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 24.34.154.167 (talk) at 11:45, 28 October 2005 (→‎Iran Israel comments?). 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.


Rename "Main Page" to "Main page"

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}. The MAIN page should not be any exception to the standard page naming practices on Wikipedia. We use "Sentence case", not "Title case"...only the first letterof the title, and any proper nouns should be capitalized. I think that this confuses newcomers into thinking that we use title case, when we use sentence case. It would be less confusing, and more aesthetically pleasing to use a lowercase p. Additionally, this is such a small change that I don't see any reason not to do it. I don't see any reason it was capitalized like this, other then from just putting a space in the middle after we stopped using CamelCase. I'll be requesting the same thing on the community portal. --Phroziac(talk) 00:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot to mention -- this wouldn't break any links, because we would leave a redirect at the old location, of course. And the related templates should be renamed, though it's not urgent or a big deal. --Phroziac(talk) 00:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fully disagree. This is not an article on Main pages, this is literally the Main Page. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Redwolf24, it's a name, like "The Main Page," but no objection if other people want to move it, or any strong opinion either way... Bushytails 01:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But why would we have an article on main pages? And certainly that would need a disambiguation, as most people don't use capitals in search queries? --Phroziac(talk) 01:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Back in "the day" (this was like, fall 2004 or something) we had a big vote about this, and it was almost universally rejected (the move that is). Nothing has happened that should change that decision (which was alot closer to true consensus than anything else on wikipedia). Now I'll go and dig in the archives and try to find the discussion. gkhan 01:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I can't seem to find it!?!?! Oh, well, I probably imagined it. Go Phroziac, down with "Main Page"!!!! gkhan 01:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the apparent disparity, and personally, I think it would be better as "Main page," but really, it doesn't matter. ElAmericano 02:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If it's going to moved at all it should be to its logical place, the Portal: or Wikipedia: namespaces. I'd be for it, but I believe it's already been discussed and didn't exactly get huge support. --fvw* 04:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As many times before, I strongly oppose any sort of move, especially to another namespace. Keep it simple. — Dan | Talk 04:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

::Ok, but I didn't suggest we move it to another namespace. --Phroziac(talk) 05:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC) Just noticed fvw's comment. oops. --Phroziac(talk) 05:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The previous discussion (regarding moving the main page to Portal:, not "Main page" as is suggested here) is at Wikipedia:Portal namespace (setting-up debate)#Comments on Main Page in portal namespace. I mention it because the case issue is discussed somewhat. Demi T/C 05:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see a reason for this. - victorvp (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
shouldn't new sections be placed on the bottom of a talk page? also can the person who started this PLEASE fix that huge blob of broken wikicode he uses in signing, it looks really annoying. on the issue, just keep it like it is now. Boneyard 14:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, yes. However, something as major as proposing to move a page should go at the top. --Phroziac(talk) 22:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ambivalent on move to another namespace, but strongly oppose decapitalisation of Main Page. It's the Page after all.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, consider it rejected, apparently there's consensus to keep it this way. :( --Phroziac(talk) 22:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I like Mainpage. --hydnjo talk 23:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What about no name at all? Just en.wikipedia.org. If it's the "Main page" and not an article on main pages why does it need a name at all (well, maybe to link to it in the standard way but I'm sure there's a way around this). You don't see Google/Main page. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 00:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

misspelling

The last entry in the Did You Know section should read skeptical rather than sceptical. It is also misspelled in the article that it links to.

-- I suggest you look in a more reputable dictionary than the one you wrote yourself in crayon. OED doesn't even mention skeptical as an alternative spelling. [http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/chref/chref.py/main?query=sceptical&title=21st Chambers?!?!

