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 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | → | Archive 65 |
The new Main Page is wonderful, and congratulations!
Nevertheless, for the bottom of the page, could some admin please work in the up-to-date Sister projects template as per the discussion here? The one that currently appears is is out-of-date, has incorrect links, and doesn't look as good. Dovi 08:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
As per user:David Levy's suggestion, I am bringing the discussion here (please see also the template talk and David's talk page). Here are David's previous comments and my previous reply:
"Free-content source texts," YUK. Yet another mangling of the English language by business-speak. Please tell us what is wrong with "Wikisource: The free library." Don't readers know what a library is? Apwoolrich 15:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikisource – The Free Library – is an online collection of free content source texts built by its contributors.
Wikisource – The Free Library – is a Wikimedia project to build a free, wiki library of source texts, along with translations of source-texts into any language and other supporting materials. It is located at www.wikisource.org.
RESTART INDENT Thanks for your reply. The "free library of source texts" is a definate improvement over what was there moments ago. However I do not see an ambiguity in the simple description of "The free library". If you would find something at any sort of library it fits the mission of Wikisource. This includes mathmatical reference tables, cout case decisions, the US Code, almanacs, encyclopedias, election data, computer source code, poems, national anthems, novels, essays, speeches, etc. Also as a libary Wikisource does not publish any new material but collects things which have already been published. WS is simply limited by copyright which is why the description is prefaced with free. I don't believe adding "of source texts" adds any clarification, especially as it is an obsure term. Most people would think "texts" would not include the variety of data that WS does actually accept. I am also concerned about the attitude that the people of Wikisource are somehow outsiders in this disscussion. I do not believe my contributions to Wikipedia have been minor and believe many other people from Wikisource contribute here. This does not need to devolve into them or us. The fact that other sister projects have not declared the manner in which they would like to be represented does not mean that Wikisource is wrong to do so. I am personally very considerate of how WS represents other sister projects. I changed the Wikispecies logo in WS's sisterproject template as soon as I noticed they had agreed on it without being asked. I made sure to cite Wikipedia in the manner recomended by Wikipedia in s:Gettysburg Address, researching Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. This was then incorperated into the template s:Template:wikipediaref so wikipedia is easily cited as "on Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia." per WP's preference. Beyond these examples I in general believe in honoring the opinions of those most affected in minor discrepencies. So I am having diffculty understanding your position in this case. I think your sense of ambiguity with the description must come from misunderstanding. As I am much more familar with Wikisource than you are, please let me assure you it is an appropriate description for Wikisource. I am saddened that this opportunity is not being used to promote harmony and cooperation between all the sister projects. We are not only all together in our desire to spread free information, but we are also here as a service to each other, providing a space and direction for the things other sisters projects do not want to host.-- Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
In reply to David Levy: The phrase "the free library" is a horrible description for Wikibooks. Wikisource is a general free library; it includes fiction ( Wikisource:Author:L. Frank Baum) and encyclopedias ( Wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica). Though Wikibooks has multiple books, and those are free, thus making Wikibooks a free library, it is not a general library. Official policy at Wikibooks:Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks prohibits fiction, encyclopedias, and essays. -- Kernigh 18:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
In reply to Stbalbach: Actually, we who write Wikibooks are Wikibookians, not Wikipedians. There is no rule that requires one to be a Wikipedian to join Wikibooks, and I was not a Wikipedian when I joined. -- Kernigh 18:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC) (same as Wikibooks:User:Kernigh, Wikisource:User:Kernigh)
To sum up:
Hi David. The members of the "other community" are of course good Wikipedians too. But you have to admit that as "Wikisourcerors" :-) they have a special and legitimate interest in this.
You are the only Wikipedian who strongly objects to using the slogan/description (it is perfectly fine as both in our opinion despite your objections) that Wikisource itself has chosen. So yes, in a sense you have taken it upon yourself.
We are not the only sister project with a slogan. Wikipedia has one too, and it appears in all sister-project templates. These templates do not exist in a vacuum; this is a Wikimedia issue, not just a Wikipedia issue. Wikipedia doesn't exist in a vacuum either, and just as WP slogan appears with no nit-picking on sister projects, WS can be on WP.
Well, I'm going to sleep already. I think it is quite clear that were this not a protected template, it would already use the WS slogan/description. Please use your admin tools in the spirit of both the majority will and common courtersy here. Dovi 23:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I have to wonder why this is such a big issue, but the three other projects which currently don't display 'The free library' are not. Perhaps there should be a general discussion on how these should be displayed in all projects if we really want them to be consistent. They aren't currently and haven't been for a long time so far as I can see. -- CBDunkerson 17:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
For all practical purposes, discussion is continuuing at Template_talk:WikipediaSister#Wikisource, which is the proper context for it anyways. Here is Main Page talk there is far too much activity about unrelated topics. Dovi 07:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I only have one comment to add to this long discussion, which is that during the main page redesign I added a link to a Wikimedia Foundation page on the projects. This link currently appears in the blurb introducing the "Sister Projects" section, and is what I assumed was the most authoritative meta-page giving an overview of the projects - though for information about individual projects, I would always go to the individual projects themselves for the most authoritative view. Incidentially, is a distinction drawn between linking: (a) within a projects (in this case within Wikipedia); (b) to another Wikimedia project; (c) to the Wikimedia Foundation as the overarching parent body; and finally (d) to true external links? In other words, how "external" are the links to other projects where you have to create different accounts (unless Universal Log-in has arrived already)? Carcharoth 11:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Without going into the details of this overlong discussion, we do indeed have a problem with the unclear distinction between Wikibooks and Wikisource. But it seems to me that the problem is with Wikibooks' slogan, not with Wikisource's. While free library is understandable enough, open-content textbooks collection doesn't really tell the reader that Wikibooks (unlike Wikisource) is about collaborative writing of (text)books. Zocky | picture popups 18:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
On the old main page, I could use the keys h/shift-h (next/previous heading) to navigate between the sections (today's featured article, did you know, ETC), and this was convenient and intuitive when using a screen reader. Now, I can't do this. Would it be possible to have headings separate the sections on the main page, or at least have better navigation markers? It would make things easier for those using screen readers. Graham talk 09:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest in the future that a Usability WikiProject actually investigate usability before assuming they have a full grasp on the situation. — 0918 BRIAN • 2006-03-19 17:44
Attached below are some of the current main page code and comments thereon in relation to this issue;
<h1 style="font-size: 162%; border: none; margin: 0; padding:.1em; color:#000"> Welcome to <span class="nounderlines">'''[[Wikipedia]]''',</span></h1> <div style="top: +0.2em; font-size: 95%">the '''free encyclopedia''' that '''[[Wikipedia:Introduction|anyone can edit]]'''.</div>
Note the <h1> and </h1>... these place header one around the word Wikipedia. If the anon above is correct about screen-readers and the like linking only to headers rather than other anchor points then we should use tags of this style around each major section. H1 is equivalent to Wiki '=', H2 to '==', H3 to '===', et cetera. However, the font-size and other factors can then be over-ridden by additional HTML/CSS settings.
<div id="articlecount" style="width:100%;text-align:center:padding:1em;font-size:85%;">— [[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] articles in English —</div>
This 'id' creates a point that Wikipedia can link to. For instance the above is what allows a Main page#articlecount link to jump directly to the article count at the top of the page. I'm not sure that a link to that is really needed.
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#f5fffa" ! style="background-color:#cef2e0; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:120%; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; padding-left: 0.4em;color:#000" |Today's featured article |- |style="color:#000"|<div id="Today's featured article">{{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}</div>
The 'div id' here should probably be moved out to include the actual section title. I believe it can also be put directly into the table markup;
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#f5fffa" ! style="background-color:#cef2e0; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:120%; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; padding-left: 0.4em;color:#000" id="Today's featured article" |Today's featured article |- |style="color:#000"|{{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}
Hopefully these details will help explain how these links work for any admins making updates. I'm not sure how screen-readers utilize these links, but either 'h1'/'h2'/et cetera or 'id' should address the issue here. -- CBDunkerson 21:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The headings still don't work like they did in the last main page, but I'm using a version of JAWS that for some reason ignores monobook.css and common.css. I am personally forced to use it until I can find the money to get an upgrade - about 700 Australian dollars -- I have asked my local dealer. The ID tags didn't work either when I tried the demo of jaws 7.0 (the latest release version), but I haven't had a chance to check out the public beta yet.
I can't remember how many times I had to tap 'h' to get to the "in the news" section, but in the Main Page alternate (Classic 2006) version, I have to tap h three times - passing through "today's featured article" and "selected anniversaries".
I think the anon above is right about screen readers not linking to anchor points - mine doesn't appear to. Therefore, h2 and </h2> should be used, or maybe "==" - that doesn't matter to me. Css should be avoided, because sometimes JAWS (and other screen readers) completely ignore it. Graham talk 09:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Graham87, ChrisG, and anyone else who uses JAWS and the like - please check User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox5 and let me know if it resolves the header problems. I incorporated tags for each section that did not already have them.
David Levy and other people who worked on the layout - please also take a look at User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox5 and note that the title bars for the various sections are now slightly thinner due to the 'header' classification. I didn't attempt to adjust this because 'presentation style' is decidedly not my area. Please feel free to make changes to my page there or copy this elsewhere so that it can be tweaked before putting on the main page if it is found to fix the accessibility issue. -- CBDunkerson 14:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
For headings such as "Today's featured article" etc, would it be possible to control the formatting via the stylesheet instead of explicitly setting it to be Arial? I have a custom font in my monobook.css for the rest of the page text, so the Arial sticks out like a sore thumb. Thanks. enochlau ( talk) 09:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there someone currently working to correct this? It's a serious oversight that ought to be fixed quickly. -- Yath 20:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you sort out the text so that it doesn't go over picture. Djm1279 10:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
In the proposed draft of the new page the heading:
Main Page From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
was not shown - instead the banner was at the very top - I thought this was part of the new design - I think it is better with the banner at the very top since on large resolution monitors you can see all 4 main parts and the banner without scrolling Trödel 10:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
In IE6, the text of todays Featured Image is spilling over onto the picture, making the text unreadable and the image ugly. Loom91 11:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
When the draft of the Main Page redesign was deemed to be in its final state ready for a vote, the article count didn't appear in the top header, though it remained on the first line of the Languages section. Seven days into the voting process, administrator David Levy added this back to the protected page in response to some conditional support votes requesting its reappearance. I haven't followed the process meticulously, but the form of the article count (as we see it now, enclosed by emdashes) is unlike any of the many I've seen in previous drafts. Am I the only one who thinks this a little underhand? I am relatively neutral about the include-or-remove question, but I really don't like the form it's in at the moment. If there are sufficiently mixed opinions then maybe we ought to consider the options for change, and establish a consensus on the best option. It's not too late is it? BigBlueFish 14:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
/*
*/ #articlecount {display: none} /*
*/
-
|
Why is the em dash used? -- Grocer 21:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Note: In IE7B2P, the full articlecount text is not visible. -- Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 23:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Just a couple of suggestions for alternative wordings:
I would prefer to have the article count easily accessable - rather than just at the top - because I like checking up on it. Having to manually scroll down every time you want to check it isn't enough imo. As such I could live with the bottom of the options I listed. I find it hard to imagine a good arguement against that: it's not 'gloating' about quantity and it still leaves the actual count a couple of micro-seconds away. What are your thoughts?
NB. I also think punctuation should be left off the third suggestion, but that's just my opinion. - Drrngrvy 06:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
So where have all the people who want this header to stay gone? I'm beginning to feel like those who want the count at the top do so somewhat whimsically, whereas those who thoroughly consider it would prefer it removed. I realise this is a gross generalisation, but if it's not true, someone who wants to keep it speak up! Please make clear what wording you'd prefer in the third line. BigBlueFish 19:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Why on earth is this the featured article? —This unsigned comment was added by 69.251.23.118 ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC).
