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.

The look of the Main Page has been static for a long time, and now looks dated. I think the information design is fine: it's just the styling I don't like. I've just made a copy of the Main Page, and made some minimal tweaks that just remove the pastel boxes and their borders: see User:Karada/Main page redesign. I can't see how removing these features detracts from the look of the page: if anything I think doing so improves it.

Given that the old look is now so tired that even simple hackery like this improves it, I think it's time to hold another competition to find an improved graphic design for the main page. Would anyone else be interested in this? -- Karada (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks unstructured now. Like a big wall of text. Sectioning is not immediately visible. Redesign just for the sake of redesign is not a good idea. This revision is a step backwards. --Dschwen 15:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree Karada. It looks very 1996 doesn't it? I loathe the pastel colours which are currently used, I think it makes it look unprofessional. You know what they say, people initially judge a book by its cover. In terms of graphic design ours is very dated. A new page design was proposed last year and after months upon months of arguing it ended up being a waste of time as nobody could agree fully on one design. Your version though is even blander.... I would at least recommend the light blue shader for the header currently uses for Vector around the sides. Have you see the French wiki main page. Much better I think. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a huge main-page redesign project that fizzled because no one could decide on a design.

For example, I don't like your version because the columns become, visually, one giant mass of text. It's harder to read. Other people would probably argue in favor of it. APL (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(My reply was to Karada, not Blofeld's reply. APL (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC))

Your redesign is easier on the eye, but harder to actually read and discern the different content. Ignoring the horrific blue gradients, the French have a great main page - the sidebar with an introduction to the encyclopedia, how to edit, and sister projects is a super super idea. — Pretzels ^Hii! 15:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree - a new design is very much needed, especially now with the change from monobook to vector. In order to avoid the problems last year, why not have a jury for the competition that will pick the best design - and the design will then be changed to that design, regardless of whether or not there's 100% agreement on it? Mike Peel (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The last attempt failed primarily because it was structured as a "competition." The previous attempt succeeded because it was structured as a collaboration (which led not to "100% agreement," but to strong consensus). The solution is to return to that method (the one on which wikis are based), not to appoint an elite panel. —David Levy 00:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Black text on a white page is a more professional and encyclopedic look. I like that. It needs borders between the sections, however, or it's a wall of text. The search box absolutely needs to go back to the left hand side. That was the least helpful change in the recent restructuring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.76.202 (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What makes it more helpful on the left side? --Dschwen 23:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The search box's position is a feature of the skin. (We just switched to a new default skin, which users not logged in cannot replace). It has nothing to do with the main page's design. —David Levy 00:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've no strong preference for the current design, but maybe a little colour would be nice? There are other things to consider, but they can be discussed further down the line if this gets there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments. The main page is dated, drab and uninviting to new editors. It needs a complete overhaul. Should we start a new page for designs? Aiken ♫ 15:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend everyone who just wants to jump in start with Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal/Archive 1, and work your way through the small novel's worth of text in the various archives. Despite input from many dozens of editors, it ultimately died a slow painful death because, while many editors wanted something "new", they all had entirely different aesthetics. I see the OP's proposal is to remove all color while an editor above suggests more color than the current design. The editor who started the 2008 proposal ignored the advice given on this page that if you want to change something major like the Main Page you need to be able to clearly articulate what the problem is that you're trying to solve and at least a few leading ideas of how you think it might be solved. Unfortunately, that editor took the approach of "everyone should submit a new idea and we'll find a solution for a problem we haven't yet identified" and started a totally unstructured effort that wasted a lot of people's time. See the bullet points at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page for how the last successful redesign was about much more than making it more stylish, and it still took them 4 months and almost 1000 votes to get it implemented, back when the site had a much profile. If you want to restart the circus, at least set up a competition structure beforehand so you don't spend several months arguing about how to reject designs, because at that point entrants will think you're just trying to be mean to them in particular. - Banyan Tree 13:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been wondering whether to say this or not. But hey since this discussion is still ongoing after so many days... I definitely don't think it helps to make comments like 'It looks very 1996' . Given that it was redesigned in 2006? it obviously seems very unlikely people then we're trying to give it a 1996 looks.

