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 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | → | Archive 80 |
The article China proper says that this term is controversial or even offensive to many Chinese. I suggest that the wording in ITN be changed to "eastern China" or something like that. -- Cam 01:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
to something of the "Hezbollah attacks Israel, Israel strikes back" sort?? This seems to be more accurate - the current writing seems to indicate that Israel is the propogator of the attacks....
Getting to the subject, Israeli officials say that the Lebanese government is responsible. Hezbollah is a legal "party of God" in Lebanon. It is as ethical as the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda except that it murders in lieu of rape.
I say, "Why hasn't the Lebanese government seized Hasan Nasrallah's bank account. If Nasrallah was so loaded those youths wouldn't have money to march back and forth with ammunition attached to their chests and arms. They on Nasrallah's payroll."-- Patchouli 08:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay people, let's stop right there. Wikipedia isn't the forum for discussing who's to blame in this very messy and prolonged "trouble" (to borrow from the N.Ireland vernacular). The current entry says "Israeli troops launch a military offensive into Lebanon (pictured) in response to the capture of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah." which is the current state of affairs. -- Monotonehell 09:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The current version disregards the firing of hundreds of rockets by Hezbollah towards northern Israel. These rockets have already caused the death of over 10 people, and I think that not mentioning them makes it look like Israel is reacting only to the "minor" incident of kidnapping two soldiers. -- 80.230.85.180 12:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think "civilian and military casualties" would be more appropriate than "military and civilian casualties", considering the apparent ratios between the two categories.
The factual account should include Hezbollah entering Israel to murder 7 and kidnap 2 soldiers.
Is it correct to talk of "civilian and military casualties on both sides"? Surely the military casualties are only on one side?
It's kind of strange that G8 summit is not listed in the current events and is not mentioned on the main page, and 32nd G8 summit page still has "Future events" template on top of it.
Is it really necessary to inflict that horrible smug grin on us? How about replacing the latest Prime Minister with the first Prime Minister, ie Robert Walpole. Walpole is no longer controversial and in the picture in his article he looks statesmanlike. Olborne 18:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
It says here that the two main G8 issues are "energy security" and education... should it be energy, security, and education, as in the summit's article? Or should the other be changed? R OY YO Я 19:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
It most definately should be changed to reflect the wording of the original article. As I would think global security would be the number one issue given current events. But perhaps the only mistake is lack of punctuation, particularly commas, rather than "energy security" and education.
Njjones 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there a Latin-language wikipedia? and if not, why hasn't it been created? wasn't the first encyclopedia written in latin? isn't this an insult to history? I would create it myself, but I can't because the only latin word I know is "vagina" (and I know it well....) Antimatter 22:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, Latin is the mother language of most of Western Civilization. A Wiki that could translate legal phrases, common medical terms, inscriptions off famous statues and buildings, as well as just infamous sayings might be popular enough. As for the idiot who started this thread; "Illegitame non carbarundum - Julius Ceasar { Don't let the bastards grind you down } " Bptdude 06:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
very good.. and here is a nice wiki link that does exist about latin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases Bptdude 09:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow....I probably should have checked before I asked about that....One good thing about wikipedia is that if you make a mistake or say something stupid, someone (or some people) are likely to point out your mistake before you realize it yourself...I don't know any latin, but perhaps I can redeem myself by writing the latin wikipedia article on the vagina...I'll see what I can do... :) Antimatter 21:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, tuum culpa (your bad)....er, if that accusative for "your" is wrong then it's mea culpa (my bad)!-- Phil Wardle 08:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Try this: http://la.wikipedia.org/
Have a look at this edit. A basic and easily checkable fact in the Prime_Minister_of_the_United_Kingdom article (the salary) was not updated. This is the sort of thing that justifiably gives Wikipedia a bad reputation. What is the point of saying that our articles can be more up-to-date than others, when no-one checks to see if they are up-to-date? Can processes be put in place to stop this happening again? Carcharoth 23:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. The above WikiProject doesn't seem very active. Only four other posts on the talk page since the end of April. Though the guideline page is a bit more active. Carcharoth 09:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Using the terminology of "forward hemisphere"fixes to offer as WP doesn't have a "hemisphere" article and the F-35 page itself doesn't even mention the hemisphere jargon. Figma 01:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Should the relegation of Italian soccer teams really be listed above the Israel-Lebanon conflict? 206.223.242.88 03:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't you think it makes sense to do it by what is most significant (like on the Yahoo! front page) as opposed to what order they were added/occurred in the real world? 206.223.242.88 19:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Please change the Constitution Day link on the front to Constitution Day (South Korea). Thanks. Mithridates 07:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
On a somewhat related note, why is 2006 is parenthesis after Marine Day? Its article said it was first celebrated in 1996, so shouldn't that be the year listed, or am I misunderstanding what the year in parenthesis indicates? - Elmer Clark 08:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
CNN is reporting @ ~ 6:37am(GMT -4) that a earthquake spawned Tsunami has hit the Western Shore of the Asian island of Java, in Indonesia. According to that country's President (as quoted by Rueters and AP wires at this point.) At 6:37am they're reporting 6.8 under sea, meanwhile at 6:54 their "eyewitness" Kathy Quiano: is reporting a "7.2 magnatude quake which read 7.1" on the richter scale.
Related Tsunami news: --The North American Tsunami warning system on Tuesday moved a step forward with an agreement signed to place a Tsunami warning systems in parts of the Caribbean region. Seismic warning station for Barbados CaribDigita 11:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
This is LARGELY more important than the Space Shuttle and deserves first mention on the news section. -- Revolución hablar ver 04:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Please add this map to it. It highlights Java. -- Revolución hablar ver 07:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The link for "magnitude 7.7 earthquake" leads to the "Penis" article. Might want to change that.
More than 30 years ago I got this info : Danny Cedrone passed away on July 17, 1954 What do you think of it? Stephan KŒNIG 10:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
"that Pachirisu is a fictitious Electric Squirrel Pokémon that can shock opponents?"
