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 64.6.156.230 (talk) at 15:15, 12 April 2006 (→‎Sorry). 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.


Katie Holmes ?

Shouldn't we avoid advertising this article ? KH is not important. I'm starting to have doubts about wikipedia based on the featured articles lately.

  • As I've always understood it, featured articles are based on the quality of the article, not the subjective importance of the article's subject. An article on any subject is a candidate for the Main Page. --flatluigi(talk/contrib) 00:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate on what Flatluigi said any featured article is eligible to be on the main page though in practice an article can be featured and will never be on the main page since non work safe articles are never put on the main page for obvious reasons. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the first archive of the main pageTalk:Main_Page/Archive_1. People were complaining even then: "Parapsychology should be removed from the main page. It is far too controversial and too exotic to make sense in the first level of a directory. Let's use the space for something more important."
While not a complaint about a featured article, it does show that this concern over how the front page might appear to new users has been with us for a very long time. The standard response is that "featured articles are based on the quality of the article, not the relative importance of the article." That's all well and good, but I do see people complaining about this all the time. Should an article's being well written be enough of a criterion on its own for an article to qualify? How about a referendum on the criteria necessary to qualify as a featured article? --JohnO 04:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and by doing so make all the people editing articles on their favourite subject in order to get it on the front page give up. I personally think there's nothing wrong with featuring Katie Holmes or Cool providing we have at least one conventional encyclopedia topic, History of Limerick, Ta-Yuan, Mário de Andrade linked to under it as a past one. The Cool thing was as far is it goes really as it was a current charting single but even then it's nice for people to find out about something that's in the news or such (another regular complaint is that the featured article isn't relevant to the day it appears on the front page. Jellypuzzle | Talk 08:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you don't think it is a good idea, so your vote on changing the criteria would be no, which is fine. But a lot of other people would vote yes, and as this is a recurring issue, it would seem to merit opening a page to discuss this at some length. And while I realise that Wikipedia is not a democracy, according to this, long-running disputes should be the subject of a poll. Well, this is a long running dispute. So, can we have one? Please? --JohnO 09:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think we should. Still, it has to be very well advertised like the main page redesign was otherwise it wouldn't be fair. Jellypuzzle | Talk 09:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note - there is a distinction being overlooked here between 'featured articles' and 'articles of the day'. People are talking about changing the 'featured article' standards in order to prevent 'non notable' 'articles of the day'. I'd suggest instead just trying to change the 'article of the day' standards. Unlike 'featured articles' the 'article of the day' selection process already makes some distinction for content... as noted above you won't see a 'non work safe' article as the 'article of the day'. Articles of the day are chosen from amongst the pool of featured articles, but not all featured articles are considered for/become articles of the day. If you want to change things then try to adjust the article of the day standards, but there is no reason to alter featured article selection in general. --CBDunkerson 11:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but we should change the article of the day standards. One of the purposes of the article of the day should be to promote Wikipedia. Whether people think it is fair or not Wikipedia has some serious reputational problems, and these surely discourage many potential high quality contributors from getting involved. --CalJW 11:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Sounds good. How do we go about doing that? --JohnO 03:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The featured article feature (sticking on the original point, rather than digressing to the idea of "Article of the day"..) is not intended to self-serve, by any means. That's a blatant insult to those who collaborate to produce the best articles, including all featured articles, for concensus' sake. Katie Holmes not important? We all know what happens to articles which are unable to establish their own notability... Bobo. 03:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't understand. --JohnO 23:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant to say is that I support the idea of people all around the internet wanting to know a lot more about current events, people, and happenings, such as Katie Holmes, and the fact that of all the places around all the internet that could possibly deal with current affairs, the best place for it is Wikipedia. This has got to be a good sign. Katie Holmes as a featured article, therefore, is a very positive thing. Sorry if I sounded unclear before. Bobo. 07:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon if I am mistaken, but this just seems like your vote (and reasons behind it). I would like to get a "real" vote underway to stop the likes of Wario, Layla, Cat, Cheese, Katamari Damacy, Cool_(song), Shoe_polish, Butter and Spoo from making it to the front page. This short list is by no means exhaustive. I realise the articles themselves may be very well written, but I feel the content to be inappropriate, in that it doesn't showcase the more serious articles which are being collaborated upon. And I know from watching this page every day, many more people feel the same way. {If I remember correctly (though I may be mistaken), Shoe polish was created due to a request (just over a year ago) in a list which was, for the most part, a list of absurd potential articles.} But the main point is this: that is just my opinion. And what you wrote is just your opinion. So, please, please, please... can somebody provide details on how to go about starting a discussion which has the potential to get the criteria for articles on the main page changed? --JohnO 13:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how those topics are inappropriate, they're not offensive and they meet the same requirements as "serious topics" would in terms of research, writting, and obvious interest (if someone spent weeks getting this article featured, it must be of high interest to them). I find that occasionally featuring these mainstream articles tends to add an element of fun to the mainpage. Would you really want to see every article on the front page be about nothing but the stuff you fell asleep in high school over? It wouldn't showcase everything that Wikipedia has to offer. Featuring Katie Holmes shows people that we don't only focus on History, Science, Math, and Literature, but also Mainstream Media, Comedy,, and even Trivial Knowledge, something you wouldn't necessarily find in other places... especially as a featured article, where it is more than just a few unsourced paragraphs, but actual sourced, factual, and well written information. I'd occasionally like to see something like Wario, or Cool (song) get featured, to show that we have a very diverse library of topics that can range from the type of stuff you'd fall asleep in class over, such as Trade and usage of saffron, to the stuff you're listening to in class before you fall as sleep, such as Nirvana (band). I also feel that getting "the criteria for articles on the main page changed" is just the stepping stone for getting the criteria for featured articles changed. Today we're not allowing the articles onto the main page, tomorrow they can't become featured because they're not serious enough, next year they're not allowed at all because they don't meet our credibility standards! Removing these articles from the main page will, in my opinion, be censorship under the guise of credibility, and doing so will do nothing but show people that unless you can work on serious articles, don't bother editing. Of course, this is just my opinion, but I hope that if we have a vote, people can consider what I just said. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 15:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the question of how to pursue this issue... go to the Wikipedia:Today's featured article page and read the current guidelines. Then make comments on the talk page there and/or start a request for comment. --CBDunkerson 15:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from SmthManly, who was making examples to counter the OP's point, I have seen no examples of what articles would be suitable for the Featured Article status. Nirvana, but not Nirvana? Cigarette 04:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, big thanks to CBDunkerson for pointing me in the right direction. As for SmthManly's comments: Perhaps it is so obvious what most people would consider to be appropriate material for the face of wikipedia that very few (including those in favour of keeping the current criteria) are giving examples. Also, I think it is a cheap shot on your part to suggest Trade and usage of saffron is yawn material. Shoe_polish... well, I said enough about that in my last post. But the main page doesn't have to feature a "boring" article. At present there are 946 featured articles. Let's suppose even 25% of those are on ridiculous topics (yes, ridiculous, just like Shoe_polish) that would still leave about 700 featured articles on topics of general interest to people other than cobblers. A two year supply to begin with - during which time, many more articles will be brought up to featured article standard. And if an article is repeated 2 years after it is first shown on the main page, so what??? It's not a case of "Don't bother editing because it'll never make the front page." It's a case of asking why we feel we need to reward people for taking part in a voluntary project. It's not that rewards aren't nice. It's more that we shouldn't feel we have to put fæces on the main page just because someone spent a fortnight crafting it to perfection. (Sorry about the pun - I just couldn't resist. Was that a cheap shot, too?) --JohnO 11:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[undented to more than a couple of centimetres] Actually, I really enjoyed reading Shoe_polish enough to say so in a similar discussion at the time, signing up for my WP username at the same time. I try to give every day's Featured Article a quick glance - some get a full read, others are abandoned. My criterium is usually not whether the subject seems interesting, but that the article is well-written (particularly so in Shoe Polish's case). And this, I think, should remain the reason why a particular article gets featured in this way, not because some people think the subject unworthy. Bazza 13:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant to say by comparing the nirvana and saffron articles was that people would generally appreciate seeing an article they themselves can relate to on the main page every once in a while, whether it's scientific or mainstream media (today it's OpenBSd for the computer wizes, yesterday the Kakapo for the nature buffs, tommorrow Fanny Blankers-Koen for athletic/history patrons, why not Katie Holmes for the hollywood fans, or Wario for the video games nuts?). I still believe removing certain articles from the main page is equal to censorship, and I still believe that it will end up discouraging new users from working on non-serious articles if they can't get a bit of recognition for their work. I also do think people who spend a long time working on a topic should deserve some sort of reward, even if they're volunteering their time; they have worked just as hard as those who worked on serious topics, and even if the reward is only being allowed to showcase their work on the main page then they should have the same opportunity to do so as others who have worked on the serious articles. A while back, people came on this page when TARDIS was featured to mention how it was a welcome change to see an non-serious article on the main page. This shows that featuring these "ridiculous" articles on the main page does pull some strings and make some people happier seeing the project diverge from its normal serious tone. I don't see how in two years worth of featured articles on the main page, including the "ridiculous" ones, Wikipedia's credibility has been damaged or been made to seem like a non-serious project. Placing non-serious articles on the main page just shows that we're full of more information that the normal encyclopedias out there, and that we are fair to all articles, giving equal opportunity to both serious and non-serious topics. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 21:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, seriously. Give me examples of what constitutes "general interest". I have no idea why Wario and Nirvana (band) are not general interest. Perhaps if it was The evolution of Princess Peach through the Super Mario Bros. franchise or The perception of women in Spanish Golden Age theatre, I might understand. Those are very specific subjects even within their respective communities. But you say Wario, Layla, Cat, Cheese, Katamari Damacy, Cool_(song), Shoe_polish, Butter and Spoo are not suitable subjects. That's an incredibly broad spectrum. YOu have gaming, pop music, zoology, aristology, television, and Shoe polish. What do you suggest? I'm not going to let you get away with "it's so plain, you're a fool not to see it yourself". Cigarette 06:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've read your opinions and I find a portion of them somewhat compelling - I even understand why you are saying this - though they haven't really changed my point of view, for now. I originally felt as though a lot of people might have backed me up on this, but to no avail. It seems that this protracted debate has, in and of itself, served as a straw poll. I realise that some sort of consensus is needed and I seem to find myself on the wrong side of the general opinion, for now. As such, I will withdraw from this discussion and view things from the sidelines, for now. I do think you're wrong about this, but I'm in the minority, for now. Another triumph for democracy, for now. Not much else to say really, for now. Disappointedly, for now, --JohnO 10:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JohnOw, you'll feel a lot better if you can make good use of you excellent writing skills and help turn an article of your choice into a featured article. :-) Happy editing. -- PFHLai 23:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo 17 was not the last Apollo mission

