Talk:Main Page/Archive 101

message: Can someone changed the picture of the featured article on the main page, looks extremely small, maybe we should put the image (or another one in the article or resized the image) on the infobox for now. --JForget 02:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers.. Picaroon (Talk) 01:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmmm... like the featured article that is Jenna Jameson Raul654 04:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's featured article picture on Main page 

message: I suggest moving Main Page to Wikipedia:Main Page, because I would like to make an article on main pages on the Internet. And "Wikipedia:Main Page" would not appear on top of the main page. ANNAfoxlover 01:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion has been had at least twice before, and both times it was clear that people wanted the Main Page to remain right where it is. Can you imagine how many links would have to be changed if we moved it and replaced it with a normal article? Millions of links across the whole internet would be wrong, and even on Wikipedia thousands would need updating. To put it simply, while consensus can change, it isn't going to here. If an article on internet main pages is needed, Main page (internet) would work, wouldn't it? Picaroon (Talk) 01:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just write it at homepage.--Pharos 01:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, there are too many links to this page, and doing a move would be a mess. Acalamari 01:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You may peruse more fully the arguments offered for and against the moving of the Main Page to Wikipedia:Main Page or Portal:Main Page/Portal:Wikipedia at the most recent relevant discussions,  here and here.  Although consensus can surely change, and although essentially nothing is immutable here, I cannot imagine that any consensus should develop in the near future for a move, and I don't think it would be useful for the community, at least in the absence of extraordinary developments, to revisit the issue for at least a few more months.  Joe 02:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't want to and I don't think there is any point reopening this this debate. But I would have to seriously disagree with your claim. The was no consensus, not a consensus against the move. Nil Einne 07:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I used to support this, but moving Main Page to another page would have no good effects. And yes, there was no consensus to move the page since too many voted. --Howard the Duck 12:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move? 

message: i want vi:Trang Chính from Vietnam into :en:Main Page like as :de:Hauptseite, :fr:accueil... ?--125.235.73.30 02:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment we are only linking directly to the editions of Wikipedia with 25,000 or more articles. The Vietnamese Wikipedia has about 20,000 at the moment.-gadfium 03:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam 

message: :(moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)) --- RockMFR 16:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox standard 

message: Don't flame at me for everyone already knowing, but The Zoo Tycoon 2: Extinct Animals page is being vandalised by losers who have no live. I say we lock the article. Dinoman96 19:42, 15 June 2007
:Since that article has nothing to do with the main page, or is currently even linked to the main page, you will get better results if you post a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  *Sigh.* 

message: :Image:San Antonio Spurs logo.png
Someone should add that the San Antonio Spurs have beat the Cleavland Cavaliers 4-0 in the 2007 NBA Finals to win their fourth championship in nine years.
:Just wait dude, it's on the way... LeBROOM is still cleaning house... --Howard the Duck 04:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your local footy team aren't the best soccer players in the world nor is it broadcast all over the globe.  Your Britocentrism is lame  ColdRedRain 00:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which begs the question, if you exclude the NBA Finals from ITN, what will be the annual basketball news which will be displayed? The British Basketball League? Considering basketball is probably the second most-popular sport, after "footy". --Howard the Duck 01:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay! Let's bash some poms! I'm Australian, but it's hardly the point. Wasn't looking for a fight, it just seemed more than a little out of place, from an international perspective. I use the news column of the front page not as my primary news source for every little thing right down to sports results, but rather as a launching platform for more extensive Wiki-trawls snaking through articles relating to a current event. The title of the section isn't 'Today's Headlines,' it's 'In the news,' which perhaps suggests that it is supposed to contain articles which are relevant to the encyclopaedic nature of Wikipedia. This (albeit harmless) little bit of basketball fandom just seems... trivial. Sorry. — Zioroboco 02:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... Granted, though, that perhaps some people who aren't familiar with basketball could use this entry in the same way I do, and look up articles about the game and the competitions. It can stay for all I care, but I still think your response was a little tactless. — Zioroboco 02:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For your consideration: National Sport — Zioroboco 02:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  National sport may not the most popular sport played in one country; for example, nobody plays our real national sport at our place. --Howard the Duck 03:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  *blinks* ... — Zioroboco 03:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After some investigation on that page, football (soccer) was mentioned 89 times, cricket 43 times, basketball 28 times...... and ice hockey 12 times. Now I wonder why nobody complained when NHL's Stanley Cup was mentioned, although they did complain after a few days when it got old. --Howard the Duck 03:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you're saying that this mistake has been made before? Oh well, I suppose it was inevitable. "And so began the great Wiki-schism of '07, where all of wiki-kind were divided into us.wikipedia and them.wikipedia. And there was a great weeping and gnashing of teeth." (I don't know... en.wikipedia seemed too -- what was it? -- "Britocentric?") — Zioroboco 03:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the plus side, we could finally spell Wikipedia with an 'ae.' I've had just about enough of you damned colonials and your lazy spelling, eh wot? — Lord Zioroboco 04:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly as I expected, this was just some plain old anti-Americanism. Oh well... There's a Rugby World Cup this year, if there's any consolation. --Howard the Duck 04:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You know, I would let you have me, if you wanted... — Zioroboco 04:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's amazing as you're just my type. --Monotonehell 05:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 NBA Finals 

