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 95 | ← | Archive 99 | Archive 100 | Archive 101 | Archive 102 | Archive 103 | → | Archive 105 |
Can someone changed the picture of the featured article on the main page, looks extremely small, maybe we should put the image (or another one in the article or resized the image) on the infobox for now. -- JForget 02:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Could we possibly get a picture other than a
mostly nude
female with
fishnet stockings on? Is Wikipedia about promoting immodesty to the thousands of young schoolchildren that are looking at the main page every single day? I suppose this is a little better than the
History of erotic depictions, but still...must we?
Bmrbarre
01:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Is a pop-song really important enough to feature on the homepage? This song may be liked a lot, but it's not as though it's established itself over decades in the way that, perhaps, Beatles songs have done. I'm concerned at the appearance of trivialising the encyclopedia.
I think that too many pop artists or songs appear on the featured article. The featured articles should show a bit more diversity.
I really think Wikipedia should support the Best Viewed With Any Browser Campain.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter1G1Robertson ( talk • contribs)
column-count
, but that'll come soon). Viewable in All Browsers is a lovely ideal, but we can actually implement it by following W3C standards.
Gracenotes
T §
22:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I suggest moving Main Page to Wikipedia:Main Page, because I would like to make an article on main pages on the Internet. And "Wikipedia:Main Page" would not appear on top of the main page. ANNAfoxlover 01:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
i want vi:Trang Chính from Vietnam into en:Main Page like as de:Hauptseite, fr:accueil... ?-- 125.235.73.30 02:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't flame at me for everyone already knowing, but The Zoo Tycoon 2: Extinct Animals page is being vandalised by losers who have no live. I say we lock the article. Dinoman96 19:42, 15 June 2007
Image:San Antonio Spurs logo.png Someone should add that the San Antonio Spurs have beat the Cleavland Cavaliers 4-0 in the 2007 NBA Finals to win their fourth championship in nine years.
Is this really deserving of the front page? I can't recall the last time I saw any of my local footy results being heralded as international news on Wikipedia... — Zioroboco 20:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
(Undent) I'm all for renaming "Wikipedia" with the correct spelling, yes, wot? ITN generally only lists the results of the "grand final" or equivalent event of the highest level of competition. In some sports this can lead to a bit of debate as to what constitutes the highest level. Generally it would involve an international flavour, but in the case of basketball, money tends to act as gravity and most see the (US)NBL as the pinnacle of basketball. Yet others have argued that the US College basketball is higher than that. So it all involves an amount of subjectivity. In the case of football (soccer) it's the "World Game" and we do have an established and widely followed International competition. -- Monotonehell 04:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
1. We have a longstanding agreement that the premier championship of any major professional sport qualifies for ITN coverage (assuming that the requisite article exists). Most informed individuals would agree that the event in question is the premier championship of professional men's basketball.
2. The reason for this is that the NBA is the world's premier professional men's basketball league. Many of the best players from around the world participate. In addition to players from the United States, the final two teams that competed for this year's championship have players from Argentina, Brazil, France, Lithuania, Serbia and Slovenia.
3. To the best of my knowledge,
Toronto, Ontario is not part of the United States. That city has an NBA team, so I don't understand why anyone would argue that the league is of no interest to non-Americans. It isn't even accurate to claim that interest is limited to Americans and Canadians.
4. Just last month, we featured the outcome of an
English football final in ITN. It was not, by any stretch of the imagination, the sport's premier championship event. Nor, for that matter, was the
European football tournament that we featured last month. I had hoped that this added leeway would quell the allegations of American bias, but that obviously hasn't occurred.