Apollo 17 may have been the last lunar landing mission of the Apollo program, but there were five more flights using Apollo hardware that were arguably part of the Apollo program: Skylab 1-4 (the laboratory plus three manned flights in 1973-74) and finally the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP) in 1975. So it would be more accurate to simply say that Apollo 17 was the last lunar landing mission of the Apollo program. -- Karn 04:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with you on ASTP but not on Skylab. According to the NASA website here, ASTP was Apollo 18 but it says no such thing for any of the skylab missions. But other wise I agree with you on changing what it says.Greatigers 15:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gems link

Gems should be linked to Gemstones, not to the disambiguation page JanSuchy 08:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've fixed it.-gadfium 09:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes to the main page

I've noticed that there seem to be small changes happening to the main page, mostly with the top banner (AFAICS). Are these changes done via concensus? I can't see any discussion even being done wrt them. The reason I'm pointing this out now is because the most recent change (as of ~13:40 GMT) has caused there to be 4 lines in the top box. Since 3 was considered a bit much for a fair number of people, I can only guess that this is a mistake? - Drrngrvy 12:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current Main page design was introduced in mid-March afer considerable discussion and debate. Regarding the "top box", and I'm assuming that you mean the Welcome to Wikipedia box, it renders as three lines in both MonoBook and Classic skins (AFAICS). hydnjo talk 17:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was refering to this edit but it's been fixed for now. I think it's a little cliquish for administrators to be (seemingly) free to edit the main page. Letting that happen without it being asked for by the community seems a bit wrong to me. - Drrngrvy 17:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes I see now what you meant. I agree with your comment and further I didn't know that editor to be an admin, could someone please shed some light on this. hydnjo talk 20:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad. The person who made that edit is listed as a "semi-active" administrator at WP:LA. Sorry for causing any confusion about his status. I agree with you that the edit was well... anyway it's gone. hydnjo talk 22:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no prohibition against it. It is, after all, a wiki. The reason it isn't tweaked more often is that (1) there's nothing especially wrong with it and (2) admins have been around long enough that they know there'll be a backlash and may not want to deal with the drama, even if they think a change is justified. Going through a four month process involving hundreds of users (per the Usability project discussion) because you think the border of box should be a couple pixels wider or spacing should be modified is just silly. If it's good, it'll stay. If it's bad, it'll be reverted. At least one admin in the past year has done a pretty extensive reformat of the main page that stayed, though that was exceptional. In any case, a really major change, as was done by the Usability project, may perhaps only be possible with massive community input at this stage of Wikipedia. Bring up changes you don't like on this talk and people will most probably enter into a discussion about the merits of the edit, or just agree and revert on your behalf.
If by "clique" you mean a group of users who have technical privileges to edit protected pages, then I suppose that admins are a clique by definition. If by "clique" you mean a group of users who conform to a single viewpoint, you have already pointed out the recent reversion that illustrates that admins are not a clique. Cheers, BanyanTree 22:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well the fact that it is only me who is argueing my point makes me the clique should be irrelevant (ha!). I think your point - from BanyanTree(2) - is very pertinent: there should be no assumption that admins (read: people with power) respect tradition, since that tends to be the downfall of most 'concensus-based communities'. In a way, allowing people to modify the main page is helpful - since it's so obvious it encourages discussion reaction - but since so many people are excluded from participation I think that the above editing is hypocritical in the face of such quotes as:
"From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community, but should be a part of the community like anyone else only equipped with a few more tools to do some chores that would potentially be harmful if everyone was entrusted them." - from Wikipedia:Administrators
Given the intense discussion that went on wrt the main page redesign, I think such editing (esp since it was marked as minor) was a bit disrespectful. - Drrngrvy 03:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. I wouldn't make any edits such as that one without discussion, perhaps except for a minor bug fix (would still note it on the talk page). Though, I think all bugs are worked out by now. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 03:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the "minor" label either, but the biggest problem with the edit in question was that it was illogical and ugly (IMHO). —David Levy 03:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given the original complaint here and the fact that all of the new design elements were tested and debugged using several browsers each using several skins and all at several resolutions (whew!) should give anyone a great deal of pause before making such changes unilaterally and without rigorous testing. hydnjo talk 13:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Admins should edit it how they wish and, if people dislike it, they should voice their opinion on this talkpage and a rational discussion would ensue. That's how the Wiki works and this case is no different. The worst Admins would do is make it look marginally worse for a few hours. We've entrusted these people with the powers, just let them get on and use them. --Celestianpower háblame 13:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

News : Amnesty : can't find

Today's main page has an article about AI that Wikinews does not seem to have. Why & how ? Thanks. DLL, --193.56.241.75 14:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and Wikinews are seperate projects, and those who contribute to one don't necessarily contribute to the other. As a result, an article not on Wikipedia might escape the notice of those on Wikinews, and vice versa. Lord Bob 14:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I accidentally cleared the page when I was trying to add a comment last time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.84.24 (talk • contribs) . (in regards to this edit)

Ahh, the joys of wikipedia! No worries, then. - Drrngrvy 03:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a page where there are articles that people want?

