![]() | 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 55 | ← | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | → | Archive 65 |
so who won the 1,000,000th article pool? dab (ᛏ) 07:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Why don't we use the notation 1m205 for 1000205 ?
hay
Can anybody go to the article I made called DIFUSAL REFLEXION, and make a discussion about it 'cause I really wanna know what do you people think about it. Do I need to correct something?
Boris
Yeah. I'm not really from parts like America or Britain, but I still know english pretty well. I wasn't really sure how do I write that phrase... I thought it was Difusal Reflexion but, oh well... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boky ( talk • contribs) 12:54, 2006 March 3 (UTC).
Hi, user's of Wikipedia!
I would like you to go to INDOOR GAMES AND SPORTS article and make discussions about what you think about it.
~~Boris~~
How can I tell people that I created new article if Talk:Main Page is not the place for these notices. Do I need only to say I made new article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boky ( talk • contribs)
How do I make my OWN USER PAGE?
Small question, could someone put a (pictured) next to Italo Santelli in today's DYK just to clarify who that picture is of. :) Staxringold 13:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
A different entry needs to be moved to the top. The picture of the California clapper rail isn't very good, and you can't tell what it is without clicking on it first. Dave 00:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Triumph of the Will has a gallery of fair use pictures. There was a notice at the bottom of the article before it was featured on the main page asking readers to view Image talk:1936NurembergRally.jpg and the article talk for a discussion of the various images' copyrights, which appeared to imply the article's images are PD -- a rather poor excuse for not just tagging them as such and uploading them to Commons, which is for galleries (Wikipedia is not for galleries of images). However, the article talk only stated:
The image talk page however, had the input of someone from the German Wikipedia, who stated:
Template talk:PD-Germany, which was cited by the discussion as evidence that the image was PD, has a notice at the bottom stating that the template was TfDed due to terribly inappropriate wording, and this was only rectified by altering the template's text. Furthermore, Image:1936NurembergRally.jpg is not even used in Triumph of the Will. From this, I believe we should assume the images are not PD, as there are very stringent laws pertaining to public domain images, especially in Germany. (There was a discussion on IRC earlier about whether the images are PD -- a British statute was cited, which stated that all German works imported into Britain between 1939 and 1951 were in the public domain, but the film was first released in Germany in 1935. Furthermore, as Wikipedia is hosted in the United States and the Wikimedia Foundation is based in Florida, I believe only United States law applies to it.)
Surprisingly, this troubling issue of fair use/weak claims of public domain, was not addressed by the FAC which passed this article. When it was first suggested for the main page, I brought this issue up. The article was nevertheless slated for the main page. Indignant, I complained in more detail on the TFA talk, and on the article talk. Now today, lo and behold, the article is on the main page, with my complaint having been totally ignored! Since apparently people think this can be just brushed aside nonchalantly because, y'know, them Nazis ain't ever gonna' sue nobody for using their pictures, I've made this excruciatingly detailed and long comment, and I will cross-post it to wherever I feel relevant. See also Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#Images. Yes, I know, some will scream m:Avoid copyright paranoia. However, we have insisted on removing fair use images from people's talk pages, even though there is a zero chance of being sued for their use (really, will the US Democratic Party sue us for using their logo in a userbox?), so why should we brush this off when an article supposed to be our best work and appearing on our gateway to the world so blatantly violates the provisions of fair use and/or the definition of a public domain image? Johnleemk | Talk 15:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
As the article on the California clapper rail says, it's an endangered subspecies, not species. (Also, "chicken sized" should be "chicken-sized".) While I'm at it, the DYK on S. R. Rao should say that the city is "now" or "currently", not "presently", submerged, as for many of us, "presently" means "soon", not "now", but the other words are unambiguous. — JerryFriedman 17:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Since "Stars Fell on Alabama" is a song, and not an album, it should be formatted with quotation marks rather than italics (per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music#Albums.2C_bands.2C_and_songs) I've just been noticing an increasing misuse of italics for songs seemingly everywhere on the site lately, I hate to encourage it. -- Dhartung | Talk 19:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
How do we reply to comments in this page without creating a new one?
