Talk:Main Page/Archive 24

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 24


Contents

Link to sep11?

In "Sister Projects", shouldnt there be a link to sep11.wikipedia.org? kidburla2002 23:04 GMT

I'd suggest not at this time for three reasons. It doesn't have a logo, so it wouldn't look right next to the ones that do, it's basically an abandoned project that does not show Wikimedia in its best light, and it is soon going to be replaced with wikipeople so we don't want to confuse people by putting it on the main page only to swap it for something else in a couple of week's time. Angela. 22:08, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Athens Olympics

How are we going to deal with the Athens Olympics? Will we have a separate news page for the olympics news? Or will all Olympics news go on the 2004 Summer Olympics page? I think we could get a lot of rub-off traffic by covering the olympics well. Have a look at User:Mark/temp to see an example temporary main page layout to put it on the main page. - Mark 08:00, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The page looks nice. I don't see why not. -- Taku 22:35, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
I think the current version is a bit too much. I like the summaries, but not the table. That part desn't seem right for the main page and takes up a lot of room. Angela. 21:09, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
While I am comfortable with the current one, if it is too large, we can stop in the news or featured article section temporary during Olympics. -- Taku 00:13, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
We need to make some choices, if we are going to go ahead and have Olympics news on the Main Page. We should choose one of the following strategies:
  • Use the page as it is, complete with the medal tally, and with the Did You Know section moved down below Selected Anniversaries;
  • Drop the Medal Tally from the template, and alter the lengths of the sections accordingly (i.e. for the two weeks, shorten Featured Articles, Selected Anniversaries and Did You Know, and lengthen In The News and the Olympics News) to ensure no blank spaces;
  • Drop the Medal Tally and drop another section, such as Did You Know, Featured Article or Selected Anniversaries; and
  • Integrate the Olympics News into In The News, and just shorten Did You Know a bit.
  • (feel free to add options which I have not thought of)
What is your opinion on all this? - Mark 00:47, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The selected anniversaries should be size-invariant - they should not be changed. The featured article cannot be shortened easily - at most, you could shave maybe 1 sentence before it starts getting riduclously small. I would suggest:
  • Put just small news summaries of the top 2 or 3 Olympics events on the right
  • Cut In-The-News to 3 articles, Did you know to 2
  • Lengthen the FA (so as to balance the sides) →Raul654 00:57, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. The main idea behind this 'proposal' of mine was to stimulate talk about it, because I couldn't find anyone anywhere discussing such a thing. More progress has been made than I expected. - Mark 01:05, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have made a page of my own. See User:Raul654/Olympics →Raul654 01:22, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
I like Raul's proposal a bit better, but Mark's looks good too. I'm just worried about load times for Mark's proposed page. In any case, I think having the Olympics on the main page as a special section is a wonderful idea. Sayeth
I would personally prefer a separate page for the 2004 Olympics as it's happening, then transfer it to the main page when the games are done. - EastNile

I happen to really like Mark's version. The medal tally is an especially nice touch. --mav 04:17, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Raul's compacted version is good [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 15:34, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I share Sayeth's opinion. Either one is good. Mark's version should have a link to the main 2004 Olympics article besides the one linking to the medal tally section, though. Johnleemk | Talk 09:48, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Could someone with The Power add this to the main page? MikeX 02:09, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Done. You can edit the Main Page section at Template:Olympic news.

Too many fonts used on Main Page -- loads *very* slowly

Hello,

the fact that so many different fonts (many of them 16 bit character fonts) are used on the Main Page means that, at least here with Mozilla 1.7/1.8 on Linux 2.6.7/XFree86 4.4.0/KDE 3.2, it takes almost two Minutes to load it and causes X to take 260MB of RAM, while Mozilla needs another 250MB. I know it looks cute to write all the names of the different Wikipedia languages in their own scripts, but is this really worth it? (Comment: Posted by Anonymous user 82.83.144.120)

Where is this Mozilla 1.8? The newest version is 1.7.1. I really wouldn't know why a few different fonts would take up 500 MB of ram. Works fine for me (of course I don't use Linux for Internet, I use win for that) Ilyanep (Talk) 19:16, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Two alpha releases of Mozilla 1.8 have been made see http://www.mozilla.org/releases/ -- Popsracer 03:32, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
While I'm not familiar with how Linux handles fonts, I think you'll find the main cause of slowness to be server loading. Here on Windows, only one font is needed to show all those scripts - either Arial Unicode MS or Code2000, depending on user preference or licensing.
You presumably have the option (if you can't read those languages anyway) to specify not to load a font that can handle them and see boxes instead.dramatic 19:51, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm using Safari 1.2.3 on Mac OS X and it's very fast!

