Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

Since the italian wikipedia has reached 50,000 articles, could you please update the list? Thank you. it:user:Blakwolf T 5 July 2005 10:22 (UTC)

I've promoted it. Congratulations. :-) -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} July 5, 2005 10:35 (UTC)

Thank you very much. BW T 5 July 2005 11:18 (UTC)

It would be proper to end the section regarding Mr. Coopers remarks vis a vis Rove with the two words to him. i.e the first to reveal Valerie Plame's CIA connection to him, with the him being cooper. Otherwise it is somewhat misleading, as the timeline of Rove learning from Novak first and then telling Cooper would be correct. Saying first to reveal Ms. Plame's identity is somewhat misleading.

We haven't received any ITN suggestions since the 3rd and suddenly the DYK suggestions are drying up as well. Keep those ideas coming people. Having the same stuff on the main page every day would be very boring. - Mgm|^(talk) July 6, 2005 10:12 (UTC)

Is there anyone who wants to expand pages like Elections in Burundi [1] and Albania general election, 2005 [2] ? Getting new national leaders deserve some attention on ITN, IMHO ... -- 6 July 2005 16:16 (UTC)

Well for one, the motion in the European Union to enforce software patents as law, has been officially opposed. Victory for us! Does that qualify to be on the main page? I even rejoiced on it on the sandbox [3], and here are the sources! [4] [5] [6] [7] -- Natalinasmpf 6 July 2005 11:49 (UTC)

The main English page is UGLY. Get rid of that awful pink, my god. Make it look more like the Svenska page or something. Common. Aesthics, people.

Did CSS fall off the earth or something? What happened to the left bar and why is everything so ugly and unorganized? -- drumguy8800 23 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)

Now that I'm a little bit more experienced with wikipedia, I'm also aware of its shortcomings, ie. anyone can go and create a network of pages full of lies and POV - giving themselves an air of credibility by indirectly using the reputation and professional presentation of wikipedia. Could we have a note somewhere on the page mentionning that the information available on this site is by no mean guaranteed to be accurate? Adidas 6 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)

There is a link to Wikipedia:General disclaimer (Disclaimers) at the bottom of each page. Also, pls have a look at Talk:Main Page/Archive 37#The free content encyclopedia that anyone can edit. -- 6 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)

Factual correction for pic of the day for July 17 of Canyon de Chelly - it's a National Monument, not a National Park.

I know this must have been asked before, but why isn't the Picture of the day featured on the Main Page? RMoloney 7 July 2005 00:07 (UTC)

• Good gracious, please put the pic of the day front and center on the main page.--Muchosucko 7 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)
  • I have previously suggested replacing Did-you-know and putting the Featured picture of the day there. Did-you-know is generally (a) very badly maintained (nobody really cares about it, thus nobody takes the time to make it look good), and (b) we've actually gotten complaints from people who expected better articles, instead of the ones that we have there (which are usually only a couple of paragraphs long). →Raul654 July 7, 2005 01:16 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer if more space could be allocated for links for browsing the encyclopedia (something along the lines of de's version). - Fredrik | talk 7 July 2005 01:20 (UTC)
    • To Raul: Hear, hear. DYK is rarely interesting and doesn't show off our best work. — Dan | Talk 7 July 2005 01:22 (UTC)
    • I've always liked the Did you know section. OF course some of the articles are less than deserving but others are excellent and should be featured on the main page. I believe that the Pic of the Day is best on the Community Portal. The exact same discussion has been taking place about putting the COTWs on the main page. The more we add the more cluttered the main page gets and it becomes less desirable. That is why I oppose both. Falphin 7 July 2005 01:24 (UTC)
      • First, you have to recognize that our main page is for readers while the community portal is for contributors. Thus, on the main page, we want to put our best content forward. COTWs are (by the very definition of what a COTW is designed to do) *not* our best content; did you know is *not* our best content -- the featured articles and featured pics *are* our best content, which is why they should be on the main page. I agree that the main page is already too cluttered, which is why I advocate replacing one section with another (instead of adding one). →Raul654 July 7, 2005 01:27 (UTC)
        • Thanks for your response. 1. COTWs often become our best content. Placing the COTW or last weeks COTW would get the articles attention. 2. The Community Portal is for viewers and users alike or else it wouldn't be placed under the navigation bar. 3. The mainpage doensn't have to have the best content but useful and imformative content which DYKs are. 4. Featured pics are interesting and possibly useful but I don't consider them imformative. 5. I am thankful that you agree the main page is too cluttered. :) Falphin 7 July 2005 02:09 (UTC)
• It has been too long since Main Page got shaken up. Picture of the Day is worth a shot. -- Cyrius|✎ 7 July 2005 01:48 (UTC)

I've created a demo page here -- User:Raul654/temp, where I replaced DYK with a slightly modified version of the featured pic template (located at User:Raul654/temp2). I'd like to hear what you guys think (feel free to tweak it). →Raul654 July 7, 2005 03:25 (UTC)

Picture of the day must be overhauled if the module is placed on the front page. We certainly can't present dull diagrams to all visitors - the selection process must look for the most eye catching material possible. lots of issues | 7 July 2005 03:46 (UTC)

Well, the template will obviously have to be overhauled, but I would think that's a fairly trivial issue. And yes, I agree that diagrams and graphs don't make good main page pics. →Raul654 July 7, 2005 04:10 (UTC)

I guess I'm the only one who doesn't like the idea of moving DYK (full disclosure: I've had two images, one self-nominated, rejected as featured pictures). I really like DYK for a few reasons. One, motivation. When I start a new article, the prospect of getting it on the main page for a few hours helps to motivate me to quickly develop it beyond stub level or make it "complete", and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Two, it highlights the wide variety of articles Wikipedia has. I find it more interesting than the "random page" feature, as you'll get something with at least a bit of content, and it's neat just to see what various topics Wikipedia is covering. And finally, it really emphasizes the incredible and unique growth of this project. Any web site or encyclopedia can have articles of the day or pictures of the day, regardless of how old that content is, whether or not they reuse items (I know we don't, but there's no way to make it obvious). But the DYK section is unique, as it illustrates that new articles are continually being added. It's great to visit the Main Page during the day and see new articles continually being written.

If it comes down to it, I'd rather see the selected anniversaries section go—I don't think I even glance at that section, but I realize from the comments here that that section is probably more important to others. I actually am not a big fan of the current featured picture process—I don't think it's very analagous to promoting featured articles. I feel that there is too much emphasis on beauty and shock and not enough on being an outstanding illustration for an encyclopedia. Anyway I'm getting off topic and I have an article to write. — Knowledge Seeker দ 7 July 2005 06:32 (UTC)

I share much of what Knowledge Seeker has said above. I would also want "interesting" facts from "older" articles also be included in the DYK section as I feel that "interestingness" should be the main criterion for that section. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} July 7, 2005 06:38 (UTC)

Well I currently manage the Pic of the Day template and also do a fair bit to steer WP:FP and promote closed nominations. In the past I've resisted putting POTD on the main page, in part because I think DYK does a good job in encouraging new articles, but also because we didn't have sufficient reserve of Featured Pictures. DYK must have been very important a few years ago when Wikipedia had big holes in major topics. I doubt there will ever be an end to the flow of new articles, but it is true that they are become more obscure and less relevant to the general reader. Meanwhile we have a vast number of articles which are not illustrated at all, and many major topics that only have poor pictures. Raising the profile of POTD by putting it on the main page is likely to be a good way of further encouraging people to contribute good pictures. I also applaud COTW, and reserving say a Monday morning slot on the front page for last week's COTW also sounds like a good idea.

However, the new argument that persuades me here is Raul654's comment that the 'main page is for readers while the community portal is for contributors'. I'm sure it is not that black and white, but there is some truth to it. I don't know whether anyone has measured the ratio of readers to contributors, but I've always assumed it was around 10:1 and we often don't consider the needs of our readers enough. As Wikipedia matures, putting our best material on display is plausibly more important than stimulating new articles. And POTD is likely to be more effective than DYK at hooking the coffee break visitor and getting them interested in contributing. -- Solipsist 7 July 2005 08:09 (UTC)

As someone who spent a good deal of time taking photographs for Wikipedia and getting two rejected as featured pictures, WP:FP has lessened my interest for providing images. But you are right that it would be beneficial to feature our high-quality pictures on the Main Page, to draw in readers. I'd still say that "Selected Anniversaries" could go, as I don't think it really serves readers or editors very well: it didn't capture my interest in the slightest before I started editing Wikipedia, and it certainly doesn't motivate me to do anything now. — Knowledge Seeker দ 7 July 2005 08:36 (UTC)

• By nature, a lot of people are vain and the thought of having an article they created on the front page is something that undoubtedly draws in new contributors. Not everyone has access to great photographic equipment to submit images. Maybe DYK needs to be changed to focus more on interestingness than anything else, but I think that any big change like this needs to be straw polled to get a feel of what the community thinks. Personally, I'd prefer the ITN section gone instead of expanded as someone else suggested. We're not a news service, so I don't see a good reason in featured articles on subjects recently in the news. They will receive enough hits and interest from people who look it up anyway.

