Talk:Main Page/Archive 92

message: So what exactly was the decision of the move? Simply south 16:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was rejected. Raul654 16:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rejected or no consensus was reached? 203.109.240.93 22:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well since no one could ever agree on where the move should go in the first place, and then when weighed up the benefits of a move were very small if non existent, I'd say it was more of a non-starter. --Monotonehell 12:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Will you ask that the next time he says 'rejected', too? — ceejayoz talk 17:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, you thinkin' of the right RM? Everyone agreed it would go to Portal:Main Page, unlike another move. -- Chris is me (u/c/t) 05:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most people who cared agreed on that location, but even in the last days of the last RM there was still debate about location. --Monotonehell 17:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah but there was pretty mcuh total agreement on that it is in the wrong location currently. I don't think almost anyone at al disagreed about that. Disagreements were about where it should be and if it was worth the effort. Therefore I think that it is a bit sad that nothing happened. It is hard to argue that the current way is right. Jeltz talk 19:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I largely agree with Jeltz on this. IMHO, the benefits were major and I think most people agreed it should go to P:MP. There was a small minority perhaps that were proposing other alternatives, but from what I could gather, this was largely because they wanted a move but since there were too many opposed to it, they hoped a different alternative might inspire people more. Therefore, I would say there was a consensus if there was a move it should be P:MP, just sadly not a consensus for a move. I'm somewhat doubtful we wll ever reach a consensus so sadly we're going to have to live with the flawed system we currently have. I for one consider the main page issue one of the biggest problems wikipedia has currently, bar vandals, POV warriors, people who don't respect BLP and people who don't respect copyright Nil Einne 10:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Page decision 

message: Is this true? If not, why is this Chairwoman bullshitting? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Winterus (talk • contribs).
:
:The second paragraph of the article. Unless the Signpost or an official site press release tells us otherwise, we have to believe the verified, sourced, rational statement. I think the general message, though, is donate, and do it now. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current costs of running the foundation are listed at foundation:What we need the money for. As described on that page, if the Foundation's expenses remained at 2006 levels, the cash raised from December's fundraiser would last for several years. However, there are a number of ambitious expansion plans in place for 2007. The goal for new hardware alone will swallow the entire proceeds of the last fundraiser. I don't know why all of these new plans are set to occur in the next few months, really, but I'm sure the Board knows what it's doing. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 15:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is broke, will close in 4 months? 

message: Did you know that there's no line above "edit this page"? I think there's something wrong with Monobook.css, not sure how long it's been like this. Merosonox 13:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're talking about the border around the edit this page tab at the top of this page - it's present in my browser. --Monotonehell 15:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bug 

message: Is there any boiler plate template for the Main Page layout?Because right now it looks like a penis.  It appears the source code here is not clean and needs to be looked at by a doctor immidiatly.(compared to the Italian version of Wiki).  I'd like to see the well commented clean code of the Italian Wiki, with the layout, of the English.  Anyone know where that file is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roseba (talk • contribs) 15:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Main Page Formatting

message: As of 11th of February, there are over 100 000 articles in Finnish wikipedia. --Edvard Majakari 17:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Wikipedialang has been updated – Qxz 18:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations to teh Finnish Wikipedia :) —Cuiviénen 20:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay Finland! Nishkid64 03:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For something random, when you said that, I though you meant "Finish Wikipedia", as in complete it.  Lmao...it was funny to me, at least :) DoomsDay349 04:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lolz, I see why Wikipedia lacks humor now.  :P 71.0.240.5 05:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Finnish wikipedia

message: The best FA. Ever. (I'm not sarcastic.) --Howard the Duck 07:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno.  I fear it may reflect the pro-duck POV of some users and the overall pro-duck systemic bias of Wikipedia.  ShadowHalo 09:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention duck is always semiprotected... --Howard the Duck 10:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should BJAODN this. 167.206.204.93 17:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Poland there's currently a strong anti-duck opposition. --Ouro (blah blah) 20:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: BJAODNed.  ShadowHalo 05:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OMG i'm now famous! I'm on BJAODN!!!! Weeeeeeeeeeeeee......... --Howard the Duck 08:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Make Way for Ducklings]] 

message: The summary is taken from a bad version. I would recommend this version.
Thanks. TimVickers 02:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of DNA article

message: Why do some of the Wikipedias have rounded corners on the tabs like Main Page and Discussion? 71.0.240.5 05:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That happens because of a certain feature of Cascading Style Sheets for Mozilla web browsers, like Firefox and Seamonkey. The attribute is called "-moz-border-radius". Check out this website for more information. On a Wikipedia with rounded edges, the page on which this would be implemented would be MediaWiki:Monobook.css, which is the css file for that Wikipedia. Only admins can edit it. You could do a text search in w:fr:MediaWiki:Monobook.css, the French Wikipedia's css file, for "-moz-border", and see what's up. Hope this answers your question. GracenotesT § 05:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Each Wikipedia can (to an extent) modify its appearance. Some have chosen to use rounded corners, some have not. One of the main arguments for not doing so is that it only works in a minority of browsers. --Cherry blossom tree 12:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rounded Edges 