Please add to this list any usability improvements or drawbacks that resulted from this new main page design by WikiProject Usability. — 0918 BRIAN • 2006-03-19 18:00
Usability improvements
Usability drawbacks
Your signature with timestampe original main page's coding, and tried to remain as close to it as possible. People rarely complain unless an obvious problem is thrown right in their faces. — 0918 BRIAN • 2006-03-19 19:34
<grrr - triple edit conflict> Brian, what exactly do you hope to achieve with this snide attitude? What is the purpose of listing 'usability drawbacks' which have already been corrected? Consider... alot of people worked on this for a long time and compromised on the version which was approved by the greatest majority. You had other things to do... so did I for that matter. But that lack of participation limits your right to be critical of the outcome. If you feel this strongly that it should have been done another way then you should have been in there saying that... and should be making suggestions for improvements now rather than just being critical. Consider that over six hundred people (76%) approved this page design. It can't be that bad. Do you have ideas for improvements or just want to be nasty for some reason? -- CBDunkerson 19:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I've just read this little discussion, and I have two comments. I've also added an entry to the list of advantages at the top of this discussion. Related to this is the first comment, which is to note that, IMO, not every change of the redesign was documented and summarised before the voting process began (I didn't find time to do this, though others did do what turned out to be an adequate summary - I may still attempt a complete listing of the differences between old and new pages). The second comment is that I agree with Brian0918's comment that a closer look should have been taken at the old page before replacing it. Similar to the need to do a complete and exhaustive listing of the differences, but also looking at the coding issues, which seem to have been overlooked, or lacked an expert to check things over. That would indeed, have picked up on certain points being raised here. Though I suspect that some people in the WikiProject were keen to bring the main page redesign to a successful conclusion. I only arrived late in the process, and it _had_ been going on for several months!! :-) Carcharoth 12:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually i think all the code needs to be cleaned up by a developer/expert. There are a lot of duplicated style types that could be replaced with css classes, divs that could be spans, and other unnecessary duplication (also in its transcluded templates). Volunteers wanted! -- Quiddity 21:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Could someone wikify Breaststroke and Butterfly stroke at 'In The News', please ? -- 199.71.174.100 21:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Could we add the Category 5 Cyclone that is about to hit around Cairns, Austrailia? [1]-- Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 22:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The main page is too wide when viewed with the Classic skin and an 800 width screen (on Firefox). The culprit is the Welcome/portals listing box. Mixing px and % widths is bad HTML, but in this case changing the two 300px to 250px would work for me. -- Henrygb 22:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
how about Why create an account? on the browse bar? Kevin Baas talk 23:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Can we make it bigger, please ? We have room to display wider images now. -- 199.71.174.100 00:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I love the new format!!! Wandering Star 00:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I also think its brilliant!
Why does the main page have a heading saying 'Main Page'? It takes up a lot of unnecessary space and is ugly. Am I the only one that feels this way? Averisk
I think they removed a sign-up link! I think this is a big turn-off to users-to-be, such as myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.138.179 ( talk • contribs)
what about creating a template for the Wikipedia languages on the frontpage
Mateus Zica 02:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It's Iranian ( Zoroastrian) new year :) Along with the Indian "Holi" celebration (which is related to the Iranian "Nouruz") it is celebrated by more than 500M people all over the world, from Turkey to India, and from Iran to Kazakhstan. I suggest to put some information about Nouruz on the front page. Tajik 02:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
"Australia sweep" should be "Australia sweeps" ("Australians sweep" would also be OK). Art LaPella 04:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe this is open for adjustment, since the article count line was added after the vote was well underway. As I interpret Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes), this is not an acceptable usage of the em dash. The main page of all pages should adhere to standards. And it just looks rather amateur.-- Grocer 09:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
There's a problematic sentence in the featured article:
"The Earth as well as many other bodies (including other planets, asteroids, meteoroids, comets and dust) orbit the Sun, and it accounts for more than 99% of the solar system's mass." Seems like "and it accounts" stands for the Earth! In the original article, it's already corrected, "...which accounts for". Zhuravskij 13:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The new main page does not bother me at all. It's almost exactly like the old version so I don't see any reason to complain. 206.47.141.21 15:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Just came back to the new main page, and wow, it looks nice! Ashibaka tock 22:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
"In the news" has this: Cuba and Japan face-off in the finals of the first ever World Baseball Classic in San Diego, California.
"Face-off" is a noun. "Face off" is the verb needed here. Jokestress 15:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
In the name of semantics, shouldn't the default page of the wiki really be in the Wikipedia namespace? AFAIK it's the only article which isn't an encyclopedia article in the main article namespace. Thinking about it, maybe it should even be in the Portal namespace. Any practical obstacle to this? Thoughts? BigBlueFish 17:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the main page title section was removed within one of the .css or .js files used overall. Is there a way to locally ( i.e., in my personal .css or .js files) change this back to the original form? Thanks -- jοτομικρόν | Talk 17:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Greetings,
I was wondering if you might consider featuring the USS Trigger article for the 28th of March. It would be entirely appropriate since that day is the 61st anniversary of the vessel's tour of service. A fitting tribute to those aboard, who gave their lives for their country, (also aboard was my great-great uncle, William Zugecic - he perished along with the Trigger. If any improvements need be made for the article to be featured, I can contribute a few more photos perhaps (if I can negotiate Wikicopyrights =P.) Thanks, Salva 17:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks. Salva 20:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The "In the News" section on Cyclone Larry is misleading. The number shown is wind gusts, which is what the Australian agency uses as its official windspeeds. This would lead people to believe that it is a category 5 cyclone, which would be untrue. The fact that they use gusts makes it inconsistent with the rest of the world and general knowledge. I think it should be changed to the sustained wind speeds, which is the standard for the majority of the world and wouldn't mislead people into thinking it's more powerful than it really is. bob rulz 22:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Um... the bold in the Featured articles, Did you know, and similar sections is now gone... I'd fix it, but I don't know how to. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Where is thw article? And also, Saffron is the article shown when clicking "continue". Sorting out needed.
Ive checked the deletion log and noticed its been deleted.
When the draft of the Main Page redesign was deemed to be in its final state ready for a vote, the article count didn't appear in the top header, though it remained on the first line of the Languages section. Seven days into the voting process, administrator David Levy added this back to the protected page in response to some conditional support votes requesting its reappearance. I haven't followed the process meticulously, but the form of the article count (as we see it now, enclosed by emdashes) is unlike any of the many I've seen in previous drafts. Am I the only one who thinks this a little underhand? I am relatively neutral about the include-or-remove question, but I really don't like the form it's in at the moment. If there are sufficiently mixed opinions then maybe we ought to consider the options for change, and establish a consensus on the best option. It's not too late is it? BigBlueFish 14:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
/*
*/ #articlecount {display: none} /*
*/
-
|
Why is the em dash used? -- Grocer 21:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Note: In IE7B2P, the full articlecount text is not visible. -- Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 23:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Just a couple of suggestions for alternative wordings:
I would prefer to have the article count easily accessable - rather than just at the top - because I like checking up on it. Having to manually scroll down every time you want to check it isn't enough imo. As such I could live with the bottom of the options I listed. I find it hard to imagine a good arguement against that: it's not 'gloating' about quantity and it still leaves the actual count a couple of micro-seconds away. What are your thoughts?
NB. I also think punctuation should be left off the third suggestion, but that's just my opinion. - Drrngrvy 06:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
So where have all the people who want this header to stay gone? I'm beginning to feel like those who want the count at the top do so somewhat whimsically, whereas those who thoroughly consider it would prefer it removed. I realise this is a gross generalisation, but if it's not true, someone who wants to keep it speak up! Please make clear what wording you'd prefer in the third line. BigBlueFish 19:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I've turned on numbered headings in my preferences, and the numbers aren't bolded in the headings in the featured-DYK space. Actually, I'd like them to be off just for the Main Page (just for myself). Any way to do one or both? æle ✆ 01:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The writeup for the POTD says this chip is slower than a 80486DX at the same processor speed. The Intel 80486DX2 article said the same thing until half an hour ago, when an anon changed it to read faster. I think the anon is right, in which case the POTD writeup should also be changed, but I'm a little confused. The DX2 is twice as fast as the DX at a given bus speed, but the processor speed is perhaps not the same as bus speed. I suppose the DX2 might be slightly less efficient in some way than the DX, so if you compare a DX 50 MHz (on a 50 MHz bus) against a DX2 50 MHz (on a 25 MHz bus), do you get exactly the same number of cycles per second (ignoring efficiency of other components; I do realise overall throughput of the DX 50 will be greater)?- gadfium 01:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Aside from that, the blurb should actually link to the DX2 article, and the 486DX article shouldn't be linked twice. Also "Chart created by:" makes no sense. It's a photograph isn't it? Ziggur 03:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
(The below is copied from my talk page- gadfium 03:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC))
Hey Gadfium, Here is my reply to James F, about the 486 vs 486 DX2 processor debate. Sorry about the Anon part, using a govt computer.
Mr Forrestor,
You stated on Wikipedia that "No, the anon is mistaken. At 20MHz CPU clock, a DX2 will only drive the system bus at 10MHz, whereas a DX would drive it at the full 20MHz; thus, the performance would be substantially reduced at like-for-like clocks. The point was that the same technology would allow a whopping 40MHz clock, without re-designing the motherboard, the bus, the devices hanging off it, or the memory. James F. (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC):"
I am that anon...
Actually this is comparing apples to oranges. With the DX2 running at 10 MHZ and the DX running at 20, the system bus's are running at different speeds. You should compare chips with the SAME BUS speed, not PROCESSOR speed.
You should compare the 33 Mhz system bus with a DX and a DX2 (Yes I have swapped the chips many a time in the day, in fact a better swap was the DX4 which gave you a 100 Mhz processor speed, with 33 Mhz system bus)
Here are the true stats
Same bus speed, but the Mips doubled with the DX2, and nearly tripled with the DX4
SGT Matthew Smith
25 Bravo (Network Engineer), US Army Reserve
(email removed to reduce spam)
- - When the draft of the Main Page redesign was deemed to be in its final state ready for a vote, the article count didn't appear in the top header, though it remained on the first line of the Languages section. Seven days into the voting process, administrator David Levy added this back to the protected page in response to some conditional support votes requesting its reappearance. I haven't followed the process meticulously, but the form of the article count (as we see it now, enclosed by emdashes) is unlike any of the many I've seen in previous drafts. Am I the only one who thinks this a little underhand? I am relatively neutral about the include-or-remove question, but I really don't like the form it's in at the moment. If there are sufficiently mixed opinions then maybe we ought to consider the options for change, and establish a consensus on the best option. It's not too late is it? BigBlueFish 14:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC) - - :No, it's never too late to edit a wiki (which is why it wasn't inappropriate to do so in response to the comments, most of which were from unconditional supporters). I personally oppose the inclusion of the article count in the header, and I welcome further discussion. - - :In the meantime, adding the following code to your personal CSS file ( User:Bigbluefish/monobook.css, if you're using the default skin) will suppress the text's display: -
- /*
*/ - #articlecount {display: none} - /*
*/
- - :— David Levy 15:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC) - - ::Thanks for the handy CSS tip that I'd already seen; it's not my viewing I'm concerned about (to be honest this applies to anyone who regularly works with things like talk pages). It's more about new users who see the count and get the wrong impression. And those of sounder integrity who see the count and think "damn that's messy". These are two separate issues. See my proposal below for what in my view is a better-looking header, if it to contain an article count at all. BigBlueFish 17:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC) - - - - ::Given the enormous amount of voting and discussion, it was a laudable effort to keep an eye on everything and those who organised the redesign and the vote made a great effort to address all relevant questions. Kudos! While I have not followed everything, it was my impression that the matter of the article count was not handled overly transparently, as the design over which we voted seems to have been changed during the process (my apologies if I am mistaken). Given that there has been relevant criticism and that the original new design seems to have excluded the counter from its prominent position (with the rationale that our focus should be quality instead of article numbers), it seems a questionable move to have it return there. I would suggest to remove it, as the current design is apparently not that on which the vote was started, and discuss the matter again, separately from the new design per se. - ::May I repeat my suggestion to count featured articles instead of total articles. I believe that might help shift the focus from ammassing text "that anyone can dump here" (which is what many people read in "that anyone can edit") to refining articles to a really high standard. Kosebamse 15:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC) - - :::Most of the voting and discussion occurred after the article count was retored to the header, and a great deal of support for this change was expressed prior to its implementation. This is a wiki, so we obviously weren't considering an exact design that would never be modified. We could have waited until after the election concluded, but how would that have been more transparent? - - :::Yes, this is an issue that should be discussed, but consensus thus far favors the article count's inclusion in the header. — David Levy 16:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC) - - ::::I think counting featured articles at the top would be a bit ridiculous, simply because 923 is not a high enough number. I suppose it would be nice to add a sentence to the Languages section, to the tune of: "923 of these articles have become featured articles. I think the only measure of credibility of Wikipedia is through the featured content boxes and by more in-depth investigation. It cannot be condensed to a tally at the top. As such, if the article count is only there to serve as a way of measuring Wikipedia's progress, it should be gone. But short of remove it altogether, I propose at least a different way of presenting it. The em dashes are inappropriately used for aesthetics which I don't find that aesthetically pleasing anyway. May I suggest something like this: - - {|style="width:100%; margin-top:+.7em; background-color:#fcfcfc; border: 1px solid #ccc" - |style="width:56%;color:#000"| - {| width="300px" style="border:solid 0px;background:none" - |- - | style="width:300px;text-align:center; white-space: nowrap; color:#000" |
-
-
-
- |-
- |}
-
- |style="width:11%;font-size:95%;color:#000"|
- *
Arts
- *
Biography
- *
Geography
- |style="width:11%;font-size:95%"|
- *
History
- *
Mathematics
- *
Science
- |style="width:11%;font-size:95%"|
- *
Society
- *
Technology
- *
All portals
- |}
-
- ::::I removed the articlecount id so everyone can see it. Another alternative caption might be, "We are working on 6,857,734 English articles."