Like a page with articles that are empty, etc?

Pece Kocovski 09:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia:Requested articles Raul654 09:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digitally published wikipedia

Is there any thing going on with having Wikipedia digitally published? Possibly a DVD set or so?

I think it was the German language WP that decided to go ahead with this idea. But WP is so dynamic that there would be little point in freezing a copy and publishing it. --Monotonehell 17:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Pushing to 1.0. hydnjo talk 19:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also An attempt at a Wikipedia CD. Carcharoth 17:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing "that"

The "Anna Marly" Did You Know item should start with the word "that", like the other items. Art LaPella 19:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 19:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Period

There should be a period at the end of the Palestinian Authority news item. zafiroblue05 | Talk 20:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link for aid (Humanitarian aid) is misleading, since Humanitarian aid is NOT suspened, only political/payroll aid. There is no wiki article for that, that I found, so just remove the link alltogether.

Random article link broken

I'm not sure where this feedback should go, but the random article link goes to a 404 for me now (just started happening about 3 minutes ago). Steve 02:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's back up, thanks for the report. hydnjo talk 02:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Main Page" supressed

How is the "Main Page" that would ordinarily be at the top of a mediawiki main page supressed on Wikipedia? I can't figure it out. Is it a special hack for Wikipedia? Is there a magic keyword I should know about? --Dwiki 03:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's done through javascript insertion of CSS into the HTML source of the main page. An if statement in MediaWiki:Monobook.js that's true if you're looking at the main page and its not a diff includes this line:
document.write('<style type="text/css">/*<![CDATA[*/ #siteSub, #contentSub, h1.firstHeading { display: none !important; } /*]]>*/</style>');
Larry Sanger 07:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

Could someone add the missing space (ha!) to 2001: A Space Odyssey? Thanks. --Bryan Nguyen | Talk 04:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done and disambiguated the link to point to 2001: A Space Odyssey (novel). Pepsidrinka 04:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Main Page blocked?

It seems ironic that the "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" starts off with a completely blocked page. I for one would like to crrect some formatting minor discrepancies, but, alas can't. --Tbeatty 15:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Protection_policy. The Main Page is highly visible and is protected against vandalism. Now, what exactly would you like to correct? You can make suggestions here on the talk page. If reasonable, an admin can go ahead and make the changes. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 16:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be too dangerous to unblock it in case any malicious users came and wrecked the main page. It would ruin Wikipedia's image if the Main Page was constantly changing between decent and indecent. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry kid. We got tired of having huge penises replace the content of the Main Page. --mav 18:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Main Page is not an article. For example, I would have no problem deleting anything someone left on my user page, because it's not an article and I'm free to do with it as I

Go-Gos error

The go-go's that are linked were not around in 1964. (Dr. Who Spoofs)

-Robbrown

It's now linked properly. Thanks for pointing out the error. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 18:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messiah

The article on Handel's Messiah clearly states that its premiere was on April 13, and not April 8. I just checked another source and confirmed the 13. It looks like Wikipedia is jumping the gun about five days or so. MusicMaker5376 23:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL -- Guess I should have caught that sometime before 8 minutes before it changed.... MusicMaker5376 00:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The wrong date on the article was corrected in July 2004 [1], but the event stayed on the Sel. Anniv. template till today. You won't see the same mistake on MainPage next year. Thank you for pointing this out. -- PFHLai 01:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A bit strange no one noticed this a year ago. Was it featured back then? -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 01:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, yes. -- PFHLai 02:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you put the colored boxes around text, like on Main page?

hey, how can i put the colored boxes around text like on the main page of this site? you, for like news etc.

By using table markup, like this.
You should use colored boxes sparingly though.-gadfium 00:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Use "view source" on the Main Page, or check with "edit this page" on any other page, to learn how anything is done :-) -Quiddity 03:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar error

In the last Did You Know item, "cracked down" is an intransitive verb. It could be corrected by substituting "quashed" or a similar transitive verb, instead of "cracked down". Art LaPella 00:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. I revised it; thank you. (For others reading, the change is in the selected anniversaries section.) — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for providing a specific change to be made. It is appreciated. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random Article - Non Fiction

It might be useful to have a random article link, that went to a non-fiction page. Of course this maybe out of the current softwares capability.

You know, if you press alt-x or click on Random article on the navigation bar, you get sent to a random page? Not sure what you mean by a non-fiction page, though. Hyenaste
I was thinking last night that it might be useful for articles to be marked fiction or non-fiction. But that would lead to edit wars. For example most religions could be considered fiction by some and yet they are classified as reference historically in libraries. So maybe not a good idea. ;) --Monotonehell 09:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it wrong for me to want to watch the edit wars in Category:Non-fictional religions? ;P -Quiddity 10:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and, "most religions could be considered fiction"?!? ;) *coughs* -Quiddity 01:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes okay... all religions are considered fiction. :) Happy now LOL --Monotonehell 04:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All the articles are suppose to be non-fiction, even if they’re about a work of fiction. Unfortunately a lot of articles, especially with Star Wars and Star Trek, just have a one sentence declaimer and then go on in a fictional context. Seano1 01:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! Ive read a fair few fan written articles (sci-fi and religious texts alike) that read like the whole article is fact. That's what made me think that the article should be tagged as a fictional article. But as I said, edit wars would ensue. --Monotonehell 04:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about three tags, 'fiction', 'non-fiction', and 'religion', the last of which meaning 'some (significant?) set of people believe this to be true'? There would still be edit wars, I suppose... Steve Pucci | talk 19:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL Yes, yes there would. --Monotonehell 14:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redundant internal link

there are three links for the word "Earth" in the featured article.--K.C. Tang 13:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

minor error at DYK

Can the extra space after ...that Moritz Daniel Oppenheim and before the first comma there be removed, please ? -- 199.71.174.100 15:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The extra space has been removed. Thanks for pointing these things up.-- PFHLai 17:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing so quickly. -- 199.71.174.100 17:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

