Talk:Main Page/Archive 46

message: The MAIN page should not be any exception to the standard page naming practices on Wikipedia. We use "Sentence case", not "Title case"...only the first letterof the title, and any proper nouns should be capitalized. I think that this confuses newcomers into thinking that we use title case, when we use sentence case. It would be less confusing, and more aesthetically pleasing to use a lowercase p. Additionally, this is such a small change that I don't see any reason not to do it. I don't see any reason it was capitalized like this, other then from just putting a space in the middle after we stopped using CamelCase. I'll be requesting the same thing on the community portal. --Phroziac(talk) 00:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I forgot to mention -- this wouldn't break any links, because we would leave a redirect at the old location, of course. And the related templates should be renamed, though it's not urgent or a big deal. --Phroziac(talk) 00:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Fully disagree. This is not an article on Main pages, this is literally the Main Page. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed with Redwolf24, it's a name, like "The Main Page," but no objection if other people want to move it, or any strong opinion either way...  Bushytails 01:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But why would we have an article on main pages? And certainly that would need a disambiguation, as most people don't use capitals in search queries? --Phroziac(talk) 01:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Back in "the day" (this was like, fall 2004 or something) we had a big vote about this, and it was almost universally rejected (the move that is). Nothing has happened that should change that decision (which was alot closer to true consensus than anything else on wikipedia). Now I'll go and dig in the archives and try to find the discussion. gkhan 01:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I can't seem to find it!?!?! Oh, well, I probably imagined it. Go Phroziac, down with "Main Page"!!!! gkhan 01:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I noticed the apparent disparity, and personally, I think it would be better as "Main page," but really, it doesn't matter. ElAmericano 02:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: If it's going to moved at all it should be to its logical place, the Portal: or Wikipedia: namespaces. I'd be for it, but I believe it's already been discussed and didn't exactly get huge support. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 04:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: As many times before, I strongly oppose any sort of move, especially to another namespace. Keep it simple. — Dan | Talk 04:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but I didn't suggest we move it to another namespace. --Phroziac(talk) 05:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I really don't see a reason for this. - victorvp (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  shouldn't new sections be placed on the bottom of a talk page? also can the person who started this PLEASE fix that huge blob of broken wikicode he uses in signing, it looks really annoying. on the issue, just keep it like it is now. Boneyard 14:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally, yes. However, something as major as proposing to move a page should go at the top. --Phroziac(talk) 22:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Ambivalent on move to another namespace, but strongly oppose decapitalisation of Main Page. It's the Page after all.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, consider it rejected, apparently there's consensus to keep it this way. :( --Phroziac(talk) 22:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like Mainpage.  --hydnjo talk 23:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What about no name at all? Just en.wikipedia.org. If it's the "Main page" and not an article on main pages why does it need a name at all (well, maybe to link to it in the standard way but I'm sure there's a way around this). You don't see Google/Main page. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 00:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It makes better sense as the "Main Page". It needs a name because the name of "The Main Page" reflects it's status on Wikipedia. That's also the way the templates work too. All Wikis have "The Main Page" as it's front page. Toonmon2005 18:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename "Main Page" to "Main page" 

message: Can someone update the main page with the new total as reported today by AP.
Kamayoq 15:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated it now. Thanks. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 14:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  weird, news here still only reports 53k. Boneyard 12:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of Casualties in Kashmir Earthquake now near 80,000 

message: Today's history of Poland mini-article contains a key error. It says, in the aftermath of World War II, the forces of Nazi Germany were driven from Poland by the Red Army.
The military forces of Nazi Germany were driven from Poland by the Red Army before the end of the war, not "in the aftermath" of the war.
In the aftermath of the war, the ethnic Germans who lived in areas now part of Poland – Silesia, Pomerania, Danzig/Gdansk and southern East Prussia – were driven out by a combination of the Red Army and Soviet-supported Polish Communist forces.
Sca 18:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History of Poland

message: In the aniversaries section today we mention that at the  Battle of Trafalgar Lord Nelson defeated the French.  This is nice and all... but shouldn't it also point out that he was mortally wounded and died this day as well? This being kind of a minor plot point in the man's life.--Smaerd 14:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aren't we forgetting something? 