Note: Yes, I'm biased. I'd hate to see my work for DYK disappear. Instead of complaining it's badly maintained, people should help out. If I'm away over the weekend, sometimes no one did a thing. That should change. - Mgm|^(talk) July 7, 2005 10:07 (UTC)

• Maybe we could make it into a contest as well. See what people want on the main page and give the page an overhaul using those items. I've seen a great main page in Itilian and DYK could be a interesting factoid as in the Dutch wikipedia. Of course, that would add another "Did you know article candidates" page, cause we can't let the choice depend on one person... Mgm|^(talk) July 7, 2005 10:23 (UTC)
  • DYK doesn't have to disappear. It could for example go to the Community portal page. In fact we could also consider sprucing up the Community portal page to make it more of a front page for editors. -- Solipsist 7 July 2005 11:13 (UTC)
    • Moving DYK to the community portal would be a death sentence - consider how few candidates are submitted currently as a front page module. lots of issues | 8 July 2005 03:57 (UTC)
• Perhaps the idea of featuring PotD should be tabled until the software is changed to allow images to link to their related article, rather than to the images own page. It's incredibly unintuitive. Cigarette 7 July 2005 13:19 (UTC)
  • I would agree with that. Most of the general readers would click on the featured image expecting to get to the related article. -- Solipsist 7 July 2005 18:01 (UTC)

Someone needs to fix the front page's picture of David Helgard.

• Two things, I reject to the objection over "boring diagrams". Some articles are boring to some people yet we feature them and put them on the front page. Any picture which can pass the FPC process should be allowed to be on the front page [if any are allowed ont he front page]. I do see two other problems though (sorry I didn't read most of the above comments). Some pictures, like panoramas, are of a very strange shape or orientation. These won't fit into a regularly shaped box. Also we don't have enough pictures promoted per week yet to feature one picture a day with no repeats. We might have to do one a week or somthing similar. This link is Broken 13:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I totaly agree that diagrams should also be featured (if anything they need more encouragement) and we have some excellent examples. Pictures with awkward aspect ratios such as panoramas, along with animated gifs that can't scale, would have to be skipped for the front page. Or an alternative solution found, such as showing a detail or still frame with a link to the full pic. -- Solipsist 10:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of rotating them: perhaps DYK on weekdays, pic of the day on weekends. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Nice idea, we could even add another factoid to go with the pic as most of these have interesting stuff in the relevant articles. It would also stop DYK from not being updated during weekends. This means DYK needs a rule change though, two days of pics means other items can be delayed and not be "new" anymore. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:27, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think rotating the slot idea is a good one - if a little trickier to manage. However, a better approach would be to alternate DYK with POTD, leaving say Sunday for last week's COTW. At the moment POTD already alternates new and older featured pictures, so I would just have to ensure that new pictures were chosen for the front page days. Plus, the rules of DYK wouldn't have to change, as it is they have already been relaxed to a 3-day window for new articles. -- Solipsist 10:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
    • How about roytating between featured content? We could eventually rotate between Featured Pictures, articles and lists. Circeus 14:32, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Um, no, this is an awful idea. The featured article is one of the most clicked on parts of the main page (when the devs did measurements a few months back, it was the 2nd most popular thing on the main page after the search box). Further, lists do not make good main page items at all. What does make sense is to exchange and/or alternate an unpopular seciton of the main page (DYK) with a popentially much more popular one (the Featured pictures) →Raul654 15:11, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the "Did you know..", but with higher quality standards, then when there are days without enough quality new articles, put up a Featured Picture. Stbalbach 21:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • • There are websites that you can choose what you want to be featured in the main page when you sign in. How about making those options available for Wikipedia. You can have an 'Edit Your Content' link and choose what you prefer to see when you open up the first page when signed in.
• I agree, POTD should be on the front page. Stevekeiretsu 05:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Could the "Did you know" and "Selected Anniversaries" be combined? Perhaps 1 or 2 did you know and 2 or 3 anniversaries in the same box, and then the POTD where Raul suggested? --Spangineer (háblame) 19:00, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think featured pic should be underneath featured article (moved to the left) and selected anniversaries under in the news (move to the right). right now it is a bit of a mess... --WS 20:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Three points: Selected anniversaries is of very limited interest. DYK is interesting and has motivational value. I was saddened that my new article was on DYK for only the bare minimum six hours allowed by the rules, and then days later DYK is gone (temporarily) from the main page, in part because there are not enough nominations. — Pekinensis 17:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Agree ... Selected anniversaries are really of limited interest... And I loved the Featured Picture. What about putting the FP just under the featured article, instead of the selected anniversaries?
  • I think that is a great idea.
    • I also support the idea of replacing anniversaries on the M.P. with the foto. It also makes more organizational sense, IMHO, to have two featured items in one column, and two new-topical items in the other column. jengod 03:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see the DYK back. The articles are sometimes good and sometimes bad, but there is value to it. I think we need to relax the 72 hours new article rule - most good articles are developed over time and restricting only 72 hours old articles for DYK maybe what's generating the low level of interest.Hfwd 04:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• The DYK is still around on weekdays, but I think you have a point about the 72-hour rule, particularly with article quality and the unfortunate situation of articles being nominated toward the end of the week. Please see my proposal at Wikipedia talk:Did you know.--Pharos 20:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

There is tons of value to DYK. As stated before, that's one of my personal greatest motivations in creating new articles. I challenge myself to find topics that aren't already here, would be fun for me to write about (and hopefully fun to read), then challenge myself to make the article live up to my personal standards of "good enough for DYK", and finally see the amazing progress made in building on to these crazy topics. No matter how hard I try to find something encyclopedic enough for inclusion, but obscure enough to be fun, someone's got something great to add on the article, that I near even thought of or found. To me, it's like the most worthwhile game you can play with yourself on Wikipedia. -- user:zanimum

I'd just like to concur with this - DYK is sometimes a little shoddy in what gets put forward, but on the whole it's a good motivation to create something and make it worthwhile. The fact that most major topics are covered already also tends to make it endearingly quirky... Shimgray 01:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

No official report has been provided yet. Such a heading is misleading. --Psyk0 7 July 2005 10:57 (UTC)

• It's now been confirmed. - Mgm|^(talk) July 7, 2005 13:49 (UTC)
  • The word probable makes it not misleading. Nelson Ricardo July 7, 2005 15:16 (UTC)

I've said it before [[8]], but no-one commented on the suggestion. Is there any way to get the text on the templates on the main page to wrap more closely around the pictures? If you have a bookmarks bar up, as I generally do, it looks like a mess. --User:Jenmoa 7 July 2005 21:42 (UTC)

Here's a screenshot, by the way. [9] =|

• It appears to be a browser specific bug as IE renders it fine. I don't know if a bugzilla report has been filed. - Mgm|^(talk) July 8, 2005 04:56 (UTC)

In the Did you know? section; the page text reads:

...that the French battleship France sunk after hitting an uncharted rock during a patrol of Quiberon Bay on August 26, 1922?

The past tense form 'sunk' is active voice. However, the passive voice form, 'sank', should have been used. The rock is what sank the boat; the boat did not sink the rock.—Kbolino July 7, 2005 23:25 (UTC)

The main page news story says: "The attacks come less than 24 hours after London's winning bid to host the 2012 Summer Olympics." This should say 'fewer than 24 hours'. And they didn't come fewer than twenty four hours after the bid, they came fewer than twenty four hours after the bid succeeded. And it probably shouldn't be in the present tense as it happened yesterday. So a good re-wording would be: "The attacks came less than a day after London won its bid to host the 2012 Summer Olympics." User:DavidFarmbrough (07:31 BST 08 Jul 2005)

Thanks. I've updated it. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} July 8, 2005 06:45 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what does the Olympic bid have to do with anything? The G8 summit conceivably has a connection, but the Olympic bid??? Surely nobody is insinuating involvement of disgruntled French!? dab (ᛏ) 8 July 2005 08:31 (UTC)

I agree that the Olympic part shouldn't really be connected. It is probably just a tragic coincidence. Evil Monkey∴Hello July 8, 2005 11:39 (UTC)

Joint effect fallacy. Anybody with even a modicum of familiarity with British-French relations won't infer that the French are responsible. The reason that the Olympic part is important: the British people had just been taken, quite suddenly, from a very positive situation for their country (Olympic selection) to a very negative one (terrorism). The terrorists were likely aiming for maximum damage to morale. — Dan Johnson ^T_C July 8, 2005 15:07 (UTC)

"Less than 24 hours" was correct. I am a big advocate of fewer, but in this case, it's a hypercorrection.

Although the edit has now been made and passed into history, I think it's worth pointing out that my suggested amendment was more on the basis of clumsiness rather than 'correctness'. I think the 'less than 24 hours' will jar with a lot of readers, as it did with me. DavidFarmbrough 08:35 (BST) 11 Jul 2005

I wanted to tweak the In the news bit today that tried to precis the London bombing. But, I can't edit the page. User:Mgm advised me the page needed to be protected because of previous vandalism. Fine. So, delete from the Main Page,"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit".

Okay, so what was my intention? Well I wanted to change the following

• "A series of terrorist attacks in London leads to the closure of the London Underground during the start of the G8 summit. At least 37 are confirmed dead with hundreds wounded. The attacks came less than a day after London won its bid to host the 2012 Summer Olympics

TO

• "A series of terrorist attacks in London led to the closure of the London Underground. At least 38 are confirmed dead with hundreds wounded. The attacks came during the start of the G8 summit and less than a day after London won its bid to host the 2012 Summer Olympics".