For the record, I am an American who is not a fan of basketball or any other athletic competition. —
David Levy
13:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Is it inserting a historical POV to say that? I mean, Burnside was not the sharpest tool in the shed, and was certainly unqualified to face Robert E. Lee -- but he performed very well as a division commander in the west, and the fiasco at the Crater was Meade's and Ledlie's fault more than his. I would suggest calling him one of the "least successful" generals instead -- and then finding, if you want, a different adjective to describe the carbine. 209.190.233.66 17:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Since ya’ll always know where to direct people that aren’t in the correct place, where do I complain about people placing comments in the incorrect place? I know that if I put it in the most accessible place, the Main Page discussion, someone will find the time to correct me. Too often, I read things like, “Why is this here,” or “This should go somewhere else,” and feel, well, disappointed. The Main Page discussion is the easiest place to write suggestions or comments for people that don’t know where else to put them. And of course they get jumped on for not knowing that there was a special page for their concern. Why can’t the Main Page talk be a place of open discussion about Wikipedia in general? Of course someone will tell me that this whole comment would be better on another page. S. Randall 21:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the first crossing of the South Atlantic Ocean by air in 1922, from Lisbon, in Portugal, to Rio de Janeiro, in Brazil, by Portuguese aviators Gago Coutinho and Artur de Sacadura Cabral should be mentioned. Thank you. The Ogre 06:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
It was only now an idea for the main page struck me that I even noticed we had links to portals on the main page in the top right hand corner. Portals are supposed to act as gateways for readers to visit stuff within that topic, yet no-one outside regular Wikipedians has heard of them. An idea: Create a display box between the main "Welcome to Wikipedia" notice and the TFA and put all the Featured Portals in it (or as the list grows have a random selection appear). It'll generate some decent traffic and form an incentive to some people to try to get their portal featured. We create more content, and people actually see it. How about it? 62.30.56.116 04:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC) (Dev920)
hi i was doing a project on pythagoras and i didnt find too much information on it i did find information but it was a bit complicated the wikipeadia website was very helpfull --Zunaira
Could someone remove this article? Intrigued by the tease, I clicked on it and found an incoherent article that has already received several POV and cleanup tags and is getting horribly abused on its talk page. It really doesn't make a good statement for Wikipedia as it currently is, even if it apparently met the criteria. Daniel Case 13:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
In the box at the top of the main page in the line "6,857,742 articles in English", I am suggesting that English be changed to English as to let readers know of other wikipedias. « ANIMUM » 15:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Today's featured article image, a view of Puerto Rico from space, is pretty dark and it's generally hard to tell what it is. I clicked on it for a better view, and was suprised to find it hasn't been protected. It seems I could upload a new version. In fact, I've got a brightened (levels adjusted) and color-corrected (to remove the red haze) image ready to go. [2] So, can I upload it? Or would that be disruptive? And why is this image being used for the history article, anyway? How about one of the photographs from the article that represent some part of Puerto Rico's history? Please point me to the right spot to discuss this if this isn't the appropriate page. -- Martinship 06:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyone interested in replying to the Help Desk question about the Main Page posted at Question : Wikipedia May28th page appears on June19th ?? -- Jreferee ( Talk) 23:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Shame on you folk for linking great tit from the main page :) Borisblue 13:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations - you just killed a dozen of them with your question ;) Raul654 03:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't get us started on the woodcock ColdRedRain
On this day, Vlad III Impaler...err, it should say Vlad III Dracula, as it says in the Night Attack, which is the article which is mentioned for today. It is about consistency and nothing else. Vlad III Impaler in one place and Dracula in another? -- Thus Spake Anittas 21:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Please update ITN. There are a few suggestions at WP:ITN/C waiting for admins' approval. Thanks. -- 74.13.130.59 01:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The m:Wikimedia brand survey discussion has had me thinking, and what I think we need is a better way to promote our Wikimedia sister projects ( Wiktionary, Wikinews, Wikisource etc.), you know, the ones languishing on the bottom of the other side of this page. I have this crazy feeling that people just don't pay attention to the bottom and that if we moved them to the top, we might just see the leverage of this page propel some projects that are struggling a little into projects that could really thrive with more participation. I know, I know, this will be different, and it just won't feel right to some of us, but please just look at the the demo (not a finished idea at all, just an idea of placement), and decide for yourself whether or not this can help us further our larger goals at Wikimedia. Thanks.-- Pharos 06:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)RE
Why not change it for a few days or a week and see how traffic on the sister sites changes? --- RockMFR 01:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of moving this to the top... especially in it's reduced state as Cadby has shown. Granted, Wikipedia does not have commercial interests, like Google, but increasing the popularity of these projects will also help increase the accuracy of the information. The more people that use these resources, the more people may contribute. Or... what about this idea... Each day there is a featured article and a featured image. What if each day you also have a featured WikiResource. Today it's the Wiktionary... tomorrow, the WikiSpecies project, etc. Then, you can have a small box dedicated to the icon AND the explanation of the sister project. Trigam41 15:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
"The right-wing Union for a Popular Movement, party of French President Nicolas Sarkozy (pictured), wins a National Assembly majority in the legislative elections."
From an American political perspective, UPM is center-left, not right-wing. Some discernment should be noted, as what constitutes right-wing on the Continent differs from Stateside. - MSTCrow 05:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
"UPM retains majority despite losses" seems a bit of a negative way of presenting this - according to the Economist it's the first time a party has held on to a majority for 29 years. [3] -- Dilaudid 20:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Haven't we had enough of FF FAs? I know, I know, the whole schpiel comes up each time, how I ought to improve what I want and submit it...I'm not disagreeing with the way Wikipedia works...the sight just raised an eyebrow over here. 209.190.233.66 14:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Today's main page FA section is missing its thumbnail (normally in the upper right corner). The other thumbnails and POTD appear normal.