message: British contributors revelling in the Trafalgar celebrations might be sobered to realise that this day is also the anniversary of the Aberfan disaster in 1966, when a coal tip slid onto a school killing 116 children in the small Welsh town of Aberfan. Peter Maggs 19:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Write the article.  It might get featured next year in the Selected Anniversaries section on the Main Page next year, on the 40th anniversary. -- 199.71.174.100 22:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Aberfan Martin 09:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  21st October 

message: I suggest include a wikicomic strip in the Wikipedia Main Page (http://www.comixpedia.org/index.php/Main_Page) every day.
:From where do you suggest we get these comics? AFAIK, nobody writes a comic strip explicitly about Wikipedia. ~~ N (t/c) 01:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless they mean a comic about current events in the news? If thats the case then no. That would not be encyclopedic nor is it news, it is commentry and has no place at Wiki. - 202.7.176.133 05:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  perhaps an idea for wikinews, not for wikipedia. Boneyard 12:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikinews used to have crossword puzzles, too. Like a comic strip, they require too much effort from a talented few. Not feasable. Perhaps comics and crossword puzzles should go to Wikipedia:Department of Fun. -- 64.229.178.215 17:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comic 

message: Hello my name is Luis, I am writing to let you know about a mistake that you have in the Spanish main page. In which is written: "Wikipedia la enciclopedia libre", and it should be: "Wikipedia la enciclopedia gratuita". The root of the problem is that in English the word "free" is translated as "libre" or "gratis" (gratuito/a), but the correct meaning in Spanish for this case is "gratuita".
Luis Lema.
:Luis: it's both: libre y gratis a la vez. Take a look at :es:Contenido libre or (better) Gratis versus Libre. Yeah, we don't charge (enciclopedia gratuita) but, more importantly, all our content is free (enciclopedia libre).  –Hajor 19:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I'm right in saying that in all the various languages with multiple words for "free" it's the word for "unrestricted" rather than "unpriced" which is chosen for the title. Doops |  talk 22:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: CASE CLOSED. Hopefully people (he?) will stop telling us about this "mistake" at the Spanish Wikipedia.--Fito 07:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake in the Spanish Main Page 

message: ok, I think everyone has seen the Saddam news now, could somebody please update ITN? There are like four suggestions queued up, plus a couple more in Current Events. 83.76.218.123 22:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Immediate attention by administrators is requested at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates & ITN !!!!! --64.229.227.234 01:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ITN

message: Can an admin revert the change made by :user:Talrias here . I can find no place where this has been discussed before, and admins should not be being bold with our front page or intro. --Clawed 05:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with you there, major changes to the first thing new people see on this site should be discussed first, not blindly rushed ahead. --Mark J 11:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: linking cotw prominently seems like a good idea. the call to enrole (the excited imperatives, become! edit!) could perhaps be refined, stylistically. 130.60.142.65 12:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Hiya, reverting it because I did not discuss it seems pointless - reverting it because consensus is it's a bad idea is a far superior reason. If I had proposed it first, what would your opinion on having it there be? Talrias (t | e | c) 13:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Why is the main page not the place to advertise COTWs? One of the key distinguishing factors of Wikipedia is that it is freely editable, yet the main page doesn't really invite people to come and edit Wikipedia - it should. How about placing it underneath the Selected anniversaries section, there is about a 3-4cm gap beneath it and the end of the box. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't belong on the main page at all. The main page is not a place to advertise internal wiki matters - especially those related to editing (that's what the community portal is for!). The main page is for displaying our good content - content to interest readers. The fact that you put it in an especially space consuming, visible location only makes it a more egregious misuse of the main page. →Raul654 16:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why doesn't it belong on the main page, and why isn't the main page a place to put some information about editing? As I said above, one of the main features of Wikipedia is that it's freely editable. You get about 3 words saying that on the main page. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Allright, gentlemen lets not get nasty. I agree that editor-matters should not be on the main page because the main problem with wikipedia to non-wikipedians is that they don't believe an open encyclopedia can produce great articles. So when they come here, to the main page, we need to show them the very best we have. People become editors anyway, they see the "edit this page" link, and they start editing. We don't need to advertise it on the front page. I think it looks a bit tacky to be honest. gkhan 17:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies to Talrias if my statement sounded accusitory - I didn't intend it that way. →Raul654 17:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin to revert 