-
- ::::As for consensus, David, if consensus was thus then why has it not resulted in the draft reflecting this, and why was a vote page written outlining why the draft had resulted in its ommission? If you have answers to these then fine, but I hope that answers your question about transparency. This should have been clear from the start, and I don't think consensus really has been formed properly yet, judging by the confusion. This is what this discussion is for.
BigBlueFish 17:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- :::::Firstly, I (and some of the other editors from the redesign project) firmly believe that the article count should not be included in the header. (The aforementioned explanation reflected this fact.) It wasn't until the election was underway that the consensus began to emerge.
-
- :::::But yes, consensus can change, and I wholeheartedly advocate further discussion on this matter. —
David Levy 17:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- :(re-indent)I dont know if that was a call for input on this here&now, but i'll reiterate my opinions:
- *I Oppose the inclusion of the headerbar line that says "1,032,932 articles in English".
- *It implies "that our site is no greater than the sum of its parts"
- *It is discussed in depth [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Final_archive#Article_count here],
here,
here, and
here. (newest to oldest)
- *I dislike the emdashes as a styling flourish. If the count remains, i propose we change the emdashes to something else. done --
Quiddity 00:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Why is the em dash used? --
Grocer 21:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- :The em dashes are gone now as noted in your new section below. Any thoughts on the wording or appearance of the line?
BigBlueFish 16:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- ::None, thanks. --
65.25.219.139 20:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Note: In IE7B2P, the full articlecount text is not visible. --
Pidgeot
(t)
(c)
(e) 23:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Just a couple of suggestions for alternative wordings:
- *
English edition |
6,857,734 articles.
- *
English edition (with
6,857,734 articles).
- *
English edition
- I would prefer to have the article count easily accessable - rather than just at the top - because I like checking up on it. Having to manually scroll down every time you want to check it isn't enough imo. As such I could live with the bottom of the options I listed. I find it hard to imagine a good arguement against that: it's not 'gloating' about quantity and it still leaves the actual count a couple of micro-seconds away. What are your thoughts?
-
- NB. I also think punctuation should be left off the third suggestion, but that's just my opinion. -
Drrngrvy 06:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- :I very much like that 3rd option listed. Plus it gives a good example of interpage linking, to aclimatize new users to jumping around within the wiki and its pages. Good stuff :) --
Quiddity 11:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- :::::Could an admin please unprotect
Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft so that we can experiment with design changes and code upgrades there. thanks :)
- ::::::I pasted the current Main Page code to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page (instead of the redirect that points to the still protected page linked above), so that we can continue to test options there.
- ::::::Then I inserted the "3rd option" from this thread, to see how it looks. --
Quiddity 23:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- :::::::I have two objections to the "English edition" idea: 1. The phrase itself implies that all of the Wikipedias are direct translations of the same articles. This is why the statement formerly contained in the header (now located in the "Wikipedia languages" section) was reworded. 2. It does nothing to address the aesthetic concerns. (A third line makes the header appear too crowded.) If we're going to have any text there, it might as well be what people requested. —
David Levy 00:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- ::::::::I don't think it implies a translation at all: newspapers regularly use 'edition' as a word to distinguish between related versions. People who read them generally know that it doesn't even mean the same editorial team are involved (because they usually aren't). If people use the other wikipedias then they'll instantly know what the score is, right? If they don't use the others then it doesn't matter if they make that assumption. The header isn't supposed to be about showing off, remember.
-
- :::::::::The word 'edition' can also imply that it is a direct translation. The point is that unless the phrasing is carefully chosen, it is very easy for people to make this mistake, and it can take a long time for them to realise their mistake. I suspect that many of the less-experienced editors who never visit other language wikipedias make the same assumption. Even the language interwiki links can be misleading. If you assemble a set of articles linked by language interwikis, you might expect to get articles that are similar once translated, but this is exceedingly rare. You are more likely to get a different slant on things from each language. Which is in itself interesting, but makes it even more important that people don't think everything is translated.
Carcharoth 02:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- ::::::::Also, very few people mentioned that three lines makes the header look crowded. I was one of only two I believe. Regardless, I think we established that the old motto won't change, so either we have no third line or no link to the article count. -
Drrngrvy 03:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- ::::::::Agreed. I don't like it either. I originally and still believe the 3rd line/article count should be removed. --
Quiddity 08:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- :::::::::Just to make it clear, I quite strongly prefer to have the
status of Wikipedia obvious to all who arrive at the homepage. I think having something as fundamental as the article/edit/member/etc. count right there for everyone. Isn't it important to make people believe that they are deeply involved with all this? -
Drrngrvy 03:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- So where have all the people who want this header to stay gone? I'm beginning to feel like those who want the count at the top do so somewhat whimsically, whereas those who thoroughly consider it would prefer it removed. I realise this is a gross generalisation, but if it's not true, someone who wants to keep it speak up! Please make clear what wording you'd prefer in the third line.
BigBlueFish
19:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- :Most of the arguments FOR the article count were appeals-to-tradition.
We could copy the reasons against it to a thread at the bottom of this page, remove the count from the Main Page, and see if anyone replies with debate, maybe? --
Quiddity 21:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- :I suspect that most of the support for the article count being in the header had less to do with tradition, and more the glow of "pride" people get from seeing the number up there everytime they visit the Main Page. People miss this, without realising why, and then ask for the article count to be put back without thinking things over dispassionately. I should make clear here that I am in the "no need for article count at all - it looks like boasting, and I've seen enough of the bad articles to know that we need to head for quality not quantity" school of thought.
Carcharoth 01:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- ::I think what you say is a gross generalisation. If you actually read
the discussion that went on during the voting then you'd see that what you say isn't apparent. I for one just want to have instant access to what's going on with Wikipedia. Think of it this way: if you were an administrator over a network of <whatever>, wouldn't you want to always know what its status is? Everyone is the admin for Wikipedia (in essence), so the point is that we should never patronise anyone by making the important less obvious. -
Drrngrvy 03:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- :::Article count is not the status of Wikipedia. And it's not in any way practically useful to any editor of Wikipedia. Take a look at any graph of article count against time and you will see how accurately you can extrapolate today's current article count - it should come as no surprise whatever the figure. Even if superficially you check the article count in the name of checking how the project is going, you know (or should do) what to expect, so really it is just for the pride of seeing the number go up. Either that or you're a mass article-adder and want to see how hight you can bump the article count, in which case you're the very person we don't want to see the count (I'm not actually suggesting this is true!). Wikipedian pride as an argument is fine, if that's what people want it for, but don't start suggesting the count is actually useful.
BigBlueFish 15:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- == Distracting numbered headings ==
-
- I've turned on numbered headings in my preferences, and the numbers aren't bolded in the headings in the featured-DYK space. Actually, I'd like them to be off just for the Main Page (just for myself). Any way to do one or both?
æle
✆ 01:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- :Heh, this is a direct result of the work further up the page to restore header tags on these items. The old main page had each of these sections as headers and thus showed the numbers. If we remove the numbers then screen-reader software loses the ability to navigate around on the page. --
CBDunkerson 01:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- ::Yay, somebody fixed the bolding. I wish the heading numbers were inside span tags or something, but I'll have to bring that to
MediaZilla. :)
æle
✆ 22:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- ==Intel 80486DX2==
- The writeup for the POTD says this chip is slower than a 80486DX at the same processor speed. The
Intel 80486DX2 article said the same thing until half an hour ago, when an anon changed it to read faster. I think the anon is right, in which case the POTD writeup should also be changed, but I'm a little confused. The DX2 is twice as fast as the DX at a given bus speed, but the processor speed is perhaps not the same as bus speed. I suppose the DX2 might be slightly less efficient in some way than the DX, so if you compare a DX 50 MHz (on a 50 MHz bus) against a DX2 50 MHz (on a 25 MHz bus), do you get exactly the same number of cycles per second (ignoring efficiency of other components; I do realise overall throughput of the DX 50 will be greater)?-
gadfium 01:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- : No, the anon is mistaken. At 20MHz CPU clock, a DX2 will only drive the system bus at 10MHz, whereas a DX would drive it at the full 20MHz; thus, the performance would be substantially reduced at like-for-like clocks. The point was that the same technology would allow a whopping 40MHz clock, without re-designing the motherboard, the bus, the devices hanging off it, or the memory.
- :
James F.
(talk) 01:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- ::So you are saying that the processor speed sets the bus speed in this technology. I always thought it was the other way around, and the article says:
- :::Essentially, the processor's speed is set to double of the speed of the system bus.
- ::A DX2 will run faster than a DX for a given bus speed. I think the article would be more easily understandable if the appropriate sentence in the lead paragraph was changed to
- :::Because of this, an Intel 80486DX2 is faster than an Intel 80486DX-based system at the same bus speed.
- ::from the text prior to the anon's edit of
- :::Because of this, an Intel 80486DX2 is slower than an Intel 80486DX-based system at the same processor speed.
- ::(I've highlighted the differences). The writeup for the POTD should match.-
gadfium 02:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Aside from that, the blurb should actually link to the DX2 article, and the 486DX article shouldn't be linked twice. Also "Chart created by:" makes no sense. It's a photograph isn't it?
Ziggur 03:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- (The below is copied from my talk page-
gadfium
03:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC))
-
- Hey Gadfium, Here is my reply to James F, about the 486 vs 486 DX2 processor debate. Sorry about the Anon part, using a govt computer.
-
- Mr Forrestor,
-
- You stated on Wikipedia that "No, the anon is mistaken. At 20MHz CPU clock, a DX2 will only drive the system bus at 10MHz, whereas a DX would drive it at the full 20MHz; thus, the performance would be substantially reduced at like-for-like clocks. The point was that the same technology would allow a whopping 40MHz clock, without re-designing the motherboard, the bus, the devices hanging off it, or the memory.
- James F. (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC):"
-
- I am that anon...
-
- Actually this is comparing apples to oranges. With the DX2 running at 10 MHZ and the DX running at 20, the system bus's are running at different speeds. You should compare chips with the SAME BUS speed, not PROCESSOR speed.
-
- You should compare the 33 Mhz system bus with a DX and a DX2 (Yes I have swapped the chips many a time in the day, in fact a better swap was the DX4 which gave you a 100 Mhz processor speed, with 33 Mhz system bus)
-
- Here are the true stats
- *486 DX 33 MHz with 27 MIPS (15.86 SPECint92)
- *486 DX2 (Same 33 Mhz bus speed) 66 MHz with 54 MIPS (39.6 SPECint92)
- *486 DX4 (Once again 33 Mhz bus speed) 100 MHz with 70.7 MIPS (54.59 SPECint92)
-
- Same bus speed, but the Mips doubled with the DX2, and nearly tripled with the DX4
-
- SGT Matthew Smith
- 25 Bravo (Network Engineer), US Army Reserve
- (email removed to reduce spam)
- :Matthew Smith has updated the 486DX2 page again to clarify the matter. Any objections if I now update the POTD writeup to match? I'll fix the points made by Ziggur as well.-
gadfium 03:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- ::I've updated it.-
gadfium
04:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- == Main page enhancement ==
-
-
Could we align the "Did you know" box with the "On this day..." box? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- :I'm afraid not. The boxes move up and down depending on the contents of the sections above them (featured article, and in the news). If they were aligned there would be the potential for lots of "whitespace" above one of them on any given day, which would look just as odd. :) --
Quiddity 06:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- ::Fair enough. -
Ta bu shi da yu
12:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- :::I came to make the same complaint comment. Exatcly how much white space are we talking about, because I know it's personal preferance but I find it terribly jarring when they don't quite line up...
brenneman
{L} 06:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- :::::Also, it depends on the actual size of the display font, which is dependant on the browser. So if it were changesd, the white space would not be constant either.
