Jump to content

Talk:Main Page: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Borisblue (talk | contribs)
4,303 edits
m rvv
Huey45 (talk | contribs)
984 edits
Relevancy of world series
Line 357: Line 357:


: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AWikipedialang&diff=84087940&oldid=84029789 The entire 10k+ line is gone], not just the link to Arabic Wikipedia. --[[User:64.229.177.159|64.229.177.159]] 20:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AWikipedialang&diff=84087940&oldid=84029789 The entire 10k+ line is gone], not just the link to Arabic Wikipedia. --[[User:64.229.177.159|64.229.177.159]] 20:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

== Relevancy of world series ==

Who cares about the "world series" baseball competition? That's not even close to being important enough for the main page. It's not really a global competition anyway because all the teams are from USA. It's really only a national competition. Even if it were a genuine "world" series, that's still not important enough to be on the main page. Maybe you stupid Americans don't realise it, but baseball is actually unpopular. A minority enjoys watching baseball in Japan and South Korea, but apart from that, baseball's support is limited to USA. An encyclopaedia should be too intellectual to tell people the latest sporting results unless it's the Olympic Games or the World Cup Soccer, which most people really do care about. I'm sure many people who read that news on the main page have never heard about whatever team won and will never care. You arrogant Americans should stop falsely assuming that the rest of the people in the world are like you.

[[User:Huey45|Huey45]] 08:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:30, 28 October 2006

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

Today's featured picture

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

Main Page and beyond

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

Main page discussion

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

Template:Main Page discussion footer

Google purchases YouTube

It says that Google purchased YouTube for a dollar and 65 cents. one please add the much-needed "billion" in there? 141.213.175.100 18:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conscious just fixed it. That would be a deal, wouldn't it? -- Zanimum 19:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have paid $1.65 for YouTube. $1.65 billion, not so much. —Cuiviénen 19:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL out of those two prices I'd say its actual worth would be closer to the $1.65 mark. Itelectual Property accounting has gone wild again. Wasn't that what caused the 1999 dot-com crash? --Monotonehell 06:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's the current buzzword again? Internet V2.0 or something. At least now we know how the next crash will be named....--SidiLemine 10:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's called Web 2.0 --Mini-Geek 20:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google clearly just extrapolated this Google Trends chart.. looks like wikipedia's in trouble! Mlm42 17:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If YouTube takes vandals away from Wikipedia, it's not a bad thing. -- 199.71.174.100 17:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
here here!!!Jmlk17 19:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't think that people are going to use YouTube for encyclopedic material. I don't think we have to worry just yet. Valley2city 22:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not whether or not this is an error (in which case move to WP:ERRORS), but shouldn't "Google purchases YouTube" just be "Google purchases YouTube", since there is no article specifically about the takeover? Laïka 06:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's been fixed. 1.65 billions? I thought that was millions, and I was already thinking it was weird for a non-material object. --SidiLemine 11:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-materialness doesn't mean something is worthless. Wikimedia is probably worth a good few hundred million by now – Gurch 11:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if the contract stipulated no advertising (as we have now), Wikimedia would be worth zilch. That's how most online corporations, like Google, make their money (with a few exceptions, e.g. Amazon.com). —Cuiviénen 13:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia is a non-profit organisation and I don't think they could be sold. For that matter, it's questionable why anyone would want to buy them. Would someone buy the Red Cross? Nil Einne 13:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect some folks might have an interest in purchasing that particular organization.Such as The principal of Ludlow High School's Mr. Smith. He has been suspected of being a nosferatu. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-10-13 15:14Z
I never implied that only material has value, but.... 1.65 billion? Come on! I bet it's more than the empire state building. An about byuing the Red Cross, or Wiki for that matter, there are certainly many people who could find a use to it... Say, as trivial examples, arms dealers, and lobby/propaganda professionnals... Or, in both cases, global advertisment agencies!! But still, 1.65... Does anyone have an idea of the quantity of video (in Go, To, or whatever) stocked in there?--SidiLemine 15:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much the material on YouTube (most of which, frankly, is either copyrighted or fairly rubbish) as the audience and the name of YouTube that Google is buying. That's what's worth the 1.65 billion. CJHung 11:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but empty it out an see if the audience keeps coming, or if the name stands. Basically the principle is great, etc; but that's not what can make me assert YouTuba as a global phenomenon. Same goes for all these sites: clear wikipedia and see how many editors are willing to start again from scratch. It's basically a gravity/mass thing. You say they buy the gravitation field and the asteroid belt, I say they buy the planet/star/black hole to be. Same thing.--SidiLemine 11:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FA League article misses the point

I think the front page summary of the FA Premier League article concerntrates on small details while ignoring far more important ones. A big deal is made over the specifics of who has won it, when and how many times, yet no mention is even made of the fact that it "is the world's most watched sporting league and most lucrative football league, followed by over a billion people". Canderra 00:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The front page summary is always primarily based on the lead intro section of the article. The "followed by over a billion people" fact was not included on the lead intro section until several hours after the summary was already posted on the front page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above! Randfan 17:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the interwiki links?

