This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 115

←

Archive 120

Archive 121

Archive 122

Archive 123

Archive 124

Archive 125

Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive.

001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207

The Today's featured picture section is a little narrower than the rest of the sections. Who can fix this please? ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 20:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me (latest Firefox, 17" LCD, 1280×1024). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, too. Could you perhaps show us what your alternative is in the userspace, or something? J Milburn (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe he/she's referring to this Image:En.wikipedia.org.Main Page.showing FP issue.2008.04.08.png‎ which occurs in IE7 (but not FireFox 2). To be honest, I don't think I would have noticed this before, so I have no idea how long it's been like that. Nil Einne (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Copied to Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely the template or some right and left margins set on it, not the particular daily picture itself. I've tested it with IE 6 and 7 and it still shows the problem in both. And, yes, I mean the issue pictured in the link provided by Nil Einne. The featured picture section is narrower than the rest of the content. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 13:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I found what the problem is. It can be viewed from different angles. It's either that the featured picture section is narrower, or that the featured articles, did you know, news, and on this day are too wide. I would say the latter. This is the code that is currently being used:

-------------------------Today's featured article, Did you know------------------------>
{|style="border-spacing:8px; margin:0px -8px;"
|class="MainPageBG" style="width:55%; border:1px solid #cef2e0; background:#f5fffa; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"|
{|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5fffa;"
...

Notice the

{|style="border-spacing:8px; margin:0px -8px;"

instead of

{|style="border-spacing:8px; margin:0px 0px;"

That makes the upper section wider. You could either edit it to be 0px, which I suggest, or changing the featured picture's section to be -8px instead of 0px. The last option would make the featured content to be wider (4px to each side) than the rest of the content. The result can be viewed in my Main Page sandbox.

There you have it. The dirty work is done. Someone please fix it? ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 13:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, I think you need to test that more since it's now screwed up in FireFox 2 (as I mentioned, it's normally fine in FireFox). I don't think this solution would be acceptable, especially since I will have to say your version in FireFox looks worse then the current version in IE. Either you'd have to make it work in FireFox and IE or do something so IE does uses one version and FireFox the other (if this is possible). Nil Einne (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

N.B. It appears the problem originates from the fact that FireFox has white space between the two columns whereas IE does not Nil Einne (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2) Your fix causes the reverse issue in Firefox 2.0.0.13. APL (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I nailed it for both Firefox and IE. Please check it out and let me know. If you find it good enough please fix the Main Page! ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 20:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I also made a version for tomorrow's page available here. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 20:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Works here on firefox 2.0.0.13 APL (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Implemented on Main Page now. Perhaps you'd also like to tackle the problem of the right edge not going all the way to the right margin when the caption is too short (as is the case with today's FP)? howcheng {chat} 21:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that I'm home I'm able to check more browsers. I noticed the spacing between the green section was narrower than the space between the green and purple sections. I made better versions for the Main Page - here and Main Page/Tomorrow - here. I guess today's doesn't matter too much anymore, but tomorrow's does. Admins please update as desired. The right caption problem must be addressed in the templates. I'll try to see what I can do. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 22:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the good work. BTW, it sounds like your still not aware, today's code and tomorrows code does matter since it's always the same code. We don't create new main pages every day, the server simply chooses what's shown automatically based on the day. The only thing we do have is seperate daily templates for certain things like TFA Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 11, 2008 but these don't use much code. Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I realize they are templates with transclusions of content that is updated somewhere else. Tomorrow's page has (everything)+1day though. So it's not exactly the same code. But the templates definitely are. I just made the two pages (with their respective transclusion variables) so that it is easier for the admins to just copy and past the code in the corresponding pages. If you go check the pages I made, you will note that they are automatically updated with today's and tomorrow's content too. I just wanted to straighten the templates out for as many different browsers as possible. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 13:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was that the same code is used every day. It sounded to me like you were still under the impression we re-code the page every day (since you said 'I guess today's doesn't matter too much anymore'), which we don't so I just wanted to clear that up, but perhaps I was mistaken... BTW, if you're going to continue to work on improvements, you may also want to remember Wikipedia:Main Page/Yesterday. While I'm sure it'll be easy for most admins to transfer your code to the yesterday version, it'll probably be easier if you just give the code for all Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I said "I guess today's doesn't matter too much anymore" because they had already fixed the code somewhat and didn't look too bad compared to the "yesterday" page. Not because the day was almost over. I've seen different main page code somewhere else (some kind of queue) from which some editors copy and paste into the Main Page code. It seems someone already updated the yesterday template. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 23:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In the first item, the sentence reads, "...a main shopping street Cyprus' divided capital of Nicosia."

