Jump to content

Talk:Main Page/Archive 43

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45→Archive 50

Keyboard Focus

When you open the main page, shouldn't the cursor be in the search box automatically, like on most pages (Google, for example).


Also shouldn't outdated parts of this talk page be deleted, such as the ones about the news?

they are archived over time (ocassionaly). The cursor focusing issue has been mentioned before, but I don't know what became of it. This link is Broken 01:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
What became of it? 2600:1700:EF10:4C90:743C:9B62:3FC6:29FA (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Can we get a RSS feed for main?

It may seem a senseless bandwidth expenditure but it would be nice when just browsing for memes through feeds to have what the soup of the day at Wikipedia is serving. --Rakista 06:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Syndication →ul654 06:15, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Where do I go to argue with whomever keeps changing the search utility back and forth from Google to whatever useless thing is built into wikimedia? --Peter Farago 06:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

IRC channel #wikimedia-tech on irc.freenode.com, and ask for 'brion'.
I personally suggest you argue with him nicely, seeing how this place would likely fall apart without him. -- user:zanimum
Random outsider here, but I agree, search remains the weakest part of the whole Wikipedia experience. Can someone provide a link to an appropriate place to discuss this? It's also the root cause of the redirect-mania and disambiguation-mania that obviously doesn't scale.
Another random outsider; if wikipedia is going to use it's own search, please can that search sort equally relevant articles in alphabetical order? I typo'd "USS Vincennes" a few days ago, and got a list of all United States Ships, in an order I couldn't work out, so I couldn't realise that I had typo'd.
Why is a search engine needed? If searching is what you need, download Mozilla Firefox...Google and any engine you desire is available next to the address bar.--Adam Niswonger
Google brings in tons of traffic, then users get stuck here in "follow the links" mode like Web circa 1996. Asking "why do we need search?" is like asking "why do we need categorization?" Both need to be better on Wiki, but search can be automated. New articles seem to show up at Google within 24-48 hours; changes take a bit longer. Either we solve it or we punt to Google. Google's clearly doing lots of work behind the scenes to integrate with Wikipedia, do we have a contact there? Is someone managing that relationship? Are we publishing changed pages in their latest API formats? Can we get them to index more, faster?
Is IRC the only place to discuss this? When the google search is turned off it is a serious pain to have to go to google and then select advanced search etc etc. To my knoledge the built in search has never helped anyone find any page they were looking for unless they typed the title exactly. Google will even correct your spelling. Dalf | Talk 10:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Without disagreeing that Wikipedia should have a better search facility, I must point out that there's no reason to suffer the pain of going to Google, selecting advanced search, etc. In Firefox, I long ago created a bookmark in the Quick Searches folder with location "http://www.google.com/search?q=site:wikipedia.org+%s" and keyword "wp". To search Wikipedia, I just type "wp whatever" in the address bar and instantly get a list of relevant articles from Google. Even if Wikipedia's search worked as well as Google, I would probably still use Google, because it's faster to type Alt+D wp than to mouse over to the Wikipedia search box and click on it. -- BenRG 17:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I find that simply adding the word "wiki" to my Google search seems to have the same desired effect. 81.100.216.53 02:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Also, wikipedia, in my experience, has a very powerful redirection algorithm built in. I rarely search on wikipedia, but rather just add "/wiki/[what-I'm-looking-for]" to "en.wikipedia.org", and 99% of the time, I get what I'm looking for.
Wouldn't it be fairly easy for the Wikipedia search to automaticly add something like "-#REDIRECT -#redirect"? --Wulf 04:00, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hong Kong

Please fix Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 7, 2005, to use British English like the article itself i.e. (center/centre). Jooler 07:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Also could someone please proof the Featured Article entry on the main page. "Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. It located on the southeastern coast of China." Hulleye 08:02, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Is the default language of Wikipedia British English?

No we use BE for articles on countries that use BE, AE for countries that use AE. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:53, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
English Wikipedia has both British, and American english articles, the only rule is to only use one version within the same article. (ie, no starting an article out with armour, and saying armor later on, etc....) --Wulf 04:05, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
sigh Two encyclopedias separated by a common language. --Dhartung | Talk 22:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually it's International English (with minor differences), as opposed to one countries form of English, ie American. - UnlimitedAccess 03:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
country's

Photo captions on main page

Shouldn't there be small, brief captions on the main page or some other design element that pulls illustrations to the related story? The Mubarak photo, in particular, is confusing and could benefit from "Hosni Mubarak" in small type below. Done correctly, this could also clarify the "does clicking a photo take you to the story or an enlarged version of the photograph?" interfaced problem.

Hoover your mouse over the picture to see the alternative text. →Raul654 02:14, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but is that enough? Only the Anniversaries-section says '(pictured right)', the others don't. Especially in the 'Did you know...'-section this is a bit frustrating. Isn't there a discussion somewhere aobut this? Thanks. --Leo44 09:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • IIRC, In the news does the same. In DYK, the image refers to the first item on the list. At least it did when I ran it. - Mgm|(talk) 12:45, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • When I do DYK, I have the item that relates to the image on top of the list.--nixie
Well, the news section doesn't do it anymore, apparently. And I don't think it's very clear that the picture refers to the first item (i never noticed anyway) (that doesn't say much, i admit, but still). It's strange: almost every picture on the whole of the 'pedia has a caption, but the ones on the most prominent page haven't. --Leo44 13:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
FWIW, in the current 'Selected anniversaries' the image does not refer to the first item either
The first item is the oldest item, usually an historic event way, way, way before the invention of cameras.... Pictures are not always available. -- PFHLai 04:22, 2005 September 13 (UTC)