Where are the interwiki links? -- 84.132.126.100 16:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what? - UtherSRG (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
for the mainpage? -- 84.132.126.100 16:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need to scroll down to the bottom of the page to the section called "Wikipedia languages". This is where all the links to Wikipedia in other languages are located.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and in case you were wondering why - there are 250 different language 'pedias. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a link to the bottom of the the page at the usual interwiki place. I think, I am not the only one, who misses them. -- 84.132.123.57 10:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interwikis revisted

People often ask why there are no language links on the main page (such as the post a few sections up). The stock answer to this is that the language links have been placed at the bottom of the page because there are too many. However, that's not entirely true. First off, there are only ~50 links shown there, followed by a link to the complete list of ~250. So our section is only a partial list to begin with (> 10000 articles being the requirement).

This got me thinking. Would it be reasonable to add language links to the main page to cover the 2 dozen largest wikis (or something similar)? Sticking the language links at the bottom does make them less likely to be found and used, and I don't see any strong reason why we can't have some links appear in both places. A cursory inspection of several of the other largest language Wikipedias found that they all had some language links on their main page (with varying degrees of completeness).

If we do add language links, I think the extent should be based on some firm criteria for inclusion (either the X largest wikis, or all wikis with > Y articles, etc.) so that it doesn't grow so large as to be hard to use. Looking at the current list of large wikis suggests to me that a reasonable size list would be between 10 and 30 links.

So what do people think? Dragons flight 20:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we should put them in both places. I am not very fond of the blank space running down the left side of the screen if you scroll down too far. Andrew Levine 20:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The redundancy is not a problem. The questions about the whereabouts of the interwikis are getting tiresome and becoming a bigger waste of space on this talkpage than the interwikis would become on Main Page. --64.229.225.30 13:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with re-adding the inter-wiki links of at least those listed down at the bottom. Though they're listed at the bottom already, it's natural for them to be placed in the "traditional" spot, and not having them there can be confusing to some. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've readded the 30 that have > 20,000 articles. This is included through Template:Wikipedialang. Dragons flight 02:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that Wikipedialang is transcluded into pages that aren't the main page, so the interwikis can't be added there. Dragons flight 02:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I created Template:MainPageInterwikis and transcluded that onto the main page. As above it only includes wikis with at least 20,000 articles. Dragons flight 03:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, this was a very good idea :o) -- 84.132.118.40 18:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't there links to other languages on the main page of the English version of Wikipedia? Putting them on would make it much easier to use Wikipedia for people speaking different languages... ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.92.9.55 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Scroll down on Main Page, and you'll see the links.
If you like, scroll up on this talkpage to #Where are the interwiki links?, read and discuss further. -- 64.229.225.30 14:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need scroll up now. All the relevant talks are now one big section together all some tidying up by Monotonehell. Thanks! -- 64.229.204.240 14:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Talk:Main Page/Archive 80 § Why are there not links to Wikipedia in other languages on the main page

Search box on front page

After considerable discussions [1], Swedish Wikipedia added a search box on the front page, in addition to the one already existing in the margin. This, in my opinion, dramatically increases usability of the page, as the search box is where you would expect it to be. (Compare http://www.google.com, http://www.susning.nu, http://www.ne.se, http://www.answers.com, http://www.eniro.se plus whatever online encyklopedia or search engine you can think of) The Swedish design doesn't take up much space, and it draws attention to Wikipedia's main tool, the search tool. I think a change would help unexperienced Wiki users to find their way. What do you think? ����Axelve 21:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This idea was heavily discussed earlier this year, resulting in no consensus. Some people believe that a redundant search box would be helpful to new users, while others believe that it would confuse and distract them. Complaints also arose regarding the aesthetics, with notations of the fact that the "Classic" skin already features the search box at the top. —David Levy 22:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but if it works, it's not broken. How many more do we need??82.152.210.126 13:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chess Champion

I have seen some pretty significant events pulled off the "In The News" section, why is a chess champion mentioned??