More importantly, those of us, like me, who were actually using the internet in 1996 would know the main page looks nothing like the WWW in 1996. Here are some pages from 1996 (I had problem with the Internet archive but they seemed to resolve after a while but all of these mostly worked for me). 16 17.

As I said, those mostly work although for some of them the images didn't seem to be (from previous experience it's possible the images will work after a while), but some of them do appear to be showing a site which isn't the main one so I'll add a few from 1997 (and a few other things from then I came across) although depending on how late in 1997 it might not be entirely fair since the web was changing rapidly at the time 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25. BTW, be warned some of these don't work well with modern versions of Java, at least for me.

However even with the 1997 pages let alone the 1996 ones, the current main page, no matter how 'outdated' it looks is vastly better then anything from that era. In fact the fact that the complaint about pastel colours and 1996 were made in almost the same breathe is even more ironic since anyone using the internet in 1996 and a quick look at those pages will atest that what was common at the time was either minimal use of colours and when you did have colours, bright and garish was the norm (The HappyPuppy archive is a good example of a not that uncommon type of site of the time).

Exaggerating to make a point doesn't work well when the exaggeration is so wildly off base. In fact I would question whether it makes sense at all in this case since even if it wasn't so wild, you could still alienate those who might feel the main page could do with a makeover but don't feel it's that outdated let alone those who are on the fence.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. There's nothing wrong with it. Leave it alone. And the proposed "update" is terrible: no visual structuring, as was already mentioned. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Plenty wrong with it, but I agree the new design is worse. Aiken ♫ 17:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

OMG Nil Einne. You should really stop taking yourself so seriously and get a sense of humour. LOL. Of course I was exaggerating, the front page does look very dated, pre 2006 in my view, maybe not literally "1996" but in terms of graphic design it looks very bland and unappealing. Thankyou though for providing so much nostalgia (and amusement).

Is it me though or have they slightly darkened the header and the frame of the pages in the margins? It makes it look better in my view, stands out more now. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You weren't just 'exaggerating'. You were exaggerating beyond reason. The main page doesn't look remotely like something from 1996, not even close. When your comparisons are so ridiculous you greatly reduce your credibility. Why would anyone trust your judgement when it comes to re-designing the main page when you make comparisons which are on the face completely ridiculous? Why would anyone agree with you that the main page looks outdated if you are saying it looks like something it clearly doesn't? The first thing many people are going to think is that's a completely ridiculous example and then probably ignore whatever else you have to say. As others have said, defining the problem would help but while you may believe it's outdated, and you're entilted to that view, not everyone appears to agree and if the only comparison you have is it looks like it's from 1996 the number is going to be close to zero so it doesn't help the discussion at all. I do have a sense of humour but your comment was only funny in as much as how obviously completely nonsense it was to anyone who'd actually used the internet in 1996 and how it seems to be the typical case of someone making up complete silliness if they lack better a decent explaination for their view. This is mildly funny but as I've noted, doesn't help anything if you want to have a serious discussion about redesigning the main page. Nil Einne (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

How about we start by applying a slight gradient to the boxes to match the new theme and figure out a more permanent solution after. In the long run I think we should standardize the main page across all of the language wikis so that they all look pretty much the same. (There should still probably be individual banners or something though so you can quickly tell which language you're on.)--vgmddg (look | talk | do) 22:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

How do you propose we coordinate a design discussion across 271 languages? —David Levy 22:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

-I propose we start to coordinate the design as effective as possible. --63.226.104.225 (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose one possibility could be to just look at all of the existing main pages and vote on the best one.--vgmddg (look | talk | do) 00:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

A 272-option (including the simple English Wikipedia) ballot?

