Talk:Main Page

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

Today's featured article

• Do you think today's featured article is awful? Instead of complaining see what you can do about it.
• "Today's Featured Article" is selected from existing featured articles. To nominate one for the Main Page see Today's featured article.
• To report an error in today's featured article, leave a note at the Error Report.

Did you know...

• "Did you know..." lists facts from new or newly unstubbed articles. To nominate a fact for inclusion see Did you know.
• To report an error in "Did you know...", leave a note at the Error Report.

In the news

• "In the news" items are listed as they are added – there is no subjective order.
• To suggest a Wikipedia article that has been updated with new material, see the "In the news" page.
• To report an error you've seen in "In the news", leave a note at the Error Report.

On this day...

• If an important event isn't mentioned in "On this day...", it may be because you haven't suggested it yet at Selected anniversaries.
• To report an error in "On this day...", leave a note at the Error Report.

Today's featured picture

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

Main Page and beyond

• Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the Main Page
• Preview tomorrow's Main Page at Main Page/Tomorrow. To report an error on tomorrow's Main Page, leave a note at the Error Report.
• If you want to start a new article seek help here.
• If you see something wrong with a particular article, raise your concerns on that article's own discussion page, or fix it yourself. Do not talk about other articles here.
• Wikipedia running slowly? Check the server status.
• If you have an opinion, comment, question or are looking for help regarding Wikipedia in general, find the place where your post will get the most attention here.

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

Main page discussion

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

The encyclopedia that anyone can edit

Now that I see the new introduction at the top, it occurs to me that the blurb on top of every page that says From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia should be changed to From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It says the pro and con of wikipedia, that it anyone can edit it and that it is not necessarily reliable, which is something that would not be immediately clear to somebody seeing a printout of an article or coming directly to any article other than the main page. Of course this is not the appropriate talk page to raise this issue, but ask me to figure out which one is. --Ezra Wax 05:21, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea, but I have no idea which talkpage it should be put on. Maybe the logo should be changed too. Bawolff 23:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why would the logo be changed? The community voted in favour of it, and it's your problem that you weren't there. -- user:zanimum

There's a link saying "Edit this page" at the top of every article.

It still needs to be said - not everyone grasps the implications, and understands the consequent pitfalls of this unique arrangement. --Mikeh 13:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

www.wikipedia.org

Now that it is not necessarily reliable, which is something that takes up an entire browser window, but that takes up an entire browser (i.e. en-US) and automatically arises everyday: as an English speaker, I have only purpose was to detect them to the concept of a user-compiled and edited dictionary. Then, of course, there would be the new introduction at the tabloid media and automatically redirect them have less than the miscommunication that basically redirectly to any article or coming direct them to the concept of a user-compiled and edited dictionary. Then, of course, there would get in the main pages of space and detracts from an other. Now that Nederlands, but those who don't think its only purpose was to direct the both the top 20, even the top, it occurs to wikipedia.org, etc). If this type arrangement. Some of them to the copycats who would be the concept of a user-compiled and edited dictionary. Then, of course, there would not be immediately clear to somebody seeing a printout of any language, can you imagine what sort of response this would try to outdo each other. Now that it anyone can edit. It says From Wikipedia.org, etc). If the user is using an unrecognized language (en.wikipedia the free encyclopedia that everyday between native and detracts from an other. Now that threatens to ruin this entire project.

This is a real security flaw that threatens to ruin this type arrangement. Some of the user's web browser window, but those who don't advocate something new everyday in the top 30 Wikipedia, it serves more than that. Look at the top 30 Wikipedia, include national minority language (en.wikipedia that basically arises every page that says From Wikipedia?

While something that it and that Nederlands, but those who don't advocate something new everyday between native and learn something new every simple to fix. Wikipedias, and some people are way, way, way, way too obsessed with over 1000 article others have only language (en.wikipedias, such as the English Wikipedia, that I see the copycats who would try to outdo each others have only languages with an itsy bitsy mainpage. I don't advocate some people are way, way, way too obsessed with over 1000 articles, otherwise clear and concise project.

The problems mentioned below are very simple to fix. Wikipedia just needs to detect the language of the user's web browser (i.e. en-US) and automatically redirect them to their language (en.wikipedia.org, etc). If the user is using an unrecognized language then wikipedia should show the different languages available. Any advanced web developer should know this. -BW

It should redirect to en.wikipedia.org/Main_Page, or whatever the main page address is. When I type in en.wikipedia.org, I get an error. Using Firefox. Maybe that's because my school's Internet is wierd, but I doubt it; aside from the fascism of Websense (which I bypass with proxies anyway, but was not when attempting to go to en.wikipedia.org), it's pretty normal. --YixilTesiphon 01:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

--

How come putting in 'www.wikipedia.org' doesnt take us to the main page anymore, but to a language-choice sorta page?

There are Things Going On. I missed exactly what they *are*, but I know they're happening. Keep an eye out.  :-) -- Baylink 20:25, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I hope this isn't a permanent choice... the initial page for Wikipedia ought to be the version of the encyclopedia which gets the most visits and has the most quality pages (a pair of factors which likely are effected by and affect each other). Dumping to a language selection page (before giving you any indication of the content of the website) is not, in my opinion, very good web design, much less for an encyclopedia. But we'll see, I guess... --Fastfission 05:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The thing is that while English is a lot more popular than the other languages, its lead is not so overwhelming that they can be ignored. Japanese and German in particular account for a very large fraction of Wikipedia's traffic. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And so now we have a language selection page. Big whoop. If I came to the main page and was new I would go to the next site as I'd feel overwhelmed. Sorry, but this is a very bad design decision. I hope that someone will either fix the design or make it more interesting. Our front www.wikipedia.org page is meant to be an interest, eye-catching, "Wow that's a cool site!" sort of page. Right now its a dull, uninteresting list of languages with no explanation of what Wikipedia is, what we are about, what we stand for or why I should care about it. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is a truely terrible design decision. But graoning about it here isn't going to make a difference. I'm taking this up in a more productive forum. →Raul654 06:45, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Raul, please tell what is the more productive forum where you want to discuss this? There's no link to a talk page for www.wikipedia.org, and no "view source" link to allow us to find out which template'is being used. (Which is very poor design in itself.) Who made all these changes? And when were they put to a vote? (Is this just Node playing silly buggers again?) GeorgeStepanek\^talk 20:36, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, since clearly everything that goes on that you don't agree with is MY fault. Perhaps if you were more informed, you would realise that this was not MY decision at all but the decision of people in a site-wide poll on meta a long time ago, and that the actual switch was made by a developer and was NOT requested by me (only supported by me), you would know this had you ever bothered to subscribe to wikipedia-l. The only people to raise objections were in fact from the English Wikipedia, and even then it was a minority. You missed the chance to vote on the meta poll a loooooooooooooooooooooooooong time ago, but if you really think it's nessecary we can hold a new one. --Node 04:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would rather stick to the old format of a catchy intro page, but if we are going to have this change, could we have a cookie that stores your language choice? I know that there are other wikis out there that are big, but I don't like the idea of having to go to en.wikipeida.org instead of just wikipedia.org every time I want to come to wikipedia. abhishek 08:01, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Cookies are a bad idea (and lots of people block them for privacy reasons). The easiest thing to do is have it how I believe it used to be: redirecting to http://en.wikipedia.org/ if the user speaks English, http://ja.wikipedia.org/ if the user speaks Japanese, &c. Why have a cookie when one can just use the user's preference for language in their UA? Why anyone changed this I cannot imagine. Please put it back the old way. This totally goes against design principles and WWW standards.

--Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 21:39, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

I'd like to add my voice to the displeasure at being taken direct to a language-choice screen. Now, regardless of the language one wants to read wikipedia in, there is an extra click-through to be made. Bad design, if you ask me. Matthew

Uhh... duhh... you're wrong here. If you want to go to en.wikipedia all the time, use the CORRECT url for that wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org and you will be taken dIRECTLY TO IT every single time. --Node 04:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea either. I actually thought wikipedia was broken for a day because I didn't take the time to read and try link.. I just assumed it didn't load and that some troll succeeded in changing the main-page. MikeCapone 05:31, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Uhh... if you want to go to en.wikipedia all the time, use the CORRECT url for that wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org and you will be taken dIRECTLY TO IT every single time. --Node 04:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do not like the new way *at all*. Bye bye passing trade, imho. Kiand 18:20, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I very much dislike it too. violet/riga (t) 21:41, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Where have you all been? I've been on Wikipedia for nearly 2 years now, and for most of that time it's been accepted that www.wikipedia.org should not point at the English main page. It's inherently POV to point at one language version, particularly since it has lost its' pre-eminence in terms of volume. It's been discussed on the Wikien mailing list. I've been bookmarking "en.wikipedia.org" and giving it in references for about 18 months. The change has only now been actioned because someone finally decided to be bold, and admittedly aesthetically it could do with some tweaking, but I fully support the principle of the change. -- Arwel 22:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Where have we been? "Where has this been discussed?", is the real question. Oh, on the mailing list. Great. Very inclusive for it to be discussed off-site. I agree it's inherently POV -- the point of view of intelligent web design. The first page people see should be catchy, it should showcase the language which has the most quality articles edited by the most people (which I'm willing to wager is English), and it should give people an indication of what sort of website they are looking at. If you wanted to be super-sensible, perhaps you could have it automatically drop you into the website indicated by your IP's country code. Anyway, we can all pretend that English language sites don't dominate the .org and .com domains, we can all love and aspire to idealistic visions about how much a default language main page will send off a language-centric message, we can all wish life was warm and squishy and everyone communicated in the same tongue effortlessly, we can pretend that discussions which take place on a mailing list someone magically represent the site as a whole (and reach the site as a whole), and we can all dream of a wonderful era where good site design doesn't matter. Or we can be realistic. Well anyway, you can see where I stand on it, but I'm just another average-joe contributor. --Fastfission 23:05, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It was also discussed long ago on meta at m:What to do with www.wikipedia.org and m:Quelle utilisation pour www.wikipedia.org ?. Yes, I'll grant that the front page should be catchy, but I do not accept that it should showcase English as "the language which has the most quality articles edited by the most people" -- have you seen the multilingual statistics lately? German, Japanese, and French are not that far behind English, and are growing considerably faster. -- Arwel 23:26, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that a language portal page is the right way to go, but this one is UGLY. Can it be edited? Where can it be edited? Who can edit it? Where can we discuss this? Temporary blindness on my part, or so it seems. Arwel's link is all you need. --217.232.181.233 23:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not that far behind? Well, German has around 42% as many articles as en:, and that's as close as other language wikipedias get. English is the biggest project; English is the world's most-spoken language, behind Mandarin and Spanish, neither of which have comparably large Wikipedias. I think that the www.wikipedia.org domain should point to the English Wikipedia until other languages have comparable stats. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

English has a head start, but when I joined less than 2 years ago there were, if I remember rightly, about 130,000 articles on en:. The reason for the comparatively small size of zh: is fairly obviously political, while es: suffered a fork very early in the history of Wikipedia, which is why it's not as big as it should be. English Wikipedia was moved from www.wikipedia.org to en.wikipedia.org as long ago as October 2002 for goodness' sake -- there's been plenty of time for people to get used to using and quoting the 'proper' address. I have to say that I don't think the argument that en: should keep the www address just because it's the biggest will carry much weight with the Wikipedia community as a whole -- English is my preferred language, but I also work on cy: and I certainly wouldn't support a move back to the status quo ante. -- Arwel 01:53, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If I'm anything like an average user, and I'm doing a search, if I can't find what I'm looking for at a depth of one webpage, I automatically hit the back button and go right back to the search engine. I kind of liked being greeted with the news when I open the page, as opposed to having to make a bunch of choices about my language. I realise this is meant to be inclusive and all, but I think John Thomas is particularly interested in reading his articles in his own language by default than the language of the principality of Kahmed Malai (unless he makes an active choice from an easily accessable subpage.

My humble opinion is that the frontpage should direct users to the English main page until the day another language surpasses English. FLafaire 22:54, 10 Jan 2005

If wikipedia is all for equal coverage of different language versions of the encyclopedia, regardless of how many people speak it or how many articles it has, then why does wikipedia.co.uk direct only to the english wikipedia? what about cymraeg? --81.135.218.135 15:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Or Scots, Gaelic, or any of the other languages spoken in the UK as a first tongue! :-) Matthew 19:57, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone considered using the Accept-Language HTTP headers that all browsers send? If it starts with en then it should issue a redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org. If it starts with de then it should redirect to de.wikipedia.org etc. Debian do this for a number of their pages and it's a really great idea because everyone feels like wikipedia isn't preferring one language over another--PdDemeter 20:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Raul654 made this suggestion--or something close to it--at tonight's Tampa Bay Meetup, as a modification to a suggestion of mine, and if no one else files a feature request on it, I will tomorrow. --Baylink 01:30, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Geez, everybody quit whinging about this. This has already been discussed on meta and on wikipedia-l, you missed your opportunity, and a looooooooong time ago there was a massive poll you may or may not have participated on, on Meta. The anglocentrism of the redirect has long been despised by the VAST MAJORITY of Wikipedians and a GROUP DECISION was made to change it to a portal which you can edit at Meta. --Node 04:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Node, please do take into account that not all Wikipedians have the time or inclination to discuss things on meta and wikipedia-l, or even know about them, and that most Wikipedia readers and browsers are probably not Wikipedians themselves. Therefore I would suggest that your 'VAST MAJORITY' 'GROUP DECISION' in the 'massive poll' may in fact have been made by a self-selecting group.