Anything of significance around the world, in any subject whatsoever is put into the In the News section. We're just used to normal news that focuses mostly on politics, the economy, and world events. Also, remember to sign your Talk edits with four tildes (~~~~). —Captain538[talk] 01:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that In the News is not Wikinews. In the News exists to point out when articles have been created or significantly altered due to current events. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 02:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, trivial events with articles significantly updated have often been pulled out of ITN (such as sports events, though I understand this isn't the case anymore), while significant events have been added to ITN even though their articles only have one or two new sentences.—Abraham Lure 18:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is not just any chess championship, but is the world championship. And the article was created and updated recently. Once a low bar of notablity and significance has been met, the main requirement is an updated article, not how newsworthy something is. If only one chess-related event ever made it on to ITN, this would be it. Carcharoth 10:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"a low bar of notablity and significance"? Huh? --64.229.225.30 13:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian national croquet championship, if it exists, would never make the Main Page in ITN, for example. (Barring some freak event, of course.) —Cuiviénen 15:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, apparently the South African rugby union championship is more important than the Nobel Prize for Literature, in case you didn't know. Bruxism 08:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My "a low bar of notablity and significance" comment, which the IP address above is questioning, was meant to refer to the fact that a story being newsworthy across the world is not the primary consideration, though it is one of the considerations. The primary consideration is whether there is a reasonably good article about the topic, and whether the article has been updated with the latest news. It is also meant to point out that there is a bar, as the comments about the Australian national croquet championship illustrates. For what it is worth, I think the chess bit is OK (though I would say that, as I proposed it), because it is the biggest event for that sport. The South African rugby thing is not the biggest thing in rugby. That would properly be the Rugby World Cup. Carcharoth 09:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was agreeing with you about that "low bar." Although, I think the fact that the Blue Bulls have a more extensive article than Orhan Pamuk (let alone Sinclair Lewis) is a pretty worthless criterion for deciding whether it's more of a headline-worthy entry. I have nothing against the importance of sports, but sports aficionados can devote serious attention to their articles. In a way Wikipedia's function as an almanac in that sense is one of its strengths, because it's so hard to find accurate reference material on this elsewhere. But to confuse that with newsworthiness or broader implications is another matter. Why not separate out "In the News" from a new section on "the World of Sports," say? Bruxism 22:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because it would seem kind of ridiculous to have a separate section devoted entirely to a particular form of diversion, while not having separate sections for any other diversion or subject. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-10-16 11:35Z
Also, Portal:Current events/Sports exists. - BanyanTree 02:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The bar of notablity and significance should be reasonably high, but admins at ITN should also be flexible when ITN is unchanged for days and full of old news. At least, this is my expectation as a wikireader. --64.229.204.84 15:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title page gap

Hi I have noticed a gap between the main title Welcome and Wikipedia today and I think it looks better. However I strongly suggest that whilst the content of the main page is 95% always very good, I suggest you seriously tart up the design of the main page. I suggest a bolder title. Look at the logo, Wikipedia is capitalized. Also weak colours are used which do not make the page stand out. As the main page of the biggest website in the world I think it needs work on by a computer graphics designer- what can be done is amazing. I feel that a stronger colour, bolder page will attract people. mean the title of the project is barely larger than the writing. I would like to see Wikipedia in a MUCH larger bolder font. Whilst you should never judge a book by its cover people are responsive to visual stimuli. Please let me know your thoughts Ernst Stavro Blofeld 07:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Is there some way to make the Main Page look better? --64.229.225.30 13:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that what color is the best color for wikipedia to use is all a personal preference, as I greatly prefer a soothing blue and gray to a bold and brilliant red or yellow, or even a neutral green. But bolding would probably be okay. The Disorganized Perfectionist 15:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Favorites

In the German language WP, there are 3 pages, where the users can name their favorite books, songs or movies (as subpages of user pages):

Is there an equivalent in the English language WP? --Abe Lincoln 15:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:VP. --64.229.204.84 15:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that 64.229.204.84 is suggesting that you to pose your question at the Village Pump. --hydnjo talk 20:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I already got it, ;-) Thanks... --Abe Lincoln 21:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These pages can be found at User:Phaedriel/Soundtrack_of_Wikipedians and the many pages that link from there. Cheers, EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 22:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Point???

What I want to know is...what is the point of having the editing symbol as in option??? I mean anyone could just delete the page and decided to type 'blah blah blah' across the entire page!!! Why don't the people who made this website have an email address that people can email information or mistakes to so that the founders of this website can change it??? I mean I could just delete the entire knowledge of Wikipedia and it won't be "The Free Encyclopedia" anymore!!! 151.200.31.58 19:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Anonymous[reply]

It's very easy to revert your blanking (or other acts of vandalism) while allowing other people to improve the content. -- 199.71.174.100 20:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that 151.200.31.58 is pulling our leg (which is better I suppose than pulling our finger). --hydnjo talk 21:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was assuming that it wasn't trolling. --199.71.174.100 22:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to blank 1.5 million articles before one of the thousand plus admins can block you? --172.193.83.216 23:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here's how it works. You spread around a worm or virus or something that nobody notices because it does nothing harmful to their computer -- it just spreads itself. However, the virus is actually a web browser on a timer that would automatically go straight to wikipedia, go to random page, go to edit, then blank it, and that's it, and have it so that each copy does it at exactly the same time, and have the date set for a year or so in the future, so that a zillion people all have it. That's how!.... oh... wait... every single bit would still be reverted after... an hour or so. Also it'd probably ddos the server, forgot about that...--Anaraug 23:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the main defence is that all history is preserved. So if somebody deletes Wikipedia it can be restored. Jeltz talk 00:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if you delete Wikipedia, all the history will be deleted with Wikipedia, and there won't be a Wikipedia to restore, unless Wikipedia restores itself which is impossible because if the history is deleted, Wikipdia can't restore itself, because there wasn't a Wikipedia to restore in the first place! LL Tennis Dynamite 02:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, it's mirrored on so many other pages to make deleting only Wikipedia itself not enough to get rid of all the contributions. You'd have to target Answers.com and all the others as well. Still, The "Biggest Blog In History" thing yesterday did make me wonder how much of the current stuff on the internet will survive the next 50 years or so. Anything can happen really I suppose, the whole of MySpace may be deleted(!), everyone's webmail cleared, Wikipedia could go. It's not like anyone's going to break the internet in one swoop but individual sites could quite easily go. Let's just hope there are enough back ups and whatnot to stop this from happening. Jellypuzzle | Talk 08:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I read well the first post, we should be more worried about someone writing "blah blah blah" all over wkipedia (and all the mirrors, etc.) than of someone just deleting it. That would be awful. Is the NSA aware of that?--SidiLemine 11:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No image (well, you can say "duh")

