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 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | → | Archive 80 |
Hey I just created Americans of French descent, also available on List of French Americans. I worked my ass off and i thought it would be great to have a very small link on the main page for a day please. let me know Abdelkweli 21:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Main page says "This page was last modified 20:50, 25 May 2006." This seems grossly misleading, as it's really updated several times a day, even if we only count the major edits (new featured article, picture, DYK, etc.). -- zenohockey 17:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
|
You have the crest of the italian royal family (or whatever) as the picture, however it still says that the hawiian maraine reserve is pictured. Harley peters 23:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Noboy mentions Juneteenth in the day section. Some Southerners celebrate it, at least in the U.S. It's a pretty minor holiday, but with more observers than World Press Freedom Day.
So, wikipedia now has 1,200,000+ articles, but on the front page, when you enter it says 1,193,000+ articles. I know that's not the main page, but there's no discussion page for that page, so I put it on this one. Anyway, I think that should be updated to say "1,200,000+ articles." Lastofthetribe 17:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Carolina Hurricanes won the Stanley Cup, 4-1 over Edmonton Oilers. Please post this on the main page. Thanks.
Oh, for Pete's sake. Not a single one of these sporting events will be mentioned in the history books 100 years from now. Why even bother?
*comical sigh* The popularity of an event shouldn't matter much on Wikipedia, other than the usual judgment of notability that articles undergo at AfDs. The reason an article should be nominated for ITN is if it has been updated or created with recent notable events. The results of the final round (the penultimate final not the semis) could qualify it for that. But not just the scores; there needs to be a reasonable addition to said article beyond the results.
The sad thing is the FIFA articles on Wikipedia have up to the minute 'news' whereas the Wikinews entries have obvious lag. Perhaps some of those editors need to consider what project they should be contributing such information to? -- Monotonehell 07:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The championship of one of the oldest sports championships in North America (over 110 years and counting)? The first major-league championship for North Carolina? An event that has even caused many public disturbances (and mini-riots) in Edmonton? I think that is pretty damn notable... -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™/ ?! 07:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, I just did a quick check of some papers' online versions -- the Stanley Cup result is front-page news on most of the Canadian newspapers. If that doesn't assert notability, I don't know what does... -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™/ ?! 07:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Will people please stop arguing whether such and such is notable or not. This is not the issue. Again I reiterate what the In The News section is for: Wikipedia is not a news service. ITN highlights articles that have been recently created or updated with current events. Whether something is notable or not has nothing to do with its inclusion in ITN. If the article is not notable is should be deleted. If there has been recent developments beyond the day to day running of a sporting event then, yes, it can be nominated. Wikipedia is not a news service. -- Monotonehell 08:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that perhaps you're all still missing my point because you're all still arguing "this event is more important than that event". User:Msikma: it's not that I "...find it impossible to measure noteworthyness of a sporting event." It's that any such discussions are pointless as one man's meat is another's poison. It's all subjectve. Noteworthyness is such a subjective idea that WP has no actual guidline regarding it ( Wikipedia:Notability Wikipedia:Notability/Essay, Wikipedia:Notability/Proposal, Wikipedia:List of ways to verify notability of articles, Wikipedia:Importance). And as such it's difficult to draw a line between sports results that can make the jump from Current sports events to ITN and those that can't. Someone sitting in Toronto (Canada) would see the Stanley Cup as the biggest thing, eclipsing the FIFA finals. Someone sitting in Sydney (Australia) would think that the NRL is the biggest thing and yet someone sitting in Melbourne (Australia) only a few hundred kilometres away would see the AFL more important. Unless that person were from the Melbourne Greek community then they may be rioting in the streets over the latest FIFA results. It's all so subjective. -- Monotonehell 16:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I think we should have a random userpage link in the navigation box because it is quite hard to find good userpages and with that link, we would easily find some great people. People would also comment to good users, therefore increasing community spirit and friendliness in the wikipedia community. Thanks. Jam 08:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
This is the head line today:
"Catalonia votes to adopt a new Statute of Autonomy, including a provision defining Catalonia as a nation."
This head line is misleading. It makes people read that Catalonia has become an autonomous nation, it is missinforming, as can be apreciated by the talk page with people asking about details of the new independence.
I suggest some words added to the head line in oder to be truthful. Something like:
"Catalonia votes to adopt a new Statute of Autonomy, not granting independence but including a provision defining Catalonia as a nation."
Maybe this is not so much "news" but it is giving true information to readers.
REASONING
The article it points to ( Statute_of_Autonomy_of_Catalonia) does not explain anything about "including a provision defining Catalonia as a nation" besides (only place the word "nation" is written):
"On January 21, 2006, Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and Catalan Leader of the Opposition Artur Mas arrived at a pre-agreement about nation definition and financing in the current project of statute."
but here it is not explained what "nation definition" came to, and its significance.
It is perfectly clear that this new statue does not bring about independence. It perfects and expands the areas of autonomous government.
I am personally in favour of self-government or straight independence, but I am against misleading people, or nearly lying.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pablo2garcia ( talk • contribs) 13:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC).
Hi. I received a message from Wikipedia saying that I had vandalised the "List of War Criminals" page by adding the names of all of the postwar U.S. Presidents, which is factually correct when using the website's definition of a war crime. Does Wikipedia have a policy regarding war crimes when committed by American Presidents? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.195.22.44 ( talk • contribs) 16:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
It says I have new messages on the Main Page but nowhere else. What's goin' on? Gang sta E B EA (comments welcome!) 21:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Never mind. IE messed up (I have IE and Firefox). Gang sta E B EA (comments welcome!) 21:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I find that the DYN almost never have a date associated with them, despite the fact that most of them are of a historical nature. It would be very useful to have a year mentioned, to enable the casual reader to have some reference to when the events mentioned actually took place. Five of the six notes for today could be much more informative if they included a simple "...in 510 BCE..." or " ... the 1908...". It would be better to have the information in the blurb, instead of forcing them to go to the article, just to put it in perspective. -- Nekura 22:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Is the first time we've had the featured article of the day not have an associated picture? I really hope this doesn't happen again. Can the people behind the article agree on something, anything? What's wrong with that graph that leads the article?
And I'm sure, after we made glacial retreat a Main Pager, we're going to be accused of having an agenda.
Nevertheless, I don't think that's anything compared to the flak we'll take for tomorrow's (as someone who worked on it during the FA nom, I well remember the reaction we got to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion — "Why are you promoting this stuff? What's worth featuring about it? It is antisemitic (insert invective here)" Much less from the far-right wing types who I fully expected to try to raise POV claims over the article's very forthright statement that they're fake. Daniel Case 03:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Who decides that this Wikimania message has to be on top of my screen? I hate it. Does it have to be on every ******* page? A message in the Community Portal would be more than enough to announce something I suppose. What is the policy on this? Where should I go to complain? How can I remove it? Questions, questions.... Piet 07:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Just add the following line to your Special:Mypage/monobook.css:
#sitenotice { display: none; }
Then save the page, and press CTRL+F5 to refresh that file. — ; BRIAN 0918 • 2006-06-21 07:14
#wikimania2006 { display: none; }
Why is the exploding Wachmann^2 comet not featured on the front page? Media is full of it, sectarians are proclaiming end of the world on the streets. This is big news like the Halley! 195.70.32.136 07:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
How is it big news? Or even new news? It happened back in May, and there is no threat of any of the pieces hitting us (since they're now nowhere near us, and won't be passing near us). — BRIAN 0918 • 2006-06-21 15:51
Partially copied from Template talk:In the news#Geographical context and Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors in In the news, as no response at the latter page which then says to raise other problems here. The template talk comment is more for future items, this comment on the Main Page talk is to see if people think anything should be done now for the items currently on the Main Page.
Is it possible for ITN items to make the geographical context clearer? The current top two items are:
In these cases, the only clue as to where these sports events are taking place is the names of the teams. Not everyone (especially outside North America) will know where Dallas, Miami, Carolina and Edmonton are. It would be much better if the terms "USA" and "North America" (for the Stanley Cup) were used. This should even apply for the expensive painting item that gives the geographical context as "New York", though in this case more of an argument can be made for people being more likely to know where New York is, and the use of US $ also makes it clear.
I suggest the following amendments for the two sports items:
The one about the Anglican Communion should also say which country Katharine Jefferts Schori is from (the USA, as it turns out), and the Catalonia item should make clear that Catalonia is an autonomous region of Spain.
