Talk:Main Page/Archive 21

message: Please do not revert to the old one, everyone I've shown the design to says it looks far more appealing, clean and professional.
#--Exigentsky 02:18, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
is nice an clean.
--Jew 09:56, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I love the new layout 

message: Instead of "....and visit our Community Portal to find out how you can add to Wikipedia." won't it be better if we have  "....and visit our Community Portal to find out how you can participate in Wikipedia." Users don't just add to Wikipedia, meaning content contribution, they participate in a lot of activities. That's ofcourse why Wikipedia won the Webby Award too! KRS 15:08, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome message

message: Is it only me or someone out there feel the same pain? I am using a highly secured Netscape 4.8 as my main browser (no Javascript, no page-assigned colors and fonts, no 3rd party cookies, and lots of privacy software). I find my editing text box ruined by the CSS codes. It used to be able to wrap the text. Now I can only see a very long no-wrap line.
Edting is now pretty difficult.
-- Toytoy
You could use links or lynx. They seem to work OK, you just need to page down a few times. Mr. Jones 16:12, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  No word-wrap? 

message: When I try to click on the thing that says
Source code
The tables' text moves around.
--The Doctor Is In 11:26, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug? 

message: The colored boxes are spreading out to cover up the right float section when using the Standard skin.  This hasn't happened before.  RickK 05:41, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
I was just coming here to say the same thing. It makes the whole thing ugly and non usable since we can't click on the links any more.
I went to older versions, and suddenly it worked, and now works all the time. I am confused here. I am in cologne blue for reference. SweetLittleFluffyThing 06:56, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Today's Main Page 

message: The sister project icons should be links to their sites, not to the image page here on Wikipedia. --Yath 19:49, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree that this is rather confusing. The only problem is that (AFAIK) it's not possible with the current software to turn an image into an arbitrary link. Someone's made some of these image description pages into redirects now, and while in general I'm not over-keen on interwiki redirects (they cause the redirect page to be completely inaccessible if you don't know how to handcraft an address) it's probably valid enough in instance - as long as we don't then want to use those same images somewhere else, of course... - IMSoP 15:17, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sister project icons

message: George Tenet, director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, and George Bushs scapegoat tenders his resignation, citing "personal reasons." He will remain at his post until mid-July. 
Gee Scapegoat real NPOV word
:You're right, thanks for bringing that vandalism to our attention.  You'll notice it was fixed in less than 6 minutes.  See Wikipedia:Replies to common objections for more.  Yours, Meelar 23:11, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Scapegoat" (fixed)

message: This doesn't look like news so much as conspiracy theory. As an item of news it is not appropriate on the front page; it is not comparable to any of the other events that have been listed on the front page. The D-Day anniversary remembrances, the transit of Venus between the Earth and the Sun for the first time since 1882, or the abduction of U.N. workers in Sudan are all far more important and worthy of inclusion on the front page. - Centrx 02:46, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Rubbish. The Bilderberg group does exist; it does have many important / influential people; and it did have its 50th anniversary. Why wouldn't that be news? The only thing fueling conspiracy theories is claiming that it isn't. -- Schnee 08:21, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think that is less noteworthy than the D-Day anniversary>SimonMayer 14:08, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Bilderberg News

message: Interlanguage links should be on the left side below toolbox on the Main Page.  This is consistent with the layout used on general articles.  I would suggest all WP languages should be there unless the list is too long to fit. They can then be removed from where they are presently on the Main Page. I don't know why this was reverted. dml 02:52, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interlanguage Links Location 

message: Great to see Asimov's Foundation trilogy, er - double-trilogy - er, whatever - featured here, but wouldn't this be considered a spoiler?
It does give away a little of the plot of Foundation, etc and, in so doing, could spoil the enjoyment of some people. The same, incidentally, applies to the articles linked from it, eg, Terminus and Hari Seldon, etc.
What think thee?
Agendum 12:23, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Foundation Series 

message: Get rid of the double spacing! It sucks! Mr. Jones 14:04, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double spacing. 

