Jump to content

Talk:Main Page

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 142.162.198.45 (talk) at 23:20, 20 December 2005 (Uh...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 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

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.

Canadian Content

hokj

I am a Canadian from Toronto, and I would like to thank the Wikipedia editors for featuring a great deal of Canadian content on the Main Page. Canada's contributions to the world are often overlooked because of our own pre-occupation with our internal problems (e.g. Quebec secession, regionalism in general), and the fact that we seem to suffer from a inferiority complex due to our proximity to the United States. In other words, we don't do a good job of "selling ourselves," and thus don't give much of a reason for others to notice what we've done.

Part of the problem is that Canadians are not well educated in their own history and hence do not have a good understanding of the relative worth of our contributions. Hopefully, via Wikipedia, the world (Canadians included) will have a better idea of Canada's small but significant role on the international scene in the past and in the present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonesome road (talk • contribs)

We do however, have a lot of trees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.34.68.10 (talk)

(more canadian content!!!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.95.203 (talk) .

Along with Canadian 'contributions,' though, Canadians should be schooled in some of the less pleasant parts of Canadian history and society. Residential schools, Japanese internment, a cozy relationship with Suharto, Saskatchewan Uranium being used for armour-piercing bullets in the first Gulf War (and the tons of radioactive bullets that now litter the Iraq landscape), and current racial tensions (Saskatoon police officers leaving aboriginals out to die in the cold...) need to be discussed before we sink into a concophony of smug and self-congratulatory national pride.

--Subbevil 16:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian president

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (pictured) denies the Holocaust of Jews in Europe, calling it a "myth". "

Sorry, this is biased news. Do we see a top headline every time a Western president says something ignorant about gays, colonialism, communism, or whatever else they are prejudiced about? Mention it in the article about the Iranian President, sure, but wiki news should not be a mouthpiece for targeted propaganda such as this. (Not that it's not true, but it's "newsworthy" as the US/Europe are mounting a campaign against Iran.) Dan Carkner 18:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting he did not make such comments? Stating facts is not biased. --Nelson Ricardo 18:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! We do see a headline every time a president (or here in the UK - prime minister) makes a gaff like that. Our media loves it.

Iran has stolen nuclear bomb plans; and likely materials from Pakistan as well -- those in turn were stolen -- that leads back finally to the orginal theft from Jewish(Ironic?) communists fenced to the Soviets. Remarks by the Iranian president, given the willfull use of stolen nuclear secrets that could shed light upon their intentions, is legitimate news.

Don't think so - this comment has international implications - anyone remember Pat Robertson? -- Natalinasmpf 19:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You flatter Mr Robertston. --mav
Did we really have Mr Robertson? God. Well, if we had Mr Robertson than we should have Mr Imonajihad for the sake of avoiding bias. But I was under the impression that ITN is for articles whose subjects are in the news, not whatever takes the media's passing fancy. --Last Malthusian 09:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your last sentence is basically what I meant. If Robertson was there, then OK, I guess it balances out ;) Dan Carkner 15:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Western Hemisphere was stolen, the land plundered, and the indigenous peoples visited with genocide! -- User:john 5:56 19 December 2005 (UTC)

TOOT YOUR HORN!!! - See these Nature articles!

Yes. They are for real. Look at the URLs! --EMS | Talk 21:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here are the articles they sampled Raul654 21:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And see the new Wikipedia:External peer review. violet/riga (t) 21:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And Wikipedia will probably fix the inaccuracies faster than Encyclopaedia Britannica !!! -- 199.71.174.100 00:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe people have the right to expres themselves and are entitled to their opinions. This is a free world and we must strive to keep it free.

Why does no one mention are sister project wikinews: — n:Wikipedia and Britannica about as accurate in science entries, reports Nature Bawolff 00:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This site is CONFUSING!!!

How do you post new articles????????? There is too much going on on this site!! Somebody help!!

