Talk:Main Page/Archive 78

message: Hi.
I would like to propose the addition of    to the main page, which will show the Motto of the day, which has been administered by (unofficially) myself, (officially) User:Childzy and User:Geo.plrd.
What say you (other than for me to reduce the length of my signature...)?
Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III  Let us to it, Pell-Mell   If not to heaven, then hand-in-hand to hell Hail OneCone International! 08:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to propose the addition of    to the main page, which will show the Match of the day, a daily football result from around the world. Piet 08:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but having a quote of the day was so 1980s. See fortune.-gadfium 09:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll repeat what I said when this was asked at WP:CP#Motto. :There is no significant difference between these mottos and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Humor. Please keep it in userspace. --Quiddity·(talk) 09:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, now. No need to be abrupt arseholes (this isn't directed at gadfium or Piet). Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III  Let us to it, Pell-Mell   If not to heaven, then hand-in-hand to hell Hail OneCone International! 10:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need for personal attacks. I was being concise; would you prefer I ramble on for many paragraphs about the ambiguity and subjectivity of humour, giving examples of "approved mottos" that I disagree with, and explaining my theory that most of those dont even quality as mottos, but are rather bumperstickers or taglines? Regardless, I'm not so inclined. Simple and straightforward is easier. --Quiddity·(talk) 11:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Speaking of which, Piet: that template won't show football results... Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III  Let us to it, Pell-Mell   If not to heaven, then hand-in-hand to hell Hail OneCone International! 10:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: User space, not front page material.  Can you explain how it showcases the best of Wikipedia? and Hunterd please change your signature. --Midnighttonight Remind me to do my uni work rather than procrastinate on the internet 10:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the mottos are debated as to whether or not they are any good... the same is done for Featured Articles, Featured Images, Fatured Lists, etc... Therefore, what mottos are shown are the best of what Wikipedians can come up with. Oh, and I have changed my signature. I suggest you do the same - it's just as long as my new one (Midnighttonight). David P. A. Hunter, esq. III  Let us to it,   Pell-Mell 11:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Like food, humour is not appreciated the same way by all people. As such,  should stay off the Main Page as long as humour is a key ingredient of it. I'd rather have "Quote of the Day" taken from Wikiquote. --64.229.204.28 13:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Motto of the day

message: :Moved to User talk: Merovingian. -- 18:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  images on [[:mg:]] 

message: Can we switch it back?--Peta 00:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It works wonders preventing off-topic posts; I only think it should be more compact.--(clovis) 00:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, I just noticed the last two entries in this talk page; they are not about the main page. Some people don't bother to read a header, no matter how big or red typed is it. Up here we discussed whether this is the best way to prevent these posts.--(clovis) 01:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems reasonable to me, except for that little "two people sucking on a jellyfish" icon.--Eloquence* 02:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's a big improvement, makes it a lot easier to go to the right place for discussion. The more compact the better, but most of links are very useful. Piet 07:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The new page header is not an improvement on the last one

message: At the funeral of the the late Māori Queen, a new king was selected. Please update ITN accordingly. This suggestion on the candidates' page has been left unattended and ignored. Where are the admins ? -- 64.229.228.203 05:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be a good idea to improve the successor Tuheitia Paki's page first. Piet 07:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ITN update overdue 