The phrase "enemy combatants" is pro-Bush as it is the term of choice of the Bushites, it implies guilt and it is is a propaganda perversion of the traditional usage of the term. It should read "prisoners". Scranchuse 00:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Is "bushites" a word? Richardkselby 00:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It defintally should of stayed for a week, there is still hype, and I see that page everytime I log into wikipedia, and I go, yeah, I contributed to that! So put it up, until March 8 2006. -- Hamedog Talk| @ 00:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
A picture of South Africa is needed for the "In The News" section. I don't think South Africa's new ruling party is going to be running prison camps in Cuba, though you never know. ;) Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk?) 00:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Cirrus clouds reads "formed at an altitudes".
Maybe an article about the band would be okay, but having a featured article about a song makes Wikipedia look like its just for kids. Golfcam 00:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not damaging--you're old--the planetary generational gap leaves you convinced that no one cares about this trivial subject. I know you are arguing that pop culture subjects are not part of the encyclopedic canon, making the site look unprofessional, but the real reason you protest is your lack of familiarity. Lotsofissues 02:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the problem at all. How does this damage our reputation? Should we automatically exclude certain categories of articles from our main page just because they seem childish? There are certain things which will not be featured any time in the near future (for instance, articles on vulgarities like fuck), but I don't think songs are among them. (Full disclosure: I've been responsible for getting several songs featured, including on the main page, and I'm technically still a minor, so maybe since Wikipedia isn't just for kids, my opinion is worthless.) Johnleemk | Talk 06:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
It is worth noting the British troops were also pelted with rocks.
From anniversaries: " Boston Massacre: The pelting of snowballs at British soldiers during a military occupation soon escalated into violence in Boston." ... Um, hate to break it to y'all, but pelting a snowball at someone is violence. Minor violence? Sure. Possibly painless? Sure. But hurling objects at someone counts as violence. how about replacing "violence" with "blooshed"? 24.243.188.42 02:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The snowballs were thown by Patriot boys, who would throw the snowballs, and then yell, "Lobsters!" Dragon Expert 20:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
On the front page, UNCUT should be italicized since it's a magazine. Gflores Talk 06:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Methinks it looks slightly obtrusive to have no fewer than three links for donations (one in the navigation sidebar, one immediately under the welcome text, and one in the top right corner which seems to be visible only to the not-logged-in users). Could we perhaps do with two? Kosebamse 07:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there a forum like page in Wikipedia where i can ask questions about editing,articles or general issues? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Archird ( talk • contribs) .
Is there?
the United States (pl.) release. 83.176.59.235 15:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The news is that the names of these prisoners has been released. Is there any way we can link to those names from the main page or help people find it more easily on the GB page? I had to look for a while....
jimfbleak 07:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
-- Greasysteve13 08:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
It was your own fault. Besides, why are you only blaming wikipedia?? If you went to any website that had news, you would have been spoiled as well. dposse 20:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia contains spoilers. Evil Monkey - Hello 00:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The Crash link is wrong in the ITN section. It should be [[Crash (2005 film)|Crash]] not [[Crash (2004 film)|Crash]]-- Hamedog Talk| @ 12:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. right?
In the "Did you know" section, the link for Indian in the Jatin Das note leads to a disambiguation page; and is thus ambiguous. It should point to [[India]]n -- RealGrouchy 22:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I find this 'edit yourself' organisation dangerous. When you reserach information on Wikipedia, you can get anything, not necessarily the truth, because any random person can put what he wants! How do we know what is true and what is extremely true?
Hey, guys, I've seen so many different articles without pictures when they are needed. For example, it's not hard to find a photo of a footballer/tennis player/any other person in Google Images, so why not have them on as much articles about people as possible? Same with everything else. It'll take you some 3 minutes, but will serve people for ages.
Of course, I'll do my part too! Lars 16:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Just thought it was a nice looking number that wouldn't last on the main page for long! Robdurbar 16:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I know this isn't the place but I have no idea who designed these new infobox templates they break the second you update anything... Chile needs a quick fix. I myself generally keep away from doing anything with those templates. I'm not certain what someone was trying to update but it would be nice if there was a tutorial on those templates. CaribDigita 17:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia starts out great for users who only want to find information. When they naturally want to go beyond that and find out how to contribute to Wikipedia, there is no easy way of getting indoctrinated. The Community Portal is fairly indimidating, and seems oriented to those already initiated into the Wikipedian community.
