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 Juicifer (talk | contribs) at 23:11, 9 September 2006 (→proposal for interwiki links). 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.

Template:Main Page discussion footer

Announcement

A discussion is underway which may affect the design of the Main Page: Sidebar redesign

--Nexus Seven 04:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity ?

WTF is Wikiversity and how come it's a red link? Ciacchi 15:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came in to say the same thing, wikiversity link is broken, but worked fine last night.
looks good/works for me BrokenSegue 15:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiversity is a MediaWiki project that made the horrible mistake of adding rounded corners to the monobook skin. It makes my designer's blood boil. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 21:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the rounded-corners distaste. But see Spanish and Italian for (2 variations of) precedent [sadly]. --Quiddity·(talk) 22:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I raised the issue at the English Wikiversity's Colloquium page. One of the site's eight sysops (also known as "custodians") informed me that "none of the Wikiversity custodians seem to be concerned about these sorts of subjective evaluations of the Wikiversity buttons," adding that "the buttons look fine on [his/her] computer" and "maybe [I] need a better display." Another opined that "if [I] have no greater concerns than the appearance of rounded corners than (sic) maybe this isn't the project for me."
That's some welcoming committee! —David Levy 07:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what is the problem? The French one does it too. The German one has some wierd thing about it. What's so bad? HellaNorCal 01:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

same. it redlinks for me, and when i try to sign up there, it wont show me the security thing. --24.208.123.129 01:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love that design! What is it and is there a setting to make Wikipedia look like that in the English version? Please someone help me!

Hello! Please click here to post a new message ...or if it's really pressing click here to email me. Thank you!

--Adriaan90 16:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Main Page discussion footer

Follow-up on Talk:Main Page/Archive 77#Main page footer.

Brian0918, if you are still trying to set up a {{Main Page discussion footer}} that sinks to the bottom, you may want to talk to Omicronpersei8 about his 'Bottomtalkbar'. Happy editing. Good luck. -- 64.229.176.139 07:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah ! It works now ! :-) -- 64.229.224.60 04:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It displays garbage on the screen for those who do not use monobook. Please remove it.-gadfium 08:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How unfortunate! It worked pretty well on my screen. --64.229.227.178 13:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What garbage? I switched to classic like you said, and didn't see anything weird. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-29 00:20Z
I apologise if I was curt earlier. I have tried this in five different browsers, on two different operating systems, all with the classic skin. I see the footer you intend "Report an Error ... On this day", but it is at the bottom of my browser window when I first enter "Talk:Main Page", not at the bottom of the page. It overwrites existing text at the bottom of the window, and when I scroll the window, it scrolls along with the text. I most commonly enter the page in diff mode, so the footer is obscuring text I wish to read. However, the effect is clearly visible in normal viewing mode.
Just for the record, I tried a sixth and seventh browser and they did not display the text at all in the classic skin. However, I am reluctant to change my primary browser to either Lynx (web browser) or Links (web browser) to overcome this problem.
If you still can't reproduce it, I'll post a screenshot.-gadfium 01:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bug

Most of Wikipedia displays right for me, but when I go onto the main page, the skin changes and it says I'm logged in as Rtiru! --Gray Porpoise 21:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using a public computer or a computer that someone else may have logged onto Wikipedia from? The computer may have cached the Main Page, in which case you should clear the cache (Ctrl-F5 on a PC). —Cuiviénen 21:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's my computer. --Gray Porpoise 21:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's displaying correctly now. --Gray Porpoise 21:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is your computer, are you sure no-one else has access to your computer? Carcharoth 23:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure. I'll just wait a few minutes if the problem comes up again. --Gray Porpoise 23:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is most likely because your ISP performs some sort of proxy cache, and the user you're seeing had his page in that cache before you did. You may find some help at Wikipedia:Advice to AOL users, who have the same sort of problem. --Dhartung | Talk 03:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incase it helps, I've had this happen at least three times with a different user showing up each time, and I'm not on AOL. Nobody on my IP address has an account. Whenever it happens, a purge of the cache normally clears it if a straight reload won't, and I don't think it allows you to edit the erroneous user's account settings or anything like that. It has only been happening within the past two months. --81.132.80.88 15:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Wikipedia languages

I noticed how small the foreign language versions of wikipedia are compared to the english version. I was wondering whether there are any automated translation programs that could create pages for the foreign language versions of wikipedia and translate the content from the english pages into them. Even if the translation was a mess, it would provide a lot to work with. Plus editing grammer is much simpler and quicker than generating new content (yep).

-anon

That's one perspective. At Wikipedia:Translation into English it's recommended that one should never use machine translation to create an article. That said, the languages for which the best machine translation is available (e.g. French, German) are Wikipedias that are fairly successful on their own and there's no need to discourage editors there by "helping" more than is needed. Many of those editors have a working knowledge of English anyway and certainly many use the English Wikipedia as a resource. Anyway, have a look at the Wikipedia:Embassy project. --Dhartung | Talk 04:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most translators will tell you fully automated machine translation takes more work to fix the errors in than just translating directly. What professional translators do use is machine aided translation and translation memories to help speed up the process. But as machine translation improves perhaps we will get to the point where just a bit of final editing will be needed to produce a good translation. We're not there yet. - Taxman Talk 17:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


For some reason, it's a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=V:&action=edit. --zenohockey 22:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again ? (See above #Wikiversity ?.) Looks like a recurring minor problem. --64.229.227.178 13:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sujitnair01?

I don't if this happening to anyone else but when I am on the main page it doesn't show my user name and talk page. It shows Sujitnair01 instead and I even log out and go back to the main page and it still shows me logged in as Sujitnair01, who I am not.

But when I click around, everything goes back to being normal. Mr. C.C. 07:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it's back to normal. Mr. C.C. 07:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see above #Bug. -- 64.229.227.178 12:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stock quotes?

I was wondering if it were possible or appropriate to put the results of the major stock indexes on the main page...?--Xlegiofalco 18:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't really something you'd expect to find on an encyclopaedia. Our coverage of 'current events' extends purely to those articles created or updated as the result of recent happenings. Wikinews might be an appropriate host for that sort of thing if it's technically possible. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know we had quarterly stock chart images, published as articles, at Wikinews a while back. Even if we just had a monthly article of where stock indexes were at, that would be warmly welcomed. However, until we get more articles for Wikinews, the front page itself is not set up for quick stats like that. I am planning to propose a more dynamically updated front page, like the portals, in the next week or two. -- Zanimum 16:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Reference desk traffic

Considering the amount of traffic Wikipedia as a whole gets, the reference desk is a bit slow. Maybe it should get a little more attention? There are two types of help pages on Wikipedia - for editors and for users. The former will eventually find their way becuase they will come here more often. Users, however, are often first time visitors (all editors start that way). So they need a a clearer pointer what to do when they don't find an answer. Else they might be lost to us (for a while anyway). So maybe the following might be placed somewhere under 'Welcome to Wikipedia':

If you cannot find an answer to your question in Wikipedia, you might ask at the Reference Desk.

DirkvdM 06:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure really. Refdesk is something that exists solely because if it didn't we'd have chaos. I don't really think we should encourage this service to get any larger, as it often wastes the time of our editors, who could be contributing to the quality of the end product, and simply encourages people to not read our articles for their answer. Just my thoughts. -- Zanimum 16:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. A lot of the answers to those questions come out as "read this article". Also, it doesn't really take a huge amount of time from anyone. If you know the answer, it doesn't take long to answer a question. --liquidGhoul 23:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a lot of people (like me) hang out just at the ref desk and use that as a starting point to browse Wikipedia, which may lead to copy-editing. Thus, one gets more of a variety of people working on articles, which seems like a good idea. DirkvdM 06:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the ref desk can activate lazy visitors, like this one. He probably thinks "well, I could have done that myself" and maybe next time does. Without the ref desk, he might have left. That, however, requires the politeness of Nowimnthing, as opposed to Richardj, but that's a different issue. DirkvdM 06:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Problem

Not entirely certain if this is the best place to write this, so bare with me if it's wrong. But a lot of articles seem to have all their references listed twice in the references section. Ie.