Also, if the redesign is so popular then why is there very little lauding of it here in response to all of this criticism of it?

Finally, in your responses here you come across as quite curt and on the verge of being rude. Not particularly good PR for Wikipedia, I would have thought. Matthew 14:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And anyway, if there is going to be a laguage page, it should include Klingon! -Unknown Klingon 21:08 27 Jan 2005

Hey, Node, it's not anglocentric if it redirects to each user's language's page, and then goes to the language select page if it can't find a matching language. That seems totally fair to all users. BTW, what exactly was the old main page? If it couldn't find a language, would the en page or a language select page be default? If it was the en page, than a new redirect system using a default language page would fix the anglocentric problem. If there was a language page previously, then what's the problem? And about this topic already being discussed, why can't there be a new vote? Recounts aren't that uncommon. --Y2kBugxp90 18:17, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Dutch wikipedia

run this night over the 50,000. Can anyone change it and place it in the head group? Thanks

Well you learn something new everyday: as an English speaker, I have just learned that Nederland is Dutch for The Netherlands, but that Nederlands is Dutch for Dutch! If this type of subtlety arises everyday between native and learned speakers of any language, can you imagine the miscommunication that basically arises everyday in the Wikipedia? Yet Wikipedia keeps growing. (Congratulations for the 50,000.) Ancheta Wis 17:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

next runner-up (for this completely arbitrary threshold :p) will be es: (now at 40k). dab (ᛏ) 17:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anniversary

Today's news talks of a one month anniversary which is a howler. Anniversary relates to annus which is the latin for year

Hope that it can be changed asap. Jack Hill

This seems a bit pedantic. You're correct about the derivation, but the term "anniversary" has come to be used for various different lengths of time. I don't think it needs to be changed unless someone can suggest a better alternative. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 16:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The term is widely used--"one-month anniversary of our first date"; "the two-week anniversary of my new job." What do you recommend, montheversary? Nelson Ricardo 17:02, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the term is widely used INCORRECTLY. As Jack Hill stated, and as published in Wiktionary, "anniversary" pertains only to the annual date. The slang misuse should not be quietly condoned on the front page of what is supposed to be a source of knowledge. Why not simply say "it has been a month since..." 148.63.234.151 19:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this meets the definition of slang, since it doesn't seem to define a cultural group. And even if you're using "slang" loosely, I don't see the harm in letting the language drift a bit in this case. For instance, you didn't use "source" to talk about the origin of a running body of water, did you? Yet no one is confused because you say "source of knowledge" to denote a difference between this and the classical, technically correct use of the word. "One-month anniversary" would be a similar term. polyparadigm

See the History of Antarctica article to know that the discovery of Antarctic mainland is disputed between Russia, England and USA. For example, Russian sources claim, that it was discovered January 28, 1820 by the Russian expedition lead by Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen and Mikhail Petrovich Lazarev, which approached to the Antarctic coast in the point with coordinates 69°21'S, 2°14'W [1] So, the controversial statement on the main page should be removed. Cmapm 09:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The 3 articles each clearly acknowledge these three men, who are each now listed in the Category:explorers of Antarctica (see the talk page for more). It's like the invention of the computer; no government ever recognized their achievement until it became obvious that the discoveries were significant. You are welcome to learn how to edit the Selected Anniversaries section so that you can make the changes you desire. Just follow the instructions in the box at the top of this page. Ancheta Wis 17:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Conversion to Interwiki links

Since www.wikipedia.org no longer redirects to this page, the issue came up as to whether we needed that gigantic languges section. I have gone ahead and converted it to interwiki links (which is the standard for every other page on Wikipedia and is done by most of the languages main pages) for the languages over 10k articles. What does everyone think? →Raul654 19:49, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Long overdue. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Good idea, I agree. --fvw* 19:57, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
• Much better, though I can see people being confused as to the order (it doesn't say anywhere that it's in size order). However, alphabetical has its problems too. violet/riga (t) 19:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Right now, it's approximately size order, although I'm told that there's a "standard" (approximately alphabetical) order somewhere →Raul654 20:06, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• I'm strongly against this: I think it's important to promote the other language versions and I don't think this does that as well as the box. I personally find it interesting and useful to see a quick reference on this page to the versions by size. It's also not true that other langages mostly use the side-bar links - of the 19 largest, 12 have similar lists to our template version. (fr. ja. nl. pl. cs. da. it. sh. uk. ru. ro. pt.) I really want the language box back -- sannse (talk) 20:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a link to www.wikipedia.org would help too? violet/riga (t) 20:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• so we went from "gigantic langage section" to "no language section"? I object. I say, keep the major ones in the template (>10,000 or so), and link *all* (or, >100) by interwikis, alphabetically. dab (ᛏ) 22:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• strongly against. (personally for me it was the existence of many language versions that sparkled my initial interest in Wikipedia. The other languages' versions should be promoted, not hidden away.) --rydel 22:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Good. Now that there's more room, could we add back Wikipedia:Browse by overview (or something equivalent) to Main? Fredrik | talk 00:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Very good, this is step two of the long-awaited portal; now we can do whatever we want (this is positive, I think). The only thing we miss is a link back to our multi-lang portal. ✏ Sverdrup 00:22, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Excellent idea, but I think we need to retain Complete list, Multilingual coordination and Start a Wikipedia in another language somewhere. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 01:26, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I used these links on a daily basis, and i especially liked the grouping according to size. DAb's suggestion seems good. - Chris 73 Talk 03:45, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think we should have a link to the complete list on the mainpage, it won't take up that much room. I do not think we should have a link to everything on the mainpage, but we should at least allow people easy access, especially given that this is by far the largest Wikipedia. Rje 04:00, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Linking 151 other-language wikipedias from the sidebar is nuts - it'd 2 or 3 times longer than the main page itself. →Raul654 03:58, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think Rje means the Complete list link. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 04:20, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I do indeed. I forgot we used to have one, I never used it with the old template that linked to most of the other languages. :). Rje 05:00, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
• While some people may think its only purpose was to direct visitors to wikipedia.org to a specific Wikipedia, it serves more than that. Look at the top 10, the top 20, even the top 30 Wikipedias, and you will see that every single one of them has a Template:Wikipedialang type arrangement. Some of them have only languages with over 1000 articles, others have over 100 only, and some even have less than 100 (Some, like the Chinese Wikipedia, include national minority languages). People are way, way, way too obsessed with an itsy bitsy mainpage. I don't advocate something that takes up an entire browser window, but those who don't think we can spare a few lines are, in my book, wackos. --Node 09:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Ugh. PLEASE, let's revert that - not everyone's using the new skin, and I now have six lines of interwiki links at the top of the page, which take up a considerable amount of screen space, distract from the actual main page and make the whole page look rather unprofessional. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 18:26, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I'm using the classic skin. The main page now looks like crap (as Schneelocke pointed out). CryptoDerk 18:51, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • I use both skins (classic for most editing, and monobook when I want to see how most people will see it) and I agree that the main page looks like crap. I have reverted it to what it was prior to when I started. →Raul654 19:38, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, so that didn't work. How about having a single link back to www.wikipedia.org instead? --fvw* 19:43, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