Shouldn't the news of the ferry disaster in Djibouti state that the flag pictured is that of Djibouti? Ixistant 19:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but where will they bury the survivors? :) --maru (talk) contribs 19:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures on the main page often have nothing to do with the text that is next to them. The flag next to the ferry disaster item could easily be that of New Zealand or even Ellesmere Island. There should be a note (like "flag pictured") after the name of an entity whose flag is used on the main page. --Cam 18:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. Gratutious plug. --Monotonehell 04:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Search Box Location

Why is the Wikipedia Search Box in the middle of the page? Everyone looks at the top of the page to search. They don't have more than two seconds to waste looking for the search box and then they leave. Trust me. I've been to Wikipedia lots of times but still forget where the search box is. Few corporations, and no major search engine that I know of allow this kind of foolishness that causes people to go elsewhere to find answers. Wikipedia is a search tool!!

Can someone please get an Internet marketing expert to give some advice to Wikipedia?

I do like the Wikipedia globe...

Marty

In the middle? When I look at the main page, logged in or out, I see it in the top left. Perhaps it is a browser problem? --maru (talk) contribs 04:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think he is wondering why the search box isn't in the top banner with the welcome to Wikipedia message. And the answer is that it was decided to leave out the second userbox in the straw poll for the Main Page's redesign. Jedi6-(need help?) 04:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, maru, the search box is almost exactly in the middle. The search box is under the navigation menu, which is under the Wikipedia globe and logo. Incidentally, my browser is Mozilla Firefox with tabs (which has no problems, thank u), and my monitor is 17 inches. Google knows what they are doing, and puts the search bar well inside the top 1/3rd of the page. I could name many others, but Google definitely knows best. Does Wikipedia want more people to use it as a research tool, or what? This may sound silly, but I'm not sure I understand the main purpose. Also, the font seems way too small. Look at the font for the word "search." That's almost the only thing I come here for. Someone else might come here to look at the news, but what the h* is that, "Current Events"? Why don't they just call it "Latest Headlines" or "World News"? There's some good info there, but "Current Events" is so boring it sounds like a class I had to take in school! Also, what's this about a straw poll? Why can't some decisions be left to people with actual expertise in Internet marketing and web page design? The community contributes to the encyclopedia itself, and that's more than enough for a community to handle.

I don't mean to sound too harsh, but I just don't think the answer for everything is to take a poll. Some things just have right or wrong answers, like in science. Putting the search bar where it's hard to find is simply a bad idea, in my opinion. Maybe it's just me, but I look at the top of the page, then the top right, then the bottom of the page, in that order. The left frame is normally for navigation, not for searching. However, I'm no expert, this is just based on my experience. Almost by definition, no "straw poll" is the expert either.

Since you use Firefox, you might want to consider downloading the Wikipedia Search add-on here. That way, you know, it's always at the top of your page.
Furthermore, calm down just a little. It's not like the search bar is in the next room, it's just not quite where you'd expect it. In less time than it would take to find some other page, you can EASILY locate the search bar. I agree with you, it's not in the best place, but you found it, right? Anyone with an attention span longer than that of a goldfish is likely to spot it, as well.
Not to be rude, but how about you come and join us for a little while BEFORE you start putting down the way things are done. You're right, straw polls aren't the most efficient way of deciding things. They are, however, the best way to do things when you're dealing with a community prone to backlash. The powers that be are still getting feedback on the Main Page -- that's what this page is for -- but, odds are, there won't be any drastic changes without input from the community. Otherwise, all hell will break loose. (Which gets messy....)
Honestly, I fail to see how "World News" is in any way more interesting than "Current Events". And "Latest Headlines" sounds like a sketch on the Tonight Show.
Check this out. And, perhaps, this. They may help you determine what it is we're all doing here.
-- MusicMaker5376 05:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please come give input at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Highlight search box to help us make it easier to find. thanks :-) -Quiddity 06:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. However, what makes you assume I haven't been contributing to Wikipedia? I do contribute every time I see an article that I think contains an error or a significant omission. I also created one entry myself. I don't have to log in every time or to prove anything to you because that is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

My understanding is that Wikipedia's primary purpose is to be an encyclopedia, as complete and accurate as possible, and to fulfill that by encouraging community participation. I don't think either goal is served very well by this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page).
I think www.wikipedia.org has a better presentation, but it's just a re-direct page to pages in specific languages.
"World News" is, fyi, a whole lot more specific and more interesting than "Current Events," which completely leaves open the question of what and whose current events? Basic rule is, if you don't know, you don't click.
My proposal would be that Wikipedia hire (or more likely, solicit free help from) one or more expert consultants to give advice on home page redesign. This would only be advice. The outcome of their advice (presumably more than one proposal) would be voted on by the community. If the community finally decided to keep the home page as it is, it would be free to do so.
As for the "politics" of Wikipedia, no, I'm really not familiar with that and probably would rather not be. I believe in my ideas but don't want my inbox flooded either. Wikipedia is something I care about to the extent that I personally use it and want to see accurate and complete entries, and (need I say) a practical design for the home page.
Thank you for your attention and to anyone who believes in helping to promote a better Wikipedia home page.