message: They are both wrong now. Please fix them up. Thx. ---koyn 14:17, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Chinese wiki 

message: in about 2 hours from now, Euro2004 will start, will it be in "In the news" on wikipedia? - --Cyprus2k1 14:10, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a football fan and will be following this tournament closely, but do we really need daily updates on the main page? Marking the start of the tournament made sense, but I think it can now be relegated from the front page until the final. Unless, of course, something really extraordinary happens, like Zidane testing positive for steroids, or Latvia beating Germany, or France failing to qualify for the QFs.Harry R 11:02, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  UEFA Euro2004 

message: I think Zionism was a poor choice for a featured article, as it was bound to be a POV vandal magnet, even to the extent of placing blatant POV on the Main Page. So what was the eventual solution? Protect the Template:Feature? For a little while. Protect the article? For a littler while. Ah! Replace the article! When was the last time Wikipedia replaced a feature article early because of extreme POV?
I am not especially interested in Zionism, and wasn't an editor on the article, but I think it is interesting to show the world the bias that Wikipedia gives in to, and how seriously some take NPOV, which is supposed to be a non-negotiable principle. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:26, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point in terms of the article itself, but if the Main Page is protected as a matter of policy, I don't see why the templates for the main page can't be also, at least when there is an issue of vandalism. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:58, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Have the templates of the Main Page ever been vandalised? If they have, how often? We shouldn't think about protecting a page before it gets at least a vandal attack per day. ✏ Sverdrup 21:05, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: The layout of the Main Page is protected, yes. But not the content. We have just made the ability to edit the content non-obvious. I would like to see us continue that for as long as possible. If and when vandalism becomes a problem we could limit edits to all template pages to logged-in users. If and when that becomes an issue, then and only then should we consider limiting edits to the Main Page templates to just admins. --mav 04:27, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  So [[Zionism]] bites the dust 

message: In the description of the Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow decision, it is stated that the challenge "lacked legal standing".  In fact, it is the plaintiff who lacked legal standing.  The current wording is inaccurate and misleading. Bill 10:51, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elk Grove USD: Plaintiff lacks standing, not the challenge. 

message: How on earth did we end up with a pastel pink and blue main page?  Aren't there some official Wikipedia colours or something?  Otherwise could we have something with slightly less resemblance to a creche?  Exploding Boy 15:23, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
:Exploding Boy, try changing your Cascading Style Sheet to have the page display in whatever colors you want.  Your CSS can be found at User:Exploding Boy/monobook.css.  If you need inspiration, several users already have personalized theirs, for example, mine is at User:Gentgeen/monobook.css. Gentgeen 21:30, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't do that. Currently the background colours for the boxes on the main page are specified by inline style tags, these take precedence over any style defined in a external file.  -- Popsracer 06:59, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikicolours

message: I must inform you that you´ve made some errors in nationalities section.
To be more specific, in Serb section.
Famous Serbs.
Female Actor Milla Jovovich is Montenegrian not Serb
Actor Karl Malden is Montenegrian
Svetozar Marovic is Montenegrian, not Serb
Ivo Andric, John Malkovich, Pete Maravich, Rudjer Boskovic and Josif Runjanin are Croats, not Serbs.
:1) This does not belong on the discussion page for the Main Page of Wikipedia.
:2) If it's wrong, edit it.
::- Centrx 04:56, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some errors on natonalities 

message: I do not like the capitalisation of the title of Wikipedia pages. It seems to me that it would make more sense for "the free encyclopedia" to be capitalised as "The Free Encyclopedia", much like a sub-title of a book would be.
-Ben Bildstein
:1) Throughout the history of print, subtitles are often lowercase, given as descriptions, and not billed as high as the title.
:2) If Wikipedia is the title, and the latter part is just an explanation or a minor subtitle in that vein, it's not inappropriate for it to be lowercase.
:: - Centrx 05:00, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: agree with you completely. There are two many capital letters in the world :0) --BozMo|talk 14:59, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Far too many of Wikipedia's contributors use capitals in articles and article names where they shouldn't. Let's not encourage it. Fredrik | talk 15:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The title of the web page - "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" 

message: In the browse by topic section under "Culture, Religion, Philosophy, Entertainment " there are two links to religion.
:Yep, thanks for pointing it out. I fixed it. (For future reference, You could fix it too) ✏ Sverdrup 11:26, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  It links to religion twice 

message: As regards the "ghost prisoner" story - this was corrected earlier - it now reads "in possible violation" again. There's no "possible" about it - it's a clear violation of the Geneva conventions - hence the reason it's a news story.
Could this please be corrected once and for all? Who gets to make these edits?
Zoney 20:37, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Found it. An ongoing edit war of course, where there shouldn't be one. Zoney 21:12, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "possible" violation of Geneva Conventions 

message: Could someone add the info about the adoption of the EU Constitution by the European Council in the In the News section on the main page (it's already at Current events). It's a very important piece of news and I think many people might be looking here to find out whether it was finally adopted or not. --Kpalion 21:43, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU Constitution 

message: The featured article is the Voynich Manuscript, but it's listed on the front page as the Voyeur Manuscript - subtle vandalism, or is this the proper name for the thing?  I would change it back only I'm not a sysop... PMC 02:58, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voyeur Manuscript?!