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 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | Archive 94 | Archive 95 |
So what exactly was the decision of the move? Simply south 16:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Brandon Siphoro
Is this true? If not, why is this Chairwoman bullshitting? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Winterus ( talk • contribs) 14:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
“ | Wikimedia spokesperson Sandy Ordonez stepped up with this attempt at backpedaling:
"Ms. Devouard's comment was taken out of context," Ordonez claims, although it's difficult to imagine the context in which "might disappear" could be taken differently. "Wikipedia will not be closing any time soon. Ms. Devouard was simply referring to the ongoing, pressing needs for funds that Wikipedia, like most nonprofit organizations, face. Ms. Devouard was attempting to showcase how, because of our global reach, Wikipedia needs to be much more creative in its fundraising efforts." |
” |
No we are not broke - we just raised over a million dollars. Here is our Chair's wording: "At this point, Wikipedia has the financial ressources to run its servers for about 3 to 4 months. If we do not find additional funding, it is not impossible that Wikipedia might disappear". So, Florence is right but there is no need for panic. Wikipedia is not going away. Her point is simply that we will need another fundraiser somethime in that time period. True, if we didn't, the site may go down, but why the hell wouldn't we? -- mav 15:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Did you know that there's no line above "edit this page"? I think there's something wrong with Monobook.css, not sure how long it's been like this. Merosonox 13:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there any boiler plate template for the Main Page layout?Because right now it looks like a penis. It appears the source code here is not clean and needs to be looked at by a doctor immidiatly.(compared to the Italian version of Wiki). I'd like to see the well commented clean code of the Italian Wiki, with the layout, of the English. Anyone know where that file is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roseba ( talk • contribs) 15:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
As of 11th of February, there are over 100 000 articles in Finnish wikipedia. -- Edvard Majakari 17:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The best FA. Ever. (I'm not sarcastic.) -- Howard the Duck 07:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The summary is taken from a bad version. I would recommend this version. Thanks. TimVickers 02:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Why do some of the Wikipedias have rounded corners on the tabs like Main Page and Discussion? 71.0.240.5 05:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Vhell? Vhat is the story here? 71.0.240.5 05:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, that's cool, but why only on some Wikipedias? 71.0.240.5 05:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Hoping zealous overseers do not delete: How can we have a featured article blurb that does not spell out what the abbreviation stands for? --Nélson Ricardo 19:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The "Make way for ducklings" front page article has appeared for the past three days - and when I signed in I got a different page.
I presume this is a minor glitch. Jackiespeel 17:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I have seen it as well and find it absolutely uncalled for.
Nope. Still there. Hearing about it from friends also. Fixable?
I was using different machines - and have a different text now. Jackiespeel 14:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright; is it really notable that the Dixie Chicks won 5 Grammys? Unless it was some sort of record, and if it is, mention it. Dooms Day349 00:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
How about instead we just mention that The Grammys took place? That has to be at least as newsworthy as a Swedish skier capturing 5 records. Music is generally more universally well-regarded than football, and we mentioned the Super Bowl. 70.113.212.222 03:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
This story may say otherwise. Xiner ( talk, email) 18:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I would really appreciate an RSS feed for the Wikipedia News (and also for some articles of interest). I guess I am not the only one?!. Is there some project ongoing for adding this functionality? -- 83.248.209.168 12:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll probably get in trouble for posting this on the wrong spot, but it is sort of related to the main page.
Whenever I try to download the high-resolution version of the Featured Picture, it downloads about the top inch of the image, and then quits. Thereafter, it will only download said inch, no matter how many times I try to download, or clear my cache, or cookies, or whatever... What gives?
'
Wii
Willie
Wiki→
(Talk)
(Contrib)
14:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The long name is causing a big gap at 800x600. Xiner ( talk, email) 20:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I just looked at the main page in 800x600, and while I'll grant I'm not accustomed to how the page normally looks under that setting, it looked fine to me, at least now that it was under the image.-- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 01:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The current "in the news" image, Image:HamiltonStorm07-MP-crop.jpg, is a bit dark, although it's very helpful, at a larger resolution. As a thumb, it's hard to tell what's going on. Could it either be lightened up in GIMP or photoshop (although I can't see how that could be done without looking odd), or merely replaced? I've compiled a list of images at Talk:February 2007 North America winter storm#Loads of images. Images number 9, 10, and 14 look good. Images 12 and 4 were previously used, and image 11 is being used now. I took image number 7, but it's really not that exciting :) And all images shouldn't go in the article, by the way; a gallery may be needed at the bottom. Well, about the main page image, any suggestions? Making a mountain out of a molehill, I know, but the Main Page isn't a molehill. Gracenotes T § 03:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I am having a problem with editing wikipedia articles. In the last 6 hours, every time I edit a wikipedia article, it doesn't show up in the history tab, and I am just wondering what is going on. Is there like a maintenance issue, or it is a new policy to approve articles, I want to know.-- jsalims80 01:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Ctrl+R
or Ctrl+F5
will usually do the trick.
