Jump to content

Wikipedia:Suggestion box (resolved)/group2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Automatically put the cursor in the search text box

[edit]

Would it be possible to add some javascript to the main front pages so that when you bring them up the cursor is automatically put in the search text box ready to accept input in the same way most search engines do when you bring up their front page. I regularly use wikipedia to search for information and would appreciate this change.

  • Suport - I second this request. I've been asking for it on the Talk:Main_Page--Muchosucko 6 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)
  • Support. Instead of

<body class="ns-0">

the developers should generate the page with

<body class="ns-0" onLoad="document.getElementById('searchInput').focus();">

That will do exactly what is asked. Superm401 | Talk 12:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


Change Time Format from 24 Hour to 12 Hour

[edit]

I'd like to request a setting to change "23:00" into "11:00p". The 24 hour clock is killing me. I wish there was a setting in Preferences to do this, like I can with the dates. i.e. From "April 23" to "23 April". 24Hr time is hard to read. For example: what is 20:00 hours? I have to subtract 12 to get to 8pm. Why bother when you can just say 8pm? Why? I think a VAST majority of people will say to thier loved ones, "Honey, let's go to dinner at 8pm." Rather than, "Honey, let's go to dinner at 20:00." I would do this myself, but I'm dumb.-thanks for reading----Muchosucko 6 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)Muchosucko 6 July 2005 03:19 (UTC)

It's probably doable and probably a good idea for those that don't use a 24 hour clock on a daily basis. Although, if I'm not mistaken, most of the world does use a 24 hour clock. I know quite of bit of Europe does. But as far as here in the states, all the military use it, pilots use it, some doctors use it, people who work where there's a night shift may in order to avoid confusion with the day shift, etc. So, you may be the minority on this. Dismas 10:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's also some places in the world that do not use am pm, that are strictly 24 hour clock, but I do recognize that there are some people who are strictly on a 12 hour clock. AlMac|(talk) 06:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
i fully disagree with -User:Muchosucko. in any technical context, 24 hour time is the reference. there is no good reason to dumb it down for wikipedia. r b-j 18:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the logic in supporting this feature in the user preferences, while keeping the general standard the same it is at the moment - AM/PM is almost fully exclusive to certain english-speaking countries (though a majority standard in those countries), and to most of us "others", easily misleading in contrast to the general 24-hour system. aeris 10:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I never manage to keep track of which one is "am" and which is "pm". 20:00 is much easier to remember, no risk of confusion, and yes I would say "honey lets meet at 20:00". (I'm from Sweden.)


[edit]

I love Wikipedia...but one way I can think of to make it even better is to add lat/lon links straight into Google Earth for those of us who use it. How could this be done?

It's a nice idea and could be done by uploading the KML file and linking to it from the article. However at some point it would likely be shot down over the no-Proprietary software issue, in the same way all audio is now done in .ogg format. - Robmods 20:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles which have latitude & longitude information (mountains, landmarks, most US cities, etc.) already have links under "External links" at the bottom to maps and satellite photos from Google Maps, as well as Topozone, TerraServer-USA, MapQuest, and more, depending on location. Google Earth is relatively new -- if there's a way to systematically coordinate with them, I don't doubt that someone will find it soon, and if so, you can expect to see it added to articles in a massive way soon after. However, Google Earth's terms of use clearly say "for personal use only", so directly uploading the KML files here (where they would be required to use the GFDL license) would be illegal for us. For now, use what we have and hang in there for more updates. — Catherine\talk 21:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

try the coor template. E.g. 66°N 66°E / 66°N 66°E / 66; 66 -- links to assorted map services. dab (ᛏ) 19:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion policy

[edit]

I didn't realize this page existed. There's currently an issue in which some admins are speedying "recreations of deleted content" that the majority doesn't see as such. Most of the examples and associated crap are in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RickK; there's also a bit at the end of Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. --SPUI (talk) 12:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Someone keeps removing information and links from a series of pages ! what can i do to stop it ?

  • Which pages is this? Is it still happening? Insomniacity 10:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, thanks a Discussion has been set up on the 'LBC' page - What do you think, can you add any comments to the discussion ?

CARX keeps removing links to http://www.marf.org on the mesothelioma page and the MARF page saying that it is an attorney spam site. MARF is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt charity nonprofit organization dedicated to eradicating mesothelioma as a life-ending disease and assist newly diagnosed patients with the the latest treatment alternatives. What can be done to clear up this situation. I am a mesothelioma victim and I know that MARF is there to HELP...

Hello, user 67.97.96.213 . Please discuss your problem on the Mesothelioma talk page. Thank you. Axl 07:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect spelling of main title

[edit]

"Alexander Parris," architect, is incorrectly spelled as "Alexander Perris." Thank you.--Hugh Manatee 13:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone's already fixed it. (That tends to happen around here.) Next time, if you wish, you can be bold and move the page to the correct title yourself -- any registered user can move a page. — mendel ☎ 01:32, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Untrue/Propagandistic material in Articles

[edit]

I noticed that a few articles in Wikipedia are supporting untrue or even propagandistic theories. They have even opposite theories than related articles.
For example: Ancient Macedonian language
Read the talk page and u will understand.
If u want this web site to be called encyclopedia, u should fix the problem. ;)

Thank u for ur time,
MANOS

We are on our toes, doing our best reverting the "propagandistic" edits by MANOS and consorts, thank you :) dab (ᛏ) 19:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If u think I am the propagandist, plz explain the following:
We already know that:

Hesiod said they were Greeks (Aeolian). That means they were Greeks and they spoke a Greek Dialect.
Hellanicus said they were Greeks (Aeolian). That means they were Greeks and they spoke an Greek Dialect.
Macedons said they were Greeks and they spoke Greek.
The rest Greeks said they were Greeks. That means they were Greeks and they spoke Greek.
They were participating in Olympic Games. That means they were Greeks and they spoke Greek.
They were members of the Council of Delphi. That means they were Greeks and they spoke Greek.
Persians said they were Greeks. That means they were Greeks and they spoke Greek.
Not a single evidence proving the opposite. That means that all the above are correct.