--211.217.148.236 07:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC) John Owens[reply]

Wikipedia articles should be written in American English (except for British articles and certain exceptions), which is why it was probably changed. -x42bn6 Talk 03:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the policy of the English Wikipedia. Articles are written using whatever was the English vareity of the original editor, except for articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lets just eradicate American spelling all together and use the spelling used in every other country.. :P It's just one rogue country trying to be "trendy".. :P - 202.7.176.133 16:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We should have a standard form of spelling whether it's American or British English. -192.168.1.104 13:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Consistent to whatever the original article-writer inserted in the article, yes, that's what we have. Any suggestion that we should consistently stick to one or other completely throughout the encyclopedia is not needed and, at the risk of my alienation, racist. However, so long as we see no potatoes around, we'll be fine.Bobo192 20:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didnt mean just in Wikipedia.. I ment eradicating American Spelling all together :P Yah for language genocide! - 202.7.176.133 05:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite fond of New Zealand English myself, any objections?--Clawed 06:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Its the same as British spelling, with one or two minor differences :P, they might as well refer to it as International English or United Nations English, American English is the only one with any major changes. But I guess its only fair we cater to the minority...:P I guess American English is acceptable on the three or four articles on America, such as George Bush, Apple Pie, Scientology, and Elvis Presley. :P - 202.7.176.133 09:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wishing no insult to English-speaking peoples with original alternative spellings of certain words, the argument has been made American English spellings more closely follow pronounciation and are preferred in some journalistic circles if only for that reason. --Mike 13:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Closer to -utterly wrong- pronounciation in some cases - citing aluminum, for instance. --Kiand 14:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly irrelevant with the vast number of accents out their, even in the same country. I doubt a single "journalistic circle" decides to use an unusal spelling of English because they believe it follows their pronounciation. Unless of course we are talking about accent genocide, which is something I utterly oppose ;). I mean come on!... Their is nothing sexier than a Swedish or Irish english accent. - :P - 202.7.176.133 21:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You've obvioiusly never been chatted up by a drunk bogger girl in the queue at a chippers, I see :p --Kiand 23:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, really: who cares? I mean, language changes, constantly and fluidly and unpredictably. To try and standardize it would be absurd. It should be in ASL.
Language and spelling are different things. Slang will always shift but spelling for the most part has been standardised (but as this word demonstrates [ize/ise], minor changes do exist) much like measurements with SI units, only small unimportant countries have trully different spelling and remain the minority :P. But I guess it's only fair at Wiki we cater to them :P. - 202.7.176.133 06:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The spelling that you use is irrelevent to the issue you are talking about so long as it belongs to some sort of national standard and is readable. Unless you are quoteing something, then all spelling should be exactly the same as the quote.

So what if it was a spoken quote? We spell it as the person would of? Sri Theo 11:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

orngjce223It depends on whether it's British English or American English. Doesn't matter very much. Stats on how many people from each country reference this page might help...


Number of Casualties in Kashmir Earthquake now near 80,000

Can someone update the main page with the new total as reported today by AP.

Kamayoq 15:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The number of casualties due earthquake hitting the northern area of pakistan and indian held kashmer reach upto 49700 according to gov officals but according to some unofical reports the number may reach upto 100000 because there are still some areas which are not in contact while the number of serious injusries is upto 70000.

Have a look at this ref on ABC quoting AP [http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1230245] It says "Death Toll in Asian Earthquake Soars to 79,000, Making It One of Deadliest Quakes in Modern Times"

Kamayoq 81.108.218.26 20:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, the figure on the main page has been out of date for at least a day or two now.
I've updated it now. Thanks. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 14:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
weird, news here still only reports 53k. Boneyard 12:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ~I think it would be best to put up the official count of casualties at the end of every week since I'm sure that the count will significantly rise until the final count has been tallied up for this awful tragedy.~*

Ali Siddiqui

History of Poland

Today's history of Poland mini-article contains a key error. It says, in the aftermath of World War II, the forces of Nazi Germany were driven from Poland by the Red Army.

The military forces of Nazi Germany were driven from Poland by the Red Army before the end of the war, not "in the aftermath" of the war.

In the aftermath of the war, the ethnic Germans who lived in areas now part of Poland – Silesia, Pomerania, Danzig/Gdansk and southern East Prussia – were driven out by a combination of the Red Army and Soviet-supported Polish Communist forces.