...as opposed to a *real* electric squirrel pokemon? Or what? I think "fictitious" is understood here. 207.59.86.5 14:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I agrees with darth shikari, most people know what a pokemon is however there are a few who don't-- Alec trevalyn 16:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I love how the imagery in the front page, as of this edit, shows the space shuttle right next to a note about an escalating Israeli/Lebanese conflict. Let's all escape! MrZaius talk 21:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Can we please get that image removed? It looks horrible. See Image talk:David Barkley.jpg for details. -- Liface 02:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Why are links underlined (as of today?) in the English version of Wikipedia? Camptown 11:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thats your internet browser, if you are using firefox just refresh your page, thats what i do Childzy ( Talk| Contribs) 11:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
After spending a little over a year here in Wikipedia, I am willing to make the call: there is a bias, but towards nerds (of which I am a mere Class 2 Nerd). From Final Fantasy X to Starcraft to Perfect Dark to Red vs Blue, Wikipedia has become a veritable nerdgasm to nerdologists and connoisseurs of general nerdology worldwide. Huzzah! (or should I say " Ni"?) -- Bobak 14:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
ZOMG ENCELADUS! MORE PLANETCRUFT! Delete NN Raul654 01:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Today, George W. Bush made his first veto against a stem cell research bill. This is his first veto in his 6 years of being President. Is this Main Page worthy?-- C hi l i 1 4 18:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it will be nice, if the InterWiki link to Englisc/Anglosaxon Wikipeda is added. I think it made ang.wiki more popular, and - maybe - encourage people to learn the history of their/foreign language. Michał P. 19:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
DYK looked better without the bullets a few months ago. Why use them along with an ellipsis starting each line ? Ugly and superfluous. -- 64.229.179.114 06:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Why aren't featured lists ever on the Main Page? They all have introductory text, and are often as interesting as the featured articles. Is this the proper forum for discussing this? Has it been discussed before? Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 08:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
In buisness school, the very first lesson they teach on the very first day is this - if you have a successful product, DON'T MESS WITH IT. This was considered so basic, so obvious, they didn't even teach it for many years. (They started teaching it after New Coke). The featured article is the most popular thing on the main page after the search box (the developers did measurements to this effect last year). This suggestion is bad beyond words. Lists do not make good content to link to - a list is not something that will attract someone's attention, and putting it there at the deteriment of something that is already popular is a non-starter. Raul654 05:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, it could work by simply replacing the featured picture with a featured list once or twice a week. — Nightst a llion (?) 07:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Minor point, but it seems a bit over the top to have two space exploration items right next to each other. How about replacing the 1976 one with:
Cheers — SteveRwanda 11:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep the two space-related events and add the 1982 event. Today's OTD is too short. -- Howard t he Du c k 12:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The Hyde Park and Regents Park bombings article seems dry and unimpressive. I'd have a hard time justifying the displacement of any of the current selections for that unless it's a 'round number anniversary'. Good articles will always get priority. -- PFHLai 10:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I realize Wikipedia is the world's encyclopedia, but there is a decided lack of American news ever showing up in the "In the News" section. At first I assumed it was just the coincidental result of a few visits to the front page, but too often I see what I might consider "irrelevant" or at least less vital world news (such as the Italian soccer teams being relegated out of Serie A) while often important American events (particularly political and business ones) go unmentioned. Again, this is not an outright condemnation, but I was wondering if this was a deliberate attempt to be more intercontinental, if there was a conscious attempt to place non-American news items over American news items, or if this was simply circumstantial. I guess my major complaint is that America is obviously part of the world, too, and while we shouldn't necessarily be held up above other nations in terms of newsworthinses, neither should we be deliberately neglected. 168.39.166.127 13:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
It is world news, and american news is very common here, as there 1 192 some countries in the world... and america get more than 1/192 of the news slots. Dan 17:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
As the original poster, I just want to say that first, I do not think Marshall Faulk's retirement deserves a news notice any more than I think Italian football scandals do. Secondly, I think that first presidential veto by George W. Bush, on no less a grand subject than stem cell research, deserves a news notice, and is at least as worthy as a possible house owned by Augustus. And thirdly, I went out of my way to say that I was not gaming to have every American business story posted on the front page, and yet I was accused exactly of that. This is what I am saying:
If a sports scandal in Italy is worthy of the front page, then a sports scandal involving the greatest hitter in baseball history is worthy of the front page. If not, then both are not. But it appears to me (and I will began collecting evidence on) that when these two stories are presented to the In The News as options, the Italian one is selected more frequently than the American one. And that is what I find unacceptable. 168.39.166.127 20:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Just face it. Wikipedia hates America and supports Terrorism. Preston 00:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Surely there needs to be a "beware of trolling" notice added to this page? Carcharoth 13:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm here to tell you that the Norman Wikipedia reached 1000! HOW RAD!
cool! [ wossi] 21:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
This is yet another example of Wikipedia's blatant bias toward the past. The entire main page is flooded with crap from the past, and this is one of the worst examples--who cares what happened back when the world was only a few thousand years old?! Delete NN empirecruft. — BRIAN 0918 • 2006-07-20 23:53
I totally agree, Wikipedia's bias against the present shows at every corner. I mean, we're a present project, based in the present, created by people who live in the present. I mean, look at the "on this day section" EVERY ENTRY TODAY IS ABOUT THE PAST!!! tell me that's not past cruft. As a present-er, I am appauled at the systematic bias against the present and future brought here by the members of this project! We're all citizens of the present here! We should focus more on it and the future. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 01:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I bet you can't write something so quick that it's still the present; the past is so much larger, and getting longer and longer...In other words many more important things have happened in the past that there are currently happening. You can say that the main page is biased on History though; and neglecting other sciences, such as Chemistry, Biology, und so weiter.-- Cloviz 01:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
This entire qualm is based in trying to marginalize an entire discipline. Moreover, it's a specific attempt at marginalizing information about one of the most important people to Western civilization. The absurdity of doing so is beyond measure or count; I'm lead to wonder if this is an attempted troll. Really. What the hell? -Jack Cosmo
We haven't even gotten to Wikipedia's bias against the future! There are even policies preventing users from writing about the future, and people freely use pejoratives like "crystal ball" to label anything that doesn't agree with their temporal mentality... — BRIAN 0918 • 2006-07-21 01:42
While interesting, I doubt an article about something archeologists believe to have discovered should get top billing in the “In The News” section; especially considering the fact that Earth already has more important issues to deal with such as a certain conflict in Lebanon and an earthquake that had killed over five-hundred, not to mention a lot of other issues that rank higher than an ancient house. -- AEdwards 3:35, 20 July 2006 UTC)
I would prefer it very much if, on arriving on the Wiki site, the cursor is already in the search field. That way, I could start typing immediately, without first cliking into it with my mouse. I know it is just a small thing, but it is been bugging me for quite some time now... :-) If possible, I would even like to have something like this implemented on all pages. Let me know what you think.
