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 85 | ← | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | → | Archive 95 |
The link specie in the main page "Did you know?" section links to a disambiguation page instead of the correct article. Shushruth \ talk page \ contribs 02:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The tournament is Aussie open, a hard-court tennis slam, and why whould we want to put a say, Wimbledon pic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.107.240.1 ( talk)
Would it be a good idea to have a page on Wikipedia which is like a Table of Contents of all Wikipedia policies, with links to those policy pages, and then include a link to that page from the Main Page? It might make navigation easier in some circumstances. Corvus cornix 19:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
← The community portal is for editors, while the Main Page was designed with readers of Wikipedia in mind. No policies or guidelines refer to how one should read the encyclopedia, so it makes sense to me to not have this list on the Main Page. Accessibility is an issue that can be resolved with a bookmark toolbar or a site-specific search box (wherein one can enter, for example, WP:AGF, and be redirected to Wikipedia:Assume good faith), both available in Mozilla Firefox and Internet Explorer 7. Gracenotes T § 22:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
For some reason, if I view the Main Page in Firefox, there is a weird grey bar which appears between the Navigation toolbar and this Edit box. The problem isn't the same in Internet Explorer, which is truly obscure, but I was wondering if this is just a problem I'm having or whether anyone else can see it too. Bobo . 03:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
How can I edit this page and other pages?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipediaguest ( talk • contribs) 18:29, February 4, 2007
Just a heads up, guys. The Italian Wikipedia now has more than 250k articles so it should probably be boosted a spot at the bottom of the page. JHMM13 ( T | C) 21:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Today, when I came onto Wikipedia, there was no image for the FA. It just... wasn't there. I checked in three different browsers, it was missing. I figured it was just a minor problem that would be quickly fixed by a sysop. I come back four hours later and the image is still missing. Is anyone experienceing this also? -- 208.115.202.219 02:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[1] Is it just me or has no one really vandalized Today's FA in the 2+ hours it has been up on the Main Page?? Nishkid 64 02:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
the posting abot super bowl XLI says :stadiumin" instead of "stadium in"-- The Nation 03:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
He's gone for some reason. Why so? Zazaban 04:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Somebody broke the Werdnabot template for this page - someone who knows how to fix it, please do. — Vanderdecken∴ ∫ ξ φ 10:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Why there isn't a link to the Frisian Wikipedia? Frisian is the closest related language with English. I think the Frisian Wikipedia should get a link on the English Wikipedia. 86.83.58.168 12:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to make the search bar the default active box, so that when you go to the home page, you can just type and it goes straight into the search bar? it would save me and probably thousands of others a millisecond of time every time we search for something... that adds up quickly! 137.222.14.109 14:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm that the new archive box is working in IE? My copy is doing some very strange things that I don't believe are right. -- Monotonehell 13:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Newsworhty? Yes. One of the five or six most newsworthy items in the world at this moment no. I would say Ryan O'Neal's arrest was more notable. 84.64.231.230 19:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
That was me sorry forgot to log in Jimmmmmmmmm 19:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think its newsworthy either. Should be removed ASAP. Leotolstoy 19:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
how come some fa article, in the main page for long time, than some other fa article stay for short amount of time only? is there are discrimination on certain topic or what?, or theres some special criteria to stay longer on main page.-- Tearfate 14:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it just me, or did the table of contents disappear? It was, after all, useful. -- Ouro ( blah blah) 12:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Can we please, please, please get rid of the stupid extra scroll bar on the TOC, please? I realize that form-over-content types are going to say that it results in a more consistent appearance, but that's no excuse for making people use two separate scroll bars to see the end of the TOC, especially since the whole point of having one is to skip downward more easily than scrolling. More easily, not thrice as difficult. If the preceding is not clear: I hate that. Gavia immer ( u| t) 17:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
You're all heathens. HEATHENS! I tell's ya! LOL Okay if people hate it we can switch it back to a 3 page long TOC. I happen to think Gracenote's solution is very elegant. There's no extra scrolling. You scroll the TOC and then click. Instead of scrolling the main slider and click. ? -- Monotonehell 08:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it'd be best if it had no scrollbar, and was also floated to the right and upwards to slot into the free space there (looks odd where it is now). 84.71.158.191 09:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The image Image:Dolphinsmiamistadm.png is on the main page, and has been for over 24 hours. It has no real source. It lists the French Wikipedia as a source, and the French Wikipedia lists NASA, but does not provide a link. It is extremely unlikely that this image comes from NASA; it is much more likely that the image comes from Google Earth or a similar source. I don't believe this is a free image, and see no evidence that it is. It shouldn't stay on Wikipedia at all, and it certainly shouldn't be on the main page. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 13:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'll be. I guess it is free then. Glad to hear it. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 17:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
How exactly does Answers.com get articles from the Wikipedia? Is it manually or ...? 70.69.180.112 03:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
You might want to take off the bit about Italian football being canceled seeing that they will start playing again this weekend according to the bbc. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/6340537.stm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.226.1.253 ( talk) 04:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
Can someone add this to the news section? Wikipedia was one of the first sites to break news of her death (at her article, so the main page should reflect Wikipedia's quick reflexes.— OL P 1999 22:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Since this is one of the largest sporting events around the world (at least TV wise), shouldn't it be mentioned on the front page today? I think it should. -- RobNS 20:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
This news is not relevent for half of the world (non US part of the world), why it is on Main page!!
spacejuncky 09:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
To Howard : I never meant the bias u are accusing me for, I just wanted to say that news should target most of the audience, worldwide. You have US Portal for that or there should be some portal which lists sports news.