Dforest 07:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- :::::: We could always use table cells to align the boxes up can't we? Place each of the boxes in a table cell, and the rows and columns will force the boxes to line up.
enochlau (
talk) 12:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- ::::::Aye, and in most cases a little bit (but not a lot!) of white space would be less distracting? Noting of course that I was nowhere to be seen during the whole new main page process and it looks great and kudos all around but that every time I see that slight misalign I cringe. -
brenneman
{L} 17:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- :See
User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox5 for an example of one way to 'line up' these headings. --
CBDunkerson 18:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- ::In my opinion, that looks much worse. The current setup divides the four features in question into two thematic, color-coded pairings (the main reason behind swapping the positions of "Did you know..." and "On this day..."). In addition to spoiling that arrangement, splitting these sections into four separate boxes would waste a considerable amount of space. I honestly don't see what's so bad about not having the headings line up; this is nothing new. —
David Levy 18:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- :::Doesn't matter to me - just showing that it can be done. I made another change to reduce the size of the gap between tables. At this point it really doesn't take up any more space than the current version... though it would if upper left were larger than upper right while lower right was larger than lower left. The 'column' format allows these to effectively 'balance out' while four boxes compounds any top/bottom size disparities if they are in opposite columns. Conversely, the four box format 'balances out' any white space when one column is shorter than the other in both rows. The breaks between sections could be gotten rid of by using a different table class, but it would have to be un-bordered or it would put a line between the top and bottom sections. --
CBDunkerson 19:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- == Bilingual grammar ==
-
- It's nice that
Benito Juárez's birthday is mentionned in the selected anniversaries, but the phrase "a Fiestas Patrias" is awkward in bilingual grammar (if there is such a thing). "Fiestas Patrias" is plural, so the phrase makes as much sense as saying that the 4th of July is "an American holidays". A suggested rewording might be "one of Mexico's Fiestas Patrias".
Rod ESQ 02:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- ... or simply change it to the singular. That worked out all right as well, thanks.
Rod ESQ 14:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- == Today's Feature Article hyperlink ==
-
- I'm a Wikipedia novice and I'm not sure how to change it (otherwise I would), but I don't think the destination of the hyperlink attached to "Cape Horn" is entirely appropriate for Wikipedia.
-
- Someone is seriously deranged.
- :I think you saw the article while it was briefly in a vandalised state. Vandalism of the featured article doesn't usually last very long, so if you reload the article it will probably be all right. If you want to help, see
How to revert an article.-
gadfium 05:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- :Are you talking about this edit?
[2]?? It is vandalism. --
Hamedog
Talk|
@ 06:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- == Link needs dab on main page ==
-
- Currently Cyclone Larry makes landfall in Queensland,
AU with 250 km/h winds, the strongest in over 70 years.
AU needs to link to
Australia. ▫
UrbaneLegend
talk 14:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- :Actually, I came here to ask that AU be spelled out. I don't think it's a standard abbreviation. I will accept US as standard, but I wold request periods be used, making it "U.S." instead. (I realize the Brits don't like using full stops in abbreviations.) --
Nelson Ricardo 16:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- == 'In The News' Picture ==
- The picture of Alexander Lukashenko looks a tad bad. The 'Rule of Thirds' does not look good in the Main page featuring people. Is there any way we can get a picture of him that's more whole?
RPharazon
14:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- How many viewers of this page will realize that the photo in In the news is not of the Swedish fellow but rather of the Belarusian? A fix would be to swap the positions of the first two In the news sentences.
- —
67-21-48-122 15:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- :"Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko (pictured) is re-elected amid widespread condemnation of the election's validity." - emphasis mine. -
UtherSRG
(talk)
15:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- OK, I didn't see "pictured," but I hope the presence of the word isn't taken to legitimize the placement of the photo not only unnecessarily far from the corresponding text, but also adjacent to text which it can easily -- but erroneously -- be thought to illuminate.
- —
67-21-48-122 17:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- :From the comments within the news section: "Newest item goes on the top, older items are removed from the bottom." -
UtherSRG
(talk) 18:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- == In the News ==
-
- I just saw that the news that swedish foriegn minister Laila Freivalds have resigned was put up on the main page. The blurb states that it was due to the Muhammad Cartoons controversy, which is true to a point, but gives a very wrong impression of what happened. She resigned after allegations that the Foreign Ministry called the ISP of a fringe swedish party (the
Sweden Democrats) and asked them (the ISP that is) to censor the partys page after the they (the Sweden Democrats that is) had solicited reader submissions of cartoons of Muhammad to publish in their paper. The ISP did shut down the site, and when the asked about this, Freivalds lied about her involvement in the shutdown. So it's not because of the cartoon controversy per se, more about a censorship issue, tangentially related to the cartoons thing. A more appropriate text would perhaps be:
-
- :Swedish Foreign Affairs Minister Laila Freivalds resigns due to allegations of censorship in the wake of the Muhammad cartoons controversy.
-
- I'm not a stellar writer as you might have noticed, so please, fix my languge :)
-
- Also, she has gotten alot of heat even alot of talk of impeachment earlier this year due to her tragic mishandling of the tsunami rescue effort, where >500 swedes died. This was just the straw that broke the camels back.
Oskar 16:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- :I was about to post exactly the same thing... As it stands that news item is misleading. Will an admin please reword it?
Mikker
...
18:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Could we align the "Did you know" box with the "On this day..." box? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
It's nice that Benito Juárez's birthday is mentionned in the selected anniversaries, but the phrase "a Fiestas Patrias" is awkward in bilingual grammar (if there is such a thing). "Fiestas Patrias" is plural, so the phrase makes as much sense as saying that the 4th of July is "an American holidays". A suggested rewording might be "one of Mexico's Fiestas Patrias". Rod ESQ 02:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
... or simply change it to the singular. That worked out all right as well, thanks. Rod ESQ 14:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm a Wikipedia novice and I'm not sure how to change it (otherwise I would), but I don't think the destination of the hyperlink attached to "Cape Horn" is entirely appropriate for Wikipedia.
Someone is seriously deranged.
Currently Cyclone Larry makes landfall in Queensland, AU with 250 km/h winds, the strongest in over 70 years. AU needs to link to Australia. ▫ UrbaneLegend talk 14:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The picture of Alexander Lukashenko looks a tad bad. The 'Rule of Thirds' does not look good in the Main page featuring people. Is there any way we can get a picture of him that's more whole? RPharazon 14:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
How many viewers of this page will realize that the photo in In the news is not of the Swedish fellow but rather of the Belarusian? A fix would be to swap the positions of the first two In the news sentences.
—
67-21-48-122
15:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I didn't see "pictured," but I hope the presence of the word isn't taken to legitimize the placement of the photo not only unnecessarily far from the corresponding text, but also adjacent to text which it can easily -- but erroneously -- be thought to illuminate.
—
67-21-48-122
17:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I just saw that the news that swedish foriegn minister Laila Freivalds have resigned was put up on the main page. The blurb states that it was due to the Muhammad Cartoons controversy, which is true to a point, but gives a very wrong impression of what happened. She resigned after allegations that the Foreign Ministry called the ISP of a fringe swedish party (the Sweden Democrats) and asked them (the ISP that is) to censor the partys page after the they (the Sweden Democrats that is) had solicited reader submissions of cartoons of Muhammad to publish in their paper. The ISP did shut down the site, and when the asked about this, Freivalds lied about her involvement in the shutdown. So it's not because of the cartoon controversy per se, more about a censorship issue, tangentially related to the cartoons thing. A more appropriate text would perhaps be:
I'm not a stellar writer as you might have noticed, so please, fix my languge :)
Also, she has gotten alot of heat even alot of talk of impeachment earlier this year due to her tragic mishandling of the tsunami rescue effort, where >500 swedes died. This was just the straw that broke the camels back. Oskar 16:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
How do I edit this main page to add news? DanielDemaret 17:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there something wrong with the logo in the top left hand corner? Where it says wikipedia it's got a black background, which shouldn't be there. Of course, it could just be my browser. Willnz0 22:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The diffs and oldid views don't have a "Main Page" heading, which I find annoying because (1) the header is there on the history page and on diffs for every other page, and (2) old revision views have older and newer revision links in the header. Can we get the "Main Page" h1 back on the diff and oldid views? æle ✆ 22:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Very nice redesign - congratulations to all.
Can a 'tomorrow' link be added programmatically to On This Day? Since Wikipedia seems to run on UTC/GMT or AAT (America Awakens Time), On This Day only changes after the four billion or so people who live east of Greenwich have already begun to experience the next day. We aren't so impressive at the watercooler/pump when we're talking about yesterday's events! Assuming Wikipedia won't undergo a virtual relocation to the international dateline, perhaps the masters of the mainpage could save us a click or two by providing a link to the forthcoming day as well as the last three? How about it? -- Brian Samosa 22:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
See Tomorrow's Main Page. -- CBDunkerson 13:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Brian Samosa's request would require changing the Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/March 22 page for each day of the year to include a ' tomorrow' link. Since that would have to be set on each page it could be done with a different date on each, using {{ day+1}} on all, or with a separate date on most and {{ leapday}} for 'tomorrow' of February 28th. Midnighttonight's idea of linking it to each user's timezone setting would likely require a system change (I don't know of any way to get the timezone onto the page currently) and might cause confusion with people getting different content while viewing the page at the same time. -- CBDunkerson 14:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Tomorrow and Yesterday pages have been created:
In the "In the news" section on the main page, the abbreviation of "US" is used for the United States. According to the manual of style, "U.S." should be used. Could someone fix this please? Thanks, Dismas| (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
i think this whole website is a big hudge scam. Any old person can come on here and edit the page and put any thing they wont on there it's bad. I think this website should be closed down. I got introuble becaused I used information from this site on a paper i was doin for school and the teacher would not take it because I got my information from this site. I don't agree with this site! --- a upset user. —This signed comment was added by 208.0.239.92 ( talk • contribs) .
Disgruntled old history teachers around the world are teaching children that Wikipedia is a "bad website"... I'll bet the original complaint here is rephrased from what his teacher told him. Ashibaka tock 22:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
i think this whole website is a big hudge scam. Any old person can come on here and edit the page and put any thing they wont on there it's bad. I think this website should be closed down. I got introuble becaused I used information from this site on a paper i was doin for school and the teacher would not take it because I got my information from this site. I don't agree with this site!!!
You do not copy work from others and then give it to your teacher. Ever heard of the word Plaguarism? And, Wikipedia is too popular to be closed down. You deserve to be punished because Wikipedia is a source of information. If, however, you're going to use it as your ONLY source of information for school work, you deserve to get into trouble. You can, however, use it for your personal needs, not affiliation with schoolwork or homework.
Usually when you arrive at an article by way of a redirect, it says "(Redirected from [link to redirect])". However, when you follow the link Wikipedia:Main Page to arrive at the Main Page, that note is missing. Why? — Keenan Pepper 17:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
"This is the English language Wikipedia, which was started in 2001. It currently contains 1,037,905 articles." -> "This is the English language Wikipedia, which was started in 2001, it currently contains 1,037,905 articles." or rewritten in some other way.-- Andreas Müller 17:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Andreas, you cannot join two independant clauses with a comma. Your correction is gramatically incorrect.
Hilarious! This is the sort of tweaking of sentences I do a lot of (day job, you know...). There are subtle differences between all these versions, but I'd just like to point out that having two sentences is more "punchy" than stringing all the clauses together with commas. The other extreme is having three sentences: "This is the English language Wikipedia. It was started in 2001. It currently contains 1,037,920 articles." This, of course, sounds horrible. Changing the order of the clauses is also something that could be debated, but the order language>date>size seems best. Moving the 2001 start date from one of the sentences to the other associates the date more closely with the number of articles, rather than with the language, and this is the most logical way to put it. Carcharoth 08:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
"The ETA declares a permanent ceasefire..." This should read: "ETA declares a permanent ceasefire" as it is more common to style the organisation "ETA" rather than "the ETA". This is because ETA is not an English name (like "the IRA") and is usually spoken as "eet-ah" or "eh-tah" rather than "the Ee-Tee-Ay".