Suggested changes to add geographical and historical context:
Carcharoth 10:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I suggest these item are not included at all. How are theses relevant world events. No-one outside America could give a = you know what about these. It's highlights the over Americanisation of Wikipedia. If you have these you should have the FA Cup winners the Premier League winners from England aswell as France Germany Italy Spain etc and other sports aswell rugby golf F1 tennis etc. Only World Cup winner should be included as a news item. Football world cup, Rugby, major tennis championships ie the Grand slams, the golf Majors etc not these Amercia only events. Jimmmmmmmmm 21:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It probably is an endless discussion so this is my last piont here. I mention Rugby only in the context of World Champions. These events are not World Championship events, they are American events. Like I say are we to included every major football honour on the front page? It is the most watched sport on the planet after all. No of course we won't becaue a) it's not relevant as a World event and b) it's not the most popular sport in the US so it won't get on the front page. Only World Champions should get mentioned simple as. Or I expect to come back here in May and find the English Premier League Champions on there the FA Cup winners the French Cup and League Winners the German and Spanish along wioth the Italians and of course the American and Brazilians along with every other nation. Also all the Rugby Cup winners and I'll expect all the Tennis Majors to get mention to. No didn't think so. Jimmmmmmmmm 22:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
-- Madchester 23:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
These are inter-continental events. Was Chelsea winning the Premiership included. It's a national championship just like the NBA. It's also the most watch football league in the world but as it's only national champions it shouldn't be on ITN and same goes for Miami Heat etc. If you read my comment I never mention the Champions League. Jimmmmmmmmm 13:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
OK. The two sporting items in question in this discussion have been on the Main Page in a clearly US/North America-centric form for at least a day now, and for one of them, for over two days. The ice hockey item has been there since 03:07 on 20 June (see here), and the basketball item has been there since 04:04 on 21 June ( see here). I first raised this issue at 09:54 on 20 June at the "Main Page errors page" here, and subsequently raised it at 09:14 on 21 June at the template talk for "In the news" here, and then at 09:37 on 21 June on this page (Talk Main Page) here, and then made this summary at 09:44 on 22 June. So my question is, if something like this gets little response, is there anywhere else I can raise issues like this so they can be either dealt with or rejected before the whole issue becomes redundant when the items drop off the page? If there is a reason for lagging response times (I've noticed that this sometimes happens when there is some big discussion going on somewhere else in Wikipedia), then that would be handy to know. Carcharoth 09:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
On the players from differnet nations making a world event I totally agree with the Grappler. Just because nationa represent doesn't make it world news. In the English Football (soccer to all you Yanks) Premier League we have English, Scottich Welsh Irish player obviously plus players from France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Austria, Poland, Ukraine, Belerus, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Brazil, USA, Canada, Australia, Ghana, Togo, South Africa, Switzerland, China, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Argentina, Turkey, Ecuador, Serbia, Czech Republic, Senegal, Nigeria, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Uraguay, Israel, Slovakia, Jamaica, Belgium, Morocco, Columbia, Trinidad and Tobago, Bulgaria, Congo, New Zealand, Zambian, Russia, Peru, Oman, Mali, India, Hungrey, Granada, Georgia, Eygpt, Craotia and Zimbabwe. Now that my American friend is a truely International League and surely then the Premier League, FA Cup and League Cup winner from England deserve a mention on ITN when the trophy is won. Well by puntured bycycles reckoning anyway. Jimmmmmmmmm 20:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
And a final comment: now that these news items have dropped off the ITN template, I think it is time to end this discussion, but I will just record, again, my disappointment that nothing actually got done about my suggested tweaks to to give geographical context to the ITN items. I realise that there is not a lot of room, but compact writing to include as much relevant information as possible, though a skill, is still possible. Carcharoth 11:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I advise Jimmmmmmmmm to be careful with the use Yank, as it could be taken as an insult to us Southerners. Tennis Dynamite 21:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Yank is a term used in Britain to refer to all Americans and not in derogatory way it's just a nickname like the Aussie call us Pommies. But please don't just pull that out that from the message and take the valid point I'm actually making. Jimmmmmmmmm 09:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello. All the wikitables used in the main page are layout tables and not data tables. Therefore, for accessibility reasons, no caption, row, or column headers shoud be used. Currently, the only needed change is to replace ! with | (I've tested it in Firefox, and at first sight it seems equal). Thanks! -- surueña 14:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The featured article about Golbal warning is the first featured article i've ever seen without a picture.It would be best to keep that tradition and add a picture to this featured article on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.18.67 ( talk • contribs)
In that case , why isn't anybody , any admins putting a picture yet . The main picture of the article seems fine to illustrate the golbal warming effect
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
-Actually no , I dont see any picture in place.
-Hmm it's strange , i don't see any picture , i think the problem is only restricted to me than
-mozilla firefox version 1.5.0.4
It refreshes but the picture doesn't appear.I tried with explorer , i doesn't work either . I rebooted my computer and the result is the same , i think the problem comes from my firewall , zonealarm.
Ok i see the link to an image, but when i follow that link , all i see is a picture of white and grey dots. This picture seems to be invisible to my computer for some reason.
Ok i can see it , but it was by removing my firewall and ad-watch . Whatever it did prevented me from seeing the picture Now i get it . I was the ad-blocking feature of zonealarm that blocked the picture as if it was an ad. Nice picture by the way
I've reuploaded the image to work around the problem, so it should display now. I think there's an existing bug report for MediaWiki relating to this as well. — sjorford ++ 18:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Does putting a link to an Ogrish video in a wikipedia article violate anything? Ogrish does have permission to have the video, so is it ok to link it via wikipedia article? I hope somebody can answer. Thanks TripleH1976 Wed, 19:39 p.m., 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Regarding WikiMania 2006, the top of several pages say Scholarships are available; applications are due by June 28. Scholarships??? From the scholarship article:
I understand that WikiMania may be an enlightening and perhaps educational experience. But seriously; is this the University of WikiMania? Perhaps financial assistance would sound less... uh... scholarly. joturn e r 14:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I would really, really like it if the keyboard focus was set to the "search" field when the Main Page loads. You have to click there with your mouse before you can type a search term.
There doesn't appear to be any other entries to type anything into on the Main Page - so why not have the focus go right to the search box?
OK, fair enough. But how about designating the search field as the first tab-stop? The current behavior prevents you from even tabbing your cursor into the search field (in a reasonable amount of key-presses).
It almost feels like searches are being discouraged.
Does a picture of Sadam Hussain go with the ICC discussion? It seems out of place.
I would like to change the picture to this one of Jacques Rogge, but seem to be blocked from editing. This picture makes much mores sense as the second item is not even about Hussein himself. The Olympic rings in the background are also really illustrative. Thanks for any assistance. gidonb 15:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, how about this beautiful picture of Sochi in the public domain? gidonb 16:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
It's a candidate city. gidonb 17:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Image:jaques_rogge.jpg was removed from this page since it fell under fair use. joturn e r 06:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Weren't the styles on the main page going to be implemented as CSS classes after the voting was completed? I'm trying to style the Main Page in my user CSS and it's rather frustrating without them. æ ² ✆ 2006-06-23t18:04z
Why hasn't the Battle of Banockburn been included? It's one of the most famous battles in Scottish History, yet it has been excluded. English censorship, is the most likely reason im afraid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossph1 ( talk • contribs)
I'm sure there's a page for this (I'm pretty sure I've seen it) but has anyone else noticed the layout of the French Wikipedia Main Page? I think it looks a little more streamlined, although the article of the day is a little far down ion my opinion. EvocativeIntrigue TALK | EMAIL 23:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Main page "on this day" says: "First known sighting of UFOs: Kenneth Arnold saw nine luminous disks in the form of saucers flying above the U.S. state of Washington."
