Talk:Main Page/Archive 44

message: The front page should only contain headlines and links. No Content. Cyrus Zahababian
There is too much stuff on this page. It doesn't really need to be the front page of a newspaper, does it?
Yes. Yes it does. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've been grousing about here for a long, long time - I agree with the unsigned comment that the main page is too busy. Simple, clean interfaces are almost always preferable to bloated ones. The only important sections on the main page are the title strip ("Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.") and the 4 windows (the FA, ITN, Selected annivs, and DYK/FP). Everything else is unnecessary and expendable. →Raul654 05:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I like it the way it is. The way I see it, if people wanted to look at a specific article on Wikipedia that was short and to-the-point, they would have reached it via google or the search engine of their choice. splintax (talk) 08:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm afraid that if you search for anything on Google, the Wikipedia very rarely appears within the top 10 results. Why have a wikipedia if people cannot easily access the content. I would make the wiki far more inviting to a new user. Maybe this is because I am a web designer and can see design issues clearly. Lewispb 11:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I use google to search wikipedia specifically (since the search here does not work). However, that aside I suspect the news section drives a lots of editing on articles that people have recently read about or are intrested in.  In terms of why people come to the main wikipedia page I think its good.  I mean honestly, if you are looking for somethign specific you are probbly not comming ot the main page you are just bord or curious or whatever.  Maybe you want to see what the main article is, and in that context a few links to articles that relate to stuff you ahve seen in the news are really worthwhile.  Reading about the type of government in a country that has just had an election or whatever, it makes browsing an encyclopedia more fun in its relavence. Dalf | Talk 22:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page is too big

message: To me, the top 3 lines are grouped too tightly. How about a gap between the article count and the 5 key links, which would also give more prominence to the latter? Martpol 12:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. do that and the Main Page is perfect. Thanks to Raul for his boldness! Batmanand 20:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor point 

message: It's very useful and doesn't seem to be easy to find by newbies.--Fito 03:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, I've been bold and done this. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You're welcome. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Petition: Bring back [[Wikipedia:Quick index]] to the main page

message: Because the main page of wikipedia is entitled Main Page, there doesn't seem to be a place to put an article on main pages.
:That article could go at Main page, I guess. Broken S 14:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No it couldn't, thats a redirect. Though I can't really see the point of making an article titled 'main page'. It would be a dicdef at best. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant one could undo the redirect, but yes i agree. Broken S 22:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Page article? 

message: The main page looks ugly when it is viewed on a mobile PDA. The real problem is that the search box is at the bottom of the page (you have to scroll down past DYK and ITN and ARTOD etc. If I go to wikipedia from my mobile I want to look somthing and not read the article of the day. Could we make a second main page especially made for PDAs like google does (http://www.google.com/pda)? Broken S 14:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, that's a feature of the skin, so he could try other skins, but us users can't exactly edit MonoBook.php. ~~ N (t/c) 14:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would fix it, if I knew how. The search box is automgacially put at the side. That's why it appears at the bottom. The real sollution would requre an auto redirect of PDA users to a second page which doesn't have the same skin (which I have no idea how to do). Broken S 14:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Try Main_Page_(table_free), which is meant for those PDA browsers that do not allow spaces in the title. It works for Palms, and is really a redirect to a title with spaces in it. Ancheta Wis 15:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That won't fix this problem, because where the search box is placed is determined by the skin and cannot be affected by the content of a page. MonoBook outputs it at the bottom, but uses CSS to put it at the side; if a browser doesn't properly support CSS, it'll see the search box at the bottom. I recommend trying various skins - Standard appears to have it at the top. ~~ N (t/c) 15:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just typed in [Special?search] (had to leave out the =) but the search box popped up at the top of my Palm-type PDA Ancheta Wis 15:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: My PDA browser saves the list of URLs so I only had to type it in once to get to the search box. It finds URLs from a few characters anyway. Ancheta Wis 15:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that we can use the special page, but what about people who aren't wikipedians. Why should we force them to make a bookmark on the special page. Not everyone knows about that page. Could we make a skin specially designed for PDAs? Broken S 16:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: How about Main Page (PDA Version) ? -- PFHLai 18:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mobile

message: Is it me or is the Main Page smaller now? -- Thorpe talk 15:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See #New Main Page. ~~ N (t/c) 15:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smaller? 