Hi, just noticing the interwikis. You have CEBUNO but not ÍSLENSKA? (is:) why? Why do you have all the other scandinavian and nordic languages, but not Icelandic? It would be nice if you added it , we do have more then 10.000 articles. Thank you! :) -- Ice201 00:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Cebuano has 22.000 articles. Another explanation? I kind of take it to offense how you dont have the Icelandic wikipedia link on there, i mean it is just one more language? We are very active wikipedia, you cant place it on there? We have many edits a day, and it grows faster each day, I am kind of offended I dont see my language there. Thanks! -- Ice201 00:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it just reassures that fact that wikipedia is bias. I mean, honestly, I never even heard of Cebuano until I saw it on the list , and I am very interested in language. Cebuano seems more of a DIALECT t hen a language of Tagalog or Filipino. -- Ice201 01:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh i forgot, Icelandic is a minor language according to your Germanic languages template! -- Ice201 01:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I do think Tagalog should be up there more then Cebuano. And what is wrong with just placing wikipedias more then 10.000 articles on there? I am not arguing saying my language is more important then yours, the most important language in the world is obviously English since its the international, as with the other UN languages. But each language is unique, but to simply place their sister languages (norsk dansk svenska) on the front page and not Icelandic? It is kind of insulting. I am not trying to diminutive Cebuano, it was just Cebuano's lucky day to be used as an example. Please dont take my comments the wrong way as insulting another language, it is just I am finding the english wikipedia very bias. Maybe the front page should be done another way then article count? -- Ice201 15:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
My two cents worth. I don't think a sports event deserves to go on the main news menu, on the main page. In fact, it looks grotesque, sandwiched between religious massacres and national elections. Today is one example. Can we devlop a policy to change this? Perhaps relegate sport to a non-news category? Sorry if I am expressing this badly, but it just jars. BrainyBabe 13:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
What are NBA and NFL? Is ITN something to do with sport? -- JeremyBoden 14:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
(Indent Break) Wikipedia is not a news source. For that, see Wikinews. ffm ✎talk 17:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Rejoice soccer hooligans! The NBA, or especifically, that American related sports item is gone. Don't worry, Mavs fans are happy too. -- Howard the Duck 16:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey everybody, I requested a peer review on the Holocaust article, however there has been no response at all, and its been a few weeks. What should I do? Brent Ward
Hi, can anyone explain the technical method used to suppress the words "Main Page" on this main page? We might do the same at Wikisource. Thanks, Dovi 17:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
i just wanted to say the site is good but does not always have the info i need i would also like lots of info on history things like the battle of hastings ok things like that
This page is only for discussions about the Wikipedia page Main Page/Archive 101. To discuss an article, please use that article's talk page. To ask for help with using and editing Wikipedia, use our Teahouse. Alternatively, see our FAQ. | This page is not meant for general questions, nor discussions about specific articles.
. ffm ✎talk 20:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
aaand, if you're anywhere beyond middle school, you shouldn't trust Wikipedia to do your homework beyond the barest of facts. Take everything you read here with a mine of salt. 209.190.233.66 20:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
These responses might overwhelm you but then again, we are here to help. Basically if its an FA article (Featured Article) its good for research. Use wikipedia as a basis for obtaining possible facts in other articles. Then you might wanna do some googling on them later to prove them. Hope that helps. Tourskin 21:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
I was surfing thorugh your website, i also saw the gujarati page on your website, i noticed few things i thought they were worth mentioning:
like the tool box is wrongly mentioned as "hathiyar ni peti", actually it should be called "sadhano ni peti"
if you wish i would help you out with translation in gujarati.
I am working in Pune, Maharashtra, India and Imy mother tongue is Gujarati, hence i am able to read, write and understand that language well enough.
<e-mail address removed> - Dreaded Walrus
you can contact me on that, i'll help wikipedia voluntaryly as i personally like this website a lot.
regards,
Shivraj Sharma Sharma shivraj 13:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Please update ITN. There are a couple of good suggestions at WP:ITN/C waiting for admins' approval. Thanks. -- 74.13.124.138 11:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
As u can read here, the german wikipedia has reached now 600.000 articles. -- 134.147.117.190 23:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I has won the Libertadores and even it is not in the wikinews!!! Where do you live? In the first world?? Give poors the posibility to emocionate a little —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.250.93.141 ( talk • contribs).