So why Macedons might not be Greeks?
Plz tell us.
Every time I post, I ask for the same thing. I ask from u to prove me why I'm wrong. Plz give me the ancient evidence, which can prove that I'm wrong. Please Please
MANOS

Adult Pages

[edit]

I'm not sure where to put this complaint but this is on the general way Wikipeida is run. Why don't you try to stop children accessing articles related with sex/pornograpghy? The Oral Sex has an image definately suitable for any person under the age of eighteen. Even for teenagers trying to receive information for sexual education should not be exposed to that #!?@. Dagizza

Because Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, by policy. If you desire that your children do not see illustrations like that, then you should supervise their Internet use. (Additionally there is no way to determine if a web browser is being operated by an adult, a child forbidden to view those images, or a child permitted to view those images.) — mendel ☎ 01:27, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed blatant sexual content on Wikipedia too. We could at least have a protection page that asks the user to testify that he is above 18 years of age before viewing such a page, like it happens on other adult sites. True, this would not stop minors from accessing the page, much as we cannot stop minors from downloading porn from the internet. But at least it would make them aware that they are accessing material that is not suitable for them. And we could hope that self-regulation would do the job. Or that their parents can somehow monitor their access of such pages, and do the requisite policing.
I think an appropriate warning like "This page might be considered objectionable by many readers, and may be unsuitable for children" should be placed at the beginning of such articles, and offensive images should be placed down so that readers can see the warning without seeing the images. For 12-year-olds, graphic or indelicate treatments of subjects like oral sex may be as bad as shock sites are for some adults (i.e. they may wish they had never seen it). I personally find Wikipedia a good venue for education on sex, including some offensive topics, just because they stick to facts like medical books and try hard not to be unnecessarily graphic. Children are naturally curious, and I'd hate it if I can not trust Wikipedia to give them information in the most factual and unoffensive way even on the most exotic topics relevant to the real world.
Note that I'm not advocating that offensive topics be removed from Wikipedia. Quite the contrary, I want all such topics to be given proper treatment here, if only to avoid them having to resort to potentially more offensive sites. However, if an article does not present the facts in the most unoffensive way, it should give a proper warning until it gets improved on this aspect.
I do not particularly like protection pages, since this encourages children to lie about their age, and while warnings can be given on many levels, everyone would draw different lines on which pages should be "protected" like this, and I fear this would generate excessive controversy. Of course, if the laws require this (I really do not know), we would have to comply. R6144 04:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Columns

[edit]

Is there a way to put more than one column on a page? If not, it could be a good thing to have Wikipedia allow a user to do. It could cut down on the lengths of same pages. Rentastrawberry 01:32, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

It wouldn't cut down on the size of the page, though, but it would make it more awkward to read on-screen, since the reader would have to scroll all the way down, then scroll all the way up, then scroll all the way back down again. — mendel ☎ 01:22, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Gloria Trevi

[edit]

Hi1 Can someone defend me and explain to Ruiz that the article I originated about Gloria Trevi was not pasted and that the actual page he points out at, [1] says that the article is borrowed from Wikipedia?.

Also, we need to tell him that most of our articles are copyed by a number of websites, which we allow them to do so.

Thanks and God bless you! Sincerely yours, Antonio Morris Martin

Problem in the "Battle by Country" Category

[edit]

Dear All,

I would like to point out a significant problem in the "Battle by Country" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Battles_by_country). There is no rule out there and no standardized way to categorize Battles.

As of now, it seems that there is no general rule (or at least people ignore it). There are three kind of referencing battles :

  • "Battle of England"
  • "English Battles"
  • "Battle in France"

So, if I want to detail :

  • "Battle in" is pretty clear : the Battle took place on the French Territory (and to be simpler, I think we should choose to set up to the current territory).
  • Now it becomes a mess : there is a lot of confusion between "Battle of England" and "English Battles". In my opinion, the "Battle of" should be for the battles where England took place as a nation and "English Battles" should be renamed in "Battles in England" (to be coherent with the previous notations).

Instead of having two rule for naming which are pretty similar ("Battle in ###" and "### Battle"), we should standardized.

So, for example "Battles of Canada" could be split in "Battles of Canada" (for battles in which Canada fought on his own flag : WWII for example) and "Battles in Canada" (for battles which took place in Canada : between France and England for example).

"Battles of" could include Byzantine Empire, ...

Do you agree ?

Best

Poppypetty 09:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Poppypetty:

Is Battle of England and English Battles about the same battle(s)? If so, we can merge the articles... Antonio Spotligh8t stealer Martin

[edit]

I would like to suggest having RSS feeds available for the Featured Articles. My apologies if this feature already exists, in which case could it be made more prominent.

See Wikipedia:Syndication. Regarding prominence, as you can see from Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:Syndication, it it mentioned on RSS and other places. It wouldn't really be appropriate to put the orange rectangle on the site, because we don't syndicate the whole site, nor on featured articles, because they come and go. It's arguably worth mentioning on Wikipedia:Today's featured article. Where did you expect to find it? Bovlb 14:34:46, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
I was expecting to see either the orange icons on the front page, each one located in its corresponding section. Alternatively, a link from the front page to the Syndication page would make it more discoverable. Also, putting it on the Wikipedia:Today's featured article page would definitely help.
I really don't understand RSS feeds after trying to get various readers etc., but what works for me is My.yahoo front page, from whence you can indeed see an RSS feed of Wikipedia new articles. Gzuckier 16:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Wikipedia

[edit]

Hi, I am a new user here! I found out about wikipedia, the last month and found it truly amazing, but cannot understand why it is soo open! My suggestion is, can't the whole "real" content be locked, and all the new/edited pages will still be available to edit on a "mirror server" then, someone such as an "administrator" checks its new content and replace/upload the actual page from the "mirror server". If i didnt explain myself well, please contact me email address removed for person's own good. Thanks. Keep it up!

See Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals)#Require changes to be reviewed before going live and Wikipedia:Replies to common objections. Bovlb 14:43:37, 2005-08-14 (UTC)

Units of Measurement Options

[edit]

As an Australian reader I find it very annoying when an article refers to everything in pounds, feet or other such unit of measurement. Is it possible to implement a means of allowing a user to select preferred units in which all articles will be displayed?

For example selecting:

  • Kilograms over pounds for weight
  • Metres over feet for distance.
  • Celsius over Fahrenheit for temperature.
See Bugzilla:235. Bovlb 07:12:25, 2005-08-15 (UTC)


Disappearing Article - WATMM

[edit]

I hadn't checked until recently, but an article I used to watch called WATMM has disappeared... it's gone from the history of my watchlist and all edits to the page don't show up on my 'user contributions' page. I can't find it in the history of VFD, and I see no reason for it to have been deleted, as the page for xltronic (a similar community) still exists. I suspect foul play, as the WATMM page was subject to frequent abuse (blank outs), but I have no idea what could have happened, as I don't know what happens to pages once they get deleted. A copy of the article is still at answers.com [2]

  • It doesn't appear that there has ever been an article entitled WATMM. There was one called watmm, which has been deleted twice. According to the deletion log:
    • 2005-08-12 01:45:08 Academic Challenger deleted "Watmm" (copy and paste of the sex article, nominated for speedy)
    • 2005-08-11 21:04:05 Geogre deleted "Watmm" (Bullcrap duplicate, probably a test.)
I suggest you contact one or both of those administrators for more information. Bovlb 15:04:40, 2005-08-19 (UTC)
I have done so, thanks for the suggestion. --Easterlingman 15:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speeling Varyations

[edit]

We need in the toolbox a tool for checking (/suggesting!) spelling variations of an article's title when creating, editing or searching for them. Conceptually, like the 'other languages'.

See also Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals)#Spell Checker at Edit Pages. Bovlb 14:40:59, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
The Google Toolbar (1.0 for Firefox, anyway) does this. It's not seamless, but it checks spelling in forms (which includes the entire edit window), and makes suggestions (which sometimes even works). Flyers13 03:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieving information from different languages

[edit]

I would highly appreciate measures to make Wikipedia truly multilingual. If I'm looking for a certain subject, I don't want to be limited to just English-language articles, but also be presented information in languages I selected in my preferences. To this end, there must be a way to link concepts in different languages to one another. Perhaps this mechanism can be integrated with Wiktionary. Benne 09:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Interlanguage links, and note that they appear at the bottom of the left-hand column. See also Wikipedia:Sister projects#Wiktionary. Bovlb 14:42:05, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
Thanks. This helps, but not for related topics. For example, if there's an English-language article on Topic X (but not on Subtopic X.1), and a French-language article on Subtopic X.1 (but not in Topic X), you won't be able to find en:X from fr:X.1 or vice versa. A uniform classification system would help disclose the information provided by any Wikimedia project. Benne 08:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Using Translation memory to help keep translations up to date

[edit]

Is it possible to introduce techniques such as Translation memory in order to make it easier and better controllable to apply changes made in, for instance, the English-language original, to translations in other languages. Benne 09:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles in different languages are not, in general, pure translations. They are often developed entirely independently. Notwithstanding, technology like this might be useful, but would be a lot of work to set up. Wikipedia relies on volunteer effort. Are you offering to implement this? Bovlb 14:46:13, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
True, but don't you agree that the contents of an article should be the same regardless the language in which it is written?
I don't have the skills to provide a technical solution, but I'm willing to discuss and think about the concept. Benne 16:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I do agree. Every language-specific Wikipedia has its own take on issues of formatting and inclusion. I would expect that the it: page on an Italian film star would be longer than its en: counterpart. Bovlb 19:40:26, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
Good example, but that shouldn't be a problem. The version in English (or any other language) could be a summary of the Italian original. (In that case it would be helpful if there was one master summary.)
Especially for the small and not so active Wikipedias I think it would be useful if the user is notified somehow of valuable edits and additions to the English-language version.

Problem with incorrect material and site name

[edit]

THIS SITE SUCKS, YOU SHOULD NOT CALL IT WICK"EPEDIA" WHEN ALL INFO IS NOT VERIFIED AS BEING CORRECT, I HAVE NOT BEEN TO ALL PAGES BUT THE ONE I DID GO TO HAD TO MANY ERRORS TO MENTION, ALMOST ALL OF THE INFO ON THE VW PASSAT PAGE IS INCORRECT- THE B4 PASSAT WAS NOT INTRODUCED IN THE US IN 89 BECAUSE THE b3 WAS INTRODUCED IN 1990 (I OWN ONE) THE B4 WAS INTRODUCED IN 95. AGAIN I SAY: UNTIL THIS SITE BETTER CHECKS ITS INFO IT SUCKS AND IS A WASTE OF TIME TO USE

I think you suck because you could have discussed all that with the guys who work on that page instead of comming over here and complain. BorisTM 11:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is unfortunate that many of the less popular articles are not very well fact-checked, probably because verifying facts is time-consuming and not nearly as rewarding as writing new articles. I have read many articles in this site, mostly scientific articles. I find the articles quite helpful when one needs to have an overview on a new topic, however some inaccuracies do exist, so for important stuff it is strongly recommended to cross-check the facts. With respect to scientific articles, I also think the lack of consistency in terminology and symbol use is a problem, and very often one article and the articles it links to discuss the subject matter with very different emphases, making it confusing for beginners. All these problems are eventually solvable when enough experts come to edit the problematic articles.
I'm sorry that the inaccuracies vexed you so much, but I hope you will still find Wikipedia a useful resource—even if it is not as accurate as books, it is probably very helpful for people who can otherwise only do random googling. And we'd appreciate very much if you can take some time to fix some inaccuracies, seeing that you are probably an expert in the topic. R6144 12:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Couple of things to fix

