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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
I suggest upload images and MIDI files to Wikimedia Commons and use them in the Wikipedia Main Page during Christmas. To midi would be added a link to heard it in Commons.
Yes, like a cute Wikisanta to replace the top left logo, I for one would like to start out the inevitable contest with this attempt ;) -- [[User:Solitude|
Solitude\
talk]] 09:32, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
PS. No MIDI, *yugh*!
Midi files are not currently possible anyways, see:
Wikipedia talk:Sound.
Hyacinth
I agree that we should make an effort to decorate the Main Page for christmas. Before the usual hacks start up with the "but we're a multicultural ... blah blah ... favouring one over another ... blah blah..." (I've heard it before, numerous times), may I point out a few things:
As a result, I do not see the problem with having some generic form of decoration on the Main Page, so long as it's not a nativity scene or anything like that. How about tangled lights? - Mark 09:31, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It would be harmless, but it would annoy me. I'm a Jewish atheist and I rather resent the Christmas references that come out every year around this time in supposedly neutral places, like government buildings and public school. Don't make Wikipedia like them, I beg you! Andre ( talk) 22:58, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and as for Google, they decorate for lots of other things, like Thanksgiving, Independence Day (U.S.), Canada Day, the Chinese New Year, etc. Andre ( talk) 23:00, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
If Christmas involves you, you already know about it, we don't need to change wikipedias logo: its fine as it is.
Sticking a santa hat on top of the Wickipedia logo is absurd. This is a Coca Cola trademark, and we're having some sort of debate about POV? We're not Google. Make your personal pages 'festive.' Leave commercialized solstice festivals out of the main page. MARK: this cultural icon is not at all welcoming, it's POV; yourself and the other 'fesitve-izers' don't have a leg to stand on. Your claims that most English speakers are Christian is irrelevant: the entire concept of neutrality precludes arguments about majority viewpoints. The country with the most English speakers is China, so what's the Chinese Wickipedia doing? Let's make this encyclopedia more festive and welcoming? Nonsense. Let's make it more comprehensive: work on a stub, instead of festive-izing. rmbh 20:58, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
Mac's reasoning is typical of a North American POV asserting OVER and OVER AGAIN what a North American finds the world SHOULD do to make the world more comfortable for the North American. No matter how much other people (non North Americans) argue about diverse (non North American) sensitive POVs, Mac seems to not understand. It's not because Mac doesn't want to or is unable to understand, it's because Mac simply feels Wikipedia should reflect his personal perception of time appropriate to his cultural views, i.e. Christmas settings, mood, holiday, etc. perpetuated by a predominantly Christian advertising vehicle - given that it has not religion as its focus but a religious connotation that like it or not comes with the brand, e.g. the word Christmas is derived from Christ not from Holiday or Festivites -.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to have a website you frequently visit reflect your POV or holiday spirit, etc. The question is not whether Mac's view is correctly reflected by a website, but moreover whether a 'branding' change to the website's public relational image is fairly, adequately, and indiscriminatorily (NPOV) representative and supportive of Wikipedia's policy. If Wikipedia wants to maintain an NPOV, one can glean from the heated conversation around the above topic, that such a position would be very hard to defend should a Christmas theme be implemented, as well as any other culture specific theme (lunar year, Chinese dragons, Jewish menorah's, Islamic symbols, or any other for that matter). Ehsanjoon 01:08, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why don't we just scrap all the holiday stuff and just decorate with winter decorations? This way we could remain POV yet still not seem dull. Dean-O 8:45, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why on earth would Svyatoy kolodets ("the holy fountain") redirect to this page :O ? dab 10:49, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In the top-right of the main page, there is a link named "Text only" which opens a table-free version of the page. The problem is, the table-free versio is NOT text-only -- it still includes images, for instance. The link should be renamed to "Table-free version" or something similar. MCBastos 18:33, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I suggest help with the Christmas 2004 special and include special material in Wikipedia Mainpages. See Wikipedia:Christmas 2004.
