Talk:Main Page/Archive 61

message: For headings such as "Today's featured article" etc, would it be possible to control the formatting via the stylesheet instead of explicitly setting it to be Arial? I have a custom font in my monobook.css for the rest of the page text, so the Arial sticks out like a sore thumb. Thanks. enochlau (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We really should have cleaned the code up before it went live. It's quite embarassingly amateur as code output (a result of dozens of unqualified people tweaking wikicode purely for layout-change purposes. yay!). it's a known problem, hopefully someone qualified will come and save us from ourselves soon. ("those found responsible will be shot" and all that) -Quiddity 09:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I absolutely agree. I modify my user style-sheet to use Lucida Grande as my sans-serif font and it is really quite ugly to see Arial in the headers. The text is off-centre as well. --Jeremy 00:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh yes, I just noticed they're Arial and not my configured Helvetica. Why is Arial specified at all? Isn't the default font already "sans-serif"? --Bryan Nguyen | Talk 02:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I couldn't agree more. This is very annoying. I'd like to use Verdana (and Helvetica on my Mac box), please. --Michiel Sikma 21:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heading font 

message: Can you sort out the text so that it doesn't go over picture. Djm1279 10:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of the Day 

message: In the proposed draft of the new page the heading:
Main Page
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
was not shown - instead the banner was at the very top - I thought this was part of the new design - I think it is better with the banner at the very top since on large resolution monitors you can see all 4 main parts and the banner without scrolling Trödel 10:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like someone just dealt with it -- Gurch 11:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks someone ;) Trödel 11:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not working again, Mozilla 1.4/WinXP, but it still works fine on the draft. --Geoffrey 23:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heading 

message: Why on earth is this the featured article?  —This unsigned comment was added by 69.251.23.118 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not?  —David Levy 17:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a book which may have been extremely influential on the breadth of anti-semitism in the early 20th Century, hence being instrumental in the extent of the success of the Nazi Party, of the Holocaust, and therefore also in the extent of the necessity of the Second World War. We can pose many such "if"s but if this book had not been written, there may have never been WWII, or it may have panned out very differently. The article itself is excellently written and is a great example of the small but important details in major historical eras which are so well-covered by Wikipedia. Is that enough? BigBlueFish 18:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course there's nothing wrong with featuring the article. But with all due respect (and going OT), the idea that there would have been no World War II without the Protocols, or even that they were in any way instrumental to the "success" of the Nazis, is preposterous. The Nazis were supported by influential bankers (like Hjalmar Schacht), industrialists (like Fritz Thyssen), and media tycoons (like Alfred Hugenberg). The desire of the elites in Germany to support a totalitarian regime and another war had nothing to do with the Protocols or even Hitler's anti-Semitism; that desire already manifested itself shortly after World War I when the first attempts were made to destroy the Weimar Republic. The German elites wanted a war, and the "strategy" of appeasement against Hitler's regime and the lack of enforcement of the Treaty of Versailles (regarding the size of the German military) was what allowed it to happen. The Jews were a convenient scapegoat for the lost first World War, and they may have been a personal motivation for Hitler to wage the Second one, but even Hitler's anti-Semitism was not linked to the Protocols alone and would have existed without them; his brief notes in Mein Kampf about the Protocols make that abundantly clear.--Eloquence* 21:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article 

message: Actually i think all the code needs to be cleaned up by a developer/expert. There are a lot of duplicated style types that could be replaced with css classes, divs that could be spans, and other unnecessary duplication (also in its transcluded templates). Volunteers wanted! --Quiddity 21:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that'd be a good idea... though it is true of most of our complicated pages. I just added header links to the standard portal box templates after someone pointed out above that most of our portals don't have them. Adjusting the code for usability might be an important sub-set of the usability project in general. --CBDunkerson 22:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Code cleanup needed

message: Could someone wikify Breaststroke and Butterfly stroke at 'In The News', please ? --199.71.174.100 21:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks. :) Gflores Talk 21:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for your speedy-addition, Gflores. :-) -- 199.71.174.100 21:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikifying 'In The News' 

message: Could we add the Category 5 Cyclone that is about to hit around Cairns, Austrailia? --Scaife (Talk)  Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 22:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: News

message: The main page is too wide when viewed with the Classic skin and an 800 width screen (on Firefox).  The culprit is the Welcome/portals listing box. Mixing px and % widths is bad HTML, but in this case changing the two 300px to 250px would work for me. --Henrygb 22:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too wide