In any dictionary you care to reference, whether it's the O.E.D. or Webster's, the rule dealing with the formation of the possessive in English states "add an apostrophe and the letter 's' to singular nouns and names". A few exceptions are commonly made for Biblical and mythological names (Jesus' or Zeus'), but the vast majority of words in English should be handled accordingly. This rule reflects the way the genitive case in English changed between the time of Chaucer and Shakespeare (Chaucer's 'my lordes warre' became 'my lord's war'), and the way most people pronounce the possessive even today.

I realise that a so-called 'convention' has crept into the copy-editing protocols of many publications that eliminates the final 's' for the possessive of singular nouns ending in 's'. This lunacy has infected even such august rags as Time Magazine and The Wall Street Journal. To me, the lone apostrophe just doesn't 'read' correctly, because it doesn't reflect how one actually says the word in question!

All I can say is: there's no justification for the perpetuation of ignorance, whatever the source. If all the periodicals in the English-speaking world were to adopt this bogus practice (and I'm happy to say, not all of them have), it still doesn't make it right. Cbrodersen (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wanna have something changed? See #Main Page error reports above. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! Spot on! Darn the torpedos and full steam ahead!!! I for one agree that this linguistically cognitive crap consists of nothing but communication conundrums and should be corrected. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"Linguistically cognitive crap consisting of nothing but communication conundrums" that should be "corrected"--unbridled alliteration at its finest! Love it!! Cbrodersen (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Cbroderson and 68.143.88.2, my new heroes! May the 's always be used! I already requested a change, but someone ignorant in punctuation said either way is acceptable. Reywas92^Talk 19:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If the manual of style says it's okay then it's okay. Either reach consensus to change the manual of style (which should take place there not here), or accept that it is okay. We are not going to fix an 'error' when our own manual of style says it's not an error. The MOS is there for a reason and that reason isn't so it can be arbirarily ignored Nil Einne (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you're correct--this talk page is not the place to make the correction. But the MOS is flat-out wrong, and I believe the history of English grammar (and the dictionaries) are the irrefutable authorities on the matter. It should be noted that Wikipedia contains many far more serious errors than this waiting to be fixed. Most people don't give a rat's ass about grammar, and when confronted with their mistake, will defend their error to the death, or accuse the person who pointed out the mistake of being an 'anal-retentive pedant'. Cbrodersen (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have no personal opinion on this 'error' except to note the MOS doesn't agree with you it is an error. If you were to try to change the MOS, I probably wouldn't be involved in that. As you have already acknowledged, this is not the place to change the MOS and if the MOS is flat out wrong, then it has to be changed. Adhoc changing 'errors' resulting from a flawed MOS is clearly not the way to go and having long arguments on irrelevant places which will achieve nothing, whenever this comes up, is also pointless. Since you seem to be a bit of an expert on this matter, I don't personally get why you don't just try to reach consensus to change the MOS. If you do, then it will be simple to fix this error in the future and ultimately this error will be removed from the whole of wikipedia over time. If you try but fail, then you just have to accept that despite your opinion, there is no consensus for your views of English grammar in this particular matter. Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"This rule reflects the way the genitive case in English changed between the time of Chaucer and Shakespeare (Chaucer's 'my lordes warre' became 'my lord's war')"... "If everyone were to adopt this bogus practice... it still doesn't make it right."