message: The first use of aircraft in war did not take place in 1911 as stated on Wikipedia main page. The first use was a reconnaissance balloon employed by the French army at the Battle of Fleurus in 1794.
: Does a balloon qualify as an aircraft ? -- 64.229.206.159 13:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: according to aircraft, it does. Supposedly the statement should read, the first use of aircraft engaging in combat, since the balloons were just for reconnaissance before that. It appears that "offensive balloons" were only used in WWII (fire balloon) 15:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: or "heavier-than-air", as it says now, that's right too. 15:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: That assuming a zeppelin is not a ballon, they were used as bombers in WWI. --Lewk_of_Serthic 02:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First use of aircraft in war. 

message: "October 23: National Day in Hungary (1956)" -- Actually it is a national holiday because the Republic was proclaimed on this day in 1989, and not because of the revolution (although of course it is not a coincidence that it's on the same day). Since internationally the revolution is the better known one of the two events, it's understandable that the main page features the revolution and not the proclamation of the republic, but then it would be better if it linked to the revolution's article, not simply to 1956. Alensha 14:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It does link there. (* 1956 - The Hungarian Uprising began in Budapest.) What's wrong ? Do we have a page on the proclamation of the republic ? -- 199.71.174.100 05:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Selected anniversaries

message: "secret agents" should be "secret agent" in the Newest Articles section
Clarkefreak ∞ 04:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo 

message: "politician Liam Lawlor he" -- eliminate "he". AnonMoos 18:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Thanks! - BanyanTree 18:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Extra pronoun

message: "Did you know ... that Rapidan Camp, the rustic mountain fishing retreat of U.S. resident Herbert Hoover located near Big Meadows in Virginia, was the forerunner of Camp David in Maryland?"
	
Should be U.S. *P*resident, although I guess they're both correct. :)
	
TotoBaggins
:Fixed. Thanks. Shanes 00:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herbert Hoover: U.S. resident 

message: She's Iraqi, not french though I'm not sure that's a big deal..Borisblue 00:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a picture of a french girl wearing a hijab, I'd be happy to use it. Until then, a picture of an Iraqi girl wearing one will have to do. →Raul654 00:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does it have to be a girl in a Hijab? Why can't this picture be replaced with a French boy wearing a giant bling cross? --61.73.159.96 17:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're got one of them, that'll be just as welcome. --Kiand 14:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do happen to have a small French boy wearing a giant bling cross stashed under my bed, actually. Any idea of the postage, or should I just photograph him? --JohnO 02:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What's a bling cross? Pedant 02:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  How can you ask that on the Main (talk) Page of an encyclopaedia?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Eh? Try looking at bling and try looking at cross. Then, and this really is a tough one, try combining the ideas. I'm truly sorry, but I can't do more than that. Perhaps 'Googling' it would help? --JohnO 06:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Girl in Hijab

message: Why was the main page article on Rosa Parks removed so fast, not even lasting a few hours?
Wanyonyi 05:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Template talk:In the news#Rosa Parks. - BanyanTree 15:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rosa Parks

message: I know nobody else has said it, but I HATE this picture... and it isn't because of the fly!
I have seen discussion of this and she is said to be "so sweet!" but I struggle to recall another picture of a person looking so damn SMUG! Well, not meant to rile anyone, just throwing it out there. Is there anyone else who feels the same way? (I think this should be moved to Smug.) --61.73.159.96 07:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus Christ, it's just a snapshot of a smiling girl in a schoolyard or something. She didn't know she would be featured on a major website in a context of religious politics, so she isn't being smug about her scarf or anything. get a grip, it's all in your head. 130.60.142.65 08:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, no, no. You are mistaken. I didn't say she was "being" smug. I said she looked smug. I'm sure she wasn't trying to... Anyway, I'm just wondering if other people feel the same way. I guess you don't! --61.73.159.96 17:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SMUG SMUG SMUG! 