Suggestions for "Article of the Day"

Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge , mabye.....

Check out Wikipedia:Today's featured article for more information. Evil Monkey∴Hello? 01:55, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Mohandas?

Why is Mahatma Gandhi's image on the main page entitled "Mohandas Gandhi?" When I checked out the image, the subtitle said Mahatma Gandhi. ???

The article actually says: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (October 2, 1869—January 30, 1948) (Devanagari: मोहनदास करमचन्द गांधी) also called Mahatma Gandhi ("great soul"). Articles are supposes to go at the most common name, and whoever wrote that decided (correct, in my opinion) that Mahatma Gandhi is the most common. →Raul654 01:19, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, Mohandas was Gandhi's given birth name. Mahatma is a title, or nickname even, that was given to him later in life. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 02:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused. It is 9:00 pm where I am and the featured article is Super Mario 64. Two Hours ago, it was Gandhi. Whats up?

Probably weird caching or something. Mario 64 was yesterday's FA. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it changed back right when I went back to the Main Page.

Redundant Interwiki Links

en.wikipedia.org now shows "Wikipedia in other languages" and "Wikipedia's sister projects", but they no longer answer a need. Wikipedia.org now makes the visitor immediately aware of Wikipedia's sister projects and its many translations. Mentioning the same things over again on the main pages of specific Wikipedias, such as the English Wikipedia is redundant a waste of space and detracts from an otherwise clear and concise project.

We should clean up the front page by liberating it from these artifacts and using the extra space to better organize our content and perhaps include a new section. -Exigentsky

No shouting. Disagree. This edition gets referred to by the other wikipedias. Omitting the sized links would make it less welcoming for the other editions. Ancheta Wis 01:47, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how, everything is already mentioned to all visitors entering Wikipedia.org. I don't think a Wikipedia dedicated to a particular language and subject matter should have to include all those extra sections now that Wikipedia.org takes care of informing visitors of the full range of Mediawiki projects and translations. -Exigentsky

one of the disadvantages of not being able to edit the main page

one of the disadvantages of not being able to edit the main page is not being able to remove vandelism such as the erect penis photo shown now.

You can: see Template:In the news. I've just reverted it, however. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 14:30, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Disagree - a first page needs to outline all the facets of the following pages. Wikipedia is intended to make information free for everyone and increase awareness of the world for everyone. Therefore informing members and visitors of the many languages available and the subdivisions of the concept is necessary. The home page is a guide for new visitors and a starting place for a logical exploration of available invormation. The home page is fine as it is as anyone dissatisfied can use search imediatley and get on with their business. ERS

Well then how did it get vandalized? Never mind. I get it. --Blair P. Houghton 00:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Main page is male dominated

It seems that the main page is almost always dominated by articles and pictures of men. Right now the main page includes 4 pictures - all of them are of men (3 of the 4 are white male politicians). I can't remember the last time I saw a picture of a woman on the main page. In the interest of broadening the appeal of Wikipedia, maybe we should make an effort to feature more women and minorities. Just a thought. Kaldari 15:47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that's at least partly a consequence of the fact that a large proportion of people who are encyclopaedic are men. --Khendon 15:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's probably true, especially historically. I'm just saying that we should be aware of it and maybe make an effort to include more women and minorities so that Wikipedia appeals to a broader audience. Kaldari 16:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

• Affirmative action is entirely orthogonal to the Wikipedian spirit. Featured articles etc. on the main page should be displayed entirely on the merits of the article itself: interesting, informative, and cross-referenced to numerous other articles.
• If most of the articles are about or pertaining to men, then most of the featured articles, statistically, will be about or pertaining to men. How else can the project claim to be entirely unbiased?
• Wikipedia may be for everyone, but that doesn't mean we should be extra careful not to offend anyone. - Hieronymous (couldn't be bothered to log in)

I'm not saying we're offending anyone, I'm just saying it might be nice if Wikipedia was more appealing to people besides white males. Otherwise we just end up with white males writing about white males and we're missing an opportunity to diversify the content of Wikipedia. I don't think we need to bend over backwards or institute any kind of affirmative action policy, but I think considering that Wikipedia contributors are 90% white male (if you look at the user photo albums), it would be nice to get a broader range of input. An easy way to do that would be to make a conscious effort not to ALWAYS feature articles about men, especially white male politicians. If we were truely "unbiased" the featured article would be selected totally at random, but as it is, personal preferences, interests, and biases are certainly a factor. Kaldari 17:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, there was a woman on the main page when Bishojo game was featured, but I don't think that's exactly what you had in mind :). Anyway, the featured article is not chosen at random. It goes through a peer review process at WP:FAC, and if it is voted featured-quality then it is added to the pool of featured articles at WP:FA from which the main page articles are chosen. You're right that biases and personal interests are a factor, but only in the sense that not enough contributors are writing good articles about women, not that the main page selection is biased against them. Unfortunately we can't make a "conscious effort" because if you look at WP:FA virtually none of them are about women. If you'd like to see an article about a famous woman on the main page, then the best thing to do would be to write a featured-quality article on one and submit it to WP:FAC; then everyone will be happy to see it on the main page. --Redquark 17:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful suggestions. I'll follow your advise and see how it goes. Kaldari 17:25, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am endlessly puzzled by the notion that one needs same sex (or race) role models and topics of interest. Do men not admire, and write about, Mother Theresa? Are women not interested in Gandhi? Did only females participate in the recent Roe v Wade FAC debate ... or were there any at all? FWIW, I appreciate Ms "Kaldari"s moderate, "examining" stance on this issue, but it is a slippery slope to start down.Sfahey 03:22, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I took this issue into account when writing the Weight training article (which recently achieved FA status), by trying to make it more "women friendly". The photos were of a female weight trainer, and moreover one who does not have an intimidatingly perfect figure. Women are often turned off weight training because of its macho image, which is a shame because it can be very effective for them.