So which one is it? English is allowed to change or it isn't? Maybe it should be "Cypruses". ;) Cigarette (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You're basically talking through your hat. Dictionaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster's are the authorities governing grammar and usage in English (despite what the MOS may say). Currently, the primary rule for the formation of the possessive in both these reference works is as I have stated above--there are no 'changes' underfoot that I am aware of, unless one feels that the preponderance of errors made by illiterate, uneducated users of English on the Internet and elsewhere is justification for making a 'change'.

I, for one, feel that if these grammatical dunces can't get with the program, then they should just 'get out of the way'. There are a lot more pressing problems in the world to solve, and I've already expended more energy on this subject than I care to.Cbrodersen (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You are arguing, in essence, for prescription over description, and toward the proposition that certain long-standing grammatical rules, at least as codified by two chosen (although prominent) reference works, are immutable. One may very reasonably so argue—I, in fact, was once exceedingly sympathetic to the argument you advance—but it is the consensus of the community that our MoS properly reflects what the community, in their considered judgment, understand to be "proper English", and one, even if he/she is unquestionably correct, does well to quibble with that understanding at WT:MOS (or perhaps WP:RD/L) and not at an insular page. Joe (I can has barnstar?) 22:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather then accusing people of being 'grammatical dunces' who can't 'get with the program' and giving long off-topic arguments here, I suggest again you take it to the MOS. So far, from what I can tell, no one has defended the way the MOS is written in this particular matter, simply pointed out that it is the way it is written, so you are basically arguing with no one. If you had diverted your energy wasted here to actually trying to change the MOS, for all we know it might have been changed by now. Or perhaps not... At least you would have achieved more then going on a long off-topic rant about an issue no one has tried to debate with you Nil Einne (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If you see here - http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50010512?query_type=word&queryword=apostrophe&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=2&search_id=SHad-jOMw2B-17911&hilite=50010512 (you need a subscription, however the contents of the web page should be available in any full OED under the second sense of apostrophe), you will see that Moses' uses only an apostrophe. It is widely accepted that Greco-Roman names of people and places of historical notability ending in 's' use a single hanging apostrophe: Socrates', Jesus', Cyprus', Zeus'. I really take exception to the fact that you've hidden behind the OED to make yourself look all-knowing, when in fact you are wrong. Joy.discovery.invention (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe this punctuation issue can drag on for so long. The blurb on ITN now says "...Nicosia, the divided capital of Cyprus", hopefully avoiding the punctuation issue completely. I hope everyone is happy and can get back to writing encyclopedic articles (and more DYK candidates to nominate....) --PFHLai (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should all check the OED more often on other topics, too, such as the pronunciation guide for "aluminium", and you'll see how wrong Americans have been saying it all these years..... With respect to the usage of the 's termination, may I point out that it is a general rule, and, as such, is affected by a number of exceptions. Again, if you check either OED or Collins Dictionary in their entirety, maybe you'll get to see that, in fact, nouns ended in s only need to have an apostrophe added in order to denote posession, and only in the case of persons' names can an "s" be, optionally, added after the punctuation sign. So, enough of gratuitously insulting the rest of us, thank you very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.37.39.161 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We respect many local variations of English in English Wikipedia. The use of American English is okay here. --74.13.130.186 (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• So it's okay for language to evolve as long as it's not happening right before our eyes? The changes in the genitive case between Middle English and Modern is okay, but Modern English has to remain static? Where is that written? -- Qaddosh|^talk|contribs 22:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Written? Actually, the development of printing stabilized things. Dictionaries and grammar textbooks are cheap. Read them. ... Mind you, languages are still changing before our eyes. Only stable "intermediates" should be used, or too many new things that don't last will get people confused. --74.14.16.227 (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Printed dictionaries are far from cheap. If I wanted to buy an English dictionary (a full one, not some pocket sized) I'd pay between 600 CZK and 1100 CZK. That's about the price of two or three hard cover novels.
Grammar textbook of my native language could be at an affordable price (some 300 CZK), but an English one will be double of that.
That of course doesn't mean that English dictionaries and grammar textbooks are unavailable-they can be borrowed from libraries or read on-line. Puchiko (Talk-email) 10:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we ever have featured sounds or video? I know this isn't Commons, but isn't it a bit biased just to have pictures? We could call it 'featured media' instead and have the occasional audio or even video file. We could also just have a featured audio/video as well as an image (perhaps only every few days or so).