1. Site one 2. Site two 3. Site one 4. Site two

Is this an error that only I'm getting? Will it be fixed soon? ~ZytheTalk to me! 17:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got the same error a short time ago. There is discussion about it here, amongst other places. Adding ?action=purge to the end of the article URL seems to fix the problem. Tntnnbltn 17:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, brilliant, thanks. ~ZytheTalk to me! 18:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

code

Whare is the code of this page I like to look at it20:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Right click, "View page source". dposse 22:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are actually refering to a Wikipedia page that is protected from editing, the "edit this page" link is replaced by a "view source" link. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

favicon

I created a favicon which I would like to submit as a possible replacement for the current Wikipedia favicon. I attempted to upload the file to Wikipedia and also Wikimedia Commons, but neither site would upload a .ico file. The icon can be seen here. Ic3b3rg 23:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it; it's more characteristic and symbolic than the W. However, I recommend that you post this somewhere at the village pump to get more attention.--cloviz 00:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! That's the same icon used in the Firefox searchbar! Hyenaste (tell) 03:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Talbot Samba

The article of the Samba was created in 2004 ! I think that if the DYK rules are no longer followed, this is no fun anymore. Hektor 07:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been created in 2004 but it is 6 times bigger than it was two days ago. Expanded stubs are specifically allowed by the DYK rules. --Cherry blossom tree 09:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article was 1,200 characters on July 8, 2006 which is significantly larger than the 1,000 character rule to define a stub.Hektor 17:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity is Redlinked... Again

I believe this is the third time its done so, according to this page. --Tom 07:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be okay now. I wonder why this keeps occurring. —David Levy 07:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia links turn red on occation on wikiversity as well. It's like the database splits.--Rayc 01:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

largest other language Wikipedias

Maybe the above question arised due to -a previous discussion- ("I noticed how small the foreign language versions of wikipedia are compared to the english version."):

This Wikipedia is written in English. Started in 2001, it currently contains 1,355,590 articles. Many other Wikipedias are available; the largest are listed below.

  • More than 50,000 articles:
    Deutsch · Español · Esperanto · Français · Italiano · Nederlands · [...]

Nearly 1.5 million articles compared to "more than 50,000" ... WOW! Straight facts are: 

de.WP: 457,575
es.WP: 147,956
eo.WP:  56,925 (O.K., here it's true.)
fr.WP: 353,234
it.WP: 191,264
nl.WP: 223,659
[...]

Since the German WP is going to have 500,000 in the next few months it would be useful to reselect that numbers. "More than 100,000 articles" or even "more than 250,000 articles" come into my mind. Think about it. --32X 11:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does give the impression of all other languages as rather puny compared to English, which is not quite the case. A cut-off line of 250,000 would return only four other languages, but 100,000 would give ten, as opposed to today's fifteen. Eixo 13:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See a discussion at Talk:Main Page/Archive 77#Languages section that links to previous discussion, which I'm sure links in turn to more previous discussion. The current version is actually a streamlined version of one that had both 100K and 1K bars. And just to be pendantic, all of those numbers are "more than 50,000" and some users see {{wikipedialang}} as a quick navigational aid for speakers of those other languages, who might be better served looking at other major language editions, rather than an awards podium for the benefit of English language Wikipedia. There must be a novella of relevant discussion in the archives of this page and Template talk:Wikipedialang. - BT 14:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 500,000 are "more than 50,000", but ... hmm, how should I say what I really mean? Maybe that'll do it: "Haha, these suckers only have only about a handful of articles while we have millions of it." We're keeping the WP up to date, extend it and try to remove POVs when we see them but then there's such a distorting (but true) mention on the main page. It's just wrong. --32X 14:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
O.K., I've rewritten my request at Template_talk:Wikipedialang. Please update the link there as soon as this section gets moved to the archive. Thanks in advance. --32X 15:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On this Day

On August 31, 12, Emperor Caligula of Rome was born

Please read the top of this page. What does it say to do if there is an important event not mentioned in the "On this day..." section? Definitely not post here. —Mets501 (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that doesn't take much more time and effort to move a comment to the appropriate place (or explain that OTD doesn't do births) than to snipe at newcomers. Zocky | picture popups 16:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Wikipedia

it is a version in romanian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.78.208.10 (talk • contribs) 17:12, August 31, 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a Romanian Wikipedia. (From m:List of Wikipedias) -- Vary | Talk 17:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Templates

Hey guys, I've always wondered, why are templates used on the main page (such as {{Main Page banner}}, {{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}, {{Did you know}}, etc.)? Is it easier on the server or something? Isn't it easier to just have the words on the main page?--Richard 01:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Featured article' and 'on this day' are automagically updated at 00:00 UTC when the tamplates are used (the month/day is in the template name). The other sections are in templates as it makes it easier to edit without making accidental edits to the main page code as the main page does have a lot of html markup. The server does caching so there is no difference if templates are used or not. --Clawed 01:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Alignment, maybe?

Okay, this has probably already been brought up and I will be chewed out mercilessly, but wouldn't the main page look better if the "Did You Know" bar was aligned with the "On This Day" bar? I mean, it just looks kind of awkward to me the way it is now, given that the "Today's Featured Article" and "In The News" bars are aligned. Furthermore, I don't think it would really use up much extra space - the OTD bar is currently higher than the DYK bar, yet the lengths of the actual sections usually seem to be about equal, meaning there is a space at the end of the OTD section. I know I'm probably completely out of my mind (especially as I've only been using Wikipedia for about a week), but it just doesn't seem right to me - I get a twitch just looking at it. Am I completely mental, or has this been discussed already? Sorry for wasting so much space. –Sam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.86.86.217 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Indeed, this has been discussed. (But that's okay; your post is on-topic, so you're already ahead of the game!)
There's no way to align the title headings in question without creating a large gap within one of the columns much of the time. This doesn't appear to be true at the moment, but it isn't unusual for one column to contain a short section at the top and long section at the bottom, while the other column features the reverse. Under the current layout, this results in overall balance (two columns of the same length with little or no empty space). And of course, we can adjust the sections' length (especially that of In the news, which can easily have entries added or removed) to accommodate day-to-day fluctuations. —David Levy 03:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, for two days in a row the featured pic has been 'moving'. As in, its more than a picture, but a film. Placing them on the main page uses up a lot of bandwidth for some of us (curse you Telescum). And are they really 'pictures'? so can they really be the featured picture of the day? Hmmmm. --210.86.80.89 05:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Today's picture is 2.6M, which is entirely too much for the mainpage. Maybe there should be a small static version for the mainpage, and a link to the animated version? Zocky | picture popups 05:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are considered pictures, they are animated gif files. Yesterday's wasn't so large, but I agree with Zocky that today's is too big. My advice to you is to get a better ISP. -gadfium 05:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, someday we'll all get better ISPs. But the fact remains that a huge number of us are still on dialup, for various reasons, and this isn't really the place to discuss that. When dialup is extinct, then maybe it will be OK to have a 2.6Mb gif on the main page. Rbean 05:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm compelled to agree. Especially overseas large images will load very slowly, and there is no directive to tell all browsers to "load this image last". A scaled-down or static version would be harmless enough. Deco 07:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An even more important concern is bandwidth. Wikipedia gets a lot of traffic, and 5% of it goes to the mainpage. We should be careful to keep it to a reasonable length. This picture needs to go off the mainpage ASAP. Can somebody upload a static version, or a much smaller animated thumbnail? Zocky | picture popups 08:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —David Levy 08:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use the word click here. Explanation. --- FourBlades 09:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the arguments against using that phrase (some of which obviously don't apply), but I was unable to think of a more intuitive link. Do you think that "View the animation" would be an improvement? (It doesn't seem like one to me.) —David Levy 09:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to W3C webpage about this recommendation, I think yes, it should be "View the animation", where only the word 'animation' should be made as link, the way the website use the word "Get Amaya!" there, where only the word 'Amaya' is used as a link. By the way I'm not a web design expert anyway. There may be better ways I think. I raise this issue so that Wikipedia is not viewed as 'device dependent', only expecting computer users with mouse use this site. --- FourBlades 09:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From 1996–1999, I accessed the Internet primarily via a television appliance. I couldn't literally "click" on links back then, but I always understood what that term meant (and never took it literally). To me, this is similar to how people "dial" pushbutton telephones.
Nonetheless, I've implemented your suggestion. —David Levy 09:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Munch