message: I just changed the "Other languages" link to point to www.wikipedia.org, as that seems to be the be the best list of Wikipedias in other languages. – ABCD✉ 18:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good choice, an attractive place to link to. --hydnjo talk 00:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: They are the 20 Wikipedias with the greatest number of articles. And, for the editors debating the removal of the language template, I would like this question to stand as case in point of the confusion the change has caused. There is absolutely no way for readers to guess that an edition exists in their language or why some languages were deemed worthy to place on the sidebar and others were not. It will only cause perpetual bitterness, confusion, and questions. Tfine80 03:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Other languages" 

message: Since the locking of the main page templates, I have often been somewhat at a loss whenever I've found errors of precision or infelicities of phrasing on the main page. Should I request a fix here, or at the template's talk page, or at the template-within-a-template's talk page, or at the Wikipedia_talk:yadda yadda, or where? Quoting Template_talk:Did_you_know: Please discuss errors on the template at Talk:Main Page. Am I interpreting this correctly? If in point of fact Talk:Main Page is the right place to make such requests, I think that point should be made in the page-opening triage section to set our minds at ease.
Specific point: the current DYK includes the following: ...Sir Conrad Hunte was a West Indian cricketer who in 1965, set the record for the highest Test series aggregate of 550 without scoring a century? This misunderstands his feat, or perhaps it's just phrased badly; either way, it needs to be changed: he didn't set a record for highest score, he set a record for highest-score-without-a-century. That phrase is indivisible. Improved version: ...Sir Conrad Hunte was a West Indian cricketer who in 1965 set the record (550 runs) for the highest Test series aggregate score without scoring a century. Note that I've also added the word "score" to make the blurb a little clearer for non-cricket-followers; and I've corrected the comma error after 1965 by deleting it (alternatively, that comma could be kept and another one added after the preceding "who": ...[a] cricketer who, in 1965, set...
Thanks for your help. Doops |  talk 08:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A general point and a specific one 

message: Look, it's been several hours now. Please please somebody fix that cricketeer story in the DYK, as outlined in my comment above — before it disappears forever and with it our chance to get it right! I'm sorry if my other ramblings camouflaged the immediate point; let me restate it: his record was not the highest aggregate total which just happened to occur without a century; it was for the highest-aggregate-total-without-scoring-a-century-along-the-way. And that unmatched comma is just embarrassing. Doops |  talk 16:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's done.  Just make your point more succinct and admins are more likely to change it.  Sorry it took so long.  Sam Korn 16:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Is this the best place to make such a request? Or would somewhere else (like the appropriate template talk) be better? Doops |  talk 16:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I am concerned, it's the best place.  If it's being ignored, drop a note at the help desk or on the talk page of an admin who's editing (look at their contributions page).  Far fewer admins have the template talk pages watchlisted.  Cheers, Sam Korn 16:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urgent fix request 

message: Seems to change faster than... Anyway, my latest 2¢ is that A-Z doesn't belong smack in the middle of the line. It probably is the least useful (I think) way to navigate. If it must be there at all then it should be at the very end. 
BTW, the reason for my comment about A-Z is that I've found wikiwax much easier to navigate for an alpha search. --hydnjo talk 23:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problem right now IMHO. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither do I really (except for the order of things), were talking about the margins. And, I think that Raul likes to get opinions from all interested users (there aren't that many) so thanks for speaking out, we never know how many are watching or care if y'all are silent.  --hydnjo talk 03:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: MainPageIntro

message: W. G. Collingwood, John Ruskin's secretary and assistant was a noted scholar of Norse history and art: missing comma after "assistant". Doops |  talk 05:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commas in DYK, again 

message: Thanks, fixed. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 10:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No "Off of" 