Never mind. Moriori July 8, 2005 09:31 (UTC)

• Well, the established style of that section is to write in the present tense anyway. Generally, you can edit anything except what goes on the main page; if you stay with us for a while, show good edits and become an administrator, you can edit that too. Advice on the wording of news items should go on Template talk:In the news. If you want to propose a new news item that goes on Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates.--Pharos 8 July 2005 09:43 (UTC)
• don't get hysterical just because the ITN template is protected. It's still true that anyone can edit the encyclopedia. nowhere do we claim that every single page can be edited, but the vast majority (99.95%?) can. And your edits can naturally also be reverted by anybody if they are considered inappropriate, that comes with the deal. dab (ᛏ) 8 July 2005 10:00 (UTC)

Hysterical? I could point you towards numerous statements made by excellent editors who left wiki disillusioned after receiving childish reactions, (among other things), such as your hysterical. It might help if you - as an admin - read User:RickK's parting message. Do you think malactor is a lovely word? Moriori 22:29, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Just wanna say I choose to continue the work despite the flaws. Nothing is perfect. The world around us even less perfect, anyway. Wish RickK would return soon ..... -- 64.229.206.179 06:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• What dab said. Just because we say "the free-content encyclopedia anyone can edit" doesn't mean every single page has to be editable. I'd hate to see that happen to the legal disclaimers and such too. - 131.211.210.15 8 July 2005 11:37 (UTC)
• It's important to stress that while you may not be able to directly edit the main page, you are just as entitled as anyone else to put your news item in the queue at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. — Trilobite (Talk) 8 July 2005 13:59 (UTC)

Did You Know has listed the day for the flower London Pride as July 27. In tribute to the resilient spirit of the people of London, I have set an Observance for the Selected Anniversary on July 27th to include the day for the flower London Pride. Ancheta Wis 20:02, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

• Perhaps the FTP login and password should be posted on the front page then we can edit anything we want. (Humour)
• May I suggest that you calm down a little? I mean, no offense, but really, they've got a point. There has to be some limits on what can be editied, if nothing else to prevent the page from turning into an online version of the National Enquirer or a bitch rag for people to rant mindlessly on. Also, the alteration you're getting so worked up over is pretty minor, plus it's one that journalistic integrity (does that exist on the internet?) requires that it be verified before it's published. Finally, if you want to foam at the mouth over something, go start a blog on the evils of whatever it is you're rebelling against.

didnt find how to get an admin after reading about 10 help sides.

the help stuff is too complicated and unclear in the process how to handle vandalism

click on the history tab and choose the last good version. we're reverting vandalism as it comes, at the moment the Jihad article is back to normal again. dab (ᛏ) 8 July 2005 14:45 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:How to deal with vandalism, Vandalism in progress and to get an admin WP:AN. - Mgm|^(talk) July 8, 2005 16:45 (UTC)

There's a picture - you'll notice it, I'm sure - that needs to be removed as it does not relate to the subject matter (to say the least).--Nicsilo 8 July 2005 15:29 (UTC)

Is someone gonna fix this? I would think that it would have been fixed by now. bob rulz July 8, 2005 15:31 (UTC)

It has been fixed. Someone uploaded an image over commons:Image:David Helvarg.jpg. — Dan | Talk 8 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)

I could edit the above comment, as the user did, but I won't, since this is like speaking while someone speaks. That is not polite. I did not like being censored for saying, rightly I think, that seeing that someone has enough time and energy to hack the front page of a respectable, open-source encyclopedia in order to post a picture of a human defacating reminds me that there is much stupidity in the world. Heck, Einstein noticed it. So, apparently, someone that posts a rightly negative-sounding comment after seeing such a picture is as wrong as the one who actually hacked into the front page and defaced it. Beats me.--Nicsilo 8 July 2005 16:13 (UTC)

In an attempt to prevent this problem from occurring again, I created commons:Template:en main page to be placed on Commons images which appear on the English Wikipedia's main page. The relevant category is commons:Category:English Wikipedia main page images. I think that en: and Commons have enough administrators in common to make protecting these images a feasible task. — Dan | Talk 8 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)

Try re-uploading the image from the Commons to English Wikipedia, so that the image can be Mprotected by sysops in English Wikipedia .... -- 64.229.205.2 8 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)

Currently, this is very poorly worded. They expect that the death toll will rise above 50, but currently there are 49 people COMFIRMED dead. --66.222.152.169 8 July 2005 22:32 (UTC)

It's 9:30 in New York on july 9th, and I think its July 9th everywhere, so why does it still have july 8th??

This is probably a caching issue on your browser. Try pressing Ctrl+R and see if it updates. gkhan July 9, 2005 15:41 (UTC)

Why don't you have the time of English speaking countries on the front page?

Can we show one of these two pics, please ? IMO, they look better than what is on the Main Page now.

• 
  Piccadilly Circus in 1896
• 
  Piccadilly Circus fountain

Thanks. -- 64.229.229.159 9 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)

"Plaza" is a US usage and therefore not appropriate in an item about a London location.

Shouldn't the words "encyclopedia," "English," and "2001" be linked?

We would create an ungainly appearence if 1 in 5 words were linked. lots of issues | 00:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I concur - linking every word looks bad →Raul654 00:22, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest re-wikiying the line ?

[[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|Welcome to Wikipedia]], the [[free content|free-content]] [[encyclopedia]] that [[Wikipedia:Introduction|anyone can edit]].

But I would leave the second line as is. -- 64.229.227.66 05:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it just me or is the Wikipedia logo missing on the language selection page? --Ixfd64 06:32, 2005 July 10 (UTC)

It's just you. --cactuar12 18:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I noticed today that the Tagalog Wikipedia, at [10], now has 1035 articles, so that list should be updated to include it now. --Idont Havaname 20:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Updated. - BanyanTree 21:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The officially recognized birthday of the USMC is November 10. The related article does say that July 11 is the technically true date, but no one observes that fact as relevant. Bornyesterday 02:16, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

It's now off the Main Page. -- 64.229.206.179 04:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• 1405 - Chinese explorer Zheng He commanded a fleet of 317 ships with his first voyage.

There is no mention of this selected anniversary in the Zheng He article. The word 'July' is not found at all. Can someone confirm the date, please ? Thanks. -- 64.229.206.179 04:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

From the current national geographic: "It was against this frenetic background that Admiral Zheng He received his sailing orders on July 11, 1405" I guess I should read the article and update our article. lots of issues | 20:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Why is there an image showing Scotland's place within the UK? The meeting is at Gleneagles because it is the UK's turn to chair the G8. Scotland, on the other hand, has no role except in that the British government is hosting it there. When the meeting was at Sea Island, was Georgia's place in the USA outlined? Or Alberta's place in Canada when it was held at Kananaskis? It should be replaced by a map of the UK, a picture related to the G8, or some of the recipients of the $50bn of extra aid pledged.BECAUSE SCOTLAND IS A COUNTRY - GEORGIA, ALBERTA ARE NOT Scotland is a province of the UK not a country. It is the UK holding the talks. Don't vent your puerile Scottish nationalism here when the context is clearly wrong in this instance.

I've uploaded [[Image:G8-31-logo.jpg]] if anyone wants to change it. --Dhartung | Talk 04:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's a link for convenience: Image:G8-31-logo.jpg. -- 64.229.227.66 04:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

With a lack of free images of Gleneagles, I thought it would be a good idea to put in a map to show where the summit was taking place. Free image being the key word. A while back someone told me it was bad form to put fair use and possibly unfree images on the main page. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:03, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

It's incorrect to say $50 billion in aid will to Africa. The pledge was for overall aid to developing countries to rise $50 billion by 2010, of which $25 billion is earmarked for those in Africa. [11] --Dhartung | Talk 21:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to argue with the facts...good work! Tim Graff 01:27, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Why has no one changed it? lots of issues | 02:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The ALT text also needs fixing. Please see the ITN Candidates page. There is also a newly suggested news item. A sysop's attention is needed there. -- 64.229.227.66 04:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

There's now a spelling error in the G8 notice. It says develping - missing an O there...Harro5 07:07, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

dose global warming exist. the scientist of the united states are split evenly like a 50 50 kind of thing so get me real proff that it does or doesent exist if you find real info on it or have done a project on it before i need stuff for a debate in summer school send it to taraa16@iwon.com please i need help on this debate

Just read the article on Global warming, okay ? -- 64.229.5.159 14:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The Did You Know? section is terminally boring. I apologise to the people who work on it, but really, it's just awful. Could you replace it with something interesting? Like maybe a picture from Wikipedia Commons, or maybe some sort of notices board? It seems like such a waste of space to leave it as it is.

User:165.247.90.12, why don't you start a new wikiarticle on a topic that interests you. It may be featured on Did you know.... -- 64.229.5.159 15:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I second that notion. As well, the DYK section is to highlight tidbits of informaiton from recently created articles. Just because you think something is boring, doesn't make it so. It was obviously of some interest to the author(s) who created the article, and to the group of folks who put together the DYK section. If you want that section to be more interesting, create new articles on topics that are of interest to you. - UtherSRG 15:23, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

It is just trivia! Sometimes it's really intriguing, sometimes it isn't so much. I think it's a good page to have because it often highlights where more than one article intersects, and the often surprising things that are already on Wikipedia -- or haven't been, until now. So unlike the Featured articles, which have been around a while and are well-honed, it's an example of where Wikipedia is growing. --Dhartung | Talk 20:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Suggestions still come in on a daily basis, so clearly some people find it less boring than you do. In fact, you don't even have to create the articles yourself. Just go through Special:Newpages and suggest stuff you think is more interesting. Commons images belong to the commons and have no place to be featured on our main page (unless the POTD idea gets through and has a Commons image as its content). - Mgm|^(talk) 18:09, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I created this section last year primarily in order to encourage patrolling Special:Newpages and writing high quality articles from scratch. I believe it still does serve this purpose, but it might be a good idea to "repackage" it. The headline Did you know ...? suggests that the reader may find out something new about something they already know about, in practice, most of the factoids in DyK tend to be relatively obscure, and it's very difficult to establish sufficient context in the short summaries. The typical answer to many Dyk question seems to be: No, should I?