So, everybody - start discussing! Apparently i'm not the only one who thinks this could be improved, why is no-one responding? I can't believed this has not been discussed before. --Leo44 20:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

there is no room for a caption and usually the picture is somthing simple (a flag) so the alt text is enough. I also think it would look ugly on the blue backrgound. This link is Broken 02:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's not always a flag. More often it's a face or a building. People have to point their cursor on the picture, wait a couple of seconds, to see a name that they've never heard of, and then try to find it in the text. More often than not, the name is not printed in bold, because it's not about general blahblah, but about the war he's served in. Pictures are used to draw attention, but this way they only lead to confusion. Why not insert (pictured right) for every picture used on the main page? (ok, this is the last post. if nobody reacts, i'll realize that i'm whining and will shut up. sorry) --Leo44 12:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Regarding "there is no room for a caption" I disagree. If there isn't room (I think there is) we can make room. Another option is to embed the caption on the thumbnail graphic itself. The third option is to do nothing and have these odd floating graphics sitting ornamentally all over the place with no coherent design behind them.
If you ask me (to design an ideal Mediawiki platform) it would work like a blog. A news item and the image would both be part of the same HTML "div" tag, the photo would link to the main article, and so forth. As it is, though, we have to hand-edit each day's entry, which necessarily includes more than one item, and it gets edited more during the day. I don't think it's worth worrying over too much. It simply changes too often. If something is egregious, it will get fixed. --Dhartung | Talk 22:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Hahaha! Thanks to whoever put the Nazi flag next to Pope Innocent X's name. If anything will prove my point, this is it. --Leo44

While I'd like to see captions introduced to the MainPage, I have to add that two people seated next to each other may not necessarily be a couple. The Nazi Flag was next to several other items, too. If the "Pictured right" bit were placed on the last item, people still may miss it and make weird associations. -- PFHLai 16:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I hope no one is making weird associations with the first item on Selected Anniversaries and the image there today. :-) -- PFHLai 01:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Bob Denver

It seems to me a line or two about 'Gilligan' passing on ought to be appropriate here today.

I saw him in an airport about a year ago. At first I was so excited to see him, then struck by the fact he looked like hell...very old, thin and frail. I didn't know he had cancer. He was a very likeable person, and died way too young. Thinking of Gilligan will always make me smile.

Please see the criterion for mentioning deaths and the discussion that led to the obituaries criterion. Cheers, BanyanTree 16:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I just found out Bob died several days ago. I thought it was more recent since I saw it on the front page.

In the news

The Philippines' President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo survives an attempt to impeach her in connection with the 2005 electoral crisis.

"...survives an attempt to impeach her"? Is that correct? Can anyone survive something that is not meant (or able) to kill? Just asking. Please let me know. --Bruno Boghossian 20:33, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself yesterday. I've changed it, see how you like it. -- user:zanimum
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or if you're actually asking about the proper usage of the word 'survive' in natural English. If the latter, then yes, in this context you can 'survive'. It is often used as a synonym for 'prevail', and in this case while Arroyo will most certainly remain alive no matter what happens, it's the survival of her Presidency that is the issue. Freshgavin 01:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I was not being sarcastic, I was wondering about the meaning of the word in that context. But I just checked it and you're absolutely right. It just looked a little weird because the word referred to the person, not the Presidency, but it's right, anyway. --Bruno Boghossian 22:22, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

The decline of the Aussie Cricketers?

Tonight sees the Aussie either win or lose the Ashes. If they lose the brits will celebrate their first Ashes victory since 1989!

As much as I'd like to see Australia bowled out twice in a day, there won't be any celebrating before the weekend I wouldn't have thought. Rje 00:23, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
notice the remark on top of the page please: This page is for discussion of the Main Page only. Boneyard 08:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, well the main page features cricket so often this discussion may well be on topic :) Borisblue 03:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

POV and the Anarcho-capitalism

Statements like this in the lead in to the featured article make me cringe:

"Anarcho-capitalists would protect individual liberty and property by replacing a government monopoly that is involuntarily funded through taxation, with private and competing businesses."

Just to be clear:

  1. The sentence implies that "individual liberty and property" is currently unprotected because of the existence of the government.
  2. It says that the government is a "monopoly" (a certaintly weird and kooky use of the term.)
  3. It says the the government is "involuntarily" funded, i.e., that people do not consent to taxation.

Amazing how much POV you can pack into a single sentence! This sentence should actually read something like "Anarcho-capitalists would replace a unified government with private and competing businesses."

Sdedeo 19:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It says a government monopoly, refering i assume to a monopoly, not the monopoly e.g. a government run railway service or similar, in which case it is not at all POV.
Taxation is involuntarily, fact. consent or not you have to pay it, hence involuntary. Martin 22:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Um, what Bluemoose said. The government *is* a monopoly, in the sense that [for some given country] you cannot choose to patrinize another government [civil wars not withstanding]. Ditto for taxation - taxation *is* involuntary - you can't choose to pay your property taxes this month and then choose not to pay them next month. As far as "that "individual liberty and property" is currently unprotected because of the existence of the government.", this is simply not a fact. The sentence says how under a different system, it is protected; it does not mention the current system at all (either implicitely or explictely). →Raul654 22:45, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

It's important to focus on article quality without getting caught up in arguments for or against the ideology. But, Sdedeo has a point. Anarcho-capitalists may refer to government as a monopoly, but it's doubtful whether most readers would do so as well. It's confusing--Pariah 00:50, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Point 2. Monopoly has a definite meaning; governments as a whole do not fall under it. Nobody who didn't want to push an agenda would describe, e.g., FEMA as a "monopoly".
Point 3. Some people say the government is funded involuntarily, others say you consent to be taxed by living in the country/state/city or whatever, and is no more involuntarily than being bound by a business contract, etc. etc. Yes, we could debate this till the cows come home, but that very fact makes it POV.
Objections to my point 1 are valid, I think. My bad. Sdedeo 02:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Sdedeo 02:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


A government uses several monopolies (and if you read things like The Economist they are often talked about). All (modern) governments have a monopoly on taxation, incarceration, warfare and other forms of violence. That means that a government is allowed to legitimately kill but does not allow its citizens to do so (except so far as the government provides them with a license to do so, i.e. soldiers and executioners). The government imposes taxes, but allows no citizens to tax other citizens. Only governments may declare war and then only on other governments. These are all examples of government monopolies that are discussed. — KayEss | talk 12:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, we could debate this till the cows come home, but that very fact makes it POV. A better argument on wikipedia has yet to be formulated. As for debating: one example is a housing association. If you choose to live in a community governed by a housing association, you'll have to pay fees, which are the equivalent of property taxes. So the government doesn't have a monopoly on property taxes. Sure, you could move out of the association, but you could also move out of any public municipality. Yes, we could debate this till the cows come home, but that very fact makes it POV. --Archier 18:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

That's not what Space opera is!!!!