Gracenotes
T §
04:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the most commonly incorrectly spelled words (all throughout Wikipedia) are those like "nationalization". People keep spelling these kinds of words with an " S" instead of a " Z", and it drives me nuts. Just for the record, it's nationalization, not nationalisation. - dogman15 01:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Why do we keep presenting the -ise/-ize spelling differences as British English vs American English? That is a gross oversimplification of the matter. I'd have thought at least a mention of the French/Greek origins of the spelling would be an improvement. Even better would be to point people to how this is covered in Wikipedia at American and British English spelling differences#-ise / -ize. (The rest of that page makes interesting reading as well.) You could also read what the Oxford English Dictionary editors have to say about it: Ask Oxford.com - Are spellings like 'privatize' and 'organize' Americanisms? Their answer, in short? "No, not really." Carcharoth 13:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Zzyzx11 is right to point Dogman15 to that Wikipedia guideline, which explains very well how this sort of concern is handled. As for whether it was Webster or Merriam, did you follow the link I gave? Here it is again: Are spellings like 'privatize' and 'organize' Americanisms?. It was Webster. Carcharoth 01:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thou art all using the wrong language, it is a travesty that you seek to dispel the wonder of English with your tripe-filled slang tounge! I am outraged. 84.71.158.191 12:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Question based on same topic: is it appropriate for teachers (in america) to take of points on a term paper bacause you used british spelling? Eddisford 18:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the things mentioned before. I am so annoyed that I never ever see anything about minorities on the main page. For Black History Month you've had nothing. What's with that??
OK whatever, let's be real. If we did the research you would clearly see a trend. Be real about this.
just a minor nitpick, but Saskatchewan, Canada also has Family Day, whichtuytuiyti is mentioned in the linked article, but is not mentioned in the "on this day" section. 142.165.47.149 20:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
on 2007-02-19 21:59
All five DYKs today are about the US or US-related subjects. Are you seriously telling me that there were no other DYKs available on non-American topics? I refer those who select DYKs to the rules and regulations, specifically the bit about avoiding choosing too many examples that relate to the same topic or geopgraphic area. This is by no means the first time this has happened. When previous charges of US-centrism have been raised, many editors (mainly American) have scoffed. I suggest they stop to think for a minute: Wikipedia is supposed to be international. The US-centrism will alienate many readers. 82.32.238.139 13:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Meh. Its a fluke, it'll happen from time to time. Instead of complaining, how about writing articles on some other topics and then proposing them as DYKs?-- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 16:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I just realized that the newly implemented cascading protection of the Main Page is the cause of the problems we've been having with the Jmax-bot FA and FFA counts. The workaround solution we had devised to avoid the circus of trying to get admin privileges - putting the count in a js user subpage - no longer works. I have reverted to the pre-automated count format. The bot should function normally again, though we've lost the updated number. - Banyan Tree 15:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Now that the move of this page to Portal:Main Page (which is the correct name space in my opinion) has been rejected, we have a problem. The NUMBEROFARTICLES magic word shows shows the wrong number of articles. The correct number is less than the shown number by one which is the Main Page, so, I suggest that developers or anyone with enough programming experience establish a new magic word that can show the number of articles minus one or may be reprogram the current magic word. I am not sure whether this is possible or not from the technical point of view but if we can do it then we can leave the Main Page in the Main name space and in the same time the Main Page will display the actual and correct number of articles. In case of rejecting this suggestion, please state the reasons. Thank you. -- Meno25 17:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The article count is not precise anyway. And no, we're not moving the main page. Zocky | picture popups 21:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank for all who participated here. You are right. There is a bigger margin of error any way, so, there is no practical benefit in correcting the Statistics by one. -- Meno25 08:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow. Look what I started. dogman15 03:28, 25 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 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | Archive 94 | Archive 95 |
So what exactly was the decision of the move? Simply south 16:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Brandon Siphoro
Is this true? If not, why is this Chairwoman bullshitting? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Winterus ( talk • contribs) 14:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
“ | Wikimedia spokesperson Sandy Ordonez stepped up with this attempt at backpedaling:
"Ms. Devouard's comment was taken out of context," Ordonez claims, although it's difficult to imagine the context in which "might disappear" could be taken differently. "Wikipedia will not be closing any time soon. Ms. Devouard was simply referring to the ongoing, pressing needs for funds that Wikipedia, like most nonprofit organizations, face. Ms. Devouard was attempting to showcase how, because of our global reach, Wikipedia needs to be much more creative in its fundraising efforts." |