The "About Wikipedia" page, however, is very useful as an introduction to everything Wikipedia, including how users can get the most out of the encylopedia contents, to how would-be contributors can contribute. Yet this Wikipedia jewel is hidden at the bottom of the page in very small print - hardly easy navigation.
My simple recommendation is for the Main Page to add a link to "About Wikipedia" to the Navigation box on the left of the page, immediately under "Main Page".
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About
TClose
Possible update to In the News to add info about this? link
Certainly important enough and relevant enough to merit a mention. Kaushik twin
Next time, please post suggestions for ITN at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Thanks. -- PFHLai 19:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
How on earth do you teach garden architecture in a scientific manner? It's a misuse of the the term scientific and featured on the front page doesn't exactly do wikipedia any favours. -- Denoir 22:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson's correct abbreviated title is Lord Nelson not Lord Horatio Nelson which would be the name of the hypothetical younger son of some imaginary Duke whose family name was Nelson. Dabbler 00:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I hope I am not the only person who sees the irony of the top feature article on the Battle_of_Badr featuring Muslum's conquest of a much larger Pegan army from Mecca, opposite the top news story, featuring religous violence in the holy city of Varanasi. Perhaps this is off-topic for the main page discussion, but I can't help expressing sadness at the sorry state of human affairs. Will we ever learn?
The anniversaries section today says that on this day some years ago, Kepler discovered the third law of planetary motion. Huh? You don't discover something like that until years, possibly decades of observing data or reading collected data. Is March 8 the day he settled on its final form? The day he first proposed it? Thought of it? The day it was published in a journal? They day it was submitted to a journal? No discovery of a scientific law happens all in one day. The article on Kepler doesn't specify which. Can we clarify this entry please? 24.243.188.42 02:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Just to say, a fine featured article . Since people often write OMG Waht a stupid aticle!111!, I thought I'd commend the choosers, and the wikipedia in general, for such a dimensionally trancendental choice. 57.66.51.165 12:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The spanish Wikipedia just passed the 100k articles, you should move the link with the rest of the 100k+ wikis. IiiI, [[]] 15:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) advises against making stand-alone year numbers into links, i.e. 1999 is preferable to 1999. To quote: "years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so". I think that the year dates given in the "Selected anniversaries" section of the Main Page should follow the style guide, as these date links do not "clearly help the reader to understand the topic". They should be unlinked. This might also discourage the overlinking of dates in other articles.
I know it's only a style guide but I thought the point worth making. Sliggy 20:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this belongs in the "Did you know..." section as these usually and should show facts and not "might have"s and maybes How are articles chosen for this section anyway? -- Johnny 0 22:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
This is grammatically incorrect: ...that botanist Tomitaro Makino, despite dropping out of grammar school, named over 2500 plants and be called "Father of Japanese Botany"? I suggest changing "be called" to "has been called" or "is known as". Dforest 06:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
please can we have search higher up when using the Lynx browser. Apart from that, and the download speed, wikipedia rocks. -- Anon 20:30, 9 March 2006 (GMT)
dramatic 08:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow! Liquid water on a planet far away from the sun! I wonder if life once exsisted on it? Dragon Expert 20:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it being handled well?
Is anyone here not aware of the election?
Should there be an announcement of it at the top of the current Main Page to make sure that everyone gets a chance to vote and comment?
Just curious.
--15:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Someting that might greatly increase the utility of this site is to have soomebody(s) come in and organize the articles into self-taught courses on specific subjects.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.90.16.18 ( talk • contribs) .
Someone might want to switch up the link for the FA of the day as it seems to be a redirect.
JHMM13 (
T |
C)
23:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Yesterday's featured article was Marian Rejewski but the list of recently featured articles skips over it. Can someone fix that? I guess the list isn't automatically generated. Phr 00:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I was sitting here messing around on Wiki with the news on when I hear it say that the UAE is turning over control of the ports or something like that. Should this be in "In The News?" schyler 13:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Why no mention of the fact that Michelle Bachelet has been inaugurated as President of Chile? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ricardo Lagos ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 2006 March 11 (UTC).