Why did the Edvard Munch stolen paintings thing make the "in the news" section"? I mean, $800+ Million megastar Mel Gibson's DUI/tirade never got a mention.--Greasysteve13 09:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple: the "in the news" section is for articles updated substantially with new content, not necessarily about news items that are being covered in the entertainment media. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-03 17:36Z
the paintings have cultural value. Mel Gibson does not. the paintings look nice. Mel Gibson does not. the paintings are of actual importance. Mel Gibson is not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.86.80.89 (talk • contribs)
Are there any real responses?--Greasysteve13 12:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find this thing so much more interesting than anything to do with Mel Gibson. In fact, I didn't know the paintings were stolen, and it was never on Australian news that they were found. I am very glad Wikipedia filled me in. We aren't a tabloid, and we shouldn't be publishing something about a celebrity every time they do something wrong. Could you see what would happen? --liquidGhoul 12:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You must be watching the wrong news. Try ABC & SBS ;) --Monotonehell 13:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I only watch ABC and SBS news, I must have missed it. I must admit, I haven't watched the news much this week. --liquidGhoul 13:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much resepct, you'd understand about non-biased NPOV then ;) --Monotonehell 13:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mel Gibson's antics aren't exactly encyclopedic. While the theft and return of an artwork that permiates all facets of culture is. Sounds a bit subjective I know, but there's a clear difference between someone being a prat and an international treasure being returned. I didn't reply at first because I thought you were joking. --Monotonehell 13:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Mel Gibson press coverage in non-tabloid press was about the Mel Gibson press coverage, not about the event itself. We could have gone with "English-speaking tabloid press works itself into a frenzy over movie star's behaviour", but that's about as newsworthy as "dog bites man". Zocky | picture popups 13:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just thought it was ironic that Mel Gibson is both richer and more well known. Who does he have to kill to get to the "in the news" section? I also think it's ironic that he'd get in if he stole a painting.--Greasysteve13 23:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Paintings are stolen all the time. Yes, the Scream is easily in the top ten or twenty reginized paintings, but it ain't exactly the Mona Lisa.--Greasysteve13 23:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Jew or some famous Hollywood star would do the trick nicely. --maru (talk) contribs 23:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
uh... huh. --Greasysteve13 23:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The honest answer

Wikipedians are an elitist cadre. Calling a community build on the openness of participation elitist may seem absurd but think: what kind of people are nerdy enough to hang out at an encyclopedia all day? Highly intellectual cultural nerds. We are among the few who have a general interest in knowledge and keep up with the news that matters. The vanity of our personalities dictate we embrace high cultural knowledge and abhor tabloid swill. The Mel Gibson story was primarily reported by the entertainment news media. So we ignore it and scoff at the idea of contaminating our main page.

There are exceptions. If a pop culture event is overwhelmingly widespread then it may appear on the main page. The verdict of the MJ trial was reported.

lots of issues | leave me a message 02:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't explain the Steve Irwin thing.--Greasysteve13 08:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Irwin was an extremely well known environmentalist, and there are many Wikipedians who appreciate his contribution to conservation awareness. Mel Gibson is a git, and shouldn't be put in the same boat as Irwin. --liquidGhoul 09:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But wasn’t Mel Gibson just as beloved until the incident which he may have killed his career. Furthermore, he is considerably rich. And besides, what does being “beloved” have to do with getting into the news? Al Zarqawi, anyone?--Greasysteve13 08:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of your additional questions? You got your answer. Mel Gibson is for the tabloids, and Wikipedia is elitist. lots of issues | leave me a message 16:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was addressing liquidGhoul’s specious reasoning.--Greasysteve13 02:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Italian Mainpage

Take a look at the Italian mainpage [1]. Why cant our main page be as nice looking, ours looks kinda boring as it is? --Xlegiofalco 13:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've had that discussion before. Put simply, the Italian page may be seen as nice by some but others (like me) think it's disgusting. violet/riga (t) 14:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go --Monotonehell 15:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is of course a simple solution. If you prefer the Italian layout, simply set this page as your homepage/portal into the website, in place of the current one (or create your own in userspace.) That way, everyone's happy! GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except that page is outdated. They updated their layout recently, and we have yet to update ours. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-03 17:33Z
Their mainpage looks like that because they're Italian.  ;-) --hydnjo talk 21:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with violetriga. I think our main page is nice, and - no offence - but I think the Italian one is hideous. Worse than the my.yahoo homepage, and that's saying something. Anchoress 07:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think ours is definitely better. Some of the overlap in the Italian page is weird.UberCryxic 02:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Italian Mainpage looks disgusting IMO, but that's not the point. The point is that this is an encyclopedia. Looks are not important as long as it's dignified. What matters is function, content, and ease of use. Maadio 15:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{permprot}} ????

Use {{editprotected}} on this page to propose an edit. ????

Why put {{permprot}} on this talk page ? This is wrong. To propose minor edits to correct minor errors anywhere on Main Page, go to WP:ERRORS. To propose an edit to ITN, go to WP:ITN/Candidates. To propose an item for DYK, go to T:DYKT#Suggestions. .... I'm removing {{permprot}}. -- 199.71.174.100 05:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Irwin