message: Seriously, it seems like there's something in there about some eurovision song more often than not. I never wanted to know about all these songs and their entirely uninteresting quirks that somehow keep getting put up on the main page. --Someones life 07:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can take about 3-3.5 DYK updates per day if the admins are efficinet and on the ball - ie 18-20 noms per day. Unless we get 18-20 suggestions which are NPOV, Verifiable, sourced, and long enough, then there is no competition and they get in by default. If you want something more interesting, then please create or dig up something interesting so that the admin can have an embarrassment of riches to choose from. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DYK is going to get more and more pointless and stupid as topics slowly run out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.86.80.89 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Next time, we'd have to make do with American Idol songs haha. --Howard the Duck 10:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think there are varied and interesting articles being created, and I don't think we're "running out" (then again I'm inclusionist). The varied and interesting articles are not getting on DYK because the authors don't know or don't care how to get on there, while a small group of editors with narrow interests do. Maybe we need to get the RA patrol to do more nominating, rather than self-noms. Or somebody needs to run a script that finds all non-stubs created in the last 5 (or less) days.--Dhartung | Talk 16:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not wrong. I have started a tonne of articles, and got the first one on DYK a couple weeks ago. --liquidGhoul 00:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not enough guys know about DYK, we should have a DYK patrol. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Disagree, it needs to be good quality to be on the main page, so you need NPOV, sources, decent length, that's all.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Seriously, I'm not even mad, but is someone deliberating staggering the creation of Eurovision song articles so that there will be one in the DYK section for the next 10 years? How many of these songs can there even be? savidan(talk) (e@) 04:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough with eurovision songs in the "Did you know..." 

message: The lil text boxes do not follow grammar rules very well. Example: "'Did you know...' lists facts from new or newly unstubbed articles to nominate a fact for inclusion see Did you know." Also, "'In the news' items are listed as they are added there is no subjective order." I'd fix it, but I can't reach those boxes in the edit :) Lovok 14:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, thanks.  violet/riga (t) 14:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OMG! I'm the grammar Nazi and you're correcting ME? I am ashamed, so ashamed. *Does penance* (Thank you) --Monotonehell 15:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boxes at the top of this page 

message: Pulkovo Aviation flight 610 has crashed in the Ukraine, I know no article has been created for this yet because it has only been about 5 hours since it happened and details are sketchy still, but is there any way to get this on the ITN section without an article?  170 people dead, 30 bodies found, Anapa - St. Petersburg flight, crashed at 1137 UTC. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 16:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An article exists (Pulkovo Airlines Flight 612) and is listed on Portal:Current events. In the future suggest items at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page. --Dhartung | Talk 16:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I know where to suggest them, I just couldn't find the article in question because I had the flight number wrong and was wondering if it could still be mentioned even without an article.  Thanks -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 17:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "In the news" is about how the news has affected Wikipedia articles: it lists articles that have either had major additions or are totally new due to a current event.  It is not about the news itself, and thus cannot list news that doesn't have an article mentioning it. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 18:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Dark, that's exactly what I was wondering when I came on here. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Try WP:ERRORS. --64.229.224.60 04:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Issue was addressed. --TAG 13:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airline Crash 

message: In the news should say,"Grigory Perelman refrained from accepting the $13,400 of the Fields Medal."  
The mathematician has spent a lifetime on his work and now they want to give him a risible amount of money.  It would cost him a few thousand dollars for airplane tickets, hotel expenses, and taxi fares in Spain.  It is an insult.  Take a look how much Nobel Peace laureates get (a meaningless award with lots of money).
Also, Perelman didn't say he wouldn't accept part of the $1,000,000 of the Clay prize if it were awarded to him.
Please add the $13,400 to the In the news.--Patchouli 12:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, details should be left in the article. Moreover, Grigori Perelman has apparently also quit his job and disappeared. It's not just about the money. --64.229.227.18 12:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, invited speakers at big conferences, like that one in Madrid, often get reimbursed for their travelling expenses. --64.229.227.18 12:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The announcement regarding the Fields Medal is ITN-worthy. Perelman's eccentricity is not. Patchouli, don't forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. -- 64.229.4.34 15:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the $13,400 of the Fields Medal 

message: I noticed that today's feature article Watchmen, has a link to a spoken version. The project pages for Spoken Wikipedia mention that Daily feature articles with spoken versions will cause the link to the spoken version to appear on the front page. Where is said link? CB Droege 18:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should've asked for this at WP:ERRORS yesterday. --64.229.206.90 12:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I wasn't sure if it was an error with the FP, or one with the Spoken Wikipedia project page CB Droege 18:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feature with spoken link 

