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 110 | Archive 111 | Archive 112 | Archive 113 | Archive 114 | Archive 115 | → | Archive 120 |
Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive. |
---|
001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 |
How come featured articles are usually not protected, in this case, GameFAQS? There have been a lot of vandalism in that article and yet it's not protected. How come? Kashakak 13:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
This discussion page is starting to clog up with random stuff that has nothing to with improving the main page. What should we do? LB22 20:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
This site needs a major makeover —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.98.101 ( talk) 22:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is it that on the English Main Page, the Wikipedia Globe Logo features a backwards "Ñ" on one of the puzzle pieces, yet on the multi-lingual page that links to every Wikipedia, the И does not have a tilde? -- Ye Olde Luke 00:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The donation figure seems to have frozen. When you close ther message you get a higher figure than before you close it. Harland1 13:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is the Wikimedia Fundraising C.O.R.E. practically not updated anymore? November figures. -- Camptown 13:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just learned that the Foundation is working on this issue. In the meantime, the daily balance of the fundraising is updated manually here. -- Camptown 19:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Has the main page always been fully protected, because in the page history I've found this and it confused me. Noahcs 21:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Then we won't have rude people above telling us to use an unfamiliar page to give our two cents as one had it. Tourskin 23:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
May I add a side point here - I'm still kinda new here - only a year since I was a user. So when i ask something, I'm not asking if someone knows. No, this not a test for experienced users to prove themselves. I'm asking because I don't know. In other words, if there is a link to the Village Pump, can you make it visible so that even someone like me can find it and not just say that there is one? Thats my original point here. People above have left unhelpful comments saying "this is not appropriate for the talk page" well thats great but if newbees like me can't find it, then its broke and needs fixing Tourskin 19:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding. Heathcliff 22:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you should add "Fiction-Related Article of the Day". Does anyone agree with me? Pokemon Buffy Titan 10:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey everybody, usually I have the fundraising tab covered using a "Hide this message option on my monobook". This says that 20,326 people have donated, yet when I press the show more button it tells me that 19,306 people have donated. Why? Alo which figure is accurate? Thanks -- Hadseys ( talk • contribs) 18:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we should add this wikipedia podcast to the main page, if not now, than someday at least. Wrad 01:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
on the did you know... section there is a reference to Susan Hadden's death to bandits, the link to bandit goes to a "Welsh language music television show on S4C,". as bad as welsh television might be, i don't think they killed her.--neolandes 16:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is Russian listed before Romanian both in the sidebar and in the Wikipedia languages section? I read the FAQ section on this, but according to that, the languages should be sorted by domain name, and ru (Russian) should come after ro (Romanian). In fact, any sorting method (local language name, name in English) would seem to require Romanian before Russian. Lesgles ( talk) 18:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems an odd coincidence that an article about a gun should be featured the day after a prominent school shooting. Any thoughts?-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
More apophenia in action. Raul654 22:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Nah, it would only be a strange and eerie coincidence if the shooter used the Webley in the shooting, which he didn't. hbdragon88 04:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The current event notice about riots in Georgia is a little confusing because it's not clear that the subject is the country of Georgia rather than the state of Georgia (in the US). Neither the listing nor the article itself clarifies this (although reading the article, it becomes obvious that it couldn't be referring to the state). And no, the world doesn't revolve around the US. Wikipedia is a global thing. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to identify _which_ entity is being referred to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.134.67 ( talk) 18:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering, why is the Métro referred to as "subway" on the main page? For one thing, "subway" is not an entirely generic term (for example, London people would tend to call it an underground, universally). Second, why is there a need to change from Métro? In Ireland, I very often hear any underground train system referred to as a "metro", whether in its official name or not. So if Métro is for some other reason, innappropriate, why isn't it called "rapid transit" as per its article name? - EstoyAquí( t • c • e) 19:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to see more vigilance, especially on the Main Page. But I prefer to say that by setting an example - not by making a speech whenever all of us, including you and I, have overlooked an error. Art LaPella 18:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