message: Can we make it bigger, please ?  We have room to display wider images now. -- 199.71.174.100 00:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're trying to be considerate of users with slow Internet connections.  We certainly can't approach the image's original dimensions, but it can be clicked on to view the full-size version.  —David Levy 00:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently at 162 px wide, it's smaller than before, when it alternated with DYK at the lower right corner. --64.229.222.156 08:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this something that could become user-customizable through utilizing Help:Preferences#Files the thumbnail size pref? --Quiddity 23:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POTD on the Main Page 

message: I love the new format!!! Wandering Star 00:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't. I think it's ugly and I miss the image of the day (Have to scroll to see it - like I'm going to do that every time I visit). :( (Bjorn Tipling 01:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You preferred having it slightly higher on the page, but only on weekends (instead of every day)?  —David Levy 01:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree with Bjorn. I think Featured image should be placed in the centre for best effect and convenience. Bwithh 01:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be placed full size, in the centre of the page, with little links round it to the rest of the wikipedia.... 57.66.51.165 16:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: What about the convenience of users with slow Internet connections?  And which of the long-running features should be bumped down to create this non-thematic layout?  —David Levy 01:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from that, Wikipedia is first of all an encyclopedia. Pictures generally support the written content. Wikimedia Commons is a side project dedicated to free images. Therefore, I think that the featured picture should not be too prominent on the main page. RexNL 01:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree per RexNL. --Quiddity 02:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to disagree. Pictures are just as important for wikipedia as text. People who contributes good pictures deserves the same recognition as those who contribute good text. Zarniwoot 03:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so now we've expanded the main page's "today's featured picture" section to seven days per week (instead of two), and it even has its own box.  —David Levy 03:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the new design is a large improvement. My comment was to RexNL's comment about pictures. Would prefer fp higher up, though Zarniwoot 20:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I count 5 pictures on the main page, not including logos. What more do you need? -EdGl 22:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Look

message: I think they removed a sign-up link!
I think this is a big turn-off to users-to-be, such as myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.138.179 (talk • contribs) 
:Hmmm...It should be there. Contact an admin. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 02:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New User 

message: what about creating a template for the Wikipedia languages on the frontpage
Mateus Zica 02:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have one now.  Do you mean something different?  —David Levy 02:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for Wikipedia languages 

message: It's Iranian (Zoroastrian) new year :) Along with the Indian "Holi" celebration (which is related to the Iranian "Nouruz") it is celebrated by more than 500M people all over the world, from Turkey to India, and from Iran to Kazakhstan. I suggest to put some information about Nouruz on the front page. Tajik 02:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's on the right side of Main Page, mentioned right after the equinox and before Earth Day. A link to Zoroastrianism may be nice there. -- 199.71.174.100 03:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nouruz]] 

message: I believe this is open for adjustment, since the article count line was added after the vote was well underway. As I interpret Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes), this is not an acceptable usage of the em dash. The main page of all pages should adhere to standards. And it just looks rather amateur.--Grocer 09:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and changed.  --  Zanimum 12:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See the discussion above under "Article count in the header" as well. It hasn't really been collectively decided yet what the best way to present that line is. BigBlueFish 15:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ~em dashes in header~

message: There's a problematic sentence in the featured article:
"The Earth as well as many other bodies (including other planets, asteroids, meteoroids, comets and dust) orbit the Sun, and it accounts for more than 99% of the solar system's mass." Seems like "and it accounts" stands for the Earth! In the original article, it's already corrected, "...which accounts for".  Zhuravskij 13:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed it, although in a slightly different way than the main article. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's still wrong. the main point is, that the sun _alone_ accounts for 99% of the solar system mass, not sun + earth + other planets + asteroids, as it appears from your wording Zhuravskij 13:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah! My bad. Thanks for the fix fix. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most welcome. Zhuravskij 13:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Feature article problem

message: The new main page does not bother me at all.  It's almost exactly like the old version so I don't see any reason to complain. 206.47.141.21 15:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicely done.  68.163.251.199 00:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New main page 

message: "In the news" has this: Cuba and Japan face-off in the finals of the first ever World Baseball Classic in San Diego, California.
"Face-off" is a noun. "Face off" is the verb needed here. Jokestress 15:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, what is needed there is the final score. The game has not been played yet. Why is it 'In The News' so soon? --64.229.4.153 15:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Face-off > face off 