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 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | → | Archive 65 |
The new Main Page is wonderful, and congratulations!
Nevertheless, for the bottom of the page, could some admin please work in the up-to-date Sister projects template as per the discussion here? The one that currently appears is is out-of-date, has incorrect links, and doesn't look as good. Dovi 08:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
As per user:David Levy's suggestion, I am bringing the discussion here (please see also the template talk and David's talk page). Here are David's previous comments and my previous reply:
"Free-content source texts," YUK. Yet another mangling of the English language by business-speak. Please tell us what is wrong with "Wikisource: The free library." Don't readers know what a library is? Apwoolrich 15:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikisource – The Free Library – is an online collection of free content source texts built by its contributors.
Wikisource – The Free Library – is a Wikimedia project to build a free, wiki library of source texts, along with translations of source-texts into any language and other supporting materials. It is located at www.wikisource.org.
RESTART INDENT Thanks for your reply. The "free library of source texts" is a definate improvement over what was there moments ago. However I do not see an ambiguity in the simple description of "The free library". If you would find something at any sort of library it fits the mission of Wikisource. This includes mathmatical reference tables, cout case decisions, the US Code, almanacs, encyclopedias, election data, computer source code, poems, national anthems, novels, essays, speeches, etc. Also as a libary Wikisource does not publish any new material but collects things which have already been published. WS is simply limited by copyright which is why the description is prefaced with free. I don't believe adding "of source texts" adds any clarification, especially as it is an obsure term. Most people would think "texts" would not include the variety of data that WS does actually accept. I am also concerned about the attitude that the people of Wikisource are somehow outsiders in this disscussion. I do not believe my contributions to Wikipedia have been minor and believe many other people from Wikisource contribute here. This does not need to devolve into them or us. The fact that other sister projects have not declared the manner in which they would like to be represented does not mean that Wikisource is wrong to do so. I am personally very considerate of how WS represents other sister projects. I changed the Wikispecies logo in WS's sisterproject template as soon as I noticed they had agreed on it without being asked. I made sure to cite Wikipedia in the manner recomended by Wikipedia in s:Gettysburg Address, researching Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. This was then incorperated into the template s:Template:wikipediaref so wikipedia is easily cited as "on Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia." per WP's preference. Beyond these examples I in general believe in honoring the opinions of those most affected in minor discrepencies. So I am having diffculty understanding your position in this case. I think your sense of ambiguity with the description must come from misunderstanding. As I am much more familar with Wikisource than you are, please let me assure you it is an appropriate description for Wikisource. I am saddened that this opportunity is not being used to promote harmony and cooperation between all the sister projects. We are not only all together in our desire to spread free information, but we are also here as a service to each other, providing a space and direction for the things other sisters projects do not want to host.-- Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
In reply to David Levy: The phrase "the free library" is a horrible description for Wikibooks. Wikisource is a general free library; it includes fiction ( Wikisource:Author:L. Frank Baum) and encyclopedias ( Wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica). Though Wikibooks has multiple books, and those are free, thus making Wikibooks a free library, it is not a general library. Official policy at Wikibooks:Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks prohibits fiction, encyclopedias, and essays. -- Kernigh 18:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
In reply to Stbalbach: Actually, we who write Wikibooks are Wikibookians, not Wikipedians. There is no rule that requires one to be a Wikipedian to join Wikibooks, and I was not a Wikipedian when I joined. -- Kernigh 18:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC) (same as Wikibooks:User:Kernigh, Wikisource:User:Kernigh)
To sum up:
Hi David. The members of the "other community" are of course good Wikipedians too. But you have to admit that as "Wikisourcerors" :-) they have a special and legitimate interest in this.
You are the only Wikipedian who strongly objects to using the slogan/description (it is perfectly fine as both in our opinion despite your objections) that Wikisource itself has chosen. So yes, in a sense you have taken it upon yourself.
We are not the only sister project with a slogan. Wikipedia has one too, and it appears in all sister-project templates. These templates do not exist in a vacuum; this is a Wikimedia issue, not just a Wikipedia issue. Wikipedia doesn't exist in a vacuum either, and just as WP slogan appears with no nit-picking on sister projects, WS can be on WP.
Well, I'm going to sleep already. I think it is quite clear that were this not a protected template, it would already use the WS slogan/description. Please use your admin tools in the spirit of both the majority will and common courtersy here. Dovi 23:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I have to wonder why this is such a big issue, but the three other projects which currently don't display 'The free library' are not. Perhaps there should be a general discussion on how these should be displayed in all projects if we really want them to be consistent. They aren't currently and haven't been for a long time so far as I can see. -- CBDunkerson 17:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
For all practical purposes, discussion is continuuing at Template_talk:WikipediaSister#Wikisource, which is the proper context for it anyways. Here is Main Page talk there is far too much activity about unrelated topics. Dovi 07:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I only have one comment to add to this long discussion, which is that during the main page redesign I added a link to a Wikimedia Foundation page on the projects. This link currently appears in the blurb introducing the "Sister Projects" section, and is what I assumed was the most authoritative meta-page giving an overview of the projects - though for information about individual projects, I would always go to the individual projects themselves for the most authoritative view. Incidentially, is a distinction drawn between linking: (a) within a projects (in this case within Wikipedia); (b) to another Wikimedia project; (c) to the Wikimedia Foundation as the overarching parent body; and finally (d) to true external links? In other words, how "external" are the links to other projects where you have to create different accounts (unless Universal Log-in has arrived already)? Carcharoth 11:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Without going into the details of this overlong discussion, we do indeed have a problem with the unclear distinction between Wikibooks and Wikisource. But it seems to me that the problem is with Wikibooks' slogan, not with Wikisource's. While free library is understandable enough, open-content textbooks collection doesn't really tell the reader that Wikibooks (unlike Wikisource) is about collaborative writing of (text)books. Zocky | picture popups 18:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
On the old main page, I could use the keys h/shift-h (next/previous heading) to navigate between the sections (today's featured article, did you know, ETC), and this was convenient and intuitive when using a screen reader. Now, I can't do this. Would it be possible to have headings separate the sections on the main page, or at least have better navigation markers? It would make things easier for those using screen readers. Graham talk 09:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest in the future that a Usability WikiProject actually investigate usability before assuming they have a full grasp on the situation. — 0918 BRIAN • 2006-03-19 17:44
Attached below are some of the current main page code and comments thereon in relation to this issue;
<h1 style="font-size: 162%; border: none; margin: 0; padding:.1em; color:#000"> Welcome to <span class="nounderlines">'''[[Wikipedia]]''',</span></h1> <div style="top: +0.2em; font-size: 95%">the '''free encyclopedia''' that '''[[Wikipedia:Introduction|anyone can edit]]'''.</div>
Note the <h1> and </h1>... these place header one around the word Wikipedia. If the anon above is correct about screen-readers and the like linking only to headers rather than other anchor points then we should use tags of this style around each major section. H1 is equivalent to Wiki '=', H2 to '==', H3 to '===', et cetera. However, the font-size and other factors can then be over-ridden by additional HTML/CSS settings.
<div id="articlecount" style="width:100%;text-align:center:padding:1em;font-size:85%;">— [[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] articles in English —</div>
This 'id' creates a point that Wikipedia can link to. For instance the above is what allows a Main page#articlecount link to jump directly to the article count at the top of the page. I'm not sure that a link to that is really needed.
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#f5fffa" ! style="background-color:#cef2e0; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:120%; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; padding-left: 0.4em;color:#000" |Today's featured article |- |style="color:#000"|<div id="Today's featured article">{{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}</div>
The 'div id' here should probably be moved out to include the actual section title. I believe it can also be put directly into the table markup;
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#f5fffa" ! style="background-color:#cef2e0; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:120%; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; padding-left: 0.4em;color:#000" id="Today's featured article" |Today's featured article |- |style="color:#000"|{{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}
Hopefully these details will help explain how these links work for any admins making updates. I'm not sure how screen-readers utilize these links, but either 'h1'/'h2'/et cetera or 'id' should address the issue here. -- CBDunkerson 21:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The headings still don't work like they did in the last main page, but I'm using a version of JAWS that for some reason ignores monobook.css and common.css. I am personally forced to use it until I can find the money to get an upgrade - about 700 Australian dollars -- I have asked my local dealer. The ID tags didn't work either when I tried the demo of jaws 7.0 (the latest release version), but I haven't had a chance to check out the public beta yet.
I can't remember how many times I had to tap 'h' to get to the "in the news" section, but in the Main Page alternate (Classic 2006) version, I have to tap h three times - passing through "today's featured article" and "selected anniversaries".
I think the anon above is right about screen readers not linking to anchor points - mine doesn't appear to. Therefore, h2 and </h2> should be used, or maybe "==" - that doesn't matter to me. Css should be avoided, because sometimes JAWS (and other screen readers) completely ignore it. Graham talk 09:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Graham87, ChrisG, and anyone else who uses JAWS and the like - please check User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox5 and let me know if it resolves the header problems. I incorporated tags for each section that did not already have them.
David Levy and other people who worked on the layout - please also take a look at User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox5 and note that the title bars for the various sections are now slightly thinner due to the 'header' classification. I didn't attempt to adjust this because 'presentation style' is decidedly not my area. Please feel free to make changes to my page there or copy this elsewhere so that it can be tweaked before putting on the main page if it is found to fix the accessibility issue. -- CBDunkerson 14:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
For headings such as "Today's featured article" etc, would it be possible to control the formatting via the stylesheet instead of explicitly setting it to be Arial? I have a custom font in my monobook.css for the rest of the page text, so the Arial sticks out like a sore thumb. Thanks. enochlau ( talk) 09:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there someone currently working to correct this? It's a serious oversight that ought to be fixed quickly. -- Yath 20:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you sort out the text so that it doesn't go over picture. Djm1279 10:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
In the proposed draft of the new page the heading:
Main Page From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
was not shown - instead the banner was at the very top - I thought this was part of the new design - I think it is better with the banner at the very top since on large resolution monitors you can see all 4 main parts and the banner without scrolling Trödel 10:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
In IE6, the text of todays Featured Image is spilling over onto the picture, making the text unreadable and the image ugly. Loom91 11:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
When the draft of the Main Page redesign was deemed to be in its final state ready for a vote, the article count didn't appear in the top header, though it remained on the first line of the Languages section. Seven days into the voting process, administrator David Levy added this back to the protected page in response to some conditional support votes requesting its reappearance. I haven't followed the process meticulously, but the form of the article count (as we see it now, enclosed by emdashes) is unlike any of the many I've seen in previous drafts. Am I the only one who thinks this a little underhand? I am relatively neutral about the include-or-remove question, but I really don't like the form it's in at the moment. If there are sufficiently mixed opinions then maybe we ought to consider the options for change, and establish a consensus on the best option. It's not too late is it? BigBlueFish 14:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
/*
*/ #articlecount {display: none} /*
*/
-
|
Why is the em dash used? -- Grocer 21:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Note: In IE7B2P, the full articlecount text is not visible. -- Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 23:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Just a couple of suggestions for alternative wordings:
I would prefer to have the article count easily accessable - rather than just at the top - because I like checking up on it. Having to manually scroll down every time you want to check it isn't enough imo. As such I could live with the bottom of the options I listed. I find it hard to imagine a good arguement against that: it's not 'gloating' about quantity and it still leaves the actual count a couple of micro-seconds away. What are your thoughts?
NB. I also think punctuation should be left off the third suggestion, but that's just my opinion. - Drrngrvy 06:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
So where have all the people who want this header to stay gone? I'm beginning to feel like those who want the count at the top do so somewhat whimsically, whereas those who thoroughly consider it would prefer it removed. I realise this is a gross generalisation, but if it's not true, someone who wants to keep it speak up! Please make clear what wording you'd prefer in the third line. BigBlueFish 19:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Why on earth is this the featured article? —This unsigned comment was added by 69.251.23.118 ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC).