[edit]
  • Double redirects should be automatically changed by wikipedia to have them both be single directs to the final destination.
  • The first time the title of an article is said in an article it should automatically be made bold, we shouldn't have to do it. (Also any other convention like this should be automatically done instead of requiring people to do it.)
Just my two cents, but from a developers standpoint what you are asking should be reconsidered.
  • You should consider what endless redirect could do. Plus if you see a multiple redirection, it would be better to note where you came from and make a direct link.
  • How is it possible to enforce such a demand when two sentences can start differently? (and yes there might be different forms of the word). Ex: A software developer or a software engineer. How is the system supposed to know these are both supposed to be bold?
I'll shutup now since I don't work here. --Kim Nevelsteen 18:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • im not suggesting endless redirect. im saying if A directed to B and B went to C and C didnt redirect to anything, A should automatically be set to redirect to C.
And what if C redirects back to A? Or maybe A->B->C->D->E->F->... Someone should see this "problem" and fix it, not have the code solve it.--Kim Nevelsteen 18:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • im not saying we cant bold other things. im just saying if the article is on software developer that should be bolded the first time, and if software engineer is to be bolded, the wikipedia code wouldnt know that, but it can be manually bolded too. basically this would just serve to make work easier, and wouldnt cause us to do any more work because of it. basically this wouldnt bold everything it needed to, but i would bold some of it every time that always was to be bolded. hope this made sense.
What if the article title is "memory (computer science)", but no where in the article is that title, nothing would be bolded? What happens if someone makes the first appearence of the word "memory" in that article bold and somewhere in the article "memory (computer science)" appears accidentally. There is no way to "shut it off". It is just too hard to control.--Kim Nevelsteen 18:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • as far as parentheses it would ignore them. it would bold memory the first time. in fact, heres a way to avoid all these issues if you see necessary-- make it so if someone bolds something first that isnt the title, the script wouldnt attempt to automatically do it. theres a solution if you wanna take it.

Human Rights Servey on Wikipedia (The final post of I_sterbinski)

[edit]
Dear all,
Wikipedia was recently a subject of intensive research of an huge international human right organization. A team of people from different nationalities and ages were acting on Wikipedia for 20 days, investigating previously noted anomalities of Wikipedia free editing and forming a final report, which (between the others similar reports) will later be a guide to all future moves of the organization concerning Wikipedia. Acting under an account of a real person, their privacy is to be held private. Therefore, very few private information will be revealed.
Also, this is a result of the lack of final possition of the organization concerning Wikipedia and human rights, which was still not formed.
The team's final post on Wikipedia, where they explain their actions can be found on the following addresses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:I_sterbinski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia#Human_Rights_Servey_on_Wikipedia_.28The_final_post_of_I_sterbinski.29
The team would like to thank to all the persons who took part in the correspondence with us.
We also want to appologise for keeping our identity secret for a longer period.
Best regards,
Aleksandar, Biljana, Asparuh, Christos, Valjon, Michael and Ana Luiza
I sterbinski 00:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Vandalism

[edit]

On the Page: Pope John XXIII there is a picture of a penis in various points throughout the article

Links' appearance

[edit]

I happened to be on the German version of Wikipedia; their links are in blue, like the English version, but without underlining (unless the pointer is placed directly over them). I have long thought that with all of the links present (in blue and with underlines) the text in English articles is often not very readable. The text in the German version, with links simply in blue, is much easier to read, as well as having a much better look to it. Can the English-version links be made to look like those in the German one? S. Neuman 02:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the underlines. Underlines are everywhere on the Web; they are the international symbol for "this is a hyperlink". -- Beland 03:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, regardless of the merits of the links' looking one way or the other, I've since found out that I can go into Preferences and make it this way for myself. (I still think it might be preferable as the default setting, though.) S. Neuman 18:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, S. I didn't know I could do that, but I have changed my prefs now and it looks much better! I agree that it would be preferable as the default, but it seems we are a couple of years too late on this: see Link style vote Ground Zero | t 18:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you also, Ground Zero, for directing me to the previous dabate on the matter. As mentioned in that discussion, most people don't go into their Preferences, and probably don't even know a change is possible. S. Neuman 18:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Though I'm used to the links now, when I was new to Wikipedia they were annoying. I support changing them.Twilight Realm 21:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


My watchlist

[edit]

Hello, I have a suggestion for improving the "My Watchlist" page. When I view all of the pages on my watchlist, it merely lists ALL of them in alphabetical order. I would perfer being able to sort these using folders and being able to lable the folders. This would allow me to search out only whatever topic I am currently working on rather than having to hunt and peck for similar pages. Have a good day!--CrazyTalk 19:19, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

You can do something like this by creating sub-pages of your user page that link to the articles of interest, and then using the "Related changes" tool. Bovlb 07:13:56, 2005-08-31 (UTC)


Cursor on front page

[edit]

Wikipedia rules. I was wondering if someone could make it so that when the front page, www.wikipedia.org, loads up, the cursor automatically goes to the search field. It's a picky point, I know, but with as many times in a day that I look something up on Wikipedia, I know it would save at least me a lot of time. 128.118.112.162 16:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whaddayaknow? I wanted to ask this too, but you (just) beat me too it. Sounds like a great idea to me. I'm sick of tabbing my way through all the languages to get to the search box (with the mentality "I've started so I'll finish"). Can't this be done? Anyone? 144.213.253.14 06:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That would probably have to be done by the developers; we don't have the technical abilities to do that. You may wish to file the suggestion at Bugzilla. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 17:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've suggested this before, somewhere else, but I didn't get a response. I'll suggest it to them. Twilight Realm 21:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Hate trolling on Emo page

[edit]

I'd like to report that the opening of the article on "Emo" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emo) is hateful not only to emos, but to Canadians as well and should be removed. I tried to edit it out, but that part of the page could not be edited.

