What makes some "applied?" I always assumed it meant it was derived from something else, and ha(d/s) a dependancy on that something else. For instance, chemistry was not derived from physics, therefore it is not applied physics. I may be completely wrong, if so, what does it mean for something to be "applied?" I think this term is being used too loosely. MB 01:04 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Traditionally, Computer Science belongs to wherever Mathematics belongs. Today, we think of computer science as an umbrella term, encompassing the applied science as well as the mathematical field. I personally feel that CS belongs side by side with Mathematics, while Computer Engineering, Management Info Systems, and Software Engineering belongs to applied science. (But should not be included on the Main Page because they're subdisciplines of Engineering, Business, and CS respectively) And yes, I agree CS isn't a natural science. But since the heading is "Philosophy, Mathematics, and Natural Sciences", I feel CS belongs there. Poor Yorick 01:47 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

How about "Philosophy, Mathematics and Computer Science, and Natural Sciences?" MB 03:45 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think it should be renamed, "Philosophy, Mathematical Sciences, and Natural Sciences", so it justifies Computer Science and Statistics being there. Poor Yorick 03:57 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Or perhaps Philosophy and Mathematical and Natural Sciences? -- James F. 13:35 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yup, that'll work too. Perhaps with a & as to distinguish Philosophy and Mathematical & Natural Sciences. I'll try that out. Poor Yorick 16:19 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the CS link. While Software Engineering was historically thought of as a subset of Computer Science, it has been emerging in recent years to stand on its own. It is now largely independent of computer science and traditional engineering. This is why I believe it deserves its own link, on the main page. For detailed comparisons, see Software engineering.

I think Software Engineering does not deserve to be on the front page- it's already in Engineering, its rightful place. It would free some space. User:Ray Van De Walker

Software Engineering actually is a subset of CS. But as the previous user said above, SE is becoming distinct from CS and Engineering. -Poor Yorick

Indeed. As all true science comes from Mathematics, why not just get rid of the Natural Science section? ;-) -- James F. 12:12 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Do Botany and Zoology come from Mathematics? Yet they are Natural Sciences, since they study the natural world that was not created by man. I know that many of you who live in virtual reality all day long may have trouble distinguishing it from real reality (ha ha), but all of Computer Science is an Applied Science, since it did not exist before mankind applied his knowledge of math and science to invent something with its own rules for his own benefit. GUllman 20:54 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Orphan update

Can somebody update "Orphaned pages"? I'd really like to clear some of these out, but so many have already been dealt with. - user:zanimum

Or could it be updated regularly by an automated job? --Trainspotter

It was before, but because of the strain on Wikipedia's resources, it became human updated. Now that Wikipedia's running at full speed (new server, wasn't it?), I'm sure it would be as easy as a click of a button to reautomate it. - user:zanimum

Oh I see -- I asssumed it had previously been produced dynamically whenever accessed. Maybe it could be produced statically but with automatic update at regular intervals, and just set the frequency of the regular update to something appropriate to the server capability? --Trainspotter

Message to newcomers on main page?

Shouldn´t there be a link to the "Welcome, newcomers" page from the main page? That page is helpful and should be one of the first that a newcomers stumbles across. I think a link would fit well into the community section or perhaps the introductory paragraph. BTW, congratulations for the new look, it´s smooth and eye-pleasing. Nafnaf 07:53 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree. That's what the page was created for. There used to be a link, but it was removed for some reason in one of the front page redesigns. Oh, and I love the new look, too. -- Stephen Gilbert 11:36 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps:

Visit the new-user or the help pages, and experiment in the sandbox, to learn how you can edit any article right now.

Comments? -- James F. 16:20 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I like the emphasis on the you Fantasy 16:29 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

So do I. That sentence looks nice. By the way, the main page has been changed and has the link now in the very first word. That is good. However, I can imagine a total newcomer to not recognize that link as a link. Therefore it might be a good idea to violate a principle or two and insert the above sentence as well. Nafnaf 17:03 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The current solution with "you" linking to the welcome page looks very good, thanks. Nafnaf 20:16 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

as a newcomer who came in to the middle of wikipedia from a search engine, may i suggest a similar link, especially to style suggestions, at the top of the page that comes up when the "edit this page" button is pressed? i didn't realise how instant it all was, and stepped on wiki-toes accidentally, having not read the style section yet. Jb3d 06:29, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Tables