Please add to this list any usability improvements or drawbacks that resulted from this new main page design by WikiProject Usability. — 0918 BRIAN • 2006-03-19 18:00
Usability improvements
Usability drawbacks
Your signature with timestampe original main page's coding, and tried to remain as close to it as possible. People rarely complain unless an obvious problem is thrown right in their faces. — 0918 BRIAN • 2006-03-19 19:34
<grrr - triple edit conflict> Brian, what exactly do you hope to achieve with this snide attitude? What is the purpose of listing 'usability drawbacks' which have already been corrected? Consider... alot of people worked on this for a long time and compromised on the version which was approved by the greatest majority. You had other things to do... so did I for that matter. But that lack of participation limits your right to be critical of the outcome. If you feel this strongly that it should have been done another way then you should have been in there saying that... and should be making suggestions for improvements now rather than just being critical. Consider that over six hundred people (76%) approved this page design. It can't be that bad. Do you have ideas for improvements or just want to be nasty for some reason? -- CBDunkerson 19:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I've just read this little discussion, and I have two comments. I've also added an entry to the list of advantages at the top of this discussion. Related to this is the first comment, which is to note that, IMO, not every change of the redesign was documented and summarised before the voting process began (I didn't find time to do this, though others did do what turned out to be an adequate summary - I may still attempt a complete listing of the differences between old and new pages). The second comment is that I agree with Brian0918's comment that a closer look should have been taken at the old page before replacing it. Similar to the need to do a complete and exhaustive listing of the differences, but also looking at the coding issues, which seem to have been overlooked, or lacked an expert to check things over. That would indeed, have picked up on certain points being raised here. Though I suspect that some people in the WikiProject were keen to bring the main page redesign to a successful conclusion. I only arrived late in the process, and it _had_ been going on for several months!! :-) Carcharoth 12:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually i think all the code needs to be cleaned up by a developer/expert. There are a lot of duplicated style types that could be replaced with css classes, divs that could be spans, and other unnecessary duplication (also in its transcluded templates). Volunteers wanted! -- Quiddity 21:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Could someone wikify Breaststroke and Butterfly stroke at 'In The News', please ? -- 199.71.174.100 21:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Could we add the Category 5 Cyclone that is about to hit around Cairns, Austrailia? [1]-- Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 22:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The main page is too wide when viewed with the Classic skin and an 800 width screen (on Firefox). The culprit is the Welcome/portals listing box. Mixing px and % widths is bad HTML, but in this case changing the two 300px to 250px would work for me. -- Henrygb 22:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
how about Why create an account? on the browse bar? Kevin Baas talk 23:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Can we make it bigger, please ? We have room to display wider images now. -- 199.71.174.100 00:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I love the new format!!! Wandering Star 00:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I also think its brilliant!
Why does the main page have a heading saying 'Main Page'? It takes up a lot of unnecessary space and is ugly. Am I the only one that feels this way? Averisk
I think they removed a sign-up link! I think this is a big turn-off to users-to-be, such as myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.138.179 ( talk • contribs)
what about creating a template for the Wikipedia languages on the frontpage
Mateus Zica 02:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It's Iranian ( Zoroastrian) new year :) Along with the Indian "Holi" celebration (which is related to the Iranian "Nouruz") it is celebrated by more than 500M people all over the world, from Turkey to India, and from Iran to Kazakhstan. I suggest to put some information about Nouruz on the front page. Tajik 02:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
"Australia sweep" should be "Australia sweeps" ("Australians sweep" would also be OK). Art LaPella 04:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe this is open for adjustment, since the article count line was added after the vote was well underway. As I interpret Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes), this is not an acceptable usage of the em dash. The main page of all pages should adhere to standards. And it just looks rather amateur.-- Grocer 09:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
There's a problematic sentence in the featured article:
"The Earth as well as many other bodies (including other planets, asteroids, meteoroids, comets and dust) orbit the Sun, and it accounts for more than 99% of the solar system's mass." Seems like "and it accounts" stands for the Earth! In the original article, it's already corrected, "...which accounts for". Zhuravskij 13:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The new main page does not bother me at all. It's almost exactly like the old version so I don't see any reason to complain. 206.47.141.21 15:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Just came back to the new main page, and wow, it looks nice! Ashibaka tock 22:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
"In the news" has this: Cuba and Japan face-off in the finals of the first ever World Baseball Classic in San Diego, California.
"Face-off" is a noun. "Face off" is the verb needed here. Jokestress 15:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
In the name of semantics, shouldn't the default page of the wiki really be in the Wikipedia namespace? AFAIK it's the only article which isn't an encyclopedia article in the main article namespace. Thinking about it, maybe it should even be in the Portal namespace. Any practical obstacle to this? Thoughts? BigBlueFish 17:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the main page title section was removed within one of the .css or .js files used overall. Is there a way to locally ( i.e., in my personal .css or .js files) change this back to the original form? Thanks -- jοτομικρόν | Talk 17:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Greetings,
I was wondering if you might consider featuring the USS Trigger article for the 28th of March. It would be entirely appropriate since that day is the 61st anniversary of the vessel's tour of service. A fitting tribute to those aboard, who gave their lives for their country, (also aboard was my great-great uncle, William Zugecic - he perished along with the Trigger. If any improvements need be made for the article to be featured, I can contribute a few more photos perhaps (if I can negotiate Wikicopyrights =P.) Thanks, Salva 17:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks. Salva 20:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The "In the News" section on Cyclone Larry is misleading. The number shown is wind gusts, which is what the Australian agency uses as its official windspeeds. This would lead people to believe that it is a category 5 cyclone, which would be untrue. The fact that they use gusts makes it inconsistent with the rest of the world and general knowledge. I think it should be changed to the sustained wind speeds, which is the standard for the majority of the world and wouldn't mislead people into thinking it's more powerful than it really is. bob rulz 22:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Um... the bold in the Featured articles, Did you know, and similar sections is now gone... I'd fix it, but I don't know how to. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Where is thw article? And also, Saffron is the article shown when clicking "continue". Sorting out needed.
Ive checked the deletion log and noticed its been deleted.
When the draft of the Main Page redesign was deemed to be in its final state ready for a vote, the article count didn't appear in the top header, though it remained on the first line of the Languages section. Seven days into the voting process, administrator David Levy added this back to the protected page in response to some conditional support votes requesting its reappearance. I haven't followed the process meticulously, but the form of the article count (as we see it now, enclosed by emdashes) is unlike any of the many I've seen in previous drafts. Am I the only one who thinks this a little underhand? I am relatively neutral about the include-or-remove question, but I really don't like the form it's in at the moment. If there are sufficiently mixed opinions then maybe we ought to consider the options for change, and establish a consensus on the best option. It's not too late is it? BigBlueFish 14:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
/*
*/ #articlecount {display: none} /*
*/
-
|
Why is the em dash used? -- Grocer 21:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Note: In IE7B2P, the full articlecount text is not visible. -- Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 23:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Just a couple of suggestions for alternative wordings:
I would prefer to have the article count easily accessable - rather than just at the top - because I like checking up on it. Having to manually scroll down every time you want to check it isn't enough imo. As such I could live with the bottom of the options I listed. I find it hard to imagine a good arguement against that: it's not 'gloating' about quantity and it still leaves the actual count a couple of micro-seconds away. What are your thoughts?
NB. I also think punctuation should be left off the third suggestion, but that's just my opinion. - Drrngrvy 06:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
So where have all the people who want this header to stay gone? I'm beginning to feel like those who want the count at the top do so somewhat whimsically, whereas those who thoroughly consider it would prefer it removed. I realise this is a gross generalisation, but if it's not true, someone who wants to keep it speak up! Please make clear what wording you'd prefer in the third line. BigBlueFish 19:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I've turned on numbered headings in my preferences, and the numbers aren't bolded in the headings in the featured-DYK space. Actually, I'd like them to be off just for the Main Page (just for myself). Any way to do one or both? æle ✆ 01:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The writeup for the POTD says this chip is slower than a 80486DX at the same processor speed. The Intel 80486DX2 article said the same thing until half an hour ago, when an anon changed it to read faster. I think the anon is right, in which case the POTD writeup should also be changed, but I'm a little confused. The DX2 is twice as fast as the DX at a given bus speed, but the processor speed is perhaps not the same as bus speed. I suppose the DX2 might be slightly less efficient in some way than the DX, so if you compare a DX 50 MHz (on a 50 MHz bus) against a DX2 50 MHz (on a 25 MHz bus), do you get exactly the same number of cycles per second (ignoring efficiency of other components; I do realise overall throughput of the DX 50 will be greater)?- gadfium 01:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Aside from that, the blurb should actually link to the DX2 article, and the 486DX article shouldn't be linked twice. Also "Chart created by:" makes no sense. It's a photograph isn't it? Ziggur 03:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
(The below is copied from my talk page- gadfium 03:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC))
Hey Gadfium, Here is my reply to James F, about the 486 vs 486 DX2 processor debate. Sorry about the Anon part, using a govt computer.
Mr Forrestor,
You stated on Wikipedia that "No, the anon is mistaken. At 20MHz CPU clock, a DX2 will only drive the system bus at 10MHz, whereas a DX would drive it at the full 20MHz; thus, the performance would be substantially reduced at like-for-like clocks. The point was that the same technology would allow a whopping 40MHz clock, without re-designing the motherboard, the bus, the devices hanging off it, or the memory. James F. (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC):"
I am that anon...
Actually this is comparing apples to oranges. With the DX2 running at 10 MHZ and the DX running at 20, the system bus's are running at different speeds. You should compare chips with the SAME BUS speed, not PROCESSOR speed.
You should compare the 33 Mhz system bus with a DX and a DX2 (Yes I have swapped the chips many a time in the day, in fact a better swap was the DX4 which gave you a 100 Mhz processor speed, with 33 Mhz system bus)
Here are the true stats
Same bus speed, but the Mips doubled with the DX2, and nearly tripled with the DX4
SGT Matthew Smith
25 Bravo (Network Engineer), US Army Reserve
(email removed to reduce spam)
- - When the draft of the Main Page redesign was deemed to be in its final state ready for a vote, the article count didn't appear in the top header, though it remained on the first line of the Languages section. Seven days into the voting process, administrator David Levy added this back to the protected page in response to some conditional support votes requesting its reappearance. I haven't followed the process meticulously, but the form of the article count (as we see it now, enclosed by emdashes) is unlike any of the many I've seen in previous drafts. Am I the only one who thinks this a little underhand? I am relatively neutral about the include-or-remove question, but I really don't like the form it's in at the moment. If there are sufficiently mixed opinions then maybe we ought to consider the options for change, and establish a consensus on the best option. It's not too late is it? BigBlueFish 14:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC) - - :No, it's never too late to edit a wiki (which is why it wasn't inappropriate to do so in response to the comments, most of which were from unconditional supporters). I personally oppose the inclusion of the article count in the header, and I welcome further discussion. - - :In the meantime, adding the following code to your personal CSS file ( User:Bigbluefish/monobook.css, if you're using the default skin) will suppress the text's display: -
- /*
*/ - #articlecount {display: none} - /*
*/
- - :— David Levy 15:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC) - - ::Thanks for the handy CSS tip that I'd already seen; it's not my viewing I'm concerned about (to be honest this applies to anyone who regularly works with things like talk pages). It's more about new users who see the count and get the wrong impression. And those of sounder integrity who see the count and think "damn that's messy". These are two separate issues. See my proposal below for what in my view is a better-looking header, if it to contain an article count at all. BigBlueFish 17:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC) - - - - ::Given the enormous amount of voting and discussion, it was a laudable effort to keep an eye on everything and those who organised the redesign and the vote made a great effort to address all relevant questions. Kudos! While I have not followed everything, it was my impression that the matter of the article count was not handled overly transparently, as the design over which we voted seems to have been changed during the process (my apologies if I am mistaken). Given that there has been relevant criticism and that the original new design seems to have excluded the counter from its prominent position (with the rationale that our focus should be quality instead of article numbers), it seems a questionable move to have it return there. I would suggest to remove it, as the current design is apparently not that on which the vote was started, and discuss the matter again, separately from the new design per se. - ::May I repeat my suggestion to count featured articles instead of total articles. I believe that might help shift the focus from ammassing text "that anyone can dump here" (which is what many people read in "that anyone can edit") to refining articles to a really high standard. Kosebamse 15:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC) - - :::Most of the voting and discussion occurred after the article count was retored to the header, and a great deal of support for this change was expressed prior to its implementation. This is a wiki, so we obviously weren't considering an exact design that would never be modified. We could have waited until after the election concluded, but how would that have been more transparent? - - :::Yes, this is an issue that should be discussed, but consensus thus far favors the article count's inclusion in the header. — David Levy 16:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC) - - ::::I think counting featured articles at the top would be a bit ridiculous, simply because 923 is not a high enough number. I suppose it would be nice to add a sentence to the Languages section, to the tune of: "923 of these articles have become featured articles. I think the only measure of credibility of Wikipedia is through the featured content boxes and by more in-depth investigation. It cannot be condensed to a tally at the top. As such, if the article count is only there to serve as a way of measuring Wikipedia's progress, it should be gone. But short of remove it altogether, I propose at least a different way of presenting it. The em dashes are inappropriately used for aesthetics which I don't find that aesthetically pleasing anyway. May I suggest something like this: - - {|style="width:100%; margin-top:+.7em; background-color:#fcfcfc; border: 1px solid #ccc" - |style="width:56%;color:#000"| - {| width="300px" style="border:solid 0px;background:none" - |- - | style="width:300px;text-align:center; white-space: nowrap; color:#000" |
-
-
-
- |-
- |}
-
- |style="width:11%;font-size:95%;color:#000"|
- *
Arts
- *
Biography
- *
Geography
- |style="width:11%;font-size:95%"|
- *
History
- *
Mathematics
- *
Science
- |style="width:11%;font-size:95%"|
- *
Society
- *
Technology
- *
All portals
- |}
-
- ::::I removed the articlecount id so everyone can see it. Another alternative caption might be, "We are working on 6,857,734 English articles."