One way to repackage it would be to call it something like "Latest additions" (can't think of a catchy name right now, but then, none of the other sections has catchy titles), and to simply include one-line abstracts for the articles in question. This might be a more practical approach to highlighting high quality additions.

As for the idea of featuring a picture, the Wikimedia Commons Main Page is featuring a picture every day, at a much more adequate scale than we can afford on the English Wikipedia Main Page. While I wouldn't completely dismiss the idea, I really prefer having featured pictures given a certain amount of space - Template:Pic of the day is on many user pages, and may very well be sufficient.--Eloquence* 01:20, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I agree DYK is a good place to watch what WP is all about (details). If nothing interesting is on there, just ignore it. As long as people are willing to update it, I think it should stay. dab (ᛏ) 19:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Can you tell me where you received the statistics that scientists are 50/50 in relation to global warming debate?

Re: Regular contributors and/or administrators, please take part in this survey. [12]

Should this be on our MainPage ? The Community Portal may be more appropriate. --64.229.5.159 16:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Moved to Recent Changes. - Mailer Diablo 16:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Administrators should be warned strongly against putting anything on the Main Page without prior discussion. — Dan | Talk 16:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I could add a HTML comment saying that to the Main Page, but I will not do it without prior discussion. --cesarb 16:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I like Wiki !!! Great!!

Just a little 'un, but I can't edit it myself - it should read an orphanage 'where' he came - not were he came. Also, the idea that a newborn baby 'came' to an orphanage is odd - 'where he was left' seems more correct to me. Thanks!

The typo is still there. Can someone with sysop power fix that, please ? Thanks. -- 199.71.174.100 04:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've fixed it. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 04:41, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I think this is worth a mention on the front page. The longest strike in North American professional sports has finally ended, after 301 days and a lost season. --Madchester 18:23, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I live in the U.S and I don;t care, so I assume most of our int'l visitors won't either. Nelson Ricardo 18:25, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Not a hockey fan but I believe it's important. It is the longest strike ever in professional sport and it has implications for the 2006 Winter Olympics. The agreement confirms that the NHL will be sending teams to the tournament. --LeoTheLion 19:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

As a fellow American, I consider this event marginally significant at best, and in any case its importance is dwarfed by that of the concurrent (and now postponed) space shuttle launch. — Dan | Talk 19:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

As a non-American who has never watched more than 30 seconds of ice hockey, it's just one more boring shuttle launch, but a very significant day in the history of ice hockey. Calsicol 05:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It may be worth a mention, but nobody is going to really notice it. It's the NHL. Only thing most people know about it is that the Detroit Red Wings are one of its teams. --Variance 05:33, 2005 July 14 (UTC)

Maybe people should read more about ice hockey, starting with the NHL pages in Wikipedia. :-) Or about Labor law and the National Hockey League labor dispute (2004-05) ... IMO, it's in the news in real life, so it deserves to be on 'In The News' in Wikipedia. What else is happening today ? -- 64.229.7.92 18:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Please submit a line to the ITN candidates' page. The blurb on Kyrgyzstan is getting stale and may be replaced ... -- 64.229.221.253 20:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

We have too much room on the right side of the Main Page, so I've added a line about the NHL work stoppage on the ITN Candidate's page, hopefully to fill up the empty space.... -- 199.71.174.100 06:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

One admin posted it, another admin took it off [13]. What's wrong ? How about putting the blurb back on ITN but not as the top story ? -- 65.95.106.16 12:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

And Harry Porter made it to the Main Page, but not the end of the long labor dispute ???? -- 64.229.225.228 12:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Considering that the lockout resulted in an economic loss of 2 billion US dollars, I think it's definitely worth a mention. What's with the admins removing the info? --Madchester 20:15, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Anti-American bias. lots of issues | 21:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

2 billion economic loss?? Everyone that would have brought tickets/advertising/tv rights would just spend their money elsewhere. The economic loss is the difference in consumer satisfaction of their first choice (NHL) and their second choice. The economy did become less efficient because of the strike, but 2B is way off.--Clawed 23:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Yahoo News suggests the 2B figure, and networks like [ESPN]] and TSN have used the same number. And that's not including the loss in the restauraunt, hotel and bar sectors. A New York Times article talked about bars losing some 40% of their businesses for the winter due to the lockout. They also mentioned how Buffalo hotels that would have welcomed out-of-town Sabres fans have seen their occupancy rates below their norms at the same point last year.

Regardless, this is a worthwhile mention on the news today, when the NHLPA ratifies the deal. A news conference is expected at 4 PM EDT. --Madchester 19:07, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

OK, how's about we remove the annoying banner now? Nelson Ricardo 18:26, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Normally this text would appear at MediaWiki:Sitenotice, which is blank at the moment. I would remove it, but I don't know where it's coming from. — Dan | Talk 18:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I hope this isn't a bad place to post this, but some sort of change was made to the front page that caused the boxes on the left, from navigation on down, to render at the bottom of the page rather than directly under the Wikipedia gif. This is true for all pages, not just the front page, actually, and means that if you use Opera and want to search, you have to scroll all the way to the bottom. I'm sure this is only an Opera-specific problem, but since it worked before, maybe someone can fix it so it renders properly?

Thanks.

You probably have a cache problem, not an Opera-specific problem (I am using Opera, and am not having any problems at the moment). The page probably did not completely load, and the broken CSS style sheet was stuck in your cache. Try clearing your cache—that'll most likely fix the problem.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 12:57, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I am having the same problem. I bear with it, because it's no big deal to scroll down the screen. But every single time I come on wikipedia, the search box is in the FAR bottom left corner. I've had similar problems with opera on other websites too, most far worse than this one. But I think there is still a problem.

Helen Merrill is referred to as "he" in the "Did you know?" section. Calsicol 16:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The typo is still there. Can anyone with sysop powers take care of this, please ? BTW, does the word 'legendary' on that line seem a little POV ? -- 64.229.7.92 18:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe the "He" is referring to Quincy Jones. Read it again. --Kbdank71 18:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Whoops ! You're right ! -- 64.229.7.92 18:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

On the news item refering to Leeds the second "Leeds" is not linked. Small I know, but I noticed it. Dom24 21:00, 14 July 2005 (GMT)

• I actually edited it so there is only one appearance of "Leeds"; having "Leeds" twice is awkward and unnecessary.--Pharos 20:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah too many links make it look bad --70.29.1.197 03:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"Khash is a traditional Armenian dish from the Shirak region which has cow's feet as it's main ingredient?"

The word "it's" should not have an apostrophe. Admin? Admin? Bueller?

All has been done as you desire. - BanyanTree 14:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Has there ever been a consideration to adding business on the main categories line of the front page. There is a nicely growing amount of information that falls under the general topic business from the companies list to explanation of many topics that are business related.

Nah, browsing links aren't taken seriously. Consider the categories chosen already as window dressing. lots of issues | 16:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

What can we do to make those category links better for the readers and editors? Ancheta Wis 17:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC) Respond on Category Browse talk page

Actually, you have options; it is possible to put a business portal icon up which could be linked to on the existing category portal pages, such as Category:Culture, Category:Personal life, Category:society, Category:Technology. Do you have a portal for business? Ancheta Wis 17:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I have put links to Business and category:Business in a special topics seciton in Category:Culture. Ancheta Wis 17:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Those who wish to put Business and category:Business are probably best served by creating a business portal which will then be displayed by a second click from any of the 8 main categories on the Main Page. Interested parties on such support, please respond on Category Browse talk page Ancheta Wis 17:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Interested parties can view the start of the Business Wikiportal on the Category:Business page. Ancheta Wis 19:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Time to add it to the main page =) Doidimais Brasil 05:17, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Someone probably noticed by now, but I've updated DYK to show today's FP because there was a lack of suggestions this morning. As noted, I plan on rotating FP (on weekends) and DYK (on weekdays) for awhile to see if it works. Hope you like it. - Mgm|^(talk) 06:10, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't notice this discussion 'til I saw the FP and feared that my favourite part of the wiki had fallen into oblivion. Just in addition to the discussion above, I like DYK because (a) I've learned some really interesting things through it that I never would have found otherwise and (b) I find it really useful for attracting editors to do a once-over of a new contribution. Sorry to hear you're so overloaded MGM, I'll try to drop by and help out, and with a bit of luck we can win back those who think its boring. Anyways, I'm just glad to hear DYK will be back on Monday. -Lommer | ^talk 06:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Agree this is good compromise. FPs are really pretty, but DYK has its merits (attracting people to new/underdevelopped articles) 82.152.188.147 07:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

It would have been nice to have had a heads-up. Putting Featured Pictures up on the MainPage at weekends introduces issues of which FeaturedPictures to select and tracking it to avoid future repetition. Some coordination with the management of FeaturedPictures and the usual POTD is required. -- Solipsist 08:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• We could ask the people at featured pictures to not repeat stuff we've seen over weekends on the main page in other weekends... - Mgm|^(talk) 08:44, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed - and in practice, at the moment, I am those people. Today's POTD is a reused early FP and not necessarily the one I would have selected if I had known we were going to switch on to the Main Page today. -- Solipsist 08:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• I'm too lazy to sign in, but feel free to contact me (MacGyverMagic) what you've got in mind for tomorrow. - 82.172.23.66 09:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • OK I'll continue discussion on your talk page. -- Solipsist 09:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

This web page is agood source of info.

is WP running paid ads now? Or how is that release ITN-worthy, or even more notable than the sports news we usually reject? We are hyping a commercial product here, it's as simple as that. dab (ᛏ) 11:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Eh? I think any book thar has a first print of over 10m copies in one nation alone, and invigorates millions of young readers worldwide on a regular basis does genuinely deserve to appear on the front page of Wikipedia. I mean, selling 20m copies of one book isn't just acknowledging a successful commercial product, it's also acknowledging a huge cultural force too. Ben (ᛏ) 12:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I can see where dab is comming from, but as much as anything the problem is with the phrasing of the ITN item. I suspect the newsworthy element, is that it is likely to be an exceptional publishing event - something like the 'biggest book launch ever', or 'fastest selling new book'. The trouble is, although those sorts of records are widely anticpated, I guess you need to have passed the first 24hrs to actually know it.