Today's featured article has no image appropriate for the main page. What if we added a smaal image, about two lines tall of the featured article star, just for the appearence? --Alexignatiou 13:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's such tragedy; it's a court case after all, not a children's book hehe.--cloviz 13:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We could use the Australian coat of arms, much like coats of arms and flags are often used for ITN when no image is available. —Cuiviénen 13:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USA-Centric

I'd like to reinforce to US contributers and editors, that this is not just an American Encyclopedia, but an English language Encycopedia. If you are discussing such things as procedures, customs, laws, please remember to mention what country these facts are applicable to. Too often a link to a relavant piece of legislation or point of interest is USA information only, and should specify itself as such. or else the reader has no idea until the link is visited and has no bearing on the issue being researched for those people outside the US. Same for geographical locations. just writing 'Florida' is not enough, as mnay people may not know where Florida is. Yes its true, many Americans dont know where provinces/regions in other countrys are, dont presume the opposite is not true. you should say "Florida - United States etc" .

You forget, some Americans (I'm one too, so don't think i'm being Anti-America or that like) don't even know where some of the US States are... only 50% of students polled could find New York state on a map of the US, that's pathetic.

Generally it is bad form to continually define terms in article after article when a link can simply be used. If we had to define every state of the US and every province of Canada and every city in India, articles would be a mess. In a Wiki where you can simply click on something (or with Popups, mouseover!) to learn what it is, there is little need to define every last thing seen on the Wiki. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 21:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is just wrong. According to Wikipedia:The_perfect_article, the perfect article "is nearly self-contained; it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles". If you were reading an article about a subject that you were not familiar with, would you want to have to click on every single link to understand what the author was talking about? In fact, the general rule is to clearly give context the first time you mention something, and then use the shorter phrases in the rest of the article. For example: "Dilbert was born in 1935 in Randomville, New Mexico, USA. He went to school in Randomville, and later went to university in Smallville, Arizona, USA. At the age of 52, he moved to Paris, France, and became a French citizen in 1989." Or "Lee Harvey Oswald is said to have assassinated John F. Kennedy, the 35th President of the USA". Would you just link to JFK and not bother mentioning that he was President of the USA? Context is everything in good writing. Explain what is needed, and no more, but do not expect others to click on the link. They should be able to read the whole article and understand it without clicking on the links. Carcharoth 00:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, I guess, but it has to be simple and short. Long explanations are almost never needed, simply a short definition. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 16:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the location of Asmara is cleared in ITN; that of Manhattan in DYK is not, hehehe.--cloviz 23:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is also strange that people complain about not knowing where US cities are located, but have no concerns about South American (São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro in DYK) or Asian (Jerusalem in OTD). --72.251.13.40 23:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all this sounds like a joke indeed; but he was talking about minor cities I guess. There's some truth: some Americans believe that you are supposed to know where they are from by just reading two letters; while they would need you to tell them your continent to grasp where you are from. But, after all, I happen to know the states' postal abreviations...--cloviz 02:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you really wanted to treat everyone the same, you'd have to say "Paris, Ile-de-France, France", or "Randomville, USA". Mind it, I think that any city above 2 millions inhabitants should be known by everyone, and that a link is enough for those that don't know. For minor cities, include what's relevant. Does it matter that Dilbert was born in New Mexico? Probably not. It might be interesting that he went to Arizona, for various reasons. I guess it depends on context, as almost everything does.--SidiLemine 17:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point about place names is if I say Paris I by default mean Paris, France and not Paris, Texas, USA or one of the other places called Paris around the world, for a more minor place I would always specify where I mean the first time. Jaster 15:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Mind it, I think that any city above 2 millions inhabitants should be known by everyone".

No They are not known by everyone. This is why this in an encyclopedia, and not a guessing game. Please dont be so arrogant to think that the rest of the world knows all the major cities of the United States that have + 2 Million inhabitants. Ask many Americans where the likes of Manchester / Mumbai / Alexandria / Cape Town / Shanghai are and you will get an unknowing stare (Unless they are well read in the Wiki of course)

I suppose we can only blame it on US news broadcasters failing to see that news happens in other places other than the US Mainland

Best featured article EVER!

I think you know why I say that. NIRVANA2764 00:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed!! dposse 19:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia languages section

I think we need a link at the bottom of the page for the over +100,000 articles in a language. Octopus-Hands 09:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that each section is about equal in length. It makes little difference otherwise where the divides are. —Cuiviénen 16:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin, Please add this

Hey there, Can you please add this reference to the arabic wikipedia main page? ar:الصفحة الرئيسية..