message: I've been playing. Rough results of playing at http://tom.me.uk/2005/9/MainPage.html - really interested to hear comments. Thanks, Tom- 11:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it, apart from the yellow in the top box; all the main bits of functionality seem to be there. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also like it. In fact, the bit I like the most is the yellow box" I like the "1. 2. 3." thing - nice way to ease people into Wikipedia. Only thing I have reservations about is the Featured Article box not having all the FA first para in it. I think that the current system is better. But nice experimentation! Batmanand 11:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's much point more than a few sentences from the FA on the Main Page. Certainly there's far too much on there currently - I don't believe many people read it all, and after all the full article is only a single click away. Better to just tease with the start if you as me. Tom- 14:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: How did you get the picture in the yellow box background?- Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 13:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just use background-image in CSS, which we can do on the Main Page through MediaWiki:Common.css. Tom- 14:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How can we do that and not allow other pages to use the same class?  Sam Korn 16:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can't. But how many pages will really want to use a semi-transparent magnifying glass against a specific yellow background? Tom- 17:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Never underestimate some people's stupidity.  I do see your point, however.  Sam Korn 17:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be used for certain templates though. The whole  movement shows how people consider style to be a big part of presentation. I tried to test it out but since I'm nowhere near a developer in skill it didn't work. Can you direct me to help. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 18:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I like the much smaller font size. -- PFHLai 15:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Me to, but how does it look over everyones screen? With this size we could add to the page (POTD for starters) without adding to the clutter. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 18:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: To be honest, I find that new version far too cluttered.  However, I do agree with cutting down OTD and DYK, possibly ITN as well.  Shorter FA blurbs would be nice as well, but not as curtailed as that version.  Cheers, Sam Korn 16:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree with Sam. It's far too cluttered. It also emphasizs all the wrong things - it drastically cuts down on the featured article, which after the search box is the most popular part of the main page [in the new version, DYK, the *least* popular part of the main page, is larger than the FA]. It's also redundant, with two search bars. It just doesn't look very good. →Raul654 18:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To my eyes, it looks far less cluttered. Much more information "above the fold" if you will. My main criticisms are that it seems be aimed at 1024x768 and larger resolutions, and that the 3 columns don't look well on a 800x600 resolution.  Also, the way the "sister projects" section sort of dangles below the two left columns looks a bit odd to me. --Codemonkey 19:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Wow Tom, those background pics! Now with three of them on the page you can really see how their use livens things up. Someone really has to let me in on how to do it. I've been messing around with my monobook.css, sandbox pages etc for hours and can't figure it out. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 20:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In general I think it is very good thing that the Main Page layout is being changed/discussed. This example looks pretty good to me. Yes its a little busy, but that might just be that I am not used to seeing all the links underlined. I quite like the visual effect of the third column, but it seems to be the primary cause of compressing the first two columns a little too much. Could the third column be made narrower, by making it a vertical column of the sister projects and move the current third column items into continuations of the first two columns? -- Solipsist 20:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right column is slightly narrower, A-Z links have gone, more whitespace added. Snapshot of current version without underlined links at http://tom.me.uk/2005/9/MainPage-no-underline.html - also an experiment with headers at http://tom.me.uk/2005/9/MainPage-box-headers.html - work is ongoing! Thanks for comments, Tom- 20:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the one without the headers. The bold text divides it up enough, in my opinion. The headers seem to draw the eye away from the content. And I like no underlines, but I guess that's just a preference setting. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 21:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Looks pretty cool; a significant improvement (IMHO) over the current rather simple design.  I can't tell on my 1024x768 display, but make sure that at 800x600 there's no line wrapping in the yellow box on top.  I think a few more sentences of the featured article should be included, but other than that, it looks pretty good to me.  It is busier, but I think that in alot of ways, that's a good thing, because it presents more information without scrolling ("above the fold", as Codemonkey mentioned).  I also like the extra search box; should make it easier for first-time users to get started. --Spangineer (háblame) 04:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's going to be very hard to have no line wrapping in the top bar at 800x600 without having it look totally bare at higher resolutions. I can try and make it wrap in a smarter way though, so it won't look too bad. I don't think the three columns look too bad in 800x600 now - they're all the same size and quite readable. Do get a horizontal scrollbar though (another thing to fix). Thanks for your comments, Tom- 05:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The one main advantage the current style has over this proposed one is that the columns are all of the same height.  I know it's a pain to do that, but I think it's very necessary.  I also agree that the FA blurb should be larger and that "Making the news" should go back to "In the news".  violet/riga (t) 10:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe it's possible to make them the same height without using tables, and not using tables is more important than making them the same height. Tom- 11:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I disagree there.  violet/riga (t) 22:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: There's room for improvement, but it's definitely better than the current layout. Fredrik | talk 19:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I love it! But here are my suggestions: Featured picture is out of place in the right bar, and far too small to do justice to it, and the featured article box seems too small. How about putting the featured picture in the box where featured article is now, then make a larger box above the 4 others (with colspan=2, so to speak) for featured article? Coffee 16:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  An interesting idea, but it doesn't really quite work in practice: the FA text lines become far too long and a lot less readable. I only really put the featured picture in the right column because it needed something to fill the space, I'm not sure if it's a good idea or not as it is quite small. Tom- 19:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments requested on new Main Page layout 

message: pls. fix the DYK entry about Gerwani and Suharto. It should spell president and not predsident. Thanks--Gurubrahma 12:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 13:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urgent fix - predsident to president 

message: This usage, which I see on the main page today, is logically ridiculous.  Please... either "one of the few" or, better, specify the number as: "one of only three". Too Old 16:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to "one of the few attempts", as I don't know enough to tell how many attempts have been made. -- PFHLai 16:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "One of the only..." 