Roman Empire or Roman Republic

Did not Rome first become an empire during the reign of Caesar Augustus (around 23 BC)? This is well after the date of the Battle of Cannae during which time Rome is generally considered to be a republic.

Roman empire should be changed to Roman republic in selected anniversaries. davidzuccaro 05:10, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. And yes, Octavian Caesar set up the empire and gave himself the name Augustus. Ilyanep (Talk) 05:15, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Black Thumbnail

The thumbnail picture (supply-demand-p.png) used to illustrate today's featured article (economics) appears black on my browser (IE6/Win2k). If I go to economics, the same picture appears, but two or three times larger, and still mostly black, but I can make out red and blue lines against the blackness. If I click on the image to go to the image:Supply-demand-P.png page, the image that appears there is normal, with a white background. There is a comment in the history about transparency. Could it be that full-sized images with transparent backgrounds display properly, but thumbnails sometimes get displayed with the wrong background colour? Or is it just my computer?

I tried two different skins - Classic and Monobook - and got the same effect with each. -- Heron 20:08, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is a known big with Internet Explorer that we need to tackle. IE doesn't always display PNGs correctly because of difficulty with transparency. Often, the full image is fine, but the transparent parts of automatically-produced thumbnails appear black under IE. This often goes unnoticed because those of us most likely to fix it don't realise there is a problem since we are using the obviously superior Mozilla browser ;)
The only fix I know of is downloading the pic, opening it, turning off the transparency, saving it, re-uploading it to Wikipedia. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 21:17, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, I've had a look in IE. I can see no problem. That comment about transparency does seem to be by someone who previously corrected the problem. I don't see why you should still have problems. Perhaps this is to do with that bizarre problem we noticed a while ago whereby old content was somehow getting served up to IE. You may be getting the old, uncorrected file. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 21:23, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for investigating, Chameleon. I notice that user:Guanaco has changed the image again (perhaps by removing the transparency), so the problem has gone away: thanks, Guanaco! I apologise for using IE, but I'm stuck with it. -- Heron 08:44, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think this is a problem with the thumbnailer. Sure, we all know that IE is weak with PNG transparency, but from my experience, the transparent PNGs display fine at full resolution on the Image page. It's only when they are scaled down in size (in my experience) that they get the black transparent regions. - Mark 05:12, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Typo

Just a small typo: under the Wikipedia’s Sister Projects section of the Main Page, the following code is used:

[http://wikimediafoundation.org/fundraising donation.]

The period should appear outside of the link. – [[User:Mxn|Minh Nguyễn (talk, blog)]] 03:03, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think there might be a bug here. Putting the '.' outside of the link makes it jump the gap and appear adjacent to the first letter of the next sentence. Mintguy (T) 03:44, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think the method used to hide the external link arrow icon after an external link is faulty - it hides the icon, but leaves blank the space in which it would otherwise appear. - Mark 05:07, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I logged a bug on this the other day [1], and the response was that it's already been fixed in CVS. So I guess that means the problem will go away when the fixed code makes it to the Wikipedia site, though I don't know how often that happens. - Brian Kendig 16:38, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gay pride flag