message: Is it inserting a historical POV to say that? I mean, Burnside was not the sharpest tool in the shed, and was certainly unqualified to face Robert E. Lee -- but he performed very well as a division commander in the west, and the fiasco at the Crater was Meade's and Ledlie's fault more than his. I would suggest calling him one of the "least successful" generals instead -- and then finding, if you want, a different adjective to describe the carbine. 209.190.233.66 17:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this here? If you are talking about an article in particular, discuss on that article's talk page, not here. ffm ✎talk 19:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in regard to an item that was on DYK (and isn't anymore). Since these items are only up for about 6 hours, it's unfortunately common for them not to be fixed before they get removed - but in this case, I don't see an error - the Ambrose Burnside article makes a good case for his lack of competence. NPOV does not mean refraining from deserved criticism. -- Gavia immer (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There also cited quotes in Burnside carbine that talk about the "incompetence" which is why that particular hook was allowed to go up to the Main Page. howcheng  {chat} 17:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most incompetent generals? 

message: Since ya’ll always know where to direct people that aren’t in the correct place, where do I complain about people placing comments in the incorrect place?  I know that if I put it in the most accessible place, the Main Page discussion, someone will find the time to correct me.  Too often, I read things like, “Why is this here,” or “This should go somewhere else,” and feel, well, disappointed.  The Main Page discussion is the easiest place to write suggestions or comments for people that don’t know where else to put them.  And of course they get jumped on for not knowing that there was a special page for their concern.  Why can’t the Main Page talk be a place of open discussion about Wikipedia in general?  Of course someone will tell me that this whole comment would be better on another page.  S. Randall 21:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There use to be a template called Template:Main Page discussion header that use to be at the top of this talk page for that kind of purpose, but many more regular users decided to get rid of it because, iirc, it was too big and cumbersome. So it was turned into a redirect. Here is the version before it was removed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe we need a link to WP:VP at the top of Talk:Main Page -- bolded and in large fonts -- for those open discussion about Wikipedia in general. --76.64.77.213 23:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We are always going to have a bit of misplaced discussion here. I don't think the amount has changed since the header was removed. Some discussion doesn't really belong anywhere else - for example, the message above about Zoo Tycoon vandalism doesn't belong anywhere - maybe requests for page protection, but it wouldn't get protected anyways. Some discussion can just be moved to the proper spot (like I did above). If it's nonsense or the old "PLEASE HELP ME WITH MY HOMEWORK" junk or "I love Wikipedia", just blank it and put a message on their talk page if you want to. --- RockMFR 02:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As Zzyzx11 mentioned above, there used to be a large header that undoubtedly helped those who bothered to read it. However there's always those who miss things like that and simply add their comment or question. It was decided to remove the header and just answer everyone's comments or questions here. It was part of the consensus to remove it that we are NOT supposed to bite people who do so and rudely redirect them. Instead we should briefly outline an answer and then perhaps suggest a better place to continue the query. Wikipedia's backrooms are very hard to navigate, even for those familiar with most of it, so most "misplaced" queries can be understood. Anyone who is being a bit terse should perhaps reconsider how they phrase answers to such queries (of course taking the time to offer any help is appreciated). I know I've been guilty of it at times. --Monotonehell 04:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The reason why we don't want to open the main page talk page for general discussion about anything concerning wikipedia is simple. That would be an extreme mess given the large number of different issues that are already discussed at more appropriate talk pages. Even if we simply discussed issues which were raised here without forwarding them to a more appropriate talk page, that would still mean a lot of people who may otherwise be interested or able to help may miss the discussion. Also, we have a relatively short archive time here because we don't want the page to get too long for various reasons. That means that a lot of discussions which have not yet concluded may be prematurely archived. Of course, some discussion ends up taking place anyway, usually no one cares that much provided it doesn't go on for too long. Nil Einne 09:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, this is in fact the best place to discuss what should and shouldn't be discussed on the main page talk page Nil Einne 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location, Location, Location 