Why is this mentioned? It's hardly relevant outside the US and at most gets 200 million viewers. The World Cup Final has over a billion if I recall correctly. I'm American btw (odd, but I hate American football and call what most here call soccer, football)-- Metallurgist 02:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the fact that it's the single most watched televised event nearly always every year (I think MASH beat it out once...) kinda makes it important. Somehow, I don't get the impression we'd have complaints if it weren't American... Dooms Day349 02:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, it was half a week ago. Can we at least move it down the list from the top? I mean, really, isn't the IPCC report still more significant than the fact that the Colts won? Hello? - BeardedPhysicist 23:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better English to use "Indianapolis won 29-17" rather than "29 to 17" mentioned on the main page at the moment. Just think the lexis is better this way rather than sounding like John Madden. (UTC)
Is there no new news in world.after super bowl? User talk:Yousaf465
I agree. The news is never updated. It will show the same thing for about a week. Randomfrenchie 22:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Would it be helpful to anyone else besides me to have a cursor automatically appear in the search bar on the left side of the main screen upon pulling up the main page? I have it saved as a favorite and don’t like opening the page and then having to click in the typing space to begin a search. I know signing into Yahoo mail does this and it is quick and convenient. S. Randall 08:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by S. Randall ( talk • contribs) 08:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
I have an idea for a Wikipedia sister project: WikiWeather. Will it work? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.245.145.122 ( talk) 17:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
I enjoy the "In the News" section of Wikipedia, but I want a direct link to the news article itself. I believe the entire sentence or headline, should be a direct link to the news article, not a sentence that contains links to portions of the news article. For example, in today's news it states...Following two months of negotiations a coalition agreement is reached in the Netherlands that will keep Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende (pictured) in office. You can click a few different options, "two months of negotiations", "Netherlands", "Prime Minister" etc. But all I want to do is to read the article, but inorder for me to do this, I have to click wikinews first, then find the relavent article. I think the "In the News" section should simply contain the full link to the article itself. If we want to do further investigation, we can on our own. It would simply be way more convenient. Thoughtbox 17:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 85 | ← | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | → | Archive 95 |
The link specie in the main page "Did you know?" section links to a disambiguation page instead of the correct article. Shushruth \ talk page \ contribs 02:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The tournament is Aussie open, a hard-court tennis slam, and why whould we want to put a say, Wimbledon pic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.107.240.1 ( talk)
Would it be a good idea to have a page on Wikipedia which is like a Table of Contents of all Wikipedia policies, with links to those policy pages, and then include a link to that page from the Main Page? It might make navigation easier in some circumstances. Corvus cornix 19:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
← The community portal is for editors, while the Main Page was designed with readers of Wikipedia in mind. No policies or guidelines refer to how one should read the encyclopedia, so it makes sense to me to not have this list on the Main Page. Accessibility is an issue that can be resolved with a bookmark toolbar or a site-specific search box (wherein one can enter, for example, WP:AGF, and be redirected to Wikipedia:Assume good faith), both available in Mozilla Firefox and Internet Explorer 7. Gracenotes T § 22:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
For some reason, if I view the Main Page in Firefox, there is a weird grey bar which appears between the Navigation toolbar and this Edit box. The problem isn't the same in Internet Explorer, which is truly obscure, but I was wondering if this is just a problem I'm having or whether anyone else can see it too. Bobo . 03:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
How can I edit this page and other pages?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipediaguest ( talk • contribs) 18:29, February 4, 2007
Just a heads up, guys. The Italian Wikipedia now has more than 250k articles so it should probably be boosted a spot at the bottom of the page. JHMM13 ( T | C) 21:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Today, when I came onto Wikipedia, there was no image for the FA. It just... wasn't there. I checked in three different browsers, it was missing. I figured it was just a minor problem that would be quickly fixed by a sysop. I come back four hours later and the image is still missing. Is anyone experienceing this also? -- 208.115.202.219 02:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[1] Is it just me or has no one really vandalized Today's FA in the 2+ hours it has been up on the Main Page?? Nishkid 64 02:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
the posting abot super bowl XLI says :stadiumin" instead of "stadium in"-- The Nation 03:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
He's gone for some reason. Why so? Zazaban 04:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Somebody broke the Werdnabot template for this page - someone who knows how to fix it, please do. — Vanderdecken∴ ∫ ξ φ 10:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Why there isn't a link to the Frisian Wikipedia? Frisian is the closest related language with English. I think the Frisian Wikipedia should get a link on the English Wikipedia. 86.83.58.168 12:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to make the search bar the default active box, so that when you go to the home page, you can just type and it goes straight into the search bar? it would save me and probably thousands of others a millisecond of time every time we search for something... that adds up quickly! 137.222.14.109 14:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm that the new archive box is working in IE? My copy is doing some very strange things that I don't believe are right. -- Monotonehell 13:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Newsworhty? Yes. One of the five or six most newsworthy items in the world at this moment no. I would say Ryan O'Neal's arrest was more notable. 84.64.231.230 19:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