But the first part of the sentence is not true, and is refuted by the UFO and Kenneth Arnold articles. It was not the "first known sighting of UFO's". It was the first widely reported post-WWII UFO sighting and the origin of the term "flying saucer". There are lots of UFO sightings prior to Arnold's in 1947. Derek Balsam 13:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
No one interested? Wikipedia talk:In the news section on the Main Page#Proposal for restructuring ITN Oh well then. -- Monotonehell 14:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It is regarding this:
I believe the "anyone can edit" should have disclaimer that source must be verifiable, useful, and bunch of other stuff that people usually not read through. Many users and editors do not even read the bottom Content must not violate any copyright and must be based on verifiable sources. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL. -- Dooly00000 18:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Nepali language missing http://ne.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Somebody in Admin could please add Nepali in the list of Languages in the main page. As languages list are kept, Nepal should be included and http://ne.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page should be present
The Cherokee language and its alphabet should be tried out. The language has been revived across the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. The Cherokee syllabary is one of the few Native American alphabets in existence. Hundreds of small language versions already exist and hundreds of regional dialects are used on wikipedia. Cherokee is one of the many Native American languages in part of the effort for preservation and it's taught in public schools in the region around Tahlequah, OK. Wikipedia.org can be helpful to celebrate diversity of languages native to North America. I appreciate wikipedia for reading this as I share my concern on adding another language to the wikipedia main page. + 207.200.116.13 08:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Is it really allowed for templates on the main page to be used on userpages? User:Sigh 14 for instance has an identical copy of main on his userpage. This should be something we should avoid. Just redirect your userpage to main if you really want to... -- Cat out 23:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
When I have been on the run to look for Star Wars books on the net, I often come across Answers.com. They have been copying text from Wikipedia. Here is one of them. [10] Compare it to tis article Boba Fett: Pursuit. Are they allowed to copy and paste text from the English Wiki to its own site? Tell me about it on my talk page. Weirdy 23:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC).
The second entry is in the present tense, while the others are in the past tense. Eixo 13:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Why can't they all be as short as today's Uma Thurman one? Noone is going to read through the ones that are usually twice this length.-- Pharos 16:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
How about the quality of the intro? It says that she started acting in 1988, then later down we can read that 'She is best known for her films released in the 1990s and 2000s'. Right, that should correct the automatic assumption that her movies made in 1988/89 provide the basis for her fame... Eixo 21:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
this is a much nicer picture of Uma Thurman, can someone put it up please? It's CC-AT-SA, so it shouldn't be a problem. Oskar 18:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
"Statehood Day" is a red link. SCHZMO ✍ 23:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to say that I'm pleasantly surprised that noone has come onto here in the past few days to accuse Wikipedia of racism, bias, or has tried to suggest that the featured articles chosen shouldn't have appeared, especially given the usual reactions when articles on popular actors or controversial organisations are featured on the Main Page. GeeJo (t)⁄ (c) • 23:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
KaDee Strickland??? That's not even a great article...I mean, its ok as far as a celebrity bio goes, but I had never heard of her until I saw it on the front page either. Yeah I'm surprised that there haven't been any detractors in recent days either...maybe they finally realised what open-source meant. Antimatter 00:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I, myself, was not aware that "Kolkata" and "Calcutta" were the same city. In the article itself it says parenthetically "(formerly Calcutta)". Perhaps we could show this on the front page, too. AdamBiswanger1 01:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of the featured article on Kolkata, it seems that clicking on the word 'More' at the end of the blurb on the front page leads to yesterday's featured article on Uma Thurman, instead of the Kolkata article. Is this a mistake?
Mn1
02:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The Kolkata article was recently corrected to reflect that Kolkata is now the 3rs larges agglomeration in India, not the 2nd. Therefore, the main page is inconsistant with the article. See the talk page for Kolkata. Dgies 03:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
There's a typo in the first sentence (in the parenthetic phrase). It's formerly, not formely. -- Ttownfeen 22:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
"1409 - Western Schism: The Catholic church is led into a double schism as Petros Philargos is crowned Pope Alexander V after the Council of Pisa, joining Pope Gregory XII in Rome and Avignon Pope Benedict XIII in Avignon." Is the redundant use of Avignon necessary? Resolute 03:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Just a small note. The article on Wikipedia states Warren Buffet will give to a single charity, that is incorrect. According to the news he will actually be donating to *several* charities *and* organisations. The Bill Gates Foundation is one is one of them (yes) it is supposed to get the lion share, however it is not the only one to receive a donation. Just something to keep in mind. ( Letters from Warren E. Buffett Regarding Pledges to Make Gifts of Berkshire Stock) CaribDigita 03:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The CN Tower (pictured right), the tallest freestanding structure on land, was opened to the public on June 26, 1976. Can this be mentioned in the On this day section, please ? -- 199.71.174.100 05:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
i dont have any money to spend and to get a featured article you need to spend like $1000 on books. what a rip Krein 05:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there any way I can add an article to my watchlist without watching the accompanying talk page? This main page only changes occasionally, being protected, but this talk page gets updated daily. -- Tivedshambo ( talk) 07:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Under the Luis Da Silva "did you know..." it mentions his research "motivated a special answer-like report by two of the most prestigious scientists of the time: Jean-Antoine Chaptal and Joseph-Louis Gay-Lussac?"
What is an "answer-like report?" That doesn't sound like a scientific term.
I'd hate to edit a photo, and I'm not sure if that's really allowed, but can we get that picture of Marí Alkatiri flipped? I know we're not going to be putting a screenshot of the Main Page into the Louvre, but it seems like bad composition to have the man staring off the edge of the screen. And, for clarification, I meant flipped horizontally. joturn e r 17:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
2006 Wimbledon Championships, the major tennis event of the year, has started and I think we need to publicise this. Skinnyweed 18:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Jimmmmmmmmm 19:07 26 June 2006
It would be much better to say "in Enfield Town" than "in the London Borough of Enfield. The former is only a small part of the borough, and it is what the article itself is linked to. London boroughs are rather artificial things, each of them formed of several communities, of which only one appears in the name (or in a few cases either none or two). It is the districts which are real communities that people relate to. Chicheley 00:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I've seen this reported on and investigated much more by people and the media and stirring up much more controversy than any of the other news titles on the main page. This item is big, it can quite possibly qualify as treasonous activity. It's being critisized for ruining a "working intelligence project" which has "caught terrorists and hasn't affected innocents" while being praised for revealing the US Government's "secretive and overly inquisitive" acts. I know wikipedia isn't a news hub but this seems bigger than much of the pieces already on the main page. Should there be a link?-- Exander 04:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
We're again having bad mainpage creep. We have a very long FA blurb, 6 DYK items, 7 ITN items, and 8 anniversaries. This is entirely too much for smaller screens, and makes it look too busy and messy on any screen. Can we try to keep it down to standard 1-2 short paragraphs for the FA blurb and 4-5 items for other features? Zocky | picture popups 20:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Though maybe it is not global enough, I would say that the failed Flag-burning constitutional amendment is pretty big news. -- Michael White T· C 23:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there any chance that the articles could be something other than US court cases for once? Every day there seems to be something related to USA law which isn't particularly interesting to people from other nations. Eraysor 00:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Jimmmmmmmmm 10:10 28 June 2006
Do we really need to put 438 US 265 1978, the case citation for Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, in the Selected Anniversary item for the case? It's redundant (as it's the reference number for the common name) and rather unnecessary for the Main Page. (Note: I didn't put this at WP:ERRORS because it's not really an error.) Thanks in advance. joturn e r 02:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the point that the guy is trying to make is that that info doesn't have to appear on the main page. It's not an article just a summary and this info would be in the main article. I any case there are many more important and relevant events that have occured in history today that deserve a place on the front page, so not sure it should even be there. -- Jimmmmmmmmm 19:02 28 June 2006
One administrator just deleted some punctuation.
Old version: Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
New version: Welcome to Wikipedia the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit
Please change it back. Thanks! SupaStarGirl 22:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there some edit war going on amongst admin> The "view source" option on protected pages (like this one) seems to be changing daily. It's currently "edit mode (read only)", the other day it was "how to view source", and I'm sure it was something else again yesterday. Any reason for the changes? -- Tivedshambo ( talk) 22:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thinks the (flag pictured) should go before the full stop to read ...the United Nations (flag pictured). ? I'm nitpicking here, but I feel that reduces the ambiguity as to whether the flag is Montenegro's or the UN's. - Cribananda 23:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I somewhat agree with you, and I think the flag of Montenegro should be pictured not the UN. Pseudoanonymous 00:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The emphasis should be that Montengro is joining the UN, not the UN itself; the image should be changed to reflect that. - jibegod 12:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
How did you get the boxes to be exactly the same height so there is no gap on either side above the featured picture box? On my portals the two columns are always different heights so there is some whitespace. Ideogram 23:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, is it the "vertical-align:top;" in the style? Ideogram 23:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Somethings gone horribly wrong!! I use Firefox1.5 and under this browser the featured article is stuck on that of the 28th of June. IE6 seems to show it fine however. Someone needs to fix this - Jak (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
English version has the main heading - Main Page removed (unlike on many other language wikis), which I think is great -- it used precious space on the visible window, and is kind of redundant (it is already mentioned on the tab). I'd like to do the same for Georgian wiki new proposed mainpage (see one version here თავფურცელი). Anyone knows how? If it had been discussed somewhere, would appreciate the link. gmadlobt. Alsandro 69.19.14.31 03:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
// hide the Main Page title <h1>
var mpTitle = "Main Page";
var isMainPage = (document.title.substr(0, document.title.lastIndexOf(" - ")) == mpTitle);
var isDiff = (document.location.search && (document.location.search.indexOf("diff=") != -1 || document.location.search.indexOf("oldid=") != -1));
if (isMainPage && !isDiff) {
document.write('<style type="text/css">/*<![CDATA[*/ #siteSub, #contentSub, h1.firstHeading { display: none !important; } /*]]>*/</style>');
}
Shouldn't the headline about Montenegro's acceptance to the UN have a picture of the Montenegro flag and not the UN flag?