According to the main page version, it seems as if the term Space Opera had been popularized by Ron Hubbard with his Scientology doctrine!!! This is not the most popular use of the term, not by a longshot!!! It clearly says Space opera, when in reality it's the space opera in Scientology doctrine!!! Even if it says that he talks about true space operas being subconscious stuff or whatever, it has almost nothing to do with the definition first given! This is NOT main page material, especially if it's so confusing! At least change the link name to its TRUE name, please!!! Kreachure 00:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

And am I the only one not seeing an image there? It's just a text hyperlink to the image page. --216.165.17.216 01:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Kreachure. It is misleading not to give the full page title. Who made this decision? - Wgsimon 01:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
The image coding was done incorrectly. It's been like that for awhile. Someone should fix it. As for the title, I think it should be worded the way it is in the original article, "In Scientology doctrine, space opera..." --Fastfission 01:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I think the image coding is fine -- it's doing the same thing on the space opera in Scientology doctrine page. Hmm... --Fastfission 01:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay -- I fixed both by purging their page caches. Science wins again! --Fastfission 01:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
No, the 100px thumbnail is still not working (see the history of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 10, 2005). What happened is that I changed to a 101px thumbnail at around the same time. Thanks for noticing the problem. --cesarb 01:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay, well it still seems to not work periodically. But purging the cache seems to fix it temporarily. But maybe I'm wrong. --Fastfission 02:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Kreacher. This is highly misleading. --Quiddity 02:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, not to be crazy-featured-article-complaining guy, but this is absurd to the power of Xenu. Space opera, the term and the genre, has a long and distinguished history, starting in 1941. Hubbard's sci fi books are not space opera (I make no allegations about the religious stuff, never read it, but we did have a full collection of his sci fi in my grade school library.) Sdedeo 02:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I think a slight rewording of the first sentence would help. Something like "Space opera, in the context of Scientology, is the term used by its founder L. Ron Hubbard for ...". I must say that I thought the linked article and picture are both hilarious though. --Codemonkey 03:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I've rephrased it slightly. →Raul654 03:47, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with some of the comments above: the introduction really needs to emphasize that this is not the most common use of the term "space opera." —Lowellian (reply) 04:14, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the rewrite, I think this is good (although I think admins should monitor the main page talk better -- the objection was made nearly four hours ago!) Sdedeo 04:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I've reverted Lowellian's phrasing because it violated an implicit rule of the featured article section - the first linked phrase should be the featured article. I'm OK with people tweaking the intro, so long as they make sure to bear that in mind. →Raul654 04:44, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
I'm aware of the guideline, but sometimes guidelines should be relaxed when there are other issues involved. In this case, the issue is that by placing "space opera" first by itself, a quick glance seems to suggest that this article is about the common definition of "space opera" — which it is not. With the boldfacing of "space opera," there is no confusion that the featured article is the space opera part, not the scientology part. —Lowellian (reply) 05:42, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Here, three four suggestions:

I would prefer the first, but if others feel that it is that important that the first link be the Featured Article, the second, third, or fourth options, perhaps? —Lowellian (reply) 05:51, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

WTF!!!

OK what is this: |Xenu's victims were transported in interstellar space planes which looked exactly like Douglas DC-8s. doing on the main page before the featured article? It is probably vandalism, but it makes me lose faith in wikipedia.

Read the article. --216.165.17.216 04:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Can we at least put it as part of the article, instead of a link with no explanation before it? It makes me look at it and immediately think 'vandalism'. I have read the article, and that pic would be appropriate in it, but not as the first thing someone clicks on and then thinks 'ok wikipedia is pretty unreliable'. THE KING 04:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Many thanks to whoever fixed that. Much better! THE KING 05:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
This was a technical issue (certain images did not display properly, and were replaced by their alt text) which is now resolved. — Dan | Talk 05:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Anything to do with Firefox 1.5 beta 1? Cause i just rebooted and am getting the same error again. THE KING 05:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
No, it has to do with Wikipedia coding. There is some talk about it in the topic above this one (that's not what spaceopera is). --Codemonkey 05:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

view source

When you do "view source", you ought to get a list of templates which the page uses, in the same way that you do when editing unprotected pages which use templates. Main Page 19:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Uh, you can find them in the main page, but you can't edit any of them as they're protected to prevent someone's manhood ending up on our front page. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


Selected Anniversaries, September 11th

Where it talks about the 9/11, there were two world trade centres, not one, as implied where it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hubert Wan (talk • contribs) .

There were two towers, making one center. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

There were 7 towers in the world trade center. The sentence is still inaccurate since the planes were meant to hit towers 1 and 2, not the entire WTC. --Kennyisinvisible 18:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, the Pentagon is in Arlington, VA, not Washington DC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.130.38 (talk • contribs) .

Although physically located in Arlington County, the Pentagon uses a Washington, D.C. address. Perhaps a redirect to Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area would be better. This larger area includes both. -- PFHLai 16:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Polish Wikipedia

Congrats to the Polish Wikipedia for reaching 100K articles. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think they have yet, have they? Italian has just passed 100K (after massive rambot-style bot-driven article creation which pushed them up from 10th biggest to 5th biggest in a couple of weeks). Swedish also passed 100K not long ago, and Polish will hit 100K in a few days though I should think. — Trilobite 18:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

By the way, it might be time to change the highest category in the other languages section on en: main page to 100,000. Maybe it's just me being pedantic but I think it would look a little bit better than having 1,000 then 10,000 then 50,000. The Dutch Wikipedia is on 90,000 so it won't be long before we have eight in the top flight under that arrangement. Any objections? — Trilobite 18:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's at least wait, though, for the Polish and Dutch Wikipedias to hit 100K first.--Pharos 19:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Is the number of articles the most important thing? Should we really be encouraging the creation of substubs and "massive rambot-style bot-driven article creation"? I'll move the discussion elsewhere, if someone can point me to some place appropriate, but I don't see that changing this improves anything--Prosfilaes 19:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I would disagree its not suggesting anything. I believe they should be divided again because its kind of deiving to place the German wiki under 50,000+ plus when it is so far above. Falphin 01:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Italian Renaissance