Thanks --Lord Anubis 20:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above (Talk:Main Page#Interwikis revisted) reached the conclusion that only Wikipedias with more than 20,000 articles would be included. You can comment on it there. —Cuiviénen 01:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Quds Day

I find this entry on "On This Day" select anniversaries to be inappropriate. "Al-Quds Day" is not a religious or historical event, but a political one. Although a unique fact, I don't think it is fitting for a purpotedly unbiased Wikipedia to display this as it may violate WP:NPOV in several ways. Its like neo-Nazis parties calling for an "Adolf Hitler Day" and Wikipedia recognizing it as a legitimate anniversary. The specifically propaganda-based celebrations of ideological regimes are not legitimate anniversaries worthy of the mainpage. Rama's arrow 00:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus Day is also considered politically controversial because it celebrates the massacre of Native Americans by Europeans. We still acknowledge it to be a holiday, as it is celebrated in most of North America. Like it or not, the holiday is celebrated in Iran (and the event it commemorates is historical, though the attitude is not positive). "Adolf Hitler Day" would make it onto the Main Page if there was a country that celebrated it. We report the facts, including the unpleasant ones. —Cuiviénen 01:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What would be a POV is to judge the validity of anniversaries by the regime that suggested them. People in the world have different concepts of what is good and what is evil; here we just present facts. We don't even say that nazis are bad, that's an opinion. Perhaps you thought that having the anniversaries there was a way to celebrate it ourselves?--cloviz 01:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You'll find this day is international(International Day of Quds), if you look at google news. So why do you write "Al-Quds Day in Iran".--Sa.vakilian 05:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also I should say it isn't be limited to Muslims , it includes non-Muslims like Anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews. I guess only zionists oppose it.--Sa.vakilian 05:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because the Main Page used to link to the Al-Quds Day page. You should know this, Sa.vakilian, you merged that page into the International Day of Quds page. How 'international' is this observance? Not everyone is antisemitic like that. Not everyone listens to Ayatollah Khomeini, who created this 'political holiday'. If you really think "International Day of Quds" is a better term to use, try WP:ERRORS. --64.229.179.173 12:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jerusalem Day was at the same spot on the Main Page on that day. Why not Al-Quds Day today? --64.229.179.173 13:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To me the problem is that such mentions in the other sections may be pushing a POV with symbolism and subtlety - stuff like Columbus Day is about a particular moment in history when Columbus discovered the American continent. But "Al-Quds Day" is for those who believe in the view of "Israeli occupation." Its a political order of Khomeini, as opposed to a cultural observance of Muslims. Another key question is - does Wikipedia "equally" project the opposing POV, in order to balance it out? The article may do so, but what about just the mainpage? I don't know - I do feel its inappropriate to give such events "main page" prominence. Rama's arrow 15:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And trust me, I'm no fan of mild censorship. If the article on F*** becomes an FA, it can have its day on the mainpage. My sole point of concern is WP:NPOV. Rama's arrow 15:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You see, we're not endorsing the celebration. That does not stop the fact that it exists, and the article does indicate, with sources, that it is a day of some significance in Iran, even if government-enforced. Is there an Israeli "Return" day, or something similar? I would not be surprised that, if there is, we have that at OTD when it occurs. —Cuiviénen 00:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what's your concept of NPOV, Arrow. As far as I know, considering anti-Semitism bad is a point of view. You suggest that we judge the holidays by the person that created them and her intentions? "This one was proposed by a guy we consider evil, therefore it's not valid"; that doesn't sound NPOV to me. In my opinion if a celebration is suggested by the devil himself and many people follow it, then it deserves mention.--cloviz 01:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What the clovized-hoofed one said. ;) The idea that if you recognise something you support it, is just as problematic as not recognising it. At Wikipedia we have to try to present the readers with just the facts so they can make up their own minds, no matter what our personal opinions are. --Monotonehell 04:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Israeli occupation is a view, and, as much as I'd prefer to be able to say otherwise, a valid view. If someone wanted to say that this or any other holiday was inappropriate because it's about anger, violence, and hate, that I could support. --Badger151 06:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Israeli occupation is not a view, that's a fact, you can verify that Israelies do indeed occupy that area. The view is whether said occupation is right or wrong. If certain peoples observe a partcular day, that's a fact, the view is whether that observence is inappropriate or not. Just the facts please. --Monotonehell 10:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the key word was 'occupation'. Another POV is that west bank and gaza strip are Israeli territories occupied by arabs. Another POV is that there are no Israelis, that Israel doesn't exist and cannot occupy anything. TRWBW 12:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hrmz, true, but "occupation" can have two different meanings in this context. Occupation as in currently possesing a place, or a military occupation of invasion and control. Perhaps we need a more specific word that can't be interpreted as POV? --Monotonehell 12:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what my earlier post might have implied, I have no problem with using the terms Israel or Occupied Territories or whatever. There are no terms that are going to make everyone happy, and the the point of wikipedia isn't to decide who is right or wrong, but to explain the conflict. The best way to do that is to not worry about this name or that but express, in whatever language, what's going on. Unfortunately, in my experience, on controversial subjects the wikipedia model breaks down. People with agenda eventually exhaust people who want the articles to be NPOV. But props to those out there fighting the good fight. TRWBW 13:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon - I should have been clearer. Yes, Israel occupies land in that it exists on that land. I took that as given. The validity of Israel itself is debated, as is the validity and nature of its occupying the land that it now occupies; this is what I meant to refer to. I hope that this has not distracted people form my main point, which was that I have a problem with basing the appropriateness of a holiday on who celebrates it, but have no problem in finding holidays which are based on anger, hate, and/or violence to be inappropriate.--Badger151 07:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should try to decide if a holiday is appropriate or inappropriate. Hitler's Birthday is celebrated around the world, by people I don't like and for reasons that offend me. But I think the fact that it is celebrated is enough to justify mentioning it, and to stick to a balanced approach that both expresses the beliefs of those who celebrate it and those who are disgusted by it. TRWBW 00:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple English Wikipedia

I think we should mention the simple english version of wikipedia at the top of the main page, why?