” |
No we are not broke - we just raised over a million dollars. Here is our Chair's wording: "At this point, Wikipedia has the financial ressources to run its servers for about 3 to 4 months. If we do not find additional funding, it is not impossible that Wikipedia might disappear". So, Florence is right but there is no need for panic. Wikipedia is not going away. Her point is simply that we will need another fundraiser somethime in that time period. True, if we didn't, the site may go down, but why the hell wouldn't we? -- mav 15:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Did you know that there's no line above "edit this page"? I think there's something wrong with Monobook.css, not sure how long it's been like this. Merosonox 13:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there any boiler plate template for the Main Page layout?Because right now it looks like a penis. It appears the source code here is not clean and needs to be looked at by a doctor immidiatly.(compared to the Italian version of Wiki). I'd like to see the well commented clean code of the Italian Wiki, with the layout, of the English. Anyone know where that file is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roseba ( talk • contribs) 15:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
As of 11th of February, there are over 100 000 articles in Finnish wikipedia. -- Edvard Majakari 17:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The best FA. Ever. (I'm not sarcastic.) -- Howard the Duck 07:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The summary is taken from a bad version. I would recommend this version. Thanks. TimVickers 02:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Why do some of the Wikipedias have rounded corners on the tabs like Main Page and Discussion? 71.0.240.5 05:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Vhell? Vhat is the story here? 71.0.240.5 05:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, that's cool, but why only on some Wikipedias? 71.0.240.5 05:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Hoping zealous overseers do not delete: How can we have a featured article blurb that does not spell out what the abbreviation stands for? --Nélson Ricardo 19:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The "Make way for ducklings" front page article has appeared for the past three days - and when I signed in I got a different page.
I presume this is a minor glitch. Jackiespeel 17:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I have seen it as well and find it absolutely uncalled for.
Nope. Still there. Hearing about it from friends also. Fixable?
I was using different machines - and have a different text now. Jackiespeel 14:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright; is it really notable that the Dixie Chicks won 5 Grammys? Unless it was some sort of record, and if it is, mention it. Dooms Day349 00:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
How about instead we just mention that The Grammys took place? That has to be at least as newsworthy as a Swedish skier capturing 5 records. Music is generally more universally well-regarded than football, and we mentioned the Super Bowl. 70.113.212.222 03:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
This story may say otherwise. Xiner ( talk, email) 18:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I would really appreciate an RSS feed for the Wikipedia News (and also for some articles of interest). I guess I am not the only one?!. Is there some project ongoing for adding this functionality? -- 83.248.209.168 12:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll probably get in trouble for posting this on the wrong spot, but it is sort of related to the main page.
Whenever I try to download the high-resolution version of the Featured Picture, it downloads about the top inch of the image, and then quits. Thereafter, it will only download said inch, no matter how many times I try to download, or clear my cache, or cookies, or whatever... What gives?
'
Wii
Willie
Wiki→
(Talk)
(Contrib)
14:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The long name is causing a big gap at 800x600. Xiner ( talk, email) 20:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I just looked at the main page in 800x600, and while I'll grant I'm not accustomed to how the page normally looks under that setting, it looked fine to me, at least now that it was under the image.-- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 01:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The current "in the news" image, Image:HamiltonStorm07-MP-crop.jpg, is a bit dark, although it's very helpful, at a larger resolution. As a thumb, it's hard to tell what's going on. Could it either be lightened up in GIMP or photoshop (although I can't see how that could be done without looking odd), or merely replaced? I've compiled a list of images at Talk:February 2007 North America winter storm#Loads of images. Images number 9, 10, and 14 look good. Images 12 and 4 were previously used, and image 11 is being used now. I took image number 7, but it's really not that exciting :) And all images shouldn't go in the article, by the way; a gallery may be needed at the bottom. Well, about the main page image, any suggestions? Making a mountain out of a molehill, I know, but the Main Page isn't a molehill. Gracenotes T § 03:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I am having a problem with editing wikipedia articles. In the last 6 hours, every time I edit a wikipedia article, it doesn't show up in the history tab, and I am just wondering what is going on. Is there like a maintenance issue, or it is a new policy to approve articles, I want to know.-- jsalims80 01:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Ctrl+R
or Ctrl+F5
will usually do the trick.