Thanks for that link. I think it is a non-argument though: most people (read: all that I know of) use the scroll-wheel on their mouse, rather than the arrows on the keyboard...
"1954 - First Indochina War: The 17th parallel was established at the Geneva Conference, partitioning Vietnam into North Vietnam led by Ho Chi Minh and South Vietnam under Emperor Bảo Đại."
Hadn't the 17th parallel existed for a long time before this? — CJewell (talk to me) 11:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC) (Copied to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors) -- Monotonehell 12:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Great. A featured picture of the day without the actual picture.
Yes, you can click on it to see it. But why can't it be on the actual page? We've had panoramas there before. Daniel Case 14:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Unless my eyes are playing tricks on me, the picture in the "Did you know..." section is a rhinoceros woodcut, not a bidding box.
Hey, I was wondering if there was any way for featured pictures that are wider than they are long (that are displayed over the text, just like Wikipedia:Picture of the day/July 12, 2006) to be displayed with a width as large as each individual user's screen will allow? This would look really cool on the main page, and a lot of featured pictures only start looking good when they start getting big. - Jack (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, what a coincidence. Made me smile :) Will ( Take me down to the Paradise City) 00:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
{{spoilers}}
at the top of the main pg, it says we currently have 1,268,835 articles. however, clicking on the link to the stats pg tells us that we have 1,268,861 articles. this statistic is probably changing as i type. pls fix this contradiction. thank you. 202.156.6.54 05:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
hi, any comment on the new it.wiki Main Page? -- 81.211.179.224 10:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Image:DSCN0745.JPG ;) -- Monotonehell 21:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC) [I changed this from transclusion to a link to eliminate formatting issues. — David Levy 00:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)]
Would anyone else like to see us adopt some form of the new Italian Wikipedia layout (except for the icons-halfway-under effect)? (here's a babelfish translation to better understand the layout) Of course, it will never happen, but one can always dream... — BRIAN 0918 • 2006-07-22 17:12
How about this:
but also include:
That covers the 100,000+ Wikipedias, as well as all the languages with 100 million+ speakers. All the rest would be listed on the complete list of Wikipedias. — BRIAN 0918 • 2006-07-22 23:23
(deindenting) I'd agree with that list, but would consider adding the Simple English Wikipedia, given its connection to the English-language Wikipedia. GeeJo (t)⁄ (c) • 02:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering if it might be good to put the link to the wikipidias in a slightly bigger font than the link to the en article about the language. Aside from making it clearer what links to the other wikipedias, it also could fill up the white space in the second line that looks pretty awkward in many resolutions. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I offer the following arguments against the short list of languages:
I'm very happy with the new section - it's much closer to what the main page when we originally switched to this layout; the language list was never meant to grow by a factor of 5 - it just happened to so slowly as to avoid complaint - this doesn't mean it was a good thing. Raul654 06:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh finally the evil has been curbed! Much, much better. violet/riga (t) 07:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
It was very hard to find a particular Wikipedia in that old list anyway - far too many sections. The disadvantage of this new style is that it is highlighting what are currently some of Wikimedia's duffest projects (the Punjabi Wikipedia currently has a "Nobody has really started on this section" notice - in English - on the front page and not even 50 articles!) and it is hiding some of the best other-language Wikipedias. What the language list fails to take into account is that readership of Wikipedia varies widely from country to country - there are some stats on this somewhere, and I particularly remember that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have extremely low readership. This is presumably one of the reasons the Punjabi Wikipedia is currently so dire. While I like the idea that highlighting the Punjabi edition helps counter systemic bias, it's very unlikely to actually draw in new editors. English Wikipedia probably does get more traffic from Hebrew-speakers than Punjabi-speakers, despite the gap in numbers of speakers. On the other hand, we obviously can't use readership-by-language stats directly to pick the selected Wikipedias. May I please make a strong suggestion that would substantially address this? Setting the cut-off at 50,000 articles would substantially address the problem by including more of the other major Wikipedias. (In fact 30 or 40,000 might be a better choice, but that number seems a little too arbitrary). I suspect there is a strong correlation between usage of en: Wikipedia by a particular language group and the size of that language's Wikipedia (Punjabi certainly bears that out) so this would also mean that the displayed Wikipedias were more representative of - and useful for - our front page readership. Here's how it would look:
This is the English language Wikipedia. Started in 2001, it currently contains 6,818,745 articles. Wikipedias are also being written in many other languages:
Complete list · Multilingual coordination · Start a Wikipedia in another language
The 100,000 articles line in the sand is pretty arbitrary, I think switching to 50,000:
It might be an idea to sort the first section other than by language code. I would like to emphasise that my suggestion does not entail continual bloat of the number of WPs shown - if a bloat is approaching, whack the line in the sand up. The 50,000 or 100,000 (or 250,000...) is basically arbitrary. Let's just pick it so that it highlights a decent but easily navigable number of our best projects. The current number highlighted is too low, the previous number too high.
Another thing that really irked me about the current rewrite is the "More than 100 million speakers" when it actually means "Other languages with more than 100 million speakers". In fact, I'm not sure that even that is quite right (maybe it implies that Polish in the top row does have 100 million speakers) but it is definitely closer to the key idea: we don't repeat English and Spanish, which clearly do have 100 million speakers, on the bottom row too. Could somebody either change that or suggest a better alternative? TheGrappler 15:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The new model on the Wikipedia language edition directory is meant not to exceed half the page or any longer. I'm sure the most spoken languages and those with 50,000+ articles demonstrates how more used the languages are. Wikipedia editions in small or dormant languages (under 1,000 articles or under 10,000 speakers) appearedly are novel niches.
There are language revival organizations represent tribal or regional languages threatened with extinction, wanted to promote and celebrate linguistic diversity. They use Wikipedia to create their language editions and select a limited number of articles in their language.
If you feel this is necessital and informative, go ahead and use it as an educational tool in any language you choose. I believe the freedom of expressing your knowledge in any language is an essential part of Wikipedia as an international academic source.