See where it says "Help" in the navigation box to the upper left? Peter1968 22:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Among other things, new site policy after the Seigenthaler debacle requires you to register before you can create an article. - Cuivienen 02:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These are completely seperate occurences. --Phroziac . o º O (mmmmm chocolate!) 03:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no they aren't. Direct cause and effect relationship, in fact. — Dan | talk 18:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I read somewhere we were just doing that on a trial basis, and it's permanency was to-be-decided?the1physicist 22:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From what I heard it was to be determined after 3 mos. (I personally think this is a bad idea) (don't quote me on that) Bawolff 00:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fantasy

Hrm, peanut butter, why do you ask? Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 03:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did You Know style correction

Per Wikipedia style, shouldn't "Beautiful Boy", as a song title, be in quotes rather than italicized? I'd fix it, but, well, I'm not allowed. Scarequotes 03:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Officially most boring F.A

Shoe polish? What the hell? CrazyAussie 04:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you just upset that it was called Kiwi?-gadfium 05:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The debate begins: more or less interesting than Whatsherface Strychnine?
On a slightly (very slightly) more serious note, if the Main Page is meant to showcase Wikipedia, then right now the main page says "We like to write about shoe polish". --Last Malthusian 09:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First modern shoe polish?

Despite the blurb on today's (Dec 15 2005), "Kiwi" was not "the first modern shoe polish". The German brand "Erdal" was patented in 1901.Kar98 16:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i just don't like pink

OK so when I designed this, patterning my uncyc User Page after the Wikipedia Main Page, which I undersatnd lots of people do, I noticed I really didn't like the pnk color for the Featured article section to be on my User Page. Then I took a closer look at the Wikipedia main page and realized, heck I don't like it there either! It's ugly as hell! Green would look so much better, and as it does here. So, uh, yeah. That's my suggestion. A minor shift in the color scheme. --Nerd42 05:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i sort of agree with this chap, Nerd42. except his green is a touch to bright. something paler would work better. infact, isn't wikipedia contemplating overhauling the main page? Veej 23:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, It is proven that pastel colors for websites is best. It i seasy to read, soft for the eye, so that you are able to browse the site longer... What could be thought of is light yellow (puts people in a buying mood), green makes people calm, etc etc etc. It is interesting to look at what you want for your customers and not to look at what your personal opinion is!
I actually quite like the pink. Though I can't say I'd be upset if it changed. Run! 11:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the sex sites should be removed

well thw title says it all!!!

Why? --Vagodin 11:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that prides itself on its diversity. You would find the same articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica, so why not Wikipedia? Unless, of course, you found an article that violates rules? Kareeser|Talk! 18:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not say that Wikipedia is not intended for the protection of minors. x42bn6 Talk 02:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shoe polish?

As well written as it may be, "shoe polish" is a horribly boring subject for a "Featured Article". How many people are really like "Gee, I wish I knew more about shoe polish!" Just my 2 cents. :) Trojanpony 08:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. Nearly every time I go on Wikipedia the featured article is interesting.. not today.

Maybe the guy who does the F.A got Christmas and April Fools confused? CrazyAussie 09:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is precisely the sort of article I think shows the diversity of Wikipedia. I enjoy seeing articles here that are a bit unexpected. Not everything that is a featured article needs to be groundbreaking, after all. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for groundbreaking, just interesting. I think there usually is a good amount of diversity in the FA's. Something like "shoe polish" doesn't really "showcase" anything, frankly. You could find a good entry on shoe polish in any standard encyclopedia. FA's often highlight articles you won't find in a typical encyclopedia. I think these go a lot further to showcase the strength of Wikipedia. Trojanpony 13:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what? Shoe polish is preciesly the kind of obscure thing which is neglected by traditional encyclopedias. I wouldnn't be surprised if the wikipedia article is now the world's leading authority on shoe polish. (Or at least it will be, once Kar98 improves it.) Doops | talk 19:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite ashamed to admit that I did comply with your request. Kar98 04:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the blurb on today's (Dec 15 2005), "Kiwi" was not "the first modern shoe polish". The German brand "Erdal" was patented in 1901 Kar98 16:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not mentioned in the article. Perhaps you could contribute? Doops | talk 19:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia is made so we can learn about stuff we normaly would'nt seek out. Hagamaba 19:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