Sca 18:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC) They were some German units on territory of todays Poland still left in certain pockets IIRC. --Molobo 00:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DYK ...that a dream by Sergei Pankejeff,

Is a dream by correct English? We talk of art by someone or talk by someone; yet to hear of dream by someone. I think it shd read ...that a dream Sergei Pankejeff had... --Gurubrahma 09:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least "He dreamed about", I agree Sri Theo 11:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, a dream by eould be grammatically correct; who painted the picture-it was by what's his name, who shot the deer, it was shot by, etc.,etc.,etc. rachoman 4:36, October 23, CST

what sort of argument is this? are you saying that this works for every transitive verb? is "to dream" transitive? "I shoot a deer", "the deer shot by me". ok, but "the deer by me"?? Similarly, "I dream that X" is ok. "I dream a dream" is borderline, "the dream dreamt by me", the same, but how do you get from "a deer shot by me" (not, "a deer by me") to "a dream by me"? "a dream by me" isn't good English. It should be "a dream of X's". 130.60.142.65 08:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Horror! "I dreamt a dream" is Shakespeare!:o
:-). I don't have a huge problem with "A dream by ..." any more than "A book by ..." and friends. Surely you don't think that is bad usage? And whats with shooting all these deer? 202.180.83.6 04:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we forgetting something?

In the aniversaries section today we mention that at the Battle of Trafalgar Lord Nelson defeated the French. This is nice and all... but shouldn't it also point out that he was mortally wounded and died this day as well? This being kind of a minor plot point in the man's life.--Smaerd 14:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He would have wanted it this way  United Kingdom  United Kingdom  United Kingdom  United Kingdom --After-word 17:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

21st October

British contributors revelling in the Trafalgar celebrations might be sobered to realise that this day is also the anniversary of the Aberfan disaster in 1966, when a coal tip slid onto a school killing 116 children in the small Welsh town of Aberfan. Peter Maggs 19:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Write the article. It might get featured next year in the Selected Anniversaries section on the Main Page next year, on the 40th anniversary. -- 199.71.174.100 22:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See Aberfan Martin 09:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comic

I suggest include a wikicomic strip in the Wikipedia Main Page (http://www.comixpedia.org/index.php/Main_Page) every day.

From where do you suggest we get these comics? AFAIK, nobody writes a comic strip explicitly about Wikipedia. ~~ N (t/c) 01:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unless they mean a comic about current events in the news? If thats the case then no. That would not be encyclopedic nor is it news, it is commentry and has no place at Wiki. - 202.7.176.133 05:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps an idea for wikinews, not for wikipedia. Boneyard 12:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinews used to have crossword puzzles, too. Like a comic strip, they require too much effort from a talented few. Not feasable. Perhaps comics and crossword puzzles should go to Wikipedia:Department of Fun. -- 64.229.178.215 17:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake in the Spanish Main Page

Hello my name is Luis, I am writing to let you know about a mistake that you have in the Spanish main page. In which is written: "Wikipedia la enciclopedia libre", and it should be: "Wikipedia la enciclopedia gratuita". The root of the problem is that in English the word "free" is translated as "libre" or "gratis" (gratuito/a), but the correct meaning in Spanish for this case is "gratuita".

Luis Lema.

Luis: it's both: libre y gratis a la vez. Take a look at es:Contenido libre or (better) Gratis versus Libre. Yeah, we don't charge (enciclopedia gratuita) but, more importantly, all our content is free (enciclopedia libre). –Hajor 19:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also this is the en.wikipedia and we don't have jurrisdiction over the Spanish es.wikipedia, and problems of this type should either be directed to the wiki in question or to Meta wiki. I agree with Hajor that the word free has multiple meanings, SqueakBox 20:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I'm right in saying that in all the various languages with multiple words for "free" it's the word for "unrestricted" rather than "unpriced" which is chosen for the title. Doops | talk 22:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which in this case is libre, SqueakBox 05:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CASE CLOSED. Hopefully people (he?) will stop telling us about this "mistake" at the Spanish Wikipedia.--Fito 07:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ITN

ok, I think everyone has seen the Saddam news now, could somebody please update ITN? There are like four suggestions queued up, plus a couple more in Current Events. 83.76.218.123 22:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate attention by administrators is requested at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates & ITN !!!!! --64.229.227.234 01:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admin to revert