A WP donor earlier today suggested the implementation of an active cursor in the search box on main page. Seems like a good idea, doesn't it? -- Camptown 09:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I would hate it if when i typed it went straight to the search box because i have a heavy hand and it tends to press the odd key on my laptop. the way it is perfect. Philbuck222 11:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
This idea gets mentioned every once in a while. I actually think it's one of the most often given suggestions. The reason why it isn't done is because it (a) immediately breaks some important shortcut keys (giving focus to the search box means you can't use space bar to scroll down, for example), which is a major pain when visiting a long article, (b) it doesn't even matter too much as most people come to an article either via the www.wikipedia.org homepage (which does steal focus) or via a wikilink. I myself find it hugely annoying that when I view a Flickr results page, I first need to click the page to be able to use space bar (I can't even use tab, because it just jumps to various other input boxes). Anyway, I'm against this! —msikma ( user, talk) 21:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I can see there is a weight to continuing as is, (Thanks Mskima, I don't think I ever realised space bar could be used for scrolling!) but perhaps as a compromise the tab order could be amended so a single tab takes you first to the search box, as opposed to the 270th as on today's Main Page. Dutpar 19:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
If like Siradia said the it only occured on the main page, would it be a problem because that's where most people go immediately upon arriving at the main page? freenaulij 21:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freenaulij ( talk • contribs)
uh.......could anyone tell me how a blind person uses a computer? but I think that's a great point that Puchiko makes about the laptops, the keyboard is a major function on the laptops. freenaulij 03:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
There's also a (current) software consideration not yet mentioned: at the moment, MediaWiki doesn't treat the Main Page any differently from any other page—while the header has been hidden, this was done via CSS and is not part of MediaWiki itself. This means that giving the search box default focus would cause this behaviour on all pages. Of course the software could be modified further to only give this treatment to the Main Page (or whatever is defined on MediaWiki:Mainpage), but this added inconsistency could be even more troubling for casual readers. Garrett Talk 09:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Considering everything it is probably best to leave it alone. For the people who would use it it would be a slight convenience, but it could cause some problems for other users. freenaulij 23:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The banner at the top has changed!!!!! The Placebo Effect 04:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I have asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Hiding the fundraiser box how to hide it. -- NE2 04:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't have that 'Wiki feel' to it. The previous one was better, I'd say. -- Ouro ( blah blah) 08:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow... I'd forgotten just how well-hidden I had it. To see what had changed, I had to disable my custom stylesheet, NoScript and Adblock :) – Gurch 13:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
It is definitely true that the new fund raising banner is way too much like a big, flashing banner ad, and definitely doesn't fit in well with the Wiki style. What about the first fund raiser graphic? I recall it being eye friendly. 24.7.71.43 07:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
-- Henry W. Schmitt 04:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
This is almost as bad as an ad, and one step away from an animated GIF banner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.1.125 ( talk) 06:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I also agree that this current banner, which is very close to an ad, is not apealing to anbody at all. I liked the old one much better. Juliancolton 18:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Scroll down if u don't want to contribute, or just scroll down enough to have it out of your way. Its not like its jumping out of the screen. Tourskin 07:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
This banner really looks much like an aggressive ad... the previous one was much better. 11:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.218.178.220 ( talk)
I also thought the new banner was an improvement on the first one. Although, I'm using firefox, and the text and some lines look a little squished compared to the old one. Perhaps that can be fixed, but otherwise the new design is nice. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 21:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we're aware that the "people bar" is currently squished; hopefully this issue will get sorted out tomorrow.
I think no matter what we put at the top of the page, we'll probably get 20 comments telling us that it's horrible, unprofessional, too professional, too preachy, not preachy enough, too irritating, not irritating enough, too colorful, too gray, too banner-like, not sufficiently banner-like, too familiar, too unfamiliar, ... I'll stop now.