In all likelihood, most users would simply vote for their Wikipedia's design (which obviously would favor the Wikipedias with the most users). Those caring enough to glance at some (let alone all) of the others wouldn't even be able to fully comprehend their contents. —David Levy 00:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well first we would weed out the duplicates and the ones that are definitely bad, and maybe at the very end we would have around 2 or 3 pages for different writing directions. This is actually all part of a larger problem. I've decided to turn it into an essay at User:Vgmddg/Language Disconnect Rant --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 00:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Who gets to decide which ones "are definitely bad"? —David Levy 13:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm also not sure how we'd deal with the different sections different languages have (unless you're proposing each language have the same sections) which I suspect many of the languages are not going to like (since it's likely to primaril be the large wikipedias particularly en forcing them to have sections they may not want or have the content for and preventing them having ones they may feel are useful). Nil Einne (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"The world's oldest known leather shoe, made approximately 5,500 years ago, is discovered in Armenia."

This shoe was in fact discovered in 2008. The news would be that a scientific article was published about it. The sentence should be changed accordingly, or something. 74.192.194.74 (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It now reads that the discovery was made 5,500 years ago. :P  f o x  11:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Lol! Brings a new meaning to the term "old news"! Or is that "old shoes"? What a load of old cobblers! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

*groan*  f o x  12:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This brings to mind the joke: Archaeologists discovered an ancient papyrus with jokes from ancient Egypt. But those were just old jokes... --Tone 13:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope ancient Egyptian school kids weren't making "your mom" jokes... TFOWR 10:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

... that the German submarine U-355 went missing on 4 April 1944 and was never heard from again?

Dozens, scores, maybe hundreds of WWII U-boats disappeared, etc. Many others had more interesting 'careers' — one wonders why we are highlighting U-355.

Sca (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be because someone took the time to write an article on this particular one. Any article that is either newly created or had a recent, significant expansion from stub status can appear on DYK. See WP:DYK for more information.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a fairly major expectation that the fact is interesting, though.  f o x  19:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

'44-4-4. That's an interesting date. '4' is the number of death in the Chinese language, btw. --70.31.13.42 (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Interesting" is a highly subjective criteria, too much so to be overly depended on for any kind of selection process. I've seen plenty of DYK hooks that I found far less interesting than this one. No surprise, given my personal interest in WWII and military history in general. Others, no doubt, feel differently. That's the nature of something so subjective.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

For reference, the relevant section of WP:DYK says the hook should be 'punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in'. I imply no judgement. Modest Genius ^talk 20:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for not bringing this up to me or Dawkeye (the writers) guys. And for the record, not that many U-boats did go missing. U-47 and U-355 are just one of a few dozen that were never heard from again. And as Fry said earlier, "Interesting" is a very personal characteristic. It's up to each individual as to weither or not it's "interesting".--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 21:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Note either there had been several DYKs about U-boats, or I was just imagining patterns. At least DYK makes you a prose update, unlike a certain Main page section... –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 01:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, there appear to be 385 other articles about WWII German U-boats / submarines. U-355 sank only one ship; presumably most or at least many of the others were more successful. Sca (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Gday - I noticed this article on the front page that highlights how long its neck is - I took this image of what I assume is one of these guys a couple of years ago that I think illustrates its long neck very well! Not elongated in PS or anything... I just uploaded it but don't know how you'd get it on this front page? djambalawa (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Picture of the day#Guidelines. --70.31.13.42 (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wait, which article? If it was in DYK, you're too late.  f o x  10:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I would have expected to see the Uprising of 1953 in East Germany in On This Day today, June 17. Sca (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It's in the rotation and was displayed in 2007 and 2008. After 00:00 (UTC), I'll add it for next year. —David Levy 19:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is not 100 percent guarantee. Again Sca, as stated on WP:OTD, "due to the fact that any given day of the year can have a great many moderate to great historically significance events, relative article quality along with the mix of topics already listed are often deciding factors in what gets posted on the 'On this day' section on the Main Page". If the Uprising of 1953 in East Germany article has one of the 'orange'- or 'red'-level article issue tags next year, it will be ineligible. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have mentioned that. Thanks, Zzyzx11. —David Levy 04:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could include German Unity Day on October 3 this year? Sca (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's listed. —David Levy 20:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It is pathetic by FA standards. Barely a GA. A quick look through the review, three years ago, reveals that it was passed in a similar manner to a GA. Please change the featured article to something that doesn't tarnish our reputation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not the way it's done and this isn't the right venue. User:Raul654 is responsible for the TFA and the FA process so you should take it up with him. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with it. See Emma Watson for a GA class FA. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Today's featured article" section has a small piece of the selected feature article, a "(more...)" link to the article, and a "Recently featured" list of past featured articles in the main page. There may be a problem: the "Recently featured" bit is not part of the article, but the text is the same. Perhaps it should use italics or a : to move it a little to the right, so that it doesn't get visually mixed MBelgrano (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The long title of yesterday's article doesn't help things; I agree though—it should be aligned to the right, not the left. I thought it was, but today, apparently, it's not (at least not on my browser—zooming out reveals empty space to the left after the "Recently featured" line of text.) Airplaneman ✈ 04:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Airplaneman, there is nothing wrong with your browser; it's always been that way: ever since the the very first TFA's, the "Recently featured" line has been align to the left and the archive links has been align to the right. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying—would it be better to align it to the right? Airplaneman ✈ 22:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

