Jump to content

Talk:Main Page

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by J Di (talk | contribs) at 17:36, 9 August 2006 (JS: Reverted vandalism by 71.231.31.112 to last version by Dark Shikari. Please do not compromise the integrity of pages.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Wikipedia Main Page: please read the information below to find the best place for your comment or question. For error reports, go here. Thank you.

Today's featured picture

  • Today's featured picture is taken from the list of successful featured pictures, If you would like to nominate a picture to be featured see Picture of the Day.
  • To report an error with "Today's featured picture...", add a note at the Error Report.

Main Page and beyond

Otherwise; please read through this page to see if your comment has already been made by someone else before adding a new section by clicking the little + sign at the top of the page.

Main page discussion

  • This page is for the discussion of technical issues with the main page's operations. See the help boxes above for possible better places for your post.
  • Please add new topics to the bottom of this page. If you press the plus sign to the right of the edit this page button it will automatically add a new section for your post.
  • Please sign your post with --~~~~. It will add the time and your name automatically.

Typo

There's a typo in today's featured article, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. "Remedies" has only one 'i'. Could someone fix this? --dm (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:ERRORS. --64.229.205.228 15:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Sizes

The images currently seem very small (except for the featured picture). Can they perhaps be made a bit bigger? Thanks in advance. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 05:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia as advertisement

Practically all of your contemporary biographies read like advertisements. How can I trust you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.155.207.167 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Please add {{Advert}} on articles that read like advertisements. Someone will clean them up shortly. Actually, you can start cleaning them up right away. -- 64.229.223.126 19:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read like adverts in what language? But seriously, I think it's a result of articles being created (usually) by people who like that individual and think they should have an article, or have their article expanded. It you want to see a mess, watch some of the "company" edits of for-profit colleges that turn them into brochures. As the person above stated, feel free to take a knife (edit) to it immediately if you wish --Bobak 19:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or the people trying to quietly slip a URI for their business into an article claiming it as further reading. We're watching (most of the time). --Monotonehell 20:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The IP editor 81.155.207.167 has been adding nonsense to Alan Hart (writer), and has received four warnings in little over 24 hours. --Dhartung | Talk 08:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a commercial service for advertisers. Why not take it to Campus Life magazine for college admission endorsements? Articles should stay away from endorsing products or anything of the sort. You never will find an ad inside Encyclopedia Britannica or the World Book, would you? The thing is free enterprise doesn't really exist in academic research sources, so whoever placed the advertising-like articles should adhere to this rule. --Mike D 26 12:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish Sauna

This is my first attempt to initiate a discussion: in the Northern Michigan area saunas used by American-Finns, bundles of cedar branches (instead of birch leaves) are provided to beat the skin to a rosy red and, as grandfather said, "to open the pores."

Also, I see no mention of "Tar Candles" as a folk medicine. In Finland, there is a saying: "If tar and the Sauna don't work, you're going to die." Commodore678 03:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

okay... you may want to find the appropriate article for that... like Sauna. --219.89.236.186 07:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tisha B'Av

Today is Tisha B'Av in the Hebrew Calendar, commemorating the day that both Temples were destroyed and several other tragedies befell the Jews throughout history.

Is this important holiday of one of the World's major religions not qualified for inclusion on the main page? Elipongo 09:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but no. Lots of love, - Mel Gibson 09:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)—The preceding comment purported to be made by Mel Gibson was added by 219.89.236.186 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
rude ;)
You may like to read the guidelines for suggesting entries to on this day and then suggest it if it fits --Monotonehell 10:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good joke <g> Thanks for the link. However, although that page does state what the *criteria* for inclusion are, it does not state what *procedure* to use to request for events to be included! I just got done surfing around for fifteen minutes and could not find a page to *make* a suggestion. Maybe I'm just being dumb, but its rather user unfriendly, in my not so humble opinion! Elipongo 15:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Over a million guidelines and counting. Once you've been here a few months, you'll sometimes be lucky enough to find the procedure you're looking for. Often the best thing to do is post something here and hope someone notices and gives you a link or points you to the right person (the Wikimaster of Selected Anniversaries). Piet 17:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a hearty laugh this morning --thanks, I needed it! --Bobak 15:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please scroll up to the top of this talkpage to see what to do when there is an omission on the Main Page. --64.229.205.128 20:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elipongo, it is not that the holiday failed to meet criteria, but that it simply wasn't one of the 4 or 5 anniversaries chosen. There are many more anniversaries eveyr day than may feasibly be featured on the front page. --Dhartung | Talk 08:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