My earlier suggestion for a Cherokee language edition is still disputed and I had one response that most Cherokee in the U.S. don't always use the language, even in a period of revival by tribal members with access to that peculiar language.
The Latin, Esperanto, Volapuk and simple english editions are self-explanatory, because some academic circles are fluent in those languages or to promote literacy for those unable to understand advanced "scholarly" English. You may find the internet in isolated underdeveloped places, where English or the nation's official language aren't widely used.
Many of us like to read articles that explain things in simple, everyday terms or as they say "in laymen's terms". Wikipedia is much aware not every person or any given country don't know/ speak the same language. Universal language literacy in some countries aren't always abided, includes those multi-lingual countries in the developing world.
In the U.S., Russia, India and China, where universal language literacy is high, many of their citizens may preferably use Wikipedia in other minor languages. Also to note English, as well Chinese, Russian, French and Spanish are taught in classes, and students may want to use that language edition as a learning tool to advance oneself in linguistic studies.
Language is a mode of human communication, but it's held as an art form in literature and cultural preservation, and most of all, everyone has the right to speak any language they want in circumstances (i.e. in private and with their family or friends/companions).
I'm sure in business situations, diplomacy and public education, a common language is required to fairly communicate as in everyone understands. But to my fellow Wikis, the multilingual coordination link is your resort to create new language editions and translate our articles. -- Mike D 26 23:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Based upon the concerns expressed above (and both the favorable and unfavorable criticisms of the new setup), I created a compromise version that still contains well under half as many language editions as before. To improve accessibility, I increased the font size (except for the article links) from 95% to 100%. I also tweaked the introduction's wording, added a link to English language, bolded the middots (to improve their visibility and match those at the top of the main page), and used non-breaking spaces to prevent the interwiki links from being separated from the corresponding article links.
As noted above, the "quantity of speakers in the world" criterion relies upon unverifiable (and controversial) statistics, and it fails to consider the number of Wikipedia users per language (which tends to directly correspond to the number of articles per edition). It also necessitates the inclusion of the Punjabi Wikipedia (which is practically nonexistent) and the Bengali and Hindi Wikipedias (which are rather small). Those are the only three that I've removed.
Meanwhile, we aren't going to improve international relations (or reduce the appearance of "bias") by including the Arabic Wikipedia (containing fewer than 16,000 articles) and excluding the Hebrew Wikipedia (containing more than 41,000 articles).
The obvious solution is the reversion to a multi-tiered "quantity of articles"-based setup, but with a threshold much higher than "1,000" (but lower than "50,000"). "10,000" presently seems reasonable, but this can be occasionally increased (along with the other two tiers) as all of the Wikipedias grow.
Numerically, "30,000" makes slightly more sense for the middle tier than "25,000," but the latter currently results in much more even division.
I'll note that if additional size reduction is desired, we could drop the "10,000" tier entirely. I believe that this would be of little benefit, however, as this would only remove text from the very bottom of the page. As the Wikipedias in question are in decent shape, I see no harm in listing them. — David Levy 00:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The current version (David Levy's version sans the 10,000k section) looks good to me. It's aestehtically appealing because it is approximately the same size as the 'sister projects' and 'Other areas of Wikipedia' and it includes virtually all of the important languages. Raul654 00:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea why the "importance of languages" is being discussed. This is about linking important Wikipedia projects, not "important languages". Punjabi is a major language. pa-wiki has 49 articles. Hence, no matter how important Punjabi may be, pa-wiki is not linkworthy. This is English wikipedia, not United-Nations-Wikipedia, hence we have no responsibility to link minor projects. dab (ᛏ) 19:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Judging by the discussion above, Brian0918 clearly has a lot of energy that needs a useful outlet. Perhaps he could Punjabi (one of the largest languages in the world, after all), and translate some articles...? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
There should be something on the frontpage about the 550 year old defence and battle of Fort Nándorfehérvár, one of the most decisive early victories against ottoman turkish conquest in Europe. The 550 year celebrations are held during this weekend throughout Hungary. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Belgrade —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC).
The intro to today's FA now reads: In the 1992 presidential election campaign, Pat Buchanan made extensive use of the phrase in his surprisingly strong challenge to Bush in the Republican primaries. I can't help but ask, "Surprising to whom?" Does this seem like weasel wording or POV commentary to anyone else? Would this be better asked on the article's talk page as it's in the article without any citation there as well? Dismas| (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Implies some kind of parity. In fact, Lebanese deaths are an order of magnitude higher than Israeli losses. In this report - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5206470.stm - are the values "More than 350 Lebanese have been killed in the 11 days of violence, many of them civilians. Thirty-four Israelis have been killed, including 15 civilians killed by rockets fired by Hezbollah into Israel." That's a factor of 10:1. The phrasing on the front page is misleading. "[M]ounting military and civilian casualties, particularly on the Lebanaese side." would be a fairer reflection of the true state of affairs.
There are two semicolons in this sentence, which is grammatically incorrect. Try replacing it with something like:
OR
The ITN that says "Former Khmer Rouge commander Ta Mok, scheduled to stand trial in 2007 for crimes against humanity in Democratic Kampuchea, dies in a military hospital in Phnom Penh, Cambodia." is very unclear. When I had read it, I thought the trial was going to be in Democratic Kampuchea. I would suggest putting a comma after the 2007. 03:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
No need to complain for now, because the main page is very organized and not cluttered of unneeded information. The new multi-lingual coordination list is short and avoids rambling of how many languages exist in the world. The news articles can be expanded by let's say 10 paragraphs and given the links for more details. However, the Cherokee language suggestion hasn't been accepted. On the other hand, Nepali is expected to get included as the language has a million speakers. I love the main page's current format and let's keep things rolling smooth in Wikipedia. -- Mike D 26 20:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Can someone add a wikilink to the Zuleyka Rivera article? Carioca 03:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but the article is actually duplicated:
Zuleyka Rivera and
Zuleyka Rivera Mendoza. It is better to use the
Zuleyka Rivera instead of the
Zuleyka Rivera Mendoza in the Wikipedia's main page, to prevent a redirect.