It says: "Emo is an abreviation for loser. People follow the "emo" subculture are all gay people who won't admit that they are gay. Emo people like to cry and whine alot about "heart breaks" that they can't ever manage to get over and other things in the same nature that don't matter. Emo people all cut themselves, and they all have black hair, and they all they are totally hip and individul by wearing all black and red. Emo people like to pretend that they are so depressed that they are going to kill themselves, but they really never will because it is all just a trend and it is cool to live off of sulking over lame-ass break-ups and pretending like they are going to kill themselves so more people will pay attention to them. They also cut themselves for the same reason just stated, so they get attention from people around them. If you have a friend that cuts themself, please, tell them to end it all, it's just one less piece of shit in the world. Of course, they would never kill themselves because underneath their pseudo-facade's they wouldn't even consider it. If you would like to find a place that has a high population, please check: THE WHOLE ENTIRE FUCKING COUNTRY OF CANADA. Every single person there is emo, every one of them."

Shameful. Please do something about this.

This article was vandalised and reverted within 11 minutes. You must have been unfortunate enough to see it in that brief interval. If you see something similar in future, you can revert it for yourself. Bovlb 04:57:16, 2005-09-05 (UTC)


Dang, I'm Flayed!

[edit]

Excuse me, but not to sound like a whiner or something, but I really would like to let you know that I think the article on Flay Allster from Gundam Seed is not quite neutral. You see, whoever wrote that page seemed, to be, to be biased against her, as are many, and I mean MANY Gundam Seed fans. Honestly we've heard enough of "she's spoiled and manipulative" or "she hates coordinators". She was a very important character in the series, and I'm not afraid to admit that I'm one of her few fans. Can someone revise the article, including the bits of good she's done? She wasn't perfect, but she really helped with Kira's character. As mentioned in Phase 50, she "was in pain" and "was only frightened" and her final scene was really heartwarming, since she finally got over her hatred of coordinators.

Quite simply, I ask that you please not take sides here. Flay has far too many haters already. The last thing I want is for this excellent website to trash her too.


--82.38.56.54 19:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting us know. This is a Wiki. At the top of every page is an "Edit this page" link so you can make the corrections yourself. Wikipedia has a firm Neutral Point of View policy. Bovlb 15:27:59, 2005-09-06 (UTC)


Stop TJive

[edit]

This fool, with no knowledge of politics, keeps reverting my edits over 3 thimes just because he does not agree with some of the facts. Once he reverted my article and stole everything I wrote to include in his edit. He should be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.205.254 (talk • contribs) 2005-09-05 21:06:20 PDT

Edit-warring is a bad thing for Wikipedia, and repeated reversions are always discouraged. Please see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. If you wish to report this user for excessive reversion, I suggest that you take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR and supply some details. Be sure to include links to where you discussed the disputed edits on the article talk page, and where you made a good faith effort to resolve this dispute directly with the user. Wikipedia also has a firm policy against personal attacks. This includes a prohibition on saying things like, "This fool, with no knowledge of politics". I hope you can see how remarks like that might make it difficult for the two of you to reach a compromise. Bovlb 15:40:27, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

ahem

[edit]

The home page of wikipedia shows 'Espanol, la enciclopedia libre', where the word FREE has been translated wrong, it's supposed to say "La enciclopedia gratuita", HUGE MISTAKE. I can't edit the homepage, so whoever set it up was a moron who grabbed a cheap dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.3.58 (talk • contribs) 2005-09-07 03:22:46 PDT

  • Please consult Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Also, Wikipedia is intended to be free in both senses (beer and speech). Different language-specific Wikipedias may emphasise this differently. Finally, please sign comments on talk and discussion pages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks, Bovlb 14:38:14, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

I insist, an even more moronic answer that had nothing to with my suggestion.

You'll have more luck getting it changed if you go complain at the Spanish Wikipedia instead. We can't change it from here. I rather suspect they knew what they were doing, though. —Cryptic (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous it´s "la enciclopedia libre", not "la enciclopedia gatuita". Gratuita means free of charge, which is not what the message is trying to communicate. Maybe YOU should get a better dictionary to see that the translation of "free" is not only "gratis". E.g: "He is now a free man" does not mean "Ahora es un hombre gratuito" or something of the sort. Obviously. From Argentina, Wikiwert 18:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

  • Guys, they're both right. "Free" can mean either of those. In fact, look at the first paragraph of the article Gratis versus Libre: "Gratis versus Libre is the distinction between no cost and freedom, a distinction not made by the word free in the English language." Look at the words gratis and libre. Familiar? Wikipedia is both gratis and libre. I personally think that it should say "libre," because most newcomers would care about that more, but it's for them to decide. Now stop being morons and stop arguing.
Please note that for the translation of the free encyclopedia that free in this sense means as in "not restricted", because English does not have different words for free (price - "gratis") and free (freedom). This sometimes makes people confused. If your language has different words for free (as in price) and free (as in freedom), please use the one that refers to freedom.
So "la enciclopedia libre" is correct. --Metropolitan90 06:46, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


Cursor Focus

[edit]

The cursor should start off in the search box, unless there's a good reason not to.

Google places its cursor in the search box immediately - Wikipedia can always learn from other successful websites.