Since "best-known" is not modifying a noun, it needs to lose the hyphen, please. Thanks. Nelson Ricardo 08:43, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Fixed on main page and in the article.-gadfium 09:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Email thing

I posted this comment on the TFAfooter template page too, but why is the "By Email" link leading to a edit link (aka Redlink)? Very visual... shouldn't it be fixed ASAP? -- WB 20:40, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

The link is mail:daily-article-l. I've removed them from {{TFAfooter}} and {{SelAnnivFooter}} as a temporary fix. violet/riga (t) 21:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, I think some developer has altered the wiki-syntax for linking to mail.wikipedia.org, which was apparently previously mail: . The page meant to be linked to is mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/daily-article-l , which I've now reinserted on the templates as an external link until someone can tell us what the changed syntax is.--Pharos 22:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
And now it seems mail: is working again. I guess I'll put it back on the templates.--Pharos 20:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikisource - please revise template:WikipediaSister

Admins, please revise template:WikipediaSister as noted on the talk page there. Neither the link nor the slogan currently appearing on the Main Page are correct. Thanks!Dovi 07:23, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Sandy Koufax

rather than a "former left-handed pitcher in MLB" shouldn't he be a left-handed former pitcher in MLB? Unless he's no longer left-handed..

I fixed this one minute before this question was posted here by User: 216.49.220.19. :-) -- PFHLai 17:22, 2005 September 12 (UTC)

The Ashes

Should the In The News have something about England's successful regaining of the Ashes? It is perhaps not as important as Katrina or the Japanese election, but it has generated huge interest, and is being called the greatest series ever. What do people think? Batmanand 17:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree FireFox  T C E 17:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Me too. Idleguy 18:15, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
It's not really of international interest (especially in Australia), but i suppose it was quite special. Martin 20:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Laconia incident

I think the notice on the main page is a bad summary of the incident and what made it important. "The Laconia incident: RMS Laconia, carrying some 80 civilians and 268 British soldiers, and about 1800 Italian POWs with 160 Polish soldiers on guard, was struck by a torpedo from a U-boat off the coast of West Africa and sank." Adding something like "The U-boat was sank while trying to rescue survivors from the Laconia." might help, especially as it would be of little note had the U-boat not tried to rescue people and got sunk in the process. --Prosfilaes 19:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The U-boat (actually four Axis subs) was bombed, but was not sunk. There were further casualties among the survivors as a result of the bombing. In any event, the article was in flux but is much more accurate and readable now. Too bad we didn't get there before it scrolled off! --Dhartung | Talk 22:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I've copied and pasted this onto Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/September 12. Hopefully, whoever updates the Selected Anniversaries template next year can fix this accordingly. -- PFHLai 16:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

2005 Los Angeles power outage

As the 2005 Los Angeles power outage is a current event, should we add it to the main page? --CFIF 20:56, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Nah. Except for the poor schmucks in La-La land, nobody really cares. Nelson Ricardo 00:39, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
Half hour power failure? Not really notable. No one'll remember it a year from now. — ceejayoz ★ 01:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
ITN ? C'mon. I don't even think this "tragic catastrophe" is that worthy of an article in Wikipedia. Perhaps a line on the History of Los Angeles, California page is okay, if something drastic indeed happened. -- PFHLai 01:54, 2005 September 13 (UTC)

please fix "did you know" error

Please change "is" to "it"

"the Perth Mint is the oldest operating mint in Australia and that is has produced over 4,500 tonnes of..."

Thanks Lisa 04:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Lisa. I've fixed it. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:03, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Wikicities

Why aren't wikicities on the sister projects page? They are a huge Wikiproject, right? Tobyk777 04:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikicities is founded by prominent Wikipedians, but is not really part of Wikipedia. -- PFHLai 05:09, 2005 September 13 (UTC)
You're mixing up your terms a bit (which I admit are somewhat confusing). By "sister projects" we mean other projects run by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Wikicities is not related at all; it is run by Wikia, a for-profit company which also runs Uncyclopedia and Memory Alpha (a Star Trek wiki). A Wikiproject, on the other hand, is simply a group of Wikipedians with shared goals and interests with regard to a certain set of articles. — Dan | Talk 05:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


Yes, that's it

More flags

Oh joy, another day where both top illustrations on the main page are flags. How creative. Jgm 11:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Eastern Roman Empire

Why does this link point to the list of Byzantine Emperors instead of to the "Eastern Roman Empire" page? Piet 12:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Because Eastern Roman Emperor (not "Empire") redirects to List of Byzantine emperors. Click it, and you'll see.... -- 216.94.206.99 00:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

RE: "Other indexes"

Isn't the plural of index indices not indexes?

People have complained about this before. Allegedly 'indexes' is correct American English. --81.154.236.221 15:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I was not around for the debate on this subject, but in this case I believe "indexes" is the correct plural (at least in British English, I cannot comment for other forms). "Indices" is the preferable plural for "index" in most cases, especially in mathematics, but where "index" is used to mean an alphabetical list of subjects, as in this case, "indexes" is correct. I guess this is just one of the many idosyncrasies in the English language. Rje 17:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition (American, as am I) says "Inflected Form(s): plural in·dex·es or in·di·ces". Note that indexes is listed first. Nelson Ricardo 02:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Why is the one (indices) used more in mathematics? --141.219.44.78 18:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

San Fransisco-Oakland Bridge

"San Francisco's other famous bridge"? --Tydaj 11:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

They're both famous (it was a major achievement in its day). Golden Gate is more famous, yes. --Dhartung | Talk 23:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Really hadn't ever heard of San Fransisco-Oakland until today. --Tydaj 00:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Strange, they're two of the biggest cities in the US, and we're not being nationalistic, as most English people I know have heard of San Francisco. Its also one of the most popular ports for immigrants from Asia. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I think Tydaj means the bridge. I think I've heard of it: wasn't it involved in some earthquake? I wouldn't call it famous, nowhere near the Golden Gate. --Sum0 16:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

i moved to bayarea in 1999 from germany i knew about the golden gate bridge but never of bay bridge and oakland city until i came here

UK Petrol Crisis

"Several" UK petrol stations run dry? Shouldn't that be "several thousand"? Last I heard, upwards of one third of all petrol stations across the UK have run out of unleaded completely.