message: Is disaster the right word? They /did/ take the Russian guns against all odds after all. Folly yes. But disaster? They defeated 50 guns and 20 batallions of infantry with a few hundred men on horse. Hardly a bad days work. --Narson 12:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite agree. We don't usually refer to the Battle of Thermopylae as a disaster for the Greeks/Spartans. --61.73.159.96 19:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charge of the light Brigade 

message: The "new articles" section on the main page states that "Jane Wenham was the last subject of a witch trial in England". However the first line of the article itself states "Jane Wenham (d. 1730) is commonly but erroneously regarded as being the subject of the last witch trial in England.
Pretty lazy mistake this, can someone correct it? Grunners 16:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Duuuuh. Fixed. ~~ N (t/c) 18:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jane Wenham 

message: where has she been living because I heard her house was for sale or its open to the public
:You may want to try the article on Rosa Parks for information. This page is for discussion of the Main Page only. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  rosa parks 

message: The page refers to "only two provinces vetoing".  There are two things wrong with that phrase:
1) If the news is supposed to be presented in a neutral fashion, the word "only" doesn't belong there.  Two provinces might be fewer than some people expect, but it might also be more than some other people expect.
2) The use of the term "veto" is incorrect.  In a conventional use of the term (e.g., as in U.N. security council voting), a single veto is sufficient to kill a proposal.  This is not a veto.  It is a particular super-majority threshold of disapproval, not a veto.  (I believe there was a majority disapproval in more than two provinces, correct?)
–71.112.95.211 04:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably the point was: "only" two voted it down and three were needed to veto. So not POV, but unclear: put that context in. Doops |  talk 04:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like it hasn't changed to me.  Now regarding the idea that three of these "vetoes" were "needed to veto", I believe it is is important to recognize that this criterion was simply the rule put in place by the people nominally in charge today.  What is ultimately really "needed" in Iraq may not be known for decades or longer.  I believe it is also important to recognize that there were more than two provinces in which there was majority disapproval (and that it was very difficult to get access to be able to vote in key areas likely to disapprove). –71.112.95.211 06:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so the wording should be something like "The Iraqi constitutional referendum is deemed to have succeeded: according to the original agreement, voters three provinces had to reject the proposed constitution by a margin of x% and this level was met in only two provinces." Accuracy of wording is a good thing. :) Doops |  talk 06:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updated the news item (with my own custom formulation). Thue | talk 08:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraqi constitution vote 

message: wikipedia is open to everyone to put their own info into this site, whatever it is. now think twice about using this site again without careful thought.
:I think anyone who is going to see this page knows that already. --Kiand 14:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: have you tried adding "your info, whatever it is"? I think you will find this more difficult than you think. A lot of people walk away frustrated, yelling "censorship", or even "violation of freedom of speech" (sic) because they weren't allowed to add their biased and/or cranky stuff. Considering the freedom to edit, WP is actually more reliable than most people would assume. This reliability is a relative value, of course. Nobody claims WP is remotely approaching infallibility. 130.60.142.65 07:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  online encyclopedia less reliable than thought 

message: In regards to many recent main page postings (including both yesterday and today's "Did You Know?": has anybody else noticed that Wikipedia seems to harbor some sort of an obsession towards blackface?
I should think there must be a (or several) blackface experts working overtime on creating these articles.
:Nah, no obsession except for one to get as much of the information into Wikipedia before my library books are due back. :) It's really all just secondary to the expansion of minstrel show, which is done. Call it a red-link-reduction brigade for that article. BrianSmithson 18:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minstrel Mania? 