message: I believe that the first crossing of the South Atlantic Ocean by air in 1922, from Lisbon, in Portugal, to Rio de Janeiro, in Brazil, by Portuguese aviators Gago Coutinho and Artur de Sacadura Cabral should be mentioned. Thank you. The Ogre 06:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The event is briefly mentioned in the Gago article but it would be better if a single, central article about the crossing is made IMHO Nil Einne 07:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please make sugjestions to ITN at WP:ITN/C, not here. ffm ✎talk 13:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the suggestion was for an item to be added to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/June 15 (if I'm wrong, one may disregard the rest of this).  To suggest an item for inclusion on the SA (OTD) entry that is on the main page or that for the next day (which, in view of its being transcluded on Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow, is protected), you probably will do well to post here, although it may be unlikely that an admin should edit SA consistent with your suggestion in a timely fashion.  To suggest an item for SA inclusion for some future date, you should (to my understanding) be bold and update the corresponding selected anniversaries page; in order that other editors might understand the reason for your addition, you might want to include a note on the requisite date's talk page toward the item's meeting the SA criteria (as Nil observes, the item that you suggest is probably not consistent with the criteria at present, but an event-specific article properly listed at June 15 and otherwise consistent with the criteria would almost surely, IMHO, merit SA inclusion), at least if there is likely to be any doubt.  Joe 22:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've copied the suggestion to Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/June 15. You might see this on SA/OTD on the next June 15th. --199.71.174.100 00:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On this day,15 June - important event not mentioned 

message: It was only now an idea for the main page struck me that I even noticed we had links to portals on the main page in the top right hand corner. Portals are supposed to act as gateways for readers to visit stuff within that topic, yet no-one outside regular Wikipedians has heard of them. An idea: Create a display box between the main "Welcome to Wikipedia" notice and the TFA and put all the Featured Portals in it (or as the list grows have a random selection appear). It'll generate some decent traffic and form an incentive to some people to try to get their portal featured. We create more content, and people actually see it. How about it? 62.30.56.116 04:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Main Page/Archive 98#Portals on the mainpage. --74.14.20.189 04:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes. Portals are very underrecognizes and undermaintained and I think its a shame. Atropos 05:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We do get substantial traffic to some portals. See WikiCharts. The current events portal is not typical because it has always had its own link from every Wikipedia page, but the other portals may be getting much of their traffic from the main page links.-gadfium 06:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good number of featured portals do not even find mention on that page.--Seraphiel 06:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portals. 

message: hi i was doing a project on pythagoras and i didnt find too much information on it i did find information but it was a bit complicated the wikipeadia website was very helpfull --Zunaira
:Pythagorean theorem, Pythagoras?  --Nricardo 13:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hi 

message: Could someone remove this article? Intrigued by the tease, I clicked on it and found an incoherent article that has already received several POV and cleanup tags and is getting horribly abused on its talk page. It really doesn't make a good statement for Wikipedia as it currently is, even if it apparently met the criteria. Daniel Case 13:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just finished updating the section, so it will blight the Main Page no more. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 14:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove [[destructive creativity]] from DYK 

message: In the box at the top of the main page in the line " articles in English", I am suggesting that English be changed to English as to let readers know of other wikipedias. « ANIMUM » 15:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If "English" was made a link at all, would it not be better to point it to English language? Readers wishing to get to other Wikipedias need only glance at the sidebar, scroll down a little or visit www.wikipedia.org – Gurch 16:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most casual readers won't take the time to scroll down on the "main" main page. « ANIMUM » 20:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Until we get people asking here if there are Wikipedias in other languages, it's unlikely that a change like that will be made.  There are enough people complaining that the [insert language] isn't linked, but I haven't seen any complaints looking for Wikipedia in other languages, meaning that they're probably accessible enough as it is.  ShadowHalo 21:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New link? 

