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 105 | ← | Archive 107 | Archive 108 | Archive 109 | Archive 110 | Archive 111 | → | Archive 115 |
... as it creates an appearance of advertising, and provides incentives for people to actually use Wikipedia for advertising. Anyone who has something they want to sell can write a featured article quality article about it, and providing that it got mainly positive reviews, they now have a strong incentive to do so. Only articles about mainstream, no-commercial topics should be featured. Those are actually the articles we should be looking to incentivise people to write in any case. Postlebury 19:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, in what sense is a book which was nominated for a National Book Critics Circle Award and called the "best book of 2006" by Time magazine not mainstream? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 20:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Just picking up on an over-generalisation above: "If a company manages to write about one of it's products with NPOV, citations, and everything else that an article needs to become featured, I see no reason not to have it on the front page" - I thought Wikipedia and Jimbo Wales are generally considered to be exceptions to this? :-) Seriously, though, what happens when they day comes when we feature an article about a living person who is known to have edited Wikipedia? Has that already happened? Would there be any problems if that person had been involved with helping to write the article? Carcharoth 21:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
If I am not mistaken, Wikipedia states that articles should give more weight to the scholarly consensus rather than minority opinions. However, I could not easily find out about this matter in regards to Wikipedia. Can someone please direct me to the appropriate page. Needhelp777 21:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I recall reading something at Wikipedia regarding their rules stating that certain pictures that are "racy" (for lack of a better term at the moment) are allowable for articles such as penis and pornography. Can someone direct me to the appropriate rule page? Needhelp777 22:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I think there is an NPOV problem in saying "the fourth plane" in the "on this day..." section. Should read "a plane" or "another plane". Sean 09:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know where to place this, so here it goes.
The title of every article has gone from being big and bold to being just like the rest of the text. Is this intentional? -- The monkeyhate 17:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
How about observing this milestone on the WP logo, like the Russian WP is currently doing? -- Camptown 09:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Great idea! Nick Warren 09:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Bad idea. The Wikipedia logo is copyrighted to the Wikimedia Foundation and shouldn't be modified like that. Not very wiki, I know, but I believe that is the position with respect to the Wikipedia logo. It should only be the Wikimedia Foundation that modify it and release new versions of it. Carcharoth 10:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that they can't design and release a new version, but I'm saying that we can't. It is not licensed under the GFDL. Carcharoth 17:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)"© & ™ All rights reserved, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc."
Uh, that was my point... Yamakiri on Firefox 18:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, nobody here has the right to design and publish a modified logo based on the Foundation's image. If I were to do so and upload it, Wikipedia might not be violating copyright law, but I would be.-- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I have emailed the right people in the Foundation asking what the deal is. It's a Sunday, so don't expect to hear back until at least tomorrow. Raul654 20:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
A temporary (week) variation may be nice.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Those asking for 'permission' and claiming a 'copyright violation' on the site that owns the copyright are just silly. Go to Commons, upload it, tag it with Commons:Template:CopyrightByWikimedia and Commons:Template:InternalUseOnly and be done with it. No harm, no foul, no wasting of the foundation's time. Honestly, what do you think they are going to do if we did make a deriative of thier logo? The only option would be to sue the site it's on, and they aren't going to sue themselves for copyright violation. It's no different that McDonalds creating advertisments and making the logo look different, they own the copyright, they can do whatever they want with it. — Moe ε 22:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Legal issues aside, I strongly oppose this idea. It might make sense for smaller Wikipedias, but we're supposed to be concentrating primarily on quality, not quantity. Placing a "2,000,000" image on every page is hardly the way to convey that. It would imply that we care more about continually adding new articles than we do about improving existing ones. — David Levy 00:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm one of image/copyright-observers in Russian Wikipedia. Yes, we make the der.works from Wikipedia Logo. But we don't tag them by GFDL or other free license. All our derivative Wikipedia Logos (Plz, see ru:Категория:Изображения:Собственность фонда Викимедиа) are marked by {{ CopyrightByWikimedia}} (localised version), in other words (figuratively) we are presenting such der.works to Wikimedia foundation. If I or other i/c-observer find the derivative Wikipedia Logo without CopyrightByWikimedia tag, we always add it. Alex Spade 05:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I heard back from Mike Godwin, the Foundation's attorney. He doesn't believe that temporarily changing our logo for in-house use will be a problem. Raul654 19:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
On the Main page, when I click view source the following appear:
I know it has something to do with the Main page being cascading, which I think means it has a .css. Could someone tell me why it says all of that though? Just wondering... Yamakiri 21:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
You won't see people going crazy after the 2,532,127th article, now will you?