For those not aware, this user is talking about Boca Juniors, a football (soccer) team, who have recently won the Copa Libertadores, which is the South American equivalent of the UEFA Champions League. -- Dreaded Walrus t c 00:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is it only the English Wikipedia has a globe with aliased borders? (esp. visible at the bottom of it) -- 84.159.33.52 08:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
wasn't it supposed to be featured today?? 24.109.218.172 00:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
oh it was in an edit war ok. i know now. 24.109.218.172 00:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
hi! i just want to know the opinion of others on this question, experience vs training? is there any difference between this two? can someone explain it to me... tnx! Gurlsweet 08:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
This page is not the place to ask general questions. This page is for discussing the Wikipedia page " Main Page/Archive 101". Use this link to find out how to ask questions and get answers. |
A few months ago, anglophones in Montreal felt offended and complained about the accent mark on the letter E in Montreal. How about the letter E in Québec/Quebec? -- 74.13.128.121 01:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Access to Wikipedia seems to be a bit patchy over the past couple of hours. What's the deal? -- Jnelson09 14:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
This page is only for discussions about the Wikipedia page Main Page/Archive 101. To discuss an article, please use that article's talk page. To ask for help with using and editing Wikipedia, use our Teahouse. Alternatively, see our FAQ. | This page is not meant for general questions, nor discussions about specific articles.
— METS501 ( talk) 04:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Um...? This can't be a good thing--VectorPotential Talk 19:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there any way to view old or deleted articles? Thanks. Link's Awakening 22:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Alright, thanks guys! Link's Awakening 22:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't we add something about Chris Benoit's ( World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) wrestler) death in "In the news" section? This is major news in the US and Canada and the wrestling world. -- Effer AKS 19:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it is very big news along with the circumstances of the death, it should be on the latest news at least, but even chris benoit should be featured on the front page Prem4eva 12:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
If you want this item to be posted on ITN, head on to WP:ITN/C and let your voices be heard. -- Howard the Duck 16:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the death of Joseph Smith be noted in the section about what happened today in years passed? Useight 17:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely love the new position of the sister projects. Great thanks to Pharos for implementing it! I hope it's there to stay, this should give the sister projects a huge boost. (In both users, contributions, and vandalism). Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 03:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC) I came here to say that I really dislike the new position of the sister projects. It really adds a lot of clutter to the Main Page, and pushes the actual content of wikipedia so that it is less than half the page when the screen first loads. I appreciate the intent, but the sister projects are, from a design standpoint, way too big and way too prominent, right now. I hope we reconsider this move. Also, the "sister projects" table is a different style which I find jarring with the Featured Article and In the News tables. The whole thing looks unappealing and distracting to me, I hope we go back to the old version. -- JayHenry 03:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Raul already reverted, but I want to agree with this. People come to Wikipedia looking for encyclopedic content, putting a large sister projects template up top detracts from that and displaces more relevant content. Dragons flight 03:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, users don't need to see the sister projects up at the top like that. I think that the proposal was mainly aimed at new users, people without accounts. Is there some way that a cookie or something like that can be set, so that a section containing the sister projects can be hidden for people with accounts or for people with accounts more than X days old? I know I've seen similar things done with a [dismiss] button on the right; can something similar be done here? That way new users (who are not aware of the sister projects) will see them, but regulars (who know very much about them) won't. I do firmly believe though that moving things up helps (which is why I moved Error Reports above the Table of Contents), because people have the attention span of a gnat and aren't likely at all to think there's anything like WikiBooks or Wiktionary out there — Wikipedia is the most well-known out of any of them. Like I said, regular users don't need to see the clutter of the bar, but I'm sure there's some way to get new visitors aware of these projects. —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby ( talk • contribs) 07:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that moving the sister projects listing up is a bad idea, but we should think about using the smaller version of this section that User:Cadby Waydell Bainbrydge developed. Here's what we have now: Template:WikipediaSister Here's the compact version: Template:WikipediaSister-header Λυδαcιτγ 18:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I've altered it again to make it more Main-Page-like:
<substed template removed - messed with page's wiki code> —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby ( talk • contribs) 02:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
What about really small, like this:
Wikimedia Sister Projects |
--
Knulclunk
21:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The template's been changed again; any chance of feedback? —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby ( talk • contribs) 23:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
A smaller version I suggested earlier could be better, but it's missing a couple of wikis due to problems I had under 800x600 resolution. These could be added again, though. As somebody said before, it is small text, and therefore some people could find it hard to read. Also the images link to the image pages. (These might be fixed by the time you read this.) View it here: User:This, that and the other/mpbox This, that and the other [ talk 07:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The now-version takes up two rows on my srtup now. Unlike the previous-version that was all in one row. The problem we're seeing is because you're trying to fit exact pixel width icons into an adaptive space. Our fonts are set from the monobook CSS from our individual browser's x-small fontsize, then adjusted up by percentage. There's no way you'll be able to marry the pixel width of icons with the relative width of font sizes on everyone's browser the same way. -- Monotonehell 11:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
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 95 | ← | Archive 99 | Archive 100 | Archive 101 | Archive 102 | Archive 103 | → | Archive 105 |
Can someone changed the picture of the featured article on the main page, looks extremely small, maybe we should put the image (or another one in the article or resized the image) on the infobox for now. -- JForget 02:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Could we possibly get a picture other than a
mostly nude
female with
fishnet stockings on? Is Wikipedia about promoting immodesty to the thousands of young schoolchildren that are looking at the main page every single day? I suppose this is a little better than the
History of erotic depictions, but still...must we?