Can an admin revert the change made by user:Talrias here [2]. I can find no place where this has been discussed before, and admins should not be being bold with our front page or intro. --Clawed 05:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you there, major changes to the first thing new people see on this site should be discussed first, not blindly rushed ahead. --Mark J 11:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
linking cotw prominently seems like a good idea. the call to enrole (the excited imperatives, become! edit!) could perhaps be refined, stylistically. 130.60.142.65 12:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, reverting it because I did not discuss it seems pointless - reverting it because consensus is it's a bad idea is a far superior reason. If I had proposed it first, what would your opinion on having it there be? Talrias (t | e | c) 13:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The main page is not the place to advertise COTWs. The main page is primarily for readers, not editors. Furthermore, the main page is already too long, and this is a waste of space. And it is distracting, and looks terrible in that location. In short, the edit should not have been made. →Raul654 16:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the main page not the place to advertise COTWs? One of the key distinguishing factors of Wikipedia is that it is freely editable, yet the main page doesn't really invite people to come and edit Wikipedia - it should. How about placing it underneath the Selected anniversaries section, there is about a 3-4cm gap beneath it and the end of the box. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't belong on the main page at all. The main page is not a place to advertise internal wiki matters - especially those related to editing (that's what the community portal is for!). The main page is for displaying our good content - content to interest readers. The fact that you put it in an especially space consuming, visible location only makes it a more egregious misuse of the main page. →Raul654 16:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't it belong on the main page, and why isn't the main page a place to put some information about editing? As I said above, one of the main features of Wikipedia is that it's freely editable. You get about 3 words saying that on the main page. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The main page is mainly for readers. The fact that wikipedia is editable should be incidental to readers. Broken S 17:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, gentlemen lets not get nasty. I agree that editor-matters should not be on the main page because the main problem with wikipedia to non-wikipedians is that they don't believe an open encyclopedia can produce great articles. So when they come here, to the main page, we need to show them the very best we have. People become editors anyway, they see the "edit this page" link, and they start editing. We don't need to advertise it on the front page. I think it looks a bit tacky to be honest. gkhan 17:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to Talrias if my statement sounded accusitory - I didn't intend it that way. →Raul654 17:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Day

I think the Picture of the Day is so much better than Did you Know. The picture makes the Home Page look good, and a picture is worth a thousand words! And a good picture looks professional. Personally, I'd make the Picture of the Day a daily event (otherwise it's only Picture of the Weekend!), and I'd place Did you Know across the bottom, (above Wikipedia in other languages) in 2 or 3 lines. --Iantresman 10:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't know, Picture of the Day is actually a daily event at Wikipedia:Picture of the day, plus you can easily add it to your user page. Its just its appearance on the MainPage that is weekend thing.
You can find some earlier discussion on the pros and cons of changing/keeping various sections on the Main Page in the archives of this talk page (probably around the middle of July). And if you look at the top of this page, there is a link to the current project to generally redesign the MainPage — the choice of material to show would have some bearing there too. -- Solipsist 11:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I like Did you know (and not only because I already had an article there :) 'cause it has more interesting facts than a simple picture. And Did you know is usually illustrated, too. :) BTW, today's picture is very nice. Alensha 14:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we don't get 7 FPs a week so we would have to repeat eventually (and people complain when we do that). Broken S 16:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that sometimes it's repeated. I'll nominate some nice pics right now :) Alensha 21:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Della Falls is the highest "officially measured" waterfall in Canada, not the highest, according to the linked article. It indicates that other waterfalls in B.C. are higher. Simply calling Takkakaw the second-tallest seems misleading, if that info is true. --Cam 18:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First use of aircraft in war.

The first use of aircraft in war did not take place in 1911 as stated on Wikipedia main page. The first use was a reconnaissance balloon employed by the French army at the Battle of Fleurus in 1794.

Does a balloon qualify as an aircraft ? -- 64.229.206.159 13:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
according to aircraft, it does. Supposedly the statement should read, the first use of aircraft engaging in combat, since the balloons were just for reconnaissance before that. It appears that "offensive balloons" were only used in WWII (fire balloon) 15:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
or "heavier-than-air", as it says now, that's right too. 15:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
That assuming a zeppelin is not a ballon, they were used as bombers in WWI. --Lewk_of_Serthic 02:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Selected anniversaries