News items

Huh? Isn't the North Korean flood more important than anything Floyd Landis will ever do? Call me crazy... -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In The News is not Wikinews. In the News covers how articles have been updated to reflect new events. Create a good article on the North Korean flood, and it can be added to the ITN template. Dark Shikari talk/contribs 18:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can start with posting a headline about the flood along with a few newslinks on Portal:Current events. Thanks. --64.229.205.128 20:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article

Lindsay Lohan, "Music of the US" the featured article had gone down. Are we really short of anything substantial? Defining? Obscure? Needing exploration? May an article on "Everyday Life" next or "Pubic Hairs?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArthurianLegend (talk • contribs) .

Music of the United States is an article you might find in any encyclopedia. And you missed the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Nevertheless, if the article on pubic hair is improved to featured standards, I see no reason (other than taste) why it should not be, well, featured. Better we encourage even quotidian articles on popular culture to be of high quality than concentrate only on the quality of the "proper" articles, true? --Dhartung | Talk 08:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel-Lebanon Conflict

Is it correct to call it a strife? Can someone explain the difference between a conflict and a strife?--Patchouli 18:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strife is basically headlinese because it's short. It isn't much used in formal writing, though, and it's become a bit of a cliché with regard to the Middle East. Where do we use it, or is your issue with the word "conflict" that we do use? --Dhartung | Talk 20:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with conflict. I think conflict should be used here unless Lebanon declares war; then, there is a war between two nations. Now it is a military engagement involving guerrillas. I just wanted to learn about strife.--Patchouli 20:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Am I suppose to use quotation marks or italicize here for the two words I used?--Patchouli 20:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can do it either way you choose, this is only a Talk page and there isn't any requirement of style, only of being understood. I still do not understand your question. Strife is an English word very similar to conflict, but it is not used nearly as much in formal writing. Conflict is used in this case more often because the conflict is not always violent, whereas strife usually implies active violence. --Dhartung | Talk 22:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Patchouli, you may want to check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style. But on talkpages, anything goes. --199.71.174.100 22:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"[C]onflict is not always violent, whereas strife usually implies active violence," is the explanation I was seeking.--Patchouli 08:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "duties" of "President" Fidel Castro

surely you meant to say "Cuban Italic textdictator, Fidel Castro, handed over Italic textpower to his brother...yada yada yada... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madmax5 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Officially, Castro is the President. That is the proper way to address him. -- Psy guy Talk 01:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, we didnt. The still-President of Cuba handed over his duties. Is this in any way inaccurate? Preston 02:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, Castro never took an oath to cease presidential duties, and his brother Raul is placed in duty (temporarily) until Fidel is fully recovered. Interestingly, Fidel's 80th birthday is due around the corner and the world watches to see Fidel will remain president, the longest-running dictator at this time for 47 years may continue to hold that title. --Mike D 26 12:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't "Debian" be hyperlinked in the Ubuntu article?

Shouldn't "Debian" be hyperlinked in the Ubuntu article? --Irrevenant 03:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, they're probably writing a script to do it as we speak. --Tess Tickle 03:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's there now. If it was there already and I missed it: sorry. If it wasn't: thanks. --Irrevenant 04:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

link To Kidspedia On Main Page Recest

Kidspediais at the moment a mini wiki wich is going to be a kids vershon of wikipedia. The link is part of an atempt to stop it having 1000's of unfinesht pages. Plase reply on the kidspedia discoshen page. I cant get a link but just go to the scrchcard bit on wikia and you will find it on all mini wikis. JosephK19 17:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice: Kids' spellings, too!