Bmrbarre
01:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Is a pop-song really important enough to feature on the homepage? This song may be liked a lot, but it's not as though it's established itself over decades in the way that, perhaps, Beatles songs have done. I'm concerned at the appearance of trivialising the encyclopedia.
I think that too many pop artists or songs appear on the featured article. The featured articles should show a bit more diversity.
I really think Wikipedia should support the Best Viewed With Any Browser Campain.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter1G1Robertson ( talk • contribs)
column-count
, but that'll come soon). Viewable in All Browsers is a lovely ideal, but we can actually implement it by following W3C standards.
Gracenotes
T §
22:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I suggest moving Main Page to Wikipedia:Main Page, because I would like to make an article on main pages on the Internet. And "Wikipedia:Main Page" would not appear on top of the main page. ANNAfoxlover 01:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
i want vi:Trang Chính from Vietnam into en:Main Page like as de:Hauptseite, fr:accueil... ?-- 125.235.73.30 02:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't flame at me for everyone already knowing, but The Zoo Tycoon 2: Extinct Animals page is being vandalised by losers who have no live. I say we lock the article. Dinoman96 19:42, 15 June 2007
Image:San Antonio Spurs logo.png Someone should add that the San Antonio Spurs have beat the Cleavland Cavaliers 4-0 in the 2007 NBA Finals to win their fourth championship in nine years.
Is this really deserving of the front page? I can't recall the last time I saw any of my local footy results being heralded as international news on Wikipedia... — Zioroboco 20:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
(Undent) I'm all for renaming "Wikipedia" with the correct spelling, yes, wot? ITN generally only lists the results of the "grand final" or equivalent event of the highest level of competition. In some sports this can lead to a bit of debate as to what constitutes the highest level. Generally it would involve an international flavour, but in the case of basketball, money tends to act as gravity and most see the (US)NBL as the pinnacle of basketball. Yet others have argued that the US College basketball is higher than that. So it all involves an amount of subjectivity. In the case of football (soccer) it's the "World Game" and we do have an established and widely followed International competition. -- Monotonehell 04:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
1. We have a longstanding agreement that the premier championship of any major professional sport qualifies for ITN coverage (assuming that the requisite article exists). Most informed individuals would agree that the event in question is the premier championship of professional men's basketball.
2. The reason for this is that the NBA is the world's premier professional men's basketball league. Many of the best players from around the world participate. In addition to players from the United States, the final two teams that competed for this year's championship have players from Argentina, Brazil, France, Lithuania, Serbia and Slovenia.
3. To the best of my knowledge,
Toronto, Ontario is not part of the United States. That city has an NBA team, so I don't understand why anyone would argue that the league is of no interest to non-Americans. It isn't even accurate to claim that interest is limited to Americans and Canadians.
4. Just last month, we featured the outcome of an
English football final in ITN. It was not, by any stretch of the imagination, the sport's premier championship event. Nor, for that matter, was the
European football tournament that we featured last month. I had hoped that this added leeway would quell the allegations of American bias, but that obviously hasn't occurred.