Hello! The Mainpage is very terrible, i think. On the top, it is OK, but down is not goog, because, it´s too big. Greetings -- 80.130.252.215 08:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
What happened to the deatails link to the Football portal from the Worldcup news item? Loom91 11:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Could this be added to 'On this day' please?
29th June - St Peter and St Paul apostles, feast day
Thanks in advance —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CatholicNick89 ( talk • contribs) .
Dear Wikipedia,
I have witnessed a strange turn of events lately. First, my IP Address is User:65.103.86.243. Then, one day, I got a message from someone, and my talk page said User talk: User:65.103.84.79! I got used to it, then another day, I got a message, and I found that my IP Address is User:70.58.221.220! Is someone playing tricks on me? I would like you to investigate this matter. Thanks.
I am too young to register for an account, and even if I did try, my Username and Password would be invalid. 65.103.84.79
Too young, so put in a false age, I used to do it all the time-- BoyoJonesJr 17:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
As some observers have already recognized before, a abnormally high number of comments were made on the discussion page about a current event: The mens FIFA World Cup. Later some more active people in the Wikipedia universe had arguments, shared their opinions about pro & contra of listing the results in the News Section on the main page of en.wikipedia.org . To me this seemed a heated debate of only a few people then. After some weeks I feel like all of this needs to be discussed in a broader sense, with more people important for Wikipedia's development getting involved (I wish my post is the starting point for that). Clearly I want to lessen my passion for the World Cup and just talk about the facts there are:
FIFA World Cup is the world's biggest sports event by the amount of people watching it on TV (it can by no means be compared to any national tournament, so please stop talking about your favorite tournaments seeing them in the same league as the football world cup!)
FIFA World Cup does not only bring the players of all the qualified nations together, it also attracts millions of visitor's to the hosting country, which thus makes a huge impact on international understanding on Earth.
Football is - like any other popular team-sport - a form of culture. It can thus not only be seen as "just a sport" - like some do claim, that don't like/do sports themselves. Along with the fact of binding many people, that play for their countries and thereby also representing their countries, (few) special games have made a major influence on the nation's politics but also on their nation-communities' identity, sometimes even that their peoples do remember certain sports events much more in their nation's histories than anything else.
This is my opinion: If the Wikipedia does not give enough credit to this World Cup - which should be more than just one line that "..the World Cup continues" -, but instead informs visitors about political decisions in some countries which they mostly are not interested in at all, shows the Wikipedia in a bad light, as it does not highlight on global events but on local ones, not on those that affect the biggest amount of people in the world, but instead focus on those which claim themselves to be of high importance (like politicians usually do). Alright, one can say Wikipedia is not a news feeder, Wikipedia doesn't want to give news only about those things that the masses care about (as the masses often care about things that can be laughable and are not worth being paid attention to in a serious portal), but I say: If the Wikipedia wants to stick to its philosophy, if it truely wants to show what it stands for - as a world wide movement where everybody can participate - then it absolutely needs to give credit about those events that bind so many ethnic groups together and that transport the ideas of peace and tolerance among the world's citizens not building up more barriers than there are already.
In the end I want to make myself clear: This is not just about FIFA World Cup, it's about the News section in general, what goes in and what not. And I really feel that the criterias should be worked out more clear, in order to plan for the next time when controversy pops up.
Just my two cents here: I don't see why Wikipedia shoud keep listing it like that. It's in effect, promoting an organization. And why this organization? Why not others? What did FIFA do to deserve more attention than, I don't know, the Indian Ocean Earthquake of 2004? It also feels like it's promoting a herd mentality: "Hey, everyone else likes this sport, so you should think it's important too." Those are just some of the reasons, but it really gets on my nerves. MrVoluntarist 02:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The link to FIFA World Cup is in the main page for like a month already! (lol). Also, if football is a world culture, then why don't i see it on the headline on my local newspaper? So if basketball is a culture on my country then it should be in the main page too if the argument will be followed. -- Howard t he Du c k 06:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
To be encyclopedic, the caption should describe (1) What bog we're looking at, (2) the time of year, and (3) the major plants seen. Melchoir 00:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
...hey, that's better! I guess we don't know what the plants are, though? Melchoir 06:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
This is news, good news methinks. It is nice to see some good news once in a while.
Following the discussion (transferred to Bad Jokes... p 48 - and can the various similarly named pages be redirected to the main list) on the featured article "medical image" that has been: perhaps a diagram showing the contrast would have be more appropriate for the main page. I know such things are a matter of taste but perhaps 'matters medical involving poking bits of bodies around and/or blood etc' should not be included on the main page. Jackiespeel 13:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
"The controversial DADVSI copyright bill is finally voted in France (Coat of Arms pictured). Opponents contend it could significantly curtail free software." The writing here is not clear enough. Has the bill been voted in in France, so it's in effect, or is it now being voted on? 81.157.231.141 19:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
1904 - The first Olympic Games in North America opened in St. Louis, Missouri.
Why is this worthy of a place on the front page 'On this day' section? Surely more interesting thing have occured on this day is the past. And why is the first Olympics in North America or the USA which I think is really the point this is making, note worthy?
Jimmmmmmmmm 13:17 1 July 2006
It proves that nobody bothered to list that fact under that date, and nothing more. All date pages are very incomplete. — BRIAN 0918 • 2006-07-01 17:43
Can a sysop PLEASE put "We have 6,857,738 in English."? If so thank you. GangstaEB ( talk • contribs • count • ice slides) 13:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I sympathize. The current version abruptly transitions from a declarative sentence to a fragment:
the free encyclopedia that
anyone can edit.
6,857,738 articles in English
|
Even with a newline and a font size reduction, there is clearly meant to be a continuity between the first and second lines, but if you go on to read the third line without a break, it doesn't make sense. Now, I don't think the stat has to be made into a sentence, but how about a decoration that sets it off from the preceding thought? As in:
the free encyclopedia that
anyone can edit.
—
6,857,738 articles in English—
|
Melchoir 01:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Image:Knox Johnston Golden Globe.jpg falls under fair use, and so theoretically, it should not be on the Main Page or the dozens of user pages which transclude the Main Page. Perhaps a free image, like Image:Joshua001.jpg...
...should replace it. joturn e r 16:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The Lindsay Lohan pic ( Image:Lohanspeak.PNG) is fair use and should be replaced ASAP! -- Midnighttonight please tell me off for procrastinating on my essay! 05:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Vote question: Should Newest articles link to
Special:Newpages again?
Wikipedia is not a democracy, and this vote isn't valid. Straw polls can only be used to see where users who have been active in discussion currently stand on the issue, and only after there has been discussion on the matter--you can't just pop in and throw up a binding vote whenever you desire, and certainly not based on the random votes of random visitors. — BRIAN 0918 • 2006-07-02 17:17
I'd just like to point out that Wikipedia:Recent_additions is linked to twice - shouldn't the 'Newest Articles' link to Special:Newpages and 'Archive' link to Wikipedia:Recent_additions ? Robmods 18:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the news piece about the Mexican elections because said elections haven;t actually occurred yet. The results of the elections, which will come in tonight, would be a much better thing to have at ITN; polls mean little. — Cuivi é nen 19:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Entry on this is missing a "be", the line currently reading "...will closely contested." 86.135.168.36 20:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Not quite, but the sizeable 2004 XP14 asteroid will pass quite clos http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5133900.stm May be worth the WP frontpage! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.32.136 ( talk • contribs) 15:32, 2 July 2006
I think the picture of the featured article should be one of him being the Pope already, since that title is included in the name of the article... Cloviz 00:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
"popes" doesn't need to be capitalized. My bad. Someone else fixed it in the article. Can some administrator fix this on the main page? savidan (talk) (e@) 00:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | → | Archive 80 |
Hey I just created Americans of French descent, also available on List of French Americans. I worked my ass off and i thought it would be great to have a very small link on the main page for a day please. let me know Abdelkweli 21:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Main page says "This page was last modified 20:50, 25 May 2006." This seems grossly misleading, as it's really updated several times a day, even if we only count the major edits (new featured article, picture, DYK, etc.). -- zenohockey 17:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
|
You have the crest of the italian royal family (or whatever) as the picture, however it still says that the hawiian maraine reserve is pictured. Harley peters 23:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Noboy mentions Juneteenth in the day section. Some Southerners celebrate it, at least in the U.S. It's a pretty minor holiday, but with more observers than World Press Freedom Day.