Should Steve Irwin's unfortunate death be mentioned on the front page events?--Exander 05:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:ITN/Candidates. It's there already. For more tips, scroll to the top of this talkpage. -- 199.71.174.100 05:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should Steve Irwin really be on the front page? I mean his death is unfortunate but his death isn't exactly up there the president of Mexico and the Ugandan Civil War ending. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.119.67.43 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Most people probably care a lot more about Steve Irwin than either of those things. I mean, come on, the guy was a world icon.PiccoloNamek 06:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You honestly think more people care about an environmentalist than a 20 year civil war which cost the lives of hundreds of thousands and displaced millions?! Get your priorities straight. Directed at PiccolloNamek. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.119.67.43 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
You'd be surprised. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • RIP Crocodile Hunter • WP:NYCS} 07:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"You honestly think more people care about an environmentalist than a 20 year civil war which cost the lives of hundreds of thousands and displaced millions?!"
Yes, I do. I'm not saying that it's right, I'm just saying that it's the truth.PiccoloNamek 07:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, i see you point in that case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.119.67.43 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
You mean, more people where you live care more about Steve than a 20 year civil war. I'm sure that a substantial majority of the world's population has never heard of Steve Irwin. Zocky | picture popups 07:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the same number of people who can't locate Uganda in an unlabelled world map. --64.229.223.88 08:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Irwin was a world-renowned environmentalist, wildlife documentarian and television star. He was more famous than his own country's prime minister (and arguably the most famous and popular Australian on the planet). His death is unquestionably of international importance, and his article has been updated appropriately. —David Levy 07:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I too agree that Irwin should be on there. He's famous in many parts of the world and the story has been run very high up in a lot of the press today. I personally first found out by seeing it on there as Wikipedia's the first site after my email I vist in the morning. Honestly, keep it there (just for today perhaps). Jellypuzzle | Talk 08:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He had a fan base of something like 500 million people, and I remember hearing once that he was the most famous celebrety. He has done a lot of good things for Australia, and the world, so I think he deserves a place on the main page. --liquidGhoul 08:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, George Best's death was taken off the mainpage as a result of it not being of political or some other kind of relevance, so as much as I like a reminder of important deaths in case I miss them, using that example suggests Irwin's death shouldn't be used. -Nichlemn 09:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
George Best (who I have never heard of by the way) died from illness, and was expected to die for over two months. ITN does not reserve space for expected or natural deaths. It was totally unexpected for Irwin to die. --liquidGhoul 09:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unexpected? IMO it was way overdue. He'd been living on borrowed time for a lot longer than George Best. Anchoress 10:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grow up. --liquidGhoul 10:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The guy made a living by antagonizing dangerous animals. If you couldn't foresee his death three years ago, you're the one who needs to grow up. --Descendall 19:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you two (Descendall, LiquidGhoul) grow up for making fun of a dead person in a terribly condescending manner. Especially when it's posted in a discussion about the notability of his death in relation to his appearance on the main page; you're needlessly provoking people this way. Stop being so childish. Nobody could have expected this to happen, no matter how obvious you try to make this seem. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 12:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell are you talking about. Where have I made fun of Irwin's death? I am incredibly saddened by his death, and am sick of people joking about it. That is why I told him to grow up. Read what I say before making such accusations. --liquidGhoul 09:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny, because I fully expected him to get killed by an animal. The entire draw of his show was watching him almost get eaten by various predators. Remember that Tredwell guy who used to screw around with bears? You know, the guy who everyone knew was going to get eaten by a bear? Guess what, he got eaten by a bear. You know the guy who used to bother animals in Aulstralia? He got killed by an animal there. Here's another stunning prediction that will blow your mind: at next year's running of the bulls, in which people antagonize bulls and runn in front of them, someone will get injured by a bull. Steve Irwin's death was fully predictable, and in fact was probably the most predicted death in the world other than the Pope's. --Descendall 01:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One meassure of notability is to count Interwikilinks in a bio. The Steve Irwin article only exists in 7 other languages. John Howard, in comparaison, has articles in 19 other languages. Not sure if that means Howard is more famous, though. Going blatantly off topic here, but any Australian with more interwikilinks than Howard? Shanes 09:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous editors of various languages' Wikipedias literally run down checklists to ensure that heads of state receive articles (regardless of whether they've heard of them). This isn't true of environmentalists or television hosts. —David Levy 09:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. But looking at a few other heads of state, I'm not really sure so many languages are using checklists like that. Shanes 09:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Australia, being a very large country in which English (widely spoken as a non-native language) predominates, would logically be near the top of such a list. Australia also contains more Wikipedia editors than many nations. Those who speak languages other than English are likely to contribute articles about their prime minister to the appropriate Wikipedias. —David Levy 10:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, Kylie Minogue and Nicole Kidman beats them both hands down, checklists or not ;-) Shanes 09:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now we've encountered the Internet / attractive female celebrity factor.  ;-)
Of course, both Minogue and Kidman are very famous. If either were to die in a tragic accident, this most likely would make In the news. —David Levy 10:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes. And, of course, I totaly agree that Irwin should be on ITN now. I'm quite sure his tragic death has been in the news all over the world today. It certainly has in Norway where I live. I just couldn't help thinking about famous Australians when you said that about Irwin being arguably the most famous Australian on the planet, and tried to find a way to rank them. But it's a rather tasteless and silly thing to do, and I regret it already. Shanes 10:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How come we are arguing over the unexpected death of Steve Irwin appearing in the In The News section, and yet the retirement of a tennis player who has reached and passed his retirement age gets on with no fuss at all. I never thought that the retirement of sportspeople deserved inclusion and surely it is not an uncommon occurence. --AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 10:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even notice he was there, that's a really good point. --liquidGhoul 11:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"One meassure of notability is to count Interwikilinks in a bio. The Steve Irwin article only exists in 7 other languages." (-- Shanes) - really? I count 29! —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 13:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some counterweight to some above remarks:

  1. I had never heard of Steve Irwin until today.
  2. I hadn't heard he died.
  3. He is not in the news here - I checked. Not a major headline, not a small article, nothing.

Agassi I have heard of :-) Piet 11:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Le Monde (Fr) has nothing on its front page either, but NRC Handelsblad (Nl) and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Ge) do (quite prominently even). Piet 12:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's breaking in your part of the world now [2]Melburnian 12:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we're just a bit slower :-) Still, I'm sure many people here would have stared at you blankly if you had asked them yesterday who Steve Irwin was. Of course now that I've read the story I understand why it's all over the news. Piet 12:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. he's well known in teh English speaking world. This IS an English language part of Wikipedia after all right? (82.44.79.30 19:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
It was prominently on the news here in the Netherlands. I've seen it prominently on the news on the Belgian and German channels as well. They showed a full repeat of his interview with Larry King on CNN and did even more coverage on his death. It's a pretty important subject, it seems. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 12:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it's right, it received a lot of attention although with a short delay – probably when journalists noticed the attention it received abbroad. And I think many people do know him here, but not by his name, more as "that Crocodile dude". I'm sure they'll know him now... Piet 12:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note the blatant Aussie bias today on the Main Page: Steve Irwin, emu, and bathroom singing (obviously practiced by Kylie and AC/DC). ;-) --3M163//Complete Geek 14:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been something else if stingray was the FA. --Descendall 21:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bah. Prime example of people thinking Wikipedia must be just like Britannica. And people sticking their noses so high to pretend they never heard of the man (who at least in the US, is impossible to escape if you have cable)? You just look silly in that pose. --Dhartung | Talk 17:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of him, and I am not prone to nose-sticking. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered that perhaps you watch an unhealthily small quantity of television? Probably your state medical service can help provide you with some additional television watching equipment. Anyway, go and Arbitrate. You can do that while you watch TV if you like; I'll let you. -Splash - tk 22:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to concede this point. I'll go and examine my nearest state medical facility to rectify this problem. Why don't you tell Raul654 to Arbitrate? Eh? Discrimination! Discrimination against users with S's in their usernames! Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to point out that having heard of someone is not a criterion for being on "In the news" — there are many events and people that many people will not have heard of prior to the event occurring, but are still clearly notable, and vice versa: there will be many "popular" people or events that many people have heard of that clearly don't merit mention. In this case, I don't think Irwin deserves to be mentioned. Was he popular? Sure. But does his death have a significant impact on the global scene? No. Also, I would disagree with those who argue that Irwin was considered a key figure in their field of expertise, a criterion for being on "In the news"; Irwin was more of a celebrity, in my view, rather than a "key figure". He may have been an expert, but his contributions were more from the celebrity standpoint more than from the scientific viewpoint. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to look at it: his contributions to the awareness for wildlife in Australia (and all over the world) was of massive importance. Perhaps the greatest of all people in the world. His words on the importance of preserving natural habitat were brought to many more people. His reach was larger than any scientist's. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 14:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say he belongs because his article has been substantially updated because of current events which, I thought, was the point of ITN? To show off our substantially updated articles that give background to the news stories. So you may not have heard of Irwin before, but seen his death in the paper and wondered what all the fuss was about. You click on Wikipedia and our up-to-date article fills you in. Or is this no longer the point of ITN, to show off our up-to-date content? Skittle 21:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the lead story on the NBC Nightly News right now. They had a full story, and now they're interviewing Jack Hanna live. I think we can keep in on the main page. --Maxamegalon2000 22:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. dposse 03:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple question... does it do any harm having it on the main page? Why fuss about it? If people think it's notable and you can't think of a good reason not to put it on the Main page, what's the big problem? I seriously don't understand making an argument like that. I'm sure steve will be out of the news in no more than a week anyway. Let it pass. Meanwhile, use your time for something useful. Maadio 15:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

more scientist..

i want to know more about the scientist in the world..........