Please can we remake the front page layout WITHOUT abusing HTML tables? -- Tarquin 12:22 3 Jul 2003 (UTC) '

No problem with it, if you don't take away the new nice looking layout ;-) Fantasy 16:38 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Feel free to work on a new layout at Main Page/Temp. Also, I believe the old version used tables anyhow, so whats the difference? MB 17:25 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

What constitutes table abuse, as opposed to acceptable table usage? P3d0 17:47, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Some would suggest that the only acceptable usage of tables is for the display of data and not for reasons relating to layout. Angela

Valid HTML and CSS

Can we at least remake the front page to be valid html? (Coward)

OK, page is back to being valid HTML 4.01 Transitional, according to http://validator.w3.org/. It was the crossed-tags problem: [a] xxxx [b] xxxxx [/a] xxxx [/b] is not in general valid HTML, for any tags a and b. -- The Anome 19:38 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Note that this problem was generated by the following Wiki-markup: '''''you''' can edit any page right now!'' which currently renders as <strong><em>you</strong> can edit any page right now!</em>-- The Anome 07:49 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The next step is to make the CSS validate: see this link: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wikipedia.org%2F&warning=1&profile=css2 The Anome

It would be nice if the CSS was wiki-editable in some manner.

Actually, two of the errors in the CSS are part of the page and could be fixed. -- Jrincayc 03:25 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Requested articles on the Main Page?

The German Wikipedia has started putting requested articles on the Main Page in their own section. Looks neat to me, might this be an experiment worth trying here as well? --Eloquence 06:09 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yuk! Please no. Only content should be on the Main Page. --mav

Jeez, we need to be taking a lot of stuff out of the main page to free the clutter. The last thing we should be doing is adding things. Or if we do, it should be on the basis of one thing in, five things out. FearÉIREANN 06:54 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I vaguelly like the idea - I was thinking of adding it, or something similar, in a "contribute" section to my redesign. But I can see mav's point too.

I agree with good ol' Dallas Maverick..lol sorry Mav couldnt resist it. I hope you dont mind the Dallas Maverick...(like the NBA team). --Antonio Martini

I think the new look is very nice. Pizza Puzzle

Grrr. Just for that, I'm not going to be your ally any more. Ban this man immediately! :P -- Oliver P. 07:16 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Why do people on the wiki keep advocating a ban against me? The above seems to be humorous, but I honestly don't understand what the motivation of other users is. Pizza Puzzle

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Lonelypages is still listing the Orphans from back of May 13. They are all taken care of. Any one care to update? - user:zanimum

big is really offensive shouting. Can we decrease the size. Perhpas make it bold ? anthere

where are the cross-language links? --Someone

New article for your consideration... Mr. Hooper's Store. It's not scholarly, just comprehensive. - user:zanimum

Would someone please put a non-breaking space in the middle of the "recent deaths" heading so it doesn't wrap? See Main Page/temp. -- Merphant 06:07 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Done. BTW there is no reason I can think of why you shouldn't be an Admin. Please apply at Wikipedia:Requests for Adminship. --mav

Thanks. Ok, I will. -- Merphant

Why were the cross-language links at the top of the page deleted? Martin 08:55 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Apparently part of "going live with new design" on July 2. Probably due to concerns over the repetition up there and down there. --Menchi 09:15 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Can't see anything on Talk:Main Page/Temp to suggest that. Perhaps they just forgot. Martin 09:18 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

because the french design was just used on the spot. We chose to remove the international languages at the top, because some of us (a linguist specialised in indo european languages in particular) felt all languages should be available, or none of them. Pb is : the list was getting huge, and on smaller screens, it tooks more than half of the main page. We then questionned what we thought more important to be seen on the main page, the fact we were meant to be a free (gratuite) and free (libre) encyclopedia, or a multilingual encyclopedia. Hence, we decided to limit the links to other languages in the community bloc on the right. We would have gladly left the list at the bottom, but the top and bottom are linked, so one is not possible without the other. I think we took more time to design the main page, than this place did. Anthère

We didn't forget. I was just following the example set by the French in their removal of the language links. I never intended for my design to go live before a great deal of discussion took place first. Other people felt we shouldn't wait. --mav

Anybody know the correct Unicode codes to make the hat characters in this: ? --mav

I don't know, but here's my guess:

Doing it the non-combining way
- "00E2": Latin small letter a with circumflex (i.e. â)
- "0103": Latin small letter a with breve (i.e. ă)
Doing it the combining way

- "0061" + "0302" ('a' + combining circumflex accent) (i.e. â)
- "0061" + "0306" ('a' + combining breve) (i.e. ă)

There are useful .pdf charts here. -- Someone else 22:22 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Română Cool, thanks. --mav

right, or Română, whichever way you like it. I gather some browsers have problems with the breve, either way. You're welcome <G> --Someone else 22:46 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Academic discipline should be added to the front page, as a more indepth subject category list. Pizza Puzzle

Agreed; done.