Kids spelling - I thought you were dyslexic :-) --Radioactive turnip 11:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What discussion page? Can we get a link? And sign your posts, please. — ceejayoz talk 14:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that there's a link, it won't be happening. It's a non-Wikipedia Foundation site with only 9 articles, and none of those have any content. — ceejayoz talk 20:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probally shouldnt be using the wikipedia logo on it, even if you have changed the colours. Its copyrighted and your use of it could cause confusion as the site's affiliation with wikipedia. Rafy 01:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dosen't the simple english 'pedia fill that purpose? Pacific Coast Highway (blah • I'm a hot toe picker) 02:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simple is also meant for those not proficient in the English language, including adults who may not be interested in articles on toys or other things kids care about. The content's emphasis is different. BTW, this section has nothing to do with the Main Page and should be remove from Talk: Main Page. --64.229.228.195 12:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article - Ubuntu

I'm generally a massive fan of the featured article, but I thought this one was far below the usual high standards. It reads very much like an advert or some sought of promotional blurb. Regards, Smiffy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oismiffy (talk • contribs) .

You want "some soft of", not "some sought of". YRTE. Also, if you don't like the writing, participate to make it better. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In a similar manner to the way in which you want "some sort of", not "some soft of". 81.132.80.88 19:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eek - I thought that about the correction but didn't like to say it. Just proves anyone can make a mistake in the excitement of the moment!! Anyway, thanks for the pointers - I don't really have a problem with how its written, just the content. I take your point about getting involved - I know the featured articles are strongly scrutinised and discussed, hence my dissapointment that this made it through. Maybe I will put my money where my mouth is. Regards. Oismiffy 20:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's comprehensive, concise, and clear, even if it doesn't "sizzle". Is that enough for featured? I dunno. --Dhartung | Talk 23:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First people complain that it sounds like a marketing blurb, then they complain it doesn't "sizzle". Yeah, like, let's have it both ways or something. The cool thing about Wikipedia is, you just tell people what you want and they make it for you. Must feel like paradise. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the news pictures

I have noted this plenty in the past, but this one is just too easy to have a light-hearted go at. Is it not possible for the pictures to be formatted to be inline with the news bullet that it is exemplifying? We currently have the top headline of:

"Spanish cyclist Oscar Pereiro Sio claims he is the true 2006 Tour de France winner"

Across from that we have a picture of an ageing man with a beard, who, on closer inspection, is a notorious president/dictator (delete as appropriate). I am not sure if Castro could win the tour de France - but I doubt it!

Is it difficult to align the picture with the bullet? I know the (pictured) text is used, but to the casual viewer it just looks wrong (and in some cases, such as this one) makes WP look a bit embarrassing/daft. Apologies if this was covered before during the redraft discussions at the start of the year, but I can't see any technical reason why the pic could not move up and down as appropriate (thus I am guessing this is a stylistic choice). SFC9394 00:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has come up several times. There was an attempt at a solution a few months back that gained support but was never implemented and more recently there was an a period where an attempt was made to at least have a flag or some logo related to the top item. But people kept complaining that a flag was boring... Perhaps we should just keep the pictured item on top? --Monotonehell 02:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has never bothered me. Newspapers often have strange juxtapositions of photographs and news stories, too. --Dhartung | Talk 21:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't newspapers normally have a caption under each picture though? Also, you should never hold a newspaper up as an example of good page layout. ;) --Monotonehell 01:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the picture should carry a caption below and prevents confusion to the reader. Let's not make Wikipedia's main page a sloppy one, because an encyclopedia is well organized and most newspapers are that way. The Libyan flag isn't the issue, this is the country's official flag and to remove it is illogical like for one to remove the Sri Lankan flag in recent main page news articles. --Mike D 26 12:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Gibson

I realise this is too late—but why didn’t Mel Gibson make it onto the Main Page?! Its dominated the news far more than some of the other things listed. But ah, well… it’s in the past... the incident that is and not the ramifications.--Greasysteve13 03:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It maybe newsworthy but this is an encyclopedia. Try Wikinews. --Monotonehell 03:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I was just surprised Mel Gibson didn't make it in the in the news section of Wikipedia's main page. Who does he have to kill?--Greasysteve13 05:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lol how'd you find out about that? I thought Mel's people had that all hushed up? ;) I was a bit terse above, sorry, what I mean is items featured in ITN need to be of encyclopedic value, have an article that has been substantially updated with the new information and (finally) be nominated for inclusion. --Monotonehell 08:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.--Greasysteve13 11:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the in the news section isn't just for US news, but worldwide. Entertainment gossip isn't exactly high profile news world wide. --lightdarkness (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting that the in the news section was just for US news but this Mel news in general has been heavy in a lot of Western news, thats not to say Eastern news insn't just as Important. And it may surprise you all but I am not American.--Greasysteve13 05:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Say, isn't Britney pregnant again? --Dhartung | Talk 21:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares?! If she was it never garnered signifigant media atenttion--Greasysteve13 04:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

go go Azeri peeps!