counting the number of references is pointless. You might as well count occurrences of "some believe". I used to keep repeating at people that counting the number of articles is just as pointless, because we have no standardised merging/splitting criteria, which makes it completely arbitrary what will end up as "one article". The only objective quantity that is easy to measure is the number of words or bytes (or "shelfspace"). It is really beyond me why nobody focusses on that and everybody counts "articles" instead. -- dab (𒁳) 07:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It is human to be fascinated by numbers and statistics, 2 million is a really impressive number to us who use base 10. Most of the sports trivia is useless numbers. Jeltz talk 14:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The current news list contains an item on Powell breaking the 100m spring record at the IAAF Grand Prix at Rieti, Italy. I can't find a WP article on that event. Is that the correct name for the event? Ordinary Person 09:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see the thread(s) at Talk:Thou. -- Dweller 10:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Featured Article thumbnail is missing again today. This seems to be happening every couple of weeks now. What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.11.145 ( talk) 20:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
As Nil Einne points out, the use of fair use images for articles in which they add encyclopedic value is an area in which the goals of "free" and "encyclopedia" are in conflict. If "free" is the sole goal, then copyrighted images should never be used. If "encyclopedia" is the goal, then copyrighted images will have to be used in some circumstances, in order to make the content both comprehensive and intelligible. The ongoing dance about copyrighted images is an attempt to find a compromise between these two important values.
Johntex is correct that the removal of fair-use images from TFA was not community-driven or reached by consensus. Last time this happened Jimbo was asked for his opinion on the subject; he said, "I think such images should be strongly avoided for the homepage of Wikipedia," but declined to go into any detail explaining his reasoning, and the discussion stalled out once again.
I'm somewhat frustrated by this: it seems to go against the spirit of Jimbo's own quote at "Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem," where he's quoted as saying "I think that almost any argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with "Jimbo said..." is a pretty weak argument. Surely the merits of the proposal should be primary, not what I happen to think." But in the case of whether to use copyrighted images on the main page, the reasons really reduce down to "Because Jimbo said so." It seems to me that Jimbo's actions and failure to explain his reasoning have created a stalemate in favor of his positions, although the community is far from consensus on this subject and there are legitimate arguments to be made on both sides. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Just want to say.. thanks a lot for making such an interesting main page :) The 'in the news' section always has things which are important and yet often neglected in mainstream media, and imo represents a fairly worldwide view (more worldwide than most anyway). 86.137.123.74 17:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Need more Mozart porn :P Raul654 20:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. This stuff was on the news! Why isn't in the mainpage? It's mag. 8.4 and triggered a tsunami warning as far away as Kenya! You put it on the main page when a strong quake struck the Solomon Islands, and also when one struck Peru. Why isn't this on the main page??? Does wikinews have an article on it yet, so I could perhaps edit it? Help! Thanks. ~ A H 1( T C U) 00:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be on the front page? If the Japanese PM resigning was on the front page, I don't see why this (with further reaching consequences) shouldn't be.