message: In the name of semantics, shouldn't the default page of the wiki really be in the Wikipedia namespace? AFAIK it's the only article which isn't an encyclopedia article in the main article namespace. Thinking about it, maybe it should even be in the Portal namespace. Any practical obstacle to this? Thoughts? BigBlueFish 17:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the "Main Page" heading is gone, arguably there's a better case for moving it to Wikipedia:Main Page. However, Main Page would HAVE to remain as a redirect to the new page, as it would break far too many links, and would be a pain to have to type a URL for. Though there could be a WP:MP shortcut or something (that currently goes to Wikipedia:Million Pool, which is sort of old news now -- Gurch 17:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. But currently, Wikipedia:Main Page is a redirect. BigBlueFish 17:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Namespace 

message: I think the main page title section was removed within one of the .css or .js files used overall. Is there a way to locally (i.e., in my personal .css or .js files) change this back to the original form? Thanks --jοτομικρόν | Talk 17:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Page &lt;h1&gt; title 

message: The "In the News" section on Cyclone Larry is misleading. The number shown is wind gusts, which is what the Australian agency uses as its official windspeeds. This would lead people to believe that it is a category 5 cyclone, which would be untrue. The fact that they use gusts makes it inconsistent with the rest of the world and general knowledge. I think it should be changed to the sustained wind speeds, which is the standard for the majority of the world and wouldn't mislead people into thinking it's more powerful than it really is. bob rulz 22:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cyclone Larry

message: Um... the bold in the Featured articles, Did you know, and similar sections is now gone... I'd fix it, but I don't know how to. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: bold is much better.Mateus Zica 00:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hrrm, looking at the various skins it looks like the issue is in the Monobook and Cologne Blue skins. The others seem fine. I'm not sure what is different about those skins to cause the text to display in a significantly smaller font. --CBDunkerson 01:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Now I remember why I stopped using the Monobook skin. The exact same code (before David Levy's change) shows the text bold on User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox5 but not bold on the Main page. I think what David did to bold them is sufficient... the skins which were already displaying bold don't look any different. I don't think it will be possible to get the box widths to exactly match in all skins... they are currently pretty close in Classic, but if we tweak them for Monobook the others will go off slightly. --CBDunkerson 01:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox5]] fix 

message: Where is thw article?
And also, Saffron is the article shown when clicking "continue".
Sorting out needed.
Ive checked the deletion log and noticed its been deleted.
User:Tim_teddybear
:Naconkantari deleted the page temporarily to clean up some vandalism from the page history. For that reason the page was unavailable for about 1 minute. RexNL 01:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cape Horn 

message: I've turned on numbered headings in my preferences, and the numbers aren't bolded in the headings in the featured-DYK space. Actually, I'd like them to be off just for the Main Page (just for myself). Any way to do one or both? æle ✆ 01:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, this is a direct result of the work further up the page to restore header tags on these items. The old main page had each of these sections as headers and thus showed the numbers. If we remove the numbers then screen-reader software loses the ability to navigate around on the page. --CBDunkerson 01:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay, somebody fixed the bolding. I wish the heading numbers were inside span tags or something, but I'll have to bring that to MediaZilla. :) æle ✆ 22:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distracting numbered headings 

message: -    
- When the draft of the Main Page redesign was deemed to be in its final state ready for a vote, the article count didn't appear in the top header, though it remained on the first line of the Languages section. Seven days into the voting process, administrator David Levy added this back to the protected page in response to some conditional support votes requesting its reappearance. I haven't followed the process meticulously, but the form of the article count (as we see it now, enclosed by emdashes) is unlike any of the many I've seen in previous drafts. Am I the only one who thinks this a little underhand? I am relatively neutral about the include-or-remove question, but I really don't like the form it's in at the moment. If there are sufficiently mixed opinions then maybe we ought to consider the options for change, and establish a consensus on the best option. It's not too late is it? BigBlueFish 14:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article count in the header 