message: That military fellow in the photo next to the notice of the William Wallace anniversary doesn't look much like Braveheart. I don't know who he's supposed to be, but the placement makes it look like a bleedin' anachronism. -- Christofurio 20:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. Fixed. ~~ N (t/c) 23:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Christofurio, if you don't know who that's supposed to be, try looking for the words "(pictured)" in the text. Or move your cursor to the image to get the ALT text on screen. Or click on the image. Whether the picture is next to just the first anniversary, or first two anniversaries, or all five anniversaries depends on the size of one's screen and the chosen font size. -- 199.71.174.100 02:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the first person in the list and the picture are both military leaders, some confusion is very likely at first glance. ~~ N (t/c) 11:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Considering the wardrobe of Antonescu in the picture ?  It should be obvious he was not the guy in the 1305 event. -- 64.229.206.90 12:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An anachronism 

message: Who put the underlines on the links? Is this some sort of a change? --Alexie 23:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a glitch that sometimes manifests.  Please try bypassing your cache.  —David Levy 23:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, doesn't work. Well, would you look at that. Opening it in a different window worked. I'm using Firefox with this, and I was using Internet Explorer when the underline glitch appeared. --Alexie 23:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the frequency of this problem, should it be included in the header or the FAQ? --Midnighttonight Remind me to do my uni work rather than procrastinate on the internet 00:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It happens to me infrequently but regularly, usually just for a couple of hours, and I'm using IE. It doesn't bother me so I haven't changed my preferences or anything, but I think it's still curious why it happens. BTW it's not happening to me now, I don't know if it's still happening to the previous poste. Usually my experiences of it are consistent with other users, even with other browsers. --Anchoress 00:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, this also occurs in reverse.  (I have underlined links enabled, and my links' underlines sometimes disappear.)  Bypassing the cache always works for me.  —David Levy 00:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underlined links 

message: I suggest making the database of wikipedia (3.7 GB) downloadable so that it can be downloaded and burned into CDs and then distributed to people who don't have a fast internet connection.Just imagine having the biggest encyclopedia in the world on your computer. By the way, I don't mean downloading just a small part of wikipedia, but I mean the whole encyclopedia.
meno25
:Everything is downloadable at http://download.wikimedia.org in the form of an SQL dump, but that's not a usable format for most people. Raul654 01:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would help with photos and other multimedia, but the vast majority of Wikipedia is text. The advantage of having access to the latest version seems greater than having immediate access to an obsolete version. Regardless, someday a CD version will be available, probably as an offshoot of the Wikipedia 1.0 project -- a stable collection of core topics and important articles. Also, take a look at the SOS Children CD version of Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: User:193.62.51.220, Wikipedia will be less bad if there is less vandalism from your IP, e.g. , ,  ... -- 64.229.206.90 13:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of people don't have constant internet access. Mathiastck 16:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An important suggestion 

message: Compliments to whoever chooses them. Illmatic? Watchmen? Icons of a more intelligent, underground popular culture and great articles at that.
:Rather compliment to whoever creates them; they are chosen for their quality, not their content.--(clovis) 12:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awesome featured articles lately. 

message: In the line "Perelman has apparently declined the award." the word "apparently" seems inaccurate, implying that whether he has declined the award is in dispute, a claim that the sources do not back.   "Perelman has declined the award." would be more accurate.
: I agree. It's now a statement of fact that he has declined it Ade1982 09:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. ~~ N (t/c) 11:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Should've used WP:ERRORS. Please see instructions at the top of this talkpage. --64.229.206.90 13:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: In the News: Fields Medal 

message: Reached 10,000 milestone. Add it to Main Page. --Haham hanuka 09:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Congratulations!  -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 13:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've alerted signpost.  --  Zanimum 17:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vi.wiki 

message: Someone has managed to hijack http://en.wikipedia.org and http://www.wikipedia.org to a for-profit search site of some sort.  I was able to get to this page by linking in from the netherlands one.  I was unclear how to get this information to someone who can do something about it.  155.91.28.231 21:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's working now. Maybe you mistyped it? Hyenaste (tell) 21:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely working now.  Sandwich Eater 22:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are various mispelled sites like http://www.wikpedia.org/ (without the second letter i) and http://www.wikipdia.org/ (without the e) out there. I don't know what this is called though, but there's an article about this on Wikipedia somewhere. --HappyCamper 01:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Typosquatting. Evil Monkey - Hello 02:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia hacked??