That was me sorry forgot to log in Jimmmmmmmmm 19:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think its newsworthy either. Should be removed ASAP. Leotolstoy 19:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
how come some fa article, in the main page for long time, than some other fa article stay for short amount of time only? is there are discrimination on certain topic or what?, or theres some special criteria to stay longer on main page.-- Tearfate 14:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it just me, or did the table of contents disappear? It was, after all, useful. -- Ouro ( blah blah) 12:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Can we please, please, please get rid of the stupid extra scroll bar on the TOC, please? I realize that form-over-content types are going to say that it results in a more consistent appearance, but that's no excuse for making people use two separate scroll bars to see the end of the TOC, especially since the whole point of having one is to skip downward more easily than scrolling. More easily, not thrice as difficult. If the preceding is not clear: I hate that. Gavia immer ( u| t) 17:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
You're all heathens. HEATHENS! I tell's ya! LOL Okay if people hate it we can switch it back to a 3 page long TOC. I happen to think Gracenote's solution is very elegant. There's no extra scrolling. You scroll the TOC and then click. Instead of scrolling the main slider and click. ? -- Monotonehell 08:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it'd be best if it had no scrollbar, and was also floated to the right and upwards to slot into the free space there (looks odd where it is now). 84.71.158.191 09:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The image Image:Dolphinsmiamistadm.png is on the main page, and has been for over 24 hours. It has no real source. It lists the French Wikipedia as a source, and the French Wikipedia lists NASA, but does not provide a link. It is extremely unlikely that this image comes from NASA; it is much more likely that the image comes from Google Earth or a similar source. I don't believe this is a free image, and see no evidence that it is. It shouldn't stay on Wikipedia at all, and it certainly shouldn't be on the main page. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 13:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'll be. I guess it is free then. Glad to hear it. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 17:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
How exactly does Answers.com get articles from the Wikipedia? Is it manually or ...? 70.69.180.112 03:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
You might want to take off the bit about Italian football being canceled seeing that they will start playing again this weekend according to the bbc. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/6340537.stm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.226.1.253 ( talk) 04:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
Can someone add this to the news section? Wikipedia was one of the first sites to break news of her death (at her article, so the main page should reflect Wikipedia's quick reflexes.— OL P 1999 22:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Since this is one of the largest sporting events around the world (at least TV wise), shouldn't it be mentioned on the front page today? I think it should. -- RobNS 20:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
This news is not relevent for half of the world (non US part of the world), why it is on Main page!!
spacejuncky 09:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
To Howard : I never meant the bias u are accusing me for, I just wanted to say that news should target most of the audience, worldwide. You have US Portal for that or there should be some portal which lists sports news.
Why is this mentioned? It's hardly relevant outside the US and at most gets 200 million viewers. The World Cup Final has over a billion if I recall correctly. I'm American btw (odd, but I hate American football and call what most here call soccer, football)-- Metallurgist 02:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the fact that it's the single most watched televised event nearly always every year (I think MASH beat it out once...) kinda makes it important. Somehow, I don't get the impression we'd have complaints if it weren't American... Dooms Day349 02:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, it was half a week ago. Can we at least move it down the list from the top? I mean, really, isn't the IPCC report still more significant than the fact that the Colts won? Hello? - BeardedPhysicist 23:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better English to use "Indianapolis won 29-17" rather than "29 to 17" mentioned on the main page at the moment. Just think the lexis is better this way rather than sounding like John Madden. (UTC)
Is there no new news in world.after super bowl? User talk:Yousaf465
I agree. The news is never updated. It will show the same thing for about a week. Randomfrenchie 22:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Would it be helpful to anyone else besides me to have a cursor automatically appear in the search bar on the left side of the main screen upon pulling up the main page? I have it saved as a favorite and don’t like opening the page and then having to click in the typing space to begin a search. I know signing into Yahoo mail does this and it is quick and convenient. S. Randall 08:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by S. Randall ( talk • contribs) 08:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
I have an idea for a Wikipedia sister project: WikiWeather. Will it work? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.245.145.122 ( talk) 17:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
I enjoy the "In the News" section of Wikipedia, but I want a direct link to the news article itself. I believe the entire sentence or headline, should be a direct link to the news article, not a sentence that contains links to portions of the news article. For example, in today's news it states...Following two months of negotiations a coalition agreement is reached in the Netherlands that will keep Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende (pictured) in office. You can click a few different options, "two months of negotiations", "Netherlands", "Prime Minister" etc. But all I want to do is to read the article, but inorder for me to do this, I have to click wikinews first, then find the relavent article. I think the "In the News" section should simply contain the full link to the article itself. If we want to do further investigation, we can on our own. It would simply be way more convenient. Thoughtbox 17:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)