Carioca 03:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself; the current ITN format places entries in the order at which they are added. There's no subjective judgement made as to one item's significance over another. To do so would just lead to more arguments. (Another reason to revisit the format of ITN) -- Monotonehell 06:44, 24 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 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | → | Archive 80 |
The article China proper says that this term is controversial or even offensive to many Chinese. I suggest that the wording in ITN be changed to "eastern China" or something like that. -- Cam 01:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
to something of the "Hezbollah attacks Israel, Israel strikes back" sort?? This seems to be more accurate - the current writing seems to indicate that Israel is the propogator of the attacks....
Getting to the subject, Israeli officials say that the Lebanese government is responsible. Hezbollah is a legal "party of God" in Lebanon. It is as ethical as the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda except that it murders in lieu of rape.
I say, "Why hasn't the Lebanese government seized Hasan Nasrallah's bank account. If Nasrallah was so loaded those youths wouldn't have money to march back and forth with ammunition attached to their chests and arms. They on Nasrallah's payroll."-- Patchouli 08:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay people, let's stop right there. Wikipedia isn't the forum for discussing who's to blame in this very messy and prolonged "trouble" (to borrow from the N.Ireland vernacular). The current entry says "Israeli troops launch a military offensive into Lebanon (pictured) in response to the capture of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah." which is the current state of affairs. -- Monotonehell 09:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The current version disregards the firing of hundreds of rockets by Hezbollah towards northern Israel. These rockets have already caused the death of over 10 people, and I think that not mentioning them makes it look like Israel is reacting only to the "minor" incident of kidnapping two soldiers. -- 80.230.85.180 12:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think "civilian and military casualties" would be more appropriate than "military and civilian casualties", considering the apparent ratios between the two categories.
The factual account should include Hezbollah entering Israel to murder 7 and kidnap 2 soldiers.
Is it correct to talk of "civilian and military casualties on both sides"? Surely the military casualties are only on one side?
It's kind of strange that G8 summit is not listed in the current events and is not mentioned on the main page, and 32nd G8 summit page still has "Future events" template on top of it.
Is it really necessary to inflict that horrible smug grin on us? How about replacing the latest Prime Minister with the first Prime Minister, ie Robert Walpole. Walpole is no longer controversial and in the picture in his article he looks statesmanlike. Olborne 18:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
It says here that the two main G8 issues are "energy security" and education... should it be energy, security, and education, as in the summit's article? Or should the other be changed? R OY YO Я 19:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
It most definately should be changed to reflect the wording of the original article. As I would think global security would be the number one issue given current events. But perhaps the only mistake is lack of punctuation, particularly commas, rather than "energy security" and education.
Njjones 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there a Latin-language wikipedia? and if not, why hasn't it been created? wasn't the first encyclopedia written in latin? isn't this an insult to history? I would create it myself, but I can't because the only latin word I know is "vagina" (and I know it well....) Antimatter 22:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, Latin is the mother language of most of Western Civilization. A Wiki that could translate legal phrases, common medical terms, inscriptions off famous statues and buildings, as well as just infamous sayings might be popular enough. As for the idiot who started this thread; "Illegitame non carbarundum - Julius Ceasar { Don't let the bastards grind you down } " Bptdude 06:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
very good.. and here is a nice wiki link that does exist about latin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases Bptdude 09:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow....I probably should have checked before I asked about that....One good thing about wikipedia is that if you make a mistake or say something stupid, someone (or some people) are likely to point out your mistake before you realize it yourself...I don't know any latin, but perhaps I can redeem myself by writing the latin wikipedia article on the vagina...I'll see what I can do... :) Antimatter 21:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, tuum culpa (your bad)....er, if that accusative for "your" is wrong then it's mea culpa (my bad)!-- Phil Wardle 08:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Try this: http://la.wikipedia.org/
Have a look at this edit. A basic and easily checkable fact in the Prime_Minister_of_the_United_Kingdom article (the salary) was not updated. This is the sort of thing that justifiably gives Wikipedia a bad reputation. What is the point of saying that our articles can be more up-to-date than others, when no-one checks to see if they are up-to-date? Can processes be put in place to stop this happening again? Carcharoth 23:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. The above WikiProject doesn't seem very active. Only four other posts on the talk page since the end of April. Though the guideline page is a bit more active. Carcharoth 09:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Using the terminology of "forward hemisphere"fixes to offer as WP doesn't have a "hemisphere" article and the F-35 page itself doesn't even mention the hemisphere jargon. Figma 01:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Should the relegation of Italian soccer teams really be listed above the Israel-Lebanon conflict? 206.223.242.88 03:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't you think it makes sense to do it by what is most significant (like on the Yahoo! front page) as opposed to what order they were added/occurred in the real world? 206.223.242.88 19:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Please change the Constitution Day link on the front to Constitution Day (South Korea). Thanks. Mithridates 07:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
On a somewhat related note, why is 2006 is parenthesis after Marine Day? Its article said it was first celebrated in 1996, so shouldn't that be the year listed, or am I misunderstanding what the year in parenthesis indicates? - Elmer Clark 08:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
CNN is reporting @ ~ 6:37am(GMT -4) that a earthquake spawned Tsunami has hit the Western Shore of the Asian island of Java, in Indonesia. According to that country's President (as quoted by Rueters and AP wires at this point.) At 6:37am they're reporting 6.8 under sea, meanwhile at 6:54 their "eyewitness" Kathy Quiano: is reporting a "7.2 magnatude quake which read 7.1" on the richter scale.
Related Tsunami news: --The North American Tsunami warning system on Tuesday moved a step forward with an agreement signed to place a Tsunami warning systems in parts of the Caribbean region. Seismic warning station for Barbados CaribDigita 11:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
This is LARGELY more important than the Space Shuttle and deserves first mention on the news section. -- Revolución hablar ver 04:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Please add this map to it. It highlights Java. -- Revolución hablar ver 07:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The link for "magnitude 7.7 earthquake" leads to the "Penis" article. Might want to change that.
More than 30 years ago I got this info : Danny Cedrone passed away on July 17, 1954 What do you think of it? Stephan KŒNIG 10:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
"that Pachirisu is a fictitious Electric Squirrel Pokémon that can shock opponents?"