Check Portal:Science--cloviz 12:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yahoo.ca

Yahoo Canada is linking to Wikipedia from their main page. Concerning sting rays, related to Steve Irwin. Marcus1060 21:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That might explain all the vandals over there recently. No wait, Canadians? Oh it can't be them. ;) --Monotonehell 05:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Totally! We're nice, eh! On the other hand, it's still yahoo... --Quiddity 00:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belton House picture is an enormous GIF

I've put up a straightened, smaller-filesize (470kb vs. 750kb) JPEG version in the Belton House article, and it might be good to reflect that on the main page. New image is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Belton_House_2006.Giano.jpg . TotoBaggins 01:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The gif->jpg converted image is very blurry. It's noticably lower in quality - noticably less crisp. Raul654 02:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it is. It's peculiar that this image was uploaded as a 64-color GIF in the first place, but any lossy compression will further degrade its quality.
I performed a lossless conversion to PNG. This resulted in a file 25% smaller than the GIF, but the thumbnails were much larger (because MediaWiki automatically used 24-bit color). Their visual quality was superior, but probably not enough to justify files more than twice the size. —David Levy 02:31/02:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using {{click}} on the main page

Perhaps this has been mentioned before, but according to the new up and running [page counter], [[Image:Steve Irwin cropped.jpg]] is the #77 most viewed page on Wikipedia today. I see no reason for this other than the fact that new users at Wikipedia are clicking on the images, hoping they will take them to the related article. Perhaps we should consider using {{click}} on the pictures on the main page. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the reason we don't is to do with Safari/text-based browser users more than anything else; but that might just be a pack of lies. Anyway, sounds like a good idea to me. Batmanand | Talk 14:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Breaking the standard user interface is rarely a good idea. Most everybody knowns that clicking on a picture brings you to the image page -- and the ones that don't quickly figure it out. In the long run, making exceptions to this will do nothing but confuse people. Raul654 16:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Raul generally knows what he is talking about, so I suppose we say "fair enough" and fold our metaphorical tents. Batmanand | Talk 14:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article counter talk archived for size

I've archived the lengthy discussion here. I know there was still some ongoing recent discussion, but it wasn't really getting anywhere.

Here's a summary, as far as I have followed it. (Sorry if I have misrepresented anyone or missed valid points) The motivation to move the article count came from Jimbo's comments and began with this. Edit: The original-original motivation occured during the major discussion during the last main page redesign that was never acted upon completely. (Thanks David Levy for reminding me of this)

The move case basically boils down to:

  • A constantly updating counter is a mis-motivational metric emphasising quantity over quality. Removing its prominence on the main page will help focus attention toward improving and merging articles instead of adding more separate stubs (many of which should be merged or removed).
  • EDIT: Or another view point for the same case is more to do with perception of visitors than the effect on editors.

The keep where it is case basically boils down to:

  • Disputing the causal effect of such a metric.
  • It's a long standing tradition and a source of pride.


There is currently a stalemate and no consensus. So several compromises have been suggested:

  • Replacing the auto updating counter with a statement like:
Welcome to Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit,
with over 1,000,000 articles in English.
and updating it only at major milestones, perhaps every half million.
  • Trying to work out what the extra overhead of AfD and poor stubs is and factoring this into the counter.
  • Having the figure update less often (weekly, monthly)
  • Having a rotating set of figures that offer more and different information (Number of FAs, GAs, FPs, "This week X more articles reached FA status" or similar)


If you wish to continue this discussion, go ahead. But if you've not read and understood all the previous points now archived you're probably going over old ground which is not helpful.

(Self appointed authority over YOU! - joke)--Monotonehell 05:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Three points:
1. Again, the idea of relocating the article count did not stem from Jimbo's comments (which merely reinforced an existing sentiment). This was planned months ago.
2. To me, this relates more to the message conveyed to readers than it does to the behavior of editors. I'm not sure that removing the article count from the header would encourage editors to shift their concentration from creating new stubs to improving existing articles, but I am sure that it would help to counter the widespread perception that Wikipedia cares more about quantity than it does about quality.
3. You omitted the compromise that was agreed to twice (and reverted by Zocky after a tiny handful of complaints appeared): relocate the article count to the Wikipedia languages section (where it's contextually relevant). It was placed there in March (purely in preparation of this event). —David Levy 06:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay,
1. Oops you're quite right, I forgot about the previous discussions during main page redesign that Carcharoth managed to dig up here *fixed*
2 *eyes glaze over* *re-reads* Okay... *fixed*
3 My whole summary is about moving the article count to there instead of REmoveing it alltogether. So... okay. But yeah. *hides* Was there ever a "third case" of "remove it altogether"? --Monotonehell 07:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It was my idea to move it to the Wikipedia languages section as a compromise. In the lengthy discussions that were just archived, some people still advocated removing the article count from the main page. It's important that the relocation be viewed as the compromise that it is (and not as the extreme opposite of inaction).
Thanks for the revisions!  :-) —David Levy 11:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look Levy, I have made my final comments on this matter at the end of the archived discussion. In abstract, if you remove the top article count again without an MfD debate (or similar solution) I will put it up for MfD and you for censure. The current version of the main page was settled by the biggest vote wikipedia has ever had. Any change you make will need a vote. Live with it. To quote you It was my idea to move it to the Wikipedia languages section as a compromise, er no Levy, you have claimed above that you put the count at the bottom a few months ago - when you deleted the top count you didn't move it, you deleted it. And who are you to make this compromise? Anyway, that's it from till there is vote. juicifer 13:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I removed the article count from the header after such a decision was reached in two discussions (one during the main page redesign process and the other on this page last month).
2. When Zocky reverted this change (falsely claiming that it had been made "without notice," and later indicating that he simply didn't like the result that had been reached—despite the fact that he had just finished lecturing me regarding the importance of respecting results that we don't like), did I wheel-war? No. Did I threaten to? No. I agreed to participate in a new debate before the article count was even restored to the header, and the discussion to which you first posted the above threat was initiated by me for the purpose of setting up such a discussion.
3. Again, no one seeks to delete {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} from Wikipedia. If you list it at MfD, this will be an obvious bad faith action / WP:POINT violation (and I will respond accordingly).
4. When the article count was placed in the proposed design's Wikipedia languages section, it was simultaneously removed from the header. This relocation—not redundancy—was the explicit purpose of adding it to that section. When I indicated that the compromise was my idea, this is what I was referring to. I did not unilaterally "make this compromise." Consensus was established at that point. When the relocation plan was postponed (because it complicated an already complicated situation), the redundant article count was left in place at the bottom as a transitionary measure.
5. Your archived declaration that we would need "a super-majority" or "a strong 70% minimum consensus to remove" text not backed by consensus is a gross misunderstanding (or deliberate distortion) of how Wikipedia works. Consensus is not determined by simply tallying votes, nor must a "vote" be held before any changes can be made (especially changes that reflect a lack of consensus for whatever is being changed). This is not a black-and-white, winner-take-all issue, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Please read Wikipedia:Consensus.
6. I just noticed the reply that you improperly added directly to the archive, which is full of false claims and personal attacks. I shall address your statements (minus the name-calling and other insults) below. —David Levy 00:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juicifer's misplaced message

For some reason, Juicifer decided to post a reply directly to an archive page. I just discovered this, and I've pasted it below (for the purpose of responding to the non-personal attack portions). —David Levy 00:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final response to windbag Levy (I hope)

You have no sense of humour whatsoever and little wit Levy. You have (you will note) made the same silly points that I just ridiculed you for making, yet again! You are beyond parody. And yes Levy, I must be a total imbecile who thinks that because the birds fly ergo they are planes, since I like you have no sense of humour or proportion.

Do you know what the word patronize means my little Levy? It means to talk down to someone, as though they are your inferior. FYI Levy, FYI.

Look, I can see what you have been trying to do. Since March you have been trying to get the article count removed/hidden out of sight. You know that you would never win a vote on the topic, so you try to piggyback the idea into the "main page" reform, your ideas were predictably rejected. You later add the article count at the bottom as well, in preparation for your next manoeuvre. Ah patience! You wait 3 months, in your boxer shorts, watching downloaded Seinfeld episodes, and then you strike - mid-August when everyone is at the beach, "they'll never notice" (sinister laugh) and if they come back from the beach and complain I'll tell them that this is the new status quo, and will only ever get changed by consensus, and if someone starts a straw poll on the topic you will say "polls are evil" and cross it out. And all this effort because you (as Cartman would say) have a boner for Jimbo, and you think that this will please him in the way you dream of doing when you lie in bed. Well you didn't plan on this wikipediatrix walking in and catch you in flagrante delicto! (That means with your pants down Levy by the way.)