So, wikipedia now has 1,200,000+ articles, but on the front page, when you enter it says 1,193,000+ articles. I know that's not the main page, but there's no discussion page for that page, so I put it on this one. Anyway, I think that should be updated to say "1,200,000+ articles." Lastofthetribe 17:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Carolina Hurricanes won the Stanley Cup, 4-1 over Edmonton Oilers. Please post this on the main page. Thanks.
Oh, for Pete's sake. Not a single one of these sporting events will be mentioned in the history books 100 years from now. Why even bother?
*comical sigh* The popularity of an event shouldn't matter much on Wikipedia, other than the usual judgment of notability that articles undergo at AfDs. The reason an article should be nominated for ITN is if it has been updated or created with recent notable events. The results of the final round (the penultimate final not the semis) could qualify it for that. But not just the scores; there needs to be a reasonable addition to said article beyond the results.
The sad thing is the FIFA articles on Wikipedia have up to the minute 'news' whereas the Wikinews entries have obvious lag. Perhaps some of those editors need to consider what project they should be contributing such information to? -- Monotonehell 07:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The championship of one of the oldest sports championships in North America (over 110 years and counting)? The first major-league championship for North Carolina? An event that has even caused many public disturbances (and mini-riots) in Edmonton? I think that is pretty damn notable... -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™/ ?! 07:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, I just did a quick check of some papers' online versions -- the Stanley Cup result is front-page news on most of the Canadian newspapers. If that doesn't assert notability, I don't know what does... -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™/ ?! 07:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Will people please stop arguing whether such and such is notable or not. This is not the issue. Again I reiterate what the In The News section is for: Wikipedia is not a news service. ITN highlights articles that have been recently created or updated with current events. Whether something is notable or not has nothing to do with its inclusion in ITN. If the article is not notable is should be deleted. If there has been recent developments beyond the day to day running of a sporting event then, yes, it can be nominated. Wikipedia is not a news service. -- Monotonehell 08:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that perhaps you're all still missing my point because you're all still arguing "this event is more important than that event". User:Msikma: it's not that I "...find it impossible to measure noteworthyness of a sporting event." It's that any such discussions are pointless as one man's meat is another's poison. It's all subjectve. Noteworthyness is such a subjective idea that WP has no actual guidline regarding it ( Wikipedia:Notability Wikipedia:Notability/Essay, Wikipedia:Notability/Proposal, Wikipedia:List of ways to verify notability of articles, Wikipedia:Importance). And as such it's difficult to draw a line between sports results that can make the jump from Current sports events to ITN and those that can't. Someone sitting in Toronto (Canada) would see the Stanley Cup as the biggest thing, eclipsing the FIFA finals. Someone sitting in Sydney (Australia) would think that the NRL is the biggest thing and yet someone sitting in Melbourne (Australia) only a few hundred kilometres away would see the AFL more important. Unless that person were from the Melbourne Greek community then they may be rioting in the streets over the latest FIFA results. It's all so subjective. -- Monotonehell 16:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I think we should have a random userpage link in the navigation box because it is quite hard to find good userpages and with that link, we would easily find some great people. People would also comment to good users, therefore increasing community spirit and friendliness in the wikipedia community. Thanks. Jam 08:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
This is the head line today:
"Catalonia votes to adopt a new Statute of Autonomy, including a provision defining Catalonia as a nation."
This head line is misleading. It makes people read that Catalonia has become an autonomous nation, it is missinforming, as can be apreciated by the talk page with people asking about details of the new independence.
I suggest some words added to the head line in oder to be truthful. Something like:
"Catalonia votes to adopt a new Statute of Autonomy, not granting independence but including a provision defining Catalonia as a nation."
Maybe this is not so much "news" but it is giving true information to readers.
REASONING
The article it points to ( Statute_of_Autonomy_of_Catalonia) does not explain anything about "including a provision defining Catalonia as a nation" besides (only place the word "nation" is written):
"On January 21, 2006, Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and Catalan Leader of the Opposition Artur Mas arrived at a pre-agreement about nation definition and financing in the current project of statute."
but here it is not explained what "nation definition" came to, and its significance.
It is perfectly clear that this new statue does not bring about independence. It perfects and expands the areas of autonomous government.
I am personally in favour of self-government or straight independence, but I am against misleading people, or nearly lying.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pablo2garcia ( talk • contribs) 13:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC).
Hi. I received a message from Wikipedia saying that I had vandalised the "List of War Criminals" page by adding the names of all of the postwar U.S. Presidents, which is factually correct when using the website's definition of a war crime. Does Wikipedia have a policy regarding war crimes when committed by American Presidents? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.195.22.44 ( talk • contribs) 16:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
It says I have new messages on the Main Page but nowhere else. What's goin' on? Gang sta E B EA (comments welcome!) 21:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Never mind. IE messed up (I have IE and Firefox). Gang sta E B EA (comments welcome!) 21:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I find that the DYN almost never have a date associated with them, despite the fact that most of them are of a historical nature. It would be very useful to have a year mentioned, to enable the casual reader to have some reference to when the events mentioned actually took place. Five of the six notes for today could be much more informative if they included a simple "...in 510 BCE..." or " ... the 1908...". It would be better to have the information in the blurb, instead of forcing them to go to the article, just to put it in perspective. -- Nekura 22:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Is the first time we've had the featured article of the day not have an associated picture? I really hope this doesn't happen again. Can the people behind the article agree on something, anything? What's wrong with that graph that leads the article?
And I'm sure, after we made glacial retreat a Main Pager, we're going to be accused of having an agenda.
Nevertheless, I don't think that's anything compared to the flak we'll take for tomorrow's (as someone who worked on it during the FA nom, I well remember the reaction we got to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion — "Why are you promoting this stuff? What's worth featuring about it? It is antisemitic (insert invective here)" Much less from the far-right wing types who I fully expected to try to raise POV claims over the article's very forthright statement that they're fake. Daniel Case 03:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Who decides that this Wikimania message has to be on top of my screen? I hate it. Does it have to be on every ******* page? A message in the Community Portal would be more than enough to announce something I suppose. What is the policy on this? Where should I go to complain? How can I remove it? Questions, questions.... Piet 07:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Just add the following line to your Special:Mypage/monobook.css:
#sitenotice { display: none; }
Then save the page, and press CTRL+F5 to refresh that file. — ; BRIAN 0918 • 2006-06-21 07:14
#wikimania2006 { display: none; }
Why is the exploding Wachmann^2 comet not featured on the front page? Media is full of it, sectarians are proclaiming end of the world on the streets. This is big news like the Halley! 195.70.32.136 07:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
How is it big news? Or even new news? It happened back in May, and there is no threat of any of the pieces hitting us (since they're now nowhere near us, and won't be passing near us). — BRIAN 0918 • 2006-06-21 15:51
Partially copied from Template talk:In the news#Geographical context and Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors in In the news, as no response at the latter page which then says to raise other problems here. The template talk comment is more for future items, this comment on the Main Page talk is to see if people think anything should be done now for the items currently on the Main Page.
Is it possible for ITN items to make the geographical context clearer? The current top two items are:
In these cases, the only clue as to where these sports events are taking place is the names of the teams. Not everyone (especially outside North America) will know where Dallas, Miami, Carolina and Edmonton are. It would be much better if the terms "USA" and "North America" (for the Stanley Cup) were used. This should even apply for the expensive painting item that gives the geographical context as "New York", though in this case more of an argument can be made for people being more likely to know where New York is, and the use of US $ also makes it clear.
I suggest the following amendments for the two sports items:
The one about the Anglican Communion should also say which country Katharine Jefferts Schori is from (the USA, as it turns out), and the Catalonia item should make clear that Catalonia is an autonomous region of Spain.