Since we put up the new banner, the number of donations per day has more than doubled. [3] Whether this is due to its newness or the new design -- it's clear that we have to make modifications like this to meet our fundraising goals. We need $4.6M for the FY 2007-2008, and so far we've raised $368K. We expect that we'll need another fundraiser in 2008 and we also have some major donors interested in contributing for this fundraiser; this one will run into late December. During that time we'll experiment further with the notice, the landing page, etc. Helpful comments are appreciated at Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign. --- Eloquence * 01:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, has nobody noticed that when the donation banner is opened, it shows a different number of contributors than when the donation banner is closed? Right now there's a discrepancy of between 8 and 14 contributors. Which is the real "updated" number? Is there some sort of lag? ~ user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 00:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Every time i check the number of doners it is different evry time, by a few thousand or so. I checked an hour ago and the number was over 24,000. Now, the number is just over 19,000. Juliancolton 19:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC) i think this site should get better stuff......................15/november 07 andy........... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.143.251 ( talk) 11:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, User:194.82.143.251, it really would be nice if you would sign your user name. Thank You. Juliancolton 01:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, what's up w/ the picture for the featured article: Bill Gates w/ master chief for Halo 3 release when the article is on Halo 1, or rather Halo: Combat Evolved? Am I missing something? Is there some direct corellation that I'm missing? Ben ja min 03:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The image is now cropped. Having a pic of Bill Gates there with the soldier reminded me more of Halo than before, cos Microsoft owns Xbox and Xbox owns Halo! Tourskin 05:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's making a way too big deal out of fair use pics. Seriously, guys, nobody's going to sue you.. goddammit!! -- nlitement [talk] 06:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
How do I create a page? I'm working on a political essay, which deserves a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattdflpp ( talk • contribs) 06:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Does Halo really need to be the featured article, I mean, is it just that well written. Or did an overzealous fanboy endlessly petition for it to secure the spot. There are so many pages on Wiki that deserve to be here & aren't some manifestation of pop culture. 67.184.114.4 12:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Aww, the copyrighted design of the SPARTAN armor is somehow "free" enough to be used in the FA blurb, eh? This makes a wonderful precedent for taking pictures of game cartridges for the rest of us. Thanks for chipping away at the copyright paranoia. Apparently, real life image = free. Zeality 23:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Good timing on the Oklahoma FA, as an Oklahoman. Happy birthday, Oklahoma. 216.61.238.76 00:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Moved from WP:ERROR -- lucasbfr talk 09:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone should check the today's number of articles in "Wikipedia languages". They're not at all correct (e.g. Volapük) now has more than 100'000 articles). Pausanias 18:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
How many times have powderfinger figured on the front page in the last few weeks? WHo are they?-- Kitchen Knife 11:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
"[A] rather no mark band"? WTF, Powderfinger are one of the best and most well-known Australian bands. Kitchen Knife, just because you obviously don't know much about recent music doesn't mean that it doesn't belong the Main Page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.110.207 ( talk) 09:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I really think that the recent sulfur and oil spills, in San Fran and the Black Sea, should really be in ITN. It's all over the news, so why is wikipedia not putting it on the front page? Ben ja min 00:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I know "balancing the main page" has been discussed occasionally so there is no extra empty space at the bottom of the right and left columns. So my question is: how can you determine whether the main page is in balance when Wikipedians use different display resolution settings on their computer monitors? The layout of the text that appears on a 800x600 monitor does not look the same as it does on a widescreen 1920x1200 one. Does this mean that when every time an admin wants to balance the main page, he or she has to change his or her computer monitor settings to a specific resolution, and if so what should it be? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Since it looks like Today's featured list proposal is going to pass, I am here to recrute people to help get this going and help decide who should be in charge of it. Any suggestions? -- The Placebo Effect ( talk) 06:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I was interested how long the donor list remains online. The Last Page goes to a rear title page and not the last donor listed. At this time - is page 374 and Oct22'07 and to speed search along I had to get there by the process of elimination, changing page in the address line of IE6. What is the time frame or truncate point? fyi Win98SE IE6
Planning on making 1st donation and was interested in the process. The donate page including a message line is a nice touch.