For the record, I am an American who is not a fan of basketball or any other athletic competition. —
David Levy
13:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Is it inserting a historical POV to say that? I mean, Burnside was not the sharpest tool in the shed, and was certainly unqualified to face Robert E. Lee -- but he performed very well as a division commander in the west, and the fiasco at the Crater was Meade's and Ledlie's fault more than his. I would suggest calling him one of the "least successful" generals instead -- and then finding, if you want, a different adjective to describe the carbine. 209.190.233.66 17:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Since ya’ll always know where to direct people that aren’t in the correct place, where do I complain about people placing comments in the incorrect place? I know that if I put it in the most accessible place, the Main Page discussion, someone will find the time to correct me. Too often, I read things like, “Why is this here,” or “This should go somewhere else,” and feel, well, disappointed. The Main Page discussion is the easiest place to write suggestions or comments for people that don’t know where else to put them. And of course they get jumped on for not knowing that there was a special page for their concern. Why can’t the Main Page talk be a place of open discussion about Wikipedia in general? Of course someone will tell me that this whole comment would be better on another page. S. Randall 21:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the first crossing of the South Atlantic Ocean by air in 1922, from Lisbon, in Portugal, to Rio de Janeiro, in Brazil, by Portuguese aviators Gago Coutinho and Artur de Sacadura Cabral should be mentioned. Thank you. The Ogre 06:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
It was only now an idea for the main page struck me that I even noticed we had links to portals on the main page in the top right hand corner. Portals are supposed to act as gateways for readers to visit stuff within that topic, yet no-one outside regular Wikipedians has heard of them. An idea: Create a display box between the main "Welcome to Wikipedia" notice and the TFA and put all the Featured Portals in it (or as the list grows have a random selection appear). It'll generate some decent traffic and form an incentive to some people to try to get their portal featured. We create more content, and people actually see it. How about it? 62.30.56.116 04:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC) (Dev920)
hi i was doing a project on pythagoras and i didnt find too much information on it i did find information but it was a bit complicated the wikipeadia website was very helpfull --Zunaira
Could someone remove this article? Intrigued by the tease, I clicked on it and found an incoherent article that has already received several POV and cleanup tags and is getting horribly abused on its talk page. It really doesn't make a good statement for Wikipedia as it currently is, even if it apparently met the criteria. Daniel Case 13:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
In the box at the top of the main page in the line "6,857,742 articles in English", I am suggesting that English be changed to English as to let readers know of other wikipedias. « ANIMUM » 15:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Today's featured article image, a view of Puerto Rico from space, is pretty dark and it's generally hard to tell what it is. I clicked on it for a better view, and was suprised to find it hasn't been protected. It seems I could upload a new version. In fact, I've got a brightened (levels adjusted) and color-corrected (to remove the red haze) image ready to go. [2] So, can I upload it? Or would that be disruptive? And why is this image being used for the history article, anyway? How about one of the photographs from the article that represent some part of Puerto Rico's history? Please point me to the right spot to discuss this if this isn't the appropriate page. -- Martinship 06:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyone interested in replying to the Help Desk question about the Main Page posted at Question : Wikipedia May28th page appears on June19th ?? -- Jreferee ( Talk) 23:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Shame on you folk for linking great tit from the main page :) Borisblue 13:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations - you just killed a dozen of them with your question ;) Raul654 03:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't get us started on the woodcock ColdRedRain
On this day, Vlad III Impaler...err, it should say Vlad III Dracula, as it says in the Night Attack, which is the article which is mentioned for today. It is about consistency and nothing else. Vlad III Impaler in one place and Dracula in another? -- Thus Spake Anittas 21:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Please update ITN. There are a few suggestions at WP:ITN/C waiting for admins' approval. Thanks. -- 74.13.130.59 01:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The m:Wikimedia brand survey discussion has had me thinking, and what I think we need is a better way to promote our Wikimedia sister projects ( Wiktionary, Wikinews, Wikisource etc.), you know, the ones languishing on the bottom of the other side of this page. I have this crazy feeling that people just don't pay attention to the bottom and that if we moved them to the top, we might just see the leverage of this page propel some projects that are struggling a little into projects that could really thrive with more participation. I know, I know, this will be different, and it just won't feel right to some of us, but please just look at the the demo (not a finished idea at all, just an idea of placement), and decide for yourself whether or not this can help us further our larger goals at Wikimedia. Thanks.-- Pharos 06:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)RE
Why not change it for a few days or a week and see how traffic on the sister sites changes? --- RockMFR 01:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of moving this to the top... especially in it's reduced state as Cadby has shown. Granted, Wikipedia does not have commercial interests, like Google, but increasing the popularity of these projects will also help increase the accuracy of the information. The more people that use these resources, the more people may contribute. Or... what about this idea... Each day there is a featured article and a featured image. What if each day you also have a featured WikiResource. Today it's the Wiktionary... tomorrow, the WikiSpecies project, etc. Then, you can have a small box dedicated to the icon AND the explanation of the sister project. Trigam41 15:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
"The right-wing Union for a Popular Movement, party of French President Nicolas Sarkozy (pictured), wins a National Assembly majority in the legislative elections."
From an American political perspective, UPM is center-left, not right-wing. Some discernment should be noted, as what constitutes right-wing on the Continent differs from Stateside. - MSTCrow 05:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
"UPM retains majority despite losses" seems a bit of a negative way of presenting this - according to the Economist it's the first time a party has held on to a majority for 29 years. [3] -- Dilaudid 20:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Haven't we had enough of FF FAs? I know, I know, the whole schpiel comes up each time, how I ought to improve what I want and submit it...I'm not disagreeing with the way Wikipedia works...the sight just raised an eyebrow over here. 209.190.233.66 14:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Today's main page FA section is missing its thumbnail (normally in the upper right corner). The other thumbnails and POTD appear normal.