Marty

I only saw two edits when I looked at the contributions for your IP. That's what made me think that you didn't come here frequently, but perhaps you have several different IPs from which you check the page.
But, seriously, get the add-on for Firefox. It's very helpful.
Haha. Everyone on Wikipedia is an "expert consultant"; didn't you know that? I don't blame you for keeping your head out of the politics.
And "World News" implies news germane to the planet Earth, and, therefore, would not include such tidbits as the guysers on Titan. "Current Events" implies inclusion of all events that are current (and notable).
-- MusicMaker5376 19:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does your perceived need for this firefox addon illustrate deficiencies in the frontpage? --Monotonehell 06:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the comments about "experts" - I am almost certain that any "expert" worth his salt would tell you that you need to survey usage first, and that could be difficult here. Also, tailoring a webpage to a wide range of users is an inherently complex business. You could tailor a webpage to a specific set of users (and that is what most "experts" do), but it seems that Wikipedia wants to draw in a wide range of users. Finally, I do agree that some decisions are best handled by as few people as possible, rather than by committee. Actually, the final comment should be that for every "expert" who says one thing, you will find another "expert" who says another thing. Carcharoth 11:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

In the Peking Plan Did You Know item, "begining" should be spelled "beginning". Art LaPella 04:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peruvian National Election

The first round of the Peruvian national election, 2006, was held yesterday (I would have put it up then but server was down). The results are expected to come by tonight. I think it should be on the main page news section.--Jersey Devil 09:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on this has already started on Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. We are still waiting for the results to be released, and for relevant wikiarticles to get updated first. Stay tuned. -- PFHLai 18:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto for Italian general election, 2006. -- PFHLai 20:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About downtime periods

I might be missing something obvious but when Wikipedia goes down I can never find anything about it after it returns, at least not on the site itself. Considering Wikipedia's size and potential for growth I can't imagine downtime won't keep occurring. I really think we need a visible link somewhere at the top of the main page that links to a page telling everyone how the servers are doing and/or have been doing recently. It can be frustrating when you have no idea what's going wrong - if it's just you, your area/country or everyone - and then suddenly it's back as if nothing ever happened.

One suggestion is to have a link status under the top bar that links to a status page. Maybe the status details could be added to Special:Statistics? - Drrngrvy 13:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This info is generally disclosed on the Wikitech mailing list and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). --CBDunkerson 14:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those links CBDunkerson. Even though I'm interested in the technical side of it, I know that most Wiki'ans aren't at all interested in the reasons. What I was suggesting was more of a very basic list with a jist like:
  • 'Wikipedia went down @
  • support a very short front page blurb (like above) in these situations. It could reduce wiki-anxiety for many users who don't feel the need to get into technical specifics. Phr 06:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
if the reason for the outing was complicated, then don't bother explaining - just link to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). The point is that anyone who is unsure what's going on can't easily find out, even though downtime is so obvious (and so, I think, deserves some recognition/explanation) - Drrngrvy 15:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above comments. A (more visible) status link is needed. Not everyone is aware of the mailing list or the village pump. And from the sound of it, loads of people flooded onto the IRC channels, so that isn't really suitable either. Carcharoth 10:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the specific link to the Village pump discussion is: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Downtime. Carcharoth 10:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The elitist population of wikipedia has tormented us who want to start contributing to this website

Immediately, I started an article to contribute to this international project, thinking that this would be of use. Of course, it wasn't, to those elitists who roam among us. I thought of a guy who is fairly popular around where I live, and decided to start an article upon him. Immediately, it was nominated for a "speedy deletion". I read up on it, and was accused of being in "cahoots" with the subject of the article.

I've never met the guy, but I know of him, and I find these accusations slanderous. Wikipedia will not survive with the power tripping of it's members. Harah.

I'll bet you people are pissed about my quotes. Too bad for you, I'm not stopping.

Edit: Somebody took it upon themselves to delete what I had to say. Elitism indeed.

Powerking 15:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfortunately, we can't start an article on every single person alive. However, if the subject really was notable, please tell me who he/she was so I can give my own opinion. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 15:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What article are you talking about? I'm just a normal user but I think that even if you are 'in cahoots' with the subject, as long as what you put in the article is entirely neutral then it shouldn't be considered for AfD. - Drrngrvy 15:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People like you give me confidence in believing in this site. I thank you for your open mind.