You have tried on numerous occasiosn to stop this debate reaching some kind of satisfactory conclusion. You have suggested no way to put it to any kind of vote or wider community scrutiny. You have behaved in an manner unbecoming of an admin, you have been arrogant, condescending and unproductive. You have threatened to sanction me for starting a MfD debate on the Article Count, when this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I am not worried by this at all. Everyone with a brain will immediately see what you have been trying to do (hide your unpopular change from wide scrutiny), and laugh at you. But mainly, they will become aware of the issue, and many will (like me and many other above) work to stop you doing it.

So Levy, this is it, until you nominate for MfD (or equivelant solution of your choice) and get a strong consensus for deletion we have nothing more to discuss. I have heard your Jimbo's-tush-licking argument and you have heard my numerous erudite and accurate rebuttals and rejoinders. YOU NEED A CONSENSUS TO DO THIS.

  • So, If you ever (while I am a wikipedian) remove the article count from the top of the main page without a strong consensus, a super-majority of opinions, I will nominate it for MfD and put you for up censure.
  • GET A CONSENSUS!!! PERIOD!!!! juicifer 06:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Levy's reply

[ignoring most of the personal attacks]

"Look, I can see what you have been trying to do. Since March you have been trying to get the article count removed/hidden out of sight. You know that you would never win a vote on the topic, so you try to piggyback the idea into the 'main page' reform, your ideas were predictably rejected."

The above claims are entirely false. It was not my idea to remove the article count from the main page (which I have never advocated). It was my idea to compromise by moving to the Wikipedia languages section instead, and this generated a rough consensus.

"You later add the article count at the bottom as well, in preparation for your next manoeuvre. Ah patience!"

Again, this is utter nonsense. The article count was relocated from the header to the Wikipedia languages section. (I did not add it "later.") I personally restored it to the header (to eliminate the distraction created by the handful of people who objected) and left the second instance in place (to allow people to become acclimated to its presence in that location). Yes, this was in preparation for subsequently revisiting the postponed issue, as I plainly stated at the time. There was nothing devious or sinister about it.

"You wait 3 months, in your boxer shorts, watching downloaded Seinfeld episodes, and then you strike - mid-August when everyone is at the beach, 'they'll never notice' (sinister laugh)"

I waited until I felt that enough time had elapsed for people to become familiar with the new Wikipedia languages section (complete with article count). I then initiated a discussion on the matter (right here on this page) and waited two weeks before acting on it (during which time one person objected and quickly dropped out of the discussion).

"and if they come back from the beach and complain I'll tell them that this is the new status quo, and will only ever get changed by consensus, and if someone starts a straw poll on the topic you will say 'polls are evil' and cross it out."

1. I've already explained that my "this is the new status quo" comment only meant that neither status quo is sacrosanct.
2. This is the second time that you've falsely claimed that I crossed out your poll. Again, I never crossed out anything that you wrote.

"And all this effort because you (as Cartman would say) have a boner for Jimbo, and you think that this will please him in the way you dream of doing when you lie in bed. Well you didn't plan on this wikipediatrix walking in and catch you in flagrante delicto! (That means with your pants down Levy by the way.)"

I'll only address the above to once again reiterate that this has nothing to do with pleasing Jimbo. (It's odd that you simultaneously claim that I'm motivated by comments made by Jimbo last month and acting on a secret plan that I've had for months.)

"You have tried on numerous occasiosn to stop this debate reaching some kind of satisfactory conclusion. You have suggested no way to put it to any kind of vote or wider community scrutiny."

Again, the discussion to which you posted this reply (entitled "Planning the article count discussion") was initiated by me as a means determining how to put this matter before the community for wider scrutiny. Please go back and read it from the beginning.

"You have threatened to sanction me for starting a MfD debate on the Article Count, when this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do."

1. No, this is not "a perfectly reasonable thing to do," given the fact that no one wishes to delete the article count (which, as I've explained, isn't even technically feasible).
2. I did not threaten to sanction you. I informed you that "if you attempt to list {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} at MfD, I shall consider this a WP:POINT violation and respond accordingly." My response would be to close your bad faith nomination.

"So Levy, this is it, until you nominate for MfD (or equivelant solution of your choice) and get a strong consensus for deletion we have nothing more to discuss."

Again, no one has advocated any sort of deletion. Why do you refuse to accept this fact?

"So, If you ever (while I am a wikipedian) remove the article count from the top of the main page without a strong consensus, a super-majority of opinions, I will nominate it for MfD and put you for up censure."

"Consensus" != "a super-majority of opinions," nor is this a situation with only two possible outcomes. Please read Wikipedia:Consensus. —David Levy 00:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for fisking my personal attack on you, you clearly are a very clever person. I therefore have nothing more to discuss with you on this matter since I am now certain that you would never delete (delete - oh sorry i mean MOVE to the bottom!!, oh sorry not delete - it will still be there blah blah blah) something that was certified by a vote involving 1000 people without some kind proper due process (MfD or equivalent.) You have now been told this by a number of people including admins, your hasty change had to be undone by another Admin, since you refused to do so. If you were to do the same again to a page that gets 25% of wikipedia' traffic I would very much hope that you would deprived of your adminship. juicifer 18:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I therefore have nothing more to discuss with you on this matter since I am now certain that you would never delete (delete - oh sorry i mean MOVE to the bottom!!, oh sorry not delete - it will still be there blah blah blah)"
Are you under the impression that I've been citing the article count's continued presence elsewhere on the main page as evidence of its non-deletion? If so, you've inadvertently combined two separate issues.
On Wikipedia, the term "deletion" refers to the removal of a page (an article, a project page, a category page, a template, et cetera); a file is actually deleted. It does not refer to the act of removing text from a page. I've been disputing the suggestion (first made by Howard the Duck) that someone actually seeks to delete {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} from the database.
"something that was certified by a vote involving 1000 people without some kind proper due process (MfD or equivalent.)"
1. You continue to demonstrate a misunderstanding of Wikipedia process. While people voted, that was not a majority/plurality "vote." It was a debate/discussion to determine consensus, and consensus favored the new main page design with or without the article count in the header.
2. Again, I initiated the discussion (entitled "Planning the article count discussion") to which you responded with your "personal attack" for the purpose of setting up a new discussion on this matter. How can you possibly claim that I seek to block such community input?!
"You have now been told this by a number of people including admins, your hasty change had to be undone by another Admin, since you refused to do so."
Again, my change followed a discussion on this page in which one person opposed the article count's removal from the header and immediately withdrew from said discussion. I waited two weeks before proceeding. How was that remotely "hasty"?
When Zocky took it upon himself to overrule that discussion's result because he personally disagreed with it (despite the fact that he had just finished lecturing me regarding the importance of respecting results that we don't like), did I revert back? No. Did I threaten to? No. Even before Zocky reverted, I already was attempting to organize a new discussion on this matter.
"If you were to do the same again to a page that gets 25% of wikipedia' traffic I would very much hope that you would deprived of your adminship."
Why are you treating me as though I've forced my preference on the community and refused to accept contrary feedback? Why must you threaten me against doing something that I haven't done and have absolutely no intention of doing? Why are you posting outright untruths regarding my conduct (such as the false chronology, the elaborate conspiracy theory that you couldn't possibly believe, the claim that I've attempted to block discussion and unilaterally impose my will, and the claim that I "crossed out" your poll)? Why did you feel the need to include comments that served no purpose other than to insult and degrade me? —David Levy 05:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended to anyone, but I propose this discussion be continued somewhere else. I have a feeling few people will have the desire to get involved in it anymore. The personal part can be continued on the user talk pages, and if the discussion concerning the article count has to be revived we'd better create a subpage for it. My respect to Monotonehell for trying to put a stop to it, too bad it didn't work out that way. Piet | Talk 07:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't put all the 50.000+ and 25.000+ interwiki links at the left side.It's empty anywhay, and replenish the botom space with the remaning or part of the remaning interwiki links.--Pixel ;-) 18:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean something like this image? Tntnnbltn 19:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes exacly.Why was it removed in the first place?Now ther's empty space at the left.We could fill it, at most to the leghth of the page.--Pixel ;-) 21:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I think the interwiki links allong the side are better. Empty space serves no purpose I am aware of, but maybe it is some browser compatability thing. Also, non English readers will find them much more easily there, which seems like a tremendous benefit IMHO. juicifer 23:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more Eurovision...