Why is tomorrow's featured article going to be EXACTLY the same as today's? Simply south 15:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it looks too big. I prefer the old size. __earth ( Talk) 15:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
according to the discussion in german wikipedia, the central css has been changed (nobody there knows why). template:wrongtitle is broken too. -- Poupée de chaussette Demand satisfaction? 16:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Was it really necessary to display the title "Lick Me in the Ass" on the main page? Not the best thing to see before coffee, and certainly not the best advertisement for WP for someone coming here for the first time. The title itself could have been hidden behind a link w/ another name. HiramShadraski 11:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a really bad attempt at proving that Wikipedia does not get censored. The encyclopaedia has an image, you know. — Adriaan ( T★ C) 04:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
What bothers me most about this discussion is that a couple people seem to have made the implication that the administrator that chose this DYK item was intentionally out to "prove" something or offend people just the rules allow him to. This is absurd. APL 21:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Has anybody ever thought about using bolder and more attractive colors and fonts on the main page. A strong main page makes the site look more attractive I think. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 11:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess I am very artistic and prefer stronger and bolder appearance for the main. I know wikipedia is about content but there's so much that could be done to improve it -it is a little placid. I have my setting on cologne blue which is an improvement but I wish there was some way I could design my own fron page under my personal preference options ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (executive) would be start with a bolder font ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
DOn't insult me !!!. Of cpurse I wouldn't want colors as bold as that for the main page. Just a bolder wikipedia header would be a start ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Well your user page is really interesting isn't it ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added the executive link in my user page so when I click main page from now on its goes to this. I do think the title looks better bolder like this ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Lots of bright, bold colours often look childish and the colours used here work very well. violet/riga (t) 20:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Your photos every day for e.g., "in the news", "on this day" are always on the top of the section --- whereas the related words might be buried much deeper. The user has to poke around for the matching story! How frustrating. If one doesn't know who the important person is pictured, he can't even guess which story the image refers to. Fix your template or whatever, please! Jidanni 22:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Well I will have you know that there is at least one section where they forgot to add a the "(pictured)"... And I won't tell you which so as to allow you to experience the "fun" of digging around!
See, the whole idea of purposely teasing the reader that he is supposed to know who the important people pictured are so therefore he needn't dig around in the text ... "(pictured)" or not ... is just saying "we like the fancy tease effect, tough luck." Jidanni 22:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Or if the picture must be at top, then its words should also. Jidanni 23:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually I was talking about OTD but it got fixed already or something -- that's besides the point! The point is this is not some old "see plate VII in the colour appendix" book where that's the best you can do. So please don't force the user to grope through unrelated thoughts to find which one belongs to the image, just to be "artsy craftsy". Jidanni 01:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
hello every one we in fa.wikipedia.org (persian wikipedia) are near 25000 articles please give us a link in your main page thank every one-- 213.207.251.64 14:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC) my page in persian wikipedia
i know i say we are very near 25000 articles-- 213.207.249.248 14:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Contrary to the picture on the front page about "Ensay" - IOSA (pronounced "eesuh") is the Gaelic for Jesus. "Ensay" has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus. Please remedy this, this is the kind of thing that makes wikipedia a laughing stock. -- MacRusgail 15:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Greeting. I'm a new user and I have some doubts. I know this isn't the appropiate page for this question, but I can't find any other place for this: Which is the difference between the English Wikipedia and the Simple English Wikipedia? Twicemost 00:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed that some templates look a lot different? Like they once had color in the background but don't anymore? - Sox 207 19:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
do you think there will be a new design for this page ? ever. just wondering looks good though. Isfaner 21:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
“ | The Wikimedia commons is experiencing techinal difficulties...some images may not display properly | ” |
Chya! No kidding! Don't you the red "x"s where images used to be? :-p-- Angel David 19:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
"The Wikimedia servers encountered technical difficulties earlier this week, and as a result, some images may not display properly. To correct this, click the image to see the description page, and purge the cache"
HOw do you get rid of this? I only need to see it once but now its stuck at the stop of every article and its getting annoying. 71.112.230.231 00:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Would someone please try tell me what is going on with images on English wikipedia. A large number aren't showing up, and the editing toolbar doesn't work at all. This is a serious problem which is not just affecting my computer, as an earlier post on this page of a few days earlier claimed such problems as well. User:R-41 (sorry I can't sign my post properly as the toolbar doesn't work at all)
I cannot see SVG images in the Wikipedia pages. -- HybridBoy 08:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason that only battles and military conflicts are mentioned in this section (with one exception)? Surely human history has been more varied than this, and Wikipedia should give examples of how interesting and diverse it has been? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.57.231.147 ( talk) 02:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Good points, Nil and User 74.14.22.10. Tourskin 22:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Why doesnt anybody adding the saigon inferno article....