On the ninth line ("other languages"), </i> should be </li>. Kdau 00:11, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)
Shouldn't 2001 be 2001? -- Elijah 06:27, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)
From time to time, someone removes many of the not very necessary links in the intro text; later, they creep back in in a form of link bloat. Trying to say as much as possible in a few sentences makes linking to everything tempting, but we should think about that some of the links are really important, like the links telling people about us and our history, about our specialities (editing and licensing) etc. We shouldn't have too much of other links, like 2001 which doesn't provide anything remotely interesting in comparison, to obscure the important ones. ✏ Sverdrup 16:20, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The current main page feature article (Mozilla Firefox) is POV. And tacky, Even though I like open source software, something dissing IE shouldn't be the feature article. We have more 'encyclopedic' material. rmbh 09:20, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
I've never seen Tehran spelled any other way, so please excuse my ignorance if it is spelled correctly. Tim 20:53, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The few words of the featured article section on the main page states: "Mozilla Firefox is a free web browser". Although I am a long-term fan of Firefox (from before Phoenix 0.1), I think this should be changed to reflect that most people believe that Firefox (at least in the form available at [1]) is non-free, and it should be noted that the Mozilla Foundation refuse to state, as Wikipedia has, that it is free.
You should at concede that this statement is very POV & should at least be changed to state that its freedom (or lack thereof) is in dispute. (In fact I'm just replying to an email from RMS on Firefox's lack of freedom.) I meant to comment on this in talk: Mozilla Firefox a couple of weeks ago. I will do so now.
Really, I think this is just extra clutter and worst of all, it's in the most noticeble part of Wikipedia. How many people will seriously have such a subpar browser (like Links)? 1%? What's that. No? 0.5%? What, even lower? 0.2% of viewers? Not even that,!!?? Hmmm... Maybe we are alienating most people while trying to please everybody. Sure you do not have to use it, but the more things you see that you do not use, (or have to use) the more intimidating, and unusable the site will become/ Exigentsky
Too many sections are not up to date enough, and documentation is lacking.
Even Wikipedia:Editing_the_main_page is outdated and has not been changed to fit the new design. Exigentsky
Why does the Navigation box have a link to "Current events', this is easily acessible through the Main page and anyone interested can add this to their bookmarks themselves. This is only extra clutter. Remember the clutter of the old design? I hope it's not heading that way. Exigentsky 04:11, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
There should be an ArbCom election banner either on the main page or on the Community Portal page. -- Ce garcon 04:27, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The print version of the main page includes {{newpagelinksmain}}:
The links are expanded to ugly, useless pieces of text on paper. Also, the new CSS version is completely messed up in printing, on both Firefox and Win2000 IE6. JRM 12:17, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
{{spoiler}}
Are spoilers acceptable on the main page? I want to post something about
Ken Jennings (on
Jeopardy) loosing after 75 episodes, around 8 PM tonight. It would be up after the game, as to not be a spoiler for EST viewers, but this would be a spoiler for the rest of the continent. And, even if it was posted once Hawaii saw it, then it would still be a spoiler for some international countries that don't air the show immediately.
But then, it's not really a spoiler, as anyone who watches Ken and surfs the net or reads a newspaper already knows about his loss. There's 598 newspapers who've printed an article on the topic.
So, what do I do? -- user:zanimum
Ken Jennings finally lost on Jeopardy, as I understand it one of the Daily doubles he got wrong was "What is Bastogne?". This morning, the Battle of the Bulge is the Featured article?
Coincidence?
I moved this query to the reference desk. JRM 09:39, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)
Since the allegations that George Galloway was in the pay of Saddam Hussein made it onto our main page last year, it seems only fair that we should report with equal weight the fact that a court has found that the allegations were libellous. Please could an administrator copy the relevant news item from current events onto the main page. Thank you. GrahamN 2 Dec '04 (not logged in because I've forgotten my password)
I've no idea what you mean by "ITN". You are quite right that the original story did not merit inclusion on our main page. That is exactly why it is important to give equal prominence to the correction. GrahamN 2 Dec '04
You can be sure if the verdict had gone the other way there would be none of this talk about it being a local UK issue! I've just discovered that you no longer have to be an administrator to amend the "in the news" section, so I am adding this story in place of the one about the death of the Dutch aristocrat, which was intersting, but relatively obscure for international readers. I hope this is not a breach of any new policy that I'm not aware of. Thanks. User:GrahamN 3 Dec '04
I noticed on a cross reference that there was no entry for Gump Worsley so I did one. Now it is apparent that there are two - see Canadian hockey players then search Gump Worsley.