ps - I guess WikiFoundation talk page is restricted. Maybe create a link to here. Just spent 10 minutes doing a double check in a 2nd window, and THERE IS a maze to postTALK on the Foundation side, and it is not the same as here. I'll copy and paste in both places. Greg0658 ( talk) 09:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
This cross post situation, Well (thats a deep subject, well - sometimes shallow, sometimes wet, sometimes dry), my question was answered here: [ [4]] Greg0658 ( talk) 16:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The main page, under Did you know, has a link named Start a new article. It currently links to Help:Starting a new page. I recommend changing it to link to Wikipedia:Your first article. The former is not very helpful, the latter is much more helpful - particularly for new editors. -- Sbowers3 ( talk) 18:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it new? Type, then click "Go" |
(unindenting) I just finished a major reorg of Wikipedia:Your first article. Please check it out. So now, I reiterate my suggestion that the main page link to Your first article instead of to Help:Starting a new page. Sbowers3 ( talk) 16:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Balzac, this French aeronaut, and cigarettes? I call France-bias! Zeality ( talk) 02:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Is this page not archived? I can't find a way to see a span of discussion from last year, except for through the history, which is less convenient. Is the history my only option? Cormaggio is learning 16:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Should Talk:Main Page/archivelist be fully displayed next to this talk page's table of contents? The space there looks too empty. -- 74.14.21.230 ( talk) 17:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Good job with Talk:Main Page/Archives, Mr. Levy. Nicely done. Thank you. -- 74.13.127.7 ( talk) 05:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The lung cancer photo looks a lot like an overdone jacket potato with cheese. I know it isn't this. Simply south ( talk) 01:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Its Thanksgiving week and the cancerous lung picture looks like a cooked turkey, coincidence or planned?--
Coasttocoast (
talk)
01:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, do we have to choose an actual close-up picture of lung cancer. I mean is there a more moderate picture to use on the main page? Janus8463 ( talk) 02:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I've switched to an image of the cells through a microscope. The tumor was a really tasteless choice for an image.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 03:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I was finishing my lunch when I opened wikipedia and almost threw up all over my desk. Many thanks to those who changed the picture. Grant.alpaugh ( talk) 03:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
It really wasn't that disgusting if you think it's not lung cancer. -- Howard the Duck 11:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I am gravely concerned that admins were removing a picture for being "gross." Consensus has clearly been against those complaining about pictures they find unpleasant appearing on the main page. Atropos ( talk) 07:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Since the banner went up, I believe I have seen vandalisim rise a bit. Your thoughts. Marlith T/ C 00:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Seems multiple login are required across the project platforms. Is this desirable? Wished to place Well in Quote with link, but can't without a 2nd login. Greg0658 74.139.161.183 ( talk) 15:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a suggestion: Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to put John F. Kennedy's death on the front page's "On this day" section? I saw it had his assassination on other languages' homepages (like Spanish Wikipedia), and I believe that it's fitting to do the same to English's Wikipedia. Cuyler91093 ( talk) 07:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it just me or does the placement of a quesiton mark after each article statement both look confusing and seem unnecessary? Halogenated ( talk) 20:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow. That's a shocker. There's nothing here about Pakistan becoming suspended from the Commonwealth of Nations.