I'd love to know where you heard that: do tell! I was very surprised to find this story on the front page of Wikipedia. It's pretty low down the BBC's headlines. William Avery 19:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
3000, according to the Times Online [1]. Including my local one. --Heron 20:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Cheers for that link - integrated that into the article and ITN. At least half of the petrol stations around me are out. violet/riga (t) 20:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
The Times story is just another bald, unattributed assertion, without even the figleaf of an 'industry spokesman". William Avery 07:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

"subsequent" is misleading since the panic buying occurred before the protests. How about "panic buying in anticipation of protests"?

The source was BBC News. Here's an article: [2]. There are approximately 10,000 petrol stations in the UK, with 3,000 running dry. The figure appears to have been a slight exaggeration, made by the BBC news team that put together the report a couple of nights ago, as news teams are wont to do. --Polocrunch 20:35, 15 September 2005
That link is over a week old, and just tells us there are 10,000 petrol stations in the UK. William Avery 07:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I've changed it to "attendant panic buying". Is that OK?--Pharos 18:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Nazi Flag?

I don't find it too appropriate to have the Nazi flag on the main page. This might discourage people from using Wikipedia. --CFIF 01:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment - Swastika is a featured article and was the featured on the Main Page on May 1. Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Sheesh. Who nominated that? --CFIF 01:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
The subject of an article has nothing to do with the featuring process. As long as something can survive AFD, then it can be featured if it meets the requirements. Also, the swastika is not solely a Nazi thing, instead being used by many cultures and is still used today in some very non-Nazi settings. Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
What does it matter? A consensus of Wikipedians has to be formed for it to succeed as a featured article, so it's certainly not one maverick user... Just because the symbol is hateful doesn't mean a scholarly article about it is. — ceejayoz ★ 23:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
An old Flag of Germany adopted 70 years ago today "might discourage people from using Wikipedia" ? How ? I find this rather odd. -- 199.71.174.100 02:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Anyone who is discouraged at a flag, should not be here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not censored. - UnlimitedAccess 03:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I have seen the nazi flag and nazi swastikas in newspapers, books, television (news and movies) and just about everywhere else. If anyone is discouraged from visiting wikipedia because the Nazi flag appeared on the front page then I fail too see why they would even have the courage to venture out onto the www. --Clawed 03:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. What about folks who are offended by rifle schematics, Christian iconography or Norway? Anyway I bet if we took a poll on the % of net surfers who actually recognise the Nazi swastika.... I know some kids who don't, really sad. Jquarry 05:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I was also surprised to find the Nazi flag on the front page - mostly so, because it did not seem to belong to any text content at first sight. Maybe it would be wise to put the image graphically closer to the text it belongs to. --129.194.8.73 17:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm pretty sure Pope Innocent X was innocent of any Nazi sympathies (if little else). Eixo 23:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with 129.194.8.73. Also if a co-worker walkedup I would have a mini swastica on my computer. I Just avoided the page for today... - Ravedave 23:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
What are doing surfing the net at work :P --Jquarry 00:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
The swastica was originally a Chinese symbol that stood for good luck. It was also used by some indian tribes as the "flying logs" pattern. I you check it out, some of the old indian blankets created by places like Pendleton Woolen Mills, actually produced blankets with that symbol prominently displayyed in their centers.
These people are not saying the swastica is guilty of the holocaust, they are just saying that they and/or other people are having rather negative associations with it. You don't have to defend the symbol. --Leo44 | Talk

Song of Pig

I like Song of Pig n want to talk about it n wan it on the front page how can i do that please

You can talk about the Song of Pig article at talk:Song of Pig. You can ask this and other questions at WP:ASK. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Chief Justice of United States; NOT of US Supreme Court

Apparently the lengthy back-and-forth over the phrasing to use upon the death of Rehnquist seems to have had zero impact. Once again, the proper title for the position Roberts is nominated for is Chief Justice of the United States. Period. NOT Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, or anything else. Sorry if I sound testy, but it's annoying to find the same dumb mistake returning, smack on the front page, in a matter of days, as if all this had not been painfully hashed out very recently. LeoO3 20:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, fine. Where is it on the main page? I can't find it. [[Sam Korn]] 20:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
There was an item on him on ITN that was removed a couple of hours ago. Evil Monkey∴Hello 21:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

MainPageIntro

I changed the browse portal button to the Ask Wikipedia a Question button. Here's my edit summary

16:45, 15 September 2005 Redwolf24 (link to reference desk, remove portal browse as many of our portals are quite small and underdeveloped. please don't revert if you want portal browse, just add it.)

I think its a good idea to be linking to the Reference desk as its a place to ask us pretty much anything, and sometimes you don't wanna do the work of finding the article ;)

Comments please? Redwolf24 (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

There, I changed it again as per [3]. Looks fine to me. Comments? Redwolf24 (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I've lowercased "question". ~~ N (t/c) 01:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
...Why? We uppercase the first letter for all the non-the, a, etc. words there. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Nvm I guess we don't. But I guess I'll be bold and do just that, as IMO it looks better. I invite anyone to revert me. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

please refix "did you know" error(s)

Please change "is" to "it"

"the Perth Mint is the oldest operating mint in Australia and that is has produced over 4,500 tonnes of..."

Thanks Lisa 04:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Lisa. I've fixed it. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:03, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Also take out the that before the now-deleted is so it reads is the oldest operating mint in Australia and has produced ....

Also change the bit about the American Burying Beetle being "one of the only beetle species that exhibits parental care". --> "one of the few …" !! :-)

--Lavintzin 04:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Proposition

I propose a "picture of the day" section. A strange image or one that would show the international happenings or even an interesting picture that has arrived to the site That would show that Wikipedia is truly an encyclopedia that not only stocks the knowledge of our times but also accompagnies our era through its evolution and developpement.