The only objection I can imagine is that images can be viewed from the main page whereas audio cannot, and the OGG file is much less accessible to most people. I would counter that it would raise awareness about the non 2D-visual-only forms of media and get more people downloading the OGG patch. If enough people want to listen to our audio we might even see the major media players start making it a standard. Richard001 (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, media other than pictures is much harder to evaluate. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 01:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're interested in starting a Featured Media page, then be bold and start one. Once you get some good clips selected, then come back here and suggest that we add it to the front page. Lovelac7 02:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're looking forPortal:Featured_content. To avoid clutter, and to avoid detracting from articles, not all types of 'Featured' stuff makes the main page. (Though what should go on the main page and what shouldn't, has certainly been debated before.) APL (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) We do, in fact, have featured sounds, although at present only 14, of which 10 were featured in the three months following FS's implementation. We don't, if we elect not to use sounds that are featured at Commons only (or at least those featured at Commons that did not originate here), seem to have enough FS to permit any useful sort of rotation, but I don't know that there'd be any grand objection to the inclusion of a "featured sounds" section had we enough material with which to work (the proposal to add a "featured list" section encountered some significant opposition, but that, AFAIK, was due mainly to the section's probable intrusiveness). We generally do permit video files or animations to be featured as pictures, and a good many have appeared on the main page. To be sure, though, we might marry our featured videos/animations with our featured sounds to create "featured media", but the frequency of addition of "featured media" still might be insufficient to permit the daily changing of the item without repetition. In the absence of logistical issues, though, the idea would, IMHO, be a fine one, and one might do well to create a proposal if there is some support for the idea in the abstract. Joe 03:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't featured sounds have similar issues to featured lists, in particular it's almost impossible to summarise a featured sound? Unlike with a feature picture or video where you can put a thumbnail. Nil Einne (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. Personally I won't object to TFP being expanded to TFM covering all media. However in the absence of simple alternative I would suggest we keep the current system going largely by order of promotion without any special consideration given to sounds Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember several videos that have appeared as FPs. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 11:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Links to these portals to other featured content can also be added to the purple section in the main page with a link, something like: Other featured media..., or something. I'm pretty comfortable with having only featured pictures on the main page though. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 13:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

we've had least one featured video there. Just don't have many featured videos so it doesn't happen very often.Geni 13:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There are currently 7 featured videos in the queue for POTD. I might as well point to my recent Signpost piece (the FP and FS sections are the relevant bits). MER-C 12:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious the torch relay is going to be disrupted everywhere it goes so maybe the locations should be dropped altogether in the line. Simply south (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The item is soon going to disappear so it's somewhat moot. But you are mistaken, I suggest you check out the linked article. The torch was not disrupted much in (of course China), Kazakhstan, Turkey and Russia (some protests in both, most of who were arrested apparently but minimal disruption). There were protests, but minimal disruptions in Buenos Aeres and few protests or disruptions in Tanzania from what I can tell. That is why we don't mention any of these in the blurb. If you want to discuss this further, I suggest WT:ITN Nil Einne (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This just in: Silvio Berlusconi's won a third term in the Italian general elections. I'll be adding this snippet right now.--Alasdair 20:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be discussed at WP:ITN/C instead of here? --199.71.174.100 (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey is it just my computer but sometimes, in the search box, the line has a small horizontal bar extending to the right of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainboqer (talk • contribs) 23:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved to WP:VPT#misc. ffm 00:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently using Firefox 3 Beta 5 and it is almost impossible to click the Persian language link on the bottom of the main page in the Wikipedia languages section (More than 20,000 articles). The text uncontrollably shifts left and right with the rapid switching of the positions of Norsk and Persian. This is likely a problem with the right to left reading of Persian and some weird problem that I believe only applies to Firefox 3 Beta 5 since Internet Explorer and Firefox 2 allow clicking of Persian. 128.227.143.178 (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. I'm using 3.0pre from April 11th. nneonneo ^talk 16:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Works fine here to, and I'm on 3b5 too. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 19:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, it's a known problem of Firefox 3 Beta 5. Don't know why you don't have the problem. 128.227.104.129 (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We're not experiencing the issue because it says the issue is fixed on that page, are you sure your on Beta 5? ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 19:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely on Firefox 3 Beta 5 with last update dated April 2. Clicking on update Firefox indicates that I have there is no update. Also should note that the line above it with the Hebrew language is also impossible to click for me. Also I am not the only one running Beta 5 that has this prolem. 128.227.104.129 (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