So, while I accept your point, Sfahey, I also feel that Kaldari has a very valid point. In addition to the suggestions made above, how about finding striking images to illustrate FAs such as Roe v Wade, that would put more women on the front page. A good quality image of Emily Dickinson could very well be subtituted for the current male image selected to represent Poetry of the United States, when it comes up. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 04:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Main page is male dominated And whats the problem with that? All kinds of content manipulation to appease femininists are bloody ridiculous. Thats the nicest thing i can say. Want girls in the main page, work for it. Hildegard of Bingen, Fulvia and Joanna of Flanders are nice places to start and avoid Joan of Arc. muriel@pt 13:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Dear Kaldari, you can also support the Photography of female nudes before 1923 FAC nomination. muriel@pt 13:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) Ok, this was probably a stupid joke. muriel@pt 10:47, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Should we protect the main page again?

As many will be aware, the main page used to be protected because of regular vandalism. It isn't currently protected because at least two of the components used to build it are not protected. As a result it's easy to vandalise it. Time to revisit the discussion of whether protecting the main page is preferable to goatse.cx on the main page. No view expressed by me in this case. Simple choice: protection or goatse and penis pictures regularly. Over to the rest of the readers here to discuss this question again... :) Jamesday 01:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I took some heat when I started doing this with the featured article write ups following the last major vandalism incident in Novemeber (the felix the cat incident). I have gone ahead and protected the 9 static images on the main page (the 8 sister project logos and the language logo). Someone else protected Template:Wikipedialang, Template:Newpagelinksmain, and template:WikipediaSister, and (since they are mostly static), there's no reason why they should not stay protected as well. Mav intends to protect all the selected anniversaries later this month after the last of them are filled in. Once this is done, our security soft spots will be:

• Template:In the News and its associated image
• template:Did you know and its associated image
• The featurued article associated image
• The selected anniversary associated image.

If you want to stop all vandalism to the main page, we need to figure out some system for reliably protecting all of the above. →Raul654 04:44, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

What about a system for automatically protecting any template or image on the Main Page? That way, featured article images would only remain protected while they are shown on the Main Page. But writing stuff in the software specifically for the Main Page may be tricky and counterproductive. - Mark 09:55, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I believe the main page should be protected. Because it relies so heavily on its templates, it rarely needs changing. However, i believe the templates should remain open, since more people need to change them more often, and because it takes a determined vandal to find the templates to edit. In my opinion, page protection should be used to prevent casual vandalism only. On a wiki, someone actually trying to do damage will find a way to do so. foobaz·✐ 04:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What you are describing is the same security though obscurity scheme that we've been using for a year. Only problem is, security through obscurity breaks down when the obscurity goes away, which is apparently what has happened. →Raul654 05:00, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Frankly, I'm not at all suprised this happened. Look above in the top-right corner. We have a prominent message advertising the fact that anybody can edit it. If you ask me, this is a bad idea. Eventually, enough people are going to find out (which has started to happen), and those templates will have to be protected (or we have to find a new system). We seriously have to look into ways of protecting the main page. The way things are going, it looks like we may have to protect the templates not so long from now; but as a first step, I think that the prominent "you can edit the main page" box has got to go. If we make that so well-known, then we might as well just unprotect the main page itself! -Frazzydee|✍ 19:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that hiding Wikipedia's editability will reduce the number of new editors we get. foobaz·✐ 16:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any options other than protection, unfortunately. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• My vote is for one of the above compromises, born largely by the presence right now of several embarrassing "typos" on "Did you know". Granted, I missed the vandalism, but sloppy front pages are a downer too. Are you administrators still be able to correct stuff like this, when it's frozen? Perhaps I should give whoever added these items a buzz in the meantime, since I can't fix'm myself, as I've been doing. Sfahey 03:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The main page is already protected. I oppose protection of templates used on the main page. Although templates used on the main page are often vandalised, the vandalism is usually reverted within minutes. This is good enough. We do not need to ensure that things visible on the main page are never vandalised. I would not characterise the current system as security through obscurity, because there is very little obscurity, and what obscurity exists is an unfortunate consequence of the way templates work, not a feature intended to provide security. The system I want to see is better charracterised as eternal vigilance: leave all the templates open for editing, but revert vandalism promptly. Vandalism visible on the main page for a short time does hardly any harm, whereas protecting things all over the place causes great harm. (The harm is that, when people want to fix problems but can't edit the page, they are more likely to give up leaving the problem un-fixed than they are to ask for a change via the talk page, or to ask for unprotection.) It seems to me that most of the people arguing in favour of protection are admins, who are able to edit protected pages, and so are unlikely to see how harmful protection is. —AlanBarrett 17:06, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

this is true. Until we get a very easy to use pipeline system (delayed editing), Alan is right. goatse is disgusting, but at this stage, wiki is about direct participation more than anything else, and we'll just have to put up with the unpleasant side of it. dab (ᛏ) 13:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Front page hacked?

Nineteen hours ago I was assailed by some of the most revolting pornographic images I have ever seen. As I set Wikipedia's main page to load in one of four tabs when I start my Firefox browser, this could have easily been seen by anyone of my kids -- with the very real possibility of psychological scarring. As I said these images were utterly revolting -- as in bizarre/extreme.

This is a real security flaw that threatens to ruin this entire project. You can imagine what sort of response this would get in the both the tabloid media and among those opposed to the concept of a user-compiled and edited dictionary. Then, of course, there would be the copycats who would try to outdo each other.

I'm not a technical person but, surely, the main page could be set up to randomly load articles and related graphics from Wikipedia's database, with a reputable RSS feed providing the news. It, at least, needs a gatekeeper -- either a real person or a robot/script -- to ensure the main page content is genuine.

which template was vandalised? I'm unable to find the incident. My proposal would be a mechanism to prevent the appearance of images that were uploaded less than, say, a day ago, on the main page. In the rare event that a breaking news story needs a more recent image, the image would have to be 'certified' by a sysop. A day should be sufficient to spot goatse, so it will not make it onto the main page. That would still leave us with images like the autofellatio one which for some unknown reason were able to survive ifd and could be added to the mainpage by anyone, without having to upload anything. dab (ᛏ) 12:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, some images that are quite appropriate on Wikipedia would not be in the eyes of some on the front page (images of genitalia, graphical diagrams of sexual congress, etc.). These images will have been uploaded many moons ago, and certainly more than "a day ago".