Big ups on today's selection which put the FA in phat! w00t?! --70.209.187.182 07:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

40th birthday of Jimbo Wales

Should the 40th birthday of Jimbo Wales be mentioned in the Main Page tomorrow? Hardee67 18:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Shanes 18:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Maybe when he is 100 we will :-) --HappyCamper 18:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this means that his birthday should not be mentioned on the main page. Hardee67 18:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the birthday needs to be intrinsically notable for it on the main page. For example, if we go by our article on Preident Bush, last July 6th would have been his 60th birthday, but this was not announced on the main page as we can see here. --HappyCamper 19:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
President Bush is not the founder of Wikipedia however. The birthday of Jimbo Wales is different, in that he's the found of the Wikipedia project which is this encyclopedia. Hardee67 01:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's made it clear in the past that he should recieve no more or less attention than any other subject with regards to items about him. --Monotonehell 01:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Oooohhh!!! Wikipedians - look at this! Well, you gotta admit, spontaneous birthday wishes are pretty sweet. --HappyCamper 19:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo Wales may not prefer not have his birthday on the main page, this is his decision...and Wikipedia rules forbids birthday announcements. I may want to greet him anyway, but doesn't mean I place it on an article. Check out the link Happy Camper placed above and feel free to greet him. --Mike D 26 12:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stereotypical progressive bias in Israeli-Hezbollah news

Every time I see the main page in the last month, I've learned about a new airstrike by the Isreali military and how many "people" it killed, with no distinction between civilians, soldiers, terrorists (ok, sorry, militants). I've never seen one bit about any attacks by Hezbollah, which many people can assure you are on-going and more often targetted at civilians. Why is it we only need to hear about the casualties caused by the democracy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by B. Phillips (talk • contribs) 22:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

To help us, please identify (or write up) a decent article on a recent attack by Hezbollah and post a suggested headline on Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Thanks. -- 199.71.174.100 00:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint

You should give a contact link. I recently edited my entry - SHANE BRIANT - recently. You took me out of the main encyclopaedia for doing so. BUT EVERYTHING WAS VERIFIABLE - all you had to do was check with the IMDb (Internet Movie Data Base). I did it only because your entries showed my worst work (hooro films) and omitted my best work (the other 30 films). I thought it would be of interest - if you are an encyclopaedia - to have on record that I am a prolific novelist too. Also easily verifiable.

I did it only because my friends in America pressed me to do it - not because I have a big egos. My Google links are currently over 74,000. But I do not appear right now in your Encyclopaedia.

Kind regards

Shane Briant

sbriant@bigpond.net.au

I think you should write this at the talk page or the one who moved the page (User_talk:RHaworth). While it might be bad practice to edit an article about oneslef you didn't create the article, so I think that your complaint is valid. But the best course of action is to contact RHworth before doing anything else. 83.227.141.19 23:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC) – Sorry I was not logged in whil writing this Jeltz talk 23:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I would suggest asking RHaworth to move the article back. Moving an article to userspace in this way is effectively speedy deletion, and as the biography asserted notability, it doesn't seem to have been eligible. If you don't get any joy from him, try deletion review to get the decision reviewed. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Actually looking at Shane's talk page he may be ahead of me.) --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved back to Shane Briant. There was no call for 1 user to invoke his 1 opinion like that, especially when he was claiming unverifiability despite the prominence on IMDB and Google. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-07 00:37

Category?