2 and the bug discussion seem to suggest this bug wasn't fixed in the b5 release Nil Einne (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Does it strike anyone as a bit odd that on the anniversary of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the assassin--not Abe Lincoln--is pictured? I realise that most visitors to the Main Page will be more familiar with Lincoln's image than Boothe's, but this makes it look like Wikipedia supports the assassination. Webbbbbbber (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Support????? That's stretching quite a bit. --74.13.125.50 (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So putting Abe's picture would mean Wikipedia supports his death then? Sounds like nonsense to me. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 03:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, quite the opposite: Putting Boothe's picture supports Lincoln's death, if you want to view it in simple terms. See below for more discussion. Webbbbbbber (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Boothe was just as important to the event as Lincon, and Wikipedia isn't censored. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 03:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I'm surprised that there is so much objection to my comment. In general, I have found that on anniversaries of assassinations, more space (including, but not limited to, images) is given to the person assassinated. For example, on the anniversaries of the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK, their photos will be featured more prominently than those of Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, or James Earl Ray. This is not because of censorship, but because people prefer to remember the acts of the assassinated to those of the assassin, at least in general.

It's easy to imagine someone who, on the anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination prefers to gaze upon the image of James Earl Ray, than that of Martin Luther King, Jr.; but most publications I encountered featured MLK's images far more prominently than JER's. Again, I don't think most people would construe this as censorship, but you do have me wondering if Wikipedia featured James Earl Ray's photo, and not Martin Luther King's on April Fourth. Webbbbbbber (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does it matter? We're not "supporting" anyone here, just providing encyclopedic information. Both figures are very relevant to the event in question (as would be a picture of Ford's Theater or something), so it's perfectly appropriate to show either, regardless of which is "more often featured." -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems somewhat moot now that the picture has been removed. In any case, as Elmer Clark says, the picture is primarily intented for informational purposes, wikipedia is not a WP:memorial after all so who or what people prefer to gaze over or remember seems somewhat irrelevant. The most noteable days connected with rememberance of people who are assasinated tend to be their birthdays anyway Nil Einne (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Kind of ironic that Booth actually wanted to be remember as a Hero for the South: maybe this was a belated compromise? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The sheer cluelessness of this comment is unbelievable. I can't believe we actually changed the Main Page because someone said that a picture of John Wilkes Booth means that we support the assassination of Lincoln, and are likely to favor James Earl Ray over Martin Luther King Jr. Since when did we start pandering to commentators who call us racists? Webbbbbbber, why aren't you expressing your outrage that the replacement picture of Edward IV relating to the Wars of the Roses is a gross example of Wikipedia's obvious hatred for the House of Lancaster? Sheesh. - BanyanTree 09:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well Zz didn't give a reason for the change. Maybe it was to avoid further discussion on this (which unfortunately failed), maybe it was because the JWB image had been around for a while (at least 2 years) and was due for a change anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You have to link to sarcasm when you do that, Nil Einne, I've found, or else people get confused. You could have done this: maybe it was because the JWB image had been around for a while (at least 2 years) and was due for a change anyway. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 21:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I was more thinking of "we have a image that finally aligned next to the relevant entry". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping to conclusions, Zzyzx11. My outrage got the better of me. - BanyanTree 01:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't link to sarcasm, and I wouldn't have, because no sarcasm had been intended. The image had indeed been on the OTD entry for two years. I didn't look further so maybe it had been longer. I don't spend much time on OTD so I'm not sure but I would presume it's reasonable to turn over images every one in a while but on the other hand, it isn't essential either (since they only appear every year). And I genuinely had no idea why Zzy removed the image (as the above discussion shows, I was wrong) so I was genuinely uncertain as to why this image was changed. So my comment was intended to convey the fact that there are multiple reasons why this may have been changed, and it was pointless to jump to conclusions as to the reason without asking zzy first. Nil Einne (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there some one person that had the main influence on the design on this main page. I'm asking because I'm trying to find someone that wants to design a new homepage for en.wikiquote. --Steinninn 23:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