Gracenotes
T §
04:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the most commonly incorrectly spelled words (all throughout Wikipedia) are those like "nationalization". People keep spelling these kinds of words with an " S" instead of a " Z", and it drives me nuts. Just for the record, it's nationalization, not nationalisation. - dogman15 01:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Why do we keep presenting the -ise/-ize spelling differences as British English vs American English? That is a gross oversimplification of the matter. I'd have thought at least a mention of the French/Greek origins of the spelling would be an improvement. Even better would be to point people to how this is covered in Wikipedia at American and British English spelling differences#-ise / -ize. (The rest of that page makes interesting reading as well.) You could also read what the Oxford English Dictionary editors have to say about it: Ask Oxford.com - Are spellings like 'privatize' and 'organize' Americanisms? Their answer, in short? "No, not really." Carcharoth 13:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Zzyzx11 is right to point Dogman15 to that Wikipedia guideline, which explains very well how this sort of concern is handled. As for whether it was Webster or Merriam, did you follow the link I gave? Here it is again: Are spellings like 'privatize' and 'organize' Americanisms?. It was Webster. Carcharoth 01:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thou art all using the wrong language, it is a travesty that you seek to dispel the wonder of English with your tripe-filled slang tounge! I am outraged. 84.71.158.191 12:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Question based on same topic: is it appropriate for teachers (in america) to take of points on a term paper bacause you used british spelling? Eddisford 18:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the things mentioned before. I am so annoyed that I never ever see anything about minorities on the main page. For Black History Month you've had nothing. What's with that??
OK whatever, let's be real. If we did the research you would clearly see a trend. Be real about this.
just a minor nitpick, but Saskatchewan, Canada also has Family Day, whichtuytuiyti is mentioned in the linked article, but is not mentioned in the "on this day" section. 142.165.47.149 20:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
on 2007-02-19 21:59
All five DYKs today are about the US or US-related subjects. Are you seriously telling me that there were no other DYKs available on non-American topics? I refer those who select DYKs to the rules and regulations, specifically the bit about avoiding choosing too many examples that relate to the same topic or geopgraphic area. This is by no means the first time this has happened. When previous charges of US-centrism have been raised, many editors (mainly American) have scoffed. I suggest they stop to think for a minute: Wikipedia is supposed to be international. The US-centrism will alienate many readers. 82.32.238.139 13:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Meh. Its a fluke, it'll happen from time to time. Instead of complaining, how about writing articles on some other topics and then proposing them as DYKs?-- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 16:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I just realized that the newly implemented cascading protection of the Main Page is the cause of the problems we've been having with the Jmax-bot FA and FFA counts. The workaround solution we had devised to avoid the circus of trying to get admin privileges - putting the count in a js user subpage - no longer works. I have reverted to the pre-automated count format. The bot should function normally again, though we've lost the updated number. - Banyan Tree 15:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Now that the move of this page to Portal:Main Page (which is the correct name space in my opinion) has been rejected, we have a problem. The NUMBEROFARTICLES magic word shows shows the wrong number of articles. The correct number is less than the shown number by one which is the Main Page, so, I suggest that developers or anyone with enough programming experience establish a new magic word that can show the number of articles minus one or may be reprogram the current magic word. I am not sure whether this is possible or not from the technical point of view but if we can do it then we can leave the Main Page in the Main name space and in the same time the Main Page will display the actual and correct number of articles. In case of rejecting this suggestion, please state the reasons. Thank you. -- Meno25 17:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The article count is not precise anyway. And no, we're not moving the main page. Zocky | picture popups 21:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank for all who participated here. You are right. There is a bigger margin of error any way, so, there is no practical benefit in correcting the Statistics by one. -- Meno25 08:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow. Look what I started. dogman15 03:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)