Talk:Main Page/Archive 91

message: The link specie in the main page "Did you know?" section links to a disambiguation page instead of the correct article.Shushruth \talk page  \  contribs 02:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to a link to wiktionary:specie, since there isn't really a "correct article" on that meaning here on Wikipedia.  In future, notes of this sort are better placed at WP:ERRORS.  Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DYK links to a disambig page

message: The tournament is Aussie open, a hard-court tennis slam, and why whould we want to put a
say, Wimbledon pic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.107.240.1 (talk) 
:The image currently used on the main page is there because it's a freely licensed image of Roger Federer.  If there's a freely licensed image of him at the Australian Open, we can use that instead. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Federer Pic 

message: Would it be a good idea to have a page on Wikipedia which is like a Table of Contents of all Wikipedia policies, with links to those policy pages, and then include a link to that page from the Main Page?  It might make navigation easier in some circumstances.  Corvus cornix 19:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Community portal link in the navigation box takes you to a helpful list. Is that what you meant? --Monotonehell 20:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does the Community portal have a link to policies?  I see a link to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), but that's not the same thing.  And anyway, what casual or newbie user is going to know that clicking on the Community portal would take you to where you want to go?  Corvus cornix 20:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first link under CP's Policies and guidelines is to Wikipedia:List of policies.  The section itself contains a brief list.  WP:LOP is also central in the bottom navbox at Wikipedia:Five pillars, itself on nearly every new user's talk as part of .  It is thus at most two clicks from the Main Page, from the left sidebar, from Wikipedia:Introduction 2, and from Wikipedia:Introduction 3. As most of the people on the Main Page are readers and not editors, this seems to be adequate prominence for a project directory page. - BanyanTree 21:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming that the reader knows what "Community Portal" means.  Corvus cornix 21:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We assume that the reader has a basic understanding of english, or will take the WP:INTRO. ffm yes? 21:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I understand your reasoning.  I was just responding to someone's posting on the Village Pump about how hard it is to find policies, in comparison to finding content.  Corvus cornix 23:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A link to a policies list?

message: For some reason, if I view the Main Page in Firefox, there is a weird grey bar which appears between the Navigation toolbar and this Edit box. The problem isn't the same in Internet Explorer, which is truly obscure, but I was wondering if this is just a problem I'm having or whether anyone else can see it too. Bobo. 03:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am using Firefox as well and I don't see it.  Nor do I see it in Internet Explorer. Cbrown1023 talk 03:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's in the browser window itself, then it's the bookmarks toolbar. If you right click the bar above it - the navigation toolbar - and uncheck the option which says "Bookmarks Toolbar," it should go away. If this doesn't work, you might ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. Picaroon 03:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for youse guys' input, it appears the grey bar has now disappeared. Bobo. 12:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grey bar

message: How can I edit this page and other pages?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipediaguest (talk • contribs) 18:29, February 4, 2007
:By clicking the "edit this page" tab that you'll find at the top. (Seeing as you were able to post this message, I think you already know this, but I'll indulge your question anyways.) See also Help:Editing. Picaroon 18:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't edit the main page, because it has been protected, so only administrators can edit it. If you see "edit this page" at the top of any page, you can click on that. (Some pages have a little "edit" button at the top of each section as well.) If you see "view source", it means that (at the moment) you can't edit that page. ElinorD 18:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, some pages are semi-protected, meaning you can edit them after your account has been here and active for four days. Also, after then you can move improperly titled pages to a new title. ffm yes? 18:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editting 

message: Just a heads up, guys. The Italian Wikipedia now has more than 250k articles so it should probably be boosted a spot at the bottom of the page. JHMM13 (T | C)   21:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations to the Italian Wikipedia! (And done.) —Cuiviénen 21:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Italian Wikipedia