  • How about this: When Google has an edit this page facility, Wikipedia will move the cursor to the search box? :o)
-=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=-
   -This problem has been brought up SO many times already.  Repetition will not help much!
             -Justin


Creating an article

[edit]

I tried to create an article titled "Boga", referring to the Star Wars creature, but I got to a disambiguation page that wouldn't let me create my own page about it. As of yet, no such page exists. How can I create this article instead of ending up stuck in a disambiguation page?

I agree! This would make wikipedia so much easier to use. Why don't they do this?


Slowness

[edit]

I know this has been brought up before at various times, but Wikipedia is operating very, very slowly recently. Pictures are frequently replaced by their descriptions, and it can sometimes take at least 10-20 seconds to submit an edited article. Sometimes it just gives me an error message, and I have to resubmit. There have even been 2 times when I couldn't even view an article, and I got a "the Wikimedia servers are overloaded" error page. The fundraising drive just ended, right? Are some new servers on the way yet?

As a matter of fact, as part of the deal announced in June, Yahoo just develivered 23 servers for use in Asia. As to the current fund drive, it normally takes weeks (or months) between the time we order the servers and the time they are installed and operational. →Raul654 03:00, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it really IS slow. Almost all of the time.

[edit]

I know this has come up again and again, and I imagine everyone knows it, and that the problem is being addressed as best it can. But I just thought I'd add my two cents' worth. Although I could write pages and pages of suggestions about how various annoyances and idiosyncracies could be improved, for me the speed - or lack of it - is the NUMBER ONE problem. I would say to the Wikipedists: forget everything else for the moment, and concentrate all efforts on speeding the damn thing up by a factor of at least ten.

Point taken, but it's on the verge of being unusable. A tiny typo correction can easily take me several minutes waiting for the pages to come up. And then I get "Sorry- we have a problem... The wikimedia web server didn't return any response to your request." It's getting so I just don't bother.

Hi, I'm new to wikipedia. Spent over 1 hour to add about 6 sentences, a picture, and a few links. Mostly time wasted to figure it out, and to wait for previews, so i learned i have to get it right the first time. Now I know what to expect, but it is frustrating to see such a high potential for a great resource database be destroyed by it's lack of competitive speed against the speed of the google search databases currently demanded by internet users. I don't have much money to donate sorry, but I hope servers are donated or become affordably available. Maybee you can target failed start up internet businesses as they liquidate cheap computers. Thanks and Good Luck.


[edit]

To test the search capability, I typed "highest mountain in Turkey". The search results were unimpressive. I forged ahead nonetheless, clicking on 'Turkey', then sub-topic 'Geography', and found that Mount Ararat was the highest point. On the 'Mount Ararat' page, the text "tallest peak in modern Turkey" appears, so I typed that exact text in the search field, and did a search. Still 'Mount Ararat' was not in the list (at least not anywhere near the top)! When I put double quotes around the phrase, the search was successful, but it is unlikely that anyone wanting this information would search in this manner.

I admit that I was able, with a few clicks and some reading, to find what I was looking for. But I've sat by young children and watched them surf, and they would not have been able to do what I did without it taking a lot of time (and they would have lost interest and given up).

Am I on the wrong track--is what I'm asking for not a requirement?

  • Yep, the Wikipedia search is, as you put it, "unimpressive". I never bother using it. I just use Google, and if I want to encourage it to find Wikipedia articles I add the word "Wikipedia". This generally works much better.



Threats from the editors

[edit]

When I first visited Wikipedia I didn't create an account and was allocated a temporary identifier based on the URL I was allocated at the time. 195.93.21.8 It seems that other people who have been allocated this URL have been behaving in a disgraceful way - deleting parts of articles, submitting articles on words which don't exist and using foul language. As a result, even though I now have a proper account and user name, I am receiving various threats and injunctions from the Wikipedia editors, including stopping me from editing any articles. Is it not possible:

  1. for the editors to dissassociate me from this URL now that I have a proper account.
  2. for people to behave in a responsible and sensible manner, for the good of us all, so that these problems don't arise in the first place?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by WPPlummer (talk • contribs) 2005-09-17 02:34:59 PDT

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you have a account, I recommend that you log in whenever using Wikipedia. This will mean that your edits don't show up under the anonymous IP address, and that you don't get "new messages" notices for that address. Unfortunately, you can still be blocked from editing if that address, or someone using it, is blocked by an administrator. If this happens, you should contact the blocking administrator, who should be happy to help you out. By the way, it is commonly requested that this aspect of the blocking software be changed; see bugzilla:550. Regarding (2), it is apparently not possible. The world would be a very different place if it were. Finally, when posting to discussion pages, or certain Wikipedia pages like this one, you can sign your name using four tildes (~~~~). Bovlb 21:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


User:Igo4U

[edit]

If you look at User:Igo4U most of this users edits are external links to commercial websites, some of the links that I checked don't seem to work either. Can we bot this users changes in the External links section of articles? WikiDon 06:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Forth Dimension

[edit]

There are two pages titled 'Fourth dimension' and 'Fourth Dimension' please set up a disambiguation page. :) --Bdude 08:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia must tighten up controls of who can edit and who cannot!

[edit]

hello, i am User:Rbj and i love Wikipedia and have made quite a few edit contributions that have stuck, so i think i am a positive asset to Wikipedia. but i am spending too much time reverting vandalism.

why is it that Wikipedia allows anonymous (identified by mere IP addresses) editing of the articles? this is just dumb and we're literally begging for vandals to come and mess it up?

you should require every editor to Login and when they first create an account, they should have to verify by responding to an email generated from Wikipedia (so we know their email address is real). they should have to identify themselves fully in creating that account, at least viewable by the administrators. and whenever they login, there should be a record of IP addresses so that if vandalism is done from the same IP (but a different login name), administrators might have an idea of who to contact.

you guys have to fix this! you just do. r b-j 18:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This has been proposed before and discussed at length. See Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals)#Abolish anonymous users. Thryduulf 19:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

The Navigation box contains two options which are sort of useful for browsing thru the Wikipedia: Recent Changes and Random Article. Unfortunately, they call up a very large number of very esoteric items. I'd find it useful to have a Popular Articles option which would list the articles which were most often read in the past N days. (This would be comparable to the "25 Most eMailed Articles" on the New York Times website.) Is this feasible? advTHANKSance --Keeves 13:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki for Kids would be great

[edit]

My 4th grader is learning geometry. However the Wiki articles are contextually oriented for higher level students. A Kid's Wiki that organizes content to an elementary level, for elementary age topics would be highly useful. And of course it can be written by students themselves.