CaribDigita ( talk) 01:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if this isn't the right place for this recommendation ... but, I think the link on the main page (titled 'Commonwealth of Nations') should take you to the Suspension section on the Commonwealth of Nations page. That's where the current event is discussed. Wikidsoup [talk] 17:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys. I have no idea how this site works but I nominate the chess resources on wikipedia as outstanding. Virtually every opening variant and game notable as a theoretical examplar is covered. Incredible! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.104.69 ( talk • contribs) 05:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else find it disconcerting that 127.0.0.1 has 16 contributions? — Vanderdecken∴ ∫ ξ φ 15:52, 24 November 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 110 | Archive 111 | Archive 112 | Archive 113 | Archive 114 | Archive 115 | → | Archive 120 |
Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive. |
---|
001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 |
How come featured articles are usually not protected, in this case, GameFAQS? There have been a lot of vandalism in that article and yet it's not protected. How come? Kashakak 13:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
This discussion page is starting to clog up with random stuff that has nothing to with improving the main page. What should we do? LB22 20:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
This site needs a major makeover —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.98.101 ( talk) 22:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is it that on the English Main Page, the Wikipedia Globe Logo features a backwards "Ñ" on one of the puzzle pieces, yet on the multi-lingual page that links to every Wikipedia, the И does not have a tilde? -- Ye Olde Luke 00:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The donation figure seems to have frozen. When you close ther message you get a higher figure than before you close it. Harland1 13:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is the Wikimedia Fundraising C.O.R.E. practically not updated anymore? November figures. -- Camptown 13:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just learned that the Foundation is working on this issue. In the meantime, the daily balance of the fundraising is updated manually here. -- Camptown 19:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Has the main page always been fully protected, because in the page history I've found this and it confused me. Noahcs 21:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Then we won't have rude people above telling us to use an unfamiliar page to give our two cents as one had it. Tourskin 23:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
May I add a side point here - I'm still kinda new here - only a year since I was a user. So when i ask something, I'm not asking if someone knows. No, this not a test for experienced users to prove themselves. I'm asking because I don't know. In other words, if there is a link to the Village Pump, can you make it visible so that even someone like me can find it and not just say that there is one? Thats my original point here. People above have left unhelpful comments saying "this is not appropriate for the talk page" well thats great but if newbees like me can't find it, then its broke and needs fixing Tourskin 19:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding. Heathcliff 22:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you should add "Fiction-Related Article of the Day". Does anyone agree with me? Pokemon Buffy Titan 10:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey everybody, usually I have the fundraising tab covered using a "Hide this message option on my monobook". This says that 20,326 people have donated, yet when I press the show more button it tells me that 19,306 people have donated. Why? Alo which figure is accurate? Thanks -- Hadseys ( talk • contribs) 18:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we should add this wikipedia podcast to the main page, if not now, than someday at least. Wrad 01:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
on the did you know... section there is a reference to Susan Hadden's death to bandits, the link to bandit goes to a "Welsh language music television show on S4C,". as bad as welsh television might be, i don't think they killed her.--neolandes 16:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is Russian listed before Romanian both in the sidebar and in the Wikipedia languages section? I read the FAQ section on this, but according to that, the languages should be sorted by domain name, and ru (Russian) should come after ro (Romanian). In fact, any sorting method (local language name, name in English) would seem to require Romanian before Russian. Lesgles ( talk) 18:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems an odd coincidence that an article about a gun should be featured the day after a prominent school shooting. Any thoughts?-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
More apophenia in action. Raul654 22:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Nah, it would only be a strange and eerie coincidence if the shooter used the Webley in the shooting, which he didn't. hbdragon88 04:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The current event notice about riots in Georgia is a little confusing because it's not clear that the subject is the country of Georgia rather than the state of Georgia (in the US). Neither the listing nor the article itself clarifies this (although reading the article, it becomes obvious that it couldn't be referring to the state). And no, the world doesn't revolve around the US. Wikipedia is a global thing. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to identify _which_ entity is being referred to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.134.67 ( talk) 18:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering, why is the Métro referred to as "subway" on the main page? For one thing, "subway" is not an entirely generic term (for example, London people would tend to call it an underground, universally). Second, why is there a need to change from Métro? In Ireland, I very often hear any underground train system referred to as a "metro", whether in its official name or not. So if Métro is for some other reason, innappropriate, why isn't it called "rapid transit" as per its article name? - EstoyAquí( t • c • e) 19:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to see more vigilance, especially on the Main Page. But I prefer to say that by setting an example - not by making a speech whenever all of us, including you and I, have overlooked an error. Art LaPella 18:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