The main problem is having open templates on the front page. It's a bad idea.

However, a note of caution to the original poster - Wikipedia is not a "child safe" environment, and you probably should not let them do anything involving the Internet unattended if you are actually worried about the effect that such imagery and/or ideas might have; the Internet, sadly, is littered with such piffle, and much of it is overly easy to stumble over.

James F. (talk) 12:57, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the images you mention will have survived ifd at some point, and "relativists" would argue that by virtue of being encyclopedic, they have the same right to appear on the main page as every other image. What would happen if autofellatio ever reached FA status? Would it be featured on the main page? With the image? The problem I am addressing here is people uploading porn that will be speed-deleted, but not speedily enough to prevent it briefly appearing on the main page. This would be addressed by my proposal. The points you raise go much deeper, because they are a matter of policy: Let's not have them get in the way of dealing with clear cases everyone agrees on. dab (ᛏ) 13:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This was not appropriate content. I'm pretty broadminded. I know what gratuitious offensiveness is when I see it. Images were not accompanied by an explanatory text. They were just repeated ad nauseum on a yellow background. Yes, encyclopedias can contain material that is offensive to some but that is no reason to keep them away from teenagers!

I don't know what template was vandalised -- all I do know is that when I opened Wikipedia last night (between 11pm and midnight, Perth Australia time) I was greeted by the grossest of images. The menu on the left was unaffected but the rest of the main page was filled with multiple images on a yellow background. I cannot be sure of their duration but I did reload and restart browser a few times but to no effect.

For those that don't know - this was goatse - uploaded and added to the sister projects template and the recent changes header. Because of an unrelated site slowdown, those of us trying to fix it couldn't access the site. This meant that the image was up for in excess of 20 minutes. The blue ribbon goes to fvw for getting to the delete button first and Hadal for fixing the template and recent changes. We've had complaints via email again (to Jimbo and the board) - one from a teacher who was showing the site to her class. We need to stop this NOW. This happens on a regular basis. It's true that this incident was made more problematic by an unrelated problem, but this sort of vandalism happens very regularly - and on our most public face. I can't say strongly enough that I believe we have to fully protect the front page. It's only recently that it was unprotected in any way. Before templates were used, the page was locked. Until we get a new system that allows for an alternative solution such as delayed editing on problem pages , let's protect -- sannse (talk) 14:02, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) (fvw - yes, I know I said I was done ranting on this, seems I was wrong :)

Agree absolutely. All elements of Main page need to be protected indefinitely. Filiocht 14:38, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Protect it all. violet/riga (t) 19:29, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"We've had complaints via email again (to Jimbo and the board) - one from a teacher who was showing the site to her class. We need to stop this NOW." Well we all knew this day would come, but security through obscurity does not work without obscurity. Lock the templates down and look for ways to protect images displayed on protected pages. --mav 20:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Protect them. We should figure out a way to make it easier for non-sysops to help keep Template:In the news and Template:Did you know up to date, though. I'm thinking of some sort of associated pipeline page where any user can add items for sysops to copy over to the main template; something like Template:Did you know/To be added might be appropriate. It would be clunky and annoying, but certainly not as bad as goatse images on Wikipedia's most public face. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 20:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alternatively, a technical solution whereby a shadow page gets copied to T:ItN every time it hasn't been edited for 30 minutes. This is a bit like the mythical delayed editing that we're going to have in mediawiki one day, but done on this page and copying only when it's stable would make it implementable outside of mediawiki I think. --fvw* 21:02, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

Delayed or pipelined editing has been suggested in #mediawiki. Jamesday estimates it would take 6-12 months if the devs decided to impliment it. Personally, I prefer the already-made request for recursive page protection (protecting a page automatically protects all images used on it). →Raul654 21:07, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Ohh, come on, can it really be that hard? One fairly easy way to do it would be to have a template up for editing, like Template:In the News and another one called Template:In the news LOCKED which is locked and is displayed at the main page. Then every X minutes a bot copies the contents from the open template to the locked one if it has been there for more than Y minutes. The potential problem with this could be that you'd have to give a bot Administrative privliges, but if the bot does that and ONLY that, I'd be ok with it. Personally I think that one of the great things about Wikipedias front page is that it CAN be edited. I am totally against protecting it, but when things like goatse happen one realizes that something needs to be done. This way, we get the best of both worlds. Gkhan 22:54, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

All the vandal would have to do is time his vandalism so that the bot copies it the the live template. That may buy us a bit of time by adding more obscurity but is ultimately a fatally-flawed idea. --mav 23:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No thats not what I meant. Lets say that the bot updates once every halfhour and submissions must have been on the page for 20 mins. The bot updates at 2:30 and sees a submission made at 2:29. That means only one minute has passed and does NOT add it. However at 3:00 the next update sees that it has been there for 31 mins add does add it (these numbers are not optimal in any way, if someone makes a submission at 2:11 it would take 49 mins for it to get to the page which might be a little long, but you see my point). Gkhan 01:27, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

This sounds a very interesting idea. Are you on IRC? If so, maybe you could pop into #mediawiki and see what they think of it there. ([2]) -- sannse (talk) 01:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Seems a bit that this discussion has noted the fact that images can be overwritten with newly uploaded ones, even if everything under the sun is protected. A simple solution is not allow overwriting of file names, aswell as protecting all elements. Pcb21| Pete 01:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect. Protecting an image page protects the image from being uploaded over. This has been true for about 3 months. →Raul654 02:10, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

What about images on commons? Even if they're protected on commons, won't someone uploading an image with the same name here mask them? And if we create an image page here and protect that, that will cause the image on commons to be masked, right? So we'd need to upload all images on commons that we want to use on the front page to en.wikipedia? --fvw* 02:15, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

How about disabling automatic cache update/template content refreshing for the Main Page, and making the purge function available only to admins? That shouldn't be too hard to implement. (You could then have a copy of the Main Page with automatic updates, available for admins to check that nothing has been tampered with just before purging) - Fredrik | talk 03:09, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't that require quite a significant change in MediaWiki software? I mean, couldn't any user just enter http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/wiki.phtml?title=Main_Page&action=purge in their browser and get the main page purged? Is there any way right now so that that page can only be accessed by admins? And by the way, doesn't the main page purge automatically? Gkhan 13:18, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