James F. 18:17 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

List of academic disciplines would be more accurate as link text at the moment - it's a plain list of articles, and doesn't structure anything. Martin

The link texts could also be shorter, e.g. as currently Main Page/Temp (section Other Category Schemes) -- User:Docu, 21 July

So, I think the correct formatting for ships is "USS Name of Ship", not "USS Name of Ship". Could someone please correct the formatting of "USS Philadelphia" on the front page? -- ESP 15:10 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)~

Done. Hm. I think it is time for you to be an Admin. Please request Adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for Adminship (if you don't I'll nominate you anyway ;-). --mav 16:48 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think that Rosalyn Tureck was sufficiently important to appear in the list of recent deaths on the front page. -- David Martland 18:28 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

(Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Village Pump)

Main Page browser title

Could the developer change the broswer title of the index from "Main Page - Wikipedia" to something like "Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia"? Because every time I bookmark it to a public computer (my subliminal way of promotion), I have to manually change it to that, because most ppl dunno what WP is, and saying that it's the "Main Page" seems pretty useless.

I'm just talking about the main page/index, the broswer titles of the other article pages are probably fine as is.

--Menchi 17:44 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

sounds like a feature request. Follow links on Wikipedia:Bug reports? Martin 10:18 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The catch is that Main Page is, as far as the system is concerned, just another article. Getting it to display a non-standard browser title would probably involve programming a specific exception in the wiki software, or some such thing.

Good work with the bookmarking, by the way. —Paul A 01:19 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Please consider adding the following languages:

Also can the URL for Cymraeg be changed to .org cheers, Aldie 11:04 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The first and the last only have a very small handful of articles (literally). But the other ones look viable enough so I will add them. --mav 11:46 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Request Qusai->Qusay (including link)

Done. --mav

It looks like Jerry Pournelle paid us a visit at Talk:Jerry Pournelle. RickK 03:57 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I thought it might be a good idea to make the box headings (Selected Articles, Encyclopedia) into actualy headers, because that's what they are, and it would give each box an edit link, but when I tried it and previewed the headers didn't show, all I got was ==Selected Articles==. CGS 14:28, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC).

Please consider adding Malayalam Wikipedia. ~Vinodmp 0805, 5 Aug 2003 UTC

Sorry only active Wikis get listed on the Main Page (1 edit in 30 days is hardly active). --mav 08:20, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Links to Chinese version

I think the link to the Chinese version should go to the traditional version. Since this site is banned in the mainland (according to Internet censorship in China, we are catering to those not in mainland China. Most overseas Chinese only know Traditional Chinese characters. Some may even be repulsed by the communist font. --Jiang 06:32, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

We don't play politics here; all active languages that have a translated Main Page and at least 100 articles should be listed. If simplified Chinese passes those criteria then it should be listed too. I assume zh is simplified Chinese - if true it has well over 1,000 articles and is fairly active. There is no way in hell I would support removing that link even though I really don't care for the PRC government. --mav 07:59, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Currently, simplified Chinese is listed and traditional is not. Should we list both then? --Jiang

If it has a translated Main Page and at least 100 articles, then, yes. What is the lang code? --mav

Maybe I should explain the situation of zh:Wikipedia a little bit. In ISO 639, there's only a language code for Chinese (Zhongwen), since simplified and traditional Chinese are the SAME language. So currently in zh:, we host two versions of the same article. However it is simp. Chinese that is the more active version, and most of the contributers there are from mainland actually, so I guess some points made by Jiang is not completely true. --Lorenzarius 14:52, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Seems odd that there is an internal fork like that. Shouldn't we give traditionial Chinese their own domain? --mav 21:38, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Internal fork is only a temporary solution. Separating simp/trad Chinese is not a good idea since they are the same language, just different ways to write the same characters (a little bit like the situation of American/British English). In fact the more appropriate solution is to have automatic translation between simp/trad, but we lack technical assistance at the moment. --Lorenzarius 06:10, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The link to Physics is broken guys. --- Doug 00:43, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Works for me. Koyaanis Qatsi 00:47, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

New layout proposal

Great new look! It really gives a good impression of a wide variety of content. I presume that that image of Mars was specially sized for this layout? If that is the case, instead of making a new mini image each week, why not just have "Main page thumbnail" and overwrite that which a new image each time we change the featured article? -- Tarquin 17:23, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

express your opinions on the proposed new look! Go to Talk:Main Page/Layout design.