message: The Canadian Supreme Court has ruled governments can sue tobacco companies for damages back 50 years.  This might be worthwhile for the front page news section.  Here is a link  - Jord 20:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to update relevant pages in Wikipedia, and propose a headline at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates.  Please note that In the news is not a news service, but a corner on the MainPage to feature updated Wikipedia articles related to current events. -- PFHLai 23:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worthwhile news article? 

message: I would just like to know, generally, what people think of the Categories (i.e., Technology, History, Geography) being on the main page. Many of them appear broken on lower resolutions or in IE. Also, the pages seem very long, nearly unwieldly. Each has only one link to the main article of that subject, and it is not clearly marked. I belive they need to be simplified and slimmed down. Anyone have differing opinions? - The Kooky One 21:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Kookyman, did you notice that the selected category, like Culture was highlighted on the category bar when you select the category? Ancheta Wis 23:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Kookykman, are you suggesting that UI design decisions should be predicated on the use of IE? Ancheta Wis 23:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I think they are fairly useless, and would personally replace them with a search box (see above).  I am sure that almost no-one uses those categories to find their way around.  Cheers, Sam Korn 21:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam Korn, did you see Eloquence's reaction to the dropping of the Category Bar? It was restored shortly afterward. Ancheta Wis 23:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I believe they are utterlyt useless, and removed them several days ago. Several people complained very loudly, and it was replaced two days later. →Raul654 22:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The search box idea sounds very good. The reason I started using Wikipedia was because of the sheer mass of the information I could find with the sidebar search box. One on the main page would make it very easy for people to find the information that they want.--The Kooky One 22:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Kookykman, did you notice that Raul654 is against your suggestion? Ancheta Wis 23:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Speaking of which, Raul, what did they complain about?-The Kooky One 22:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look up →Raul654 22:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. Very sorry. Hmm...maybe we could move the links down, and put a search box where they used to be?-The Kooky One 22:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Not saying it is a causal connection, but the page rank dropped in Alexa at the time when the category links were dropped, and the page rank zoomed up again when they were restored. Thus we are currently only 3 places from parity with Craigslist.org. Let us drop the category bar one more time to verify the coincidental connection, shall we? If it is coincidence, then the Page Rank should remain at 35. But if the UI design decision to drop the category bar is sound, then the Page rank might even rise. However if the category bar is dropped one more time, and the Page rank drops again, then the category bar is a part of the popularity of the site. On, the other hand, if nothing is done to the category bar and the page rank continues to rise, then there is no demonstrated connection. In the interest of the web site, however, it would be unwise to continue the experiment just to demonstrate the point to the 6th sigma. In other words, if the page rank drops in the next few days, then I propose that we react immediately and restore the Main Page to the previous configuration, whatever that was. Ancheta Wis 23:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What about changing them from category links to portal links? These are certainly more attractive, if not immediately as comprehensive. I was also going to suggest linking to Category:Education, though there is also a portal. Cormaggio @ 10:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Until we get the portals completed I wouldn't suggest it. The education one is a prime example - it's not even close be being ready for anyone to use. There's currently an effort to fix some portals, and when that is done I actually  think this would be a good idea. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 11:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree that the Education Portal is poor - as is the whole category. I'm going to suggest a WikiProject:Education. (Should there also then be a WikiProject:Portals?) Cormaggio @ 22:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category links? 