-
- ::::As for consensus, David, if consensus was thus then why has it not resulted in the draft reflecting this, and why was a vote page written outlining why the draft had resulted in its ommission? If you have answers to these then fine, but I hope that answers your question about transparency. This should have been clear from the start, and I don't think consensus really has been formed properly yet, judging by the confusion. This is what this discussion is for.
BigBlueFish 17:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- :::::Firstly, I (and some of the other editors from the redesign project) firmly believe that the article count should not be included in the header. (The aforementioned explanation reflected this fact.) It wasn't until the election was underway that the consensus began to emerge.
-
- :::::But yes, consensus can change, and I wholeheartedly advocate further discussion on this matter. —
David Levy 17:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- :(re-indent)I dont know if that was a call for input on this here&now, but i'll reiterate my opinions:
- *I Oppose the inclusion of the headerbar line that says "1,032,932 articles in English".
- *It implies "that our site is no greater than the sum of its parts"
- *It is discussed in depth [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Final_archive#Article_count here],
here,
here, and
here. (newest to oldest)
- *I dislike the emdashes as a styling flourish. If the count remains, i propose we change the emdashes to something else. done --
Quiddity 00:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Why is the em dash used? --
Grocer 21:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- :The em dashes are gone now as noted in your new section below. Any thoughts on the wording or appearance of the line?
BigBlueFish 16:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- ::None, thanks. --
65.25.219.139 20:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Note: In IE7B2P, the full articlecount text is not visible. --
Pidgeot
(t)
(c)
(e) 23:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Just a couple of suggestions for alternative wordings:
- *
English edition |
6,857,734 articles.
- *
English edition (with
6,857,734 articles).
- *
English edition
- I would prefer to have the article count easily accessable - rather than just at the top - because I like checking up on it. Having to manually scroll down every time you want to check it isn't enough imo. As such I could live with the bottom of the options I listed. I find it hard to imagine a good arguement against that: it's not 'gloating' about quantity and it still leaves the actual count a couple of micro-seconds away. What are your thoughts?
-
- NB. I also think punctuation should be left off the third suggestion, but that's just my opinion. -
Drrngrvy 06:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- :I very much like that 3rd option listed. Plus it gives a good example of interpage linking, to aclimatize new users to jumping around within the wiki and its pages. Good stuff :) --
Quiddity 11:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- :::::Could an admin please unprotect
Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft so that we can experiment with design changes and code upgrades there. thanks :)
- ::::::I pasted the current Main Page code to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page (instead of the redirect that points to the still protected page linked above), so that we can continue to test options there.
- ::::::Then I inserted the "3rd option" from this thread, to see how it looks. --
Quiddity 23:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- :::::::I have two objections to the "English edition" idea: 1. The phrase itself implies that all of the Wikipedias are direct translations of the same articles. This is why the statement formerly contained in the header (now located in the "Wikipedia languages" section) was reworded. 2. It does nothing to address the aesthetic concerns. (A third line makes the header appear too crowded.) If we're going to have any text there, it might as well be what people requested. —
David Levy 00:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- ::::::::I don't think it implies a translation at all: newspapers regularly use 'edition' as a word to distinguish between related versions. People who read them generally know that it doesn't even mean the same editorial team are involved (because they usually aren't). If people use the other wikipedias then they'll instantly know what the score is, right? If they don't use the others then it doesn't matter if they make that assumption. The header isn't supposed to be about showing off, remember.
-
- :::::::::The word 'edition' can also imply that it is a direct translation. The point is that unless the phrasing is carefully chosen, it is very easy for people to make this mistake, and it can take a long time for them to realise their mistake. I suspect that many of the less-experienced editors who never visit other language wikipedias make the same assumption. Even the language interwiki links can be misleading. If you assemble a set of articles linked by language interwikis, you might expect to get articles that are similar once translated, but this is exceedingly rare. You are more likely to get a different slant on things from each language. Which is in itself interesting, but makes it even more important that people don't think everything is translated.
Carcharoth 02:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- ::::::::Also, very few people mentioned that three lines makes the header look crowded. I was one of only two I believe. Regardless, I think we established that the old motto won't change, so either we have no third line or no link to the article count. -
Drrngrvy 03:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- ::::::::Agreed. I don't like it either. I originally and still believe the 3rd line/article count should be removed. --
Quiddity 08:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- :::::::::Just to make it clear, I quite strongly prefer to have the
status of Wikipedia obvious to all who arrive at the homepage. I think having something as fundamental as the article/edit/member/etc. count right there for everyone. Isn't it important to make people believe that they are deeply involved with all this? -
Drrngrvy 03:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- So where have all the people who want this header to stay gone? I'm beginning to feel like those who want the count at the top do so somewhat whimsically, whereas those who thoroughly consider it would prefer it removed. I realise this is a gross generalisation, but if it's not true, someone who wants to keep it speak up! Please make clear what wording you'd prefer in the third line.
BigBlueFish
19:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- :Most of the arguments FOR the article count were appeals-to-tradition.
We could copy the reasons against it to a thread at the bottom of this page, remove the count from the Main Page, and see if anyone replies with debate, maybe? --
Quiddity 21:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- :I suspect that most of the support for the article count being in the header had less to do with tradition, and more the glow of "pride" people get from seeing the number up there everytime they visit the Main Page. People miss this, without realising why, and then ask for the article count to be put back without thinking things over dispassionately. I should make clear here that I am in the "no need for article count at all - it looks like boasting, and I've seen enough of the bad articles to know that we need to head for quality not quantity" school of thought.
Carcharoth 01:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- ::I think what you say is a gross generalisation. If you actually read
the discussion that went on during the voting then you'd see that what you say isn't apparent. I for one just want to have instant access to what's going on with Wikipedia. Think of it this way: if you were an administrator over a network of <whatever>, wouldn't you want to always know what its status is? Everyone is the admin for Wikipedia (in essence), so the point is that we should never patronise anyone by making the important less obvious. -
Drrngrvy 03:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- :::Article count is not the status of Wikipedia. And it's not in any way practically useful to any editor of Wikipedia. Take a look at any graph of article count against time and you will see how accurately you can extrapolate today's current article count - it should come as no surprise whatever the figure. Even if superficially you check the article count in the name of checking how the project is going, you know (or should do) what to expect, so really it is just for the pride of seeing the number go up. Either that or you're a mass article-adder and want to see how hight you can bump the article count, in which case you're the very person we don't want to see the count (I'm not actually suggesting this is true!). Wikipedian pride as an argument is fine, if that's what people want it for, but don't start suggesting the count is actually useful.
BigBlueFish 15:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- == Distracting numbered headings ==
-
- I've turned on numbered headings in my preferences, and the numbers aren't bolded in the headings in the featured-DYK space. Actually, I'd like them to be off just for the Main Page (just for myself). Any way to do one or both?
æle
✆ 01:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- :Heh, this is a direct result of the work further up the page to restore header tags on these items. The old main page had each of these sections as headers and thus showed the numbers. If we remove the numbers then screen-reader software loses the ability to navigate around on the page. --
CBDunkerson 01:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- ::Yay, somebody fixed the bolding. I wish the heading numbers were inside span tags or something, but I'll have to bring that to
MediaZilla. :)
æle
✆ 22:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- ==Intel 80486DX2==
- The writeup for the POTD says this chip is slower than a 80486DX at the same processor speed. The
Intel 80486DX2 article said the same thing until half an hour ago, when an anon changed it to read faster. I think the anon is right, in which case the POTD writeup should also be changed, but I'm a little confused. The DX2 is twice as fast as the DX at a given bus speed, but the processor speed is perhaps not the same as bus speed. I suppose the DX2 might be slightly less efficient in some way than the DX, so if you compare a DX 50 MHz (on a 50 MHz bus) against a DX2 50 MHz (on a 25 MHz bus), do you get exactly the same number of cycles per second (ignoring efficiency of other components; I do realise overall throughput of the DX 50 will be greater)?-
gadfium 01:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- : No, the anon is mistaken. At 20MHz CPU clock, a DX2 will only drive the system bus at 10MHz, whereas a DX would drive it at the full 20MHz; thus, the performance would be substantially reduced at like-for-like clocks. The point was that the same technology would allow a whopping 40MHz clock, without re-designing the motherboard, the bus, the devices hanging off it, or the memory.
- :
James F.
(talk) 01:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- ::So you are saying that the processor speed sets the bus speed in this technology. I always thought it was the other way around, and the article says:
- :::Essentially, the processor's speed is set to double of the speed of the system bus.
- ::A DX2 will run faster than a DX for a given bus speed. I think the article would be more easily understandable if the appropriate sentence in the lead paragraph was changed to
- :::Because of this, an Intel 80486DX2 is faster than an Intel 80486DX-based system at the same bus speed.
- ::from the text prior to the anon's edit of
- :::Because of this, an Intel 80486DX2 is slower than an Intel 80486DX-based system at the same processor speed.
- ::(I've highlighted the differences). The writeup for the POTD should match.-
gadfium 02:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Aside from that, the blurb should actually link to the DX2 article, and the 486DX article shouldn't be linked twice. Also "Chart created by:" makes no sense. It's a photograph isn't it?
Ziggur 03:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- (The below is copied from my talk page-
gadfium
03:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC))
-
- Hey Gadfium, Here is my reply to James F, about the 486 vs 486 DX2 processor debate. Sorry about the Anon part, using a govt computer.
-
- Mr Forrestor,
-
- You stated on Wikipedia that "No, the anon is mistaken. At 20MHz CPU clock, a DX2 will only drive the system bus at 10MHz, whereas a DX would drive it at the full 20MHz; thus, the performance would be substantially reduced at like-for-like clocks. The point was that the same technology would allow a whopping 40MHz clock, without re-designing the motherboard, the bus, the devices hanging off it, or the memory.
- James F. (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC):"
-
- I am that anon...
-
- Actually this is comparing apples to oranges. With the DX2 running at 10 MHZ and the DX running at 20, the system bus's are running at different speeds. You should compare chips with the SAME BUS speed, not PROCESSOR speed.
-
- You should compare the 33 Mhz system bus with a DX and a DX2 (Yes I have swapped the chips many a time in the day, in fact a better swap was the DX4 which gave you a 100 Mhz processor speed, with 33 Mhz system bus)
-
- Here are the true stats
- *486 DX 33 MHz with 27 MIPS (15.86 SPECint92)
- *486 DX2 (Same 33 Mhz bus speed) 66 MHz with 54 MIPS (39.6 SPECint92)
- *486 DX4 (Once again 33 Mhz bus speed) 100 MHz with 70.7 MIPS (54.59 SPECint92)
-
- Same bus speed, but the Mips doubled with the DX2, and nearly tripled with the DX4
-
- SGT Matthew Smith
- 25 Bravo (Network Engineer), US Army Reserve
- (email removed to reduce spam)
- :Matthew Smith has updated the 486DX2 page again to clarify the matter. Any objections if I now update the POTD writeup to match? I'll fix the points made by Ziggur as well.-
gadfium 03:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- ::I've updated it.-
gadfium
04:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- == Main page enhancement ==
-
-
Could we align the "Did you know" box with the "On this day..." box? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- :I'm afraid not. The boxes move up and down depending on the contents of the sections above them (featured article, and in the news). If they were aligned there would be the potential for lots of "whitespace" above one of them on any given day, which would look just as odd. :) --
Quiddity 06:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- ::Fair enough. -
Ta bu shi da yu
12:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- :::I came to make the same complaint comment. Exatcly how much white space are we talking about, because I know it's personal preferance but I find it terribly jarring when they don't quite line up...
brenneman
{L} 06:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- :::::Also, it depends on the actual size of the display font, which is dependant on the browser. So if it were changesd, the white space would not be constant either.