Well, not only does it need ALOT of work, but i think it should be for children or people who find wikipedia, to difficult to read. what do you think?

I think it should say something like: "Wikipedia too difficult to read? Then go to the Simple English wikipedia".

Pece Kocovski 07:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that insulting our users is good. "Wikipedia too difficult to read" indeed. 80.41.221.252 09:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can not countenance any belief that Wikipedia's verbosity in lexicon excels the comprehension of the proletariat. --Monotonehell 10:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I request that you utilize preciseness of language. I do not comprehend what is meant by your mentioning of others' ability or lack thereof being "excelled" by the lexicon that is ubiquitous in Wikipedia. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I forgot to use the sarcasm mark^ ;) --Monotonehell 04:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay. It should be obvious. But shouldn't "can not" be "cannot"? --65.95.152.231 18:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Pece in principle, but not the part about making it so prominent on Main Page. Most articles in English Wikipedia do not have a counterpart in Simple English Wikipedia. Making the interwiki to Simple English Wikipedia more prominent in the individual articles in English Wikipedia may be a simpler way to do this. Right now, the interwiki in the regular English Wikipedia to the Simple English Wikipedia appears as "Simple English" along with the rest of the interwikis. Maybe we can replace this by an italicised line at the top of the article in the regular English Wikipedia, with a link to the article in Simple English Wikipedia, in a format similar to the line used for disambiguation. -- 64.229.177.64 13:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. Not even if the Simple English Wikipedia were more than what it is currently: a hopeless collection of vandalized stubs. It's truly one of the absolute worst editions of Wikipedia. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 14:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather see the Simple English edition of Wikipedia closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.33.40 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's some merit in that, possibly instead the lead paragraphs of all en.wp articles should be in "simple" english, covering the material in the article breifly. --Monotonehell 04:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now there's a sensible idea. Bazza 11:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think that's brilliant, particulalry since the lead paragraph is supposed to be an encapsulation of the article, boiling it down to its essence. It may turn out to be labour intensive in the short run, as we'd have to review the header paragraph of each article, but I don't think that's something to hold against it. --Badger151 17:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me? Sensible? What? ;) --Monotonehell 12:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simple will hopefully explode in usage with the arrival of single-login. -Quiddity 01:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to put my money on the arrival of non-condescending articles that don't sound like they were written for children. -Elmer Clark 02:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ITN

Perhaps "Latin America and the Caribbean" shouldn't link to Subregions of the Americas, but to Latin America and Caribbean. --Descendall 01:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that a link that pops up two windows? I don't know if wikipedia has the technology for that. TRWBW 02:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He suggests to split the link I guess: Latin America and the Caribbean. But that's only one thing for the UN in this case.--cloviz 02:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Split? What is this split of which you speak? TRWBW 07:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I showed you; to change it into two different links. It's just how I interpret his suggestion.--cloviz 12:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I meant. --Descendall 17:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

This is galling! Remove restricted access to Special:Statistics for all link on that page. Especially this one Detailed tables and charts of Wikipedia statistics. Thank you. --193.77.234.248 08:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be fooled, the server error doesn't mean what it sounds like. As far as I can tell the entire stats server is offline. Must be some maintainence or a large problem with the Kennisnet Cluster, but I don't have anything to do with it so I can't shed any light on the problem. Either way exclaiing on thispage won't help. This is a meta.wikimedia.org issue. I guess we must simply wait until the tech guys sort it out. --Monotonehell 11:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the Content.

The kind of 'Todays Article' we see on the page on a daily basis can actually have a category and by choosing our preferences (i.e. for the users ) if can choose which kind of article they should be choosing..It will be gud

You can do this by choosing to enter Wikipedia through one of the Portals, which choose their own selected articles. Some update these choices more often than others, though. Alternatively, you can keep Wikipedia:Featured articles bookmarked and simply read through one featured article of your own choosing every day. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Main Page discussion footer

The CSS absolute positioning doesn't seem to be working as expected - it's overlapping other parts of the header on Safari. Any bright ideas?

I'm not in front of an apple right now so I can only guess but how about now? ;) --Monotonehell 03:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No change. I just checked while logged out, though, and it actually showed up correctly - it looks as though this depends on some property of Monobook which isn't present in Cologne Blue, not something browser-specific. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I get the same problem when I look at it in Cologne Blue in Firefox. The template positions at the bottom of the first visible screen (round about the top of the archive box on my monitor) rather than at the bottom of the page. --Cherry blossom tree 12:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with userpage.