me.--24.109.218.172 (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The current design of the main page is based on the discussion archived on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I found something wrong in "In the news" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.135.244 (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Report that mistake to WP:ERRORS asap and suggest changes there, please. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Quote Steve Colbert: "together we can define a world we can all agree on." That's his comment on wikipedia. Yes, there can be error, and then we correct them 10,000 times. Lightblade (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to quote Steve Colbert. Our own Wikipedia:General disclaimer says "However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields." and other stuff to indicate that wikipedia does definitely contain errors. Nil Einne (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

is wikihow and wikipedia related? Also why cant i post messages in topics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winkytinky (talk • contribs) 04:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC) nvm i found out how to lol its different but are yall related? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winkytinky (talk • contribs) 04:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikihow and Wikipedia are not managed under the same companies. Wikihow is entirely seperate from Wikipedia. The only thing in common is that they both run wiki software. --Hdt83 ^Chat 07:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As the name implies, wikiHow is a wiki, just like Wikipedia. It also uses the same software: MediaWiki. But it is an individual site, not in any way affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. All projects by the Wikimedia Foundation can be found here. Cheers, Face 08:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the worst tram disasters in europe. http://www.novinky.cz/clanek/137461-v-ostrave-se-celne-stretly-tramvaje-tri-lide-zemreli.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The correct place to suggest news items would be WP:ITN/C. However, I don't think this is internationally significant (three dead people so far). Puchiko (Talk-email) 18:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Significance does not depend on the amount of dead people. A building bombing can be really significant internationally even if no one is killed. Terrorist activities against trains, trams, buses, and buildings are relatively significant. Relative to many things. This specific event might not be significant but by other reasons. Just to make clear there shouldn't be a link between significance and the amount of dead people. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 18:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

While an event can be significant with few deaths, the numbers of deaths is definitely a big component of significance in many cases. In any case, this discussion should take place in ITN/C as mentioned above and we need an article before it can even be considered Nil Einne (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

So why did we have the Heathrow crash thing on forever? Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 20:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Template talk:In the news#Czech Disaster (since no one else would) Nil Einne (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

85.71.211.66, you know the place to make suggestions for ITN is WP:ITN/C. So please stop posting news on this talkpage.3 4 5 Thanks. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to put it here but i would like to ask someone to put the czech car pile up on main news. Thanks http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=czech+crash+pile+up&spell=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You should discuss this at WP:ITN/C instead Lympathy ^Talk 18:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As you have been told on several occasions. If you had done so 5 days ago, as you knew you should have, on the 12th, if would more then likely be there by now. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 19:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, there is absolutely no use bringing something either here or on ITN/C if no article exists. (There is also no point bringing something that happened 26+ days ago either). Of course, WP:ITN/C does address both these points Nil Einne (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If only a headline is to be posted, the place should be Portal: Current events, not ITN. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikinews is a better place for news like that. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It is so serious. 900 people need psychological help http://www.novinky.cz/clanek/137882-policie-odlozila-vyslech-zraneneho-ridice-ostravske-tramvaje.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What the article actually says is that "It is estimated that it could be up to 900 people". But the seriousness of the situation is not for us to judge. What's important is that the incident has an article, is recent and is suggested at WP:ITN/C. The is recent part is quite important, considering the fact that the trams crashed a week ago, I believe it no longer belongs at ITN. If an article is created though, it could stand a chance for DYK. Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