But yes, he is notable, but not notable worldwide. I've seen articles of less notability, and they haven't been touched. This article though, I can't find in the deletion logs. It has been wiped from existance. Jamal Kelly is the name. 192.103.144.8 15:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was at Jamal Kelly. It was tagged for deletion as {{nn-bio}} by Bobak and deleted by Stifle. Admins can view the content that was removed here. --GraemeL (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pity us plebs (hehe, only kidding) can't read that page. I'm just curious as to why: any links that aren't just Wikipedia:Administrators, please? nvm - Drrngrvy 15:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to the users talk page Oskar 15:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think that it didn't quite fit into the CSD A7 bracket as it did make an assertion of notability, having released CDs. However, with 10 hits, it had a snowball's chance in hell of being kept at AfD so it should've been {{prod}}'d. By the way, you write quite well so please keep it up, just with more notable subjects next time :). --Celestianpower háblame 15:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has nothing to do with the MainPage. To discuss if we are running out of notable people to write about (sigh...), please go to Wikipedia:Village pump. -- PFHLai 18:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny Blankers-Koen

In the following sentence in the Featured Article section of the main page, I think the word "where" should be replaced with "when": At that time, she was already a mother of two, which was unheard of at a time where when female athletes were still frowned upon by many. - Gobeirne 01:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance the main page could be done again? The repetition of "At that time ... at a time" doesn't exactly seem encyclopedic, imo. - Drrngrvy 14:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On this day... not today!

Fast of the First Born is not today (April 11th) as claimed on the main page, but tomorrow like it says in the article 132.70.219.241 05:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone changed the date in the article a few hours ago. [2] Hmmm... Does the fast begin at sunset on Apr.11th ? Is the date on Passover wrong, too ? Need someone familiar with Jewish customs to check / confirm. Can anyone help ? Anyway, I've hidden the link to Fast of the firstborn for now. -- PFHLai 07:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fast begins on April 12th at sunrise. Passover begins at sunset between April 12/13 132.70.219.241 20:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Italian election

I think the situation is a little more complicated, it's more like the center-right party won the upper chamber (like the Senate), the center-left party won the lower chamber, but things are contested, there's still some uncounted votes (expected to go left), and there's maybe some small chance of a crazy recount drama like the US has had a few times. Can someone suggest an accurate and concise edit for the ITN blurb? Phr 06:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prodi claimed victory, anyway [3]. That's what's on ITN right now. Good enough for now, I hope. -- PFHLai 07:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the current wording is good. Thanks. Phr 02:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion fro banning trolls from editing

I have a suggestion to make:

You know how trolls vandalise anything, well i say if they vandalise the same article/page twice or more, there banned from editing. Why, its no mistake, because they delete an entire page on purpose.I suggest they get banned from editing permentaly, especially depending on the vandals targets like: religeon,People, other wikipediansm etc. If the vandal wants to be forgiven, then they must either write a email to an admin, or other important wikipedians. This will reduce the number of trolls and vandalised articles. If however, they delete on accident, which would be unusual, then they need a good reason for doing so.

who aggres with me. Says either support or object?

note: I added this in the wikipedia:trolls article, but i feal people will answer it here more quickly.

Pece Kocovski 11:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate vandals, too, but shouldn't this be posted at the Village pump instead of here ? --PFHLai 11:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds of vandals are blocked every day. Usually after a few warnings and not permanently 'banned' unless it is a sustained problem. See Special:Log/block for a detailed list of recent blocks. --CBDunkerson 11:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you visited Wikipedia:Trolls or Wikipedia:Vandalism you know that there is already a policy of warnings, blocks, and bans. I suggest you read those pages more carefully; in any case a discussion of changing those policies belongs on those pages and not the Main Page. People who are actively involved in those policies are more likely to read about it there than here. Ultimately even a banning policy can only be partially successful because many people are hit-and-run vandals, people who briefly discover they can put the word P3N!5 on a page and then lose interest quickly when their vandalism is reverted. You can't ban someone before they show up and if they're gone before you ban, you've wasted time and energy (which is of course one goal of the vandals). --Dhartung | Talk 18:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALT TAG

Hovering over the "Did You Know" picture just shows "ALT TAG". Can a real description be given please? Bazza 12:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do i hide the main page header on a wiki?

I see that on the main page, it doesn't actually show that the page is called "main page" unless you look at the url. I looked at the source code and couldn't find anything that was suppressing the name. Is this something that can be done in the admin section. I am using a version of media wiki and i want to hide the title on the main page. Any help would be appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.9.62.131 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Fair Use Image on Main Page

The picture for the featured article is under fair use and therefore should not be on the Main Page. joturner 16:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, fair use images may be permitted, depending on the circumstance. We just avoid them most of the time because it is usually impossible to fulfill the criteria under the law (see fair use). The image is unsourced, though, so I replaced it with a free one. Johnleemk | Talk 17:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, free images are preferred on the main page, especially in most cases where a fair use image can be replaced by an alternate free image. For example, when New England Patriots was the featured article for 3 April, the main page had a free image of the team posing at the White House instead of the team's logo. Of course, there are certain ones (more recently Katie Holmes on 5 April) in which we were forced to add a fair use image because we currently do not have a free image. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Header Layout Adjustment

I propose that we center the header text that introduces Wikipedia, like this:

Welcome to Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
6,851,434 articles in English


Especially on larger monitors, there is far too much white space after the intro text when it is left justified (as it is currently). Centering that table makes it much more aesthetically appealing, I think. Note: my CSS change was just to add "margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;"—this works for me in Firefox, but I don't know if it will work for all browsers.