A sporting item would probably be worth featuring if it were an exceptional event. Not just a world record, but something like 'Tiger Woods becomes the first person to win N tournaments'. -- Solipsist 12:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I like the end of the hockey lockout, a protracted labor dispute. (See above.) -- 64.229.225.228 12:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• So maybe it needs rephrasing, but if people are camping out to get their book at midnight, if the book in question has tight security issues and if it's already smashed pre-order records and is such a phenomenon as Harry Potter is, it deserves to be on the main page. This is as international an item as they get. Maybe we should mention there were people queueing to get their copy or that it already smashed records before it was published. - 82.172.23.66 12:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm probably just not aware just how big the HP hype is. From what I can see, this is just one big marketing stunt, and the media are happy to oblige because they are short of sensations in summer. But if your opinion is that we are dealing with a cultural event here, I can certainly live with having it on ITN, no problem. I suppose we have a chance to be less cheap in this respect than the commercial media, but maybe I'm being too purist here, so no bother. As long as we don't have the item sitting on ITN for another two weeks with updates about records broken and what not. dab (ᛏ) 13:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with dab here; it is, after all, just the publication of one book. And though it will likely be a popular book, the item is of rather limited interest to non-fans, making it probably of less import than even, say, some rather geographically specific stories. I tend to think ITN should follow the model of a conservative (not in the political sense) globally-minded broadsheet with sparse if any pop-culture references. But dab and I seem to be in the minority here on ths item; I just hope it doesn't set a precedent for future book and film releases or (heaven forbid) "celebrity news".--Pharos 16:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

You mean you didn't see the previous items on Eurovision or the Jackson trial? The battle to distinguish between the "newsworthy" and the latest item "in the news" is pretty much over. Though I'd be more annoyed if ITN was actually being updated regularly and Potter had bumped something interesting off, and less annoyed if the Potter item told me why it is interesting... - BanyanTree 17:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

the 'battle' is never over, on WP. I'm fine with making exceptions for extraordinary events, but we certainly don't want to end up with geeky news items every other day. And lets face it, the HP item is in line with 'the encyclopedia that slashdot built' image of WP. dab (ᛏ) 20:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Harry Potter currently features on the front pages of the New York Times, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, CNN, the main news page at BBC Online and so on and so on. And by the way today's first "Britannica Highlight" on Britannica.com is about Disneyland. Harry Potter is in a league of its own as a popular phemonenom. The first five books have sold an average of 53 million copies each, which is more than any album ever released (perhaps you will not know that the best selling album of all time is Michael Jackson's Thriller). How out of touch with the modern world do you think Wikipedia needs to be to maintain its dignity? I believe that hardly anyone outside the tech world and people who read Wikipedia's discussions of itself has heard of slashdot. I have certainly never heard it mentioned anywhere else.

The Harry Potter books were initially published by a small company with no hype, but they sold tens of millions of copies mainly due to word of mouth before the corporate machine kicked in when the film rights were sold and book 4 came out. There have been few popular successes in recent years in which premeditated hype has played such a small part.Calsicol 20:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

And this and the interesting facts on size of publishing mentioned by Ben above are not included in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. The article as it stands now consists of a list of release dates and an extended synopsis of the book, with perhaps a paragraph's worth of information I would consider "encyclopedic". I was actually looking for something with which I could use to update the ITN blurb so I stop wincing when I see Main Page, but there's almost nothing of substance to the article. Speaking of being "out of touch with the modern world"... - BanyanTree 21:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The main discussion of Harry Potter is in the main article, which is where it should be. This article obviously needs to be given time to develop, but the main Harry Potter article is only a click away 82.35.34.11 03:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Hasn't it had enough time on the front page now though, considering 90 people died in Iraq yesterday-which is not on the front page. Deus Ex 20:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The main page is now a bit of a mess, with reams of blank space below the "featured photo". Can we please have the "did you know" feature back to encourage the creation of new articles, which is what this site is supposed to be about? Showing off photos is far less important and informative. 82.35.34.11 03:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a featured image is a weekend thing according to the main page. I don't like the idea though. The page looks more balanced and, as was said, stimulates article growth better if we use the "did you know" instead.--Will2k 03:37, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I now see the whole discussion is a few headings up.--Will2k 03:40, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

You know those headings on the Main Page? The ones that link to "Geography, Culture," that sort of stuff?

Where is economics? I know some people abstain from that issue, but I think a lot of people would use it, and it is also THE critical part to the whole world.

After all, without the needs to trade, develop or build, why would any sort of culture or political system ever developed? Without economics and/or economic activity, there is reason for culture, or Math or Science. IF we, as a species, had never began any sort of economic activity, there would never have formed todays modern society.

But we did hunt, fish, and develop agriculture and trade. All of those are economic activities.

So what do you way? Create a link to economic centric articles?

It's supposed to be a succinct list, and can't include everything or the page will get cluttered. The same case could be made for philosophy, and I suspect that sport and entertainment would both be clicked more often than either. Economics is only a click down the menu system.

Just floating the idea of small boxes on the side of articles listing cross-references by other articles. This would be an interesting way to direct readers through the encyclopedia. This kind of feature could be created automatically by search engines, kind of like how Amazon.com suggests other articles you may be interested in, but with less privacy concerns.

• Please see 'What links here' right below the search box. Is that what you mean?--Pharos 04:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Jengod made some edits to this page,which I have reverted. The left column (the FA and selected anniversaries) is supposed to be 55% of the page width, and the right column (ITN and DYK/FP) is supposed to be 45% -- some change she made threw this off and it looked seroiusly out of whack. I'm not sure what did it (it could even be that the FP template she was using was wrong), so I reverted. →Raul654 04:27, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

It looked okay on my browser though... Hayabusa future 04:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I feel very, very, very strongly that if we're going to do this FP on the front page on the weekends, which I think is a totally great and inspired idea, we SHOULD NOT be using the DYK template. Furthermore, manually updating the item everyday leaves us open to update lags, which using the automated templates prevents. I'm going to revert myself back, not to get into a war or to be a bitch, but because I'm certain that whatever is out whack can be fixed on a bit-by-bit basis, but that the basic issues addressed by my edits still need to be addressed (timelineness, organization of the main page, communication to infrequent updaters, effort over the long term in updating, etc.) jengod 06:18, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Edit beta testing: I've looked at the main page on Safari, Firefox and Opera for Mac, and it looks okay. Going to check it on PCs now. jengod 06:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Edit beta testing: Checked it on IE, Firefox and Opera for PCs, and it looks okay again. Raul, can you tell us more about what you're seeing that's not cool. Maybe a screengrab? Thanks. jengod 06:29, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Last but not least, I think the long term solution to this issue will be a third POTD template, one specifically designed for the needs of the main page, but that's a lot of work, so I think this is the best solution until that can be done. Thank you. jengod 06:29, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I just looked at it on IE for Mac, and I see what you must have seen. That's insane. I'll upload a screengrab in a minute, but let me try a couple of tweaks and see if I can fix. jengod 06:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Is it okay to remove the blank space between the "Today's featured picture" line and the POTD box ? Maybe better to have this blank space above, as a separator from ITN. -- 199.71.174.100 06:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Let me see what we can do on that line. For anyone who's interested in the whacked-out "Mac on IE" problem--Dude, two words: Fire Fox ;)--Here's a screengrab.

File:Screwedupmainpage.png

jengod 06:45, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I give up on Mac for IE. I don't know what's wrong. 6 out of 7 browsers ain't bad, right? ;) Can someone with more coding skills help? Going to bed now. Thanks. jengod 07:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted; honestly I don't think 6 out of 7 browsers is good enough-- we have to present a professional face to the world.--Pharos 07:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, anyone using Internet Explorer for Mac at this day is deranged. I do agree the front page should be viewable by anyone. However, I bet it looks pretty bad in Lynx — another browser mainly used by deranged people. Ideally it should be scaled down significantly to be completely accessible. — David Remahl 11:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

No, looks pretty good in lynx. Lupin 14:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Just to comment that I would agree that the long term solution to this issue will be a third POTD template. I already use a couple of templates to substitue the two POTD formats from the same source text, so a third wouldn't be a big deal. Being able to plan in advance with automated templates is important to avoid screw-ups. The only problem is to come up with a solution that dovetails with DYK and we have until next Friday to sort that out. -- Solipsist 12:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Caption for the image is wrong. When I roll over it, it says "Painted Bunting". Hayabusa future 12:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, just prior to Pharos's revert, I was seeing the same problems. I'm seeing it with Firefox, on IE, using the classic skin. →Raul654 15:34, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Jengod:"we SHOULD NOT be using the DYK template." What do you suggest we use then? Anything else will require constant fiddling with the main page. Exactly what the templates are supposed to be avoiding. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:57, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Left side empty space opens up. It should be used for something. lots of issues | 07:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Trim the old news about the London bombing off ITN and the blank space will be gone. -- 64.229.228.244 21:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to a long Featured Article today, the blank space is back, now on the right side. I have two new suggestions for ITN on the ITN Candidates' page to fill up the blank space. Thanks. -- 64.229.206.159 12:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

It really should be the sovereign rather than a sovereign, and of the United Kingdom instead of in. Could an admin who sees this please fix it. Enlightener 00:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the first thing (a -> the), but the second part (The granting of Royal Assent is the formal method by which the Sovereign or the Sovereign's representative in the United Kingdom and in Commonwealth Realms completes the process) is correct as is -- the representative respresents the soverign, not the united kingdom; the act of royal assent occurs in the kingdom however. →Raul654 00:59, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding the second thing: you are right, my mistake. I was seeing the "or the Sovereign's representative" as bracketed off. The problem is it is the sovereign of the United Kingdom and the reprsentative in the Commonwealth realms, which is a little confusing.