A WP donor earlier today suggested the implementation of an active cursor in the search box on main page. Seems like a good idea, doesn't it? -- Camptown 09:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I would hate it if when i typed it went straight to the search box because i have a heavy hand and it tends to press the odd key on my laptop. the way it is perfect. Philbuck222 11:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
This idea gets mentioned every once in a while. I actually think it's one of the most often given suggestions. The reason why it isn't done is because it (a) immediately breaks some important shortcut keys (giving focus to the search box means you can't use space bar to scroll down, for example), which is a major pain when visiting a long article, (b) it doesn't even matter too much as most people come to an article either via the www.wikipedia.org homepage (which does steal focus) or via a wikilink. I myself find it hugely annoying that when I view a Flickr results page, I first need to click the page to be able to use space bar (I can't even use tab, because it just jumps to various other input boxes). Anyway, I'm against this! —msikma ( user, talk) 21:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I can see there is a weight to continuing as is, (Thanks Mskima, I don't think I ever realised space bar could be used for scrolling!) but perhaps as a compromise the tab order could be amended so a single tab takes you first to the search box, as opposed to the 270th as on today's Main Page. Dutpar 19:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
If like Siradia said the it only occured on the main page, would it be a problem because that's where most people go immediately upon arriving at the main page? freenaulij 21:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freenaulij ( talk • contribs)
uh.......could anyone tell me how a blind person uses a computer? but I think that's a great point that Puchiko makes about the laptops, the keyboard is a major function on the laptops. freenaulij 03:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
There's also a (current) software consideration not yet mentioned: at the moment, MediaWiki doesn't treat the Main Page any differently from any other page—while the header has been hidden, this was done via CSS and is not part of MediaWiki itself. This means that giving the search box default focus would cause this behaviour on all pages. Of course the software could be modified further to only give this treatment to the Main Page (or whatever is defined on MediaWiki:Mainpage), but this added inconsistency could be even more troubling for casual readers. Garrett Talk 09:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Considering everything it is probably best to leave it alone. For the people who would use it it would be a slight convenience, but it could cause some problems for other users. freenaulij 23:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The banner at the top has changed!!!!! The Placebo Effect 04:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I have asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Hiding the fundraiser box how to hide it. -- NE2 04:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't have that 'Wiki feel' to it. The previous one was better, I'd say. -- Ouro ( blah blah) 08:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow... I'd forgotten just how well-hidden I had it. To see what had changed, I had to disable my custom stylesheet, NoScript and Adblock :) – Gurch 13:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
It is definitely true that the new fund raising banner is way too much like a big, flashing banner ad, and definitely doesn't fit in well with the Wiki style. What about the first fund raiser graphic? I recall it being eye friendly. 24.7.71.43 07:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
-- Henry W. Schmitt 04:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
This is almost as bad as an ad, and one step away from an animated GIF banner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.1.125 ( talk) 06:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I also agree that this current banner, which is very close to an ad, is not apealing to anbody at all. I liked the old one much better. Juliancolton 18:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Scroll down if u don't want to contribute, or just scroll down enough to have it out of your way. Its not like its jumping out of the screen. Tourskin 07:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
This banner really looks much like an aggressive ad... the previous one was much better. 11:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.218.178.220 ( talk)
I also thought the new banner was an improvement on the first one. Although, I'm using firefox, and the text and some lines look a little squished compared to the old one. Perhaps that can be fixed, but otherwise the new design is nice. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 21:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we're aware that the "people bar" is currently squished; hopefully this issue will get sorted out tomorrow.
I think no matter what we put at the top of the page, we'll probably get 20 comments telling us that it's horrible, unprofessional, too professional, too preachy, not preachy enough, too irritating, not irritating enough, too colorful, too gray, too banner-like, not sufficiently banner-like, too familiar, too unfamiliar, ... I'll stop now.