There is one. WP:POTD should lead there, I think... --Kiand 19:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Pictures of the day are on the Main Page on weekends. -- 199.71.174.100 00:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Ugly main page

Why is the main page so fucking ugly? Why the random red and blue boxes that match no color scheme? Maybe it was designed by a fan of color field artwork or some shit? 69.246.12.184 21:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Why was foul language used? Why the swear words that mean so little? Maybe they were used by a rude person or some scum? -- 199.71.174.100 00:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
The goal of the main page is functionality first, looks second. This setup is functional. It has everything you need to get stuff done, and it looks pretty good to me. I know, it's not the Flash-based multi-megabyte orgy of hate and vomit that makes up much of the Internet these days, but to me it's better. Lord Bob 00:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
If you have a better design, by all means suggest it. This is a wiki after all. Complaining instead of acting makes you look stupid. This link is Broken 03:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
When those words appear can we just delete the posting, or at least delete the word?
Censorship is touchy here. It may be distasteful but "distaste" isn't enough reason to cut off somebody's speech. It usually takes something like vandalism to get somebody's comments edited like that. 142.104.250.115 19:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
That was me. Got de-logged-out somehow. Lord Bob 19:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
The Wayback Machine shows that the same colors have been used for years, since 2003.

Selected anniversaries Sep 17th

Why Soviet aggression of 1939 is not among them??

[[4]]

It was very important event during WW2, at least for Soviet Union, Germany, Poland and all other countries of EE. Cautious 15:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

(moved here from the top of the page by PFHLai 22:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC), as latest talks always go to the bottom)

Good suggestion... I had a hard time looking for another page to feature, as Polish September Campaign was already up on September 1, and we had Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on August 23. I hope pages like Romanian Bridgehead or Kresy would be much enhanced by next year, then we can have another good page to showcase on the MainPage. -- PFHLai 23:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The NEED for SPEED!

Is it just me, or has Wikipedia been really slugish lately? At one point I was editing over 25 pages a day, now I'm down to about 5 to 10 a day becuase of the slowness. This needs to get fixed, and fast! Thanks. --Mb1000 18:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Extreme server slowness. --cesarb 19:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. --Mb1000 19:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Featured article summary incorrect

The summary currently on the Main Page states: "some of the students who were believed to be killed for their religious beliefs", while the article itself claim "some of the students who were mistakenly believed to be killed for their religious beliefs". With the former being accurate. 71.32.199.15 04:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I wonder what such a weird statement is doing in the intro anyway. It sounds like a hasty npoving of a cheap attempt at point-scoring. The gun control lobby and Christian fundamentalism are not exactly known to coincide in the US, so it sounds like the suggestion 'if they didn't have guns, there would have been no shooting' is being countered with the rather more oblique, but more compatible with fundamentalist cartoon-style morality, 'if they hadn't been evil atheist devils thirsting for the blood of Christian children, there would have been no shooting'. 83.77.214.240 11:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

XML Feeds

Is wikipedia availble as (an) XML feed(s)? If so, is there any documentation for this feature, as I am thinking of writing a Wiki Reader in Python.

See Wikipedia:Syndication. [[Sam Korn]] 14:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Featured article changed?

Am I wrong or the Featured article just changed from Montréal-Mirabel International Airport to James I of England? GhePeU 09:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there appears to have been POV issues with it. Evil Monkey∴Hello 09:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
But why is it constantly flipping back and forth? It almost seems like a revert war. This is silly and doesn't look good on Wiki on the main page. Marskell 12:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
There was a fun little drama with it last night. The originally-selected article was blatantly POV and yet somehow made it through Wikipedia's vaunted peer review process, the same process that recently gave us that "Space opera in Scientology" frontpage. Anyway, a bunch of people complained about the obvious POV violations and tagged the article with a NPOV warning. The Wikipedia thought-police, whose job is silencing all dissent expressed outside of the few designated bitch-forums, removed the NPOV warnings in an attempt to pretend that this featured article, "identified one of the best articles on Wikipedia", in fact wasn't evidence of the failure of Wikipedia's peer review. The voices of truth exposed the faces of the hypocrites, and then the hypocrites logged-out and flamed the heroes anonymously. Eventually, someone decided to change the article to avoid further negative exposure. The right thing to do would have been to leave the article up with the warnings; the exposure, negative though it might be initially, would have brought an influx of editors who would have removed the POV content and served as an example of how Wikipedia can survive occassional fuckups. Instead, we're supposed to pretend like it never happened. Hooray! By the way, I expect that this post will pass Wikipedia's NPOV peer review and be tomorrow's featured article.
Sweetie, you forgot to sign your comment. Nelson Ricardo 17:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
It's a NAT'd IP used by multiple editors and many more readers; the signature is worthless. Rereading the post, I realize that it might seem a little harsh. The cooled-down version is: Wikipedia users should not try to crush critics with valid and easily-verified claims who are able to spotlight a failure in the Wikipedia process, especially when spotlighting the problem is likely to improve the Wikipedia process in the future. Later on I'll create a metapage with a list of featured articles that were widely criticized as sub-par and then invite readers to QA their featured article nominations & reviews. Is that better?

Signatures are not worthless. They're basic. If there is a server problem with my signature I'll spend an hour making sure it gets there. As for the comments--lost. Really, lost, and with nothing else to say except that the main page should rise above revert wars. If it doesn't have an NPOV tag and is long enough it shouldn't be removed. Marskell 23:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that, reviewing the nomination, it was just featured, and that might be why the POV issues hadn't yet been dealt with. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Minor edit in feature article introduction on James I. Space missing after dot.

In this place:

"childless.James"

Fixed. Thanks. Shanes 10:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, it's really only fair to include and VI of Scotland in the boldface intro. Doops | talk 23:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Images

A few days ago the pope was a Nazi, and now Giles Corey wears a hooded sweatshirt and dark sunglasses. This is just incompetent.