There should not be two. (Above entered 01:09, 3 Dec 2004 UST by 205.206.187.4]])
"asking Congress curb" should be "asking Congress to curb"
On 13 Nov I proposed the following changes ("the world's largest encyclopedia" and "growing")to the main page :
Compared with the present version:
It seems like many people are initially skeptical about the idea of an encyclopedia editable by anyone. I think these proposed changes introduce readers to why Wikipedia is important, not just another unofficial internet information repository. They also strongly define Wikipedia as a progressive phenomenon, which I think is very psychologically powerful: 'good now, and getting better.'
It looks to me like these additions will not push the introductory paragraph past the 3 lines it currently occupies on the main page.
The " largest encyclopedia" page I created for this proposal tries to give a concise summary of the limitations of comparing article count or word count with traditional encyclopedias (quality and authority).
Read the largest encyclopedia page. I think it's time Wikipedia acknowledged this achievement. -- Nectarflowed 10:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hello, today i created a new template for all sister projects for german wikipedia, commons and wikinews. Perhaps you can have a look and transfer it to this main page if you want :-) See: template for commons, all the textless images are stored there. -- Bdk 08:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It appears that the front page article has appeared over and over within itself, either very clever or a very big error.
Just two question, how can I make my own skin for wikipedia? Is there in planning a new skin in general? Thanks -- ThomasK 17:33, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
I know this already, but there is under Preferences "My Skin". So how I can I make it and is there a new skin available soon? --
ThomasK 18:48, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
I would like it if you guys posted a link to Memory Alpha on the main page. I would like if you did it soon, but if you don't want to, please give me a good reason in one response. Try to respond to me very soon.- B-101 23:49, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Does this mean that Memory Alpha is willing to merge its content? I've proposed before, and we haven't got to far. -- user:zanimum
Can today's featured article actually mention where Zion National Park *is*? I'd never heard of it before, and I assumed it was in Israel.
December 6 anniveraries, search and replace "leadin to" with "leading to". -- MarkSweep 02:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Also, replace "beliving" with "believing" -- Calton 04:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Can we have a link in the News section of Main Page to Wikinews, [2] Seabhcán 16:05, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There it is already. -- ThomasK 16:53, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
i would like to know what other people thought on the subject of the nazi scientist and how their efforts effected the medical medicines we use today. also i would like to know what people thought about the subject that since the nazi scientist were the first to find hiv/aids by experimenting on people if they (nazi scientist) started to find cure then would we be at point now with a cure?
The summary should say "palladian" not "palladianism". The article itself is correct. 68.81.231.127 01:09, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The last sentence of the "Today's featured article" section ( Palladian architecture) is incomplete: "To explain fully the term Palladian as used outside of Italy one must first understand true Palladian as designed by the master architect" Also, this sentence doesn't make any sense on its own; it seems to lead into another thought which isn't present. Would someone please delete this last sentence? I'd delete it myself, but the page is locked from editing. - Brian Kendig 12:44, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page there are the two language names
Norsk (Norwegian) Nynorsk
This is inaccurate and confusing. There are two official languages in Norway, in our languages called "Bokmål" and "Nynorsk". So the first one "Norsk (Norwegian)" is really "Bokmål". I guess that there was no "Nynorsk" articles when the first Norwegian entered articles, so he just called his Bokmål "Norwegian". This is somewhat correct, but inaccurate. Somewhat - but not quite - similar to using a language name "Canadian" for either English or French.
Sometimes there are objective facts, that should not be subject to a majority "vote" in a small group. The democratically chosen Norwegian Parliament HAS decided the names in a vote in 1929. And they are the ones who have a right to decide the names of the language(s) in Norway - whatever the WikiPedia community thinks. The two official languages in Norway ARE called "Nynorsk" and "Bokmål", whatever the Wikipedia community decides. Wikipedia should not primarily be a forum for political activism, but a forum for collecting and presenting facts as objectively as possible.
So the names should be changed to
Bokmål (Norwegian) Nynorsk (Norwegian)
Or one could even use the correct technical English names used in English linguistic litterature - this might be more understandable for foreignors. The names in English are:
Bokmål (Dano-Norwegian) Nynorsk (New Norwegian)
Note that many Bokmål-users don't like the term Dano-Norwegian very much, it seems as if they want to "forget" that its origin is foreign (Danish). But Dano-Norwegian is the common term used in English texts, like encyclopedias, etc. "Dano-Norwegian" actually nearly became the official language name in the same parliament vote in 1929. But it was defeated by one - 1 - vote, and therfore the name is now Bokmål. Please correct the entry.