message: thumb Could we align the "Did you know" box with the "On this day..." box? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid not. The boxes move up and down depending on the contents of the sections above them (featured article, and in the news). If they were aligned there would be the potential for lots of "whitespace" above one of them on any given day, which would look just as odd. :) --Quiddity 06:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I came to make the same complaint comment.  Exatcly how much white space are we talking about, because I know it's personal preferance but I find it terribly jarring when they don't quite line up... brenneman{L}  06:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, it depends on the actual size of the display font, which is dependant on the browser.  So if it were changesd, the white space would not be constant either. Dforest 07:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We could always use table cells to align the boxes up can't we? Place each of the boxes in a table cell, and the rows and columns will force the boxes to line up. enochlau (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, and in most cases a little bit (but not a lot!) of white space would be less distracting?  Noting of course that I was nowhere to be seen during the whole new main page process and it looks great and kudos all around but that every time I see that slight misalign I cringe. - brenneman{L}  17:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: See User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox5 for an example of one way to 'line up' these headings. --CBDunkerson 18:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, that looks much worse.  The current setup divides the four features in question into two thematic, color-coded pairings (the main reason behind swapping the positions of "Did you know..." and "On this day...").  In addition to spoiling that arrangement, splitting these sections into four separate boxes would waste a considerable amount of space.  I honestly don't see what's so bad about not having the headings line up; this is nothing new.  —David Levy 18:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't matter to me - just showing that it can be done. I made another change to reduce the size of the gap between tables. At this point it really doesn't take up any more space than the current version... though it would if upper left were larger than upper right while lower right was larger than lower left. The 'column' format allows these to effectively 'balance out' while four boxes compounds any top/bottom size disparities if they are in opposite columns. Conversely, the four box format 'balances out' any white space when one column is shorter than the other in both rows. The breaks between sections could be gotten rid of by using a different table class, but it would have to be un-bordered or it would put a line between the top and bottom sections. --CBDunkerson 19:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main page enhancement 

message: It's nice that Benito Juárez's birthday is mentionned in the selected anniversaries, but the phrase "a Fiestas Patrias" is awkward in bilingual grammar (if there is such a thing).  "Fiestas Patrias" is plural, so the phrase makes as much sense as saying that the 4th of July is "an American holidays".  A suggested rewording might be "one of Mexico's Fiestas Patrias". Rod ESQ 02:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bilingual grammar 

message: I'm a Wikipedia novice and I'm not sure how to change it (otherwise I would), but I don't think the destination of the hyperlink attached to "Cape Horn" is entirely appropriate for Wikipedia.
Someone is seriously deranged.
:I think you saw the article while it was briefly in a vandalised state. Vandalism of the featured article doesn't usually last very long, so if you reload the article it will probably be all right. If you want to help, see How to revert an article.-gadfium 05:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about this edit? ?? It is vandalism. --HamedogTalk|@ 06:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's Feature Article hyperlink 

message: Currently Cyclone Larry makes landfall in Queensland, AU with 250 km/h winds, the strongest in over 70 years. AU needs to link to Australia. ▫ UrbaneLegend talk 14:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I came here to ask that AU be spelled out.  I don't think it's a standard abbreviation.  I will accept US as standard, but I wold request periods be used, making it "U.S." instead.  (I realize the Brits don't like using full stops in abbreviations.)  --Nelson Ricardo 16:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link needs dab on main page 

message: The picture of Alexander Lukashenko looks a tad bad. The 'Rule of Thirds' does not look good in the Main page featuring people. Is there any way we can get a picture of him that's more whole? RPharazon 14:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko (pictured) is re-elected amid widespread condemnation of the election's validity." - emphasis mine. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: From the comments within the news section: "Newest item goes on the top, older items are removed from the bottom." - UtherSRG (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'In The News' Picture 

message: I just saw that the news that swedish foriegn minister Laila Freivalds have resigned was put up on the main page. The blurb states that it was due to the Muhammad Cartoons controversy, which is true to a point, but gives a very wrong impression of what happened. She resigned after allegations that the Foreign Ministry called the ISP of a fringe swedish party (the Sweden Democrats) and asked them (the ISP that is) to censor the partys page after the they (the Sweden Democrats that is) had solicited reader submissions of cartoons of Muhammad to publish in their paper. The ISP did shut down the site, and when the asked about this, Freivalds lied about her involvement in the shutdown. So it's not because of the cartoon controversy per se, more about a censorship issue, tangentially related to the cartoons thing. A more appropriate text would perhaps be:
:Swedish Foreign Affairs Minister Laila Freivalds resigns due to allegations of censorship in the wake of the Muhammad cartoons controversy.
I'm not a stellar writer as you might have noticed, so please, fix my languge :)
Also, she has gotten alot of heat even alot of talk of impeachment earlier this year due to her tragic mishandling of the tsunami rescue effort, where >500 swedes died. This was just the straw that broke the camels back. Oskar 16:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about to post exactly the same thing... As it stands that news item is misleading. Will an admin please reword it? Mikker ... 18:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the News 