http://vietnamnews.vnanet.vn/2004-06/12/Stories/06.htm http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2798725_ITM http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2372201.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 ( talk) 11:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%E1%BB%A5_ho%E1%BA%A3_ho%E1%BA%A1n_ITC —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
85.71.211.66 (
talk)
11:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Why isnt anybody adding the article?
I am new so i dont know how to make an article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 ( talk) 13:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200211/02/eng20021102_106131.shtml
http://english.people.com.cn/200210/30/eng20021030_105915.shtml
http://www.cathnews.com/news/211/19.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/10/30/vietnam.fire/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 ( talk) 13:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
...isn't listed on the news? It is a wake-up call to the world. I needs to be there. It was bumped, while the death of a racer is left? Not right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.149.136 ( talk) 23:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
What are the consequences for deliberately defacing articles on Wikipedia? Is there a way to stop users from mis-using Wikipedia? Can you be sued for defametory stuff or tracked down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.230.242 ( talk) 07:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Why doesnt anybody adding the saigon inferno article?
http://vietnamnews.vnanet.vn/2004-06/12/Stories/06.htm
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2798725_ITM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2372201.stm
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200211/02/eng20021102_106131.shtml
http://english.people.com.cn/200210/30/eng20021030_105915.shtml
http://www.cathnews.com/news/211/19.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/10/30/vietnam.fire/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2447013.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 ( talk) 13:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
http://www.csa.cz/en/news/news_tz_data/tz_14092007.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 ( talk) 14:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi I am mostly happy with the front page but is there anyway we could boost the header a little more like Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (executive) ? but of course change it to 2,013,561 articles in english ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Czech Airlines have new logo http://www.novinky.cz/ekonomika/ceske-aerolinie-maji-nove-logo_122693_k0a6s.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 ( talk) 13:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Please change the logo of czech airlines(UTC)
Why isnt anybody changing the logo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 ( talk) 13:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
A bomb just exploded in Prague! 215 people were seriously injured! Why isnt it in main news? http://www.novinky.cz/krimi/z-autobusu-mhd-v-praze-vyslehly-plameny_122782_9krrd.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 ( talk) 14:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the way that templates have been reorganised so that they dont have their boxes and colors anymore; its hard to differentiate between article text and templates -- Hadseys 18:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the solid red/blue background made the templates more noticeable than they are now. This could easily be implemented in {{ ambox}} in a matter of minutes. A suggestion to this effect would belong on template_talk:ambox or else WP:VP/P. -- dab (𒁳) 20:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
In the Armed Forces Day page, Chile is not mentioned, but it shows up on the main page? That's a little odd. Cww 03:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
According to DYK's guidlines, 5-8 entries are permitted per day, and I'm seeing 9 right now. SA says a max of 5 is allowed and there are 6. It makes the main page look rather cluttered when both of those sections are soo long. Mbisanz 04:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that Wikipedia isn't commemorating International Talk Like a Pirate Day today... where's that shopped picture of Jimbo in a pirate outfit on the helm of the good ship 'Pedia (hint hint)? Yes, I do realise that it's ineligible for OTD but can't we do something? :D — Vanderdecken∴ ∫ ξ φ 08:20, 19 September 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 105 | ← | Archive 107 | Archive 108 | Archive 109 | Archive 110 | Archive 111 | → | Archive 115 |
... as it creates an appearance of advertising, and provides incentives for people to actually use Wikipedia for advertising. Anyone who has something they want to sell can write a featured article quality article about it, and providing that it got mainly positive reviews, they now have a strong incentive to do so. Only articles about mainstream, no-commercial topics should be featured. Those are actually the articles we should be looking to incentivise people to write in any case. Postlebury 19:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, in what sense is a book which was nominated for a National Book Critics Circle Award and called the "best book of 2006" by Time magazine not mainstream? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 20:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Just picking up on an over-generalisation above: "If a company manages to write about one of it's products with NPOV, citations, and everything else that an article needs to become featured, I see no reason not to have it on the front page" - I thought Wikipedia and Jimbo Wales are generally considered to be exceptions to this? :-) Seriously, though, what happens when they day comes when we feature an article about a living person who is known to have edited Wikipedia? Has that already happened? Would there be any problems if that person had been involved with helping to write the article? Carcharoth 21:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