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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
I suggest upload images and MIDI files to Wikimedia Commons and use them in the Wikipedia Main Page during Christmas. To midi would be added a link to heard it in Commons.
Yes, like a cute Wikisanta to replace the top left logo, I for one would like to start out the inevitable contest with this attempt ;) -- [[User:Solitude|
Solitude\
talk]] 09:32, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
PS. No MIDI, *yugh*!
Midi files are not currently possible anyways, see:
Wikipedia talk:Sound.
Hyacinth
I agree that we should make an effort to decorate the Main Page for christmas. Before the usual hacks start up with the "but we're a multicultural ... blah blah ... favouring one over another ... blah blah..." (I've heard it before, numerous times), may I point out a few things:
As a result, I do not see the problem with having some generic form of decoration on the Main Page, so long as it's not a nativity scene or anything like that. How about tangled lights? - Mark 09:31, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It would be harmless, but it would annoy me. I'm a Jewish atheist and I rather resent the Christmas references that come out every year around this time in supposedly neutral places, like government buildings and public school. Don't make Wikipedia like them, I beg you! Andre ( talk) 22:58, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and as for Google, they decorate for lots of other things, like Thanksgiving, Independence Day (U.S.), Canada Day, the Chinese New Year, etc. Andre ( talk) 23:00, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
If Christmas involves you, you already know about it, we don't need to change wikipedias logo: its fine as it is.
Sticking a santa hat on top of the Wickipedia logo is absurd. This is a Coca Cola trademark, and we're having some sort of debate about POV? We're not Google. Make your personal pages 'festive.' Leave commercialized solstice festivals out of the main page. MARK: this cultural icon is not at all welcoming, it's POV; yourself and the other 'fesitve-izers' don't have a leg to stand on. Your claims that most English speakers are Christian is irrelevant: the entire concept of neutrality precludes arguments about majority viewpoints. The country with the most English speakers is China, so what's the Chinese Wickipedia doing? Let's make this encyclopedia more festive and welcoming? Nonsense. Let's make it more comprehensive: work on a stub, instead of festive-izing. rmbh 20:58, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
Mac's reasoning is typical of a North American POV asserting OVER and OVER AGAIN what a North American finds the world SHOULD do to make the world more comfortable for the North American. No matter how much other people (non North Americans) argue about diverse (non North American) sensitive POVs, Mac seems to not understand. It's not because Mac doesn't want to or is unable to understand, it's because Mac simply feels Wikipedia should reflect his personal perception of time appropriate to his cultural views, i.e. Christmas settings, mood, holiday, etc. perpetuated by a predominantly Christian advertising vehicle - given that it has not religion as its focus but a religious connotation that like it or not comes with the brand, e.g. the word Christmas is derived from Christ not from Holiday or Festivites -.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to have a website you frequently visit reflect your POV or holiday spirit, etc. The question is not whether Mac's view is correctly reflected by a website, but moreover whether a 'branding' change to the website's public relational image is fairly, adequately, and indiscriminatorily (NPOV) representative and supportive of Wikipedia's policy. If Wikipedia wants to maintain an NPOV, one can glean from the heated conversation around the above topic, that such a position would be very hard to defend should a Christmas theme be implemented, as well as any other culture specific theme (lunar year, Chinese dragons, Jewish menorah's, Islamic symbols, or any other for that matter). Ehsanjoon 01:08, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why don't we just scrap all the holiday stuff and just decorate with winter decorations? This way we could remain POV yet still not seem dull. Dean-O 8:45, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why on earth would Svyatoy kolodets ("the holy fountain") redirect to this page :O ? dab 10:49, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In the top-right of the main page, there is a link named "Text only" which opens a table-free version of the page. The problem is, the table-free versio is NOT text-only -- it still includes images, for instance. The link should be renamed to "Table-free version" or something similar. MCBastos 18:33, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I suggest help with the Christmas 2004 special and include special material in Wikipedia Mainpages. See Wikipedia:Christmas 2004.