...as opposed to a *real* electric squirrel pokemon? Or what? I think "fictitious" is understood here. 207.59.86.5 14:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I agrees with darth shikari, most people know what a pokemon is however there are a few who don't-- Alec trevalyn 16:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I love how the imagery in the front page, as of this edit, shows the space shuttle right next to a note about an escalating Israeli/Lebanese conflict. Let's all escape! MrZaius talk 21:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Can we please get that image removed? It looks horrible. See Image talk:David Barkley.jpg for details. -- Liface 02:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Why are links underlined (as of today?) in the English version of Wikipedia? Camptown 11:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thats your internet browser, if you are using firefox just refresh your page, thats what i do Childzy ( Talk| Contribs) 11:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
After spending a little over a year here in Wikipedia, I am willing to make the call: there is a bias, but towards nerds (of which I am a mere Class 2 Nerd). From Final Fantasy X to Starcraft to Perfect Dark to Red vs Blue, Wikipedia has become a veritable nerdgasm to nerdologists and connoisseurs of general nerdology worldwide. Huzzah! (or should I say " Ni"?) -- Bobak 14:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
ZOMG ENCELADUS! MORE PLANETCRUFT! Delete NN Raul654 01:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Today, George W. Bush made his first veto against a stem cell research bill. This is his first veto in his 6 years of being President. Is this Main Page worthy?-- C hi l i 1 4 18:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it will be nice, if the InterWiki link to Englisc/Anglosaxon Wikipeda is added. I think it made ang.wiki more popular, and - maybe - encourage people to learn the history of their/foreign language. Michał P. 19:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
DYK looked better without the bullets a few months ago. Why use them along with an ellipsis starting each line ? Ugly and superfluous. -- 64.229.179.114 06:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Why aren't featured lists ever on the Main Page? They all have introductory text, and are often as interesting as the featured articles. Is this the proper forum for discussing this? Has it been discussed before? Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 08:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
In buisness school, the very first lesson they teach on the very first day is this - if you have a successful product, DON'T MESS WITH IT. This was considered so basic, so obvious, they didn't even teach it for many years. (They started teaching it after New Coke). The featured article is the most popular thing on the main page after the search box (the developers did measurements to this effect last year). This suggestion is bad beyond words. Lists do not make good content to link to - a list is not something that will attract someone's attention, and putting it there at the deteriment of something that is already popular is a non-starter. Raul654 05:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, it could work by simply replacing the featured picture with a featured list once or twice a week. — Nightst a llion (?) 07:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Minor point, but it seems a bit over the top to have two space exploration items right next to each other. How about replacing the 1976 one with:
Cheers — SteveRwanda 11:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep the two space-related events and add the 1982 event. Today's OTD is too short. -- Howard t he Du c k 12:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The Hyde Park and Regents Park bombings article seems dry and unimpressive. I'd have a hard time justifying the displacement of any of the current selections for that unless it's a 'round number anniversary'. Good articles will always get priority. -- PFHLai 10:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I realize Wikipedia is the world's encyclopedia, but there is a decided lack of American news ever showing up in the "In the News" section. At first I assumed it was just the coincidental result of a few visits to the front page, but too often I see what I might consider "irrelevant" or at least less vital world news (such as the Italian soccer teams being relegated out of Serie A) while often important American events (particularly political and business ones) go unmentioned. Again, this is not an outright condemnation, but I was wondering if this was a deliberate attempt to be more intercontinental, if there was a conscious attempt to place non-American news items over American news items, or if this was simply circumstantial. I guess my major complaint is that America is obviously part of the world, too, and while we shouldn't necessarily be held up above other nations in terms of newsworthinses, neither should we be deliberately neglected. 168.39.166.127 13:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
It is world news, and american news is very common here, as there 1 192 some countries in the world... and america get more than 1/192 of the news slots. Dan 17:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
As the original poster, I just want to say that first, I do not think Marshall Faulk's retirement deserves a news notice any more than I think Italian football scandals do. Secondly, I think that first presidential veto by George W. Bush, on no less a grand subject than stem cell research, deserves a news notice, and is at least as worthy as a possible house owned by Augustus. And thirdly, I went out of my way to say that I was not gaming to have every American business story posted on the front page, and yet I was accused exactly of that. This is what I am saying:
If a sports scandal in Italy is worthy of the front page, then a sports scandal involving the greatest hitter in baseball history is worthy of the front page. If not, then both are not. But it appears to me (and I will began collecting evidence on) that when these two stories are presented to the In The News as options, the Italian one is selected more frequently than the American one. And that is what I find unacceptable. 168.39.166.127 20:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Just face it. Wikipedia hates America and supports Terrorism. Preston 00:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Surely there needs to be a "beware of trolling" notice added to this page? Carcharoth 13:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm here to tell you that the Norman Wikipedia reached 1000! HOW RAD!
cool! [ wossi] 21:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
This is yet another example of Wikipedia's blatant bias toward the past. The entire main page is flooded with crap from the past, and this is one of the worst examples--who cares what happened back when the world was only a few thousand years old?! Delete NN empirecruft. — BRIAN 0918 • 2006-07-20 23:53
I totally agree, Wikipedia's bias against the present shows at every corner. I mean, we're a present project, based in the present, created by people who live in the present. I mean, look at the "on this day section" EVERY ENTRY TODAY IS ABOUT THE PAST!!! tell me that's not past cruft. As a present-er, I am appauled at the systematic bias against the present and future brought here by the members of this project! We're all citizens of the present here! We should focus more on it and the future. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 01:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I bet you can't write something so quick that it's still the present; the past is so much larger, and getting longer and longer...In other words many more important things have happened in the past that there are currently happening. You can say that the main page is biased on History though; and neglecting other sciences, such as Chemistry, Biology, und so weiter.-- Cloviz 01:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
This entire qualm is based in trying to marginalize an entire discipline. Moreover, it's a specific attempt at marginalizing information about one of the most important people to Western civilization. The absurdity of doing so is beyond measure or count; I'm lead to wonder if this is an attempted troll. Really. What the hell? -Jack Cosmo
We haven't even gotten to Wikipedia's bias against the future! There are even policies preventing users from writing about the future, and people freely use pejoratives like "crystal ball" to label anything that doesn't agree with their temporal mentality... — BRIAN 0918 • 2006-07-21 01:42
While interesting, I doubt an article about something archeologists believe to have discovered should get top billing in the “In The News” section; especially considering the fact that Earth already has more important issues to deal with such as a certain conflict in Lebanon and an earthquake that had killed over five-hundred, not to mention a lot of other issues that rank higher than an ancient house. -- AEdwards 3:35, 20 July 2006 UTC)
I would prefer it very much if, on arriving on the Wiki site, the cursor is already in the search field. That way, I could start typing immediately, without first cliking into it with my mouse. I know it is just a small thing, but it is been bugging me for quite some time now... :-) If possible, I would even like to have something like this implemented on all pages. Let me know what you think.