message: Dear people at Wikipedia,
Please, can this notice be placed in Bold on the main page of Wikipedia where it says “Any one can edit or write an article”.
“No Original Research
Neutral Point Of View
Verifiability
and a note about GNU free license.”
It would improve clarity. It would save a newcomer like me from afd and copyvio notices.
Best regards,
Nirupma Kapoor
neeray 16:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On every edit page there is bold text saying DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!  If that doesn't deter people, your proposed change to the front page certainly won't.  Other guidelines can be seen in the Wikipedia:Introduction page linked to via the front page. — ceejayoz ★ 18:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a bold copyvio notice at the bottom of every page below many other layers of disclaimers.  The warning is not at all clear.  We must bump it up.  lots of issues  | leave me a message 21:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about: (see Copyrights for details)   --hydnjo talk 22:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Revised ^ notice as it might appear above the edit box.  --hydnjo talk 00:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Page 

message: For the last few days both at home and work (different ISPs) I've been getting older versions of pages returned by a cache - just now I got the September 29 feature article until I hit the Refesh button in my browser (until now this has never been necessary to get the latest main page). I always come to Wikipedia though a bookmark button to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and I use IE 6 on XP. Is anyone else seeing this? Has something changed recently that's making cache/proxy servers want to keep the old Main Page around for longer rather than fetch a new one? Or is it Wikipedia's squids? I'm in Seoul, South Korea if that makes any difference. --JackSeoul 15:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be one of many different things, to force the most recent version you can use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?action=purge, you can also add ?action=purge to the end of any wikipedia page title in your browser's address bar to force a cache purge in the same way you can also do ?action=edit to bring you to the article's edit page manually. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 19:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I sometimes encounter the same problem when using older public computers. Dunno why, but convinced that this is a simple cache issue. I'd suggest bookmarking the URL "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?action=purge". Hope this helps. -- PFHLai 19:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting old cached pages 

message: Hi, I was utterly confused by the sentence "For the first time, researchers observe wild gorillas using tools." on the main page. To me, this meant that for the first time, researchers had been able to use tools to observe gorillas. 
Obviously, it means that gorillas are now using tools, but could this be written any clearer?
--Shane Drury 15:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this ? Scientists make the novel observation (or discover) that wild gorillas can use tools. -- PFHLai 17:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest "For the first time, researchers observe wild gorillas using tools." Oh yeah, that's right.......Moriori 19:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: How about "For the first time, researchers observe tool use amongst wild gorillas." — ceejayoz ★ 05:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gorillas using tools. 

message: "The economy of India is the fourth largest in the world, with a GDP of $3.363 trillion at PPP, and is the tenth largest in the world, with a GDP of $691.9 billion"
It can't be both the fourth and tenth largest simulateously. While an explanation for this is present in the article itself, it did not make it into the summary.  -68.162.222.88
:At PPP? Hmm... maybe one is GNP and the other is GDP? Redwolf24 (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, PPP means that if it costs A to buy hamburgers in dollars in the US and B to buy it in the current of some other country (say Yen), then the exchange rate is A dollars to B yen. Most of the time, the exchange rate hoovers around the PPP rate, however, in the case of India it does not. →Raul654 03:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha. My forté is history and georgaphy, but not economy. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Another quick fix needed for the article.  India has also capitalised on its large number of highly-educated populace. Populace->people, since populace denotes the entire population. Its fixed in the article now. --Pamri • Talk 04:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent contradiction in Indian Economy featured article 

message: The news section about Bali bombing has typo. It should be Jimbaran, not Jimabaran. Hayabusa future 07:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, thanks.-gadfium 08:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the news -Bali  

message: It is just me, or does this make it sound like the researchers never bothered to use tools before?  :-)
:this is the second comment about this, so I rephrased it. Broken S 19:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the first time, researchers observe wild gorillas using tools. 