Since we put up the new banner, the number of donations per day has more than doubled. [3] Whether this is due to its newness or the new design -- it's clear that we have to make modifications like this to meet our fundraising goals. We need $4.6M for the FY 2007-2008, and so far we've raised $368K. We expect that we'll need another fundraiser in 2008 and we also have some major donors interested in contributing for this fundraiser; this one will run into late December. During that time we'll experiment further with the notice, the landing page, etc. Helpful comments are appreciated at Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign. --- Eloquence * 01:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, has nobody noticed that when the donation banner is opened, it shows a different number of contributors than when the donation banner is closed? Right now there's a discrepancy of between 8 and 14 contributors. Which is the real "updated" number? Is there some sort of lag? ~ user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 00:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Every time i check the number of doners it is different evry time, by a few thousand or so. I checked an hour ago and the number was over 24,000. Now, the number is just over 19,000. Juliancolton 19:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC) i think this site should get better stuff......................15/november 07 andy........... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.143.251 ( talk) 11:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, User:194.82.143.251, it really would be nice if you would sign your user name. Thank You. Juliancolton 01:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, what's up w/ the picture for the featured article: Bill Gates w/ master chief for Halo 3 release when the article is on Halo 1, or rather Halo: Combat Evolved? Am I missing something? Is there some direct corellation that I'm missing? Ben ja min 03:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The image is now cropped. Having a pic of Bill Gates there with the soldier reminded me more of Halo than before, cos Microsoft owns Xbox and Xbox owns Halo! Tourskin 05:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's making a way too big deal out of fair use pics. Seriously, guys, nobody's going to sue you.. goddammit!! -- nlitement [talk] 06:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
How do I create a page? I'm working on a political essay, which deserves a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattdflpp ( talk • contribs) 06:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Does Halo really need to be the featured article, I mean, is it just that well written. Or did an overzealous fanboy endlessly petition for it to secure the spot. There are so many pages on Wiki that deserve to be here & aren't some manifestation of pop culture. 67.184.114.4 12:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Aww, the copyrighted design of the SPARTAN armor is somehow "free" enough to be used in the FA blurb, eh? This makes a wonderful precedent for taking pictures of game cartridges for the rest of us. Thanks for chipping away at the copyright paranoia. Apparently, real life image = free. Zeality 23:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Good timing on the Oklahoma FA, as an Oklahoman. Happy birthday, Oklahoma. 216.61.238.76 00:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Moved from WP:ERROR -- lucasbfr talk 09:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone should check the today's number of articles in "Wikipedia languages". They're not at all correct (e.g. Volapük) now has more than 100'000 articles). Pausanias 18:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
How many times have powderfinger figured on the front page in the last few weeks? WHo are they?-- Kitchen Knife 11:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
"[A] rather no mark band"? WTF, Powderfinger are one of the best and most well-known Australian bands. Kitchen Knife, just because you obviously don't know much about recent music doesn't mean that it doesn't belong the Main Page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.110.207 ( talk) 09:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I really think that the recent sulfur and oil spills, in San Fran and the Black Sea, should really be in ITN. It's all over the news, so why is wikipedia not putting it on the front page? Ben ja min 00:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I know "balancing the main page" has been discussed occasionally so there is no extra empty space at the bottom of the right and left columns. So my question is: how can you determine whether the main page is in balance when Wikipedians use different display resolution settings on their computer monitors? The layout of the text that appears on a 800x600 monitor does not look the same as it does on a widescreen 1920x1200 one. Does this mean that when every time an admin wants to balance the main page, he or she has to change his or her computer monitor settings to a specific resolution, and if so what should it be? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Since it looks like Today's featured list proposal is going to pass, I am here to recrute people to help get this going and help decide who should be in charge of it. Any suggestions? -- The Placebo Effect ( talk) 06:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I was interested how long the donor list remains online. The Last Page goes to a rear title page and not the last donor listed. At this time - is page 374 and Oct22'07 and to speed search along I had to get there by the process of elimination, changing page in the address line of IE6. What is the time frame or truncate point? fyi Win98SE IE6
Planning on making 1st donation and was interested in the process. The donate page including a message line is a nice touch.