On the ninth line ("other languages"), </i> should be </li>. Kdau 00:11, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)
Shouldn't 2001 be 2001? -- Elijah 06:27, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)
From time to time, someone removes many of the not very necessary links in the intro text; later, they creep back in in a form of link bloat. Trying to say as much as possible in a few sentences makes linking to everything tempting, but we should think about that some of the links are really important, like the links telling people about us and our history, about our specialities (editing and licensing) etc. We shouldn't have too much of other links, like 2001 which doesn't provide anything remotely interesting in comparison, to obscure the important ones. ✏ Sverdrup 16:20, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The current main page feature article (Mozilla Firefox) is POV. And tacky, Even though I like open source software, something dissing IE shouldn't be the feature article. We have more 'encyclopedic' material. rmbh 09:20, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
I've never seen Tehran spelled any other way, so please excuse my ignorance if it is spelled correctly. Tim 20:53, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The few words of the featured article section on the main page states: "Mozilla Firefox is a free web browser". Although I am a long-term fan of Firefox (from before Phoenix 0.1), I think this should be changed to reflect that most people believe that Firefox (at least in the form available at [1]) is non-free, and it should be noted that the Mozilla Foundation refuse to state, as Wikipedia has, that it is free.
You should at concede that this statement is very POV & should at least be changed to state that its freedom (or lack thereof) is in dispute. (In fact I'm just replying to an email from RMS on Firefox's lack of freedom.) I meant to comment on this in talk: Mozilla Firefox a couple of weeks ago. I will do so now.
Really, I think this is just extra clutter and worst of all, it's in the most noticeble part of Wikipedia. How many people will seriously have such a subpar browser (like Links)? 1%? What's that. No? 0.5%? What, even lower? 0.2% of viewers? Not even that,!!?? Hmmm... Maybe we are alienating most people while trying to please everybody. Sure you do not have to use it, but the more things you see that you do not use, (or have to use) the more intimidating, and unusable the site will become/ Exigentsky
Too many sections are not up to date enough, and documentation is lacking.
Even Wikipedia:Editing_the_main_page is outdated and has not been changed to fit the new design. Exigentsky
Why does the Navigation box have a link to "Current events', this is easily acessible through the Main page and anyone interested can add this to their bookmarks themselves. This is only extra clutter. Remember the clutter of the old design? I hope it's not heading that way. Exigentsky 04:11, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
There should be an ArbCom election banner either on the main page or on the Community Portal page. -- Ce garcon 04:27, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The print version of the main page includes {{newpagelinksmain}}:
The links are expanded to ugly, useless pieces of text on paper. Also, the new CSS version is completely messed up in printing, on both Firefox and Win2000 IE6. JRM 12:17, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
{{spoiler}}
Are spoilers acceptable on the main page? I want to post something about
Ken Jennings (on
Jeopardy) loosing after 75 episodes, around 8 PM tonight. It would be up after the game, as to not be a spoiler for EST viewers, but this would be a spoiler for the rest of the continent. And, even if it was posted once Hawaii saw it, then it would still be a spoiler for some international countries that don't air the show immediately.
But then, it's not really a spoiler, as anyone who watches Ken and surfs the net or reads a newspaper already knows about his loss. There's 598 newspapers who've printed an article on the topic.
So, what do I do? -- user:zanimum
Ken Jennings finally lost on Jeopardy, as I understand it one of the Daily doubles he got wrong was "What is Bastogne?". This morning, the Battle of the Bulge is the Featured article?
Coincidence?
I moved this query to the reference desk. JRM 09:39, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)
Since the allegations that George Galloway was in the pay of Saddam Hussein made it onto our main page last year, it seems only fair that we should report with equal weight the fact that a court has found that the allegations were libellous. Please could an administrator copy the relevant news item from current events onto the main page. Thank you. GrahamN 2 Dec '04 (not logged in because I've forgotten my password)
I've no idea what you mean by "ITN". You are quite right that the original story did not merit inclusion on our main page. That is exactly why it is important to give equal prominence to the correction. GrahamN 2 Dec '04
You can be sure if the verdict had gone the other way there would be none of this talk about it being a local UK issue! I've just discovered that you no longer have to be an administrator to amend the "in the news" section, so I am adding this story in place of the one about the death of the Dutch aristocrat, which was intersting, but relatively obscure for international readers. I hope this is not a breach of any new policy that I'm not aware of. Thanks. User:GrahamN 3 Dec '04
I noticed on a cross reference that there was no entry for Gump Worsley so I did one. Now it is apparent that there are two - see Canadian hockey players then search Gump Worsley.