message: This project is increasing in popularity. We all know that from looking at the stats. Unfortunately we also know that from the sometimes very slow response time. I think it's time to get ahead of the curve rather than trying to catch up with it. Whereas be bold is one of our tenets, then lets do it on the hardware side. If it means calling for a $100,000  or $1,000,000 special collection then lets do it. "In for a dime, in for a dollar", Geesh, lets not stifle for lack of servers. We can collectively raise whatever it takes, just tell us. We don't want to recommend this wonderful project only to hear back that this project doesn't respond in a timely manner. Like it or not, Google has set the standard for response time and we are lacking. Just in composing this little edit, "Show preview" has been do damn frustrating that... well nevermind, I'm a dedicated user, but I can only imagine what the new user thinks of us. My grandkids aren't going to stare at a  non-responsive window for thirty or sixty seconds. They  are going to think that something is wrong and move on.  Please excuse my rant here but it stems from real feedback from real new users that I have recruited. (Show preview just took 2 min and 42 secs so I'm not being encouraged to go take a look at this edit, what it is, is what it is). Where is the the best place to post this comment?  --hydnjo talk 02:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good post, but you've already missed the bus. The purpose of the recent fund drive was (for the first time) to buy capacity above-and-beyond what our expected growth was. However, historically, every time we bring new servers online, the traffic surges in response. →Raul654 02:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I bought a bus ticket. So, the next fund drive should anticipate the traffic surge. That is what I mean by getting ahead of the curve. Lets not be a victim of our own success. --hydnjo talk 02:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, running a top-50 website isn't something you can do on the cheap. It's even harder for Wikipedia to do this because of the nature of a Wiki (with it's database requirements). It takes time and money to add new server capacity, as well as finding volunteer administrators to run them. Also, bear in mind that it takes weeks between the time we order servers and the time they actually arrive, so if it's slow, we just can't exactly put in a quick order. →Raul654 02:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with that. Just looking for some reassurance that we are reaching high enough with our fund drives. Raul, you know better than most of us how willing the community is to contribute not only our brains but our $ as well. 'nuff said, --hydnjo talk 03:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response time

message: Could we make him the Rev. Dr. please? Doops |  talk 03:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK:  the  Rev. Dr. (I don't know why this is important but I'm glad to oblige.)  --hydnjo talk 04:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Roughly speaking, an insistance on the inclusion of "the" before rev. (and of a forename or "mr." or "dr." after it) marks one as an anglo-centric snob. I admit to guilt on this front; given Blair's bio I suspect he may have been too. :) See reverend for more information. Doops |  talk 04:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, now I see what you were meaning and thanks for filling in my ignorance gap.  ;-) hydnjo talk 05:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  James Blair 

message: Can anyone tell me how the author(s) of the Wikipedia main page know that Tom DeLay's departure from the role of House Majority Leader is temporary?  --Cat5nap 05:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When we become admins, they give us standard-issue crystal balls. →Raul654 05:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is merely reporting what is being said by other reputable news sources. Wikipedia makes no original news reports. Wikipedia has no way of seeing the future (except for Raul) if that is your question.  --hydnjo talk 05:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you cite any of these reputable news sources that are saying that they believe his departure is temporary?  And when do these reputable news sources say he will be coming back? --Cat5nap 05:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He left office temporarily, with the intention of coming back.  If he decides not to come back, we can report that as well.  (All sites above taken from Google News...at least one of them has to be "reputable")  Ral315 WS 06:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K., I give up.  However, I can't resist remarking that DeLay's "intention of coming back" is probably not what is relevant here.  It seems quite possible that he will want to "decide to come back", but the decision will not be in his hands.  --Cat5nap 07:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be so sure. Delay was forced to resign because of house ethics rules that say you cannot hold a position of leadership in the house while under indictment. However, the speaker of the house (Hastert) can suspend that rule, and in fact he did so several months ago (and later reversed himself following the outcry). So really, for Delay, it's just a matter of getting Hastert to suspend the rule (doubtful but possible). →Raul654 07:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the News: Tom DeLay 

message: The link to Ulysses under DYK should link to Ulysses (novel) not the disambiguation page. Thanks -- Muntfish 10:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thank you! -- grm_wnr Esc 13:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK: Ulysses 

message: The Nobel Foundation has today begun announcing the winners of the 2005 Nobel Prizes. Two Australians won the prize for Medicine and Physiology today, for their research into Heliobacter and stomach ulcers. The rest will be announced at daily intervals. Obviously, we cannot put each one in the "In the News" box. But maybe something saying "The winners of the 2005 Nobel Prizes are being announced all this week in Stockholm" or something like that. They are, after all, very important. What does everyone think? Batmanand 10:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think that we could post a news item for each prize awarded. Thue | talk 13:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Helicobacter pylori is a featured article :) →Raul654 19:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobel Prize 

message: I know this isn't directly related to the main page, but close. Does anyone know what happened to the wikipedia logo on the welcome page? I know it's been off a few days and wondered why this hasn't been fixed. The Wookieepedian 17:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you mean by "welcome page", but if you mean http://www.wikipedia.org/, then I don't see anything wrong.  By the way, the place to discuss the www.wikipedia.org page is m:Talk:Www.wikipedia.org_portal.  —AlanBarrett 19:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome page error