Could someone tell me how to set up one of those neat things that hold all your userboxes and information? thanks. Zazaban 05:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Find a user page you like, and study the layout, coding and templates they use. Then ask them if they mind if you copy the layout. Any other questions, please ask at Wikipedia:Help Desk. Carcharoth 11:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Yea, it's me again. How do I archive a page? Zazaban 05:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. If you are unsure about this, please ask this, and any other questions, at Wikipedia:Help Desk. Carcharoth 11:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On this day - Chechen Rebels Discrepency

--129.234.4.1 13:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The caption on the main page says that 'approximately 700' were taken hostage whereas the main article states that over 900 were taken hostage. It may be that I am missing something as I haven't read the whole article but were there more hostages added to the list after the seige started or are one of these numbers wrong? Any information would be appreciated. 129.234.4.1 13:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To report typos like that, try WP:ERRORS. --64.229.5.188 21:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mole Day!

It's mole day! Couldn't this be added the "selected anniversaries?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smaerd (talk • contribs) .

To report possible omissions like that, try WP:ERRORS. --64.229.5.188 21:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This might have been "deselected" this year. There are already several more prominent holidays listed. --64.229.5.188 21:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Column widths

I agree with Mets501. That did look unbalanced, and the text in the right-hand column wrapped too much.

Furthermore, Blnguyen's rationale ("ITN and on this day are always short these days") simply isn't true. On this day... contains a uniform number of entries, and the length of In the news is frequently adjusted to accommodate the varying lengths of the left-hand features. —David Levy 01:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look unbalanced? View the codes. The left column is indeed percentage points wider than the right, giving TFA and DYK more space. BTW, what did Mets501 and Blnguyen say? ITN is never short. Old news gets trimmed when a TFA is short. If the following day's FA is long, it makes ITN look short. --64.229.230.15 12:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look unbalanced? View the codes. The left column is indeed percentage points wider than the right, giving TFA and DYK more space.
Blnguyen changed the ratio to make the difference greater. Mets501 reverted.
BTW, what did Mets501 and Blnguyen say?
Please see the revision history.
ITN is never short. Old news gets trimmed when a TFA is short. If the following day's FA is long, it makes ITN look short.
Yes, I know. As I said, Blnguyen's rationale was incorrect. —David Levy 14:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All in edit summaries? I see. And I thought some sophisticated vandals had removed some earlier messages from this talkpage. Okay. Thanks. --64.229.205.88 13:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have been more specific in the first place. —David Levy 21:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's alright. Come to think of it, I should be able to figure that out on my own eventually. --64.229.229.184 16:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: add one or more of these links to the main page

Are any of these pages ready to be linked from the Main Page?


Besides portals and categories that is, 'cuz they are already there. The Contents page seems especially appropriate.  The Transhumanist   21:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gfi good to see that you're still here. Thought that we might have lost you but you're still here and being your bold self I see.
I'm not sure where the best place is to gather comments about your proposal to add the Template:Contents pages (header bar) but I gues this is as good a place as any. I do like your partitions but I'm not sure about how to fit it in on the MP. I guess that's why you're here. BTW - that's quite a personality shift with your username, I'm sure there's a long and good rationale for it and we want to wish you well. --hydnjo talk 02:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he intends that the bar be added to the main page, just one/some of the links.
That's where it gets complicated. The "featured contents" link is going to be part of the sidebar in place of the "featured articles" link (as part of the Sidebar redesign, whenever that's completed). We could remove it's link from the Main Page, and add a link to Wikipedia:Contents instead (perhaps before the categories link).
But we still don't really know what the final link selection of the sidebar will be. I've suggested that perhaps instead of linking the Portals and Categories in the sidebar (as in the redesign draft linked above), we could just use a link to the Wikipedia:Contents page, like this: User:Quiddity/sandbox2. (Whereas Transhumanist was advocating adding all the links, more like this: Version 19.)
Oh, and Transhumanist's name rationale is answered at User talk:The Transhumanist#Adminship aspirations. ;) --Quiddity 22:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Quiddity. As a further note, I'm going to look into getting my accounts consolidated, to see if it's possible. Back to the issue of links, as David Levy has pointed out previously, the inclusion of links on the Main Page is independent of their inclusion on the sidebar. But any links added now can be removed later if it is felt that duplication with the sidebar is undesirable. And since the sidebar upgrade may be a long ways away (the programming tasks required have been delayed indefinitely), in the meantime it makes sense to add to the Main Page whichever links are deemed worthy of being placed there.  The Transhumanist   01:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed Template:HelpTOC had Portals, Categories, Featured content and A-Z index in the "Navigation" section, so I added Contents. I would do the same for the Main Page. Add Contents as the first item on the top right side "navigation" row below the portals group. I wouldn't add or remove anything else. Multiple entry points down the "navigation tree" is fine. Down the road, I would add Contents to the sidebar as well, without removing it from the Main Page. They reinforce each other, especially for new readers. Rfrisbietalk 15:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that all sounds good to me. I'd agree with adding Contents to the Main Page, just before the Categories link.
I've proposed at MediaWiki talk:Sidebar that we update to the featured content link. Perhaps leave it at that for a few days... -Quiddity 03:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We've used up the available space at the 800x600 resolution (with default display settings). To add a new link, we need to remove an existing link. Searching (which I just added to the search result page) seems like the most obvious candidate. Any thoughts? —David Levy 04:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Rfrisbietalk 04:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Squares on Main Page