The main pages doesn't seem to have a category. Maybe it should have one?-70.92.246.98 02:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about CatAgory:Main Page or CatAgory:Pages people complain about ;) *snigger* If you're serious I think a category on the main page would be a bit redundent and clutter it somewhat. --Monotonehell 06:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelling

Israeli is misspelled Isareli. Please correct, TewfikTalk 03:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. If you notice errors or ommisions in the future please post them there. Thanks :) --Monotonehell 06:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kfar Giladi

I've written an atticle on Kfar Giladi. Could someone please link it? --PiMaster3 talk 14:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry could you be more clear with regards to what you want? "link it"? --Monotonehell 15:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assume he's talking about the second news item, which refers to Kfar Giladi. I've turned it into a wikilink. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm not an admin so I couldn't change it myself. --PiMaster3 talk 22:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worst flag ever

Most users will just think there's a problem with the image for the Libya FA. Are there no free images of the countryside or Tripoli or something? --Nelson Ricardo 00:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the simplicity of Libya's flag should prevent it from appearing on the Main Page. Perhaps those readers unfamiliar with the Libyan flag will click on it or open the article and learn something they didn't know before. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't mock other cultures, but: "The top right corner of the flag represents peace, the top left represents life, the bottom right represents faithfulness to the country and the bottom left represents unity" (Flag of Libya). Say what you want about that there green rectangle, but it sure is pulling its weight. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they think there's a problem with the image for the flag, I guess they'll be pleasantly surprised when they learn something --taking another step away from ignorance and into the insatiable beast that is knowledge (or some other gobbledygook) --Bobak 00:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We could use a map of Libya though; that represents Libya just as wlel as its flag. —Cuiviénen 00:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually skeptical about the 4 corners thing. It sounds like a joke. Not that the flag doesn't look like a joke, of course... --Kinst 01:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, the green on the flag is mainly for the Green revolution, but I will check out my flag books later and get back to yall. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to use national flags when (and only when) an article about a country is run. Maps make TERRIBLE main page images (at 100px wide it's basically an incomprehensible blob of color) and should never, ever be used under any circumstances. Raul654 01:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sent an email to the Libya Embassy in the US, should expect an answer by the end of the week. My flag books debunk the four corners theory for now, and even my boys (FOTW) are scratching our heads, since not much flag info comes from Libya. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about using the coat of arms? Ziggur 02:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just swapped out the PNG image for the arms, but as Raul said before, let's stick with the flag. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Honestly, I've always thought it was kind of a dumb idea for a flag, but you have to admit, it sure is attention-grabbing in its simplicity. People are used to seeing photos and diagrams on the main page, and seeing a big green box is sure to make the Libya page a popular destination for casual readers and hardcore editors alike. Lovelac7 03:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it there of course. I never knew there was a country flag with just one color. Brilliant idea. Way better than all those boring red-white-blue flags. Piet 07:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it, though I don't think we should be nominating it as a featured image any time soon. In other news I think the four corners thing is a joke (no mention here and they seem to have most details about other flags and I can't find it anywhere else.) Jellypuzzle | Talk 10:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiality strikes again! Frankly I'm filing that under 'if it isn't true, it should be'. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
***GASP!*** ...did you dare use a Colbert reference in the rest of Wikipedia? Be careful, the "anti-colberrorists" may burn you for spreading the "virus". --Bobak 19:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please mention the all-green flag in the TFA text. --64.229.228.195 12:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase about what the corners refer to appears to have been added by an anon IP that belongs to the American University of Beirut. The nonsense stuck around for almost a year. Wow. -- Plutor 13:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green is my least favorite colour; but I still prefer that original flag over some gaudy ones with stars and stripes ;).--Cloviz 15:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd Phrasing

"Libya is slightly larger in area than Alaska, the fourth largest nation in Africa, and the 17th largest in the world" makes it sound like Alaska is in Africa. Can it be changed? --194.217.191.10 09:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Adam[reply]

See the next section. Graham talk 09:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Lybia's area with Alaska

I'd put this up on WP:ERRORS, but it might deserve some discussion, so here goes. I have a problem with the following sentence:

"With an area of 1.8 million square kilometres, 90% of which is desert, Libya is slightly larger in area than Alaska, the fourth largest nation in Africa, and the 17th largest in the world."


Firstly, it's badly worded and it could be interpreted to say that Alaska is the fourth-largest nation in Africa. Secondly, as an Australian, I don't find comparisons with the area of Alaska helpful, and they probably wouldn't be helpful for people outside North America. The sentence should be changed the way it was in the actual article to:

With an area of 1.8 million square kilometres, 90% of which is desert, Libya is the fourth largest nation-state in Africa by area, and the 17th largest in the world.