If I am not mistaken, Wikipedia states that articles should give more weight to the scholarly consensus rather than minority opinions. However, I could not easily find out about this matter in regards to Wikipedia. Can someone please direct me to the appropriate page. Needhelp777 21:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I recall reading something at Wikipedia regarding their rules stating that certain pictures that are "racy" (for lack of a better term at the moment) are allowable for articles such as penis and pornography. Can someone direct me to the appropriate rule page? Needhelp777 22:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I think there is an NPOV problem in saying "the fourth plane" in the "on this day..." section. Should read "a plane" or "another plane". Sean 09:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know where to place this, so here it goes.
The title of every article has gone from being big and bold to being just like the rest of the text. Is this intentional? -- The monkeyhate 17:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
How about observing this milestone on the WP logo, like the Russian WP is currently doing? -- Camptown 09:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Great idea! Nick Warren 09:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Bad idea. The Wikipedia logo is copyrighted to the Wikimedia Foundation and shouldn't be modified like that. Not very wiki, I know, but I believe that is the position with respect to the Wikipedia logo. It should only be the Wikimedia Foundation that modify it and release new versions of it. Carcharoth 10:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that they can't design and release a new version, but I'm saying that we can't. It is not licensed under the GFDL. Carcharoth 17:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)"© & ™ All rights reserved, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc."
Uh, that was my point... Yamakiri on Firefox 18:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, nobody here has the right to design and publish a modified logo based on the Foundation's image. If I were to do so and upload it, Wikipedia might not be violating copyright law, but I would be.-- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I have emailed the right people in the Foundation asking what the deal is. It's a Sunday, so don't expect to hear back until at least tomorrow. Raul654 20:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
A temporary (week) variation may be nice.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Those asking for 'permission' and claiming a 'copyright violation' on the site that owns the copyright are just silly. Go to Commons, upload it, tag it with Commons:Template:CopyrightByWikimedia and Commons:Template:InternalUseOnly and be done with it. No harm, no foul, no wasting of the foundation's time. Honestly, what do you think they are going to do if we did make a deriative of thier logo? The only option would be to sue the site it's on, and they aren't going to sue themselves for copyright violation. It's no different that McDonalds creating advertisments and making the logo look different, they own the copyright, they can do whatever they want with it. — Moe ε 22:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Legal issues aside, I strongly oppose this idea. It might make sense for smaller Wikipedias, but we're supposed to be concentrating primarily on quality, not quantity. Placing a "2,000,000" image on every page is hardly the way to convey that. It would imply that we care more about continually adding new articles than we do about improving existing ones. — David Levy 00:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm one of image/copyright-observers in Russian Wikipedia. Yes, we make the der.works from Wikipedia Logo. But we don't tag them by GFDL or other free license. All our derivative Wikipedia Logos (Plz, see ru:Категория:Изображения:Собственность фонда Викимедиа) are marked by {{ CopyrightByWikimedia}} (localised version), in other words (figuratively) we are presenting such der.works to Wikimedia foundation. If I or other i/c-observer find the derivative Wikipedia Logo without CopyrightByWikimedia tag, we always add it. Alex Spade 05:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I heard back from Mike Godwin, the Foundation's attorney. He doesn't believe that temporarily changing our logo for in-house use will be a problem. Raul654 19:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
On the Main page, when I click view source the following appear:
I know it has something to do with the Main page being cascading, which I think means it has a .css. Could someone tell me why it says all of that though? Just wondering... Yamakiri 21:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
You won't see people going crazy after the 2,532,127th article, now will you?
