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 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

→

Archive 85

Could we have a worst Today's Feature Article tommorrow? Like, I don't know, a feature article on Eric, it's a friend of mine, playing smushball in a local team. Actually, I don't think I can have a photo of him worst than Kydd's one... I mean, after Bulsomethin the pokemon, Cynna Kydd the worldwide unknown australian netball player. What the f*** is netball?! Is it another sport invented by a country so they can win a gold medal at the olympics? Something like softball or whatever? :) Ok, how do we can enter the Today's Feature Article selection so we can avoid those kind of things in the future? JeDi

Netball was actually developed in the United States. Tntnnbltn 10:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

HA! --liquidGhoul 11:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so? JeDi

It's obviously not "another sport invented by a country so they can win a gold medal". Otherwise Australia and New Zealand wouldn't be the world champions. Can you deduce who would? --liquidGhoul 13:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to be rude about it. —Cuiviénen 14:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. There was no need for JeDi's rant at all. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

here is information regarding Featured Articles and the process that nominates one for inclusion on the main page each day, if you want to get involved. I think it's a good FA if it teaches someone something. What point would there be to feature articles that 'everyone' knew about? Where's your sense of curiosity? All the (rhetorical) questions you posed above can be answered by following the link Netball in Today's featured article. Follow a wikilink and learn something instead of complaining. --Monotonehell 12:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this selection is, essentially, performed by one person: Raul654. He is a kind of Today's feature article monarch, deciding alone what article will be on the main page. And, in two months, I have fall twice in diagreement with his choices. Frankly, I don't think his opinion are more important than mine. It would be reasonable to have a college of people deciding those kind of things, don't you think? At least 3. I'm not saying *I* should decide, but if several people contribute to the final decision, I would find the decision more acceptable.

And yes, I am curious. Look at my contributions if you doubt of this. But I am not curious at all when it is question of a proutball player being fired by his national team for a scandal about things I don't care! I mean, just read the preview of the article on the main page. This is just uninteresting, it's a non-event! And what if I create an feature article on Ribery's decision to quit the Olympic de Marseilles, would you think it would has its place on the main page of Wikipedia??? I won't troll on this, it's just that sometimes, I found this main page, which is what people who discovers WP see at first, does not represent the true value of this site.

PS: did you notice that during the last week, in the Did you know section, they put 4 articles on the same subject: A french car manufacturer named Simca!! JeDi

Apparently you are unfamiliar with how things work around here. Before things can be done, there need to be people to do it. People who work hard are rewarded for their work, such as by presenting it on the main page. People who complain nonstop on the talk page while contributing nothing productive are ignored. Get to work and stop complaining. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-20 17:54

Have you contributed to an article to get it through FAC. It is not an easy feat, and the people who work hard for that should get their work exhibited. It shouldn't be based on some subjective crap, it should be based on whether it is an FA. All featured articles should get their day on the front page. If it is notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia, then it obviously does represent the true value of the site. If today was my first day of discovering Wikipedia, I would be impressed that such an obscure subject has such a good article. --liquidGhoul 13:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit of a misunderstanding - Raul654 is the director not the "monarch". Initially for an article to become an FA there's a whole nomination/review/concensus process that involves a lot of editors. Secondly the candidates for the main page process also involves a lot of discussion. Follow the links at the top of this page in the "Today's featured article" section to learn more about the processes involved. --Monotonehell 13:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You all seem to be missing an improtant point here. If you check out the statistics, you will se that in the last 10 months 304 FAs were created. In those 10 months there were exactly 304 days. That means that articles are being created at a rate of one per day, and as a consequence, there is not much of a "selection process" involved for the person in charge - it's really just a matter of deciding which article is featured on which day.