I have to agree with the general feeling of disgust regarding the pedestrian nature of the featured article. Hagamaba said, "Wikipedia is made so we can learn about stuff we normaly would'nt seek out". Unless we have interesting featured articles then nobody will bother to seek out wikipedia's front page at all. This is all very reminicient of the kind of mindless frivilousness where some university students waste time & resources reasearching 'The probability of toast falling butterside down on the kitchen floor' or something equally useless. There are some truely fascinating articles within wikipedia, the like of which, cannot be found elsewhere. Feature them! instead of degrading the reputation of wikipedia. Whoever chose this as an FA, did you think it was funny? Is there some cutesy sweetness about it? Is it quirky & eccentric? Infact, it's none of these things. It's just tedious. When i want a laugh i'll goto badgas. When i want knowledge i come here. Please keep this the best place to come. Veej 22:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. The featured articles of late are becoming ridiculous. How can Wikipedia be taken seriously as an encyclopedia if it merely mirrors the Internet's random nonsense. People read encyclopedias to learn. Featuring articles on shoe polish and nobody-politicians simply tells me that Wikipedia is a gimmick. Too bad--Wikipedia had such great potential...
"Silly" stuff can turn out to be important - winmine.exe fascinates some mathematicians, for example, due to its relation to an unsolved problem in mathematics. Maybe Minesweeper will make it to featured some day. Metarhyme 04:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The best featured articles are those that come alongside nicely with current events, which happens a lot sometimes. Rosa Parks, for example. People who come to Wikipedia will see the featured article and think "I saw that on the news today" and probably want to go to the article to find out more. I'm not suggesting that the articles be events (that's for wikinews), but perhaps the articles could be people or places involved in the events. Run! 11:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said with Tom Brinkman who featured recently, there is a case for including seemingly minor subjects - the serendipity factor. (Having a major and a minor topic would fill up too much of the main page.

Jackiespeel 14:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is the main criterion for a featured article that it corresponds to the various policies on what makes a good article and the Manual of Style? If so, I have to say Wikipedia is disappearing up its own rectum a bit. It's all very well to showcase Wikipedia's virtues, but if an article is boring (not 'obscure' - shoe polish is no more obscure than toothpaste or toilet cleaner, it's just an everyday object) then people won't read it and won't learn anything about Wikipedia. --Last Malthusian 16:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria list links to Wikipedia:The perfect article which describes a perfect article as engaging. However there's nothing else that might filter boring articles from the FA candidates. Perhaps there should be. Run! 16:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the Featured Article bit was meant to showcase well-written Wikipedia articles, and Shoe Polish is a well-written article, even if on a slightly exotic subject. I rely on the FA section to save me choosing something unusual to read about with my lunch at my desk.Bazza 12:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interrabang

Not sure how to sort this, but someone has created the page interbang, which is clearly a misremembering of interrabang. Could someone with powers and knowledge clean this up?14:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've changed Interbang so that it now redirects to Interrabang. Thryduulf 14:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Length of page

Can some of the text be archived (or is year's end a better point)?

Jackiespeel

Discussions that have been inactive for a period of time, I think it's a week, are automatically archived. Leithp (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, maybe I'm wrong about this? Leithp (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's no automatic archiving. The "procedure" is that eventually somebody gets tired of scrolling around on this page, cuts most of the text on this page, pastes it into a new archive, sticks a "archive: do not modify" box on top, and updates the header template. Normally the last couple sections that are still relevant are left, which also gives new users a hint of what sort of discussions happen on this page. BanyanTree 16:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed a large picture of a penis from the featured article on Shoe polish. A day or two ago I saw a picture of an American murderer in place of the Iranian president (since replaced). So, editors-in-chief or whatever it is called around here, please pull off your gloves and grab your batons. Cheerio Io 19:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The latter was probably from someone not being careful when they updated the In The News template — adding the Iranian President blurb, but forgetting to remove the word "pictured" from the Williams blurb. Evil Monkey - Hello 20:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't me, but I think a picture of a penis would have been an improvement to the shoe polish article :-) Kar98 23:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're still using wiki species logo 4 at the bottom, but logo 6 was picked so they say. Metarhyme 03:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And a fine logo it is too. A local protected copy is now on the front page. - BanyanTree 05:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian House of Commons

I amended the introduction to remove the parentheses on the article. Could this be updated in the template for the main page? -- Natalinasmpf 04:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, can an administrator please give me a response on whether is this going to be done, and if not, why so? I did amend the introduction of the article itself, but this of course, should be updated in the main page entry. Can this be done, please? -- Natalinasmpf 05:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Put

"The House of Commons is the lower house of the Canadian Parliament, and holds far more power than the Senate, the upper house, and is in practice, by far the dominant House of Parliament"

to replace

"In practice, the House of Commons (the lower house) holds far more power than the Senate (the upper house), and is by far the dominant House of Parliament"

Thanks.