message: I suggest that we don't let stubs get on DYK, they just make a bad impression. Borisblue 21:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, DYK articles are almost by definition stubs. But presumably the people choosing the DYK articles are choosing the well-written, least-stubbish "perfect" stubs, not the slapped-together embarrassments. Doops |  talk 21:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently not. Saga Castle has a clean-up tag! Borisblue 22:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal: No stubs for DYK

message: In the blurb about Tom Edur it is stated that "Tom Edur gave up a professional hockey career...". This wording is ambiguous for non-North-Americans because in many parts of the world field hockey is the sport associated with the single word hockey. It should be "Tom Edur gave up a professional ice hockey career...". 212.114.211.12 08:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, thanks for pointing that out. the wub  "?!" 13:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It's totally misleading, or more accurately wrong. Not to mention that the source article rigthfully doesn't mention Christianity. So It seem like a bit of a blunder to mention it here. Enneagon 01:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great it's already been removed now my comment is obseleteEnneagon 01:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you know, if you actually read the source article from Legends of Hockey, and then look at the bottom where it lists transactions, it says he retired to -what exactly- "study Christianity". Thanks for your input, please try again.--Scïmïłar parley 19:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom Edur at DYK 

message: The intro to today's featured article (October 27 2005 - Names of the Greeks) seems rather poorly written. It took me about three attempts at the opening two sentences before I realised it was literally discussing the names by which the Greek populace has been known over time. Might I suggest a better intro would have been something like: "Over time, many names have described what today we call 'the Greek people'. In the fifth century BC the term 'Hellene' was used for any Greek person. However, by the time of Christ, 'Hellene' had come to mean anyone who was not Jewish, and the term 'Roman' was used instead..."
El T 11:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this the reason why this article has disappeared from the Main Page? I don't think I've seen that happen before, though I admittedly haven't been on Wikipedia that long. Dandelions 14:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Currently, the intro reads "The names of the Greeks have shifted throughout history. The soldiers that fell at Thermopylae did so as Hellenes, while centuries later when Jesus preached his beliefs any person of non-Jewish faith was a Hellene. Instead, by the time Constantine the Great became Emperor they were known as Romans, and all the while their neighbours in the Western Roman Empire would call them Greeks, while those in the Persian Empire would call them Yunans. "   I think the word Instead needs to be removed because I don't think it reads well or is necesary in the sentence. Johntex\talk 16:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The article sort of is misleading.  What about other names for the Greeks such as Acheans, Ionian (which is the bases for the Hebrew "Yavan" and the mentioned Persian "Yunan"), Rhodian, etc.?  The Greek names not only reflect the time in history but also history of each Greek state before their unification. CJLippert 17:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: the intro is dreadful. I pointed it out during FAC, but I didn't oppose, because I didn't want to follow the discussion. It is surprising sometimes to see what makes it through FAC these days, and what doesn't. It seems using big words like "polyonymous" does the trick. 130.60.142.65 06:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of the Greeks - intro not very clear 

message: Today, 27 Oct 2005, the Main Page says:In this English version, started in 2001, we are currently working on 791,931 articles.
Clicking on the number (791,931) brings me to a page of statistics, but I can't find the one I'm interested in. Namely, how this particular number has grown. So unless someone can show me where it is kept, I'm going to update this paragraph tomorrow and the next day, and so on, so we can all watch how fast the Wikipedia grows.--Keeves 13:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That number, and all the other bolded numbers at Wikipedia:Statistics, are automatically generated by the server throughout the day.  There is no need for manual updating.  The template used is  to generate the counter "", if you would like to add it to your userpage, etc.  Cheers, BanyanTree 13:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant Special:Statistics, rather than Wikipedia:Statistics, above for the bolded words. - BanyanTree 22:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: If you want to see how Wikipedia has grown, wikistats has loads of detailed statistics and charts. the wub  "?!" 14:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to both BanyanTree and TheWub. I had seen some of those pages before I posted, but wasn't sure how they worked. Now I'm getting the hang of it.--Keeves 13:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It's a nice idea, and might even exist in the server code but it would likely cause too much slowdown for the website (like the page hit counts). Robmods 18:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: and, from the experience of de:, the top ten searches will be along the lines of "sex", "penis", "vagina", "porn" etc. anyway. Don't bother. 130.60.142.65 06:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  we are currently working on ###### articles. 