Hmmm, I see someone was also confused at WP:ERRORS, so I'm not the only one. I'll redirect any discussion here, because this is a more suitable place for discussion. Graham talk 09:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to match the article. You may need to purge your cache in order to see the update on the Main page. Raven4x4x 10:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; that clears things up a bit. Graham talk 11:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the usual comparison in cases like this is actually the size of Wales (Yeah, I know it's not really outside of the British media, but when else am I going to be able to link that article in a context that makes sense?) :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Placements of images on the main page ...

Hi guys, in the past I noticed several times that images are misplaced on the main page. Today, however, it’s the worst misplacement I’ve seen for quite some time. The picture of the "Warsaw radio mast" is placed on the very top of the "On this day" section, but the corresponding text is the last bullet point at the very end of that section. – Can't the layout of the main page (!) be checked that the images are always beside the corresponding text items? – Thanks. MikeZ 12:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image is not misplaced. It's always in that same spot no matter which of the bulleted item contains the corresponding text. --64.229.228.195 12:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, shouldn't this practice be changed than? I find that kind of placement disturbing. MikeZ 12:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's moved down to the 5th item, it sticks out at the bottom. More so if it's a 'portrait' instead of a 'landscape' or 'square'. That's bad layout, too. --64.229.228.195 12:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely we can find a picture for one of the first four items? This issue keeps coming up. — ceejayoz talk 13:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's one of the few recuring issues on the MP that people suggest solutions but nothing ever sticks. I think the best solution is to have the top item always the one with the picture. When a new pictured item is selected it can join its place in the queue. --Monotonehell 14:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes people keep mentioning this, and it contiunes to baffle me people think the image needs to correspond to the text right next to it. Most people can easily figure out what the picture relates to. 160.79.140.254 15:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The On this day... entries are listed chronologically. Should we only include images pertaining to the earliest event highlighted on each date? If we have no suitable image for that entry, should we exclude it? —David Levy 16:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's often hard to get an image to go with an item about something that took place centuries ago, which is often the first item. What we need is a brief image caption for each image (as per Wikipedia:Captions) but many people have previously said that this would take up too much space on the already crowded MainPage. For now, move the mouse over the image and read the ALT text. -- PFHLai 16:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This may not have come across, but my questions were rhetorical. The answers, in my opinion, are "no" and "no."  :-) —David Levy 16:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both your rhetorical questions are strawman. The On this day... entries are currently listed chronologically, as are the In the News items. My suggestion was to leave that item on top until another decently illustrated item replaces it. If a newer item has no picture it goes to the second place. Would it really hurt the formatting that much to do so? The pictured item is already receiving more attention, as the others have no picture. --Monotonehell 09:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My questions may have been inapplicable, but they weren't straw man arguments. I based them upon my honest interpretation of what you wrote.
The In the news entries are not listed chronologically. They're listed reverse-chronologically (typically with respect to when they're added, not to when the events occurred), with no uniform update schedule or expiration. Conversely, On this day... is a chronological (with respect to the historical timeline) list of events that's replaced on a daily basis. (Entries aren't bumped down the list according to when they were added.) If I understand correctly, you're proposing the following:

August 9: National Day for Singapore (1965), Raksha Bandhan in Hinduism (2006), National Women's Day in South Africa.

Mushroom cloud from the nuclear explosion over Nagasaki rising 18 km (60,000 feet) into the air on the morning of August 9th, 1945

Recent days: August 8 – August 7 – August 6

More anniversaries:


I strongly prefer the current format. —David Levy 12:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

- Libya article: - - "Libya is led by revolutionary Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, whose foreign policy has often brought him into conflict with the West." - - Main page: - - "Libya is led by revolutionary Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi, one of the most infamous political figures of the 20th century." - - Clever vandalism, but vandalism all the same. Can this be fixed? - - 84.70.148.10 12:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:ERRORS. --64.229.228.195 12:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism? That was the original wording of the summary, as can be seen here. The word vandalism shouldn't be thrown around so lightly. In fact, if you look at the history of what happened, you will find that Raul summarised from the article that he saw at the time, and that the article later got changed. Raul saved that summary at 15:37 on 31 July, and looking at the Libya article, the phrase "infamous" was indeed in the article at the time (Raul's minor edit on that day did, however, introduce the implication that Alaska is a nation in Africa, something that has been discussed elsewhere on this page). The phrase infamous was removed as POV with this edit on 8 August by Gazpacho, which claims the reference did not support the assertion of "infamous", but no reference was provided to support the "conflict with the West" assertion. Anyway, I hope this little bit of detective work helps clear up any confusion. Carcharoth 14:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out. The "infamous" remark has been removed from MainPage. -- PFHLai 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libya