message: Anyone interested in replying to the Help Desk question about the Main Page posted at Question : Wikipedia May28th page appears on June19th ?? -- Jreferee (Talk) 23:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help Desk post 

message: Shame on you folk for linking great tit from the main page :) Borisblue 13:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the linking wasn't bad enough, someone put a picture of a great tit too... Nil Einne 13:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't wait until we get a chance to link to boobies. howcheng  {chat} 17:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the NBA ITN item should add a word or two about another boobie. --Howard the Duck 17:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to say, I find masked boobies cuter than great tits Nil Einne 19:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely this is a preset limit to the number of double entendres can appear on a single page?  :) DoomsDay349 03:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely right... So I'll leave the main page alone and go and eat some spotted dick and play with my pussy instead! Nil Einne 10:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Kill them?  I always thought that tits/boobies are good for feeding small children. --74.14.20.189 05:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Boobies perhaps. But you wouldn't get much from a tit from what I can see... Nil Einne 10:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why stop after one ? --74.13.130.59 02:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OhNoes! Somebody Think of the Children! 

message: On this day, Vlad III Impaler...err, it should say Vlad III Dracula, as it says in the Night Attack, which is the article which is mentioned for today. It is about consistency and nothing else. Vlad III Impaler in one place and Dracula in another? --Thus Spake Anittas 21:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gd point. Tourskin 21:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can it be changed? --Thus Spake Anittas 21:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Suggestions for changes on the main page are usually made at #Main page error reports above. --199.71.174.100 23:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His title was Vlad Ţepeş, Vlad Dracula III (the Third) (after his father, Vlad Dracul), he was notoriously known as Vlad the Impaler for his enjoyment of having enemies impaled on spikes. Impaler was not part of his given name, it was just a nickname that he acquired. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On this day 

message: Please update ITN. There are a few suggestions at WP:ITN/C waiting for admins' approval. Thanks. --74.13.130.59 01:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Admin:Zzyzx11. --74.13.130.59 08:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please update ITN 