Shouldn't this raise a wider concern though? Allowing for a backlog of FAs - which there probably is - it still seems that at this rate we're not creating enough of them. Are the criteria to strict? Eixo 22:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I have with this being FA is the fact I nominated Thierry Henry and it was rejected and after reading this article I can't see how it is much better. It's not really. There both sports people so it's easy to compare and the barely a difference in my opinion. One is rejected on is given FA status. Jimmmmmmmmm 22:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Might have something to do with the fact that T.Henry is actually notable, and people would have certain expectations and know what to ask for. C.Kydd, on the other hand, is much less famous. It's hard to pick on unknowns. --64.229.176.139 07:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, the reason why it was rejected was taht it was lacking refernces. That is what the people who object wrote and I think that I agree with them about the lack of inline refernces. Jeltz talk 13:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What I'm more concerned about is why are we letting the Female Cyclist Vandal choose the featured article? --155.45.81.25 11:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain? --Monotonehell 12:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

User:155.45.81.25 the WALRUS is trolling. -- 64.229.178.241 18:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been called many things in my life but I have to admit that's one of the stranger ones. Raul654 03:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My Raul654 is not a walrus. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a walrus, a communist but he is not a porn star. --maru (talk) contribs 06:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

User:155.45.81.25 claimed to be the WALRUS. --64.229.176.139 07:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My Raul654 is not a walrus. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a walrus, a communist but he is not a porn star. --maru (talk) contribs 06:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC) - Finally, a quote that I recognise! Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Let us to it, Pell-Mell} _{If not to heaven, then hand-in-hand to hell} Hail OneCone International! 08:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi.

I would like to propose the addition of {{motd}} to the main page, which will show the Motto of the day, which has been administered by (unofficially) myself, (officially) User:Childzy and User:Geo.plrd.

What say you (other than for me to reduce the length of my signature...)?

Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Let us to it, Pell-Mell} _{If not to heaven, then hand-in-hand to hell} Hail OneCone International! 08:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to propose the addition of {{motd}} to the main page, which will show the Match of the day, a daily football result from around the world. Piet 08:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but having a quote of the day was so 1980s. See fortune.-gadfium 09:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said when this was asked at WP:CP#Motto. :There is no significant difference between these mottos and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Humor. Please keep it in userspace. --Quiddity·(talk) 09:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, now. No need to be abrupt arseholes (this isn't directed at gadfium or Piet). Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Let us to it, Pell-Mell} _{If not to heaven, then hand-in-hand to hell} Hail OneCone International! 10:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No need for personal attacks. I was being concise; would you prefer I ramble on for many paragraphs about the ambiguity and subjectivity of humour, giving examples of "approved mottos" that I disagree with, and explaining my theory that most of those dont even quality as mottos, but are rather bumperstickers or taglines? Regardless, I'm not so inclined. Simple and straightforward is easier. --Quiddity·(talk) 11:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which, Piet: that template won't show football results... Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Let us to it, Pell-Mell} _{If not to heaven, then hand-in-hand to hell} Hail OneCone International! 10:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

User space, not front page material. Can you explain how it showcases the best of Wikipedia? and Hunterd please change your signature. --Midnighttonight Remind me to do my uni work rather than procrastinate on the internet 10:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the mottos are debated as to whether or not they are any good... the same is done for Featured Articles, Featured Images, Fatured Lists, etc... Therefore, what mottos are shown are the best of what Wikipedians can come up with. Oh, and I have changed my signature. I suggest you do the same - it's just as long as my new one (Midnighttonight). David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Let us to it,} _Pell-Mell 11:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Like food, humour is not appreciated the same way by all people. As such, {{motd}} should stay off the Main Page as long as humour is a key ingredient of it. I'd rather have "Quote of the Day" taken from Wikiquote. --64.229.204.28 13:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved to User talk: Merovingian. -- 18:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved to discussion page so it gets more attention