I think there should be a different picture for today's Article of the Day. It surprised me with a square of green until I realized it was actually the country's flag. Maybe a map of the country would be more suitable. schyler 16:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above #Worst flag ever. --PFHLai 16:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbered items

Is it my impression, or did the numbers before the items Today's featured article, Did you know..., In the news, On this day..., Today's featured picture, Other areas of Wikipedia, Wikipedia's sister projects, etc. Wikipedia languages disappear and re-appear (possibly a few times) over the past months?

For what it's worth: I like the home page so much better without the numbers. – Adhemar 20:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen numbers. Perhaps a browser setting? --Dhartung | Talk 07:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is controlled via a setting from Special:Preferences. Under the Misc tab is the option to "auto-number headings." —David Levy 08:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article count in the header

Don't know if anyone has pointed this out already, but - there's a spelling mistake/omission in the main header. Where it lists the number of articles, it stops short at 'artic' instead of 'articles'. I had noticed this before but thought it may have been fixed, but it doesn't seem to have been :) Will2710 21:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it. It spells articles for me. Perhaps its a problem with your browser settings? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also see the full phrase ("6,933,435 articles in English"). I don't know how widespread the problem is, but I think that we've waited more than enough time for readers to adjust to the article count's presence at the bottom of the page. (It was awkwardly shoehorned into to the header bar—thereby compromising its appearance—as a stopgap.) How does everyone feel about finally pulling the plug on this redundant element? —David Levy 22:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with it being removed, with a caveat - it must be allowed to return around at milestones. Specifically when we approach 2M, 2.5M etc articles. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Emphatically no. The article count isn't something technical, it's one of the first things that we get to say to new visitors. I've been an editor going on 21 months and it still catches my eye, so it's a morale thing even for old fogies. --Dhartung | Talk 07:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was heavily discussed during the main page redesign process, and more users than not seemed to agree on the following:
  • Once we hit one million articles (which many people were watching for), the article count would no longer be of nearly as much interest as it once was.
  • When it comes to articles, quality is far more important than quantity is. (Jimbo has made statements of this nature, and few have disagreed.) Placing the article count at the top of the page conveys the opposite to new visitors. ("We have 6,933,435 articles, so we must be good!") Many of these articles are sources of pride, but others are...not. This really is more a technical statistic than anything else.
  • The desire to keep the article count at the top of the page is based primarily upon tradition and nostalgia (as evidenced by your response). Morale should be boosted by seeing articles elevated to featured status, not by seeing another 10,000 stubs created.
  • Moving the article count to the Wikipedia languages section (where it's contextually relevant) is a reasonable solution. It's still there for those who want to see it on the main page, but it isn't screamed at newbies and emphasized above all else.
We actually established a rough consensus for proceeding with such a setup, but we tacked the upper article count back on at the last minute (to avoid creating the appearance that the entire redesign was tied to this change). We retained the lower article count in anticipation of eventually revisiting the issue (as we're doing now). —David Levy 08:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about changing one or both of the "article count" links to still link to the Special:Statistics page (as they do at the moment), but not having the actual number there. Call it something like "Article count" or "Article statistics" instead. That de-emphasises the actual number, but leaves the information accessible. That way, any long-time editor who wants to see the number can click to see the number, and any new readers who click through will end up reading more than just a single, unexplained figure. Really though, the "special:statistics" page should say more than it does. It should at least list the number of stubs (though this is complicated by many articles being more than stubs, but still having a stub label). Carcharoth 08:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Or perhaps substitute the WP:FA or WP:GA count there to focus attention on improving existing articles. Those counts are somewhere above 1000, that's nothing to be proud of. (Quantity v Quality again)--Monotonehell 09:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imbalance