Why are articles about Eurovision coming up so regularly in the Did You Know? section? I know it's not as a bad as having one almost every day as it was a month or so ago, but still, there are much better things to put there. User:Eraysor 18:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DYK requires people to write articles, find interesting facts from them, and then submit them for acceptance. Someone who likes Eurovision is helping out. If you want to do your part, feel free. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-06 19:40Z
    • The issue is that right now every nomination at DYK conforming to the guidelines is accepted and displayed on the main page, with no discretion on the part of the admins. This means that every single eligible Eurovision article gets featured on the main page eventually. So adding more articles on other subjects is not a useful way to reduce the number of the DYKs on a single repetitive subject appearing on the front page. What is needed is less frequent updating of DYK, which will allow admins to exercise more discretion in choosing from among the submissions. Andrew Levine 02:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if people put in enough options for the admins, then we wouldn't need to keep all of them, we would chuck the ones which aren't so interesting. This sounds like that kerfuffle over Cynna Kydd being the front FA, with people complaining it was boring! Well, please help create more quality articles and challenge the other articles to be left off! Article writing is always needed. OK, I also encouraged Bravada and BigHaz to get involved, so please create a petition on my talk page and sign. Or go to WT:DYK and try to change the policy. There are also lots of eastern European stuff on DYK because of the hard work of guys like Ghirlandajo, Piotrus and Halibutt, etc. Hats off to them for all their hard work. They are the real superstars of Wikipedia. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course nobody is contesting that creating articles for Wikipedia is a good thing. Please do not confuse creating new articles with nominating them as DYKs. The former is very beneficial to Wikipedia, but what does it gain for the main-page DYKs to be so repetitive in character? Andrew Levine 03:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only requirement for admins is that a given set of items that appear on the main page at the same time are as diverse as possible (ie, there shouldn't be 4 items related to the US in the DYK section at the same time). There is no requirement that the same or similar subjects should not be repeatedly covered over an extended time. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-07 02:32Z
  • (edit conflict)There are two things you can do. Go create some articles (a majority of plant and animal articles have yet to be created), I just added a frog article now. The other is go searching for some interesting new articles, and add them to the suggestions. You get a lot more appreciation for doing something, than complaining about it. --liquidGhoul 02:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing the point a bit. I have in fact created many articles and nominated several for DYK and they were accepted. The problem is that nominating new DYKs does not change anything with regard to this matter. If every submitted DYK is accepted and displayed without prejudice, what effect would this course of action have on stemming repetition on the main page? Don't get me wrong, it's good that BigHaz and Blnguyen have been creating new articles, but what does it accomplish to see articles on the same subject repeatedly displayed on the main page? Isn't the fact that they were created already beneficial enough? This is not idle complaining; I am trying to help people understand that the situation must change. Andrew Levine 03:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the situation really as bad as you make it seem? Only 8 of the last 200 entries mention "Eurovision". — BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-07 20:46Z
  • In other words, since there are about 6 DYKs in each update, about 50% of the time (one in two updates) there is an article in this narrow subject linked from the front page. That, to me, is a big deal, especially given the visibility of the front page. Andrew Levine 22:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked in my DYK collection and see 8 Eurovision DYKs, 19 for BigHaz and 3 for Bravada. Since 3 were shared, there are 27 distinct DYKs, and the fist came on July 22, and the next on July 31. So even for the last 26, it was a 39 day span, so 2 every 3 days. There are about 2.5 updates per day, so 15 DYKs per day, so 2 DYKs every 7.5 days, so actually one DYK every 3.75 updates. So not too much....Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are enough articles then not all will get a go. So force the play by getting more noms if you want to expunge the Eurovision entries. Or go to all the WikiProjects and encourage them to nominate themselves. Even for perfect efficiency we can only get 24 per day, but at the best of times there is only 2.5-3 updates per day so then if you get more than 15 everyday then we boot some. You only have to find another 5 suggestions per day...Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You still haven't explained what benefit there is to displaying repetitive DYKs. That the articles were created is the only benefit. On the other hand, for putting too much on a single subject in DYK, there are downsides, but no positives. Andrew Levine 22:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Davola Vandal?

Someone is entering Joe Davola as an executive producer on certain televison show articles! Something should be done! Here are some: One Tree Hill (TV series), The Nick Cannon Show and Inconceivable. Steve 20:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Report him. dposse 20:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a disambiguation; there's a fictional character and a real producer with the name. The producer was actually the inspiration for the character. -- Zanimum 15:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page Layout

Hello,

I'm sure this has been asked before, but I can't find the information anywhere. Can someone direct me to an article on how to remove the title from the article? For example, on my wiki the main page always says "Main Page" on top and I would like to remove it. Thanks in advance.

Also, if you can also point me to where i can change the "article" tab on top to "main page" that would be great too. Thanks again.

I don't know much about this, but perhaps it's the skin you are using. Go to My Preferenses, then Skin and select MonoBook.--cloviz 02:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you can only do this if you log in or create an account. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a technical question about the MediaWiki software best asked on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). It's not difficult to do this but it would require code changes. Deco 02:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is done in MediaWiki:Monobook.js, with the following lines of code:
var mpTitle = "Main Page";
var isMainPage = (document.title.substr(0, document.title.lastIndexOf(" - ")) == mpTitle);
var isDiff = (document.location.search && (document.location.search.indexOf("diff=") != -1 || document.location.search.indexOf("oldid=") != -1));
if (isMainPage && !isDiff)
{
document.write('<style type="text/css">/*<![CDATA[*/ #lastmod, #siteSub, #contentSub, h1.firstHeading { display: none !important; } /*]]>*/</style>');
Correct me if wrong, but I think all you have to do is add these lines to Monobook.js
This would be good to add to the Main Page FAQ. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 03:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help. With your input, I was able to google search for the very answer to my solution here. Basically, its like you guys said edit the username:Monobook.js page (or Mediawiki:Monobook.js if you want to change it for the entire site - just search for that page), and append the extra code. My apologies if this posting is located in the wrong area, I simply could not find any other spot to leave this message. Thanks again. --dzitran 21:15, 7 September 2006

Suggestion

I think that adding a link to the sandbox (in a prominent place, not in the small print) will help new users to find a right place to experiment, and not carry out trial edits on actual pages. My hypothesis is that this will noticeably reduce unconstructive edits falling under the new user test category. Any support for my theory? 218.186.9.1 05:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I think it's a good thing that random tests can occur in main space. It rams home the fact that wikipedia can be edited by anyone. The only way for some people to believe this is to try it. Secondly, even after the header redesign for this page with the "red flashing lights" many people still don't notice it. But even after my disparigment I'm not against including a link to the sandbox somewhere more prominent, where do you suggest? --Monotonehell 11:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest with the Overview · Searching · Editing · Questions · Help part, the one under the 'Welcome to Wikipedia' box. With a brief explanation of what it's for in brackets, so new users know what it's for and don't get perplexed by what they see as yet another confusing feature of Wikipedia. 218.186.9.1 12:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, at 800x600 pixel resolution, there is no room for any more links in that area. Carcharoth 13:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Table bridge appears monstrous

Should it read that the table bridge appears 'monstrous' when open? Nicolharper 16:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears some has taken your suggestion, and changed the spelling. Does it read correctly now? -- Zanimum 17:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Football (american football)

What are the positions in american football?