Can we switch it back?--Peta 00:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It works wonders preventing off-topic posts; I only think it should be more compact.--(clovis) 00:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I just noticed the last two entries in this talk page; they are not about the main page. Some people don't bother to read a header, no matter how big or red typed is it. Up here we discussed whether this is the best way to prevent these posts.--(clovis) 01:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me, except for that little "two people sucking on a jellyfish" icon.--Eloquence* 02:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a big improvement, makes it a lot easier to go to the right place for discussion. The more compact the better, but most of links are very useful. Piet 07:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

At the funeral of the the late Māori Queen, a new king was selected. Please update ITN accordingly. This suggestion on the candidates' page has been left unattended and ignored. Where are the admins ? -- 64.229.228.203 05:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to improve the successor Tuheitia Paki's page first. Piet 07:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, it seems like there's something in there about some eurovision song more often than not. I never wanted to know about all these songs and their entirely uninteresting quirks that somehow keep getting put up on the main page. --Someones life 07:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

We can take about 3-3.5 DYK updates per day if the admins are efficinet and on the ball - ie 18-20 noms per day. Unless we get 18-20 suggestions which are NPOV, Verifiable, sourced, and long enough, then there is no competition and they get in by default. If you want something more interesting, then please create or dig up something interesting so that the admin can have an embarrassment of riches to choose from. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

DYK is going to get more and more pointless and stupid as topics slowly run out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.86.80.89 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC).

Next time, we'd have to make do with American Idol songs haha. --Howard the Duck 10:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is getting stale, isn't it time to change the criteria for DYK? I don't think it is necessary to reward for creating new articles when there are over a million articles. I know there are a lot of interesting articles which need to be created, but if it is not the reality that we are getting varied and interesting DYK, then it should be changed. There are so many articles out there that would be of much more worth for the readers of the front page. --liquidGhoul 11:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there are varied and interesting articles being created, and I don't think we're "running out" (then again I'm inclusionist). The varied and interesting articles are not getting on DYK because the authors don't know or don't care how to get on there, while a small group of editors with narrow interests do. Maybe we need to get the RA patrol to do more nominating, rather than self-noms. Or somebody needs to run a script that finds all non-stubs created in the last 5 (or less) days.--Dhartung | Talk 16:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You're not wrong. I have started a tonne of articles, and got the first one on DYK a couple weeks ago. --liquidGhoul 00:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Not enough guys know about DYK, we should have a DYK patrol. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The criteria for adding something to DYK are too strict. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, it needs to be good quality to be on the main page, so you need NPOV, sources, decent length, that's all.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is unwise to adhere to the notion that every eligible (i.e. non-stub, well-referenced, etc.) candidate on the Suggestions page should make it into DYK. If we keep doing that, then no matter what, we get repitition of subjects, based on the contributions of well-intentioned editors with narrow interests; if someone starts 20 articles on (let's say) notable medieval court jesters over the course of a few weeks, we'll end up with a famous jester in DYK once a day for three weeks. A couple court jester DYKs in a short period might be fun, but after a while people might understandably get bored of them. A better solution would be to update the DYK a little less frequently (say only twice a day). That way the admins can be a little more selective and showcase a broader range of DYKs, though at the expense of leaving some behind. (note: I posted a similiar opinion on this last week, but it has been archived.) Andrew Levine 18:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, I'm not even mad, but is someone deliberating staggering the creation of Eurovision song articles so that there will be one in the DYK section for the next 10 years? How many of these songs can there even be? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The lil text boxes do not follow grammar rules very well. Example: "'Did you know...' lists facts from new or newly unstubbed articles to nominate a fact for inclusion see Did you know." Also, "'In the news' items are listed as they are added there is no subjective order." I'd fix it, but I can't reach those boxes in the edit :) Lovok 14:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. violet/riga (t) 14:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

OMG! I'm the grammar Nazi and you're correcting ME? I am ashamed, so ashamed. *Does penance* (Thank you) --Monotonehell 15:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Pulkovo Aviation flight 610 has crashed in the Ukraine, I know no article has been created for this yet because it has only been about 5 hours since it happened and details are sketchy still, but is there any way to get this on the ITN section without an article? 170 people dead, 30 bodies found, Anapa - St. Petersburg flight, crashed at 1137 UTC. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 16:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC) BBC source

