Talk:Main Page/Archive 16

message: Why dont you guys get a real forum instead of this?
cuz we don't like to talk to each other Lirath Q. Pynnor
*Once you get the rhythm and put in the time, you will see that TALK pages have many advantages over forums. Join Wikipedia and start your own watch list. :) Kingturtle 06:39, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As a matter of fact, we do have a vbulliten (php) forum, and it does have advantages over talk pages. Perl 22:28, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get a real forum 

message: Great job w the front page, I think your going to attract ALOT more people w this format than the last one, its awesome! Woo-hoo! Sam Spade 08:57, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great job!!!! 

message: It would be great make a vocabulary like www.wordreference.com or www.babylon.com, but free. Is it possible? Sounds interesting to you?
: Have a look at Wiktionary. -- Merphant 22:35, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [Idea] Wikilary - A multilingual vocabulary 

message: The front page has a distinctly "USA Today" look and feel.  "Did you know?"  WTF?  It reads like a placemat at a Chuck E. Cheese, or something one would expect from World Book, not Britannica.  Marteau
: Did you look at the Britannica frontpage? It has a similar selection: "Biography of the Day", "This Day in History", "Britannica Highlights", "What's New?", "Monthly Focus". Theirs are ridiculously small and narrow, but the basic idea is the same.—Eloquence 15:43, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
:: Which Chuckie Cheese location has "...that industrialist Nazi Party member John Rabe saved more than 50,000 Chinese nationals from the Rape of Nanking?" or "...that the Palau Congressional Library was founded in 1981, and has a staff of two?" or "...that because of an effort to curb the spread of STDs, prostitution in Germany has been legal since the 1920s?" -- user:zanimum
:The comparison with World Book is not one to avoid, IMO.  Wikipedia has more popular appeal than academic appeal.    If there is a stated goal to evolve Wikipedia towards a Britannica-like format, I must have missed it.  (I only recall scope comparisons, say gross numbers of articles, comparisons). - Bevo 16:22, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The McEncyclopedia

message: I think the opening paragraph has a tad too many links in it, which make it too overloaded, and I think people might just skip reading it. How about just:
:Welcome to Wikipedia, a multilingual, free-content encyclopedia. We started in January 2001 and are now working on  articles in the English version. To learn how you can edit any article right now, visit the Community Main Page or experiment in the sandbox.
I'm taking the extreme position here, but seriously, how many people do you think will click and read on all those links. Dori | Talk 15:54, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
: I tend to agree. It's the fit-everything-in syndrome.—Eloquence 15:59, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
: I agree with both Dori and Eloquence, which is that people tend not to click on links in text while they are in "reading mode" and too many links just makes them glaze over.  So in that respect we should cut them down in the paragraph.  But that also means it is problematic, in that we provide fewer entry points to have them discover our community and the revolution part of Wikipedia, the editability. The quickbar link might help (see below) but it's still a weakness of the current design. Fuzheado 00:14, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph overloaded 

message: I have a form of dyslexia. The Main Page/Wikipedia:Main Page and Talk:Main Page/Wikipedia talk:Main Page is really blowing my mind up. I am getting very confused at which is which. When my brain gets crossed up like this for long periods of time, I get headaches and I get frustrated. I should get used to the difference eventually. But I may just keep getting headaches. Is there any way we can rename "Wikipedia:Main Page" to something else that doesn't so closely resemble "Main Page"...anything, I don't care, as long as it isn't so similar? Kingturtle 00:45, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have dyslexia, and I find it confusing as well.  Especially since the naming conventions turns "namespace:foo" into "namespace talk: foo".  It could be fixed simply by turning Wikipedia:Main Page into Wikipedia:Community Page or something like that. But I agree it's confusing, and I get confused looking at my watchlist as to which conversation is which. Fuzheado 01:04, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree - it is confusing. Wikipedia:Community home page would be better. --mav 05:10, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: I heartily endorse this sentiment. -- Infrogmation 18:47, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Something welcoming like "Welcome" would be good. And while we are at it, how about a "Community" link in the left panel, under "Current events" - Gaz 13:21, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A rare plea 

message: The Main Page is so much cooler than the previous Main Page.  Thank you, it makes Wikipedia make really professional.  RickK 07:26, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: wow