where did you put it? it is still happenning and is the biggest thing in the entire of africa this year and for many years.yesterday it was the top of the site and now it is gone.thought a suicide bomb had blown it up! explaination needed.badly. the ice hockey and the rocket failure and the smelly old shoe are still there.come on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.191.245 (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a thread about this, above. TFOWR 13:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The place to discuss this is WP:ITN/C. The problem was that, apparently, there was not enough update. --Tone 13:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

All hell will break loose when the 2010 NBA Finals ends. The discussion(s) at many different places is going to be epic. –Howard the Duck 14:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 NBA Finals is an unbelievably unencyclopaedic article. I read it all the way through and it was only when I got to the categories at the very bottom of the page that I realised it was about basketball. The editors concerned make that wonderful assumption that everyone in the Anglophone world will know about their sport - and guess what guys, we don't! But I agree with the above comments - not to have the World Cup on the front page is a near-travesty. It's a worldwide, truly international (don't get me started on the World Series ...) sporting event, the biggest on the planet. 86.142.104.130 (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

For what's it worth, the 2010 World Cup now has a barely good enough prose update (prerequisite for any article on ITN section no matter how "a worldwide, truly international sporting event, the biggest on the planet" is). 112.203.151.71 (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

^would this be a signed-out User:Howard the Duck by any chance? Modest Genius ^talk 18:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes :O –Howard the Duck 18:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

And what a great update it is. I'm glad readers were forced to wait for that. Champagne all round. MickMacNee (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's not the awesomest of updates I can see it going away... –Howard the Duck 19:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm 100% certain the World Cup Finals will make the front page. You really can't expect it to be on the front page for an entire month, can you? The NBA playoffs last over a month but you don't see daily updates on the main page, do you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.182.31 (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I find it depressing that anyone would consider the "biggest thing in the entire of africa this year and for many years" to be a ball game. --Khajidha (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of "big". It will certainly make more news than anything, and will undoubtedly be followed by the most people. Perhaps something for the future might be a little section on the main page giving the last few results. It could be used for both the World Cup and the Olympics - probably the only sporting events important enough for it. It needn't take up much space. Kombucha (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The In the news section's purpose is to highlight articles created or substantially updated to reflect recent/current events. For the Olympics, we had regular summaries of the various competitions. Where are our World Cup match summaries? —David Levy 23:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the "prose updates" criterion is suspended for the World Cup. yay. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• How about pipe-linking to 2010 FIFA World Cup schedule instead? Surely that's what people are interested in when it's "in the news". It's always being updated and has lots of wikilinks coming off to any of the relevent articles that a reader might also want to view. What do you think? Please take into account that the World Cup is the largest sporting event for many people over the world. Jolly Ω Janner 00:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup schedule contains virtually no prose, let alone updated prose.