message: Today, when I came onto Wikipedia, there was no image for the FA. It just... wasn't there. I checked in three different browsers, it was missing. I figured it was just a minor problem that would be quickly fixed by a sysop. I come back four hours later and the image is still missing. Is anyone experienceing this also? --208.115.202.219 02:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not having any problems with it - :Image:T-34 kal76,2mm RB.jpg is right there. Can you see the Federer image or the railway image? Picaroon 02:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm seeing every image but the tank. Do you want a screenshot? --208.115.202.219 02:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that would be overkill for something that's most certainly just a temporary problem. Does it show up on its own image page? How about in the infobox of the article? If it doesn't, I'd just wait for tomorrow's image and if that doesn't show up, take it up with someone who is technically inclined (I'm not.) Picaroon 02:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image shows up on the image page, the T-34 page itself, but not in the infobox. This is happening in Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Opera. --208.115.202.219 02:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw it. --Howard the Duck 02:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you able to view the image here?  Are you running any sort of ad-blocking software that might be returning a false positive for some reason?  —David Levy 03:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing an FA image?

message: the posting abot super bowl XLI says :stadiumin" instead of "stadium in"--TheNation 03:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was fixed. —Centrx→talk • 03:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This post does not belong here. It belongs at WP:ERRORS. ffm yes? 16:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  typo 

message: He's gone for some reason. Why so? Zazaban 04:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The item was unverifiable and not encyclopaedic. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. --Monotonehell 12:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the iranian scientist in the news? 

message: Somebody broke the Werdnabot template for this page - someone who knows how to fix it, please do. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed --Monotonehell 12:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Werdnabot 

message: Why there isn't a link to the Frisian Wikipedia? Frisian is the closest related language with English. I think the Frisian Wikipedia should get a link on the English Wikipedia.86.83.58.168 12:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's many many other languages that are linked from en.wp. - too many to have all on the main page directly. The largest are linked directly from the bottom of the main page, less larger are linked from the left box and the complete list is avalable from two links at the bottom of both those lists. --Monotonehell 12:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Frisian Wikipedia 

message: Does anyone know how to make the search bar the default active box, so that when you go to the home page, you can just type and it goes straight into the search bar? it would save me and probably thousands of others a millisecond of time every time we search for something... that adds up quickly!137.222.14.109 14:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why doesn't the cursor appear in the search box, like with Google?.  You wouldn't be able to get to the bottom of the page using the arrow keys. --Maxamegalon2000 14:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  default cursor in search bar 

message: Can anyone confirm that the new archive box is working in IE? My copy is doing some very strange things that I don't believe are right. --Monotonehell 13:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It works fine for me in Internet Explorer. What "strange things" do you see? Nishkid64 15:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That's good, thanks. All the fonts are twice as big, for no good reason! Stupid IE being stupid again I guess. --Monotonehell 16:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This user recomends Mozilla Firefox. ffm yes? 20:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This IP reccomends that Monotonehell created the design using Firefox and is merely testing it in the majority browser. 84.71.158.191 07:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP wins! Firefoxman would receive a complementary beating for being incorrect, but since Firefox was mentioned the "escape without beating" clause is invoked! lol I use Firefox all the time but I'm forced to test *twitch* my web designs in IE *twitch* and then downgrade them so that they work in *twitch* IE before I publish them for clients. *twitch* I hate IE. --Monotonehell 08:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Imagine having to design and update monobook. That should make you feel lucky. 84.71.158.191 09:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a reason why I've kept right away from participating in that ;) --Monotonehell 11:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive box 

message: Newsworhty? Yes. One of the five or six most newsworthy items in the world at this moment no. I would say Ryan O'Neal's arrest was more notable. 84.64.231.230 19:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This does not belong here! Go to WP:ERRORS instead. ffm yes? 20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Please only post error reports regarding what is currently on the main page here." This doesn't really seem like an error report. Picaroon 20:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite true, although Template talk:In the news would probably be the best place.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lisa Nowak

message: how come some fa article, in the main page for long time, than some other fa article stay for short amount of time only? is there are discrimination on certain topic or what?, or theres some special criteria to stay longer on main page.--Tearfate 14:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, it is changed every day at 00:00 UTC. About 8 or 9pm EST. ffm yes? 14:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bias? 