counting the number of references is pointless. You might as well count occurrences of "some believe". I used to keep repeating at people that counting the number of articles is just as pointless, because we have no standardised merging/splitting criteria, which makes it completely arbitrary what will end up as "one article". The only objective quantity that is easy to measure is the number of words or bytes (or "shelfspace"). It is really beyond me why nobody focusses on that and everybody counts "articles" instead. -- dab (𒁳) 07:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It is human to be fascinated by numbers and statistics, 2 million is a really impressive number to us who use base 10. Most of the sports trivia is useless numbers. Jeltz talk 14:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The current news list contains an item on Powell breaking the 100m spring record at the IAAF Grand Prix at Rieti, Italy. I can't find a WP article on that event. Is that the correct name for the event? Ordinary Person 09:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see the thread(s) at Talk:Thou. -- Dweller 10:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Featured Article thumbnail is missing again today. This seems to be happening every couple of weeks now. What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.11.145 ( talk) 20:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
As Nil Einne points out, the use of fair use images for articles in which they add encyclopedic value is an area in which the goals of "free" and "encyclopedia" are in conflict. If "free" is the sole goal, then copyrighted images should never be used. If "encyclopedia" is the goal, then copyrighted images will have to be used in some circumstances, in order to make the content both comprehensive and intelligible. The ongoing dance about copyrighted images is an attempt to find a compromise between these two important values.
Johntex is correct that the removal of fair-use images from TFA was not community-driven or reached by consensus. Last time this happened Jimbo was asked for his opinion on the subject; he said, "I think such images should be strongly avoided for the homepage of Wikipedia," but declined to go into any detail explaining his reasoning, and the discussion stalled out once again.
I'm somewhat frustrated by this: it seems to go against the spirit of Jimbo's own quote at "Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem," where he's quoted as saying "I think that almost any argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with "Jimbo said..." is a pretty weak argument. Surely the merits of the proposal should be primary, not what I happen to think." But in the case of whether to use copyrighted images on the main page, the reasons really reduce down to "Because Jimbo said so." It seems to me that Jimbo's actions and failure to explain his reasoning have created a stalemate in favor of his positions, although the community is far from consensus on this subject and there are legitimate arguments to be made on both sides. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Just want to say.. thanks a lot for making such an interesting main page :) The 'in the news' section always has things which are important and yet often neglected in mainstream media, and imo represents a fairly worldwide view (more worldwide than most anyway). 86.137.123.74 17:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Need more Mozart porn :P Raul654 20:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. This stuff was on the news! Why isn't in the mainpage? It's mag. 8.4 and triggered a tsunami warning as far away as Kenya! You put it on the main page when a strong quake struck the Solomon Islands, and also when one struck Peru. Why isn't this on the main page??? Does wikinews have an article on it yet, so I could perhaps edit it? Help! Thanks. ~ A H 1( T C U) 00:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be on the front page? If the Japanese PM resigning was on the front page, I don't see why this (with further reaching consequences) shouldn't be.