Natalinasmpf 06:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The "lower" of the two houses making up the parliament, the House of Commons in practice holds far more power than the upper house, the Senate." [Natalinasampf's new proposal]
  • I'll wait to see what other admins think. In my view, the new proposal is too confusing in its language and wording, and the current version is better. But we'll see what the consensus is. Harro5 06:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did we not just have a featured article on this? Jeff245 06:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The upper house of Canada was featured on May 27, 2005. --64.229.227.175 18:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Free vs. Free Content

I observed that the main page no longer labels Wikipedia as a "free-content" encylopedia, although the simple layout and article on Wikipedia are still consistent in that regard. I read the talk page on the {{MainPageIntro}} template, and it seems the reason for this change was because of a statement by Jimbo Wales, but this statement is no longer linked from any page, other than 7 talk pages. I feel that this is a major oversight, because there is a major difference between free and free content. [1]. Either the main page should link to free content, as it did before, or it should link to Jimbo's statement. At least, that's my view on the matter. Signed, Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 04:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the/some recent legal issues this change doesn't suprise me at all. The guys upstairs are obviously feeling the pressure for giving unlimited freedom to the public in editing and creating articles on Wikipedia, and I don't blame them. I also don't see why their word choice has to be justified on the main page; people curious about the change are apparently able to find out why it happened.   freshgavin TALK    05:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Free-content" means just that; that the contents of the encyclopedia are free. This has nothing to do with relative openness to anonymous edits. I guess the concept of a "free encyclopedia" can be seen in a bit broader way, but it certainly includes us remaing free-content.--Pharos 07:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq Flag?

Should a flag be used to represent Iraq while the state of the flag is in flux? To retain a NPOV, shouldn't a map be used instead? —the preceding unsigned comment is by 66.245.12.91 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 16 December 2005

  • How is "the state of the flag is in flux"? Iraq is a country, a nation, a state; this is it's flag. What's wrong with that? Harro5 06:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Haha, don't I remember something about a light-blue being proposed a couple years ago? Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 06:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There has been a huge thing about the flag, every since the start of the war. An American consultancy designed a new one, but the people utterly rejected it. So by default, they are retaining the Saddam-era flag, with the added Allehu Accba (sp). However, this is possibly not a long term solution, and a new people-designed one would be good. But elections first, I think. But I'm not sure this means the flag is currently in flux. 09:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC) (Skittle)

DYK: Nature reserves in Russia

"there are more than hundred" should be changed to "a hundred" or "one hundred". BrainyBroad 16:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it should say "about one hundred", as that is what the article itself says. Run! 18:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


It is upto the people of Iraq to debate and decide on such matters the US the UN or anyone else has nothing to useful to offer in this department

How upsetting for Russia, to find that the people of Iraq get to decide on matters about their nature reserves :-) 14:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC) (Skittle)

More prominent fundraiser notice on Main Page

Jimbo, Mav and others would like the fundraising notice to be more prominent, and since doing it on every page will annoy most people, doing it only on the Main Page seems like the best choice. Since we can't remove the current message from the Main Page, the new message will have to supplement the current message.

Any suggestions? — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-16 20:02

Spelling

Just wanted to point out that someone misspelled "received" in the "latest news" section, with the part about the Bush Administration refusing to comment. The Wookieepedian 23:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - fixed. violet/riga (t) 23:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Christmas Carol

A Christmas Carol is hardly a short story. It is described in its article as a novella. Can the anniversaries section be changed to match please? CalJW 00:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current top news item: NSA eavesdropping (NPOV)?

Is it fair to flatly state "illegal domestic wiretaps"? The NSA article itself states that:

NSA's United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18 (USSID 18) strictly prohibits the interception or collection of information about "...US persons, entities, corporations or organizations..." without explicit written legal permission from the Attorney General of the United States. The Supreme Court has ruled that intelligence agencies cannot conduct surveillance against American citizens. There are of course a few extreme circumstances where collecting on a US entity would be allowed without a USSID 18 waiver, such as with civilian distress signals, or sudden emergencies (such as 9/11; however, the USA PATRIOT Act has significantly changed privacy legality).

If such permission was granted (which is currently unknown, to my knowledge) then they wouldn't be illegal. --SVTCobra 00:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for the fix. "Warrentless" good choice of words. --SVTCobra 00:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noticing a disturbing and severe left-wing bias in the 'news' bit. Something to keep in mind..
Welcome to the Internet. -- Pakaran 03:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

al-Zarqaqi

Please add "sometime in 2004" to this blurb; as presently written, it sounds like the event itself is current news. Doops | talk 01:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Java

Irrelevent point removed by user after re-reading article. Woops!vcxlor 06:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radical Change in Editing Permissions are required

An OpenSource Encyclopedia (that word isnt patented is it?) obviously has great benefits, information by people, in fluent appropriate and targeted for people. But vandelism is rife and is threat to the greater credibility of this site. A discussion on implementing a system of ranking and scoring in relation to user/TOPICS/Profession is required, currently I'm a computer technician, i don't know anything about Medicine however i can change the greatest medical advancement penicillin to panadol if i wanted.