There should not be two. (Above entered 01:09, 3 Dec 2004 UST by 205.206.187.4]])
"asking Congress curb" should be "asking Congress to curb"
On 13 Nov I proposed the following changes ("the world's largest encyclopedia" and "growing")to the main page :
Compared with the present version:
It seems like many people are initially skeptical about the idea of an encyclopedia editable by anyone. I think these proposed changes introduce readers to why Wikipedia is important, not just another unofficial internet information repository. They also strongly define Wikipedia as a progressive phenomenon, which I think is very psychologically powerful: 'good now, and getting better.'
It looks to me like these additions will not push the introductory paragraph past the 3 lines it currently occupies on the main page.
The " largest encyclopedia" page I created for this proposal tries to give a concise summary of the limitations of comparing article count or word count with traditional encyclopedias (quality and authority).
Read the largest encyclopedia page. I think it's time Wikipedia acknowledged this achievement. -- Nectarflowed 10:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hello, today i created a new template for all sister projects for german wikipedia, commons and wikinews. Perhaps you can have a look and transfer it to this main page if you want :-) See: template for commons, all the textless images are stored there. -- Bdk 08:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It appears that the front page article has appeared over and over within itself, either very clever or a very big error.
Just two question, how can I make my own skin for wikipedia? Is there in planning a new skin in general? Thanks -- ThomasK 17:33, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
I know this already, but there is under Preferences "My Skin". So how I can I make it and is there a new skin available soon? --
ThomasK 18:48, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
I would like it if you guys posted a link to Memory Alpha on the main page. I would like if you did it soon, but if you don't want to, please give me a good reason in one response. Try to respond to me very soon.- B-101 23:49, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Does this mean that Memory Alpha is willing to merge its content? I've proposed before, and we haven't got to far. -- user:zanimum
Can today's featured article actually mention where Zion National Park *is*? I'd never heard of it before, and I assumed it was in Israel.
December 6 anniveraries, search and replace "leadin to" with "leading to". -- MarkSweep 02:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Also, replace "beliving" with "believing" -- Calton 04:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Can we have a link in the News section of Main Page to Wikinews, [2] Seabhcán 16:05, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There it is already. -- ThomasK 16:53, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
i would like to know what other people thought on the subject of the nazi scientist and how their efforts effected the medical medicines we use today. also i would like to know what people thought about the subject that since the nazi scientist were the first to find hiv/aids by experimenting on people if they (nazi scientist) started to find cure then would we be at point now with a cure?
The summary should say "palladian" not "palladianism". The article itself is correct. 68.81.231.127 01:09, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The last sentence of the "Today's featured article" section ( Palladian architecture) is incomplete: "To explain fully the term Palladian as used outside of Italy one must first understand true Palladian as designed by the master architect" Also, this sentence doesn't make any sense on its own; it seems to lead into another thought which isn't present. Would someone please delete this last sentence? I'd delete it myself, but the page is locked from editing. - Brian Kendig 12:44, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page there are the two language names
Norsk (Norwegian) Nynorsk
This is inaccurate and confusing. There are two official languages in Norway, in our languages called "Bokmål" and "Nynorsk". So the first one "Norsk (Norwegian)" is really "Bokmål". I guess that there was no "Nynorsk" articles when the first Norwegian entered articles, so he just called his Bokmål "Norwegian". This is somewhat correct, but inaccurate. Somewhat - but not quite - similar to using a language name "Canadian" for either English or French.
Sometimes there are objective facts, that should not be subject to a majority "vote" in a small group. The democratically chosen Norwegian Parliament HAS decided the names in a vote in 1929. And they are the ones who have a right to decide the names of the language(s) in Norway - whatever the WikiPedia community thinks. The two official languages in Norway ARE called "Nynorsk" and "Bokmål", whatever the Wikipedia community decides. Wikipedia should not primarily be a forum for political activism, but a forum for collecting and presenting facts as objectively as possible.
So the names should be changed to
Bokmål (Norwegian) Nynorsk (Norwegian)
Or one could even use the correct technical English names used in English linguistic litterature - this might be more understandable for foreignors. The names in English are:
Bokmål (Dano-Norwegian) Nynorsk (New Norwegian)
Note that many Bokmål-users don't like the term Dano-Norwegian very much, it seems as if they want to "forget" that its origin is foreign (Danish). But Dano-Norwegian is the common term used in English texts, like encyclopedias, etc. "Dano-Norwegian" actually nearly became the official language name in the same parliament vote in 1929. But it was defeated by one - 1 - vote, and therfore the name is now Bokmål. Please correct the entry.