Thanks for that link. I think it is a non-argument though: most people (read: all that I know of) use the scroll-wheel on their mouse, rather than the arrows on the keyboard...
"1954 - First Indochina War: The 17th parallel was established at the Geneva Conference, partitioning Vietnam into North Vietnam led by Ho Chi Minh and South Vietnam under Emperor Bảo Đại."
Hadn't the 17th parallel existed for a long time before this? — CJewell (talk to me) 11:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC) (Copied to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors) -- Monotonehell 12:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Great. A featured picture of the day without the actual picture.
Yes, you can click on it to see it. But why can't it be on the actual page? We've had panoramas there before. Daniel Case 14:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Unless my eyes are playing tricks on me, the picture in the "Did you know..." section is a rhinoceros woodcut, not a bidding box.
Hey, I was wondering if there was any way for featured pictures that are wider than they are long (that are displayed over the text, just like Wikipedia:Picture of the day/July 12, 2006) to be displayed with a width as large as each individual user's screen will allow? This would look really cool on the main page, and a lot of featured pictures only start looking good when they start getting big. - Jack (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, what a coincidence. Made me smile :) Will ( Take me down to the Paradise City) 00:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
{{spoilers}}
at the top of the main pg, it says we currently have 1,268,835 articles. however, clicking on the link to the stats pg tells us that we have 1,268,861 articles. this statistic is probably changing as i type. pls fix this contradiction. thank you. 202.156.6.54 05:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
hi, any comment on the new it.wiki Main Page? -- 81.211.179.224 10:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Image:DSCN0745.JPG ;) -- Monotonehell 21:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC) [I changed this from transclusion to a link to eliminate formatting issues. — David Levy 00:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)]
Would anyone else like to see us adopt some form of the new Italian Wikipedia layout (except for the icons-halfway-under effect)? (here's a babelfish translation to better understand the layout) Of course, it will never happen, but one can always dream... — BRIAN 0918 • 2006-07-22 17:12
How about this:
but also include:
That covers the 100,000+ Wikipedias, as well as all the languages with 100 million+ speakers. All the rest would be listed on the complete list of Wikipedias. — BRIAN 0918 • 2006-07-22 23:23
(deindenting) I'd agree with that list, but would consider adding the Simple English Wikipedia, given its connection to the English-language Wikipedia. GeeJo (t)⁄ (c) • 02:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering if it might be good to put the link to the wikipidias in a slightly bigger font than the link to the en article about the language. Aside from making it clearer what links to the other wikipedias, it also could fill up the white space in the second line that looks pretty awkward in many resolutions. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I offer the following arguments against the short list of languages:
I'm very happy with the new section - it's much closer to what the main page when we originally switched to this layout; the language list was never meant to grow by a factor of 5 - it just happened to so slowly as to avoid complaint - this doesn't mean it was a good thing. Raul654 06:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh finally the evil has been curbed! Much, much better. violet/riga (t) 07:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
It was very hard to find a particular Wikipedia in that old list anyway - far too many sections. The disadvantage of this new style is that it is highlighting what are currently some of Wikimedia's duffest projects (the Punjabi Wikipedia currently has a "Nobody has really started on this section" notice - in English - on the front page and not even 50 articles!) and it is hiding some of the best other-language Wikipedias. What the language list fails to take into account is that readership of Wikipedia varies widely from country to country - there are some stats on this somewhere, and I particularly remember that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have extremely low readership. This is presumably one of the reasons the Punjabi Wikipedia is currently so dire. While I like the idea that highlighting the Punjabi edition helps counter systemic bias, it's very unlikely to actually draw in new editors. English Wikipedia probably does get more traffic from Hebrew-speakers than Punjabi-speakers, despite the gap in numbers of speakers. On the other hand, we obviously can't use readership-by-language stats directly to pick the selected Wikipedias. May I please make a strong suggestion that would substantially address this? Setting the cut-off at 50,000 articles would substantially address the problem by including more of the other major Wikipedias. (In fact 30 or 40,000 might be a better choice, but that number seems a little too arbitrary). I suspect there is a strong correlation between usage of en: Wikipedia by a particular language group and the size of that language's Wikipedia (Punjabi certainly bears that out) so this would also mean that the displayed Wikipedias were more representative of - and useful for - our front page readership. Here's how it would look:
This is the English language Wikipedia. Started in 2001, it currently contains 6,818,745 articles. Wikipedias are also being written in many other languages:
Complete list · Multilingual coordination · Start a Wikipedia in another language
The 100,000 articles line in the sand is pretty arbitrary, I think switching to 50,000:
It might be an idea to sort the first section other than by language code. I would like to emphasise that my suggestion does not entail continual bloat of the number of WPs shown - if a bloat is approaching, whack the line in the sand up. The 50,000 or 100,000 (or 250,000...) is basically arbitrary. Let's just pick it so that it highlights a decent but easily navigable number of our best projects. The current number highlighted is too low, the previous number too high.
Another thing that really irked me about the current rewrite is the "More than 100 million speakers" when it actually means "Other languages with more than 100 million speakers". In fact, I'm not sure that even that is quite right (maybe it implies that Polish in the top row does have 100 million speakers) but it is definitely closer to the key idea: we don't repeat English and Spanish, which clearly do have 100 million speakers, on the bottom row too. Could somebody either change that or suggest a better alternative? TheGrappler 15:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The new model on the Wikipedia language edition directory is meant not to exceed half the page or any longer. I'm sure the most spoken languages and those with 50,000+ articles demonstrates how more used the languages are. Wikipedia editions in small or dormant languages (under 1,000 articles or under 10,000 speakers) appearedly are novel niches.
There are language revival organizations represent tribal or regional languages threatened with extinction, wanted to promote and celebrate linguistic diversity. They use Wikipedia to create their language editions and select a limited number of articles in their language.
If you feel this is necessital and informative, go ahead and use it as an educational tool in any language you choose. I believe the freedom of expressing your knowledge in any language is an essential part of Wikipedia as an international academic source.