Suggestion: Each article should have ability for the reader to rate the information in each section as good or bad. every good vote will increase how reputible the Author and Information they post on a scale. a bad mark increases the chance that someone will out rank you and edit or possibly replace your Info.

Conclusion: We do need to stop cross contamination (Self Proclaimed experts from destroying quality and reputable Experts Say) and general Vandelism. Though this system will be possible to exploit, Will the time and effort required for a bad egg to acquire a good Quality Knowledge rank justify general annoyances they aim to cause?

There is already a system in the works (according to Nature.com, i believe) in which each article will have two versions: a 'live' version which is viewable by visitors and uneditable, and a 'background' article which is editable but cannot be seen. Occasionally, when the background version is stable, the live version will be updated (perhaps by consensus and then through an administrator).
Also, vandalism is not nearly as bad as you think. It may be rife but most of it is quickly reverted. Unfortunately it saps a lot of time and effort from the userbase, time which could be spent on things more productive. Run! 10:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But if editing wasn't easy there wouldn't be a user base to sap. Honbicot 22:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure, Run? I've heard that stable versions will get flagged as such in the background for inclusion in possible CD/print distributions (the point of which I can't myself see), not the reverse. It seems to me that moving editability into the background would kill the wikipedia's whole point. Doops | talk 01:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know for sure but I'd suspect that the system will only be put to use on high profile pages. In any case I don't think it would kill wikipedia's point, the only thing it would do is introduce delays in when the live version of an article would get changed. Run! 10:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All these banners look huge - all I see is them!

Please see my comment on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Main_Page_banner#This_looks_HUGE

Thanks, Msoos 10:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a browser problem. Could you upload a screenshot to [2] ?

Hey, i was just navitagting amoung the various wikifoundations projects, esspecially between wikimedia and wikipedia, and found it close to impossible to transfer between the various projects seemlessly.

I have a few idea to make the bonds between the projects stronger, and ease the navigation between them for the average user

1. Links in the navigation area to the left of the average wikifoundation project. Such as a list of project links under the search box.

2. Links to each project at the bottom of the average page

3. A universal navigation bar (think blogger) at the top of each projects template.

Also, along with the search and go buttons, another search button to search across all the projects would be handy.

George Bush redirect

George Bush leads to a disambiguation page. It should be changed to George W. Bush on the main page. - Cuivienen 16:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a fix would be nice. Some posted clarification here of the complaint below regarding the accuracy of the wording would be nice as well. It might have already been cleared up elsewhere of course, but I just didn't see that complaint below specifically address/confirmed/corrected. - Liontamer 16:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to have been fixed. Thue | talk 16:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

False statement

The statement "President George Bush admits he ordered the National Security Agency to spy against US citizens in the United States without a warrant, currently against US law" is false. Bush has neither confirmed or denied the reports. 200.119.236.249 16:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct, he seems to be the only one still denying it. There seems to be some legal considerations as to why he has not outright admitted it. Should this not be reworded? I'm not brave enough to mess with the main page just yet. Mikecnn 16:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he didn't deny it; he simply refused to answer the question (because if he denied it, it would hurt is credibility - which, admittidely, isn't stellar). Raul654 16:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bush Acknowledges Approving Eavesdropping. Thue | talk 16:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also on BBC News. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good call.. thank you CNN just changed their headline from "denies" to "won't confirm"; still trying to figure out how that works. Thanks for clarifying Mikecnn 17:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bush's radio address stated that the wiretaps have been extensively reviewed by various legal authorities including the Attorney General, the Justice Department, and Congress (a dozen times). As such, I don't think it's fair to call them illegal. Such a contention is not at all clear at this point. Also, while we're at it, if we remove "illegal" we should change "admits", since that carries a connotation of guilt. Possibly "confirms" would be better. Vonspringer 17:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was it really secreat?Did Senator Rockerfellow of the intellagence committee know about it? Did the judge that oversees such things know about it? Did the entire intellagence committee know about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.141.217 (talk)