message: How do I edit this main page to add news? 
DanielDemaret 17:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't. Only admins can edit the main page. (and for good reason, IMAGINE the vandalism...) Mikker ... 18:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Most of the Main Page is assembled templates. The news section can be accessed from :Template:In_the_news. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Mikkerpikker and UtherSRG!82.182.115.181 21:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Is there something wrong with the logo in the top left hand corner? Where it says wikipedia it's got a black background, which shouldn't be there. Of course, it could just be my browser. Willnz0 22:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The logo 

message: The [ diffs] and [ oldid views] don't have a "Main Page" heading, which I find annoying because (1) the header is there on the history page and on diffs for every other page, and (2) old revision views have older and newer revision links in the header. Can we get the "Main Page" h1 back on the diff and oldid views? æle ✆ 22:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it has been fixed. You may have to clear your browser's cache to see the changes. RexNL 00:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diff views have no title heading 

message: Very nice redesign - congratulations to all.
Can a 'tomorrow' link be added programmatically to On This Day? Since Wikipedia seems to run on UTC/GMT or AAT (America Awakens Time), On This Day only changes after the four billion or so people who live east of Greenwich have already begun to experience the next day. We aren't so impressive at the watercooler/pump when we're talking about yesterday's events! Assuming Wikipedia won't undergo a virtual relocation to the international dateline, perhaps the masters of the mainpage could save us a click or two by providing a link to the forthcoming day as well as the last three? How about it?  --Brian Samosa 22:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though I'm GMT scum I second this. Jellypuzzle | Talk 23:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, for me it is "On Yesterday"... which is kinda annoying.  I third that proposal.  Actually what would be really good (but software would probably need to change) is if it could detect what zone you are in (through the preferences) and put in that days info.  --Midnighttonight 01:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fourth. --Quiddity 01:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fifthed.  Or use GMT. Lankiveil 05:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we have a 'tomorrow' link now? 

message: Usually when you arrive at an article by way of a redirect, it says "(Redirected from [link to redirect])". However, when you follow the link Wikipedia:Main Page to arrive at the Main Page, that note is missing. Why? —Keenan Pepper 17:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see (Redirected from Wikipedia:Main Page) just fine. Raul654 17:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't. Uh oh. :{ Johnleemk | Talk 17:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see it ether, but i doubt it matters that much. however i bet it's due to the removale of the normal page tital from the main page. (if you notice, the new main page doesn't have the same page heder section that all other pages have on it. tooto 17:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's correct.  This is part of the MediaWiki title header, which is suppressed in some skins (including the default "MonoBook" skin).  —David Levy 17:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random curiosity 

message: "This is the English language Wikipedia, which was started in 2001. It currently contains 1,037,905 articles." -> "This is the English language Wikipedia, which was started in 2001, it currently contains 1,037,905 articles." or rewritten in some other way.--Andreas Müller 17:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've editted thusly: "This is the English language Wikipedia. Started in 2001, it currently contains 1,037,920 articles." - UtherSRG (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What was wrong with the original wording? BigBlueFish 20:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I don't see any spelling mistakes, and the original wording was fine. The new version is fine, so it's neither here nor there, but the complaint was baseless. Kafziel 20:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original wording was syntactically sound (and I don't understand the complaint), but the new version is more elegant (IMHO).  —David Levy 21:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the old main page, it was "This is the English language Wikipedia, started in 2001" until a sneaky user (yours truly) added "which was" to the proposed main page and wasn't reverted in the mad rush of edits a number of weeks ago.  Anyway, I like the new version better than both the previous ones. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 04:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I love the level of intelligence I see all the time in discussions (no sarcasm intended). =) ☭ Zippanova 17:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like one sentence: "In 2001, the English-language Wikipedia began its growth to over 1,000,000 articles."  (Yeah, that's a joke.  Kinda.)  MusicMaker5376 23:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A spelling mistake 

message: "The ETA declares a permanent ceasefire..."
This should read: "ETA declares a permanent ceasefire" as it is more common to style the organisation "ETA" rather than "the ETA". This is because ETA is not an English name (like "the IRA") and is usually spoken as "eet-ah" or "eh-tah" rather than "the Ee-Tee-Ay".
:Fixed.  —David Levy 18:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ETA