message: Hoping zealous overseers do not delete:  How can we have a featured article blurb that does not spell out what the abbreviation stands for?  --Nélson Ricardo 19:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This belongs in WP:ERRORS! ffm yes? 19:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but it's here now.  --Nélson Ricardo 19:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it's because firstly, it's not vitally important to know what DNA stands for, and secondly, space in the blurb book is limited, and as a result, there's better ways to use the space than to spell out the phrase "Deoxyribose nucleic acid". Laïka 20:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely.  We wouldn't want to use up valuable space with the wrong name.  (correct name: deoxyribonucleic acid).  --Nélson Ricardo 22:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As I pointed out above, the summary is taken from a bad version of the article lead and is poorly-worded. TimVickers 21:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Nélson Ricardo 22:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNA 

message: The "Make way for ducklings" front page article has appeared for the past three days - and when I signed in I got a different page.
I presume this is a minor glitch. Jackiespeel 17:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably your cache - nobody else has seen this. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: How about now? Titoxd(?!?) 02:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Try bypassing your cache, see if that helps.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Front page

message: Alright; is it really notable that the Dixie Chicks won 5 Grammys?  Unless it was some sort of record, and if it is, mention it.  DoomsDay349 00:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is discussion of this at WP:ITN/C and Template talk:In the news. My own feeling is that the Grammys are noteworthy as the most significant awards in the field of popular music, and the Dixie Chicks were the story in this year's Grammys. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Isn't there around 108 Grammy awards given out each year? --Monotonehell 11:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Album of the Year is the most prestigious annual award in music. Xiner (talk, email) 20:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Album of the Year is the most prestigious US annual award in music. I'm sure readers elsewhere in the world might think otherwise, Xiner ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.136.195.113 (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dixie Chicks ITN 

message: I'll probably get in trouble for posting this on the wrong spot, but it is sort of related to the main page.
Whenever I try to download the high-resolution version of the Featured Picture, it downloads about the top inch of the image, and then quits. Thereafter, it will only download said inch, no matter how many times I try to download, or clear my cache, or cookies, or whatever... What gives?
'WiiWillieWiki→(Talk) (Contrib)   14:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Happens to me too.  H4cksaw  (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Presuming your clearing your cache properly, one possibility is your ISP has a transparent proxy Nil Einne 15:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A what now?  H4cksaw  (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Does it happen to sny other pictures, besides the featured picture? Doppelganger E 14:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, many other pictures... 'WiiWillieWiki→(Talk) (Contrib)   16:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also noticed in the past couple of days, some pictures in articles haven't been loading at all. I know this isn't a problem with my connection because images on all other sites are showing fine.  H4cksaw  (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Picture Wierdness 

message: The long name is causing a big gap at 800x600. Xiner (talk, email) 20:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a long name; I don't know what we can do about it. —Cuiviénen 21:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Send him a letter demanding he shorten his name.  Sometime in the next 6 months we should get a response. DoomsDay349 21:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your fault. As it says at Display_resolution#Evolution_of_resolution_standards, "800×600 was the standard resolution until around 2000. Since then, 1024×768 has been the standard resolution" Change you resolution to the standard.dposse 18:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing out that original research. Using other articles in an argument usually isn't a good idea if they aren't sourced and are factually inaccurate :) --- RockMFR 22:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Regardless of the standard, the fact is that many people's monitors can't support 1024x768. I could afford a second hand "standard" monitor last month only.--cloviz 01:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I pity the poor people on anything less than 1280x1024. :P Save up for a Dell 3007WFP and get 2560x1600, 30" diagonal. *drool* —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I doubt you'd get a response in 6 months, unless the response is you dying under mysterious circumstances Nil Einne 15:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please fix the first headline in ITN. 

message: The current "in the news" image, :Image:HamiltonStorm07-MP-crop.jpg, is a bit dark, although it's very helpful, at a larger resolution. As a thumb, it's hard to tell what's going on. Could it either be lightened up in GIMP or photoshop (although I can't see how that could be done without looking odd), or merely replaced? I've compiled a list of images at Talk:February 2007 North America winter storm#Loads of images. Images number 9, 10, and 14 look good. Images 12 and 4 were previously used, and image 11 is being used now. I took image number 7, but it's really not that exciting :) And all images shouldn't go in the article, by the way; a gallery may be needed at the bottom. Well, about the main page image, any suggestions? Making a mountain out of a molehill, I know, but the Main Page isn't a molehill. GracenotesT § 03:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that too when I saw the picture.  How about this picture?  ShadowHalo 06:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, ShadowHalo — that's a big improvement.  I've replaced the old one with your lightened version.  (I'm photoshop-inept, myself.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job, ShadowHalo! GracenotesT § 20:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ITN image 