85.71.211.66, please do not edit comments not posted by you, as you did here, removing the word 'not' from my previous comment. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when did Wikipedia become a memorial service? What a pathetic and transparent choice of FA.Joy.discovery.invention (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Transparent: 2 a: free from pretense or deceit : frank b: easily detected or seen through : obvious c: readily understood

Sounds like a good thing to me. 128.227.104.129 (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You know I kinda think its useless when people ask theses questions "Why is Bulbasaur on the main page".."why is Halo on the main page". Because their featured articles! -- Coasttocoast (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just correcting your grammar there Coasttocoast, its "they are", so they're not their. Tourskin (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Bulbasaur was on the main page? Awesome! Go pokemon!Tourskin (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit curious as to why the shooter's name isn't mentioned. We do have an article about him. --Maxamegalon2000 03:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I believe that was a conscious decision, so as not to give more notability to the shooter. Ral315 (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh crud - I didn't realize that suggested writeup omitted his name. That was an oversight on my part. Raul654 (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've adjusted the main page blurb accordingly. Raul654 (talk) 04:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To Ral - With respect, it's not Wikipedia's business to pretend that someone is more obscure than in fact he is. Our notability criteria are essentially populist, and I don't see how they could be otherwise. Let's leave normative judgments about what people want to know to the critical social theorists. — Dan | talk 04:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said on Talk:Virginia Tech massacre, it is not our job to worry about people who want herostratian fame or to practice Damnatio memoriae. Raul654 (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not our job to not worry about them either. 19:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Also: National Instant Criminal Background Check System is overlinked. indopug (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 07:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

On the main Wikipedia page for the airline crash the number of fatalities has been updated to 42, apparently because two more bodies were discovered this morning. Shouldn't the Wikipedia Main Page In the News section be updated accordingly? Kr5t (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This should probably be reported at Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors#Errors in In the news. I'll copy it there for you, thanks for letting us know :) Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, see WP:ITN/C. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No. WP:ITN/C stands for Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Because the plane crash is already there, it is not a candidate, and therefore doesn't belong at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh right, sorry, just a suggestion. ^^; weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Alexa, WP is currently the 7th most visited website in the world. --Camptown (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hoorah! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks to me.--24.109.218.172 (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Today's featured article about Emma Goldman claims she and Alexander Birkman together planned to assassinate Henry Clay Frick. Can't find that allegation in the Goldman, Birkman or Frick articles. Is there a reference for this? 222.153.73.194 (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This should probably be moved to Talk:Emma Goldman, but according to the "Homestead plot" section of Goldman's article the reference appears to be Alice Wexler's Emma Goldman: An Intimate Life, pages 63–65. Nufy8 (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as an add: Put some more stuff about anarchy, but not just "anarchist assassins" The last articles have been about senseless BS, focused on western culture. Where's the great diversity of Wikipedia? Iulian28ti (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Bring Anarchy up to featured status. Bring Anarchism in China, Anarchism in Japan, Anarchism in India, Anarchism in Korea, Anarchism in Ukraine or Anarchism in Vietnam up to featured status. The point is, WP:Be bold! Instead of complaining about WP:Systemic bias, counter it! Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In the "on this day" section the following appears:

1943 – Nazi German troops entered the Warsaw Ghetto to round up the remaining Jews (pictured), sparking the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the first mass uprising in Poland against the Nazi occupation during the Holocaust.