On the current main page, events are highlighted for todays date, 12 March. The first event on this list is said to have occurred in 512 BCE on the main page, yet at the page for 12 March it says 512 BC. A quick look at the edit history for 12 March reveals that the notation was always BC and wasn't changed to BCE. This leaves one option, that an administrator editing for the main page changed the notation from BC to BCE out of his own personal bias. WP:NPOV strictly states that no bias shall be used, whether against religion or pro-religion. Also, the Wikipedia Manual of Style states that it is no more proper to use the CE/BCE notations than it is to use BC/AD. I believe that bias is unacceptable at Wikipedia, and especially not at the main page. Please restore this immediately. CrazyInSane 02:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC).
Considering the line in the Selected Anniversaries section is about an important temple in Judaism, why would we use ' Before Christ' ? They don't go well together, do they ? The article uses BCE and CE (until some anon. user changed them to BC and AD a few hours ago -- I've just reverted it.) The line in the Selected Anniversaries section should use the same. -- PFHLai 08:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The complainer's name is "CrazyInSane". 'Nuf said. -- Nelson Ricardo 18:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh for God's sake! Yes, the user is being silly about it, but everyone else is being very agravating. The complaint was not that BCE by itself was POV (let us leave that discussion for elsewhere), but that changing from BC to BCE, when BC was the original, throughout a page/article is NPOV. Especially when it is done without discussion or justification. And while this is, of course, not as bad as more obvious vandalism, it shows a lack of loyalty to the principles of NPOV (probably a bad wording, but I can't think how else to put it), a sort of chipping at the spirit of it. And this is worse because presumably it was done by an experienced user, if it is on a protected page. 57.66.51.165 16:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
this is boring from history to history it really doesnt matter but the reason why im doing this is because i think the past or so called history doesnt matter because kids are not very fond of what has already passed and i dont either have anything to do with history or anything like that.
I am a kid, and I am perfectly fine with reading these Featured Articles. These articles are shown on the front page, for their great writing quality and the information they give. It's not like you have to read them you know, so stop complaining and read a great article about the Golden Age of Video Games or something like that. That's history too, you know. Cerealchan 00:18, 14 March 2006 (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 55 | ← | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | → | Archive 65 |
so who won the 1,000,000th article pool? dab (ᛏ) 07:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Why don't we use the notation 1m205 for 1000205 ?
hay
Can anybody go to the article I made called DIFUSAL REFLEXION, and make a discussion about it 'cause I really wanna know what do you people think about it. Do I need to correct something?
Boris
Yeah. I'm not really from parts like America or Britain, but I still know english pretty well. I wasn't really sure how do I write that phrase... I thought it was Difusal Reflexion but, oh well... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boky ( talk • contribs) 12:54, 2006 March 3 (UTC).
Hi, user's of Wikipedia!
I would like you to go to INDOOR GAMES AND SPORTS article and make discussions about what you think about it.
~~Boris~~
How can I tell people that I created new article if Talk:Main Page is not the place for these notices. Do I need only to say I made new article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boky ( talk • contribs)
How do I make my OWN USER PAGE?
Small question, could someone put a (pictured) next to Italo Santelli in today's DYK just to clarify who that picture is of. :) Staxringold 13:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
A different entry needs to be moved to the top. The picture of the California clapper rail isn't very good, and you can't tell what it is without clicking on it first. Dave 00:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Triumph of the Will has a gallery of fair use pictures. There was a notice at the bottom of the article before it was featured on the main page asking readers to view Image talk:1936NurembergRally.jpg and the article talk for a discussion of the various images' copyrights, which appeared to imply the article's images are PD -- a rather poor excuse for not just tagging them as such and uploading them to Commons, which is for galleries (Wikipedia is not for galleries of images). However, the article talk only stated:
The image talk page however, had the input of someone from the German Wikipedia, who stated:
Template talk:PD-Germany, which was cited by the discussion as evidence that the image was PD, has a notice at the bottom stating that the template was TfDed due to terribly inappropriate wording, and this was only rectified by altering the template's text. Furthermore, Image:1936NurembergRally.jpg is not even used in Triumph of the Will. From this, I believe we should assume the images are not PD, as there are very stringent laws pertaining to public domain images, especially in Germany. (There was a discussion on IRC earlier about whether the images are PD -- a British statute was cited, which stated that all German works imported into Britain between 1939 and 1951 were in the public domain, but the film was first released in Germany in 1935. Furthermore, as Wikipedia is hosted in the United States and the Wikimedia Foundation is based in Florida, I believe only United States law applies to it.)