My earlier suggestion for a Cherokee language edition is still disputed and I had one response that most Cherokee in the U.S. don't always use the language, even in a period of revival by tribal members with access to that peculiar language.
The Latin, Esperanto, Volapuk and simple english editions are self-explanatory, because some academic circles are fluent in those languages or to promote literacy for those unable to understand advanced "scholarly" English. You may find the internet in isolated underdeveloped places, where English or the nation's official language aren't widely used.
Many of us like to read articles that explain things in simple, everyday terms or as they say "in laymen's terms". Wikipedia is much aware not every person or any given country don't know/ speak the same language. Universal language literacy in some countries aren't always abided, includes those multi-lingual countries in the developing world.
In the U.S., Russia, India and China, where universal language literacy is high, many of their citizens may preferably use Wikipedia in other minor languages. Also to note English, as well Chinese, Russian, French and Spanish are taught in classes, and students may want to use that language edition as a learning tool to advance oneself in linguistic studies.
Language is a mode of human communication, but it's held as an art form in literature and cultural preservation, and most of all, everyone has the right to speak any language they want in circumstances (i.e. in private and with their family or friends/companions).
I'm sure in business situations, diplomacy and public education, a common language is required to fairly communicate as in everyone understands. But to my fellow Wikis, the multilingual coordination link is your resort to create new language editions and translate our articles. -- Mike D 26 23:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Based upon the concerns expressed above (and both the favorable and unfavorable criticisms of the new setup), I created a compromise version that still contains well under half as many language editions as before. To improve accessibility, I increased the font size (except for the article links) from 95% to 100%. I also tweaked the introduction's wording, added a link to English language, bolded the middots (to improve their visibility and match those at the top of the main page), and used non-breaking spaces to prevent the interwiki links from being separated from the corresponding article links.
As noted above, the "quantity of speakers in the world" criterion relies upon unverifiable (and controversial) statistics, and it fails to consider the number of Wikipedia users per language (which tends to directly correspond to the number of articles per edition). It also necessitates the inclusion of the Punjabi Wikipedia (which is practically nonexistent) and the Bengali and Hindi Wikipedias (which are rather small). Those are the only three that I've removed.
Meanwhile, we aren't going to improve international relations (or reduce the appearance of "bias") by including the Arabic Wikipedia (containing fewer than 16,000 articles) and excluding the Hebrew Wikipedia (containing more than 41,000 articles).
The obvious solution is the reversion to a multi-tiered "quantity of articles"-based setup, but with a threshold much higher than "1,000" (but lower than "50,000"). "10,000" presently seems reasonable, but this can be occasionally increased (along with the other two tiers) as all of the Wikipedias grow.
Numerically, "30,000" makes slightly more sense for the middle tier than "25,000," but the latter currently results in much more even division.
I'll note that if additional size reduction is desired, we could drop the "10,000" tier entirely. I believe that this would be of little benefit, however, as this would only remove text from the very bottom of the page. As the Wikipedias in question are in decent shape, I see no harm in listing them. — David Levy 00:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The current version (David Levy's version sans the 10,000k section) looks good to me. It's aestehtically appealing because it is approximately the same size as the 'sister projects' and 'Other areas of Wikipedia' and it includes virtually all of the important languages. Raul654 00:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea why the "importance of languages" is being discussed. This is about linking important Wikipedia projects, not "important languages". Punjabi is a major language. pa-wiki has 49 articles. Hence, no matter how important Punjabi may be, pa-wiki is not linkworthy. This is English wikipedia, not United-Nations-Wikipedia, hence we have no responsibility to link minor projects. dab (ᛏ) 19:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Judging by the discussion above, Brian0918 clearly has a lot of energy that needs a useful outlet. Perhaps he could Punjabi (one of the largest languages in the world, after all), and translate some articles...? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
There should be something on the frontpage about the 550 year old defence and battle of Fort Nándorfehérvár, one of the most decisive early victories against ottoman turkish conquest in Europe. The 550 year celebrations are held during this weekend throughout Hungary. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Belgrade —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC).
The intro to today's FA now reads: In the 1992 presidential election campaign, Pat Buchanan made extensive use of the phrase in his surprisingly strong challenge to Bush in the Republican primaries. I can't help but ask, "Surprising to whom?" Does this seem like weasel wording or POV commentary to anyone else? Would this be better asked on the article's talk page as it's in the article without any citation there as well? Dismas| (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Implies some kind of parity. In fact, Lebanese deaths are an order of magnitude higher than Israeli losses. In this report - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5206470.stm - are the values "More than 350 Lebanese have been killed in the 11 days of violence, many of them civilians. Thirty-four Israelis have been killed, including 15 civilians killed by rockets fired by Hezbollah into Israel." That's a factor of 10:1. The phrasing on the front page is misleading. "[M]ounting military and civilian casualties, particularly on the Lebanaese side." would be a fairer reflection of the true state of affairs.
There are two semicolons in this sentence, which is grammatically incorrect. Try replacing it with something like:
OR
The ITN that says "Former Khmer Rouge commander Ta Mok, scheduled to stand trial in 2007 for crimes against humanity in Democratic Kampuchea, dies in a military hospital in Phnom Penh, Cambodia." is very unclear. When I had read it, I thought the trial was going to be in Democratic Kampuchea. I would suggest putting a comma after the 2007. 03:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
No need to complain for now, because the main page is very organized and not cluttered of unneeded information. The new multi-lingual coordination list is short and avoids rambling of how many languages exist in the world. The news articles can be expanded by let's say 10 paragraphs and given the links for more details. However, the Cherokee language suggestion hasn't been accepted. On the other hand, Nepali is expected to get included as the language has a million speakers. I love the main page's current format and let's keep things rolling smooth in Wikipedia. -- Mike D 26 20:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Can someone add a wikilink to the Zuleyka Rivera article? Carioca 03:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but the article is actually duplicated:
Zuleyka Rivera and
Zuleyka Rivera Mendoza. It is better to use the
Zuleyka Rivera instead of the
Zuleyka Rivera Mendoza in the Wikipedia's main page, to prevent a redirect.
Carioca 03:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself; the current ITN format places entries in the order at which they are added. There's no subjective judgement made as to one item's significance over another. To do so would just lead to more arguments. (Another reason to revisit the format of ITN) -- Monotonehell 06:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)