"October 23: National Day in Hungary (1956)" -- Actually it is a national holiday because the Republic was proclaimed on this day in 1989, and not because of the revolution (although of course it is not a coincidence that it's on the same day). Since internationally the revolution is the better known one of the two events, it's understandable that the main page features the revolution and not the proclamation of the republic, but then it would be better if it linked to the revolution's article, not simply to 1956. Alensha 14:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It does link there. (* [[1956]] - The '''[[1956 Hungarian Revolution|Hungarian Uprising]]''' began in [[Budapest]].) What's wrong ? Do we have a page on the proclamation of the republic ? -- 199.71.174.100 05:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

"secret agents" should be "secret agent" in the Newest Articles section Clarkefreak ∞ 04:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extra pronoun

"politician Liam Lawlor he" -- eliminate "he". AnonMoos 18:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks! - BanyanTree 18:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Hoover: U.S. resident

"Did you know ... that Rapidan Camp, the rustic mountain fishing retreat of U.S. resident Herbert Hoover located near Big Meadows in Virginia, was the forerunner of Camp David in Maryland?"

Should be U.S. *P*resident, although I guess they're both correct. :)

TotoBaggins

Fixed. Thanks. Shanes 00:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Girl in Hijab

She's Iraqi, not french though I'm not sure that's a big deal..Borisblue 00:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a picture of a french girl wearing a hijab, I'd be happy to use it. Until then, a picture of an Iraqi girl wearing one will have to do. →Raul654 00:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it have to be a girl in a Hijab? Why can't this picture be replaced with a French boy wearing a giant bling cross? --61.73.159.96 17:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)JohnO[reply]
If you're got one of them, that'll be just as welcome. --Kiand 14:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do happen to have a small French boy wearing a giant bling cross stashed under my bed, actually. Any idea of the postage, or should I just photograph him? --JohnO 02:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What's a bling cross? Pedant 02:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How can you ask that on the Main (talk) Page of an encyclopaedia?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Eh? Try looking at bling and try looking at cross. Then, and this really is a tough one, try combining the ideas. I'm truly sorry, but I can't do more than that. Perhaps 'Googling' it would help? --JohnO 06:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Parks

Why was the main page article on Rosa Parks removed so fast, not even lasting a few hours?

Wanyonyi 05:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Template talk:In the news#Rosa Parks. - BanyanTree 15:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ok

SMUG SMUG SMUG!

I know nobody else has said it, but I HATE this picture... and it isn't because of the fly! I have seen discussion of this and she is said to be "so sweet!" but I struggle to recall another picture of a person looking so damn SMUG! Well, not meant to rile anyone, just throwing it out there. Is there anyone else who feels the same way? (I think this should be moved to Smug.) --61.73.159.96 07:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)JohnO[reply]

Jesus Christ, it's just a snapshot of a smiling girl in a schoolyard or something. She didn't know she would be featured on a major website in a context of religious politics, so she isn't being smug about her scarf or anything. get a grip, it's all in your head. 130.60.142.65 08:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no. You are mistaken. I didn't say she was "being" smug. I said she looked smug. I'm sure she wasn't trying to... Anyway, I'm just wondering if other people feel the same way. I guess you don't! --61.73.159.96 17:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)JohnO[reply]

Charge of the light Brigade

Is disaster the right word? They /did/ take the Russian guns against all odds after all. Folly yes. But disaster? They defeated 50 guns and 20 batallions of infantry with a few hundred men on horse. Hardly a bad days work. --Narson 12:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. We don't usually refer to the Battle of Thermopylae as a disaster for the Greeks/Spartans. --61.73.159.96 19:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)JohnO[reply]

Jane Wenham

The "new articles" section on the main page states that "Jane Wenham was the last subject of a witch trial in England". However the first line of the article itself states "Jane Wenham (d. 1730) is commonly but erroneously regarded as being the subject of the last witch trial in England.

Pretty lazy mistake this, can someone correct it? Grunners 16:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duuuuh. Fixed. ~~ N (t/c) 18:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

rosa parks

where has she been living because I heard her house was for sale or its open to the public

You may want to try the article on Rosa Parks for information. This page is for discussion of the Main Page only. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi constitution vote

The page refers to "only two provinces vetoing". There are two things wrong with that phrase:

1) If the news is supposed to be presented in a neutral fashion, the word "only" doesn't belong there. Two provinces might be fewer than some people expect, but it might also be more than some other people expect.