Why is tomorrow's featured article going to be EXACTLY the same as today's? Simply south 15:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it looks too big. I prefer the old size. __earth ( Talk) 15:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
according to the discussion in german wikipedia, the central css has been changed (nobody there knows why). template:wrongtitle is broken too. -- Poupée de chaussette Demand satisfaction? 16:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Was it really necessary to display the title "Lick Me in the Ass" on the main page? Not the best thing to see before coffee, and certainly not the best advertisement for WP for someone coming here for the first time. The title itself could have been hidden behind a link w/ another name. HiramShadraski 11:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a really bad attempt at proving that Wikipedia does not get censored. The encyclopaedia has an image, you know. — Adriaan ( T★ C) 04:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
What bothers me most about this discussion is that a couple people seem to have made the implication that the administrator that chose this DYK item was intentionally out to "prove" something or offend people just the rules allow him to. This is absurd. APL 21:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Has anybody ever thought about using bolder and more attractive colors and fonts on the main page. A strong main page makes the site look more attractive I think. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 11:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess I am very artistic and prefer stronger and bolder appearance for the main. I know wikipedia is about content but there's so much that could be done to improve it -it is a little placid. I have my setting on cologne blue which is an improvement but I wish there was some way I could design my own fron page under my personal preference options ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (executive) would be start with a bolder font ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
DOn't insult me !!!. Of cpurse I wouldn't want colors as bold as that for the main page. Just a bolder wikipedia header would be a start ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Well your user page is really interesting isn't it ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added the executive link in my user page so when I click main page from now on its goes to this. I do think the title looks better bolder like this ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Lots of bright, bold colours often look childish and the colours used here work very well. violet/riga (t) 20:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Your photos every day for e.g., "in the news", "on this day" are always on the top of the section --- whereas the related words might be buried much deeper. The user has to poke around for the matching story! How frustrating. If one doesn't know who the important person is pictured, he can't even guess which story the image refers to. Fix your template or whatever, please! Jidanni 22:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Well I will have you know that there is at least one section where they forgot to add a the "(pictured)"... And I won't tell you which so as to allow you to experience the "fun" of digging around!
See, the whole idea of purposely teasing the reader that he is supposed to know who the important people pictured are so therefore he needn't dig around in the text ... "(pictured)" or not ... is just saying "we like the fancy tease effect, tough luck." Jidanni 22:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Or if the picture must be at top, then its words should also. Jidanni 23:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually I was talking about OTD but it got fixed already or something -- that's besides the point! The point is this is not some old "see plate VII in the colour appendix" book where that's the best you can do. So please don't force the user to grope through unrelated thoughts to find which one belongs to the image, just to be "artsy craftsy". Jidanni 01:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
hello every one we in fa.wikipedia.org (persian wikipedia) are near 25000 articles please give us a link in your main page thank every one-- 213.207.251.64 14:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC) my page in persian wikipedia
i know i say we are very near 25000 articles-- 213.207.249.248 14:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Contrary to the picture on the front page about "Ensay" - IOSA (pronounced "eesuh") is the Gaelic for Jesus. "Ensay" has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus. Please remedy this, this is the kind of thing that makes wikipedia a laughing stock. -- MacRusgail 15:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Greeting. I'm a new user and I have some doubts. I know this isn't the appropiate page for this question, but I can't find any other place for this: Which is the difference between the English Wikipedia and the Simple English Wikipedia? Twicemost 00:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed that some templates look a lot different? Like they once had color in the background but don't anymore? - Sox 207 19:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
do you think there will be a new design for this page ? ever. just wondering looks good though. Isfaner 21:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
“ | The Wikimedia commons is experiencing techinal difficulties...some images may not display properly | ” |
Chya! No kidding! Don't you the red "x"s where images used to be? :-p-- Angel David 19:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
"The Wikimedia servers encountered technical difficulties earlier this week, and as a result, some images may not display properly. To correct this, click the image to see the description page, and purge the cache"
HOw do you get rid of this? I only need to see it once but now its stuck at the stop of every article and its getting annoying. 71.112.230.231 00:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Would someone please try tell me what is going on with images on English wikipedia. A large number aren't showing up, and the editing toolbar doesn't work at all. This is a serious problem which is not just affecting my computer, as an earlier post on this page of a few days earlier claimed such problems as well. User:R-41 (sorry I can't sign my post properly as the toolbar doesn't work at all)
I cannot see SVG images in the Wikipedia pages. -- HybridBoy 08:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason that only battles and military conflicts are mentioned in this section (with one exception)? Surely human history has been more varied than this, and Wikipedia should give examples of how interesting and diverse it has been? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.57.231.147 ( talk) 02:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Good points, Nil and User 74.14.22.10. Tourskin 22:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Why doesnt anybody adding the saigon inferno article....