Suggested changes to add geographical and historical context:
Carcharoth 10:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I suggest these item are not included at all. How are theses relevant world events. No-one outside America could give a = you know what about these. It's highlights the over Americanisation of Wikipedia. If you have these you should have the FA Cup winners the Premier League winners from England aswell as France Germany Italy Spain etc and other sports aswell rugby golf F1 tennis etc. Only World Cup winner should be included as a news item. Football world cup, Rugby, major tennis championships ie the Grand slams, the golf Majors etc not these Amercia only events. Jimmmmmmmmm 21:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It probably is an endless discussion so this is my last piont here. I mention Rugby only in the context of World Champions. These events are not World Championship events, they are American events. Like I say are we to included every major football honour on the front page? It is the most watched sport on the planet after all. No of course we won't becaue a) it's not relevant as a World event and b) it's not the most popular sport in the US so it won't get on the front page. Only World Champions should get mentioned simple as. Or I expect to come back here in May and find the English Premier League Champions on there the FA Cup winners the French Cup and League Winners the German and Spanish along wioth the Italians and of course the American and Brazilians along with every other nation. Also all the Rugby Cup winners and I'll expect all the Tennis Majors to get mention to. No didn't think so. Jimmmmmmmmm 22:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
-- Madchester 23:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
These are inter-continental events. Was Chelsea winning the Premiership included. It's a national championship just like the NBA. It's also the most watch football league in the world but as it's only national champions it shouldn't be on ITN and same goes for Miami Heat etc. If you read my comment I never mention the Champions League. Jimmmmmmmmm 13:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
OK. The two sporting items in question in this discussion have been on the Main Page in a clearly US/North America-centric form for at least a day now, and for one of them, for over two days. The ice hockey item has been there since 03:07 on 20 June (see here), and the basketball item has been there since 04:04 on 21 June ( see here). I first raised this issue at 09:54 on 20 June at the "Main Page errors page" here, and subsequently raised it at 09:14 on 21 June at the template talk for "In the news" here, and then at 09:37 on 21 June on this page (Talk Main Page) here, and then made this summary at 09:44 on 22 June. So my question is, if something like this gets little response, is there anywhere else I can raise issues like this so they can be either dealt with or rejected before the whole issue becomes redundant when the items drop off the page? If there is a reason for lagging response times (I've noticed that this sometimes happens when there is some big discussion going on somewhere else in Wikipedia), then that would be handy to know. Carcharoth 09:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
On the players from differnet nations making a world event I totally agree with the Grappler. Just because nationa represent doesn't make it world news. In the English Football (soccer to all you Yanks) Premier League we have English, Scottich Welsh Irish player obviously plus players from France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Austria, Poland, Ukraine, Belerus, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Brazil, USA, Canada, Australia, Ghana, Togo, South Africa, Switzerland, China, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Argentina, Turkey, Ecuador, Serbia, Czech Republic, Senegal, Nigeria, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Uraguay, Israel, Slovakia, Jamaica, Belgium, Morocco, Columbia, Trinidad and Tobago, Bulgaria, Congo, New Zealand, Zambian, Russia, Peru, Oman, Mali, India, Hungrey, Granada, Georgia, Eygpt, Craotia and Zimbabwe. Now that my American friend is a truely International League and surely then the Premier League, FA Cup and League Cup winner from England deserve a mention on ITN when the trophy is won. Well by puntured bycycles reckoning anyway. Jimmmmmmmmm 20:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
And a final comment: now that these news items have dropped off the ITN template, I think it is time to end this discussion, but I will just record, again, my disappointment that nothing actually got done about my suggested tweaks to to give geographical context to the ITN items. I realise that there is not a lot of room, but compact writing to include as much relevant information as possible, though a skill, is still possible. Carcharoth 11:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I advise Jimmmmmmmmm to be careful with the use Yank, as it could be taken as an insult to us Southerners. Tennis Dynamite 21:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Yank is a term used in Britain to refer to all Americans and not in derogatory way it's just a nickname like the Aussie call us Pommies. But please don't just pull that out that from the message and take the valid point I'm actually making. Jimmmmmmmmm 09:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello. All the wikitables used in the main page are layout tables and not data tables. Therefore, for accessibility reasons, no caption, row, or column headers shoud be used. Currently, the only needed change is to replace ! with | (I've tested it in Firefox, and at first sight it seems equal). Thanks! -- surueña 14:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The featured article about Golbal warning is the first featured article i've ever seen without a picture.It would be best to keep that tradition and add a picture to this featured article on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.18.67 ( talk • contribs)
In that case , why isn't anybody , any admins putting a picture yet . The main picture of the article seems fine to illustrate the golbal warming effect
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
-Actually no , I dont see any picture in place.
-Hmm it's strange , i don't see any picture , i think the problem is only restricted to me than
-mozilla firefox version 1.5.0.4
It refreshes but the picture doesn't appear.I tried with explorer , i doesn't work either . I rebooted my computer and the result is the same , i think the problem comes from my firewall , zonealarm.
Ok i see the link to an image, but when i follow that link , all i see is a picture of white and grey dots. This picture seems to be invisible to my computer for some reason.
Ok i can see it , but it was by removing my firewall and ad-watch . Whatever it did prevented me from seeing the picture Now i get it . I was the ad-blocking feature of zonealarm that blocked the picture as if it was an ad. Nice picture by the way
I've reuploaded the image to work around the problem, so it should display now. I think there's an existing bug report for MediaWiki relating to this as well. — sjorford ++ 18:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Does putting a link to an Ogrish video in a wikipedia article violate anything? Ogrish does have permission to have the video, so is it ok to link it via wikipedia article? I hope somebody can answer. Thanks TripleH1976 Wed, 19:39 p.m., 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Regarding WikiMania 2006, the top of several pages say Scholarships are available; applications are due by June 28. Scholarships??? From the scholarship article:
I understand that WikiMania may be an enlightening and perhaps educational experience. But seriously; is this the University of WikiMania? Perhaps financial assistance would sound less... uh... scholarly. joturn e r 14:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I would really, really like it if the keyboard focus was set to the "search" field when the Main Page loads. You have to click there with your mouse before you can type a search term.
There doesn't appear to be any other entries to type anything into on the Main Page - so why not have the focus go right to the search box?
OK, fair enough. But how about designating the search field as the first tab-stop? The current behavior prevents you from even tabbing your cursor into the search field (in a reasonable amount of key-presses).
It almost feels like searches are being discouraged.
Does a picture of Sadam Hussain go with the ICC discussion? It seems out of place.
I would like to change the picture to this one of Jacques Rogge, but seem to be blocked from editing. This picture makes much mores sense as the second item is not even about Hussein himself. The Olympic rings in the background are also really illustrative. Thanks for any assistance. gidonb 15:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, how about this beautiful picture of Sochi in the public domain? gidonb 16:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
It's a candidate city. gidonb 17:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Image:jaques_rogge.jpg was removed from this page since it fell under fair use. joturn e r 06:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Weren't the styles on the main page going to be implemented as CSS classes after the voting was completed? I'm trying to style the Main Page in my user CSS and it's rather frustrating without them. æ ² ✆ 2006-06-23t18:04z
Why hasn't the Battle of Banockburn been included? It's one of the most famous battles in Scottish History, yet it has been excluded. English censorship, is the most likely reason im afraid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossph1 ( talk • contribs)
I'm sure there's a page for this (I'm pretty sure I've seen it) but has anyone else noticed the layout of the French Wikipedia Main Page? I think it looks a little more streamlined, although the article of the day is a little far down ion my opinion. EvocativeIntrigue TALK | EMAIL 23:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Main page "on this day" says: "First known sighting of UFOs: Kenneth Arnold saw nine luminous disks in the form of saucers flying above the U.S. state of Washington."