Perhaps a better sentence might be:

The granting of Royal Assent is the formal method by which the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, or the Sovereign's representative in Commonwealth Realms, completes the process

I'll leave it up to you, thanks for sorting the problem out. Enlightener 01:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I think pics used in the main page should have a short caption (eg, for today, "Karl Rove" or "Tojo Hideki". Some days I have no idea what article the picture refers to Borisblue 05:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I cannot speak to the other sections, but the write ups I do for the featured articles always do. →Raul654 05:29, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Or to clarify, the pictures usually have pop-up descriptions if you hold the mouse pointer over them. Borisblue may have been suggesting a permanently visible captions below the images. -- Solipsist 06:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

yeah, that was what i was suggesting. Thanks for the clarification. Borisblue 09:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Naw .... I enjoy the mystery.... which induces me to click and read more. -- 64.229.206.159 11:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This verb seems a bit tabloid to me. Evertype 16:05, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Changed to "makes landfall". - BanyanTree 16:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

After killing at least seven people and prompting the evacuation of thousands, Hurricane Emily passes over the Yucatán and moves towards a second landfall in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas. Hurricanes don't kill people... --Dara 23:21, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean they don't kill people? -- Cyrius|✎ 00:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I suppose he means that wind and rain and flying debris kill people. Evertype 08:04, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well, since the problems caused by hurricanes kill people, then so does the hurricane. --66.99.49.226 16:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Didn't the Main Page used to say:

Welcome to Wikipedia, a free-content encyclopedia in many languages that anyone can edit. In this English edition, started in January 2001, we are working on 6,927,383 articles. Visit our Community Portal to find out how you can edit an article, or experiment in the sandbox.

Right now the Sandbox, the most important page on Wikipedia (especially for newcomers), is hard to find! We should put a link to the Sandbox back on the Main Page so that this critical page is easier to find.  DrZoidberg 18:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

While I have been a big supporter of this in the past, it should be noted that with the massive traffic we're now getting, the likelihood of getting into an edit conflict on the sandbox is already quite high. This somewhat defeats the point, as the edit conflict resolution screen is annoying even for regulars and might throw off a newbie. An alternative would be to link to a User:X/Sandbox page in welcome messages. A more sophisticated sandbox extension might be worth contemplating ...--Eloquence* 03:48, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Clearly the number of Wikipedians has grown beyond the carrying capacity of the sandbox! We should create multiple sandboxes and link to all of them on the main page.  DrZoidberg 13:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

<half jokingly> A solution to alleviate the sandbox edit conflict issue is to have a different sandbox for each minute in a day. That would require 1440 sandboxes. Getting something like {{CURRENTSECOND}} to work would even be better and only require 60 sandboxes. </half jokingly> --mav 22:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

This will probably need to be discussed later on at the Meta-Wiki pages (or the software-related discussion pages), but I have a new idea for a main page layout, or something possibly to be used elsewhere as well (sparingly, ie. in article series templates) - that is, to be able to make images the background part of a particular section, with borders.

Perhaps it will be like this, with a template perhaps for possibly unsightly code...{{bgimagetemplate|image=image.img|text, including other templates}}, or possibly split into two templates (for beginning it and ending it) - basically, making a piece of text bordered and within a certain size, and within that border, a background image. Possibly, the background image would be unaltered, but it could be manually (or perhaps automatically) be scaled down in saturation and luminosity for contrast purposes. This would be quite useful for the main page. You have all these dramatic articles, but only with thumbnails....the featured article perhaps, would be able thus to get one of it's best pictures to be put at the background of the "Featured article" section, and with the proper modifications to let the text be easily readable...(transparency might help here)...and can be used for other parts of the main page at will. This especially comes from seeing Image:German Troops In Warsaw.jpg being so highly dramatic, but being reduced to a mere thumbnail on the front page! Hence, my idea. -- Natalinasmpf 01:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you talking about something like the background images on the Homestar Runner Wiki's Main Page? -- Cyrius|✎ 01:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, somewhat like that. Is it possible to do it in Wikipedia? -- Natalinasmpf 04:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's a way to automatically desaturate the images in HTML/CSS, and getting code written to do it for us seems like overkill. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Check out my user page here. You are able to specify your own CSS style so you can do something like that, but to push this out for everybody shouldn't be that difficult either.--Will2k 03:12, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

The thumbnail that sparked this could easily be made bigger without sacrificing too much room, even on small displays. The background idea to me sounds like a way of making an image even less visible. And it's also not really appropriate to stick images in the background when they actually matter (as opposed to just being decoration). There's quite a difference between having a thumbnail of marching stormtroopers and using it as a background, stylistically. That's without considering what this will do to color blind users and users with non-desktop browsers or settings that (sensibly?) ignore background images. Wrong solution to the problem, IMO. 81.58.51.131 11:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Today's featured article box in the Main Page (Polish September Campaign) isn't following the recommendations on date formatting, and thus, individual users' preferences aren't being applied. Although not mandatory, this feature is very welcome by some users like myself who have "non-conventional" date formatting preferences. Thanks.-Poli (talk • contribs) 04:18, 2005 July 19 (UTC)

Modify the article, and I'll update the FA write up accordingly. →Raul654 04:20, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Done. Thanks again. -Poli (talk • contribs) 04:38, 2005 July 19 (UTC)

I've updated the FA write up accordingly. →Raul654 04:45, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Much better now! :) Thanks.-Poli (talk • contribs) 04:49, 2005 July 19 (UTC)

I dont think "Is a F***er" reflects too well on this site.

• You probably came a across a patch of vandalism. If it's related to Bush as you said, it was probably fixed before you even finished posting this. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:26, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Could this have shown up on the main page though? If so, I think that's a problem that should be addressed.--Will2k 03:06, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

No, the Main Page templates can only be edited by administrators, largely for this reason. --Slowking Man 03:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe there ought to be a link to the Wikiportal page directly from the Main Page. It would be just as useful as the 8 Categories at the top or the "other schemes".--Theodore Kloba 22:32, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

The main page is already too cluttered as it is. No more links, please. →Raul654 02:16, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Just a reminder to everyone that clicking the Browse Wikipedia link on the Main Page will display a menu of Main Page Wikiportals, as well as a menu of Categories. Clicking the Wikiportal link at the top of any Wikiportal page will get you to the comprehensive list of Wikiportals. Also the Article Overviews on the Main Page will display a link to Browse Wikipedia so you can always get to a Wikiportal menu from these two Main Page links. Ancheta Wis 23:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

On the homepage it says that Canada legalized same-sex marriage "upon the consent of the acting head of state, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin". This is plain wrong! Beverley McLachlin is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, she is also a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, but she is NOT the acting head of state! The Canadian Head of State is Queen Elizabeth II, with the Governor General representing her. Chief Justice McLachlin was acting in behalf of the Governor General, but not as the Governor General who is sometimes refered to as the defacto head of state, but never the acting head of state. Please change this, it's very misleading! --Mb1000 03:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Silly imperial formalities or not, if she is acting in place of the de facto head of state, she is the acting head of state. --B. Phillips 15:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Well not really. Canada is a constitutional monarchy. The monarch, in this case Queen Elizabeth II, is head of state. The purpose of the Governor General is not to be head of state, but to represent the head of state, who is usually out of the country. This is quite different from actually being the head of state. So no, it's not just a "silly imperial formality", it actually means something. And yes, I'M PROUD TO BE CANADIAN & LONG LIVE THE BRITISH EMPIRE! --Mb1000 01:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

It should mention that Beverley McLaughlin provided consent on behalf of the Queen of Canada. --24.77.35.110 03:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

EDIT Got beat to it.

Now things have swung the other way; the current wording implies that McLaughlin was acting in a judicial capacity to "approve" it in that way. If all she did was sign it, I'm not sure she should be mentioned at all; but if she is, it should be clear that signing it was all she did. (Not only didn't McLaughlin judicially approve it, she didn't even theoretically approve it! Clarkson did that, no matter whose signature is on it.) Doops | talk 05:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Alright, is the new revised wording OK?--Pharos 05:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, it's better; but I still think the "chief justice" tag is a bit of a red herring — according to her article, she's currently doubling as "Queen's Administrator" while the GG is sick. Doops | talk 08:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it would nice to add a link to a "Wikipedia Quiz Game" link on the lower left of the main page. The link would lead to a page where instead of a "Random article" link, there would be a set of links that could produce random pages from selected categories (Science, Literature, Geography and so on).

The page produced by the player would be used as an answer to a question formulated by the quiz game player on the fly.

After some experience with this functionality, some assistance formulating a question related to the produced article could be given.

Shouldn't it be "a series of explosions HITS London?"

Corrected. Thank you. smoddy 16:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

So we have another couple of days to go before the next weekend of swapping DYK for POTD. I'm suggesting that we change the Main Page, so that the bottom right quarter is changed to be the 'Second Feature' which alternates between DYK - weekdays and POTD - weekends. To allow for planning, the link to the second feature is changed to

{{Wikipedia:Today's second feature/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}

which transcludes daily subpages similar to "Today's featured article".