Why's there a rainbow "gay pride" flag beside the "In the news" item about Missouri banning same-sex marriages? It seems a little POV, and feels a bit like putting a Nazi flag next to a story about Jewish events. I think a Missouri state flag would be much more appropriate here. - Brian Kendig 16:36, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Are you equating Nazism with the gay rights movement? --mav
I knew somebody would say that. ;) Yes, I am, in the sense that (and only in the sense that) there's a group of religious people who feel threatened by another group of people. The religious people just scored a victory in the courts - it seems counterintuitive that the story would have been marked with a graphic representing the people they felt threatened by. - Brian Kendig 03:57, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
OK, so Brian Kendig just shot himself in the foot with both barrels of Godwin's Law, but he still has a point, which is that a symbol associated with a political campaign, however benign some of us might consider it, is inherently POV, so we shouldn't use it to illustrate an article where we could use a more neutral symbol. Unless, that is, we have a picture of someone actually waving a rainbow flag outside the relevant Missouri court-house, in which case we would be justified in showing it. :-) -- Heron 10:35, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I very much agree with Brian Kendig, and would point out that equating homosexuality and nazism is not a new nor utterly uncommon idea (altho it is largely an irrelevant one here). There was a large pink swastika rally at a church within a block of my mothers house just a few years ago. Sam [Spade] 08:03, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You do not agree with him, he was only pointing out that in reporting on a court decision, it's strange to show the losing side's flag/symbol exclusively. You do, however, further drive home the point of how quickly the original topic is lost as soon as Nazis/Terrorists/Pedophiles/Hobgoblins are invoked (pink swastika? hello??) -- dab 15:48, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Maybe a generic graphic of a gavel or something might be appropriate for these cases... to signify a court decision rather than either faction's symbol, generally?66.245.208.240 16:25, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Other "Main Pages"

How does one add other languages' main pages to this main page? Granted, not all seem worth linking in...

Here are the first few ones: [[af:Tuisblad]] [[als:Main Page]] [[ar:%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%81%D8%AD%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%A6%D9%8A%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A9]] [[az:Main Page]] [[ba:Main Page]] [[eu:Azal]] [[hy:Main Page]] [[nds:Hoofdsiet]] [[simple:Main Page]] [[sq:Faqja Kryesore]]

Urhixidur 23:03, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)

We link to a handful of the few biggest ones. We will *not* link to them all. →Raul654 23:14, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Which was the winning goal?

An In the news entry today says At the Asian Cup 2004 soccer finals, Japan defeats China 3–1 with a game-winning goal. Doesn't make sense. When it was 2-1 to Japan they had obviously scored their game winning goal (because China never scored another} Japan's third goal was icing on the cake, but not the game winner. Moriori 23:49, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

OK, figured how to amend template, so changed it...Moriori

"Retrieved from" part of page

Regarding the new "Retrieved from" section at the bottom of the page, could we please have it in a different font or box it or something in order to distinguish it from the body text? Perhaps it should be in the "This page was modified..." section? Also at the moment, it renders above any category boxes, and it would make more sense if it went under them. Enochlau 07:56, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing myself. Frankly, I'm having great difficulty understanding the reason why we have this seemingly superfluous "Retrieved from" section at all. Could anyone please explain what it is for? David Cannon 11:13, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't know either, but it is annoying. It seems to serve no purpose at all on Watchlist and What links here pages.
SimonMayer 16:45, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Press reload in your browser. It shouldn't be there anymore. It was just a temporary glitch that got into the cache. Angela. 21:00, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

What category for request?

What's the most appropriate category to request an article about a small automobile manufacturer?

Sections

[Main Page]] is a protected page. I have created a page to suggest news to include in the Main Page-In the news Section: Main Page News. Have appeared a lot of important news about human cloning and nothing in Main Page News.Mac 06:51, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You can actually edit that yourself. See Wikipedia:Editing the main page and Template:In the news. I'm moving Main Page News to Template talk:In the news [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 11:21, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Article of the week

Shouldn't the Wikipedia:Article of the week be mentioned on the main page? Sam [Spade] 06:05, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It already appears on the community main page, which was felt to be enough when it was discussed before. See Wikipedia talk:Article of the week/Archive 1 for example, and I think it has come up on this talk page before as well. Angela. 07:07, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)


Main Page (In The News)

Isn't three domestic United States stories on the front page a bit much?! Mintguy (T) 21:27, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Right. Now we have 4/5 domestic US stories on the front page. Mintguy (T)

Capitalisation

Why is this page called "Main Page" and not "Main page"? It does not seem to follow MoS style for page naming. — Kate | Talk 23:09, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)

"Main page" is a description; "Main Page" is a title. -- Emsworth 00:56, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There was a recent discussion of this in the archive: [2]. Nothing really came of it though. Emsworth's explanation is probably as satisfying an answer as your gonna get. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:46, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

US Bias

We seem to have five articles on the US on the main page (note, especially, the Selected Anniversaries section). -- Emsworth 02:38, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You can edit the main page sections, you know. If you see a bias in the numbers of articles linked to, then edit it to remove such bias. - Mark 06:50, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
And this on a day when the power in Liechtenstein was passed from Hans-Adam II to his son Alois! I'm shocked! - Nunh-huh 06:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Who? :) -- Cyrius|✎ 07:20, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yawn. Boring. So do something about it instead of complain. RickK 06:56, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

--156.153.255.195 15:16, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Was that vandalism on the Main Page image?