message: All five DYKs today are about the US or US-related subjects.  Are you seriously telling me that there were no other DYKs available on non-American topics?  I refer those who select DYKs to the rules and regulations, specifically the bit about avoiding choosing too many examples that relate to the same topic or geopgraphic area.  This is by no means the first time this has happened. When previous charges of US-centrism have been raised, many editors (mainly American) have scoffed.  I suggest they stop to think for a minute: Wikipedia is supposed to be international.  The US-centrism will alienate many readers. 82.32.238.139 13:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're updating them as I speak. --Majorly (o rly?) 13:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: OMG BIAS! Like we haven't heard that one before... – Qxz 16:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It depends. Yes it's somewhat of a fluke. But is it a fluke because there was no suitable candidates or because an admin didn't take care? If this was about FA or FA & ITN or something, I would probably agree it's silly but IMHO when it comes to DYK, IMHO for the benefit of all (including the sanity of admins from the complaints) we should try to avoid it whenever possible. Nil Einne 10:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are lots of DYK candidates, IMHO, and choosing non-U.S. topics isn't that hard. --Howard the Duck 09:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Did you know

message: I just realized that the newly implemented cascading protection of the Main Page is the cause of the problems we've been having with the Jmax-bot FA and FFA counts.  The workaround solution we had devised to avoid the circus of trying to get admin privileges - putting the count in a js user subpage - no longer works.  I have reverted to the pre-automated count format.  The bot should function normally again, though we've lost the updated number. - BanyanTree 15:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed that there's several templates which aren't included on the main page but are cascade protected via their parent's talk page. I should have taken note at the time as I've forgotten where it was now. --Monotonehell 01:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the most recent discussion at the bot talk, js pages are specifically excluded from cascading protection and the bot owner's computer died recently.  When things get sorted out, we'll try again. - BanyanTree 05:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember it again, why is this Template:Main Page toolbox cascade protected? --Monotonehell 07:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should answer your question. ViridaeTalk 08:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA count off Main Page 

message: Now that the move of this page to Portal:Main Page (which is the correct name space in my opinion) has been rejected, we have a problem. The NUMBEROFARTICLES magic word shows shows the wrong number of articles. The correct number is less than the shown number by one which is the Main Page, so, I suggest that developers or anyone with enough programming experience establish a new magic word that can show the number of articles minus one or may be reprogram the current magic word. I am not sure whether this is possible or not from the technical point of view but if we can do it then we can leave the Main Page in the Main name space and in the same time the Main Page will display the actual and correct number of articles. In case of rejecting this suggestion, please state the reasons. Thank you. --Meno25 17:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the pages that aren't subpages here will add to this total. --Majorly (o rly?) 17:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think being out by one in a total of 1.6 million is worth worrying about. Especially since the count is always out by more than that anyway - the number is usually cached and the actual figure changes many times a minute as pages are routinely created and deleted. I don't see any reason why all those main page variants shouldn't be moved out of the article-space, though. --Cherry blossom tree 18:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I respect your point of view, Cherry blossom tree, but Wikipedia is an accurate encyclopedia. For example if we increased the number representing the mass of Earth here in Wikipedia by, say, one in a million that's a number which is not worth worrying about, but this will make Wikipedia inaccurate. --Meno25 18:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don’t think we have updated the mass of the earth to reflect the loss in mass due to the most recent satellite launched into space.  Just pointing out that it's not a good example, at least not in support of your side of this argument. - Arch NME 07:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Huh? I think he's saying that the article count isn't accurate to that level (1 article) anyway so why bother. CaseKid 19:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  In addition to the main page, the statistics software currently has no method of detecting disambiguation pages, stubs, or stublists according to Wikipedia:What is an article?. So the article count is very much more inaccurate than +/- 1. Plus of course as Cherry Blossom said, the article number may be a couple of minutes old. And imagine all the vandalism articles that haven't been caught yet, the hoaxes, the copyvios. The article number on the main page should only be used as a guide. It should probably only be reported to the nearest thousand :-). Evil Monkey - Hello 20:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Seriously, counting or not counting this page is less than the margin of error of our approximation of the margin of error.  It's no big deal.  ShadowHalo 21:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I just wanted to point out that a new Magic Word wouldn't be needed anyway, since  would give you the number you wanted. timrem 05:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've often thought that we should include it thuswise:  with the 0.95 being the percentage of those "other" non-article pages, stubs, AfDs etc. But I don't know if we could actually work that out. Or would it be a stable number rather than a percentage? Nobody knows... --Monotonehell 05:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's a nice definition: Any page in the article namespace that isn't a redirect, has at least one link to another Wikipedia article and doesn't start with Main Page (which would be a non-issue if we moved them to Portal:Main page) --WikiSlasher 09:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Including disambiguation pages? The Placebo Effect 20:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally wouldn't include disambiguation pages either as they are just usually "This can mean that, that or that." Can't become real "articles" and we certainly wouldn't ever be able to make them featured (not as far as I know anyway). --WikiSlasher 11:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of articles of Wikipedia