Hi, just noticing the interwikis. You have CEBUNO but not ÍSLENSKA? (is:) why? Why do you have all the other scandinavian and nordic languages, but not Icelandic? It would be nice if you added it , we do have more then 10.000 articles. Thank you! :) -- Ice201 00:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Cebuano has 22.000 articles. Another explanation? I kind of take it to offense how you dont have the Icelandic wikipedia link on there, i mean it is just one more language? We are very active wikipedia, you cant place it on there? We have many edits a day, and it grows faster each day, I am kind of offended I dont see my language there. Thanks! -- Ice201 00:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it just reassures that fact that wikipedia is bias. I mean, honestly, I never even heard of Cebuano until I saw it on the list , and I am very interested in language. Cebuano seems more of a DIALECT t hen a language of Tagalog or Filipino. -- Ice201 01:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh i forgot, Icelandic is a minor language according to your Germanic languages template! -- Ice201 01:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I do think Tagalog should be up there more then Cebuano. And what is wrong with just placing wikipedias more then 10.000 articles on there? I am not arguing saying my language is more important then yours, the most important language in the world is obviously English since its the international, as with the other UN languages. But each language is unique, but to simply place their sister languages (norsk dansk svenska) on the front page and not Icelandic? It is kind of insulting. I am not trying to diminutive Cebuano, it was just Cebuano's lucky day to be used as an example. Please dont take my comments the wrong way as insulting another language, it is just I am finding the english wikipedia very bias. Maybe the front page should be done another way then article count? -- Ice201 15:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
My two cents worth. I don't think a sports event deserves to go on the main news menu, on the main page. In fact, it looks grotesque, sandwiched between religious massacres and national elections. Today is one example. Can we devlop a policy to change this? Perhaps relegate sport to a non-news category? Sorry if I am expressing this badly, but it just jars. BrainyBabe 13:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
What are NBA and NFL? Is ITN something to do with sport? -- JeremyBoden 14:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
(Indent Break) Wikipedia is not a news source. For that, see Wikinews. ffm ✎talk 17:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Rejoice soccer hooligans! The NBA, or especifically, that American related sports item is gone. Don't worry, Mavs fans are happy too. -- Howard the Duck 16:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey everybody, I requested a peer review on the Holocaust article, however there has been no response at all, and its been a few weeks. What should I do? Brent Ward
Hi, can anyone explain the technical method used to suppress the words "Main Page" on this main page? We might do the same at Wikisource. Thanks, Dovi 17:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
i just wanted to say the site is good but does not always have the info i need i would also like lots of info on history things like the battle of hastings ok things like that
This page is only for discussions about the Wikipedia page Main Page/Archive 101. To discuss an article, please use that article's talk page. To ask for help with using and editing Wikipedia, use our Teahouse. Alternatively, see our FAQ. | This page is not meant for general questions, nor discussions about specific articles.
. ffm ✎talk 20:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
aaand, if you're anywhere beyond middle school, you shouldn't trust Wikipedia to do your homework beyond the barest of facts. Take everything you read here with a mine of salt. 209.190.233.66 20:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
These responses might overwhelm you but then again, we are here to help. Basically if its an FA article (Featured Article) its good for research. Use wikipedia as a basis for obtaining possible facts in other articles. Then you might wanna do some googling on them later to prove them. Hope that helps. Tourskin 21:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
I was surfing thorugh your website, i also saw the gujarati page on your website, i noticed few things i thought they were worth mentioning:
like the tool box is wrongly mentioned as "hathiyar ni peti", actually it should be called "sadhano ni peti"
if you wish i would help you out with translation in gujarati.
I am working in Pune, Maharashtra, India and Imy mother tongue is Gujarati, hence i am able to read, write and understand that language well enough.
<e-mail address removed> - Dreaded Walrus
you can contact me on that, i'll help wikipedia voluntaryly as i personally like this website a lot.
regards,
Shivraj Sharma Sharma shivraj 13:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Please update ITN. There are a couple of good suggestions at WP:ITN/C waiting for admins' approval. Thanks. -- 74.13.124.138 11:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
As u can read here, the german wikipedia has reached now 600.000 articles. -- 134.147.117.190 23:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I has won the Libertadores and even it is not in the wikinews!!! Where do you live? In the first world?? Give poors the posibility to emocionate a little —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.250.93.141 ( talk • contribs).