But the first part of the sentence is not true, and is refuted by the UFO and Kenneth Arnold articles. It was not the "first known sighting of UFO's". It was the first widely reported post-WWII UFO sighting and the origin of the term "flying saucer". There are lots of UFO sightings prior to Arnold's in 1947. Derek Balsam 13:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
No one interested? Wikipedia talk:In the news section on the Main Page#Proposal for restructuring ITN Oh well then. -- Monotonehell 14:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It is regarding this:
I believe the "anyone can edit" should have disclaimer that source must be verifiable, useful, and bunch of other stuff that people usually not read through. Many users and editors do not even read the bottom Content must not violate any copyright and must be based on verifiable sources. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL. -- Dooly00000 18:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Nepali language missing http://ne.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Somebody in Admin could please add Nepali in the list of Languages in the main page. As languages list are kept, Nepal should be included and http://ne.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page should be present
The Cherokee language and its alphabet should be tried out. The language has been revived across the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. The Cherokee syllabary is one of the few Native American alphabets in existence. Hundreds of small language versions already exist and hundreds of regional dialects are used on wikipedia. Cherokee is one of the many Native American languages in part of the effort for preservation and it's taught in public schools in the region around Tahlequah, OK. Wikipedia.org can be helpful to celebrate diversity of languages native to North America. I appreciate wikipedia for reading this as I share my concern on adding another language to the wikipedia main page. + 207.200.116.13 08:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Is it really allowed for templates on the main page to be used on userpages? User:Sigh 14 for instance has an identical copy of main on his userpage. This should be something we should avoid. Just redirect your userpage to main if you really want to... -- Cat out 23:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
When I have been on the run to look for Star Wars books on the net, I often come across Answers.com. They have been copying text from Wikipedia. Here is one of them. [10] Compare it to tis article Boba Fett: Pursuit. Are they allowed to copy and paste text from the English Wiki to its own site? Tell me about it on my talk page. Weirdy 23:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC).
The second entry is in the present tense, while the others are in the past tense. Eixo 13:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Why can't they all be as short as today's Uma Thurman one? Noone is going to read through the ones that are usually twice this length.-- Pharos 16:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
How about the quality of the intro? It says that she started acting in 1988, then later down we can read that 'She is best known for her films released in the 1990s and 2000s'. Right, that should correct the automatic assumption that her movies made in 1988/89 provide the basis for her fame... Eixo 21:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
this is a much nicer picture of Uma Thurman, can someone put it up please? It's CC-AT-SA, so it shouldn't be a problem. Oskar 18:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
"Statehood Day" is a red link. SCHZMO ✍ 23:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to say that I'm pleasantly surprised that noone has come onto here in the past few days to accuse Wikipedia of racism, bias, or has tried to suggest that the featured articles chosen shouldn't have appeared, especially given the usual reactions when articles on popular actors or controversial organisations are featured on the Main Page. GeeJo (t)⁄ (c) • 23:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
KaDee Strickland??? That's not even a great article...I mean, its ok as far as a celebrity bio goes, but I had never heard of her until I saw it on the front page either. Yeah I'm surprised that there haven't been any detractors in recent days either...maybe they finally realised what open-source meant. Antimatter 00:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I, myself, was not aware that "Kolkata" and "Calcutta" were the same city. In the article itself it says parenthetically "(formerly Calcutta)". Perhaps we could show this on the front page, too. AdamBiswanger1 01:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of the featured article on Kolkata, it seems that clicking on the word 'More' at the end of the blurb on the front page leads to yesterday's featured article on Uma Thurman, instead of the Kolkata article. Is this a mistake?
Mn1
02:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The Kolkata article was recently corrected to reflect that Kolkata is now the 3rs larges agglomeration in India, not the 2nd. Therefore, the main page is inconsistant with the article. See the talk page for Kolkata. Dgies 03:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
There's a typo in the first sentence (in the parenthetic phrase). It's formerly, not formely. -- Ttownfeen 22:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
"1409 - Western Schism: The Catholic church is led into a double schism as Petros Philargos is crowned Pope Alexander V after the Council of Pisa, joining Pope Gregory XII in Rome and Avignon Pope Benedict XIII in Avignon." Is the redundant use of Avignon necessary? Resolute 03:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Just a small note. The article on Wikipedia states Warren Buffet will give to a single charity, that is incorrect. According to the news he will actually be donating to *several* charities *and* organisations. The Bill Gates Foundation is one is one of them (yes) it is supposed to get the lion share, however it is not the only one to receive a donation. Just something to keep in mind. ( Letters from Warren E. Buffett Regarding Pledges to Make Gifts of Berkshire Stock) CaribDigita 03:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The CN Tower (pictured right), the tallest freestanding structure on land, was opened to the public on June 26, 1976. Can this be mentioned in the On this day section, please ? -- 199.71.174.100 05:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
i dont have any money to spend and to get a featured article you need to spend like $1000 on books. what a rip Krein 05:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there any way I can add an article to my watchlist without watching the accompanying talk page? This main page only changes occasionally, being protected, but this talk page gets updated daily. -- Tivedshambo ( talk) 07:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Under the Luis Da Silva "did you know..." it mentions his research "motivated a special answer-like report by two of the most prestigious scientists of the time: Jean-Antoine Chaptal and Joseph-Louis Gay-Lussac?"
What is an "answer-like report?" That doesn't sound like a scientific term.
I'd hate to edit a photo, and I'm not sure if that's really allowed, but can we get that picture of Marí Alkatiri flipped? I know we're not going to be putting a screenshot of the Main Page into the Louvre, but it seems like bad composition to have the man staring off the edge of the screen. And, for clarification, I meant flipped horizontally. joturn e r 17:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
2006 Wimbledon Championships, the major tennis event of the year, has started and I think we need to publicise this. Skinnyweed 18:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Jimmmmmmmmm 19:07 26 June 2006
It would be much better to say "in Enfield Town" than "in the London Borough of Enfield. The former is only a small part of the borough, and it is what the article itself is linked to. London boroughs are rather artificial things, each of them formed of several communities, of which only one appears in the name (or in a few cases either none or two). It is the districts which are real communities that people relate to. Chicheley 00:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I've seen this reported on and investigated much more by people and the media and stirring up much more controversy than any of the other news titles on the main page. This item is big, it can quite possibly qualify as treasonous activity. It's being critisized for ruining a "working intelligence project" which has "caught terrorists and hasn't affected innocents" while being praised for revealing the US Government's "secretive and overly inquisitive" acts. I know wikipedia isn't a news hub but this seems bigger than much of the pieces already on the main page. Should there be a link?-- Exander 04:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
We're again having bad mainpage creep. We have a very long FA blurb, 6 DYK items, 7 ITN items, and 8 anniversaries. This is entirely too much for smaller screens, and makes it look too busy and messy on any screen. Can we try to keep it down to standard 1-2 short paragraphs for the FA blurb and 4-5 items for other features? Zocky | picture popups 20:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Though maybe it is not global enough, I would say that the failed Flag-burning constitutional amendment is pretty big news. -- Michael White T· C 23:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there any chance that the articles could be something other than US court cases for once? Every day there seems to be something related to USA law which isn't particularly interesting to people from other nations. Eraysor 00:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Jimmmmmmmmm 10:10 28 June 2006
Do we really need to put 438 US 265 1978, the case citation for Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, in the Selected Anniversary item for the case? It's redundant (as it's the reference number for the common name) and rather unnecessary for the Main Page. (Note: I didn't put this at WP:ERRORS because it's not really an error.) Thanks in advance. joturn e r 02:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the point that the guy is trying to make is that that info doesn't have to appear on the main page. It's not an article just a summary and this info would be in the main article. I any case there are many more important and relevant events that have occured in history today that deserve a place on the front page, so not sure it should even be there. -- Jimmmmmmmmm 19:02 28 June 2006
One administrator just deleted some punctuation.
Old version: Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
New version: Welcome to Wikipedia the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit
Please change it back. Thanks! SupaStarGirl 22:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there some edit war going on amongst admin> The "view source" option on protected pages (like this one) seems to be changing daily. It's currently "edit mode (read only)", the other day it was "how to view source", and I'm sure it was something else again yesterday. Any reason for the changes? -- Tivedshambo ( talk) 22:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thinks the (flag pictured) should go before the full stop to read ...the United Nations (flag pictured). ? I'm nitpicking here, but I feel that reduces the ambiguity as to whether the flag is Montenegro's or the UN's. - Cribananda 23:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I somewhat agree with you, and I think the flag of Montenegro should be pictured not the UN. Pseudoanonymous 00:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The emphasis should be that Montengro is joining the UN, not the UN itself; the image should be changed to reflect that. - jibegod 12:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
How did you get the boxes to be exactly the same height so there is no gap on either side above the featured picture box? On my portals the two columns are always different heights so there is some whitespace. Ideogram 23:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, is it the "vertical-align:top;" in the style? Ideogram 23:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Somethings gone horribly wrong!! I use Firefox1.5 and under this browser the featured article is stuck on that of the 28th of June. IE6 seems to show it fine however. Someone needs to fix this - Jak (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
English version has the main heading - Main Page removed (unlike on many other language wikis), which I think is great -- it used precious space on the visible window, and is kind of redundant (it is already mentioned on the tab). I'd like to do the same for Georgian wiki new proposed mainpage (see one version here თავფურცელი). Anyone knows how? If it had been discussed somewhere, would appreciate the link. gmadlobt. Alsandro 69.19.14.31 03:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
// hide the Main Page title <h1>
var mpTitle = "Main Page";
var isMainPage = (document.title.substr(0, document.title.lastIndexOf(" - ")) == mpTitle);
var isDiff = (document.location.search && (document.location.search.indexOf("diff=") != -1 || document.location.search.indexOf("oldid=") != -1));
if (isMainPage && !isDiff) {
document.write('<style type="text/css">/*<![CDATA[*/ #siteSub, #contentSub, h1.firstHeading { display: none !important; } /*]]>*/</style>');
}
Shouldn't the headline about Montenegro's acceptance to the UN have a picture of the Montenegro flag and not the UN flag?