Clarence Thomas

[edit]

I use Wikipedia as a resource and was not particularly interested in editing it but it seems that someone has done something to whatever was under Clarence Thomas, though I don't particularly like the Justice I think perhaps:

'This is one dumb nigger' was not what the foundation had in mind.

Wouldn't know what to put instead, so not sure what to do with it.

it is on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas

hpspi@att.net

I don't know if you'll read this or even be able to find it, but a suggestion: put this in the discussion page for that article. Click "Discussion" at the top. And create a new category for it. Click the plus next to edit if there is one. If it isn't there... I guess just put what you want to say at the bottom. I don't know why the plus isn't always there. Has anyone fixed this yet? Twilight Realm 01:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Over resoluted pictures

[edit]

Some pictures as for example Image:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg have a high resolution version that is just too high and that can´t be properly seen (the picture appears blurred). A lower resolution high resolution version should replace the existing one.--Wikiwert 04:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to change the way images are displayed in Special:Preferences - this is a per-user setting. You can choose a maximum size for the image as it appears on its image description page. The only time you would see the full image is if you clicked the large thumbnail on the description page. Of course, we also encourage Wikipedians to contribute their own work to improve Wikipedia, including images. If you see a photograph that is not as good as it could be - get out with your camera, take a better one and upload it although in this case it could be a little more difficult, or at least expensive :o) -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 15:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Im not sure it´s a per user problem. I mean, the high resolution verion is set to 3000*3002, when it should be say 2500*2500. Instead, other pictures of similar resolution are perfectly seen.--Wikiwert 18:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's all about the resampling algorithms. Wikipedia uses only one algorithm, I'm not sure what it is though (bicubic or something)? Any image viewer worth it's salt will give you multiple options when you resize. Try it, and if you get a good low size high resolution version upload it and link to it from the article. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 01:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another example of what I'm talking about two sections up, right here. Don't just help this one person; if it's possible, change it so no more people will need help in the first place. Possibly a "This page works best in 1024x768 resolution?"Twilight Realm 22:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Article

[edit]

I happen to enjoy spending countless hours searching through wikipedia and finding information on numerous subjects. I often recommend this site to any and most internet "nerds" that I encounter. Today, I was a bit disappointed. I had finished a very good book written by Anne Tyler and attempted to research more information on wikipedia. I like to find out what this site says about books that interest me. To my displeasure, there lacks an article on "Dinner at the Homesick Restaurant." I realize that my complaint is probably being placed in the incorrect area of your site but I do wish to have it heard. I, in no way, am insulting such a wonderful site and hope to see an article soon! Thank you so much.


WHY IS WIKIPEDIA BIASED AGAINST MACEDONIANS?IF YOU DONT BELIEVE ME...I SUGGEST YOU READ THE HISTORY OF MACEDONIA AND THEN READ THE HISTORIES OF ITS NEIGHBOURS....YOU WILL CLEARLY SEE THE WIKIPEDIA HAS TAKEN SIDES...SOMETHING IT CLAIMS THAT IT TRY'S TO AVOID...IT REALLY DISHEARTENS ME TO SEE THIS...COULD YOU PLEASE MAKE YOUR ARTICLES A LITTLE LESS BIASED.


Both of these questions can be solved the same way. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You've already done it once by making these comments. I have made a couple of Wiki-links in your comments - click on the highlighted word to go to that page. You can add to and improve these articles by clicking the "edit this page" button. Happy editing! -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=-

An Article "Faggot" that I found

[edit]

I'm not sure if I'm in the right place or not, but I went to the article "Faggot" and saw it had been vandilized 

  'Faggot
  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
  Revision as of 08:49, 26 September 2005; view current revision
  ← Older revision | Newer revision →
     Faggot derives through the Old French fagot and from the
     cock-sucking of W. Marsh and his band of flagellating homosexual pirates.
     This word also derives from the sweat that gathers on the underside of the pair of 
     testicle sacs we call a scrotom . Feel free to lick it anytime you see fit. Else, 
     go to a farm with horses and seduce one of the males to have anal sex with you until 
     your colon perforates and you die .'

This was taken from the link that led me to this page, with this as the text. I'm new to Wikipedia and therefore have no idea what to do when something like this happens. I bet the original author of the article doesn't know. I can't edit this article myself since I don't know anything about the topic. Please, do something about this article as it is very offensive to readers. --Willis835 12:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of it. Kelisi 15:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to be seem to be advertising, but this is yet another example of what I'm talking about 4 sections above this one. Though slightly different, this is still similar. The instructions on editing are too long for most people to read. Laziness is, unfortunately, quite common in humans. And these days, people don't have much time. I haven't read it, I admit it. If there's any way to make an intro that's just the essential basics, it would be easier for everyone.Twilight Realm 23:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Automatic Signature

[edit]

When editing a page, right above the "Save page" and "Show preview" buttons, there are two checkboxes, "This is a minor edit" and "Watch this page." I have the Watch button automatically checked.

So, my point. Why not have one for "include signature"? I'm somewhat new, and I often (half the time) forget to add the ~~~~ (for example, here). Since most of my edits are on the talk pages, I would love an automatic signature box. You could set it so it's automatically checked or not, just like the others. Or, it could be automatically checked when you're editing a Talk page, but not if you're editing an article.