Surprisingly, this troubling issue of fair use/weak claims of public domain, was not addressed by the FAC which passed this article. When it was first suggested for the main page, I brought this issue up. The article was nevertheless slated for the main page. Indignant, I complained in more detail on the TFA talk, and on the article talk. Now today, lo and behold, the article is on the main page, with my complaint having been totally ignored! Since apparently people think this can be just brushed aside nonchalantly because, y'know, them Nazis ain't ever gonna' sue nobody for using their pictures, I've made this excruciatingly detailed and long comment, and I will cross-post it to wherever I feel relevant. See also Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#Images. Yes, I know, some will scream m:Avoid copyright paranoia. However, we have insisted on removing fair use images from people's talk pages, even though there is a zero chance of being sued for their use (really, will the US Democratic Party sue us for using their logo in a userbox?), so why should we brush this off when an article supposed to be our best work and appearing on our gateway to the world so blatantly violates the provisions of fair use and/or the definition of a public domain image? Johnleemk | Talk 15:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
As the article on the California clapper rail says, it's an endangered subspecies, not species. (Also, "chicken sized" should be "chicken-sized".) While I'm at it, the DYK on S. R. Rao should say that the city is "now" or "currently", not "presently", submerged, as for many of us, "presently" means "soon", not "now", but the other words are unambiguous. — JerryFriedman 17:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Since "Stars Fell on Alabama" is a song, and not an album, it should be formatted with quotation marks rather than italics (per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music#Albums.2C_bands.2C_and_songs) I've just been noticing an increasing misuse of italics for songs seemingly everywhere on the site lately, I hate to encourage it. -- Dhartung | Talk 19:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
How do we reply to comments in this page without creating a new one?
The phrase "enemy combatants" is pro-Bush as it is the term of choice of the Bushites, it implies guilt and it is is a propaganda perversion of the traditional usage of the term. It should read "prisoners". Scranchuse 00:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Is "bushites" a word? Richardkselby 00:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It defintally should of stayed for a week, there is still hype, and I see that page everytime I log into wikipedia, and I go, yeah, I contributed to that! So put it up, until March 8 2006. -- Hamedog Talk| @ 00:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
A picture of South Africa is needed for the "In The News" section. I don't think South Africa's new ruling party is going to be running prison camps in Cuba, though you never know. ;) Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk?) 00:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Cirrus clouds reads "formed at an altitudes".
Maybe an article about the band would be okay, but having a featured article about a song makes Wikipedia look like its just for kids. Golfcam 00:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not damaging--you're old--the planetary generational gap leaves you convinced that no one cares about this trivial subject. I know you are arguing that pop culture subjects are not part of the encyclopedic canon, making the site look unprofessional, but the real reason you protest is your lack of familiarity. Lotsofissues 02:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the problem at all. How does this damage our reputation? Should we automatically exclude certain categories of articles from our main page just because they seem childish? There are certain things which will not be featured any time in the near future (for instance, articles on vulgarities like fuck), but I don't think songs are among them. (Full disclosure: I've been responsible for getting several songs featured, including on the main page, and I'm technically still a minor, so maybe since Wikipedia isn't just for kids, my opinion is worthless.) Johnleemk | Talk 06:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
It is worth noting the British troops were also pelted with rocks.
From anniversaries: " Boston Massacre: The pelting of snowballs at British soldiers during a military occupation soon escalated into violence in Boston." ... Um, hate to break it to y'all, but pelting a snowball at someone is violence. Minor violence? Sure. Possibly painless? Sure. But hurling objects at someone counts as violence. how about replacing "violence" with "blooshed"? 24.243.188.42 02:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The snowballs were thown by Patriot boys, who would throw the snowballs, and then yell, "Lobsters!" Dragon Expert 20:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
On the front page, UNCUT should be italicized since it's a magazine. Gflores Talk 06:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Methinks it looks slightly obtrusive to have no fewer than three links for donations (one in the navigation sidebar, one immediately under the welcome text, and one in the top right corner which seems to be visible only to the not-logged-in users). Could we perhaps do with two? Kosebamse 07:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there a forum like page in Wikipedia where i can ask questions about editing,articles or general issues? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Archird ( talk • contribs) .