I've put a sample at User:Solipsist/MainPageTemp. And to show how the next few days might pan out;

• Fri 22 July — MainPage 22 — Wikipedia:Today's second feature/July 22, 2005
• Sat 23 July — MainPage 23 — Wikipedia:Today's second feature/July 23, 2005
• Sun 24 July — MainPage 24 — Wikipedia:Today's second feature/July 24, 2005
• Mon 25 July — MainPage 25 — Wikipedia:Today's second feature/July 25, 2005

As an extra challenge, the Featured Picture for the 23rd is due to be User:Geocachernemesis's rather nice panorama of Wellington, NZ. If the panorama proves too difficult to layout, we might be able to use a sample of the full panorama such as just the port.

Note that I've also placed the section title in the subpage so that it can also alternate, although at the moment there seems to be an extra blank line in the layout. -- Solipsist 21:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Please note that headers like <h3> within the template mess up section editing on pages this template is transcluded on (like userpages). Has there been a bug report for this? If there's no section edit link on the header, I don't want it to be seen as such. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

If they can be included without that problem, I think it's worth trying. Though, I think it's a good idea to have a poll to get general concensus before fully implementing it. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:40, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I can say with over a year's expereince writing up the FA that very wide pics are very bad for the main page. As such, I suggest solipsist use a different picture for Saturday. Sunday's Art Nouveau write up, on the other hand, looks spectacular. →Raul654 22:38, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that this setup assumes that there will be one DYK per day. This has been the case over the last few days while I've been following it, but I know in the past it's been updated several times per day and in fact the guidline is only to not update it any more frequently than once every 6 hours. MacGyverMagic, what do you think?--Pharos 00:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually that gives me an idea for an easier way. Double redirects don't work, but double transcludes do. So is there a problem with just putting {{Did you know}} on the weekday [Wikipedia:Today's second feature/xxx] pages?

Yep, that'll work. Once I or anyone else has more time, DYK could be updated more than once a day (4 times at most). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the example for the 25th above to show this. -- Solipsist 08:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

There is the guideline Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates, which emphasises that there can be performance problems with double transclusions. Clearly performance issues affecting the Main Page are going to be important to consider. My impression is that the performance hit comes from updating a template that cascades on to a large number of pages forcing them out of the caches. In this case, the double transclude should be fairly static and only used on a couple of pages, so is it likely to prevent the Main Page from being cache properly? -- Solipsist 06:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Following up on Raul654's comment on the problem with wide images: I guess the issue is with people who use narrow browser widths. What is the maximum image width that avoids too many problems?

I've changed Wikipedia:Today's second feature/July 23, 2005 to use a narrower detail from the full panorama. Not sure I'm totally happy with it though. -- Solipsist 22:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Wait... if today is the 22nd (or the 23rd, according to the user's time zone), why does the DyK for July 25 show up in the Main Page??? --Titoxd 02:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I put this in a related discussion above but I figure I should probably put it here too. I'm proposing, for several reasons including the change to featured pics on weekends, extending the DYK eligibility to 7 rather than 3 days. See the proposal and discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know.

I'd like to make a humble suggestion here -- why not have the featured pictures on weekdays, and did-you-know on weekends? That way, the articles that go on DYK can be polished up and expanded so as to be of high calibre. →Raul654 05:35, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• I think the problem with that is we inherently want a lot of DYKs, because new quality articles is what Wikipedia is all about. But see the link to my alternative proposal above.--Pharos 05:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia talk:Today's second feature for better communication regarding this feature, and have copied the discussion over. violet/riga (t) 22:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The bottom of the left margin (left-hand column) has gone unused. For the main page, it would make sense to list sister projects there instead of the very bottom of the page. This would make them more prominent--which in my opinion it should be. It took me a week after discovering them to figure out how to reach them directly. Davilla 05:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

A second series of terrorist attacks hits London. Thisn seems inaccurate to me, they were atempted terrorist attacks, but they failed the bombs didn't go off just the detornators (at least thats what seems to have happened), no body died. The 21 July 2005 London explosions artcle refers to "a series of four small explosions" rather then terrorist attacks. I prepose the headline be A Second terrorist attack on London fails or something like that.--JK the unwise 08:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

If an attack is "successful" does that mean it is not an attack?

Why does Karl Rove get top billing where as a third day of terrorist activity in normally peaceful London is not even mentioned?

Because Karl Rove is the anti-Christ. :P -- mav 00:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

POV!!!!! →Raul654 02:44, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

The DYK fact is not in the actual article. This is not what the policy with DYK says. Daniel Case 19:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

a quick check reveals that the DYK fact was legitimately disputed and removed in the meantime. Look at tyhe talk page for details. Circeus 19:44, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

"Following yesterday's attempted bombing attempts, police in London shoot dead a suspected suicide bomber at Stockwell tube station."

That ain't quite right. :)

• Fixed it. Since it refers to an event that already happened, I also changed shoot to shot. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:44, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

please can someone remove the allegations about Antonio_Martorell's whereabouts on 7/7 from the Did You Know section. This quasi-anecdote no longer exists in the article because it is profoundly non-notable. It makes no sense to keep it on the front page. --81.154.236.221 23:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Not only is it entirely irrelevant---the anecdote doesn't even claim that this non-notable "artist" was anywhere /near/ the sites of the terrorist attacks, and even if he were, it isn't as if we're talking about someone that people have heard of or care about---but you will note that the factual accuracy of the article on this painter is disputed. It looks like the "artist" himself, or more likely some blank-eyed and blank-minded supporter, put this crap on the Main Page to try to get hits on his website. Hey, my friend was watching the television news about the attacks this morning---can he get a link to his rock band's website? (This is worse than people uploading photos of their cookie-cutter hipster-whore girlfriends to the Wikipedia images collection. See the aforementioned poseur-skank in Image:Alliepurple.jpg. You're a true individual, Allie, just like the 50 million other people with facial piercings who get their iPod playlists from emo weblogs. So rebellious and original! OOOOH!) 138.88.200.140 00:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

sir, you appear to have ranted --81.154.236.221 00:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

the abortive bombing attempts can no longer be said to have occured yesterday - in London it is the 23rd of July. Thursday was the 21st. I suggest

"Following the attempted bombings of July 21st, police in London shoot dead a suspected suicide bomber at Stockwell tube station."

you will notice I have restored 'shot' to 'shoot' in the above sentence. It is consistent with wikipedia's ITN style:

• The People's Bank of China announces
• The legalisation of same-sex marriage in Canada is officially signed into law

etc. --81.154.236.221 00:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• But now it's in the past, now it needs to be in the past tense (shoot/shot). - Mgm|^(talk) 14:06, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. Selected Anniversaries are in past tense, but In The News is always presented in present tense. - Mark 01:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC

• "Rejects" is a strong word to use in the case of the incorrect killing of the Brazilian man. This ought to be changed as in no other medium have I heard this being used.

Quote

The legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada is officially signed into law by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.

I believe this statement is incorrect. Judges do not usually inact law - they interpret law and they definantly do not sign laws into being (that is the legislative branch's duty to make and sign laws into being). I believe it should be that Governor General Adrienne Clarkson signed the bill into law. --ShaunMacPherson 05:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• But Adrienne Clarkson didn't sign the bill into law; Beverley McLachlin did (she is currently performing the duties of the Governor General, who is ill, but she does not actually hold that position).--Pharos 05:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I did not know, thanks for the information! That is extremely interesting, I am a little surprised that members of the judicary would serve this roll since it seems to be breaking the idea of seperation of powers. I was also surprised to hear the Governor General was ill. If there is room maybe a blurb could be added underneath to add clarification that the chief justice had to sign the bill because of the GC's illness. --ShaunMacPherson 07:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The governor General of Canada holds in practice absolutely no political power. Circeus 09:42, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

A featured article is like our front door. It should represent our best effort at the art of encyclopedia making. It's the not the place to quibble. We have ample opportunity to do that at WP:RFC, WP:PR and, WP:FAC. So, how about a rule that makes a Featured article off-limits to editing, by blocking, for some respectable amount of time (say 1 or 2 days) after WP:FA. This might off-put the trolls that are inevitably attracted to the very prominent featured article just to embarrass our best efforts. Any thoughts on this? hydnjo talk 04:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

This is not a new suggestion. My reply (as the featured article director) when this has been suggested in the past is basically this -- the featured article is supposed to embody what makes wikipedia great. This means being editable by everyone. Every featured article, almost without exception, is significantly improved by its tenure on the front page. If you don't believe me, look at the diffs for the last 3 featured articles - [14] [15] [16]. Yes, there's always the possiblity of vandalism, but that's the price we pay foor being open and having low barriers to entry. →Raul654 04:17, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

OK fine. I just thought that a period of stability might be appropriate for a WP:FA. I have counted between 70 to 180 edits on the last several featured articles on the very day of their being featured. To me, that seems inappropriate. A reader looking at our best effort could catch any one of those versions. Although this case could be made of any article, the featured article seems to draw more than it's fair share of edits on it's WP:FA date. So go ahead and let the rules apply equally to all articles. That's very democratic but IMHO unwise. Respectfully. hydnjo talk 05:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Sysops do temporarily protect any articles that get heavy traffic from vandals, featured or not. Top items on ITN are also frequent targets. To pre-emptively protect articles to avoid vandalism would be against the ideals of a collaborative wiki. As Raul wrote, "that's the price we pay ". I'd like to have an active FA automatically put on the Watchlist of the sysops.... Hey, what's wrong with featuring how efficient our sysops are at dealing with vandalism ? :-) -- 64.229.177.18 05:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Nothing at all, and it gives me warm fuzzies to see it. Pretty much every time I've spotted a typo or similar on the featured article, it's been gone by the time I've loaded the edit page. I like being able to tell non-Wikipedia users about that. In my opinion the featured article is covered by so many eyes that vandalism really isn't a problem - I've certainly not experienced any. PeteVerdon 18:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