message: Recently, I raised the issue of the article count lag on the Main Page (this is now archived). Several helpful users replied to me, saying that a lag of up to 100 isn't a big issue. Now, however, the article count is not a LAG, but the exact opposite--the Main Page displays it as 7216 more than stated at Special:Statistics. Can somebody please fix this? 202.156.6.54 08:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be viewing an outdated version of Special:Statistics.  Please try bypassing your cache.  —David Levy 08:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: HUGE article count discrepancy

message: That's according to the header at the top of this page. Which could well be true but the probably bit seems a little heavy handed to me. --Melburnian 00:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we take out the "probably" then it would be worse. ;) It's just a last chance catch all to try to help people find better help for questions that won't get answered here. Considering the high percentage of posts we still get here that "should be" elsewhere despite the big red glaring text at the top of the page and the notice you noticed. ;) (I count 17 out of 44 topics) --Monotonehell 01:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the problem, but I think something along the lines of "Attention: What you're about to post may not belong here" is nicer (and more accurate if 27 out of 44 are "on topic" ;) )--Melburnian 03:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What if it says  "Attention: Please make sure what you're about to post belongs here by browsing the links provided", or something catchier than that, but you all get my drift. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 03:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I noticed, too.  It is a bit on the rude side. --Nelson Ricardo 04:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I like it. --Chris Griswold  (☏) 15:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attention: What you're about to post probably doesn't belong here

message: I have been reading the featured articles for some time now and find them very interesting, but I am somewhat surprised at the standard of editing of many of them. If an article has been deemed worthy of appearing on the main page of the Wikipedia, surely it is not too much to ask that whoever sets up that day's page checks the articles for basic things, like spelling, grammar and typos? It does the image of the Wikipedia no good at all to feature articles that contain such glaring errors. I proof them when I have time, but it's something we shouldn't have to do to a featured article that has made it to the front page, as it were. Please note, I am not commenting on the factual content of the articles, rather the quality of their presentation to a potentially huge audience. I know also that it may be seen as a sneaky way of getting everyone to proof read more articles, but proofing is better done before publication ;-)  --Phil Wardle 05:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Featured Article process can be brutal and I don't think it usually lets through articles that are full of errors. There's a bit of a change, though, the moment it gets posted to the front page. The irony is that these articles can attract some of the least experienced Wikipedia editors -- and yet, almost every time, the article is improved at the end of its having been featured. --Dhartung | Talk 09:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also keep in mind that articles are promoted to featured articles status several weeks to several months before they ever are posted on the main page. Therefore, typos and other errors can creep in over that time. The other problem is that anything that is linked on the main page is usually not be protected from editing, and so the featured article of the day does attract users who are not careful with double checking for errors. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Articles...why are so many of them full of typos and other errors?

message: Why aren't they fully protected like the images that are about to go on the main page? -- Froggydarb croak 00:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Okay, thanks. -- Froggydarb croak 00:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's featured article 