message: The m:Wikimedia brand survey discussion has had me thinking, and what I think we need is a better way to promote our Wikimedia sister projects (Wiktionary, Wikinews, Wikisource etc.), you know, the ones languishing on the bottom of the other side of this page.  I have this crazy feeling that people just don't pay attention to the bottom and that if we moved them to the top, we might just see the leverage of this page propel some projects that are struggling a little into projects that could really thrive with more participation.  I know, I know, this will be different, and it just won't feel right to some of us, but please just look at the the demo (not a finished idea at all, just an idea of placement), and decide for yourself whether or not this can help us further our larger goals at Wikimedia.  Thanks.--Pharos 06:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This might work, if there were a way to make the vertical space used by the  template much smaller. Perhaps by removing the mottos and shrinking icons? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A definite possibility.--Pharos 12:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Main page probably isn't the biggest advert for our sister projects. I'd say the in article templates do a lot more to alert people to them - for example. --Monotonehell 06:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is the long tail and all, but the MainPage is still a pretty big draw — certainly the equivalent of many thousands of dollars in advertising at least.  And of course, it would be a considerably bigger advert for the projects if they were placed more prominently.--Pharos 12:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As I've mentioned above, wikinews isn't just at the bottom of the side of the page but most people still seem to miss it. Nil Einne 07:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikinews is pretty well-hidden in that ITN box, I'd say.  We probably get even less clicks from that link than from the one at the bottom.--Pharos 12:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Main Page advertising would really help. What about linking to Wikinews in Template:Current? Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 16:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A question for Template talk:Current? --74.13.124.115 05:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This is Wikipedia and not a central place to link to all the different sister projects.  Moving the front page content down detracts from our content here.  Personally I think that we just have to face it and realise that the other projects will never be as big as this one.  violet/riga (t) 21:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that finding ways to promote other projects is a good thing, but, and no offense intended, I don't think we want to make the Main Page into a billboard.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, that's what the talk page is for.  Go to Wikiversity.  ;-P  ShadowHalo 20:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if you put the icons down the right side of the page?  People might just be intrigued... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.101.123.219 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or the 'navbar' on the left. --74.13.124.115 05:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I completely disagree, and it'll clog up the main page completely. And, why does Wikipedia need a better way to promote its sister projects? I don't think Wikipedia is an advertising vehicle for random-Wikimedia-project-10121, which should live and die on its own merits as much as possible. If you believe the page is too long at the moment, perhaps simplifying the icons or removing the sister projects entirely would be a much better solution for getting rid of extraneous non-Wikipedia-related information. -Halo 19:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think we should let our sister projects "live or die".  We have to recognize that Wikimedia is a whole, a coordinated effort to improve the availability of free knowledge in the world, and we have to let our casual readers know it too.  Does Google hide Google Images or Google News at the bottom of their page because they're not "true Google"?  We have to rise above such thinking.  The other projects may never grow to the size of Wikipedia, but their success is limited not by their current participation only, but by the fundamental low level of awareness of the general public of these projects.  And relocating the links to the sister projects will not lengthen the MainPage one iota, nor will it be made in any way less useful to our readers; indeed, they will be more clearly pointed toward where some of the things they expect to find in Wikipedia actually belong.--Pharos 21:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Google advertise Google News, Google Images et al because it's in their commercial (and indeed shareholders) interests to do so and extend their brand, whereas the Wikimedia Foundation is not-for-profit and not chasing page-views to sell ad-space. It's also worth mentioning that Google's solution was to supply easily-ignorable links to their other products, letting them live-and-die, rather than spamming you with large descriptions and icons which is seemingly what you're suggesting. I think the fundamental reason why the other projects have relatively floundered compared to Wikipedia is that, functionally, the wiki-model doesn't work as well, the content overlaps, and there's generally less interest in original news reporting or writing a textbook, and I don't think using half the front-page to push less popular projects is the solution and letting them live-or-die on their own merits, such as Wikipedia did, is better. But then I also don't see Wikimedia Foundation as a "co-ordinated effort to improve the availability of free knowledge in the world" - I see them as a necessary evil and bureaucracy to host several free projects, nothing more or less. -Halo 22:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a strange idea that just because Wikimedia is a non-profit we don't have "interests"; indeed we have non-commercial interests just as every other charitable organization does, and our primary one is improving the availability of free knowledge in the world, whether you agree with that goal or not.  I will point out yet again that moving the sister projects box will not eat up one more pixel of screenspace than is used currently.--Pharos 00:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree. People come here for Wikipedia, so that is what they should get. I hate websites that try to tell me what I want instead of giving me what I asked for. Commercial websites do that all the time, because they make money on directing people to things they didn't really want, but we should respect our readers. --Apoc2400 08:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Think about it though the whole of all the wiki's is to deliever knowledge to the world and that was one of the main goals that Jimmy Wales set. I believe putting some kind of links at the top of the page will help but not dominant on the page. As mentioned above many people don't know about these sister projects but people that i know would find them very useful. Wikipedia is wikipedia though and people did come here for wikipedia so if this does go ahead i wouldn't make it big on the main page, maybe put it by the links where the portals are. Also shouldn't this be on the proposals page by the village pump.Wiki.user 08:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I don't think this is the solution to promote other Wikimedia projects (and there's the question on whether we should be).  There's also the view that Wikiquote, Wikinews, etc. are projects to help Wikipedia, and not separate projects.  My view is that they are separate projects, but to use the Main page to promote them is not a good idea.  More interwiki stuff like the box on the right is the way to go.  x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pharos mentioned Google's linking to their other projects on their main search page. The thing is that Google doesn't use big, flashy logos for their links like we do— just simple text links. If we eliminate the logo links at the bottom, and add in text links at the top, we could actually free up some space for other uses while promoting the sister projects at the same time. I personally prefer simple text links to clickable logos anyway.—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 01:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've suggested we include a link to them on every page, not just the main page, but working small icons of them all somewhere on the page (e.g. the bottom). All the projects should do this, IMO. It is difficult to work into the layout, but just for convenience it would be worth it. Richard001 05:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We need something like this User:This, that and the other/mpbox, in a strip below the header. But I haven't got time to make smaller images (16x16 or 20x20). This, that and the other 10:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 11:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we should try it for a few days and see how it goes like RockMFR suggested. This should carry on on the proposals page as this is attracting a lot of interest here. Wiki.user 19:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I couldn't fit Wikispecies, Commons, Meta-wiki. On my resolution (an unusual 848x600, maximised), nothing more fits. I guess it looks ugly on 800x600 and too much space on 1024x768 plus. This, that and the other 08:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if you put the titles underneath, like this? —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby (talk • contribs) 20:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks pretty good, ya know.  And it would take up considerably less room than the current layout.  Surely something like this is the perfect compromise?--Pharos 00:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The latest template (by Caddy Waydell) is great in my opinion and i agree with the recent comments above but couldn't you make it a little, little bit smaller.Wiki.user 19:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it looks a bit lumpy, with the captions not lined up. Maybe align them bottom? This, that and the other 07:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I'm all thumbs with the more esoteric template coding.  Can someone help with this?--Pharos 04:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's some more. This version is a bit more compact and more aligned, and This is not only compact, but annoyingly collapsible! —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby (talk • contribs) 07:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radical proposal to help our Wikimedia sister projects 