My idea was to disable automatic purging for Main, and add a few lines of code to check whether the purge action is used by an admin. Fredrik | talk 14:06, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know already has a list for pending new items which works like Charles P's suggestion. 68.81.231.127 21:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If this enterprise is to have any credibility (and it must have if teachers are using it in live classroom demos) the front page(s) MUST be protected from vandalism or corruption of any sort whatsoever. This is the primary interface with the rest of the world - it must be faultless at all times. In the short time I have been browsing, I have not been able to ascertain the exact procedure used to put the page together, but it would seem wise to allow contributions/edits for a prospective new version to occur up to, say, 12 hours beforehand, then protect the page for final vetting/approval before putting it in place. The vetting process could be open to everyone, but edits only by a consensus of administrators. --Mikeh 13:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Isan

This should have a comma after the poor conditions

Agriculture is the main economic activity, but due to the poor conditions output trails that of other parts of the country, and this is Thailand's poorest region.

In the news

In the news seems to feature a lot of pictures of dead white men, literally. Anyone else notice this? Hyacinth 08:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More to the point, it hasn't been updated for 2 days! jguk 08:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Probably due to it being blocked after vandalism, no? Gkhan 09:58, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. It means only admins can edit it now - and none have done so. I question how up to date it will remain when there are only 300 or so people who can edit it, and many fewer with the inclination to edit it, jguk 10:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why not an in-the-news candidate page, to be checked and copied periodically by an admin? --dreish~talk 19:29, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

I've added such a page at Template:In_the_news/Candidate. --dreish~talk 19:34, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

This seems like the best plan to me. Any automated updating system could be abused by a smart vandal. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 19:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Article Ratings

This has probably has been suggested before... if not tried somewhere. But why isn't there a rating system for the articles? This would create a feedback loop to ensure high quality material. When explaining some ridiculously complex theorem the writer could check back to see if her explanation was useful and edit it accordingly. It would also give a good idea of where improvements could be made.

It seems like the only useful ratings would be ones with accompanying explanations of what's good/bad about the article, and isn't that what the talk page is for? --brian0918™ 13:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that there's a large subset of users that the talk pages are missing. For the casual user my guess is that they never contribute and rarely look at the talk pages. Furthermore, they're a little out of the way of someone just trying to get some information. Some easy rating system on the side would be a simple way for anyone to provide feedback quickly. It could even be used as a way to automatically tag extremely poorly written articles for cleanup, review, etc. Lastly, I think there's a subtle nuance in the type of feedback I'm hoping we'd get. Rather than a reader thinking: "I know what would be great for this article... I'll make a suggestion," I'm actually suggesting we listen to the people who come away from an article thinking: "Now what in the world was that about? I am no better off than I was before reading that article." This type of feedback is harder to illicit on discussion pages.

Presumably you'd need something on the toolbar to the left saying "rate this article" - then allowing a 1-10 rating, say, plus a gap for people to say why. Could be interesting (as would a "X people have visited this page" counter). Could the developers do this easily? jguk 14:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Any article with NPOV problems would get a bunch of 1's and 10's and probably little inbetween.

• Article rating functionality has been developed for MediaWiki, and could be seen on test: for a while, but it doesn't appear to have made it into any of the releases as yet. The priority at the moment appears to be addressing performance and scalability issues to meet the huge increase in demand: Wikipedia currently gets three times as many page views as it did six months ago. Article rating functionality will increase the load on the Apache servers because, unlike page requests, rating requests cannot be handled by the squid cache servers. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 00:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Super Bowl?

I don't think the Super Bowl turnout should be on the main page, let alone the top story.

It's a major event which is relevant to one country. So, of course, is the death of the Georgian PM or the election of a Thai prime minister. Don't worry, it'll be gone soon. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 04:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well said. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 05:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Slovenian Wikipedia

The Slovenian Wikipedia reached 10,000 articles, can someone update Template:Wikipedialang since, it is protected.Jeff8765 03:07, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Chinese Wikipedia

The Chinese Wikipedia (zh:) has just passed 20,000 articles and also deserves promotion to the Premier League. How long before it overtakes the English Wiki I wonder? -- RHaworth 13:00, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

More Vandalism

I don't watch much television, though. But,1974 in television to 1978 in television has been vandalized by Ezhiki, of deleting content. Anyone could revert the pages back, look at the history of 1974 in television to 1978 in television.

User: 4.xxx.xxx.xxx Feb 07 2005

Please see my talk page for more information on this, and then remove this accusation off here (I apparently cannot do that myself as the accusation is directed at me). Talk:Main Page is not a place to discuss vandalism, even when it is real; one needs to utilize Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress for that.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 19:33, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Ellen MacArthur

Ho hum. Who cares? Has she done anything to change humankind, really? I was upset when I tuned into BBC World News on BBC America this morning and they were in the middle of some lovefest for this woman. Where was the real news? Breaking a record like this is not all that notable. (I can only assume that a British person put this up. (I love Brits, don't get me wrong.)) Now, if Wikipedia had been around in Magellan's day . . . 13:59, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Just how I felt about the Super Bowl. Filiocht 14:06, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. violet/riga (t) 17:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I'm American and I agree with you about the Super Bowl. Nelson Ricardo 18:38, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Significant or not, these are widely reported events and big news in some circles. Please go to Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates to voice your opinion on various items on 'In The News' or suggest changes. -- PFHLai 19:27, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

Hmm... well, even if it is up there, it should definitely not be the top story...

I second PFHLai. We report lots of news that seems trivial in one part of the world but is important elsewhere. "Wikipedia is not US-centric" does not mean "Wikipedia goes out of its way to ignore the US." Incidentally, such discussion is most likely to be noticed at Template talk:In the news. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 02:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Aren't we being a bit...optimistic?

"The Al-Aqsa intifada ends..."

Um, yeah. That's a bit optimistic, ain't it? I'd hate for us to have to eat crow in a few days. --Penta 23:49, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

a font too far

Is anyone else bothered by the number of different fonts in the first seven lines of the main page? dcm

• Well, I have my user css set, so it's all the same font, arial unicode ms... but I didn't think there was more than one font on the main page...? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • There isn't, unless you count the size changes, and the smallcaps/italics as being different fonts. Goplat 04:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New wiki with 10k articles

May I be the first (I think...) to congratulate the Slovenian wikipedia, which just eclipsed 10,000 articles! I think a front page edit is in order!