Incompetent reading ? There are 5 bulleted items next to the image, y'know. Don't jump to conclusions after reading just one. Read the whole section, or move your mouse over the image to reveal the hidden ALT text. -- 199.71.174.100 03:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

ARR

I think that International Talk Like a Pirate Day has gained enough of a following by now to be listed on the main page in the "September 19" box. What say ye? Moofus 14:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

No. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
yesRast 20:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I was wondering why it was not there. Dalf | Talk 22:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
For dignity. Wastoid 22:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Avast, matey! — ceejayoz ★ 02:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

North Korea

Might need to revise the bit on the front page re: North Korea's nuclear agreement... They've added conditions... — ceejayoz ★ 02:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

yellow turbans

was to the best of my knowledge a completely seperate rebellion and does not deserve to be grouped with the red eyebrows which came 200 years later. the link goes to the same place. YT was directed against the Han, RE against wang mang.

Would it be possible to have the search box take focus when you visit the main page, like Google's?



Palme d'Or

In 1946 eleven films shared the Palm d'Or. However, following the Palm d'Or link, one can find out Palm d'Or was introduced in 1955. A bit of inconsistency, don't you find? Main Page, September 20th, 2005, Selected Aniversaries category.

Hmmm... the info about 1955, etc. wasn't there on the Palme d'Or page when I wrote that line for the Selected Aniversaries ! Thanks for pointing this out, User: 82.77.126.3. Is it better now ? -- PFHLai 07:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Sylvia

Damn! The FA is turning into WTF!? If we don't watch out, tomorrow will be some science fiction novel no one has ever heard of (ok, I'm exaggerating - they wouldn't do anything that stupid). Eixo 01:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

  • "inspired the a great musician to compose Sylvia" -- there is a redundant article in this sentence, which is currently on the front page. Can someone fix this please? Iain McClatchie 01:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • 'already done. →Raul654 02:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
      • 'already done.' as in making sure there's no stupid SF article tomorrow, or just fixing the typo? Eixo 02:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
        • The typo has been properly killed. As for tomorrow's featured article, if you don't like the choice, well that's just too bad. →Raul654 02:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Hey, I haven't even read the article. As long as it can make the random surfer aware that this site (Wikipedia) is about general knowledge, and not just nerd-related information, I’m happy. Eixo 02:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
          • As long as tomorrow's article is about Formula One or the Tamil people or Bath or something like that. Just not The Giver, a title that would spell out: "Anyone not interested in narrow SF literature, get the hell away from here." Eixo 02:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
            • I fail to see how 'The Giver' is substantially different (in terms of "narrowness" of interest) than Bath, or Tamil people, or Formula One. →Raul654 02:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
              • Alright, for you I'll give up all clear liquors, even Zema (hey, I only drink that when I'm already drunk).Eixo 03:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
              • The blurb for 'The Giver' mentions its winning of the Newberry Award, and presence on many school reading lists. These are what establish its general interest, I would think, and ought to be more prominent. The blurb for 'Sylvia' on the main page says nothing at all as to why a person not interested in the arcana of ballet history would care. It's not even clear that the ballet is being performed today (though the article itself says this). I would suggest the blurb mention contemporary performance of the ballet, not to mention some discussion of its significance (not even mentioned in the article!). Also, the picture on the main page is by far the least interesting of the pictures in the article. --BlueMoonlet 16:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
                • The "obscureness", "irrelevance" or - and let's face it this is the root of most complaints - "I have never heard of this because it is not in my country/is not part of my culture"ness of an article is no reflection on how good or bad it is. FAs are picked because they cover a given topic in as complete a way as can be hoped for. As the saying goes: Any article that can survive a Vote for Deletion has the potential to be Featured. Batmanand 21:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
                  • Agreed on your first sentence. But part of completely covering a topic should be describing its significance within its own field of knowledge, so that the rest of us ("not part of my culture") can understand why it's even worth talking about. The 'Sylvia' article is missing this. --BlueMoonlet 04:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

how do I remove the Iraq War link?

How do I remove the Iraq War link on the front page? The story about the two british soldiers has been removed from that article. It doesn't fit there, since it is far too soon to assume it is an important encyclopedic event in the war. Is there some current events page that should be linked to instead?--Silverback 10:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hurrican Rita Vandalism

Could somebody please edit the Hurricane Rita Vandalism? It currently says 'fuck u'. 71.32.170.12 12:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Someone has fixed this by now. You should know anyone can edit a page, including you. Just click the 'edit' tab at the top of the article.--Pharos 12:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Ironic that you would mention that on this talk page. There is a consensus on the Iraq war page that the current news story does not belong there, but we are edit warring because some want to maintain until the main page link goes away, because we can't change that link.--Silverback 13:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The Hobbit is not a prequel

This is a simple error, which I have also corrected on the prequel page. By definition a prequel must be published after the work to which it is a prequel. The Hobbit was Tolkien's first published work on Middle Earth. The word "prequel" on the main page should be changed to "prelude". I would do this myself, but I don't have permission. --Tisco 15:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Anniversaries

Today is the 21st - but the anniversaries are from the 19th.

Cache problems ?

Image of Hurricane Rita

As stated at Image talk:Rita_2005_five_day_track.gif, the five-day Rita forecast image needs to be updated. - dcljr (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The Hurricane Rita photo is not appearing for me on the main page, just a link to the photo. Johntex\talk 21:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Many images are hiding these days. May be related to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Extreme server slowness]. -- 199.71.174.100 21:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
On holiday from the servers.
Where are the images hiding? They're living it up at Ybor City, one of the most popular evening hotspots around Tampa Bay.--Pharos 22:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
For Wikimania 2005-a ? :-) -- PFHLai 05:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane news is wrong