But is this really the first mass uprising against the Nazis? What about the Zamość Uprising, which started in 1942? selfworm^Talk) 03:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The Warsaw Ghetto article currently reads, "the Warsaw Ghetto was the scene of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the first urban mass rebellion against the Nazi occupation of Europe." So maybe the blurb on the main page has to be worded differently to be more clearer. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not the name of the alliance, but the name of Berlusconi party. In the alliance there are Lega Nord and Movimento per l'Autonomia, too. Paolotacchi (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed that's a mistake: the victory was not of Berlusconi alone, but also of Lega Nord, which was decisive for his victory. --Checco (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Pls bring this up at #Main Page error reports near the top of this talkpage. --74.14.21.22 (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This was fixed a few hours ago. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 03:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me, oh Wikigods.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.19.13.168 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Because no-one's yet written much in the Battle of North Borneo article. Feel free to rectify this at your leisure. :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Wikipedia's articles are written by volunteers, and those write what they're interested in. But you can make the difference, just hit the "edit this page" button on the top of the page and contribute! Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to write the article. In any case, this isn't what the main page is here for discussing. ffm 16:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that length≠quality. The Kid's choice article is mostly a long list of nominees and winners, and the lead is terribly promotional and POV. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Jessica Alba was involved in the Kids' Choice Awards. She did not participate in the Battle of North Borneo. One need not inquire further into why the former topic merits broader (or, at least, more pictorial) coverage (see also WP:HOTTIE). Joe 00:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps we can encourage more celebrities to take part in military actions. I for one would be ecstatic if Paris Hilton were to take it upon herself to walk into an erupting conflict in Somalia or the like. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The Columbine Highschool massacre was today, and that's not worth on this day?? '''User:KC109|<span style="background:black;color:red">K</span>User talk:KC109|<span style="background:black;color:red">C</span>Special:Contributions/KC109|<span style="background:black;color:red">109</span>''' (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC).

Try again next year for the 10th anniversary of the Columbine High School massacre. The other 20th century events on the mainpage today are at the 30th and 40th anniversaries this year. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait, why does it have to be on the 10th anniversary and not the 9th? I've heard that birth/death dates of significant people are put on the main page on 100 year multiples, but nothing about other anniversaries. So Awesome (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There are 5 slots. And we have to save some for other centuries. The 30th and the 40th anniversaries would be preferred over the 9th, I guess. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ludlow massacre (94th anniversary this year) didn't make it, either. Maybe next year? --199.71.174.100 (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see anyone whining yet so I thought I would be the first. This is worse than the time Newtonmas was up on Dec 25 :/ So Awesome (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not for holidays specifically, it just happens to be on this day. And remember (if this is your point) that Wikipedia is not censored. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Soawesome talking about censorship. I think they're pointing out that this 'holiday' is little more than an excuse to smoke cannabis. However, having said that, I'll take any excuse I can get...once a year is enough for me though....Happy 4/20! Antimatter--talk-- 20:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the New Section tag in discussion pages new itself? Or have I never noticed it before. -24.149.198.53 (talk) 11:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's formerly known as the "+" sign beside "Edit this page." 119.95.17.214 (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It got changed and changed back a few months ago too, if I remember correctly. I like the + personally. In any case, this isn't the place- if this discussion is to be continued, I reccomend the village pump. J Milburn (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it happens that a discussion about this very issue is ongoing at VPP, viz. here. Joe 17:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"French physiologist Louis Pasteur (pictured) and physiologist Claude Bernard completed the first test on pasteurization." Surely it should be "French physiologists Louis Pasteur (pictured) and Claude Bernard completed the first test on pasteurization". the second "physiologist" is kind of unneeded. Ironholds (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that error out. You are likely to get a better response at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors instead, so I'll move it there for you :) Puchiko (Talk-email) 12:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for the report. In future, WP:ERRORS would be better, but no harm done. J Milburn (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

We have to know that the children are on line now and the computer is grooming the chilren.Some of the messages are just monkey talk..My pleasure to chat...Raven_123

What's the difference between Culture and culture ?

One has an uppercase beginning; the similarities: they both have nothing to do with the main page and should not be here. 79.66.118.148 (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be helpful if you link to or make a copy of what you're talking about. I don't see either on the main page at the moment Nil Einne (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like to see more bacterial cultures on the main page. Maybe some yeast culture also. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Talk:Main_Page/Archive_122
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.

---