Hi, I just saw, for a couple of minutes, the Wikipedia title image changed to "BAD IDEA INC." with an "x" through the picture. Was that vandalism or do people do that a lot here for a purpose?

As you can guess, I'm a newbie.

Jonathan Jmenon 15:51, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I see the Bad Idea Inc. thing too. Surely that's not right?!

Bad Idea Inc.?

Guys, someone vandalized the Wikipedia logo!

http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/b/bc/Wiki.png

— Toytoy 15:54, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Image:Wiki.PNG has been reverted and protected now, with the vandalized revisions deleted. Angela. 19:05, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
This is not right. Why do you people insist on destroying the edit history of things just because they are vandalized? Vandalism, is, after all, a part of Wikipedia's history. — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 14:48, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
We only destroy edit histories of pages we delete. The vandalism seen on the Main Page was likely vandalism to one of the template pages that are automatically inserted onto the Main Page - anyone can edit them. See the links to them at the top of this discussion page. - Mark 14:59, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) - EDIT: Ok, I really should have read what you were responding to. The offending image versions were probably deleted because every user has access to the image revert button, which would only encourage vandals to revert back to the old vandalised version. - Mark 15:02, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If every user has access to the image revert button, then there isn't a problem, because someone could easily click "rev" to vandalism. By the way, what happened to User:Shquid and User:I'm Not Good who uploaded the file? — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 15:44, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

— The In the news section has been vandalized, but it seems to be protected and not in the versions.  ???

1 Browse Wikipedia by topic

I tried searching for a #Browse Wikipedia by topic in the source. No luck. Any reason for the "1" in this heading on the Main Page? Ancheta Wis 01:54, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any "1" before the title there on the main page. Could you give us a screenshot, or tell us which browser you are using? - Mark 02:23, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Good news, the "1" is not there any more. Maybe a Main Page cache purge worked to clear out the "1" . Ancheta Wis 03:46, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It appears that someone was trying to make the HREF to the Categories wikilink on the main page work at the time that I saw this symptom. However the "Browse by topic" link at the top right hand of the Main page is still broken. My browser does not react when I select "Browse by topic" Ancheta Wis 04:32, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good spotting. The problem should be fixed now. - Mark 04:38, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hurray! It's fixed. Well done. Ancheta Wis 00:16, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Other Languages - Simple English

What about adding Simple English to the shorter languages bar (as well as the larger one) for the main page? I think it'd be logical to have that on the main English page along with the other widespread languages. [[User:Brettz9|Brettz9 (talk)]] 05:19, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The other languages there have 10000+ articles, simple: has only 1743. Goplat 05:26, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I figured that, but if it is the English page... [[User:Brettz9|Brettz9 (talk)]] 17:48, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No matter which major candidate wins in Illinois, an African American will win

Not only is B. Obama running, A. Keys, also African American has entered as a Republican. User:Leonard G. 12:38, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I so read that as Alicia Keys. She keeps on runnin' innnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn...Illinois! With-a you! Mike H 15:19, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
I thought the same thing, the article seemed to have a "obama is the only afro-american in this race" slant. Sam [Spade] 16:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism?

What's up with the main page? There's a link to an article on "childlove"??!?!? and in red text it says "I'M EVIL"??? Can someone who has permission to edit the front page please get rid of that? An article on "child love" voted for deletion? who would vote against deleting it? why isn't it deleted yet?