Is there?
the United States (pl.) release. 83.176.59.235 15:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The news is that the names of these prisoners has been released. Is there any way we can link to those names from the main page or help people find it more easily on the GB page? I had to look for a while....
jimfbleak 07:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
-- Greasysteve13 08:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
It was your own fault. Besides, why are you only blaming wikipedia?? If you went to any website that had news, you would have been spoiled as well. dposse 20:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia contains spoilers. Evil Monkey - Hello 00:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The Crash link is wrong in the ITN section. It should be [[Crash (2005 film)|Crash]] not [[Crash (2004 film)|Crash]]-- Hamedog Talk| @ 12:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. right?
In the "Did you know" section, the link for Indian in the Jatin Das note leads to a disambiguation page; and is thus ambiguous. It should point to [[India]]n -- RealGrouchy 22:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I find this 'edit yourself' organisation dangerous. When you reserach information on Wikipedia, you can get anything, not necessarily the truth, because any random person can put what he wants! How do we know what is true and what is extremely true?
Hey, guys, I've seen so many different articles without pictures when they are needed. For example, it's not hard to find a photo of a footballer/tennis player/any other person in Google Images, so why not have them on as much articles about people as possible? Same with everything else. It'll take you some 3 minutes, but will serve people for ages.
Of course, I'll do my part too! Lars 16:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Just thought it was a nice looking number that wouldn't last on the main page for long! Robdurbar 16:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I know this isn't the place but I have no idea who designed these new infobox templates they break the second you update anything... Chile needs a quick fix. I myself generally keep away from doing anything with those templates. I'm not certain what someone was trying to update but it would be nice if there was a tutorial on those templates. CaribDigita 17:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia starts out great for users who only want to find information. When they naturally want to go beyond that and find out how to contribute to Wikipedia, there is no easy way of getting indoctrinated. The Community Portal is fairly indimidating, and seems oriented to those already initiated into the Wikipedian community.
The "About Wikipedia" page, however, is very useful as an introduction to everything Wikipedia, including how users can get the most out of the encylopedia contents, to how would-be contributors can contribute. Yet this Wikipedia jewel is hidden at the bottom of the page in very small print - hardly easy navigation.
My simple recommendation is for the Main Page to add a link to "About Wikipedia" to the Navigation box on the left of the page, immediately under "Main Page".
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About
TClose
Possible update to In the News to add info about this? link
Certainly important enough and relevant enough to merit a mention. Kaushik twin
Next time, please post suggestions for ITN at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Thanks. -- PFHLai 19:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
How on earth do you teach garden architecture in a scientific manner? It's a misuse of the the term scientific and featured on the front page doesn't exactly do wikipedia any favours. -- Denoir 22:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson's correct abbreviated title is Lord Nelson not Lord Horatio Nelson which would be the name of the hypothetical younger son of some imaginary Duke whose family name was Nelson. Dabbler 00:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I hope I am not the only person who sees the irony of the top feature article on the Battle_of_Badr featuring Muslum's conquest of a much larger Pegan army from Mecca, opposite the top news story, featuring religous violence in the holy city of Varanasi. Perhaps this is off-topic for the main page discussion, but I can't help expressing sadness at the sorry state of human affairs. Will we ever learn?
The anniversaries section today says that on this day some years ago, Kepler discovered the third law of planetary motion. Huh? You don't discover something like that until years, possibly decades of observing data or reading collected data. Is March 8 the day he settled on its final form? The day he first proposed it? Thought of it? The day it was published in a journal? They day it was submitted to a journal? No discovery of a scientific law happens all in one day. The article on Kepler doesn't specify which. Can we clarify this entry please? 24.243.188.42 02:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Just to say, a fine featured article . Since people often write OMG Waht a stupid aticle!111!, I thought I'd commend the choosers, and the wikipedia in general, for such a dimensionally trancendental choice. 57.66.51.165 12:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The spanish Wikipedia just passed the 100k articles, you should move the link with the rest of the 100k+ wikis. IiiI, [[]] 15:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) advises against making stand-alone year numbers into links, i.e. 1999 is preferable to 1999. To quote: "years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so". I think that the year dates given in the "Selected anniversaries" section of the Main Page should follow the style guide, as these date links do not "clearly help the reader to understand the topic". They should be unlinked. This might also discourage the overlinking of dates in other articles.