message: Sorry to whine, but I think we should revert the centering of the first paragraph. screenshot — Sverdrup (talk) 15:13, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The centering looks kinda silly 

message: The current Main page has a recent movie's poster art displayed.  Under what reasoning is it OK to display this image here in the Wikipedia? - Bevo 21:07, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Bevo: Yes, we do, under the fair use provisions of US copyright law. See fair use. -- Seth Ilys 02:17, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: For extensive discussion of this, see meta:Do fair use images violate the GFDL?. Basically, the answer is that the site is hosted in the US and in the US, if a use is fair use, the right to that use was never granted to the initial copyright holder and it remains in the public domain, which is compatible with the GFDL. The images are also not part of the document but are instead associated documents with their own independent history. It's still far from ideal to use fair use images on the main page. Good enough for now but we really do want to be moving away from it. Jamesday 23:54, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  movie poster art, do we have rights to display it, in general? 

message: What is the reason for the 90% font size of the introductory paragraph?
It draws the reader's attention away from the basic of explanation of what Wikipedia is in the first place.
Yet that is what makes Wikipedia different from other online encyclopaedias.
Without that paragrph, the user might as well just go back to Britannica!
The size keeps getting reduced again (sometimes to 90%, sometimes to 80%), but I've never seen anybody explain why this is a good thing.
-- Toby Bartels 21:16, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Toby, I completely agree.  This is my big issue with the current redesign -- it does not make it obvious and clear why Wikipedia is anything other than yet another encyclopedia.  It should trumpet the fact that it is open content, that anyone can edit, and how they can do it, now.  If we had this front page at the time I first discovered Wikipedia, I don't think I would be aware of why it's so revolutionary. Fuzheado 02:56, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Font size 

message: Where should I post my opinions about the rhetoric used on the front page to describe what is happening in the news?  I feel that the summary on Haiti and Aristide is very problematic and one-sided.  How can this be addressed??
: Doesn't seem to be anything about Haiti on the Main Page at the moment... Evercat 00:27, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing the anon was referring to the blurb from yesterday about Aristide announcing that he was essentially kidnapped by the US military. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:40, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I was surprised by the non-NPOV wording, as well.  Also, apparently there is no history kept of the Main page revisions, although there is a "Page history" page for it that should contain links to prior revisions.  - Bevo 01:48, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The history is here:  and the relevant edit is here: . The wording reflected Aristide's claim, which, admittedly, lacked a certain perspective. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:51, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I see.  You have to consider the templates from which the page is constructed.  You do lose the archive of the total composition. In some ways that's regretable.  Like not having an archive of covers of magazines, or front pages of newspapers.  Oh, well.  I guess it's unavoidable.  (I suppose that this carries over into regular pages that carry tag expansions as well.) - Bevo 02:01, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Also, check the Reuters article that was the source for the blurb on the main page, it is linked to from the Current Events page, but I'll reprint it here to: . --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:57, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main page and NPOV content 

message: London congestion charge is the featured article in today's Main page. An article on a municipality fee is the best showcase article that Wikipedia has today? Are we becoming competition for the Drudge Report?   - Bevo 15:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I see that Current Events is actually using the Drudge Report as a source for the Ashcroft's medical condition! - Bevo 15:43, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Thanks for being so unthinkingly offensive. How many of your articles are on featured articles? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:51, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not feeling so much to giving offence, as to questioning the role of the featured article in this encyclopedia.    Obviously, I'm not good at wording these comments to convey my sentiments.   I am "thinking".  I an thinking about what the world thinks about this encyclopedia, as marketed by the Main page.  And, at least you read my mind in thinking that any comparisons with Wikipedia and the Drudge Report should be taken as unflattering to the Wikipedia. - Bevo 16:05, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand, are you criticising the article as not worthy of being a featured article, or are you criticising displaying a featured article on the front page? And I really don't understand the analogy with the Drudge report... why on earth would the Drudge Report on a congestion charge????? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:12, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct.  I think it is worthy of being a featured article.  I just feel that the Main page's "best" featured article should be one that has less "current events", and more long-term appeal.   And, the overlap with the Drudge Report goes to the controversial nature (or even the novelty) of that fee. - Bevo 16:25, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Charge has been in place for over a year, so isn't really novel or a current event. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 17:42, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  London congestion charge ?