...whoops, I guess Jeff8765 mentioned this about a day ago. In any event, if an admin could edit www.wikipedia.org to reflect the change, that would be appreciated, I'm sure. Apparently Template:Wikipedialang was edited, but the front page still puts the slovenian wiki in the 1,000-10,000 category. ral315 05:33, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

FA error

Would somebody with access please fix the first line of the featured article description from "Jonathan Wild is" to "Jonathan Wild was", in line with the actual article? - BanyanTree 05:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Got it. →Raul654 05:37, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiportal

Would anyone mind me adding the Wikiportal link to the following list at the top of the main page? Browse Wikipedia - Article overviews - Alphabetical index - Other category schemes. I think the portals are very helpful surfing aids for readers. Mgm|^(talk) 12:15, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be finished for the Main Page yet. It doesn't have to be perfect, but this doesn't seem to cover very much. Also, to link to it from that section, I think the page should be totally reader-oriented with the process of expanding it moved to another page. ✏ Sverdrup 15:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OTOH, these pages might get 'finished' sooner with more visitors. I don't think the people interested in say Biology or Information technology will have necessarily have interest in setting up the History, Politics, etc portals. :)--Sketchee 06:28, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

As for reader-oriented, I disagree. Besides, categories which are linked from the main page have stub subcategories, which also makes them editor-oriented in some way. We want people interested in specific fields to contribute, not just to read. Wikiportals are to function as both the main page and the community portal for specific topics. Ausir 08:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Festival of Muharram

Though Muslims do generally celebrate Muharram as the new year, only the Shiite celebrates the Festival of Muharram. Maybe the front page should reflect that by saying, Festival of Muharram in Shi'ite Islam (2005, A.H. 1426 begins). __earth 05:21, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I've changed it to "Festival of Muharram in Shi'a Islam (2005, A.H. 1426 begins)". Okay ? -- PFHLai 10:06, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

Camilla Parker Bowled

Oh my, the ugliest man alive is marrying someone in his own league. Quick. Let's make it a top headline. What was that about North Korea and nuclear weapons? Sod it. Who cares when we got Ole' Tractor-Ears to put up front. I really don't mean to be as disrespectful, I rarely am, but someone should get a sense of priorities, and let The Sun, Der Spiegel, or whatever they're called, deal with royal gossip. --TVPR 09:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I feel that the North Korea issue is way more important than "who will be the next Queen of England" (yes, I know she won't be Queen, but you get the point) --Tommy 10:36, 10 February 2005 (UTC) (that is the first time I put the time... I hope it's right)

It's controversial and global headline news. violet/riga (t) 21:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, as Charles will be head of state of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, The Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I think it has global signficance. Jooler 22:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ceremonial Head of State, however.

Not ture. The monarchy has more of a constitutional role than purely ceremonial, please read constitutional monarchy. Jooler 17:17, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let's not forget, "Newest item goes on the top, older items are removed from the bottom." Going by this, the newest news goes at the top, no matter what. We list based on time, not relevance, as relevance is really just a form of POV. -- user:zanimum

Fair enough, but the "North Korea now got nukes" article was on top for such short time I completely missed it between two stops by front page - with 10 minute intervals. The Prince of Wales has been on top for almost two full days. It's silly (yes, my POV, but sure). Also, regarding the dominions of the monarch of Great Britain making this a global matter - he's not king yet. She'll never be queen. But sure. --TVPR 18:17, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Searching a CMS (MediaWiki?)

Hello, first of all sorry if this doesn't go here...

My aim is to create a web interface that holds a collaborative editor, so a text would be presented and you could enter the translation (the basic problem is being collaborative, that is, many people simultaneously editing). Maybe could be identificated users, but not necessarily.

Recently I worked with a wiki for a student work and I suppose MediaWiki could be the technology I need, but it also fits with the CMS concept.

I have searched by the web and I conclude those six could be good choices. Which one could suit me? -Plone -Silva -Mambo -OpenPHPNuke -OpenCMS -and of course, Mediawiki

I see Mambo is very used, but also Mediawiki with all the wikimedia ; Plone and Silva are Zope-based and seem good, but maybe too powerful for my needs? (it's only a portal, the main problem is the workflow-simultaneous edit problem...) Seems also that OpenPHPNuke and OpenCMS are also very popular.

Other suggestions? Some advices?

Thanks in advance

Jordi

See this comparitive review of several wikis, and also see m:MediaWiki reviews.-gadfium 22:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone modify the page?

I'm a new comer here

Anyone can modify almost any page on Wikipedia. The main page is one of the very few exceptions (along with the disclaimers and the copyright license info, among others) →Raul654 10:07, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Economy Republic of Ireland--Beer

I could not find any criteria for how the front page synopsis of a featured article was created, so I wonder why a picture would be included that has no relevance to the content of the synopsis. For me, when I see "economy of the Republic of Ireland" and a big picture of a beer with no explanation connecting the two, the connection in my head is "the economy of the Republic of Ireland is based on beer!" which, from my reading of the article, is not true any more than it's based on fishing or potatoes. I feel that either the connection should be made clear in the synopsis or the picture should be one with no connotations from which one could draw such a conclusion.

-Note that my objection is not based on the subject being alcohol, though that may have helped bring it to my attention, and I would have (I hope to have sex in 2 minutes) objected had it been potatoes or Lucky Charms cereal or whathaveyou. ;) Cigarette 14:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Guinness has always been a symbol of Ireland's exports. It's more common to call it stout than beer by the way. Beer in Ireland means American recycled water (one prefixes "beer" if you mean quality German beer for example), lager is not called beer, and you most certainly do not call Guinness or other stouts, "beer".

Of course, it would be more contemporary to photograph the inside of a computer, with the "made in Ireland" typing on some chip zoomed in on! zoney ♣ talk 14:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ireland Economy

Anybody else have a problem with an Article on the Irish economy having a picture of a pint of beer? Isn't beer a stereotype for Irish people? Would there be a picture of landscaping tools when the economy of Mexico is discussed? A picture of a car accident for the Japanese economy?

When I wrote it, I figured this might come up - No. →Raul654 15:01, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Responding to both these listings, I'm Irish and I do find it unfortunate. Filiocht 15:13, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Why? Irish beer is pretty darn good. There is nothing to be ashamed of. Plus, it's a featured article illustration. A stereotypical image is expected.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 15:44, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Not that I like the stereotype either as an Irishman, but to some degree it reflects reality. I hadn't thought of this earlier, but the drinks industry is a major part of the Irish domestic economy as well - the average Irish person spends a lot of their disposable income on drink (relatively speaking, compared to other countries). zoney ♣ talk 16:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)