Perhaps we could get a few more items for In the News to balance out the extra-long Featured Article of the Day excerpt. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —David Levy 00:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was better to keep the links like they were. I don't like them underlined like Spanish wikipedia. What do you think? --Neo139 02:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go to "My Preferences" and click the "Misc" tab. User:Fredil Yupigo/sig 02:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I've had a bug - probably in Firefox - where suddenly all links were underlined. Mysteriously it toggled every time I added or removed an article from my watchlist. Whenever it happened, I just added another article to my watchlist and the underlined links were gone. One of the funnier bugs I ever saw. Hasn't happened lately though. Piet 10:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a common bug. You can fix it by simply pressing CTRL+F5 to force refresh the site whenever the bug occurs. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-09 15:05

Lamont

Someone needs to write a news item on the connecticut senate primary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.63.22.47 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 9 August 2006.

Please see Connecticut United States Senate election, 2006. And please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service like Wikinews. --199.71.174.100 04:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear meaning in the featured article

In todays fetured article it reads "Shotguns, though initially popular with the middle class as much as the poor, became a symbol of poverty in the mid-20th century, but opinion is now more mixed, with some the targets of bulldozing due to urban renewal".

It wasn't until it spoke about bulldozing I realised it still meant the houses. I think the word 'houses' needs to be added after shotguns. --194.217.191.10 10:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)adam[reply]

Dude, the blurb starts with "The shotgun house is a type of house". I don;t see how much clearly it can be put in context. --Nelson Ricardo 10:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simply by adding "houses" it is 100% more clear. --Monotonehell 12:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the sentence immediately follows one talking about shotguns (the guns), so in order to switch back to talking about shotguns (the houses), it is necessary to re-introduce the phrase "shotgun houses". This is manifestly a clear and necessary change. Anyone arguing against it needs to stop and reconsider. Carcharoth 12:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has already been posted in the correct place and is now corrected. --Monotonehell 12:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American bias

I would like to protest against the American bias in the Wikipedia news.

  • In the Dutch news, it became apparent that the Mexican elections were probably fraudulent. A description as 'Alleged electoral irregularities' when one million people are occupying the city centre of Mexico City seems unappropriate to me.
  • The Israelis are inflicting far more casualties in Lebanon then vice versa, so it would be more appropriate to mention the Israeli atrocities first.
  • The Tour de France has proclaimed Pereiro Sio as winner of the Tour, so instead of 'claims he is the true', it should be 'has become the true'.--Daanschr 14:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is any of that "American bias"??? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-09 15:04

That is my opinion.--Daanschr 15:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • How is any of that "American bias"??? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-09 15:25

Most of the atention in the Dutch media concerning the Mexican elections was directed at militant reaction of the opposition against possible fraud. During the news items, it became apparent that the American news hardly mentioned the reaction of the opposition and that the Americans didn't understand the dominance of socialism in Latin America. I was annoyed about the lack of prominence about the portrayal of the Mexican opposition in the english Wikipedia article on this subject. Now, the Wikipedia news mentions 'alleged electoral irregularities'.

America is one of the most prominent supporters of Israel. Russia, China, Latin America, the Arab world, many European countries have a neutral view at best. Main attention in other parts of the world is the destruction of Lebanon. The missiles hitting Israel are far less damaging in comparison.

Landis is an American and he has lost his title. The Tour de France declared Pereiro Sio winner, so he acknowledged his title. The words 'claims he is the true' are unapropriate and biased.--Daanschr 15:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are you sure the Tour de France declared him the winner? Others have said that that won't happen until all the appeals have been exhausted, which has yet to occur. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-09 16:03
  • And you're positive that everyone that recommends a news story is an american? dposse 16:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when is Israel inflicting more civilian casualties? The current ratio is about 500 Hezbollah kills to about 500 civilian kills, which is incredibly good compared to the American "war on terror." On the other hand, Hezbollah has killed nearly all civilians and no troops (and intends to do so). They sit inside UN ambulances and on UN posts, hoping that Israel will accidentally shoot the UN in the process. They base out of apartments on the tops of buildings, so that Israel knocks down the whole building trying to get them. They parade a single dead baby around to hundreds of reporters to inflate casualty reports. And you want more reporting on Israeli atrocities? I mean, its not as if Israel is completely justified in everything they are doing at the moment, but there are reasons why the majority of the world considers Hezbollah to be terrorists and not Israel. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 17:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=68649969"