message: "The right-wing Union for a Popular Movement, party of French President Nicolas Sarkozy (pictured), wins a National Assembly majority in the legislative elections."
From an American political perspective, UPM is center-left, not right-wing.  Some discernment should be noted, as what constitutes right-wing on the Continent differs from Stateside. - MSTCrow 05:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no point of reference besides the country's political spectrum. The elections were in France; thus we use the French spectrum. The UPM is big and has many factions; but when taken as a whole and within its context, it falls on the right.--cloviz 05:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but centre-right is probably better. That is what the article for the party says, after all. A Geek Tragedy 10:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I'd suggest in the future, for political parties outside of the Anglosphere, it should somehow indicate that under local conditions, Party X is politically Y, and may or may not be considered politically Y within our political frames of reference.  I do think it's better it is now listed as centre-right, not conservative. - MSTCrow 02:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Union for a Popular Movement 

message: Haven't we had enough of FF FAs? I know, I know, the whole schpiel comes up each time, how I ought to improve what I want and submit it...I'm not disagreeing with the way Wikipedia works...the sight just raised an eyebrow over here. 209.190.233.66 14:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that of the 9 oldest main page requests, fully 5 of them are for video games. Raul654 14:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eheheh...*laughs nervously* Trigger's plot summary could be trimmed, but Cross's is just too complex (that said, there are at least a few FA precedents). I'll have to get MNSG and CT's down a couple notches. My next probable FAC, The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest, will probably have a better chance when it's done. Zeality 19:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FF 

message: Today's main page FA section is missing its thumbnail (normally in the upper right corner). The other thumbnails and POTD appear normal.
:The image was originally an image of a SNES console, which I agree wouldn't really be an appropriate image for the article. I would suggest the use of a re-sized version of the image that appears in the infobox on the page. --Credema 20:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing thumbnail 

message: My two cents worth. I don't think a sports event deserves to go on the main news menu, on the main page.  In fact, it looks grotesque, sandwiched between religious massacres and national elections.  Today is one example. Can we devlop a policy to change this? Perhaps relegate sport to a non-news category? Sorry if I am expressing this badly, but it just jars. BrainyBabe 13:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I agree with you.  If anything, I think Wikipedia should have a separate sports section for sports championships in major leagues. ColdRedRain 12:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would agree for regular sports coverage, such as regular season scores, but for a championship, I think that's main page worthy. I'm sure most North American newspapers included the NBA final on the front page alongside "religious massacres and national elections" (all four Toronto dailies featured it on their front pages). Wikipedia needs to cover all aspects of information, and the main page is for news, which includes big sports events. Freshacconci 13:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Freshacconci. Sports events are news. And things like the results of the World Cup or the Superbowl can mean more to some people than pretty much any other piece of news. Sure, it might not be something tragic or something that will change an entire nation (such as a religious massacre, or an election), but I'd say it's certainly worthy of being included in the news. I wouldn't be for including anything outside of major events though. So, for example, I wouldn't have wanted anything on there stating that the fixtures list for the 2007/08 English football season had been announced, or that the NFL drafts had begun. --Dreaded Walrus  t c 13:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: News are mostly sad, sports news are usually happy, unless you're the opposing team's fan. At least ITN isn't just killing and blowing everybody up. --Howard the Duck 13:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we also nearly always feature elections. While the results may be sad for the losers and some of the voters, they would usually be resonably happy for the majority of voters. Of course there may be some instances when the results are sad for most of the world but I'll refrain from giving any examples. Indeed of the 6 items on ITN at the moment only 2 are clearly 'sad' events (not that I'm saying this is typical of ITN)Nil Einne 18:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Aww, come on! Did the first complaint in a while have to be over an American sport? It's hard enough for us already with these football hooligans. Zeality 19:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of what you think are "American" sports are actually international sports with their premier leagues based in the United States.  That would be like calling soccer a British sport because the best league in the world is in England (Sorry Spanish and Brazilian soccer fans, the premiership is the gold standard of leagues.)ColdRedRain 12:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The practice in ITN is (supposed to be) to only post results from the ultimate level of competition in any one sport. Sometimes that's something like the NBA, but mostly there is a legitimately International competition we can consider to be "ultimate". By the way this same discussion is going on simultainiously in three places right now and has gone on several times in the past. Mostly people argue REALLY HARD about a complete non-issue (notability) and ignore the facts.--Monotonehell 12:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NBA 