The current blurb is incorrect; Hurricane Katrina is not known to have caused 1033 deaths in New Orleans, as stated; that's the current overall total. This is nothing new for "In the News" and is a prime example as to why I dislike the Wiki model trying to be used as a news source; I wish dearly that people who are able to edit the main page but don't have any background in journalism, fact checking, or the particular event being reported would refrain from trying. Simply skimming readily-available and professionally-vetted sources such as CNN.com and then parroting headlines (often incorrectly) does nobody a service. Jgm 00:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed this a few minutes ago as I too noticed the incorrect information; I wouldn't say you need a background in journalism for this but we certainly should be more careful.--Pharos 00:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that; I think your edit and mine overlapped. I continue to have lots of reservations about Wikipedia trying to "cover" breaking news, but I guess this isn't the forum for the general issue. Jgm 01:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
An inherent nature of the Wikipedia is that articles may temporarily contain errors. This is perhaps more noticeable with breaking news, but it applies to all types of articles. Journalism has been called the first draft of history; anyone experiencing journalism from the subject end quickly learns that even professional accuracy or understanding leaves much to be desired. At least with Wikipedia, there are sharp eyes such as your own to make the corrections. --Dhartung | Talk 08:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
And we can correct mistakes right away ! -- PFHLai 18:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Sigh. I'll have to find a better place and time to tilt at this particular windmill, but in a nutshell: transient mistakes are by definition much more of an issue in a time-sensitive realm such as "news" than they are in a long-term reference. And since no primary-source reporting is involved in Wikipedia's "in the news" section we are at the mercy both of the mistakes of the professionals you refer to and the mistakes of the well-meaning volunteers who try to paraphrase quickly-changing, carefully-worded, professionally-vetted news stories and create errors and inaccuracies in the process. All of which might be acceptable risks if there were actually a need for a wiki version of the news in the way that there is a need for an open-content encyclopedia, but there's not. Jgm 20:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
ITN is not Wikinews, but just a corner on the MainPage to showcase updated articles in Wikipedia. Let's not use it as a news service. -- PFHLai 02:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Well stated. What is the approriate forum for the general issue? 128.220.220.95 22:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Depending on what exactly you want to say, User:128.220.220.95, probably Template talk:In the news or the Village Pump. -- PFHLai 02:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

800x600

At the best of times the Main page is poor for 800x600 users, but with Rita in the news, its worse than normal. So can we reduce padding, especially between the FA box and the menu, and the In the News box and the right side. An extra 10px-20px could really improve things in the long run for all those 800x600 users out there. - RoyBoy 800 02:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

And yes I'm aware it displays much better on IE6. - RoyBoy 800 02:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

This is just another symptom of the images always hanging out at Ybor City nightclubs, as discussed above. What we really need is a way to get them to quit their holiday and show up again consistently.--Pharos 02:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, maybe someone could massage the servers with cheetah blood? Should get things moving along. We should have enough surplus money from the successful fund drive for that. - RoyBoy 800 02:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


Images?

reg. the wikipedia tutorial, how do you add images? (sugg. that this be added to tutorial)

Mona Darkfeather blurb on 9/22/2005 front page

On the English Wikipedia front page of 9/22/2005 or so, under the section "Did you know...", Mona Darkfeather is referred to as an "actor". She was an actress, not an actor. H Padleckas 04:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The term 'actor' can be used in a unisex context. Lord Bob 05:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In American English at least, actor can refer to those of either gender, while actress specifically refers to female actors (Merriam-Webster's definition of actor makes no reference to gender, while that for actress is "a woman who is an actor"). There has been a trend away from sexist language (in the U.S., at least): instead of policeman/policewoman we have "police officer", mailman/mailwoman to "mail carrier", chairman/chairwoman to "chair" or "chairperson". Some see the feminine form actress as patronizing or demeaning and use actor to refer to both genders. I am passing no judgment on this practice, just reporting current usage. Actress may be less confusing. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Old-fashioned people are so funny. --Dhartung | Talk 08:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The Screen Actors Guild, in their annual awards ceremony, gives awards to "Best Male Actor" and "Best Female Actor". User:Zoe|(talk) 02:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Language changes. This can result in neologisms being applied to historical content. I would say that if she was predominantly called an actress in her own day, then we should honour that usage. (this guideline to apply so long as the original term is sufficiently widely understood). dramatic 09:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Time-Zone Rollover

I am in a different time zone than America, and my mainpage content doesn't change at midnight in my time-zone, It changes about 4pm.

Can the default local time-zone be picked up through a php function and be applied to the other changeover time variable?

Thanks

The rollover happens at 00:00 UTC, not midnight in an American timezone. There is no real way to make the changeover happen at different times for people in different time zones, this is because of limitations in the MediaWiki software and it would be extremly difficiult to change. --Clawed 06:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The suggestion that different people see different versions of a wiki page depending on their time zones is, inherently, a very bad one. →Raul654 07:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

DYK... mistake

there should be a space between Dr. and Subramanian --> "...That Dr.Subramanian"

Done. Thanks for pointing this out. -- PFHLai 15:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Rita

It needs changing on the Main Page from a Category 4 storm to a category 5 storm. JDH Owens talk | Esperanza 19:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

"The" Sheffield Wednesday

...giving the Sheffield Wednesday a 1-0 victory... I believe we usually refer to it as just Sheffield Wednesday? Piet 09:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I believe so, too. Removed now. Thanks for spotting it. Shanes 09:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my mistake. -- PFHLai 09:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
That was fast :) Piet 10:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The Did you know text on the T-44 contains a link to the T-54/55 article, which is a redirect to the T-55 article. --Kralizec! 20:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Spelling of "Breach"

Please change the spelling of the word "breech" as in Hurricane Rita, a category 3 storm, threatens the U.S. states of Texas and Louisiana, with landfall most likely near Port Arthur. Storm surges have already breeched some of New Orleans' weakened levees. --Cumbiagermen 01:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Shanes 01:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Ah, yes, thanks, you caught me. I was just thinking of some lovely beech trees at the time.--Pharos 01:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

A "suggestion" for the "selected" anniversaries

Doping in sports: Ben Johnson (pictured) "won" the 100 metres sprint at the Seoul Olympics, "defeating" rivals Carl Lewis and Linford Christie with a world record time of 9.79 seconds.

Ugh. The "quotes" are a "distraction" and look (IMHO) kind of "ugly." Howsabout this instead:

1988: Olympic scandal: Ben Johnson (pictured) won the 100 metres sprint at the Seoul Olympics, defeating rivals Carl Lewis and Linford Christie with a world record time of 9.79 seconds. The victory and the world record would soon be overturned by the IOC and IAAF because drug tests showed Johnson cheated.

--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've modified it, but in a somewhat briefer form.--Pharos 02:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Coolness. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It's awesome because i just like it Ok. <Rachel><Beverage>?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page/Archive_43&oldid=1153592295"