Error in the Hong Kong WTO news

Copied from Template talk:In the news because it seems that no one read that page:

The 900 protestors are "detained", not arrested. So far only ~10 people have been arrested. [3]

And the "worst violence in 16 years". Where does that figure come from? This probably refers to the reaction in Hong Kong to the 1989 Tiananmen protest, in which no street violence happened at all. The worst street violence should goes back to 1967. --Lorenzarius 16:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"This probably refers to the reaction in Hong Kong to the 1989 Tiananmen protest, in which no street violence happened at all." This wouldn't happen to be the same 1989 Tiananmen Square Protests which were also called the Tiananmen Square Massacre, would they? Sounds violent to me. Run! 17:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The protest or massacre or whatever, happened in Beijing. --Lorenzarius 17:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, of course. Silly me. Run! 17:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BBC News is reporting the worst violence in 16 years. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am a native Hong Kong citizen who have first hand experience and I think BBC is wrong. The biggest reaction to the Tiananmen event in Hong Kong was a one million people rally, which was completely peaceful and in which I was a participant. --Lorenzarius 17:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reminded by a local newspaper: There was indeed a small scale riot happened in 7 Jun 1989, but it is overshadowed by the rally. Herbal Lemon 00:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are only a dozen of so protesters being arrested by the Hong Kong Police force for now. Herbal Lemon 19:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How is the fundraiser reminder generated?

I'm just wondering -- how is the fundraiser reminder on the Main Page (not the one at the top of all pages) generated? I don't see relevant code or edits on the Main Page or {{MainPageIntro}}... --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Sitenotice Raul654 23:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No - it's Template:Main Page banner – ABCDe✉ 02:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you then. (MediaWiki:Sitenotice is the reminder at the top of each page (or is it top-right? Monobook must have been modified...), which I ruled out in my question. This is, after all, for Main Page discussion only.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Create an Account Not Working

I didn't know where to post this message since I obviously can't post it at the Wikimedia pages, as I do not have an account, and I cannot create one as of now. The Create an Account gives a title, along with the note that would normally indicate which fields are necessary to fill in. Somebody should get the service up and running again.

The reason I wanted to create an account at Wikimedia is to ask exactly how people from Russia are able to donate to Wikimedia, as both PayPal and Moneybookers do not support the Russian Ruble. And there is a Russian donation page. Just wondering.

What page exactly are you referring to? Note that http://wikimediafoundation.org/ is not open for public editing; there should be a link there to a page on meta.wikimedia.org for open comments. --Brion 23:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand now. Thank you Brion.

Wikimedia Foundation Donation in Russia?

Now I guess that all I need to know is how somebody would send money to the Wikimedia Foundation in Russia, as a Russian Donation page has not been made. Again, I'm just wondering.

More definite statements need to be made about tax deductibility in other countries. I would like to donate but I won't unless I know it will be tax deductible. Donama 03:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the news

To any admins paying attention: Under the In the news heading (the George W. Bush/NSA bit), the link to warrant should point to warrant (law), or maybe writ. Deltabeignet 07:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out; I've changed it to warrant (law), which is the more general meaning; I don't really know if it is specifically a writ.--Pharos 07:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivian Flag

Why is it that the Bolivian flag on the Spanish Wikipedia is different (it doesn't have the crest)? Yellowmellow45 16:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, Evo Morales has promised to change the flag if elected. He wants to incorporate the wipala flag of the Aymara in the national flag. So enjoy the current one while it lasts. --Descendall 08:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Did you know... "strings instruments"

The correct term is "string instruments", as "string" is an adjective modifying "instruments". It is correct in the article. Soobrickay 11:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully it should be correct now. Leithp (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Or stringed instruments. I expect 'strings intruments' was a typo rather than a full-blown error. 57.66.51.165 16:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy in the news

Following recent events which resulted in the Wikipedia policy change, apparently one news website had an entry (for a while) that Narnia had left the WTO talks in a huff - spokeswoman Susan Aslan. Jackiespeel 13:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The main page blurb for featured article U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program links to Speculation, but the word refers to general speculation, whereas the article is on economic speculation only. Perhaps an interwiki link to wiktionary:Speculation would have been better.

JamesHoadley 18:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK about St petersburg bridge says it makes communication between the island and the city impossible, the article just says it makes foot travel impossible.

Uh...

So how about that main article linking to a picture of a penis... ?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=32164833"