After reading all the above discussion related to replacing DYK with POTD, it seems like a number of users want DYK to stick around, but the problem seems to be that there isn't enough material available to keep DYK well stocked with good articles, and in addition, some users have expressed disinterest with selected anniversaries. So why not combine the two and give Picture of the day a permanent spot on the main page? I've set up an example of what the lower half of the main page might look like under this proposed layout. It would involve putting only 2-3 DYKs and 2-3 SAs on the main page instead of the 4-6 of each. Comments? --Spangineer (háblame) 04:27, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Expand Selected Anniversaries (perhaps with birthdays) on the left, and shrink DYK & ITN on the right, then you'll get some space on the lower right corner on the Main Page for POTD, too. -- 64.229.177.18 05:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• It's not so much a problem to keep DYK stocked. It's more of a problem to have it updated in the weekends. By including a picture on weekends, we get around that problem. BTW, there's not enough featured pictures to get around a year without repetition. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:03, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Can a bot update DYK/POTD on weekends ? Can we "steal" pictures from the Commons ? :-) -- 64.229.225.240 15:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Also, there's a lot of different people and everyone has different ideas, if we're going to make any drastic or permanent changes, we should consult the community first. By using a rotating schedule on FP and DYK I hoped for a compromise that both DYK lovers and FP fans could live with. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:04, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Loitzendorf is a small village on the highest mountain (Jauerling) of the Wachau valley in Lower Austria.

So ? What does this have to do with the Main Page ? -- 65.95.106.28 14:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Could someone remove the image of the 100 yuan bill from the top of "in the news"? It is an odd juxtaposition with the Sharm el-Sheikh bombing story. - Nat Krause 07:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

What would you suggest to use as a replacement ? I've been looking for one since yesterday .... How about Lance Armstrong here ? Not right now, though. (pls see below on Tour de France) -- 65.95.106.28 14:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong is on his way to win his 7th consecutive Tour de France today, after three weeks of racing this July. This is a major, major moment in sporting history. Lance announced his retirement, and it's not likely anyone will win 7 straight again. How about a minor mention, eh?

Wait till the end of the 2005 Tour de France bike race, Current events and the relevant pages are updated, then Lance Armstrong should be mentioned on ITN ... (see above for a suggested picture) -- 65.95.106.28 14:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Like now ? Please see the ITN candidates' page for a suggested blurb and pic. Thanks. -- 199.71.174.100 18:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's use a little care when shortening article leads for MPFA inclusion. "Unusually long length" -- urgh. This doesn't appear in any recent version of the actual article. If an article needs substantive changes/clarifications it shouldn't be an MPFA in the first place. Jgm 13:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

We could use more additions to the H5N1 page. How about putting it one the front page on the news section? There is a great Wikinews article. Russia found it's first case this week too. In fact I would bet the H5N1 news story will be the most important next to terrorism in the first half of the twenty first century. And our current article sucks! :) We need to draw some attention to it. See the Wikinews article: [17] 70.57.82.114 00:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Can someone with sysop powers change "indentify" to "identify", please ? A link to the Metropolitan Police Service page would be nice, too. Thanks. -- 199.71.174.100 00:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it so quickly, Raul654. -- 199.71.174.100 00:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be policy to protect images on the main page - if so, could an admin reading this please protect Image:BleriotDI11G1.jpg? Not that it's been vandalised, but it's going to be there for a day... Shimgray 00:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• You're absolutely right. I've just protected it.--Pharos 00:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Does the Johannesburg one need protected as well, since it's brought through from Commons? Shimgray 00:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, that's protected now too, at both ends. I had to get help on the Johannesburg one as I'm not an admin on Commons.--Pharos 01:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so stupid me, but I have to do this. Lets take this down to such a basic level that even I understand.

• Three doors and I pick one of them.
• Monty, by the rules, gets the other two doors.

• Forget this step as Monty will always reveal a goat door whether he has one or two goats thus this step makes no difference. In "magic" performance this would be called misdirection as it has nothing to do with the outcome but it will distract you. The hidden rule is that Monty will never open a car door (this is what throws some folks off the trail) - Monty doesn't make a random selection; he knows what is behind every door after all so why bother with this step at all.

• So now, would you trade your one door selection for Monty's two door leftovers or not (remembering that he hasn't even gone to the trouble of opening a (for sure) goat door).

• n.b.: My youngish grandchildren all elected to switch.

Respectfully, hydnjo talk 21:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

WP:FA protection

The above is just one of the edits (of about a hundred on it's WP:FA day of glory.. There is a troll bait attraction to screw-around with our WP:FA. Just take a look and you will see what I mean. I'm suggesting that the WP:FA be locked only during it's WP:FA time. A nice and fluffy template could, I'm confident, be designed to explain the page block for that 24 hour period. Hopefully, hydnjo talk 04:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, this is harmless. If there ever were real problems during the period on the Main Page, it would be very clear which version to revert to. I think it's a bad precedent to start protecting new types of pages. We mustn't have 'protection creep'; this would hurt our credibility as an open project.--Pharos 04:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I find that old news is still there. the chinese currency news could be replaced by the quake in andamans. --Idleguy 07:55, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Someone has to write the article first, and add it to Current events, and ... We don't just post headlines on 'In The News'. -- 64.229.225.240 16:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Instead of the earthquake, how about the calling of the New Zealand general election 2005 ? I've added it to the ITN Candidates' page. -- 199.71.174.100 01:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Can we have a less emotive word than "slain" in the news section reference to the Stockwell shooting? "Slain" is a loaded word which is likely to be inflammatory. It's not NPOV by any stretch of the imagination. The shooting was a tragic mistake but Wikipedia does not have to (and should not) fan the flames.

I agree. Was about to make this point myself but youve already said it. --Timmywimmy 16:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I created this page to make it easier for newcomers to know about the goings-on in wikipedia. This is through personal experience; as a newbie it took me 1 week to find the help desk, and I only found out what an FA was in about three months. I think it would be nice if we had a wikipedia:directory link from the main page, so newbies have a better grasp of the goings-on. And yes, it isn't a complete list, please feel free to add any locations of interest. Borisblue 13:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Nice. Seems more friendly than the Community Portal. -- 64.229.225.240 17:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The last "did you know that" lacks a question mark at the end. --67.65.113.154 00:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Rhobite 01:02, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Lead item today says Blackface is a style of theatrical makeup that originated in the United States, used to affect the countenance of an iconic, racist, American archetype, that of the "darky". Who was actually being racist, the depictee, or the depictor? Seems like the latter to me, but the article infers the opposite. Moriori 01:43, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's quite clear (at least to me) that that sentence is referring to the archetype as racist. →Raul654 01:45, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

The negative archetypes that comprised the stock characters of blackface minstrelsy played a seminal role...

should be "blackface minstrels" yes?

Minstrelsy redirects to Minstrel show. Probably not a typo, stib. A wikilink on the MainPage for this word would be nice. Please wikify. Thanks. -- 199.71.174.100 05:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

From http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861630335/minstrelsy.html:

min·strel·sy (plural min·strel·sies)

noun 1. minstrel's art: a minstrel's art or performance, or the profession of a minstrel

2. minstrels' poems and songs: the poems and songs written and performed by minstrels or by a particular minstrel

3. minstrel troupe: a troupe of medieval minstrels

→Raul654 05:30, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Tish fancy; what a useful word. I don't know how I ever coped without minstrelsy in my vocabulary.--stib 10:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the first sentence read ".... used to effect the countenance of ...."?

Yes, it should. TotoBaggins

News entries on the main page and in Current Events are not linked. They are entered separately, and often main page entries do not appear in the current events. Idealy the main page entries should be the "most important" news entries from the current events, so there should be a way to link the 2 together so they are consistant. Elfguy 12:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

News blurb reads "...beginning the first U.S. spaceflight since the...". Should be "...beginning the first manned U.S. spaceflight since the..." or "...beginning the first U.S. spaceflight with a human crew since the..." --agr 20:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Done. Went with "...U.S. human spaceflight..." as that is the article for spaceflight involving a human crew. Evil Monkey∴Hello 21:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Please remove the wikilink from Incompetence in the News blurb concerning Jean de Menezes. It doesn't link to what you think it does. Sheldrake 02:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I highly object to the word "slain" on the front page - concerning ther shooting of Jean de Menezes. Please remove it. Jooler 07:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Apart from changing this, perhaps the blurb on ITN could be updated with a mention of the 8 bullet wounds and Blair's apology, too. -- 199.71.174.100 09:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC) ... Update it with info on the arrests in Birmingham would be even better !  :-) -- 199.71.174.100 11:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Now it reads like four men have been arrested in connection with the Menezes shooting, and not with the bombings. The sentence has two "afters"! The arrests are a story because of the attempted bombings, not because of the shooting.

"Four men have been arrested after the police mistakenly shot Jean de Menezes in the pursuit of suspects after Thursday's attempted bombings in London."

--M4-10 14:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Don't like slain? How's executed work for ya? Mercilessly gunned down? Oops? Nelson Ricardo 18:07, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Today is the anniversary of the end of the Korean war, I think it deserves to be in selected anniversaries.--204.138.115.3 15:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Agree that it is very strange it wasn't on Selected Anniversaries. I will modify the July 27 template so it appears next year (only 364 days to wait!). Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)