Hello! The Mainpage is very terrible, i think. On the top, it is OK, but down is not goog, because, it´s too big. Greetings -- 80.130.252.215 08:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
What happened to the deatails link to the Football portal from the Worldcup news item? Loom91 11:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Could this be added to 'On this day' please?
29th June - St Peter and St Paul apostles, feast day
Thanks in advance —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CatholicNick89 ( talk • contribs) .
Dear Wikipedia,
I have witnessed a strange turn of events lately. First, my IP Address is User:65.103.86.243. Then, one day, I got a message from someone, and my talk page said User talk: User:65.103.84.79! I got used to it, then another day, I got a message, and I found that my IP Address is User:70.58.221.220! Is someone playing tricks on me? I would like you to investigate this matter. Thanks.
I am too young to register for an account, and even if I did try, my Username and Password would be invalid. 65.103.84.79
Too young, so put in a false age, I used to do it all the time-- BoyoJonesJr 17:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
As some observers have already recognized before, a abnormally high number of comments were made on the discussion page about a current event: The mens FIFA World Cup. Later some more active people in the Wikipedia universe had arguments, shared their opinions about pro & contra of listing the results in the News Section on the main page of en.wikipedia.org . To me this seemed a heated debate of only a few people then. After some weeks I feel like all of this needs to be discussed in a broader sense, with more people important for Wikipedia's development getting involved (I wish my post is the starting point for that). Clearly I want to lessen my passion for the World Cup and just talk about the facts there are:
FIFA World Cup is the world's biggest sports event by the amount of people watching it on TV (it can by no means be compared to any national tournament, so please stop talking about your favorite tournaments seeing them in the same league as the football world cup!)
FIFA World Cup does not only bring the players of all the qualified nations together, it also attracts millions of visitor's to the hosting country, which thus makes a huge impact on international understanding on Earth.
Football is - like any other popular team-sport - a form of culture. It can thus not only be seen as "just a sport" - like some do claim, that don't like/do sports themselves. Along with the fact of binding many people, that play for their countries and thereby also representing their countries, (few) special games have made a major influence on the nation's politics but also on their nation-communities' identity, sometimes even that their peoples do remember certain sports events much more in their nation's histories than anything else.
This is my opinion: If the Wikipedia does not give enough credit to this World Cup - which should be more than just one line that "..the World Cup continues" -, but instead informs visitors about political decisions in some countries which they mostly are not interested in at all, shows the Wikipedia in a bad light, as it does not highlight on global events but on local ones, not on those that affect the biggest amount of people in the world, but instead focus on those which claim themselves to be of high importance (like politicians usually do). Alright, one can say Wikipedia is not a news feeder, Wikipedia doesn't want to give news only about those things that the masses care about (as the masses often care about things that can be laughable and are not worth being paid attention to in a serious portal), but I say: If the Wikipedia wants to stick to its philosophy, if it truely wants to show what it stands for - as a world wide movement where everybody can participate - then it absolutely needs to give credit about those events that bind so many ethnic groups together and that transport the ideas of peace and tolerance among the world's citizens not building up more barriers than there are already.
In the end I want to make myself clear: This is not just about FIFA World Cup, it's about the News section in general, what goes in and what not. And I really feel that the criterias should be worked out more clear, in order to plan for the next time when controversy pops up.
Just my two cents here: I don't see why Wikipedia shoud keep listing it like that. It's in effect, promoting an organization. And why this organization? Why not others? What did FIFA do to deserve more attention than, I don't know, the Indian Ocean Earthquake of 2004? It also feels like it's promoting a herd mentality: "Hey, everyone else likes this sport, so you should think it's important too." Those are just some of the reasons, but it really gets on my nerves. MrVoluntarist 02:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The link to FIFA World Cup is in the main page for like a month already! (lol). Also, if football is a world culture, then why don't i see it on the headline on my local newspaper? So if basketball is a culture on my country then it should be in the main page too if the argument will be followed. -- Howard t he Du c k 06:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
To be encyclopedic, the caption should describe (1) What bog we're looking at, (2) the time of year, and (3) the major plants seen. Melchoir 00:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
...hey, that's better! I guess we don't know what the plants are, though? Melchoir 06:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
This is news, good news methinks. It is nice to see some good news once in a while.
Following the discussion (transferred to Bad Jokes... p 48 - and can the various similarly named pages be redirected to the main list) on the featured article "medical image" that has been: perhaps a diagram showing the contrast would have be more appropriate for the main page. I know such things are a matter of taste but perhaps 'matters medical involving poking bits of bodies around and/or blood etc' should not be included on the main page. Jackiespeel 13:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
"The controversial DADVSI copyright bill is finally voted in France (Coat of Arms pictured). Opponents contend it could significantly curtail free software." The writing here is not clear enough. Has the bill been voted in in France, so it's in effect, or is it now being voted on? 81.157.231.141 19:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
1904 - The first Olympic Games in North America opened in St. Louis, Missouri.
Why is this worthy of a place on the front page 'On this day' section? Surely more interesting thing have occured on this day is the past. And why is the first Olympics in North America or the USA which I think is really the point this is making, note worthy?
Jimmmmmmmmm 13:17 1 July 2006
It proves that nobody bothered to list that fact under that date, and nothing more. All date pages are very incomplete. — BRIAN 0918 • 2006-07-01 17:43
Can a sysop PLEASE put "We have 6,857,738 in English."? If so thank you. GangstaEB ( talk • contribs • count • ice slides) 13:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I sympathize. The current version abruptly transitions from a declarative sentence to a fragment:
the free encyclopedia that
anyone can edit.
6,857,738 articles in English
|
Even with a newline and a font size reduction, there is clearly meant to be a continuity between the first and second lines, but if you go on to read the third line without a break, it doesn't make sense. Now, I don't think the stat has to be made into a sentence, but how about a decoration that sets it off from the preceding thought? As in:
the free encyclopedia that
anyone can edit.
—
6,857,738 articles in English—
|
Melchoir 01:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Image:Knox Johnston Golden Globe.jpg falls under fair use, and so theoretically, it should not be on the Main Page or the dozens of user pages which transclude the Main Page. Perhaps a free image, like Image:Joshua001.jpg...
...should replace it. joturn e r 16:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The Lindsay Lohan pic ( Image:Lohanspeak.PNG) is fair use and should be replaced ASAP! -- Midnighttonight please tell me off for procrastinating on my essay! 05:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Vote question: Should Newest articles link to
Special:Newpages again?
Wikipedia is not a democracy, and this vote isn't valid. Straw polls can only be used to see where users who have been active in discussion currently stand on the issue, and only after there has been discussion on the matter--you can't just pop in and throw up a binding vote whenever you desire, and certainly not based on the random votes of random visitors. — BRIAN 0918 • 2006-07-02 17:17
I'd just like to point out that Wikipedia:Recent_additions is linked to twice - shouldn't the 'Newest Articles' link to Special:Newpages and 'Archive' link to Wikipedia:Recent_additions ? Robmods 18:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the news piece about the Mexican elections because said elections haven;t actually occurred yet. The results of the elections, which will come in tonight, would be a much better thing to have at ITN; polls mean little. — Cuivi é nen 19:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Entry on this is missing a "be", the line currently reading "...will closely contested." 86.135.168.36 20:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Not quite, but the sizeable 2004 XP14 asteroid will pass quite clos http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5133900.stm May be worth the WP frontpage! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.32.136 ( talk • contribs) 15:32, 2 July 2006
I think the picture of the featured article should be one of him being the Pope already, since that title is included in the name of the article... Cloviz 00:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
"popes" doesn't need to be capitalized. My bad. Someone else fixed it in the article. Can some administrator fix this on the main page? savidan (talk) (e@) 00:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)