message: Is it just me, or did the table of contents disappear? It was, after all, useful. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just you.. you've gone crazy! ;) - No, seriously it will return very soon, we're working on a neater header layout for this page. --Monotonehell 13:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There you go. --Monotonehell 13:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. What is neater in the header layout now? The archive box font is smaller and the previous one was in my opinion more elegant. Thanks for the table of contents, although it's kinda strange having to scroll through it the way it is now. I'm complaining, I know. --Ouro (blah blah) 16:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about you, but I like it this way. Maybe we need to make Talk:Main Page Alternates to appease individual user's preferences like we have the main page.  ffm yes? 16:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's okay, I mean, it serves its purpose. Maybe it's me, I'm somewhat grumpy and sleepy today, I had to endure an almost-all-night car ride from Germany. Anyhow, there are some main page alternatives around here and there, and forking a talk page is not really necessary, if I understood your intentions correctly. Cheers. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I came up with the scrollbar idea (attack this →GracenotesT §← guy), due to concerns, which I will link to below. You can see my initial vision for the TOC at User:Gracenotes/Sandbox, and Monotonehell's comments to my talk page, and mine to his. It was deemed to be the best solution to the problem: namely, the ridiculously varying length of the Main Page TOC. I used CSS's "overflow" feature, and the extra scrollbar is far from the rule; it's the sad exception, which I've tried and failed to get rid of... I'll see if I can make a CSS hack, though, unpretty as they may be. GracenotesT § 00:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, it's ugly and prevents you from seeing the links to most recent discussion without scrolling the thing. I say nix it. Zocky | picture popups 02:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with Zocky that it is annoying since most of time I want to see what the latest discussion is. Evil Monkey - Hello 03:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Forethought tells us that the slot with the free space under the archives wont be free in the future as the archive list continues to grow, as it has in the past. Unless we want to reorganise that some how? --Monotonehell 11:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know how often the talk archive is accessed, but I think I have an idea. The last 20, 30 or so pages of the archive would be directly accessible from this box, and the older achives would be accessible from another separate page dedicated to harbouring the older pages. So basically there'd be a 'older talk' link and links to 30 or whatever latest pages of the archive the way it is now, what do you say Monotonehell? --Ouro (blah blah) 15:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that's the kind of thing I had in mind. It's just that I'm scared of the archive box now that it's all automated. ;) --Monotonehell 17:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... *scratches head of self* I kinda understand this. Dreadful things, automations. But I will support you spiritually, however know very, very little about changing the code of archive boxes. --Ouro (blah blah) 18:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOC 

message: The image :Image:Dolphinsmiamistadm.png is on the main page, and has been for over 24 hours. It has no real source. It lists the French Wikipedia as a source, and the French Wikipedia lists NASA, but does not provide a link. It is extremely unlikely that this image comes from NASA; it is much more likely that the image comes from Google Earth or a similar source. I don't believe this is a free image, and see no evidence that it is. It shouldn't stay on Wikipedia at all, and it certainly shouldn't be on the main page. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chances are it's from NASA World Wind. I'll redownload the software and check myself in a few minutes. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 13:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I don't need to. Look at the description line on the Commons page: 3 août 2006 à 22:24 . . Betp . . 1024×722 (1 119 631 octets) (nasa world wind 1.3.5). It clearly states that it's from the World Wind project, and Dolphin Stadium gives sufficient details to locate it yourself. Updating the licence tag to be more specific, though. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 13:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image with no source on the main page 

message: How exactly does Answers.com get articles from the Wikipedia? Is it manually or ...?  70.69.180.112 03:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think they download the database dumps, and reformat the articles automatically. Andrew Levine 04:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The database dumps of all Wikimedia Foundation wikis are available at http://download.wikimedia.org. --Slowking Man 06:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Integration with Answers.com 

message: You might want to take off the bit about Italian football being canceled seeing that they will start playing again this weekend according to the bbc. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/6340537.stm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.226.1.253 (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the News 

message: Can someone add this to the news section? Wikipedia was one of the first sites to break news of her death (at her article, so the main page should reflect Wikipedia's quick reflexes.— OLP1999 22:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's being discussed at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. --Aude (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Please note that Wikipedia is NOT a news service. See Wikinews if you want to "break news". Unfortunately her death does not meet the criteria for inclusion in ITN. (See the candidates' page as above) --Monotonehell 23:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anna Nicole Smith dead 