http://vietnamnews.vnanet.vn/2004-06/12/Stories/06.htm http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2798725_ITM http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2372201.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 ( talk) 11:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%E1%BB%A5_ho%E1%BA%A3_ho%E1%BA%A1n_ITC —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
85.71.211.66 (
talk)
11:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Why isnt anybody adding the article?
I am new so i dont know how to make an article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 ( talk) 13:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200211/02/eng20021102_106131.shtml
http://english.people.com.cn/200210/30/eng20021030_105915.shtml
http://www.cathnews.com/news/211/19.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/10/30/vietnam.fire/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 ( talk) 13:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
...isn't listed on the news? It is a wake-up call to the world. I needs to be there. It was bumped, while the death of a racer is left? Not right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.149.136 ( talk) 23:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
What are the consequences for deliberately defacing articles on Wikipedia? Is there a way to stop users from mis-using Wikipedia? Can you be sued for defametory stuff or tracked down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.230.242 ( talk) 07:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Why doesnt anybody adding the saigon inferno article?
http://vietnamnews.vnanet.vn/2004-06/12/Stories/06.htm
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2798725_ITM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2372201.stm
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200211/02/eng20021102_106131.shtml
http://english.people.com.cn/200210/30/eng20021030_105915.shtml
http://www.cathnews.com/news/211/19.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/10/30/vietnam.fire/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2447013.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 ( talk) 13:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
http://www.csa.cz/en/news/news_tz_data/tz_14092007.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 ( talk) 14:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi I am mostly happy with the front page but is there anyway we could boost the header a little more like Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (executive) ? but of course change it to 2,013,561 articles in english ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Czech Airlines have new logo http://www.novinky.cz/ekonomika/ceske-aerolinie-maji-nove-logo_122693_k0a6s.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 ( talk) 13:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Please change the logo of czech airlines(UTC)
Why isnt anybody changing the logo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 ( talk) 13:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
A bomb just exploded in Prague! 215 people were seriously injured! Why isnt it in main news? http://www.novinky.cz/krimi/z-autobusu-mhd-v-praze-vyslehly-plameny_122782_9krrd.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 ( talk) 14:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the way that templates have been reorganised so that they dont have their boxes and colors anymore; its hard to differentiate between article text and templates -- Hadseys 18:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the solid red/blue background made the templates more noticeable than they are now. This could easily be implemented in {{ ambox}} in a matter of minutes. A suggestion to this effect would belong on template_talk:ambox or else WP:VP/P. -- dab (𒁳) 20:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
In the Armed Forces Day page, Chile is not mentioned, but it shows up on the main page? That's a little odd. Cww 03:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
According to DYK's guidlines, 5-8 entries are permitted per day, and I'm seeing 9 right now. SA says a max of 5 is allowed and there are 6. It makes the main page look rather cluttered when both of those sections are soo long. Mbisanz 04:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that Wikipedia isn't commemorating International Talk Like a Pirate Day today... where's that shopped picture of Jimbo in a pirate outfit on the helm of the good ship 'Pedia (hint hint)? Yes, I do realise that it's ineligible for OTD but can't we do something? :D — Vanderdecken∴ ∫ ξ φ 08:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)