message: Most of Wikipedia displays right for me, but when I go onto the main page, the skin changes and it says I'm logged in as Rtiru! --Gray Porpoise 21:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you using a public computer or a computer that someone else may have logged onto Wikipedia from? The computer may have cached the Main Page, in which case you should clear the cache (Ctrl-F5 on a PC). —Cuiviénen 21:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's my computer. --Gray Porpoise 21:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's displaying correctly now. --Gray Porpoise 21:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it is your computer, are you sure no-one else has access to your computer? Carcharoth 23:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure. I'll just wait a few minutes if the problem comes up again. --Gray Porpoise 23:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is most likely because your ISP performs some sort of proxy cache, and the user you're seeing had his page in that cache before you did. You may find some help at Wikipedia:Advice to AOL users, who have the same sort of problem. --Dhartung | Talk 03:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Incase it helps, I've had this happen at least three times with a different user showing up each time, and I'm not on AOL.  Nobody on my IP address has an account.  Whenever it happens, a purge of the cache normally clears it if a straight reload won't, and I don't think it allows you to edit the erroneous user's account settings or anything like that.  It has only been happening within the past two months.  --81.132.80.88 15:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug 

message: I noticed how small the foreign language versions of wikipedia are compared to the english version.  I was wondering whether there are any automated translation programs that could create  pages for the foreign language versions of wikipedia and translate the content from the english pages into them.  Even if the translation was a mess, it would provide a lot to work with.  Plus  editing grammer is much simpler and quicker than generating new content (yep).
-anon
:That's one perspective. At Wikipedia:Translation into English it's recommended that one should never use machine translation to create an article. That said, the languages for which the best machine translation is available (e.g. French, German) are Wikipedias that are fairly successful on their own and there's no need to discourage editors there by "helping" more than is needed. Many of those editors have a working knowledge of English anyway and certainly many use the English Wikipedia as a resource. Anyway, have a look at the Wikipedia:Embassy project. --Dhartung | Talk 04:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most translators will tell you fully automated machine translation takes more work to fix the errors in than just translating directly. What professional translators do use is machine aided translation and translation memories to help speed up the process. But as machine translation improves perhaps we will get to the point where just a bit of final editing will be needed to produce a good translation. We're not there yet. - Taxman Talk 17:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia languages 

message: For some reason, it's a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=V:&action=edit.  --zenohockey 22:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again ? (See above #Wikiversity ?.) Looks like a recurring minor problem. --64.229.227.178 13:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sister Projects": WikiUniversity link in red 

message: I don't if this happening to anyone else but when I am on the main page it doesn't show my user name and talk page.  It shows Sujitnair01 instead and I even log out and go back to the main page and it still shows me logged in as Sujitnair01, who I am not.
But when I click around, everything goes back to being normal.  Mr. C.C. 07:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, it's back to normal.  Mr. C.C. 07:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see above #Bug. -- 64.229.227.178 12:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sujitnair01?

message: I was wondering if it were possible or appropriate to put the results of the major stock indexes on the main page...?--Xlegiofalco 18:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't really something you'd expect to find on an encyclopaedia. Our coverage of 'current events' extends purely to those articles created or updated as the result of recent happenings. Wikinews might be an appropriate host for that sort of thing if it's technically possible. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know we had quarterly stock chart images, published as articles, at Wikinews a while back. Even if we just had a monthly article of where stock indexes were at, that would be warmly welcomed. However, until we get more articles for Wikinews, the front page itself is not set up for quick stats like that. I am planning to propose a more dynamically updated front page, like the portals, in the next week or two.  --  Zanimum 16:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stock quotes? 

message: Considering the amount of traffic Wikipedia as a whole gets, the reference desk is a bit slow. Maybe it should get a little more attention? There are two types of help pages on Wikipedia - for editors and for users. The former will eventually find their way becuase they will come here more often. Users, however, are often first time visitors (all editors start that way). So they need a a clearer pointer what to do when they don't find an answer. Else they might be lost to us (for a while anyway). So maybe the following might be placed somewhere under 'Welcome to Wikipedia':
:If you cannot find an answer to your question in Wikipedia, you might ask at the Reference Desk.
DirkvdM 06:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not sure really. Refdesk is something that exists solely because if it didn't we'd have chaos. I don't really think we should encourage this service to get any larger, as it often wastes the time of our editors, who could be contributing to the quality of the end product, and simply encourages people to not read our articles for their answer. Just my thoughts.  --  Zanimum 16:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree. A lot of the answers to those questions come out as "read this article". Also, it doesn't really take a huge amount of time from anyone. If you know the answer, it doesn't take long to answer a question. --liquidGhoul 23:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, a lot of people (like me) hang out just at the ref desk and use that as a starting point to browse Wikipedia, which may lead to copy-editing. Thus, one gets more of a variety of people working on articles, which seems like a good idea. DirkvdM 06:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And the ref desk can activate lazy visitors, like this one. He probably thinks "well, I could have done that myself" and maybe next time does. Without the ref desk, he might have left. That, however, requires the politeness of Nowimnthing, as opposed to Richardj, but that's a different issue. DirkvdM 06:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference desk traffic 