message: Hi, can anyone explain the technical method used to suppress the words "Main Page" on this main page? We might do the same at Wikisource. Thanks, Dovi 17:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: iirc, it has to do with the code that is currently at the beginning of MediaWiki:Monobook.css labeled "Don't display some stuff on the main page". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supressing "Main Page" 

message: i just wanted to say the site is good but does not always have the info i need i would also like lots of info on history things
like the battle of hastings ok things like that
:Have you tried typing "battle of hastings" into the search box? It works for me. For other examples, it may help if you use the right capitalisation, ie "Battle of Hastings".-gadfium 20:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You must remember to use correct spellings and capitalisation, as Wikipedia's search function is not as forgiving as that of Google or other search engines in case of errors. --Credema 20:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Just so you know,
. ffm ✎talk 20:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually personally I always use Google for that reason (amongst others). Usually just typing the subject is enough, if necessary you can add wiki or wikipedia to the search. Obviously the proper way would be site:en.wikipedia.org. Cheers Nil Einne 07:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is fine as a research tool, but never a source. --74.14.18.116 03:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. And I'm not positive it's as bad as 209 frames it. GracenotesT § 07:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  hm ... depending on the subject matter, probably. GracenotesT § 07:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  help me do my home work 

message: Hello,
I was surfing thorugh your website, i also saw the gujarati page on your website,
i noticed few things i thought they were worth mentioning:
like the tool box is wrongly mentioned as "hathiyar ni peti", actually it should be called "sadhano ni peti"
if you wish i would help you out with translation in gujarati.
I am working in Pune, Maharashtra, India and Imy mother tongue is Gujarati, hence i am able to read, write and understand that language well enough.
<e-mail address removed> - Dreaded Walrus
you can contact me on that, i'll help wikipedia voluntaryly as i personally like this website a lot.
regards,
Shivraj Sharma
Sharma shivraj 13:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to be talking about the Gujarati Wikipedia.   Your assistance would be much appreciated, but you should join that Wikipedia, as this is the English language Wikipedia.  An administrator there should be able to help you.  If you feel like working on system messages, it appears that 0% of these have been translated into Gujarati.  Updates can be posted to bugzilla. - BanyanTree 14:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article regarding Gujarati page 

message: Please update ITN. There are a couple of good suggestions at WP:ITN/C waiting for admins' approval. Thanks. --74.13.124.138 11:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you again, Admin:Zzyzx11. --74.14.23.198 04:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please update ITN. 

message: As u can read here, the german wikipedia has reached now 600.000 articles. --134.147.117.190 23:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats. ffm ✎talk 00:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[German Wikipedia]] 

message: I has won the Libertadores and even it is not in the wikinews!!! Where do you live? In the first world?? Give poors the posibility to emocionate a little —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.250.93.141 (talk • contribs).
For those not aware, this user is talking about Boca Juniors, a football (soccer) team, who have recently won the Copa Libertadores, which is the South American equivalent of the UEFA Champions League. --Dreaded Walrus  t c 00:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason that this is not on WP:ITN is because no suggestion has been made at WP:ITN/C. ffm ✎talk 00:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Chris Pontius, the Boca Juniors aren't very polite. Hahah! Zeality 02:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is Boca? 