The World Cup unquestionably is "the largest sporting event for many people over the world," so why is no one at Wikipedia writing simple match summaries? —David Levy 00:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you'd expect a schedule to contain prose. I do not think that every part of the ITN needs to link directly to prose. Surely Wikipedia can be more versatile than that, as nearly every reader knows how wikilinks work. Also, the lack of match summaries is not due to the notability of the event, more that there are three games played every day. I could indeed write a match report for a game if I have some time tomorrow. If match summaries were written, this would greatly improve the informative side of linking the World Cup on the Main Page. Unfortunately, I, alone, cannot write them all, but I'll try to see if I can get some support for users to start writing them. I'm sure that with the amount of attention the games draw in, that people would do it. It's just that people aren't used to writing match summaries (yet). Jolly Ω Janner 00:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, there is no dispute regarding the event's notability.

Indeed, I wouldn't expect a page titled 2010 FIFA World Cup schedule to be anything more than that, and I don't propose that match summaries be written there. Presumably, the various group pages (such as 2010 FIFA World Cup Group A) would be the logical locations.

I agree that it would be sensible to link to a page containing links to the various pages of prose (rather than linking directly to the pages of prose), and I sincerely appreciate your ambition. —David Levy 01:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I did actually suggest linking to the 8 group articles since that's the best place you'd see updated prose. But there is no updated prose there either. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added some (admitadly–HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC), very poor) prose to 2010 FIFA World Cup Group E#Netherlands vs Japan. Jolly Ω Janner 16:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It's better than nothing and it's good enough. If I were an admin I'd replace the link to the main 2010 WC article with the link to that section. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Which section? 2010 FIFA World Cup schedule or 2010 FIFA World Cup Group E#Netherlands vs Japan? Jolly Ω Janner 17:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup Group E#Netherlands vs Japan, since that's the only game that has a prose update. But admins won't probably do that so... –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If it became the norm to have matches updated with prose, would you rather it linked to the schedule instead? Jolly Ω Janner 18:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If that has prose too why not. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wants constant update on NBA Finals or World Cup, there's something called ESPN, for your information. --Jjeong12 (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Or "the internet" for people who are in the US and therefore don't GET ESPN. ;)  f o x 

Does "ESPN America" ring any bells? --Jjeong12 (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had to look it up to discover that's the new name for NASN. So not really. Modest Genius ^talk 19:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The 2010 Central Canada earthquake should be listed in the News section. It received enough media coverage nationally and considerable coverage internationally. --Eelam StyleZ (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

As it says at the top of this page, please direct suggestions for the In The News section to WP:ITN/C; as it happens this has already been suggested and is currently under discussion. Modest Genius ^talk 00:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that this article is due to be featured on the main page within the next few days and the article is in a quite frankly poor condition. there are red links the article is reliant on just over thirty references, was promoted over 5 yrs ago with just two support votes and it just has a neglected vibe about it. I really do not think that it exemplifies the best of what wikipedia has to offer and should not be featured --Thanks, Hadseys 02:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The only person who can stop the article being on the main page is Raul654 (talk · contribs) so you would have to ask him to change it. Having said that (a) there are only two redlinks in the article (one notable legal case, one Act of Parliament, both of which should have articles about them), and redlinks are permitted in FAs as much as elsewhere when appropriate (and these are); (b) the FA process doesn't measure quality based on the number of references but the reliability of the references, and I can't immediately see any inappropriate sources; (c) the article was reviewed in November 2007, with the editor who nominated it for review of its FA status delighted by the improvements as a result. If there are any specific improvements you feel ought to be made in the next few days, you can either make changes yourself, contact DrKiernan (talk · contribs) who has been active on the article since the time of the 2007 FAR, and / or note matters needing attention on the article's talk page. Finally, a reminder that a Featured Article review cannot be started when the article is on, or linked from, the main page (ie June 26 to June 29). Bencherlite ^Talk 06:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on this article in particular, I just want to make the point that this type of complaint has come up before a few times, usually when the article goes up on the main page. Thank goodness someone has raised the question before it goes up in this case. We really should be more careful about TFA'ing old FA's without some sort of review to confirm current quality. I would support a delay in featuring this as TFA purely on the basis of the time since the last review (no disrespect to the article or its main authors). Zunaid 18:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Talk:Main_Page/Archive_152
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.

---