ps - I guess WikiFoundation talk page is restricted. Maybe create a link to here. Just spent 10 minutes doing a double check in a 2nd window, and THERE IS a maze to postTALK on the Foundation side, and it is not the same as here. I'll copy and paste in both places. Greg0658 ( talk) 09:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
This cross post situation, Well (thats a deep subject, well - sometimes shallow, sometimes wet, sometimes dry), my question was answered here: [ [4]] Greg0658 ( talk) 16:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The main page, under Did you know, has a link named Start a new article. It currently links to Help:Starting a new page. I recommend changing it to link to Wikipedia:Your first article. The former is not very helpful, the latter is much more helpful - particularly for new editors. -- Sbowers3 ( talk) 18:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it new? Type, then click "Go" |
(unindenting) I just finished a major reorg of Wikipedia:Your first article. Please check it out. So now, I reiterate my suggestion that the main page link to Your first article instead of to Help:Starting a new page. Sbowers3 ( talk) 16:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Balzac, this French aeronaut, and cigarettes? I call France-bias! Zeality ( talk) 02:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Is this page not archived? I can't find a way to see a span of discussion from last year, except for through the history, which is less convenient. Is the history my only option? Cormaggio is learning 16:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Should Talk:Main Page/archivelist be fully displayed next to this talk page's table of contents? The space there looks too empty. -- 74.14.21.230 ( talk) 17:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Good job with Talk:Main Page/Archives, Mr. Levy. Nicely done. Thank you. -- 74.13.127.7 ( talk) 05:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The lung cancer photo looks a lot like an overdone jacket potato with cheese. I know it isn't this. Simply south ( talk) 01:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Its Thanksgiving week and the cancerous lung picture looks like a cooked turkey, coincidence or planned?--
Coasttocoast (
talk)
01:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, do we have to choose an actual close-up picture of lung cancer. I mean is there a more moderate picture to use on the main page? Janus8463 ( talk) 02:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I've switched to an image of the cells through a microscope. The tumor was a really tasteless choice for an image.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 03:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I was finishing my lunch when I opened wikipedia and almost threw up all over my desk. Many thanks to those who changed the picture. Grant.alpaugh ( talk) 03:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
It really wasn't that disgusting if you think it's not lung cancer. -- Howard the Duck 11:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I am gravely concerned that admins were removing a picture for being "gross." Consensus has clearly been against those complaining about pictures they find unpleasant appearing on the main page. Atropos ( talk) 07:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Since the banner went up, I believe I have seen vandalisim rise a bit. Your thoughts. Marlith T/ C 00:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Seems multiple login are required across the project platforms. Is this desirable? Wished to place Well in Quote with link, but can't without a 2nd login. Greg0658 74.139.161.183 ( talk) 15:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a suggestion: Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to put John F. Kennedy's death on the front page's "On this day" section? I saw it had his assassination on other languages' homepages (like Spanish Wikipedia), and I believe that it's fitting to do the same to English's Wikipedia. Cuyler91093 ( talk) 07:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it just me or does the placement of a quesiton mark after each article statement both look confusing and seem unnecessary? Halogenated ( talk) 20:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow. That's a shocker. There's nothing here about Pakistan becoming suspended from the Commonwealth of Nations.
CaribDigita ( talk) 01:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if this isn't the right place for this recommendation ... but, I think the link on the main page (titled 'Commonwealth of Nations') should take you to the Suspension section on the Commonwealth of Nations page. That's where the current event is discussed. Wikidsoup [talk] 17:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys. I have no idea how this site works but I nominate the chess resources on wikipedia as outstanding. Virtually every opening variant and game notable as a theoretical examplar is covered. Incredible! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.104.69 ( talk • contribs) 05:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else find it disconcerting that 127.0.0.1 has 16 contributions? — Vanderdecken∴ ∫ ξ φ 15:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)