message: Not entirely certain if this is the best place to write this, so bare with me if it's wrong. But a lot of articles seem to have all their references listed twice in the references section. Ie.
1. Site one
2. Site two
3. Site one
4. Site two
Is this an error that only I'm getting? Will it be fixed soon? ~ZytheTalk to me! 17:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got the same error a short time ago. There is discussion about it here, amongst other places. Adding ?action=purge to the end of the article URL seems to fix the problem. Tntnnbltn 17:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, brilliant, thanks. ~ZytheTalk to me! 18:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem 

message: Whare is the code of this page I like to look at it20:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right click, "View page source". dposse 22:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are actually refering to a Wikipedia page that is protected from editing, the "edit this page" link is replaced by a "view source" link. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  code 

message: I created a favicon which I would like to submit as a possible replacement for the current Wikipedia favicon.  I attempted to upload the file to Wikipedia and also Wikimedia Commons, but neither site would upload a .ico file.  The icon can be seen here. Ic3b3rg 23:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it; it's more characteristic and symbolic than the W. However, I recommend that you post this somewhere at the village pump to get more attention.--cloviz 00:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah! That's the same icon used in the Firefox searchbar! Hyenaste (tell) 03:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  favicon 

message: The article of the Samba was created in 2004 ! I think that if the DYK rules are no longer followed, this is no fun anymore. Hektor 07:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may have been created in 2004 but it is 6 times bigger than it was two days ago. Expanded stubs are specifically allowed by the DYK rules. --Cherry blossom tree 09:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was 1,200 characters on July 8, 2006 which is significantly larger than the 1,000 character rule to define a stub.Hektor 17:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talbot Samba]]

message: On August 31, 12, Emperor Caligula of Rome was born
:Please read the top of this page.  What does it say to do if there is an important event not mentioned in the "On this day..." section? Definitely not post here. —Mets501 (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noting that doesn't take much more time and effort to move a comment to the appropriate place (or explain that OTD doesn't do births) than to snipe at newcomers. Zocky | picture popups 16:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On this Day 

message: it is a version in romanian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.78.208.10 (talk • contribs) 17:12, August 31, 2006
Yes, there is a Romanian Wikipedia. (From m:List of Wikipedias) -- Vary | Talk 17:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romanian Wikipedia 