I have noticed this "I'M EVIL" thing popping up a few times over the last couple of days - anything that can be done about it? -- Zaphod Beeblebrox 15:25, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I hate to break it to you, but the article on the childlove movement has been kept, as so many people objected to its deletion. (I was one of them. Sexual material should never be deleted.) — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 15:50, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've got a question then: Why is there a picture of a penis replacing all the news? - anon

Indeed, I was just about to comment on that, can someone remove it quickly and find out how it was done? Kurek 22:13, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This was reverted within 3 minutes of the vandalism. It should be ok now barring any weird caching problems. Angela. 22:20, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Interesting penis vandalism (that is to say vandalism with a penis, not of a penis. I guess the reversion puts the lie to Mr. Grinch's statement that Sexual material should never be deleted. More seriously, is there a reason that the vandalism and reverts don't appear in the page history? Klanda | Talk 22:41, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

My statement was referring to articles and redirects, not vandalism. As for removing vanadalized revisions, that is not acceptable. Vandalism is a part of the history and should be reported as such. — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 17:46, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
They were not deleted. The vandalism was not on the main page itself, it was on the templates included on the main page. Goplat 18:25, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please see my comment regarding combating this sort of vandalism at Template talk:In the news#Any reason we don't protect this article? — マイケル ₪ 23:01, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Intro

Since the introduction is not changed regularly, there is no need for it to be in a template, unlike the other sections on this page which change at least once a day. The intro shouldn't be changing without discussion, so it ought to stay protected. Angela. 20:18, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)


Olympic News

I appreciate that the US attaches a special significance to the Olympics (maybe because of the US not having made the World Cup qualifiers in living memory) but even so could we possibly, one day, mention a non-US medal or world record in the news section of the front page? It is news when other people break records (e.g. in the extraordinary weight-lifting yesterday) and it would nice just make a token gesture to the rest of the world. :o) --BozMo|talk 09:18, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There is no "we". There isn't an organized group of American-centric jingoists lording over the main page. Anyone can edit, and it just so happens that many of them Americans. Just change it. ~ FriedMilk 20:27, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)
"Anyone can edit", you say. How? It's a locked page. Matt me (T)
Wikipedia:How to edit the main page. — Kate | Talk 20:58, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
I think the suggestion is that those who edit current events frequently (whatever their nationality) should be more responsible in reflecting the fact that this is a global project. Mintguy (T)
Well done to the person who replaced the growing list of Americans Great Britain, Zimbabwe and Australia. Matt me (T)
In the US, we seem to be getting US-centric Olympic coverage (at least on the broadcast versions) and quite a few of us come to Wikipedia for our balanced coverage. As an 'American' I would really love it if we could get some better coverage of 'non-American' achievements! THANKS!!! (user Pedant not logged in)

wordiq.com ripping off wikipedia content?

Check out WordIQ.com. If you type in any search you'll see that the results are a direct rip of wikipedia.

Obviously they are doing this to profit since each page contains related banner ads at the bottom.

What is the legality of this site?

user:Jawed

They are not the only one who do this. There are loads of them, with varying degrees of responsibility. See Mirrors_and_forks and high_degree_of_compliance Mintguy (T)
Wikipedia material can be republished as long it is republished under the terms of the GDFL. As the wordiq does this I see no problem.
davidzuccaro 02:43, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hah, copying of wikipedia content is not a violation of copyright as it is licensed. However, if they have not said they have lifted word for word from wikipedia without naming the source then this could be a violation of wikipedia and its authors moral rights. Further, if the site looks the same, and gives users the impression that it is wikipedia, then it could be a form of passing off, a violation of the law in most common law counts.

Mainpage on PDA (Pocket IE)

I was dissapointed when I oppened wikipedia on PDA first. I changed skin to Nostalgia and oppened 'no tables' version, but there was still languages and sister's project which slows down loading page. So I decided to create 'lite' version of mainpage. Main_Page_(lite) I think is worthy to add link to it to mainpage. --miEro 10:16, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I saw this on Special:Newpages and wondered what it was about. Anything that makes wikipedia more accessible on more more devices sounds like a good idea to me. -- Bonalaw 12:01, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


kudos is given! bravo! More access = more awareness = a better world Good Job Miero!66.245.208.240 16:46, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

how to easily undo vandalism?

Is there an easy way to simply revert a diff that a vandal did on a page?

Obviously I can manually hand-edit the article to remove the vandalism, but I'd rather do it with one simple action. I didn't see any option anywhere to undo the last edit.