An article exists (Pulkovo Airlines Flight 612) and is listed on Portal:Current events. In the future suggest items at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page. --Dhartung | Talk 16:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I know where to suggest them, I just couldn't find the article in question because I had the flight number wrong and was wondering if it could still be mentioned even without an article. Thanks -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 17:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"In the news" is about how the news has affected Wikipedia articles: it lists articles that have either had major additions or are totally new due to a current event. It is not about the news itself, and thus cannot list news that doesn't have an article mentioning it. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 18:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dark, that's exactly what I was wondering when I came on here. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody to make short title more clear to average readers. Too many people assume it's Ukranian plane crashed and this misunderstading hurt Ukranian airlines. Can you make it clear that it's Russian airplane crashed during transit over Ukranian territory. "in Ukraine" is too vague. Thanks in advance. --TAG 21:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Try WP:ERRORS. --64.229.224.60 04:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Issue was addressed. --TAG 13:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

In the news should say,"Grigory Perelman refrained from accepting the $13,400 of the Fields Medal."

The mathematician has spent a lifetime on his work and now they want to give him a risible amount of money. It would cost him a few thousand dollars for airplane tickets, hotel expenses, and taxi fares in Spain. It is an insult. Take a look how much Nobel Peace laureates get (a meaningless award with lots of money).

Also, Perelman didn't say he wouldn't accept part of the $1,000,000 of the Clay prize if it were awarded to him.

Please add the $13,400 to the In the news.--Patchouli 12:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

First, details should be left in the article. Moreover, Grigori Perelman has apparently also quit his job and disappeared. It's not just about the money. --64.229.227.18 12:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, invited speakers at big conferences, like that one in Madrid, often get reimbursed for their travelling expenses. --64.229.227.18 12:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The announcement regarding the Fields Medal is ITN-worthy. Perelman's eccentricity is not. Patchouli, don't forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. -- 64.229.4.34 15:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that today's feature article Watchmen, has a link to a spoken version. The project pages for Spoken Wikipedia mention that Daily feature articles with spoken versions will cause the link to the spoken version to appear on the front page. Where is said link? CB Droege 18:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Should've asked for this at WP:ERRORS yesterday. --64.229.206.90 12:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't sure if it was an error with the FP, or one with the Spoken Wikipedia project page CB Droege 18:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That military fellow in the photo next to the notice of the William Wallace anniversary doesn't look much like Braveheart. I don't know who he's supposed to be, but the placement makes it look like a bleedin' anachronism. -- Christofurio 20:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Fixed. ~~ N (t/c) 23:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Christofurio, if you don't know who that's supposed to be, try looking for the words "(pictured)" in the text. Or move your cursor to the image to get the ALT text on screen. Or click on the image. Whether the picture is next to just the first anniversary, or first two anniversaries, or all five anniversaries depends on the size of one's screen and the chosen font size. -- 199.71.174.100 02:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that the first person in the list and the picture are both military leaders, some confusion is very likely at first glance. ~~ N (t/c) 11:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering the wardrobe of Antonescu in the picture ? It should be obvious he was not the guy in the 1305 event. -- 64.229.206.90 12:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Who put the underlines on the links? Is this some sort of a change? --Alexie 23:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a glitch that sometimes manifests. Please try bypassing your cache. —David Levy 23:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, doesn't work. Well, would you look at that. Opening it in a different window worked. I'm using Firefox with this, and I was using Internet Explorer when the underline glitch appeared. --Alexie 23:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Given the frequency of this problem, should it be included in the header or the FAQ? --Midnighttonight Remind me to do my uni work rather than procrastinate on the internet 00:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• I hummed and harred over including that in the header. An early draft had it in but we are limited for space, so I had to leave out quite a few of the less often reported annoyances. --Monotonehell 06:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It happens to me infrequently but regularly, usually just for a couple of hours, and I'm using IE. It doesn't bother me so I haven't changed my preferences or anything, but I think it's still curious why it happens. BTW it's not happening to me now, I don't know if it's still happening to the previous poste. Usually my experiences of it are consistent with other users, even with other browsers. --Anchoress 00:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, this also occurs in reverse. (I have underlined links enabled, and my links' underlines sometimes disappear.) Bypassing the cache always works for me. —David Levy 00:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest making the database of wikipedia (3.7 GB) downloadable so that it can be downloaded and burned into CDs and then distributed to people who don't have a fast internet connection.Just imagine having the biggest encyclopedia in the world on your computer. By the way, I don't mean downloading just a small part of wikipedia, but I mean the whole encyclopedia.