message: Since this is one of the largest sporting events around the world (at least TV wise), shouldn't it be mentioned on the front page today? I think it should. --RobNS 20:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It will, once it happens. ffm yes? 20:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And this appearance will be controversial.  I wonder, RobNS, by what criteria you deem the Super Bowl to be "one of the largest sporting events around the world (at least TV wise)".  --Maxamegalon2000 20:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm no expert, but I read/heard in the media that close to 200 countries are braodcasting the event, including Russia and the PRC (see our own wiki site on this here Super Bowl XLI). I suspect the vast majority of viewers are not really (Amercian) football fans, but this is a total show, with celebrities, etc. It's an event. At any rate it's not that big a deal to me, but it really should at least be mentioned.--RobNS 20:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, this does not belong on here anyway. This request belongs on WP:ITNMP. ffm yes? 20:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been added, well done people!--RobNS 01:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Hahaha, just as what I've expected. I expect a deluge of U.S. bias accusantions on this page shortly, lol. --Howard the Duck 12:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree spacejuncky, I live in India, where most people haven't even heard of American football, let alone played it; yet the Super Bowl XLI was reported here, and lots of people saw it.  --May the Force be with you!  Shreshth91 12:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haaa! Spacejunky is an Indian too. And being an Indian myself I can easily say that not a single news source gave it any coverage. Aniket ray 13:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there's a tendency among Americans (myself included) to think that the Super Bowl is watched by pretty much the entire world with the same intensity as in the United States.  Sometimes we get fed statistics that it's watched by X billion people, which I recall reading somewhere isn't really accurate.  Regardless, few Americans come here and complain when sporting events they've never heard of are mentioned on the front page. --Maxamegalon2000 14:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At least we're balancing it out with something on the Italian Football Association. --216.110.205.5 16:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't call that balancing. The violence resulting in the death of a police officer has caused the indefinite suspension of all football in Italy & high level government meetings. This isn't just about football anymore and was fairly major news (not just in sports). 203.109.240.93 11:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So when was the last time an American policeman was killed due to football, hockey, baseball or basketball? I don't remember any, just some city center breaking of glasses and looting, lol. --Howard the Duck 15:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure if you understood my point. My point was that this was a rare event, and had significantly moved beyond just sport. This clearly deserved a mention regardless of whether or whether not the SuperBowl did. Including it was not balancing but including a noteable event, likely to be of interest to people all over the world, with an updated article. If there had been such an occurance because of the superbowl or because of football or whatever in the US, then it would definitely deserve a mention and we wouldn't be debating. (especially football since I don't think many Americans care about football or soccer as they call it, they mostly care about American football, and hockey, and baseball and basketball). Of course this is no the place to do the debating anyway and I'm not intending to debate whether the SuperBowl deserved a mention, just pointing out it was silly to suggest including the Italian thing was 'balancing'. 203.109.240.93 12:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The NFL Network said on its Super Bowl broadcast that 1 billion people tuned in (yeah right...). And I'm guessing more people cared bout the Super Bowl than the Guinea news blurb that appeared a few days ago. --Howard the Duck 06:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Not true - we get complaints either way. Cast your mind back to the World Cup and the International Cricket. --Monotonehell 17:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I highly doubt it is the single most watched television event nearly every year. There is no way it comes close to the World Cup and that's every four years. Nil Einne 10:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: On top of the Wikipedia's "Talk:Main_Page": "In the news" items are listed as they are added – there is no subjective order. --J. Nguyen 01:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No. Better English includes writing words, not using abbreviated syntax. --Monotonehell 12:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a news service. There's not been any suitable suggestions for ITN since... WP:ITN/C If you have any suggestions, read the criteria and make some. --Monotonehell 17:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't get updated by magic. ITN relies on people making suggestions at WP:ITN/C. Quit complaining and help. --Monotonehell 23:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: True. Go kill some president, and make sure you can create an article about it and suggest it before you get caught. Kidding.--cloviz 01:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Killing just one President would not be notable enough. In the interest of internationalism you would need to knock off at least 2 heads of state on different continents. ;) --Monotonehell 21:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think ITN is clear that the assasination of a single current world leader would qualify. I was thinking of suggesting a candidate but I heard the people in charge of security for this person are paranoid and even if it's obviously a joke they don't care. Nil Einne 13:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super Bowl XLI 