Quick rollback does exist -- admins get it; regular users don't (but they can always go in the page history, view the previous, and save that) →Raul654 06:53, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version. It takes 4 clicks. —AlanBarrett 10:38, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Copy-cat

Hello, I was looking for the meaning of Australasia and I have found that the explanation given in Wikipedia and in another website called [3] is exactly the same. I don't know if this ok, but I thought I should make sure. --FeMeMe 23:58, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • what they are doing is allowed under Wikipedia's license. They acknowklege the source and provide a link back to the current article at wikipedia as required. BTW, this isn't really the appropriate page to ask this on. See Wikipedia:Village_pump instead dramatic 21:24, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese

Could we add a link for traditional chinese along with the link ( currently for simplified chinese ) on the left hand side of the main page.

The other languages there have 10000+ articles, zh-tw: has only 33. Goplat 00:15, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
On the main page there is a list that bolds wikipedias with more than 10000 articles. Both traditional and Chinese LANGUAGES were in bold, so I thought they had 10000 + articles. So I did take a look, and it looks like traditional chinese has 12754 articles, and simplified chinese has 12685 articles. It seems as if they both have approx the same amount of articles. Please correct me if I am wrong. Wenzi 00:53 , 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
zh-tw, which as 34 articles, was created earlier this month by accident. It used to be at the same site as zh. It was taken down yesterday when Brion realised it had been created as the result of a bug. I'm not sure why it is now back up. Most of the simplified articles are still at http://zh.wikipedia.org since the consensus was to keep traditional and simplified together. Angela. 20:32, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Non Copy-cat * Non ripping off

I found http://www.recursionsw.com/dictionary.htm in a google search. It looks like they are trying to push spyware by using Wikipedia's name. Can Wikipedia do something (legal action) about it.

-Thanks, bijee 23 Aug 2004

It doesn't look like recursionsw.com are doing this on purpose. It could be a genuine typo by them. I've emailed them about it. Angela. 20:47, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, may be typo they have "e" instead of "i" in both links (ie, http://www.wikepedia.org/)- bijee 24 Aug 2004

Sounds-like search

Romanised spelling of words/names from other languages varies by person to person. So can Wikipedia search provide a sounds-like search option. It will be also good if one dont know exact spelling of what (s)he is looking for. lalala this is fun.

(Now the way I do is by using site search (advance) option in google)

-Thanks, bijee 23 Aug 2004

Avoid red links

There have been many red links (like this one) appearing on the Main Page recently, especially in the Olympics section. Please create the articles before listing it on the Main Page. [[User:Krik|- Norm | image:green.png]] 14:58, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Report: HEY EVERYBODY! I'M VANDALIZING THE WIKIPEDIA

It looks to me user Grunt's account has been compromised. The intruder is now adding stupid things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=0&target=Grunt&limit=500&offset=0

-- Toytoy 15:37, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

No, my account has not been compromised. This was in fact the work of a vandal, User:The Willy on Wheels who is the wiilly on wheels? who was moving articles (in this case it was Television) from their proper names to bad location; I was helping to move them back. Please discuss this with User:Mark Ryan and User:Kate who helped combat this. -- Grunt (talk) 15:38, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

Sorry, keep on doing your good job. This Willy boy has some kind of strange humor.

Education
(Redirected from McDonalds advertisng)

I actually love this one. :)

-- Toytoy 15:46, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

I can in fact confirm that Grunt's user account is not compromised. - Mark 16:10, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Please don't post notices like this to Talk:Main Page. This page is for discussing the main page, not general discussion. Use the Wikipedia:Village pump for that. -- Cyrius|✎ 16:08, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm still fascinated that some people are despicable enough to vandalize a totally not for profit encyclopedia that is built to help them and make the world a better place. What in the world is their motivation, especially when any two year old with a web browser could vandalize this encyclopedia. --Exigentsky

They probably *are* two year olds with a web browser. ^_~ -- Whoa chill i am not a 2 yr old i'm just trying to learn here i love wikipedia it is so useful!!!! MY FAVOURITE WEBPAGE!! Schnee 22:50, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Need Admin to Fix this Copyright thing on main page

this picture of the mosque needs to be attributed to this site: from http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/ which allows use IF IT IS ATTRIBUTED... see the image's image page. Not an admin, I can't fix it66.245.208.240 16:13, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I see that User:66.245.208.240 has found a way to fix that without becoming an admin.  :-) -- PFHLai 07:58, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

TOC with icons?

What happene to that? There used to be a link on the main page leading em to a version with icons. Has the idea totally been abandoned?