2) The use of the term "veto" is incorrect. In a conventional use of the term (e.g., as in U.N. security council voting), a single veto is sufficient to kill a proposal. This is not a veto. It is a particular super-majority threshold of disapproval, not a veto. (I believe there was a majority disapproval in more than two provinces, correct?)

–71.112.95.211 04:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the point was: "only" two voted it down and three were needed to veto. So not POV, but unclear: put that context in. Doops | talk 04:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it hasn't changed to me. Now regarding the idea that three of these "vetoes" were "needed to veto", I believe it is is important to recognize that this criterion was simply the rule put in place by the people nominally in charge today. What is ultimately really "needed" in Iraq may not be known for decades or longer. I believe it is also important to recognize that there were more than two provinces in which there was majority disapproval (and that it was very difficult to get access to be able to vote in key areas likely to disapprove). –71.112.95.211 06:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so the wording should be something like "The Iraqi constitutional referendum is deemed to have succeeded: according to the original agreement, voters three provinces had to reject the proposed constitution by a margin of x% and this level was met in only two provinces." Accuracy of wording is a good thing. :) Doops | talk 06:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the news item (with my own custom formulation). Thue | talk 08:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

online encyclopedia less reliable than thought

wikipedia is open to everyone to put their own info into this site, whatever it is. now think twice about using this site again without careful thought.

I think anyone who is going to see this page knows that already. --Kiand 14:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
have you tried adding "your info, whatever it is"? I think you will find this more difficult than you think. A lot of people walk away frustrated, yelling "censorship", or even "violation of freedom of speech" (sic) because they weren't allowed to add their biased and/or cranky stuff. Considering the freedom to edit, WP is actually more reliable than most people would assume. This reliability is a relative value, of course. Nobody claims WP is remotely approaching infallibility. 130.60.142.65 07:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minstrel Mania?

In regards to many recent main page postings (including both yesterday and today's "Did You Know?": has anybody else noticed that Wikipedia seems to harbor some sort of an obsession towards blackface?

I should think there must be a (or several) blackface experts working overtime on creating these articles.

Nah, no obsession except for one to get as much of the information into Wikipedia before my library books are due back. :) It's really all just secondary to the expansion of minstrel show, which is done. Call it a red-link-reduction brigade for that article. BrianSmithson 18:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: No stubs for DYK

I suggest that we don't let stubs get on DYK, they just make a bad impression. Borisblue 21:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, DYK articles are almost by definition stubs. But presumably the people choosing the DYK articles are choosing the well-written, least-stubbish "perfect" stubs, not the slapped-together embarrassments. Doops | talk 21:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not. Saga Castle has a clean-up tag! Borisblue 22:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No need to propose. This has been the rule for the longest time. On Wikipedia:Did you know, the first rule under "Selection" says NO STUBS. -- PFHLai 01:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • DYK articles are not perfect by definition, but even back when I managed the section there was a clear rule that articles should be at least 1000 bytes which is a rule which exists to this day. This size should be for text only, but I'm not sure whether that is explicitely mentioned. - Mgm|(talk) 07:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Edur at DYK

In the blurb about Tom Edur it is stated that "Tom Edur gave up a professional hockey career...". This wording is ambiguous for non-North-Americans because in many parts of the world field hockey is the sport associated with the single word hockey. It should be "Tom Edur gave up a professional ice hockey career...". 212.114.211.12 08:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks for pointing that out. the wub "?!" 13:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of misleading to say he was studying "Christianity". The JWs are nontrinitarian. Carolynparrishfan 16:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's totally misleading, or more accurately wrong. Not to mention that the source article rigthfully doesn't mention Christianity. So It seem like a bit of a blunder to mention it here. Enneagon 01:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Great it's already been removed now my comment is obseleteEnneagon 01:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Names of the Greeks - intro not very clear

The intro to today's featured article (October 27 2005 - Names of the Greeks) seems rather poorly written. It took me about three attempts at the opening two sentences before I realised it was literally discussing the names by which the Greek populace has been known over time. Might I suggest a better intro would have been something like: "Over time, many names have described what today we call 'the Greek people'. In the fifth century BC the term 'Hellene' was used for any Greek person. However, by the time of Christ, 'Hellene' had come to mean anyone who was not Jewish, and the term 'Roman' was used instead..."