Dforest 07:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- :::::: We could always use table cells to align the boxes up can't we? Place each of the boxes in a table cell, and the rows and columns will force the boxes to line up.
enochlau (
talk) 12:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- ::::::Aye, and in most cases a little bit (but not a lot!) of white space would be less distracting? Noting of course that I was nowhere to be seen during the whole new main page process and it looks great and kudos all around but that every time I see that slight misalign I cringe. -
brenneman
{L} 17:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- :See
User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox5 for an example of one way to 'line up' these headings. --
CBDunkerson 18:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- ::In my opinion, that looks much worse. The current setup divides the four features in question into two thematic, color-coded pairings (the main reason behind swapping the positions of "Did you know..." and "On this day..."). In addition to spoiling that arrangement, splitting these sections into four separate boxes would waste a considerable amount of space. I honestly don't see what's so bad about not having the headings line up; this is nothing new. —
David Levy 18:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- :::Doesn't matter to me - just showing that it can be done. I made another change to reduce the size of the gap between tables. At this point it really doesn't take up any more space than the current version... though it would if upper left were larger than upper right while lower right was larger than lower left. The 'column' format allows these to effectively 'balance out' while four boxes compounds any top/bottom size disparities if they are in opposite columns. Conversely, the four box format 'balances out' any white space when one column is shorter than the other in both rows. The breaks between sections could be gotten rid of by using a different table class, but it would have to be un-bordered or it would put a line between the top and bottom sections. --
CBDunkerson 19:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- == Bilingual grammar ==
-
- It's nice that
Benito Juárez's birthday is mentionned in the selected anniversaries, but the phrase "a Fiestas Patrias" is awkward in bilingual grammar (if there is such a thing). "Fiestas Patrias" is plural, so the phrase makes as much sense as saying that the 4th of July is "an American holidays". A suggested rewording might be "one of Mexico's Fiestas Patrias".
Rod ESQ 02:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- ... or simply change it to the singular. That worked out all right as well, thanks.
Rod ESQ 14:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- == Today's Feature Article hyperlink ==
-
- I'm a Wikipedia novice and I'm not sure how to change it (otherwise I would), but I don't think the destination of the hyperlink attached to "Cape Horn" is entirely appropriate for Wikipedia.
-
- Someone is seriously deranged.
- :I think you saw the article while it was briefly in a vandalised state. Vandalism of the featured article doesn't usually last very long, so if you reload the article it will probably be all right. If you want to help, see
How to revert an article.-
gadfium 05:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- :Are you talking about this edit?
[2]?? It is vandalism. --
Hamedog
Talk|
@ 06:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- == Link needs dab on main page ==
-
- Currently Cyclone Larry makes landfall in Queensland,
AU with 250 km/h winds, the strongest in over 70 years.
AU needs to link to
Australia. ▫
UrbaneLegend
talk 14:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- :Actually, I came here to ask that AU be spelled out. I don't think it's a standard abbreviation. I will accept US as standard, but I wold request periods be used, making it "U.S." instead. (I realize the Brits don't like using full stops in abbreviations.) --
Nelson Ricardo 16:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- == 'In The News' Picture ==
- The picture of Alexander Lukashenko looks a tad bad. The 'Rule of Thirds' does not look good in the Main page featuring people. Is there any way we can get a picture of him that's more whole?
RPharazon
14:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- How many viewers of this page will realize that the photo in In the news is not of the Swedish fellow but rather of the Belarusian? A fix would be to swap the positions of the first two In the news sentences.
- —
67-21-48-122 15:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- :"Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko (pictured) is re-elected amid widespread condemnation of the election's validity." - emphasis mine. -
UtherSRG
(talk)
15:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- OK, I didn't see "pictured," but I hope the presence of the word isn't taken to legitimize the placement of the photo not only unnecessarily far from the corresponding text, but also adjacent to text which it can easily -- but erroneously -- be thought to illuminate.
- —
67-21-48-122 17:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- :From the comments within the news section: "Newest item goes on the top, older items are removed from the bottom." -
UtherSRG
(talk) 18:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- == In the News ==
-
- I just saw that the news that swedish foriegn minister Laila Freivalds have resigned was put up on the main page. The blurb states that it was due to the Muhammad Cartoons controversy, which is true to a point, but gives a very wrong impression of what happened. She resigned after allegations that the Foreign Ministry called the ISP of a fringe swedish party (the
Sweden Democrats) and asked them (the ISP that is) to censor the partys page after the they (the Sweden Democrats that is) had solicited reader submissions of cartoons of Muhammad to publish in their paper. The ISP did shut down the site, and when the asked about this, Freivalds lied about her involvement in the shutdown. So it's not because of the cartoon controversy per se, more about a censorship issue, tangentially related to the cartoons thing. A more appropriate text would perhaps be:
-
- :Swedish Foreign Affairs Minister Laila Freivalds resigns due to allegations of censorship in the wake of the Muhammad cartoons controversy.
-
- I'm not a stellar writer as you might have noticed, so please, fix my languge :)
-
- Also, she has gotten alot of heat even alot of talk of impeachment earlier this year due to her tragic mishandling of the tsunami rescue effort, where >500 swedes died. This was just the straw that broke the camels back.
Oskar 16:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- :I was about to post exactly the same thing... As it stands that news item is misleading. Will an admin please reword it?
Mikker
...
18:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Could we align the "Did you know" box with the "On this day..." box? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
It's nice that Benito Juárez's birthday is mentionned in the selected anniversaries, but the phrase "a Fiestas Patrias" is awkward in bilingual grammar (if there is such a thing). "Fiestas Patrias" is plural, so the phrase makes as much sense as saying that the 4th of July is "an American holidays". A suggested rewording might be "one of Mexico's Fiestas Patrias". Rod ESQ 02:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
... or simply change it to the singular. That worked out all right as well, thanks. Rod ESQ 14:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm a Wikipedia novice and I'm not sure how to change it (otherwise I would), but I don't think the destination of the hyperlink attached to "Cape Horn" is entirely appropriate for Wikipedia.
Someone is seriously deranged.
Currently Cyclone Larry makes landfall in Queensland, AU with 250 km/h winds, the strongest in over 70 years. AU needs to link to Australia. ▫ UrbaneLegend talk 14:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The picture of Alexander Lukashenko looks a tad bad. The 'Rule of Thirds' does not look good in the Main page featuring people. Is there any way we can get a picture of him that's more whole? RPharazon 14:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
How many viewers of this page will realize that the photo in In the news is not of the Swedish fellow but rather of the Belarusian? A fix would be to swap the positions of the first two In the news sentences.
—
67-21-48-122
15:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I didn't see "pictured," but I hope the presence of the word isn't taken to legitimize the placement of the photo not only unnecessarily far from the corresponding text, but also adjacent to text which it can easily -- but erroneously -- be thought to illuminate.
—
67-21-48-122
17:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I just saw that the news that swedish foriegn minister Laila Freivalds have resigned was put up on the main page. The blurb states that it was due to the Muhammad Cartoons controversy, which is true to a point, but gives a very wrong impression of what happened. She resigned after allegations that the Foreign Ministry called the ISP of a fringe swedish party (the Sweden Democrats) and asked them (the ISP that is) to censor the partys page after the they (the Sweden Democrats that is) had solicited reader submissions of cartoons of Muhammad to publish in their paper. The ISP did shut down the site, and when the asked about this, Freivalds lied about her involvement in the shutdown. So it's not because of the cartoon controversy per se, more about a censorship issue, tangentially related to the cartoons thing. A more appropriate text would perhaps be:
I'm not a stellar writer as you might have noticed, so please, fix my languge :)
Also, she has gotten alot of heat even alot of talk of impeachment earlier this year due to her tragic mishandling of the tsunami rescue effort, where >500 swedes died. This was just the straw that broke the camels back. Oskar 16:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
How do I edit this main page to add news? DanielDemaret 17:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there something wrong with the logo in the top left hand corner? Where it says wikipedia it's got a black background, which shouldn't be there. Of course, it could just be my browser. Willnz0 22:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The diffs and oldid views don't have a "Main Page" heading, which I find annoying because (1) the header is there on the history page and on diffs for every other page, and (2) old revision views have older and newer revision links in the header. Can we get the "Main Page" h1 back on the diff and oldid views? æle ✆ 22:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Very nice redesign - congratulations to all.
Can a 'tomorrow' link be added programmatically to On This Day? Since Wikipedia seems to run on UTC/GMT or AAT (America Awakens Time), On This Day only changes after the four billion or so people who live east of Greenwich have already begun to experience the next day. We aren't so impressive at the watercooler/pump when we're talking about yesterday's events! Assuming Wikipedia won't undergo a virtual relocation to the international dateline, perhaps the masters of the mainpage could save us a click or two by providing a link to the forthcoming day as well as the last three? How about it? -- Brian Samosa 22:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
See Tomorrow's Main Page. -- CBDunkerson 13:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Brian Samosa's request would require changing the Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/March 22 page for each day of the year to include a ' tomorrow' link. Since that would have to be set on each page it could be done with a different date on each, using {{ day+1}} on all, or with a separate date on most and {{ leapday}} for 'tomorrow' of February 28th. Midnighttonight's idea of linking it to each user's timezone setting would likely require a system change (I don't know of any way to get the timezone onto the page currently) and might cause confusion with people getting different content while viewing the page at the same time. -- CBDunkerson 14:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Tomorrow and Yesterday pages have been created:
In the "In the news" section on the main page, the abbreviation of "US" is used for the United States. According to the manual of style, "U.S." should be used. Could someone fix this please? Thanks, Dismas| (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
i think this whole website is a big hudge scam. Any old person can come on here and edit the page and put any thing they wont on there it's bad. I think this website should be closed down. I got introuble becaused I used information from this site on a paper i was doin for school and the teacher would not take it because I got my information from this site. I don't agree with this site! --- a upset user. —This signed comment was added by 208.0.239.92 ( talk • contribs) .
Disgruntled old history teachers around the world are teaching children that Wikipedia is a "bad website"... I'll bet the original complaint here is rephrased from what his teacher told him. Ashibaka tock 22:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
i think this whole website is a big hudge scam. Any old person can come on here and edit the page and put any thing they wont on there it's bad. I think this website should be closed down. I got introuble becaused I used information from this site on a paper i was doin for school and the teacher would not take it because I got my information from this site. I don't agree with this site!!!
You do not copy work from others and then give it to your teacher. Ever heard of the word Plaguarism? And, Wikipedia is too popular to be closed down. You deserve to be punished because Wikipedia is a source of information. If, however, you're going to use it as your ONLY source of information for school work, you deserve to get into trouble. You can, however, use it for your personal needs, not affiliation with schoolwork or homework.
Usually when you arrive at an article by way of a redirect, it says "(Redirected from [link to redirect])". However, when you follow the link Wikipedia:Main Page to arrive at the Main Page, that note is missing. Why? — Keenan Pepper 17:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
"This is the English language Wikipedia, which was started in 2001. It currently contains 1,037,905 articles." -> "This is the English language Wikipedia, which was started in 2001, it currently contains 1,037,905 articles." or rewritten in some other way.-- Andreas Müller 17:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Andreas, you cannot join two independant clauses with a comma. Your correction is gramatically incorrect.
Hilarious! This is the sort of tweaking of sentences I do a lot of (day job, you know...). There are subtle differences between all these versions, but I'd just like to point out that having two sentences is more "punchy" than stringing all the clauses together with commas. The other extreme is having three sentences: "This is the English language Wikipedia. It was started in 2001. It currently contains 1,037,920 articles." This, of course, sounds horrible. Changing the order of the clauses is also something that could be debated, but the order language>date>size seems best. Moving the 2001 start date from one of the sentences to the other associates the date more closely with the number of articles, rather than with the language, and this is the most logical way to put it. Carcharoth 08:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
"The ETA declares a permanent ceasefire..." This should read: "ETA declares a permanent ceasefire" as it is more common to style the organisation "ETA" rather than "the ETA". This is because ETA is not an English name (like "the IRA") and is usually spoken as "eet-ah" or "eh-tah" rather than "the Ee-Tee-Ay".