Martin (wearing a "Temp5 for president" badge)

How can you be missing a "Books" Section?!

Under Popular culture, there is no "Books" section. What's up with that?--Anon

What the heck are you talking about? This is an encyclopedia, not a book store. --mav

There's a link to literature - I think that covers it. --Camembert

Thank you for the link to literature - I read it frequently, and have occasionally contributed. I do not believe it suffices for a "Books" section, as seen in other periodicals, which I believe Wiki (sort of) is. True, we are the best on-line encylopedia, rather that a periodical--but I would be glad to participate in a "Books" section, as soon as Anon starts one.--W8IMP

Somebody, pleeeease!

Orphaned pages has not been updated since 09:05, 13 May 2003. It's useless as it stands now. Even as an admin, I can't do a thing about it. Can anyone here hear my plee? - user:zanimum

Hello? - user:zanimum

At least tell me why no one updates this page, even monthly. - user:zanimum

This feature has been temporaryily disabled due to insuficient server resources. It will be disabled until the hardware is upgraded, or the code is upgraded to make the queries more efficient. To update this page, someone would have to make the query by hand (I think). If I knew how to do it, I would. I would ask a developer nicely if I were you. If they feel like it, they might update it. In the future, try putting questions like this on the Village Pump. ミハエル (MB) 21:23, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

Sister projects

Can someone put Wikitravel in the sister projects list? Or doesn't it qualify?

I think we're reserving the Sister projects section for official Wikimedia Foundation projects. Are you aware there is another wiki-based travel guide project called Capitan Cook? It's released under the GFDL. -- Stephen Gilbert 16:15, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

WikiProject

It is hard to discover the WikiProject page. It took me a few months to discover it. I think that this is a really important page and should be given more prominence. Perhaps in the "Writting Articles" section of the main page? --Kevin Baas

Good suggestion. Done. Angela 18:17, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That would be more convenient, because whenever I wanted to find that, I had to use "Search". BTW, could anyone add a link to Chinese in the "Recent changes"? Thanks! :O --Samuel 18:48, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Done. By the way, you don't need to be an admin to edit 'recent changes'. Just click the edit button that appears just after the link to Wikibooks. Angela 19:02, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that little link :O! --Samuel 05:51, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Rule for Anniveraries

I was under the impression that Anniversaries was for events, places and things; not for individuals. can anyone remember? Kingturtle 02:09, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's all on Wikipedia:Selected Articles on the Main Page. Anything listed in the events section of a day page is fair game unless it is a stub, or worse. This includes assassinations, murders and notable births (such as the first test tube baby), but in general simple births or deaths are not listed. The exception are notable anniversaries (such as 100 year increments from the birth/death). --mav

Can someone update Elcassette to Elcaset Ericd 00:12, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

'Tis done. --Camembert

Thanks !

You

Do you really think that making a hyperlink out of the single word you is a good idea? betterworld

I agree that it isn't. Doesn't make sense that the word you would link to newcomers. Also, it makes the word look unlcear in Mozilla 1.4. Any objections to changing it?Angela

How about adding an extra sentence like "If you are new to Wikipedia and want to find out more about it, read on here"? betterworld

No. Another sentence would be a bad idea; the intro should be short and to the point. I don't have an objection to delinking the "you", though. --mav 04:35, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Done. Angela

1968 DNC

When did the 1968 DNC take place? It's listed neither in the article nor in the source of the Main Page, as had become standard (for reasons of editability and judgement). Or does it always occur on the same date, and I'm just showing off my ignorance of US politics?
James F. 14:15, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

August 26-29. I've added that info to the article, as well as a link to the full timeline. Happy 35th anniversary! :-/ -- RobLa 21:52, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/i/Talk%7EMain_Page_Archive_8_dd5c.html"

Category: Talk archives