For those not aware, this user is talking about Boca Juniors, a football (soccer) team, who have recently won the Copa Libertadores, which is the South American equivalent of the UEFA Champions League. -- Dreaded Walrus t c 00:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is it only the English Wikipedia has a globe with aliased borders? (esp. visible at the bottom of it) -- 84.159.33.52 08:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
wasn't it supposed to be featured today?? 24.109.218.172 00:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
oh it was in an edit war ok. i know now. 24.109.218.172 00:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
hi! i just want to know the opinion of others on this question, experience vs training? is there any difference between this two? can someone explain it to me... tnx! Gurlsweet 08:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
This page is not the place to ask general questions. This page is for discussing the Wikipedia page " Main Page/Archive 101". Use this link to find out how to ask questions and get answers. |
A few months ago, anglophones in Montreal felt offended and complained about the accent mark on the letter E in Montreal. How about the letter E in Québec/Quebec? -- 74.13.128.121 01:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Access to Wikipedia seems to be a bit patchy over the past couple of hours. What's the deal? -- Jnelson09 14:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
This page is only for discussions about the Wikipedia page Main Page/Archive 101. To discuss an article, please use that article's talk page. To ask for help with using and editing Wikipedia, use our Teahouse. Alternatively, see our FAQ. | This page is not meant for general questions, nor discussions about specific articles.
— METS501 ( talk) 04:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Um...? This can't be a good thing--VectorPotential Talk 19:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there any way to view old or deleted articles? Thanks. Link's Awakening 22:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Alright, thanks guys! Link's Awakening 22:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't we add something about Chris Benoit's ( World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) wrestler) death in "In the news" section? This is major news in the US and Canada and the wrestling world. -- Effer AKS 19:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it is very big news along with the circumstances of the death, it should be on the latest news at least, but even chris benoit should be featured on the front page Prem4eva 12:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
If you want this item to be posted on ITN, head on to WP:ITN/C and let your voices be heard. -- Howard the Duck 16:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the death of Joseph Smith be noted in the section about what happened today in years passed? Useight 17:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely love the new position of the sister projects. Great thanks to Pharos for implementing it! I hope it's there to stay, this should give the sister projects a huge boost. (In both users, contributions, and vandalism). Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 03:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC) I came here to say that I really dislike the new position of the sister projects. It really adds a lot of clutter to the Main Page, and pushes the actual content of wikipedia so that it is less than half the page when the screen first loads. I appreciate the intent, but the sister projects are, from a design standpoint, way too big and way too prominent, right now. I hope we reconsider this move. Also, the "sister projects" table is a different style which I find jarring with the Featured Article and In the News tables. The whole thing looks unappealing and distracting to me, I hope we go back to the old version. -- JayHenry 03:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Raul already reverted, but I want to agree with this. People come to Wikipedia looking for encyclopedic content, putting a large sister projects template up top detracts from that and displaces more relevant content. Dragons flight 03:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, users don't need to see the sister projects up at the top like that. I think that the proposal was mainly aimed at new users, people without accounts. Is there some way that a cookie or something like that can be set, so that a section containing the sister projects can be hidden for people with accounts or for people with accounts more than X days old? I know I've seen similar things done with a [dismiss] button on the right; can something similar be done here? That way new users (who are not aware of the sister projects) will see them, but regulars (who know very much about them) won't. I do firmly believe though that moving things up helps (which is why I moved Error Reports above the Table of Contents), because people have the attention span of a gnat and aren't likely at all to think there's anything like WikiBooks or Wiktionary out there — Wikipedia is the most well-known out of any of them. Like I said, regular users don't need to see the clutter of the bar, but I'm sure there's some way to get new visitors aware of these projects. —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby ( talk • contribs) 07:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that moving the sister projects listing up is a bad idea, but we should think about using the smaller version of this section that User:Cadby Waydell Bainbrydge developed. Here's what we have now: Template:WikipediaSister Here's the compact version: Template:WikipediaSister-header Λυδαcιτγ 18:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I've altered it again to make it more Main-Page-like:
<substed template removed - messed with page's wiki code> —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby ( talk • contribs) 02:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
What about really small, like this:
Wikimedia Sister Projects |
--
Knulclunk
21:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The template's been changed again; any chance of feedback? —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby ( talk • contribs) 23:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
A smaller version I suggested earlier could be better, but it's missing a couple of wikis due to problems I had under 800x600 resolution. These could be added again, though. As somebody said before, it is small text, and therefore some people could find it hard to read. Also the images link to the image pages. (These might be fixed by the time you read this.) View it here: User:This, that and the other/mpbox This, that and the other [ talk 07:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The now-version takes up two rows on my srtup now. Unlike the previous-version that was all in one row. The problem we're seeing is because you're trying to fit exact pixel width icons into an adaptive space. Our fonts are set from the monobook CSS from our individual browser's x-small fontsize, then adjusted up by percentage. There's no way you'll be able to marry the pixel width of icons with the relative width of font sizes on everyone's browser the same way. -- Monotonehell 11:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)