I know that this would have to be suggested to the software writers. But I would like to know that I'm not alone before doing so. So, does anyone agree?Twilight Realm 00:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this is a great idea. As a programmer, though, I can predict that it will be workable only if the software can distinguish between when I'm on a Talk page (in which case this box should be checked, and when I'm not (in which case it should not be checked). But I think that would be pretty easy, because the page name begins with "Talk:". --Keeves 12:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice idea, but sometimes I'm on a talk page or AFD discussion when I include a comment indented somewhere in the existing text. I would want my sig to appear next to my comment and not at the end of the page. The software would have to recognize what your comment is. And what if I made to comments in different places in the same edit? Both would need to be signed. - Mgm|(talk) 21:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe it could detect if your edit is all in a single chunk and put the signature at the end of that, and if it's not, leave it up to you to do multiple ones.Twilight Realm 23:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


WIKIPEDIA IS NOT ALLOWING MEMBERS TO SIGN ON

[edit]

I have signed on 11 straight times in the past 10 minutes and I am still not signed on. Is the software being upgarded? Is the short-term or long-term? When will I be able to sign onto Wikipedia using my account and username?--207.230.48.58 01:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem for me. Maybe your IP address was blocked? I don't really know what I'm talking about. Twilight Realm 02:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you repeat your password during the signup process? It needs to be put in two boxes. Also, do you get any error messages? Do you have cookies enabled? It would also help if you gave use the username you are trying to use. In the last few days hundreds, if not thousands, of people have signed up without problems, so we're certainly allowing new accounts. -- Mgm|(talk) 21:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


explanation-guide

[edit]

Why is explanation-guide.info's of the Largest Mobile companies web page biased? It states at the bottom of the page that your web site gives them the info, but all of the US carriers stats are a year and more out of date. They list all of the EU and Asian companies as being the largest, even thought Cingular, Verizon Wireless, and Sprint-Nextel have larger numbers then most of the other EU related carriers on their web site. And why will they NEVER replay back to my question about this? Can you please help me out?

Thanks, Russell

Cingular 51 Million users Verizon Wireless 47 Million users, and Sprint-Nextel 45 Million Users as of the last quarter in 2005.

How can these other carriers have higher numbers?! Why can't you and your partner web site give credit to the USA?!

Orange (GSM) - 40 million mmO2 (GSM) TIM (GSM)

  • As wikipedia mirrors ( like explanation-guide.info) are not automatically updated in the same way as wikipedia itself articles may be outdated or inaccurate. And they are not our 'partner' as anyone can copy our articles.. Robmods 18:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Don't the trivial links in text bother anyone else?

[edit]

When you are reading about, say, how the RSA algorithm works, you probably don't need to know what a prime number is. I for one, find these links extrememly irritating, and they get in way of my flow of reading. Is there any way of regulating these (say a usefulness parameter of a link in a particular place, measured by the number of times it is clicked), or at the very least a shortcut to turn off the links in the page temporarily.

The policy is that if there is a word which isn't directly obvious (ie. techinical terms, such as prime) you link it the first time it is used (if it is a long page, you can link the first time it's used in a section. If the links bother you that much, you could always view the printable version of a page, link is in the sidebar under the searchbox gkhan 07:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I used to think so, but I'm used to it. However, I think that the links shouldn't have the underlines, it would make them less annoying. Twilight Realm 23:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's easily fixed. Open User:Twilight Realm/monobook.css and add the lines:
#BodyContent a { text-decoration: none; }
#BodyContent a:hover { text-decoration: none; }*/

a { text-decoration: none;}
a:hover { text-decoration: none;}
And purge the cache a few times, that should fix it. gkhan 05:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I agree that it's currently really hard to read many articles with current text/link color changes.
 I suggest something more creative:  

Give us at the top of a page two buttons:  [ Easy read ] - [ Full display ]

- Full display would be current view, as it right now.

- Easy read would change the css to show links as normal text in color and display.

This could be easily implemented, each button would be assigned a css, no page reload would be necessary.


Wiki Clock

[edit]

Would it be possible to either have a page to view the current time on wikipedia? Or have it included on the top of each page or something?

I know you can do it in preferences then time zone, but that is just a little tedious

Cheers

Reedy Boy 11:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that you want to see what the current UTC time is? i.e. your computer clock tells you it is e.g. 12:40 in your local timezone (UTC+01:00 in my case) then it is e.g. 11:40 UTC? If this is the case, I'm pretty sure you can get external programs that can display this on your task bar. Thryduulf 11:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i suppose thats it. Could do that, just having it on the page somewhere would be good... If someone knows of a simple program to do this that'd be good

Reedy Boy 13:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia already has variables to do this. In Wiki markup, you can type:
Today is [[{{CURRENTDAYNAME}}]], [[{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}]], [[{{CURRENTYEAR}}]] - {{CURRENTMONTH}}/{{CURRENTDAY}}/{{CURRENTYEAR}}. It is now {{CURRENTTIME}} (UTC)
and it becomes this:
Today is Sunday, November 3, 2024 - 11/3/2024. It is now 22:54 (UTC)
→Raul654 01:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


"Sept" is not a recognized abbreviation for the month of September?

[edit]

I am new member, and was just going through the Wikipedia Tutorial today. I came across the point of date formatting and figured I'd give it a try in the sandbox. So I wrote my birthday Sept 25, 1981, then changed my settings to test if the date formatting really changed. Wikipedia apparently didn't recognize this as a formatted date. When I changed it to Sep 25, 1981 it suddenly worked. I always thought "Sept" was an acceptable and commonly used abbreviation for September. Can this be fixed?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suggestion_box_(resolved)/group2&oldid=1142565811"