Recently, I've seen more and more square images on the Main Page. Is this a new standard? I like this. The page looks more neat and tidy. How come DYK is exempt? Let's be consistent throughout the Main Page. --64.229.229.184 16:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've long restricted most images to a width of 100px (in part to prevent excessive wrapping at lower resolutions and higher text sizes). With some exceptions (particularly for Today's featured article, which presents the fewest image options), we recently began restricting the height to 100px as well (to display portrait images at approximately the same size as landscape images).
When images need to be cropped to display clearly as thumbnails, we often match the height and width. This enables the images to be displayed at 100x100px (the maximum size). Image from Did you know... are cropped less frequently than images from the other section, so they're less likely to appear in the square shape. —David Levy 16:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps DYK should do more cropping. Often it's very difficult to see what is in the picture when the image is displayed at 100px, especially when old paintings of battle scenes are used, e.g. from yesterday. A square thumbnail showing the commander riding his horse and giving out directions to his soldiers would be a better illustration to use on DYK than this 100px patchy brown rectangle. -- 64.229.178.74 20:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, more cropping would help. The images from Did you know tend to receive less attention because they're changed frequently and on relatively short notice. The images from Today's featured article and On this day... are selected far in advance, and the images from In the news often remain in place for extended periods (due to the unavailability of free images pertaining to emerging news). —David Levy 01:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a template, {{M-cropped}}, for images cropped specifically for use on the Main Page. The image of the Panama Canal that was up on ITN for a couple days was cropped by PFHLai, which I think was a vast improvement on the original. - BanyanTree 04:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just keeping all four pictures on the Main Page (POTD not included) as squares with the same dimensions makes the Main Page appear more neat and tidy. That's good, too! -- 64.229.206.100 13:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But then, there are always exceptions, and there are 2 on the Main Page right now. It would be difficult to crop the rocket picture on OTD now, and it works well at 70x210px. The background-less image of the cassette tape, allowing the tape to appear at its actual shape, works well, too. Such exceptions aside, please consider making all 4 images on the Main Page 100x100px squares. The Main Page will appear more neat and tidy. Thanks. --64.229.229.195 14:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see what's on the DYK pic again. Can we have (at 100px, will clearly show a ship if the right side is cropped off, making a square) from the same article, instead of , please? --64.229.229.195 14:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you upload such a cropped picture, tagged with {{M-cropped}}, and tell someone at WP:ERRORS, I'm sure someone would be happy to add it. - BanyanTree 15:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, but anons like me cannot upload images. I'm posting here to encourage the use of cropped square images. I can only say I like what I saw in the past few days and would like to see that more often. I can't do the cropping nor the uploading myself. -- 64.229.177.159 21:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The suggested image appears not to depict the DYN blurb's subject. —David Levy 16:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant . (different copies of the same picture) After reading the article again, I wonder if they are the same people who used that trade route.... Never mind, then. -- 64.229.177.159 21:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Statistics

"Pages about Wikipedia" as one of the types of pages excluded from the article count is ambiguous. Of course, the average reader would probably interpret it as meaning any article in the Wikipedia namespace, but Wikipedia contains encyclopedic information while being about Wikipedia! I realise, of course, that special pages cannot be edited; just pointing this out. Littleghostboo[ talk ] 08:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, where on the Main Page is this? I can't find it. --64.229.177.159 21:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the News

The Afghan army logo is floating up to a story unrelated to it; but since it could be a corporate logo, this is not obvious. Time to find a new logo: doesn't the bank (now the lead story) have one? JCScaliger 12:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bank's logo has copyright; we can't put it in the main page.--cloviz 12:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Flag of Nicaragua would work, too. That headline about abortions and elections in Nicaragua is just beneath the image. -- 64.229.206.100 12:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could we either move the news bullet about the Afghan Army to the top of the list or have the picture lower in the list where the relevent bullet is? Koweja 13:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of moving things around, i suggest using smaller fonts for "(pictured)" to make this slightly more eye-catching. --64.229.229.195 14:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the link to Arabic wikipedia in the main page at the bottom under the title more than 10 000 articles?

--62.139.172.43 20:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entire 10k+ line is gone, not just the link to Arabic Wikipedia. --64.229.177.159 20:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relevancy of world series

Who cares about the "world series" baseball competition? That's not even close to being important enough for the main page. It's not really a global competition anyway because all the teams are from USA. It's really only a national competition. Even if it were a genuine "world" series, that's still not important enough to be on the main page. Maybe you stupid Americans don't realise it, but baseball is actually unpopular. A minority enjoys watching baseball in Japan and South Korea, but apart from that, baseball's support is limited to USA. An encyclopaedia should be too intellectual to tell people the latest sporting results unless it's the Olympic Games or the World Cup Soccer, which most people really do care about. I'm sure many people who read that news on the main page have never heard about whatever team won and will never care. You arrogant Americans should stop falsely assuming that the rest of the people in the world are like you.

Huey45 08:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=84204319"