Try the Wikipedia article on the subject. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 22:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Brock and others

I had enough trouble feeling that Steve Irwin's death belonged on the front page as it is, so might I bring it up that Peter Brock probably shouldn't be on the front page since I imagine very few outside Australia with the exception of die-hard racing fans have even heard of him? Not to be insensitive or anything, after all it is a terrible way to go and I'm sure he's done some nifty things, but does he really belong in "In The News"? On the same subject, I feel we shouldn't have famous actors' (or personalities along the same vein as Steve Irwin) deaths on the main page. I'd hate to connect to Wikipedia in the future and see Tom Cruise or anyone similar's death posted as big news. Not to hurt anyone's feelings or deny that someone's death is tragic, but I feel it isn't as important as most of the other major news that we post on the main page. I hope I've posted this in the right place and that I'm not alone in this. -- Cyrenaic

I don't believe Peter Brock's death belongs on the Main Page either. I personally have never heard of him (not that that's enough to not put it on the Main Page) and he doesn't appear to be on the home page of CNN or Yahoo! or several major news sites where I would expect it to be. -- tariqabjotu 10:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally more concerned over the word "legend". Jellypuzzle | Talk 10:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "legend" to "driver" just before I found this discussion. —David Levy 10:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of Peter Brock, but I haven't heard of most racecar drivers from my own country (the U.S.) either. —David Levy 10:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard of Peter Brock but I don't think this should be on the main page. It is sad that he has gone (RIP Peter and Possum)but I doubt he is known outside of Australia and New Zealand. It is front page news here in NZ but putting this on the main page will only sets a bad precident.--Clawed 11:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Irwin, Yes. Tom Cruise, Would be a yes. Peter Brock, No. (Even though i and most Australians know him, i doubt anybody outside of Australia would) Rafy 11:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you stupid? He hosted TV shows in New Zealand and raced there. He is known outside Australia.--HamedogTalk|@ 02:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The user is not "stupid", he has made an incorrect assumption. Please be civil.Melburnian 03:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally agreed that deaths aren't reported on "In the News", unless they are of political leaders, heads of state etc. or recieve heavy global media coverage. Since Peter Brock's death has received little media attention outside of Australia and NZ, and given the comments on this page, I have removed the entry. the wub "?!" 11:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it of any interest that it is two high profile Australians killed within 4 days of one another? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.65.172 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try four! Don Chipp, Colin Thiele, Steve Irwin and Peter Brock (EDIT: actually Don Chipp passed last month I thought it was much more recent)--Monotonehell 12:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don Chipp and Colin Thiele don't count as most Australians only heard of them after their deaths.--58.104.15.66 02:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess by "most Australians" you mean YOU and by "don't count" you mean that a founder of the Australian Democrats and the author of many popular Australian novels and educator somehow rate lesser than a sports person and an environmentalist. Really "don't count" is a terrible thing to say. I say all four "count". This kind of subjective jugement call isn't what Wikipedia is about. --Monotonehell 11:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cyrenaic, I am intrigued. What "vein" do you consider Steve Irwin, and what "vein" do you consider warrants a mention on the main page? --liquidGhoul
Forgive me, perhaps I was quick to assume some things. I had always seen Steve Irwin as a mere television personality, turned into a stereotype and mimicked countless times thereafter. I had known nothing of his environmental work, which I do applaud him for. All the same, his passing, while tragic, didn't seem like something worthy of an "In The News" highlight. He seemed like a great guy and all, but I just didn't feel he was a necessary addition. I suppose the amount of news coverage he's [still] getting is notable, otherwise a great deal of the world has overlooked his achievements. It seems it's more about his death than HIM. As for Peter Brock, I'm satisfied enough now that his headline has been taken down. My condolences to his family, friends and fans. I have nothing against him. I just don't feel his passing is necessary to be mentioned for the "In The News" section. I apologize for any offense. -- Cyrenaic

Shouldn't this discussion be at Template talk:In the news as redirected from the top of Wikipedia talk:In the news section on the Main Page. Just for the record, Peter Brock is well known in Australasia as one of the most successful winners of Bathurst 1000 over the years. Just because someone may not have heard of him doesn't mean he isn't famous. Really the issue is about the amount of international media coverage his death is getting. In my view it may not be enough to justify it being In the news, where as Steve Irwin's death had plenty of international media coverage (see [references]). --Zven 21:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sad - yes. Tragic - yes. Worth while taking up the front page of my local paper - No. Worthwhile of being on Wikipedia's front page - No. Likewise Steve Irwin should not be there. --Midnighttonight Procrastinating on uni work... 22:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When buying your paper you can look at the front page before hand and decide if you really want it. If you wrote a letter to the editor about why you dont think it was appropriate in your local rag, you would probably incite considerable debate from other readers. --Zven 19:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, the Steve Irwin story was up the top of Google News in terms of coverage by online newspapers for a day. 1500 or so newspapers. What is your rebuttal to that? Other than a personal dislike of the person possibly. Ansell 09:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Greed, and Steve Irwins death was major news in a lot of other sources such as bbc, cnn etc. If people have real reasons for believing it shouldn't be Template talk:In the news, then front up with the reason why, not just it don't think it should be there... --Zven 19:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think majority consensus on the talk page Template talk:In the news from a (possibly biased) sample of wikipedians would identify whether Steve Irwin's death was worthy at the time. Likewise, the Māori Queen's death would create some debate about its worthyness for In the news as globally few would know who she was compared to locally in New Zealand (which seems to be the main arguement by people above) --Zven 00:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether or not he should be on there; it's too late. If you record someone's death there, it's incredibly insulting to his family and his fans to mention him then say, whoops, that's not important, and take it back down. Owen214 22:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can and has been--58.104.15.66 08:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 8 - Today - International Literacy Day

Please add add as anniversary. It is today.--Michkalas 17:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also the 40th anniversary of Star Trek. The Wookieepedian 22:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the former. The latter should wait for the 50th anniversary, if at all. —Cuiviénen 23:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"stand down" --> "step down"

"Tony Blair announces that he will stand down" sounds strange; the phrase "step down" is more familiar and suitable for the context, as the idiomatic definition of stand down is "Withdraw, as from a political contest or a game or race", and the position of Prime Minister is not a contest/game. On the other hand, the definition of step down is "Resign from office", which is more fitting. --Schzmo 01:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term is correct. When the Cold War ended and the Missile Silos were deactivated, the order given was to "stand down". The PM, in the sense of service to the Queen, is acting like any other member of the Services. --Ancheta Wis 01:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC) To Step Down, in the sense of a Ruler of a Junta, would be less respectful of the responsibilities of a PM.01:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to resign, so there shouldn't be a problem. —Mets501 (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to which of these terms is used with respect to a resignation from office, the difference between "step down" and "stand down" is more a British/American usage issue than anything else, I believe. "Stand down" in this sense is more common in the UK and Canada, while "step down" is idiomatic in the US. Newyorkbrad 01:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link for Simon Byrne is to bare-knuckle. It should probably be to Bare-knuckle boxing. --Eyrian 04:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. —David Levy 04:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest that the 10 most popular articles of the day are listed on the main page. That list may be updated on a daily basis. Bondkaka 09:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you accompany your suggestion with the benefit of such? It's fair enough to make suggestions, but please back them up with reasons why such a suggestion should be adopted. --Monotonehell 11:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The list doesn't really seem to show anything positive about the encyclopedia. It's all articles that are in the news (which are linked in ITN anyway) and sex related articles (which people would complain about). Jellypuzzle | Talk 12:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And if you only include Wikipedia articles (rather than special pages/WP pages), you'll get about 2/3 of the top articles list being sex-related. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 13:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I didn't know there was already a list like that. My suggestion was mainly based on the fact that popular websites like The New York Times have featured lists like that on the homepages, and that doesn't seem to cause any problems. But after reading the list, I'd agree about the cons. Bondkaka 15:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty amusing though. Hee hee, Steve Irwin, stingrays and anal sex. --Kinst 15:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=74800147"