message: Why is it only the English Wikipedia has a globe with aliased borders? (esp. visible at the bottom of it)
--84.159.33.52 08:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't give you a reason for it, but you can find a gallery of the international logos here: Commons:Wikipedia.  I wouldn't suggest making any changes to them though, seems how they are all copyrighted, not released under GFDL like everything else... You could suggest a change be made somewhere on the Commons.  Sbrools (talk . contribs) 01:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia "globe" in the very top left corner 

message: wasn't it supposed to be featured today??24.109.218.172 00:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  where'd islam go 

message: hi! i just want to know the opinion of others on this question, experience vs training? is there any difference between this two? can someone explain it to me... tnx!Gurlsweet 08:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ffm ✎talk 17:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However there is no place on wikipedia suitable for questions about opinions unrelated to our task of creating an encylopaedia. You might want to consider usenet or some other internet forum Nil Einne 21:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that what Wikipedia:Reference desk is for?  At least that's what Wikipedia:Questions seems to suggest.  ShadowHalo 21:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia:Reference desk is better for information, not for people's opinions. You'll need a questionnaire for that. --74.13.128.121 01:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, although I think the main thing Gurlsweet wanted to know is, "What is the difference between experience and training". Which Wikipedia:Reference desk would be able to help with. --Dreaded Walrus  t c 02:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't know, the question asked for an opinion of others on experience vs training which I presume was asking for an opinion on which one is better. Opinions on topics lead to soapboxing and are not what the reference desk is for. If you want factual answers on the difference between experience and training then that is a different question and may be suitable for the reference desk but such a question should IMHO be phrased better Nil Einne 07:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  experience vs training? 

message: A few months ago, anglophones in Montreal felt offended and complained about the accent mark on the letter E in Montreal. How about the letter E in Québec/Quebec? --74.13.128.121 01:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fête nationale du Québec is the location of the article, so that's what gets on the Main Page.  If you wish to move the article so it has the same spelling as Quebec, the place to make a proposal is Talk:Fête nationale du Québec. - BanyanTree 03:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I meant Québec at OTD yesterday.  This is not on the main page anymore, so never mind. It's alright. --74.13.130.23 04:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fête nationale du Québec (Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day) in [[Québec]], Canada. 

message: Access to Wikipedia seems to be a bit patchy over the past couple of hours. What's the deal? --Jnelson09 14:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that was a rude response. — Brian (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't even gave the direct link to answer the question, LOL. --Howard the Duck 12:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know the direct link, and I didn't have time to write a whole response ad go looking, so I just used the template from the top of the page :-)  Sorry if it seemed rude. —METS501 (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Server problems? 

message: This can't be a good thing--VectorPotentialTalk 19:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems there's already a discussion going at AN/i--VectorPotentialTalk 19:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Um ... ? 

message: Is there any way to view old or deleted articles? Thanks. Link's Awakening 22:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't the right place to ask general questions about Wikipedia, but no, there isn't a way for users to see deleted articles unless they are restored by an administrator through a process like deletion review. If you mean old versions of existing articles, you can click the "History" tab at the top of any page to see past versions. Leebo T/C 22:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: While there is no way for non-administrators to view deleted articles directly, you can request a copy from one of the administrators in :Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles to send you a copy, or make a request at WP:DRV#Content review. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 22:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A way to view deleted articles? 

message: Shouldn't we add something about Chris Benoit's (World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) wrestler) death in "In the news" section? This is major news in the US and Canada and the wrestling world. --EfferAKS 19:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:ITN/C#June 25. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chris Benoit 

message: The now-version takes up two rows on my srtup now. Unlike the previous-version that was all in one row. The problem we're seeing is because you're trying to fit exact pixel width icons into an adaptive space. Our fonts are set from the monobook CSS from our individual browser's x-small fontsize, then adjusted up by percentage. There's no way you'll be able to marry the pixel width of icons with the relative width of font sizes on everyone's browser the same way. --Monotonehell 11:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. What I'd really like to see, is a justified row of icons that can go onto a second row if needed at smaller resolutions, but I'm stuck as to how to go about it. —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby (talk • contribs) 20:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could use JS, the window.width property gives you the width of the browser window and document.width ("Netscape only", which is a handy tip for modern-day browsers) for the doc itself's width. But MediaWiki isn't good at JS, and it probably won't do it. CSS's "auto-generated content" feature would be another option, but it can't work out that stuff. This, that and the other [talk] 07:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I know I'm not adding anything new, but I'd just like to get in my two cents that I can't stand the way advertising and allegedly helpful links to new features always tend to, over a couple of years, creep into any website that starts off with a purity of purpose. I suppose it's an artifact of any design-by-committee approach. I'm not arguing against change, I'm just arguing that changes should be made with the user's intent in mind. A user visiting en.wikipedia.org wants and expects to see the English encyclopedia, not a collection of non-encyclopedia links that someone has decided that the user needs to be educated about. 69.95.50.15 15:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: edit break