message: Is there no new news in world.after super bowl?User talk:Yousaf465
:Wikipedia is not a news service. There's not been any suitable suggestions for ITN since... WP:ITN/C If you have any suggestions, read the criteria and make some. --Monotonehell 17:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't get updated by magic. ITN relies on people making suggestions at WP:ITN/C. Quit complaining and help. --Monotonehell 23:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: True. Go kill some president, and make sure you can create an article about it and suggest it before you get caught. Kidding.--cloviz 01:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Killing just one President would not be notable enough. In the interest of internationalism you would need to knock off at least 2 heads of state on different continents. ;) --Monotonehell 21:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think ITN is clear that the assasination of a single current world leader would qualify. I was thinking of suggesting a candidate but I heard the people in charge of security for this person are paranoid and even if it's obviously a joke they don't care. Nil Einne 13:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No new news 

message: Would it be helpful to anyone else besides me to have a cursor automatically appear in the search bar on the left side of the main screen upon pulling up the main page?  I have it saved as a favorite and don’t like opening the page and then having to click in the typing space to begin a search.  I know signing into Yahoo mail does this and it is quick and convenient.  S. Randall 08:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is frequently proposed, but the problem is that having the cursor appear in the search bar prevents one from using the arrow keys to scroll up and down in the main window. -Elmer Clark 09:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposed frequently enough that it's actually discussed on the Main Page FAQ. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 11:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's proposed frequently enough that perhaps it might be something to consider as an option users can turn on in their preferences? Or only at Special:Search? Just a thought, personally I'd have it turned off. --Monotonehell 12:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Use Firefox 2, Internet Explorer 7, Opera 9 or any other browser that gives you a customizable search box next to the address bar. Then you can set Wikipedia up as one of the search engines and save having to load a bookmark at all – Qxz 19:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Using Firefox 2, press the [Tab] button on your keyboard to jump to the search box/place cursor inside. --Quiddity 02:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Search Cursor 

message: I have an idea for a Wikipedia sister project: WikiWeather. Will it work? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.245.145.122 (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting idea, but how will it be different from the various weather sites on the internet? Xiner (talk, email) 17:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably it will differ in that anyone can edit it, and hence every so often when you go to look up the three-day forecast for your area, it will say there will be snow, ice and 300mph winds, but temperatures will nevertheless be up around 150 degrees. Anyway, Meta-Wiki is the place to propose new sister projects – Qxz 18:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't work; it'd have to be staffed by trained meteorologists, and it would just be inaccurate and vandalism rife...no, don't even bother with it. DoomsDay349 02:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we could try and make an encyclopedia using a wiki.  No, it'd have to be staffed by experts, and it would just be inaccurate and vandalism rife...  If done properly (ie. using a decent referencing system) it would work and could be a good history of global weather.  But I think people would prefer to use their favourite weather sites, especially with Vista able to dynamically link to them on the sidebar.  violet/riga (t) 08:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, provided they spend a decent sum of money on a system capable of running vista in the first place. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There is such a big difference between writing an encylopaedia and being a meterologist, I just don't know where to start. Besides that, the earlier example isn't particularly good. I know it was supposed to be a joke but 150 degrees is above the boiling of water (unless you're using some strange units like Fahrenheit or some other outdate and silly units :-P) Nil Einne 13:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiweather. 

message: I enjoy the "In the News" section of Wikipedia, but I want a direct link to the news article itself. I believe the entire sentence or headline, should be a direct link to the news article, not a sentence that contains links to portions of the news article. For example, in today's news it states...Following two months of negotiations a coalition agreement is reached in the Netherlands that will keep Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende (pictured) in office. You can click a few different options, "two months of negotiations", "Netherlands", "Prime Minister" etc. But all I want to do is to read the article, but inorder for me to do this, I have to click wikinews first, then find the relavent article. I think the "In the News" section should simply contain the full link to the article itself. If we want to do further investigation, we can on our own. It would simply be way more convenient.Thoughtbox 17:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Wikipedia isn't Wikinews, and In the News isn't a news source.  In the News highlights recent significantly updated articles.  If all you want to do is read the article, then I recommend you go to Wikinews before you come here. --Maxamegalon2000 18:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links for "In the News" section on the Main Page