meno25

Everything is downloadable at http://download.wikimedia.org in the form of an SQL dump, but that's not a usable format for most people. Raul654 01:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It would help with photos and other multimedia, but the vast majority of Wikipedia is text. The advantage of having access to the latest version seems greater than having immediate access to an obsolete version. Regardless, someday a CD version will be available, probably as an offshoot of the Wikipedia 1.0 project -- a stable collection of core topics and important articles. Also, take a look at the SOS Children CD version of Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Why would anyone want Wikipedia on their computer? Most of its articles are produced by non-specialists and tend to be poorly researched. In an ideal world, Wikipedia would be closed down immediately and global education saved from dumbing down even further. Save up some money and buy yourself a proper encyclopedia! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.62.51.220 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC).

User:193.62.51.220, Wikipedia will be less bad if there is less vandalism from your IP, e.g. 1, 2, 3 ... -- 64.229.206.90 13:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Lots of people don't have constant internet access. Mathiastck 16:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Compliments to whoever chooses them. Illmatic? Watchmen? Icons of a more intelligent, underground popular culture and great articles at that.

Rather compliment to whoever creates them; they are chosen for their quality, not their content.--(clovis) 12:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

In the line "Perelman has apparently declined the award." the word "apparently" seems inaccurate, implying that whether he has declined the award is in dispute, a claim that the sources do not back. "Perelman has declined the award." would be more accurate.

I agree. It's now a statement of fact that he has declined it Ade1982 09:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. ~~ N (t/c) 11:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Should've used WP:ERRORS. Please see instructions at the top of this talkpage. --64.229.206.90 13:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Mercury is featured and called the smallest planet on the same day that poor Pluto is demoted. Poor, poor Pluto. --Nelson Ricardo 00:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And in on this day, it says Voyager 2 passed Neptune. the last planet in the solar system', sorta. Hyenaste ^(tell) 00:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the oncoming suicide of Pluto in the news.--(clovis) 00:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, poor, poor pluto. What about poor Mercury! The true smallest planet has been stripped of its title for 76 years by some poser "dwarf planet" trying to pass itself off as one of the cool guys. I think it's due time for Mercury to be credited for its achievement as the TRUE SMALLEST PLANET! -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 00:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, now that I've read the "smallest planet in our solar system" bit, it does seem pretty damn mean. Who decides what articles go which days again? --Kinst 00:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

To be fair about that, this article was schedule about two weeks ago, long before this ever came up. It's placement is purely coincidence. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 00:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. Poor Pluto though... --Kinst 01:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Here lies, Pluto. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{blah • Snakes on a Plane}} 01:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record - the mercury article was updated within hours of hte IAU's decision - this is somethign we should be slapping ourselves on the back for -- I wonder how long it'll take that other reference to update. Raul654 01:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9110154 Not long it would appear. Rafy 02:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Weird, my print edition still shows Pluto as the 9th planet. And the U.S. only has 48 states. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-25 03:10

Nope - "Mercury is the second-smallest major planet (after Pluto), having a diameter of about 3,030 mi (4,880 km) and a mass about one-eighteenth of Earth's." 4 Clearly they are an unreliable source. Raul654 02:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