message: Sorry to offend any baseball fans, but no-one outside the US would find the World Series results relevant. Only international sporting events should be included on the main page IMHO, to avoid accusations of US-bias. Borisblue 18:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is being discussed at Template talk:In the news. — Dan | Talk 18:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: White Sox in the news

message: A draft is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Horizontal.  The idea was to go as simple and unevil as possible for maximal usability. See the reasoning behind it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page#The amazing one-dimensional Wikipedia and please comment there.--Pharos 02:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another idea for redesign 

message: in the John Nairne DYK: should be "...wanted to make his seigneury, La Malbaie, a Protestant community" Doops |  talk 04:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Added.  Thanks for pointing that out. -- PFHLai 04:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing comma 

message: Reading the articles on Craigellachie Bridge and strathspey (dance), I find that the Strathspey is a preexisting genre of dance; the construction of the bridge simply inspired a a Craigellachie Bridge Strathspey (cf. John Philip Sousa's famous Transit of Venus march). The DYK text incorrectly implies that the whole genre of the strathspey may be traced to the bridge. Doops |  talk 07:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  strathspey 

message: Should the controversial comments the President of Iran made about wanting to destroy the State of Israel, and the diplomatic furor this created, be in In the News? Personally, I think it should, but others may disagree. Sysops: it's your call! Batmanand 10:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Try Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. --64.229.223.76 01:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran Israel comments? 

message: Is it right to say she "withdrew her nomination"? Someone else nominated her. So... she withdrew her name from consideration, or something. Evertype 14:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miers' withdrawal 

message: It should say "most" "enclosed" public places. The fact that the widest ban under consideration wasn't selected is one of the main points of the story. 82.35.34.11 18:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that the ban is so watered-down makes it a bit of a non-story for wikipedia. I suggest we remove it and add something about one of the many wars somewhere or something... --81.154.236.221 22:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: British smoking ban

message: Heard of the  one laptop per child project yet?  It's rediculously neat.
How best to synergize?  Be a great way to bootstrap a language's wikipedia, to be sure, and to facilitate the bootstrapping of the recipients of the laptops, though surely much more could be realized.
Each one of them there laptops'll have a passable digital camera.  Could be a neat part wikifying peace and equality in our time.
Anyhoo, betcha the folks at the OLPC project would receive well the right kind of interest from the folks at Wikipedia.
-:)Ozzyslovechild 00:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  one laptop per child project synergy with wikipedia? 

message: Is it not more correct to use "metrification was initiated" or  "the process of metrification started" than the current "metrification was begun"?
:No. Finell  (Talk) 01:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  metrification: question on the language used. 

message: The Metrication summary on the Main Page (Today's featured article 10/29/2005 UTC) lists France as one of the few countries where there was significant opposition to metrication. This is doubtful (unless it refers to initial opposition a couple centuries ago) inasmuch as the metric system was a French invention and a source of national pride. The actual article on Metrication does NOT list France among those countries that encountered significant opposition. Finell  (Talk) 01:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone please answer the question above about France being present in the intro, but not in the main article?  Thanks.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: And on the other hand, as I understand it, some things in the UK are not in the process of metrification. Doops |  talk 04:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: presumably this is due to the wikipedia's American/British English chacun a son goût policy. Doops |  talk 04:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can certainly support that policy on a page-by-page basis, but not word-by-word. I tend to think you should spell consistently within the one sentence at least! El T 05:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See the Wikipedia:Manual of Style National Varieties of English for the policy on US/U.S. and UK/U.K. Dismas|(talk) 16:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: the situation is confused by the fact that the root "metr-" already means something. I'd prefer to call it metricization, myself. Doops |  talk 06:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: RPharazon - The article lists both in its opening sentence. Metrification redirects to the article. Acetic'Acid 06:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metrication summary on Main Page 

message: Surely the Metrication summary should choose between 'U.S.' as an abbreviation (with periods) and 'UK' as not? mat_x 09:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Both the U.S. and the U.K. should have dots in them. I'm going to edit the Metrication summary right now to reflect that. Toonmon2005 18:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody fixed it so it says "U.K." instead of "UK" so I'm going to put this in the archive. Toonmon2005 20:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Style