El T 11:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the reason why this article has disappeared from the Main Page? I don't think I've seen that happen before, though I admittedly haven't been on Wikipedia that long. Dandelions 14:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the intro reads "The names of the Greeks have shifted throughout history. The soldiers that fell at Thermopylae did so as Hellenes, while centuries later when Jesus preached his beliefs any person of non-Jewish faith was a Hellene. Instead, by the time Constantine the Great became Emperor they were known as Romans, and all the while their neighbours in the Western Roman Empire would call them Greeks, while those in the Persian Empire would call them Yunans. " I think the word Instead needs to be removed because I don't think it reads well or is necesary in the sentence. Johntex\talk 16:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article sort of is misleading. What about other names for the Greeks such as Acheans, Ionian (which is the bases for the Hebrew "Yavan" and the mentioned Persian "Yunan"), Rhodian, etc.? The Greek names not only reflect the time in history but also history of each Greek state before their unification. CJLippert 17:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the intro is dreadful. I pointed it out during FAC, but I didn't oppose, because I didn't want to follow the discussion. It is surprising sometimes to see what makes it through FAC these days, and what doesn't. It seems using big words like "polyonymous" does the trick. 130.60.142.65 06:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

we are currently working on ###### articles.

Today, 27 Oct 2005, the Main Page says:
In this English version, started in 2001, we are currently working on 791,931 articles.
Clicking on the number (791,931) brings me to a page of statistics, but I can't find the one I'm interested in. Namely, how this particular number has grown. So unless someone can show me where it is kept, I'm going to update this paragraph tomorrow and the next day, and so on, so we can all watch how fast the Wikipedia grows.--Keeves 13:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That number, and all the other bolded numbers at Wikipedia:Statistics, are automatically generated by the server throughout the day. There is no need for manual updating. The template used is {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} to generate the counter "6,851,945", if you would like to add it to your userpage, etc. Cheers, BanyanTree 13:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to see how Wikipedia has grown, wikistats has loads of detailed statistics and charts. the wub "?!" 14:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One possible addition to the main page would be to add a list regarding the top 10 recent searches (say searched in the last 24 hours, 7 days, and 1 month,) from records within your site.

It's a nice idea, and might even exist in the server code but it would likely cause too much slowdown for the website (like the page hit counts). Robmods 18:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
and, from the experience of de:, the top ten searches will be along the lines of "sex", "penis", "vagina", "porn" etc. anyway. Don't bother. 130.60.142.65 06:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

White Sox in the news

Sorry to offend any baseball fans, but no-one outside the US would find the World Series results relevant. Only international sporting events should be included on the main page IMHO, to avoid accusations of US-bias. Borisblue 18:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is being discussed at Template talk:In the news. — Dan | Talk 18:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea for redesign

A draft is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Horizontal. The idea was to go as simple and unevil as possible for maximal usability. See the reasoning behind it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page#The amazing one-dimensional Wikipedia and please comment there.--Pharos 02:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

missing comma

in the John Nairne DYK: should be "...wanted to make his seigneury, La Malbaie, a Protestant community" Doops | talk 04:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Thanks for pointing that out. -- PFHLai 04:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

strathspey

Reading the articles on Craigellachie Bridge and strathspey (dance), I find that the Strathspey is a preexisting genre of dance; the construction of the bridge simply inspired a a Craigellachie Bridge Strathspey (cf. John Philip Sousa's famous Transit of Venus march). The DYK text incorrectly implies that the whole genre of the strathspey may be traced to the bridge. Doops | talk 07:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've changed it; is it satisfactory now? I don't really think the composer choreographed a new variation of dance; it seems more like he just wrote a new "dance tune", so to speak.--Pharos 07:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I noticed this as well. I think it was down to a mis-interpretation of my original DYK entry. Nothing too serious, but probably enough to rile a few musicians (and an angry man with an accordion is a dangerous thing). The entry as it is now seems accurate. Leithp 08:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Israel comments?

Should the controversial comments the President of Iran made about wanting to destroy the State of Israel, and the diplomatic furor this created, be in In the News? Personally, I think it should, but others may disagree. Sysops: it's your call! Batmanand 10:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC) 24.34.154.167 11:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=26699078"