See, this should be included in the Signpost or better placed as it is -1 for Britannica on that one. People need to know that we are faster and more reliable. Lincher 03:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9371890 is still not updated two days after the IAU vote. Maybe someone should report this to EB:ERRORS. -- 199.71.174.100 19:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Still not updated. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-29 00:34Z

What is with the blatant pro-astronomy bias?! 3 of the 4 sections of the main page reference planets of the solar system. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-25 00:03

Agreed. From now on, no more articles about anything in the universe. --Nelson Ricardo 00:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

We can still have articles about fictional stuff, since those are in our heads, not the universe. And free lunch can stay, since there's no such thing as an it. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-25 00:06

Um, where is your head? --Nelson Ricardo 00:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

In the pile of purposely-dumb jokes you didn't get. :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-25 00:09

The answer is obvious - the Greys have taken control of the Foundation and are using the main page as a propaganda forum. Raul654 00:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Is today Wikipedia Astronomy Day, or what? The astronomers have taken over this place! :o) Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You'd think they'd get Zeta Reticuli to featured status then... or maybe, they're trying to warn us about something!!! Perhaps Pluto, angry and depressed from its demotion today, is planning on flinging itself past Neptune (as Voyager 2 has done), and kill Mercury! HEAD FOR THE HILLS... oh wait, that's not going to help, is it? -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 00:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping to see at least 4 Pokemon articles on the front page tomorrow, to redress the balance. Soo 20:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Pokethulu, got to consume you all. Mathiastck 16:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Reached 10,000 milestone. Add it to Main Page. --Haham hanuka 09:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Congratulations! -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 13:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've alerted signpost. -- Zanimum 17:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone has managed to hijack http://en.wikipedia.org and http://www.wikipedia.org to a for-profit search site of some sort. I was able to get to this page by linking in from the netherlands one. I was unclear how to get this information to someone who can do something about it. 155.91.28.231 21:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well it's working now. Maybe you mistyped it? Hyenaste ^(tell) 21:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely working now. Sandwich Eater 22:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There are various mispelled sites like http://www.wikpedia.org/ (without the second letter i) and http://www.wikipdia.org/ (without the e) out there. I don't know what this is called though, but there's an article about this on Wikipedia somewhere. --HappyCamper 01:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Typosquatting. Evil Monkey - Hello 02:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Recently, I raised the issue of the article count lag on the Main Page (this is now archived). Several helpful users replied to me, saying that a lag of up to 100 isn't a big issue. Now, however, the article count is not a LAG, but the exact opposite--the Main Page displays it as 7216 more than stated at Special:Statistics. Can somebody please fix this? 202.156.6.54 08:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be viewing an outdated version of Special:Statistics. Please try bypassing your cache. —David Levy 08:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That's according to the header at the top of this page. Which could well be true but the probably bit seems a little heavy handed to me. --Melburnian 00:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If we take out the "probably" then it would be worse. ;) It's just a last chance catch all to try to help people find better help for questions that won't get answered here. Considering the high percentage of posts we still get here that "should be" elsewhere despite the big red glaring text at the top of the page and the notice you noticed. ;) (I count 17 out of 44 topics) --Monotonehell 01:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand the problem, but I think something along the lines of "Attention: What you're about to post may not belong here" is nicer (and more accurate if 27 out of 44 are "on topic" ;) )--Melburnian 03:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What if it says "Attention: Please make sure what you're about to post belongs here by browsing the links provided", or something catchier than that, but you all get my drift. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 03:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed, too. It is a bit on the rude side. --Nelson Ricardo 04:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I like it. --Chris Griswold (☏) 15:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You know why? I just realised had the definitions of "probably" and "possibly" mixed up in my head for some weird reason, probably. ;) --Monotonehell 02:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Talk:Main_Page/Archive_78
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.

---