message: Maybe the above question arised due to -a previous discussion- ("I noticed how small the foreign language versions of wikipedia are compared to the english version."):
This Wikipedia is written in English. Started in 2001, it currently contains 1,355,590 articles. Many other Wikipedias are available; the largest are listed below.
* More than 50,000 articles:  Deutsch · Español · Esperanto · Français · Italiano · Nederlands · [...]
Nearly 1.5 million articles compared to "more than 50,000" ... WOW! Straight facts are:
 de.WP: 457,575
 es.WP: 147,956
 eo.WP:  56,925 (O.K., here it's true.)
 fr.WP: 353,234
 it.WP: 191,264
 nl.WP: 223,659
 [...]
Since the German WP is going to have 500,000 in the next few months it would be useful to reselect that numbers. "More than 100,000 articles" or even "more than 250,000 articles" come into my mind. Think about it. --32X 11:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does give the impression of all other languages as rather puny compared to English, which is not quite the case. A cut-off line of 250,000 would return only four other languages, but 100,000 would give ten, as opposed to today's fifteen. Eixo 13:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See a discussion at Talk:Main Page/Archive 77#Languages section that links to previous discussion, which I'm sure links in turn to more previous discussion.  The current version is actually a streamlined version of one that had both 100K and 1K bars.  And just to be pendantic, all of those numbers are "more than 50,000" and some users see  as a quick navigational aid for speakers of those other languages, who might be better served looking at other major language editions, rather than an awards podium for the benefit of English language Wikipedia.  There must be a novella of relevant discussion in the archives of this page and Template talk:Wikipedialang.  - BT 14:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, 500,000 are "more than 50,000", but ... hmm, how should I say what I really mean? Maybe that'll do it: "Haha, these suckers only have only about a handful of articles while we have millions of it." We're keeping the WP up to date, extend it and try to remove POVs when we see them but then there's such a distorting (but true) mention on the main page. It's just wrong. --32X 14:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  O.K., I've rewritten my request at Template_talk:Wikipedialang. Please update the link there as soon as this section gets moved to the archive. Thanks in advance. --32X 15:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  largest other language Wikipedias 

message: Hey guys, I've always wondered, why are templates used on the main page (such as , {{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/, , etc.)? Is it easier on the server or something? Isn't it easier to just have the words on the main page?--Richard 01:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'Featured article' and 'on this day' are automagically updated at 00:00 UTC when the tamplates are used (the month/day is in the template name). The other sections are in templates as it makes it easier to edit without making accidental edits to the main page code as the main page does have a lot of html markup. The server does caching so there is no difference if templates are used or not. --Clawed 01:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: : Use  on this page to propose an edit. ????
Why put  on this talk page ? This is wrong. To propose minor edits to correct minor errors anywhere on Main Page, go to WP:ERRORS. To propose an edit to ITN, go to WP:ITN/Candidates. To propose an item for DYK, go to T:DYKT#Suggestions. .... I'm removing . -- 199.71.174.100 05:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{tl|permprot}} ????

message: Yahoo Canada is linking to Wikipedia from their main page.
Concerning sting rays, related to Steve Irwin.
Marcus1060 21:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might explain all the vandals over there recently. No wait, Canadians? Oh it can't be them. ;) --Monotonehell 05:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally! We're nice, eh! On the other hand, it's still yahoo... --Quiddity 00:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  yahoo.ca 

message: Perhaps this has been mentioned before, but according to the new up and running [page counter],  is the #77 most viewed page on Wikipedia today. I see no reason for this other than the fact that new users at Wikipedia are clicking on the images, hoping they will take them to the related article. Perhaps we should consider using  on the pictures on the main page. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the reason we don't is to do with Safari/text-based browser users more than anything else; but that might just be a pack of lies. Anyway, sounds like a good idea to me. Batmanand | Talk 14:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Breaking the standard user interface is rarely a good idea. Most everybody knowns that clicking on a picture brings you to the image page -- and the ones that don't quickly figure it out. In the long run, making exceptions to this will do nothing but confuse people. Raul654 16:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Raul generally knows what he is talking about, so I suppose we say "fair enough" and fold our metaphorical tents. Batmanand | Talk 14:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using {{tl|click}} on the main page 

message: Why don't put all the 50.000+ and 25.000+ interwiki links at the left side.It's empty anywhay, and replenish the botom space with the remaning or part of the remaning interwiki links.--Pixel ;-) 18:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean something like this image? Tntnnbltn 19:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes exacly.Why was it removed in the first place?Now ther's empty space at the left.We could fill it, at most to the leghth of the page.--Pixel ;-) 21:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I think the interwiki links allong the side are better.  Empty space serves no purpose I am aware of, but maybe it is some browser compatability thing.  Also, non English readers will find them much more easily there, which seems like a tremendous benefit IMHO.  juicifer 23:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could replace 50.000 by 100.000 for a limit, because most of the articles in the over 50.000 list are very much larger than that, for instance: German almost hits 500.000. Floris V 08:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposal for interwiki links