— Fotinakis(talk) 18:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that may well look better on larger screen monitors, but on my 12-inch screen, it looks a little bit stupid. There's lots of white space in front of the logo, and nothing after it, creating an odd, messy effect. Since I imagine the majority of average surfers have only average-sized screens, it's probably best if we keep it as it is for now. Nuge | talk 19:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like that's what's on the front page right now. It seems ok on my 12.1" 1024x768 laptop screen, including in smaller windows. Phr 21:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Phr, what browser and OS are you using? — Fotinakis(talk) 01:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firefox under Fedora Core 3. Phr 02:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ITN "proposed reform of immigration laws"

Could "reform" please be replaced with a less POV term. Phr 21:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV ? What do you have in mind ? I see no POV problem in "reform". -- PFHLai 21:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Reform" means to make something better [4]. The news item refers to a million people in the streets protesting that (from their POV) the proposed changes make things worse. Thus, the term is not neutral. Phr 00:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know we need to be NPOV when writing articles, but when writing something about another person's (or group of persons') POV, do we need to be neutral? --flatluigi(talk/contrib) 00:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the ITN blurb should be NPOV, just like articles. "Reform" is not described in the blurb as being anybody's POV—it's just stated as a fact. That means in the current phrasing, ITN is taking a side in an issue which is politically highly contentious. Could someone just change "reform of" to "changes to"? Phr 02:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought "reform" means to "get a new form", always drastic changes, but not necessarily better. I've revised ITN, anyway. Hope everyone is happy. -- PFHLai 05:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's much better now. I don't even have that much of an opinion of the underlying issue, but the term "reform" was really bugging me (it felt like propaganda in that context). Yes, "reform" normally does mean a positive change (see the dicdef that I linked above). Phr 05:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, it now says "a proposed changes", which is a grammatical error. It should say either "a proposed change" or "proposed changes". Can someone please fix? Thanks. Phr 05:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oooops... My bad ... I've fixed it now. -- PFHLai 06:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again :). Phr 06:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

consider rephrase

"Geisha were very common in the 18th and 19th centuries" -- so, have they become more sophisticated since? dab (ᛏ) 22:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I'm not good in English, but isn't that a typo in "after haveing set or tied 12 world records"? Cmapm 22:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just moved the e back into "retirment". Flying electrons ? :-) .... -- PFHLai 22:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Year

Under "On this day...", it says 12 April: Passover begins at sunset (Judaism, 2006). I don't think the year is necessary; we have many holidays, such as Mawlid (April 11), that change every year and if I remember correctly, the year is not put on the Main Page as it is redundant. joturner 00:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like "(pictured right)", someone will ask for it if we leave it out. --PFHLai 07:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel of Judas

"The restored Gospel of Judas, a Coptic document thought to date from the 2nd century, is unveiled by the National Geographic Society."

The Gospel of Judas is actually a gnostic document. --Kronecker 03:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it both? Written in Coptic and a document from the gnostic sections of early Christianity, me thought. --maru (talk) contribs 04:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Click on "Coptic" on ITN and you'll get the Coptic language page, rather than the Coptic Christianity page. What's the problem ? -- PFHLai 05:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. --Kronecker 05:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Love The Site...BUT...

I LOVE this site - but I can never remember how to spell the *freakin* name of it! It takes me like 3 minutes to get here. I hate trying to sort through my bookmarks to find it. I always do something like www.wilkepedia.com, then i try www.wilkipedia.com, and about 50 million others before i give up and just try searching for something similar to it on google and hope it will pull up. Great site - horrible marketing decision with the name. You need to buy up every URL that has anything CLOSE to wikipedia. BTW, what the heck does it mean anywho? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.111.196.245 (talk • contribs)
"Wiki wiki" means "quick" in Hawaiian. Check out the article about Wikipedia. Personally, I usually google for any term with the term "wiki" with it, so that my first hit is always wikipedia. The Minister of War (Peace) 05:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or, set Wikipedia as one of your bookmarks? Batmanand | Talk 08:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once you get the hang of it, it won't be hard to remember [en.wikipedia.org], I used to google it in my early days. Just remember Encyclopedia and Wiki (on the internet, wikis are names given to websites people can edit) and merge them together to make Wikipedia. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you nuts?

How can you compare the wretched Columbia with Gagarin's First Flight into Cosmos? How dare you to put the picture of Columbia at the main page on 12 of April instead of picture of Gagarin's Vostok? There should be some limits of self-love in this world...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.88.75.195 (talk • contribs)

Featured picture should be at top

Hi - I honestly feel that the featured picture column should be placed above both the FA and "In the news." I've missed many featured pics, and I think it should be the first things one's eyes should fall upon, becoz its purely for seeing and without being seen, it will not be appreciated. It should not require a scroll-down for one to realize that the column exists. Many beautiful pictures are being under-appreciated becoz of this formatting error. I hope that my comment will result in some action. Rama's Arrow

Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an Encyclopedia. As such, I think the articles should come before the Featured Picture section. NepGrower 14:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sociology

what is sociology and also discuss four modern and traditional social institution with their types,forms and functions.

Please read the instructions at the top of this page. Ask questions about your homework elsewhere. Wikipedia:Where_to_ask_a_question --Monotonehell 14:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Tanasha i am really sorry will you plz forgive me i love you well i got to go bye love richard potts moore

Oh Ya I Forgot

hey tanasha i cant believe we are going out well i got to go well i love you bye love richard potts moore we started going out on the 12th of april thanks for asking me out i love you love richard potts moore

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=48124449"