I know it's only a style guide but I thought the point worth making. Sliggy 20:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this belongs in the "Did you know..." section as these usually and should show facts and not "might have"s and maybes How are articles chosen for this section anyway? -- Johnny 0 22:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
This is grammatically incorrect: ...that botanist Tomitaro Makino, despite dropping out of grammar school, named over 2500 plants and be called "Father of Japanese Botany"? I suggest changing "be called" to "has been called" or "is known as". Dforest 06:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
please can we have search higher up when using the Lynx browser. Apart from that, and the download speed, wikipedia rocks. -- Anon 20:30, 9 March 2006 (GMT)
dramatic 08:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow! Liquid water on a planet far away from the sun! I wonder if life once exsisted on it? Dragon Expert 20:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it being handled well?
Is anyone here not aware of the election?
Should there be an announcement of it at the top of the current Main Page to make sure that everyone gets a chance to vote and comment?
Just curious.
--15:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Someting that might greatly increase the utility of this site is to have soomebody(s) come in and organize the articles into self-taught courses on specific subjects.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.90.16.18 ( talk • contribs) .
Someone might want to switch up the link for the FA of the day as it seems to be a redirect.
JHMM13 (
T |
C)
23:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Yesterday's featured article was Marian Rejewski but the list of recently featured articles skips over it. Can someone fix that? I guess the list isn't automatically generated. Phr 00:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I was sitting here messing around on Wiki with the news on when I hear it say that the UAE is turning over control of the ports or something like that. Should this be in "In The News?" schyler 13:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Why no mention of the fact that Michelle Bachelet has been inaugurated as President of Chile? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ricardo Lagos ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 2006 March 11 (UTC).
On the current main page, events are highlighted for todays date, 12 March. The first event on this list is said to have occurred in 512 BCE on the main page, yet at the page for 12 March it says 512 BC. A quick look at the edit history for 12 March reveals that the notation was always BC and wasn't changed to BCE. This leaves one option, that an administrator editing for the main page changed the notation from BC to BCE out of his own personal bias. WP:NPOV strictly states that no bias shall be used, whether against religion or pro-religion. Also, the Wikipedia Manual of Style states that it is no more proper to use the CE/BCE notations than it is to use BC/AD. I believe that bias is unacceptable at Wikipedia, and especially not at the main page. Please restore this immediately. CrazyInSane 02:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC).
Considering the line in the Selected Anniversaries section is about an important temple in Judaism, why would we use ' Before Christ' ? They don't go well together, do they ? The article uses BCE and CE (until some anon. user changed them to BC and AD a few hours ago -- I've just reverted it.) The line in the Selected Anniversaries section should use the same. -- PFHLai 08:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The complainer's name is "CrazyInSane". 'Nuf said. -- Nelson Ricardo 18:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh for God's sake! Yes, the user is being silly about it, but everyone else is being very agravating. The complaint was not that BCE by itself was POV (let us leave that discussion for elsewhere), but that changing from BC to BCE, when BC was the original, throughout a page/article is NPOV. Especially when it is done without discussion or justification. And while this is, of course, not as bad as more obvious vandalism, it shows a lack of loyalty to the principles of NPOV (probably a bad wording, but I can't think how else to put it), a sort of chipping at the spirit of it. And this is worse because presumably it was done by an experienced user, if it is on a protected page. 57.66.51.165 16:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
this is boring from history to history it really doesnt matter but the reason why im doing this is because i think the past or so called history doesnt matter because kids are not very fond of what has already passed and i dont either have anything to do with history or anything like that.
I am a kid, and I am perfectly fine with reading these Featured Articles. These articles are shown on the front page, for their great writing quality and the information they give. It's not like you have to read them you know, so stop complaining and read a great article about the Golden Age of Video Games or something like that. That's history too, you know. Cerealchan 00:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)