Talk:Main Page/Archive 32

message: On the "selected anniversaries", it mentions Boxing Day as being today, which is obviously incorrect. Although it could be construed as being an "anniversary" of Boxing Day in most other years, it is misleading and suggests that today is Boxing Day. --Thomas 11:34, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean.  It is December 26 where I am, your time stamp says it is December 26, and even taking timezones into account, it was December 26 in pretty much most of the world when you wrote that. -- Chuq 12:00, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: The items with the bullet points are the historical anniversaries. The items on the same line as the date are repeated observances on this particular day. - Mark 14:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: You are invited to contribute to the Selected Anniversaries pages, (just follow the guidelines); there you will see that both anniversaries and observances can be selected there, up to a maximum of 5 anniversaries, along with the observances. Keep the verbs in past tense, as they are on the same page as In the News Ancheta Wis 14:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Today isn't boxing day; today is a Sunday, and boxing day can't fall on a Sunday according to legislation (also, historically, right up until last time December the 26th was a Sunday (1999?), boxing day was postponed to the 27th. Perhaps this is just a British thing, but no mention was made) . Regardless of which, it's nearly over now (at least here) and won't arise for some years so I shan't lose any sleep over it. --Thomas 23:22, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that boxing day can fall on a Sunday, but the public holiday is postponed to the Monday. violet/riga (t) 23:27, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, in Australia this year, Christmas Day is the 25th, Boxing Day is the 26th, Christmas Day public holiday is the 27th, and the Boxing Day public holiday is the 28th.  This is followed next weekend with New Year Day on the 1st and the New Years Day public holiday on the 3rd.  To me it seems it doesn't matter what day the public holiday is, the day itself is still the usual date.  (We had our Christmas dinner on the 25th, the Boxing Day Test Match started on the 26th, and no-one would dream of celebrating New Years Eve on the evening of January 2nd!) -- Chuq 00:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Me, lucky guys, here in Germany when a public holiday falls on a sunday we're just plain out of lucl. :-( -- Nils 11:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boxing Day 

message: I have refreshed the Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion page several times now, but it will not completely display, so I can't get to the bottom of the page to post a new comment, so I'm going to do it here.  Why are all of the VfD listings from Dec 20-Dec 24 repeated on the Wikipedia: Votes for deletion page?  172.198.86.142 22:41, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion]]

message: THis is referred to on the main page but withut a link to the article.  Where is it?
:Follow the link on the main page to Current events, and you'll find the stories reported with sources. In this case, the source is (China Daily)-gadfium 02:12, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article on survey of Chinese languages 

message: Consistency with the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy regarding the non-capitalization of second and subsequent title words that are not proper nouns.  I assume the reason for it to be titled Main Page is for aesthetics, that the lowercase p does not look balanced.  I admit wholeheartedly, I do not care for this naming convention policy, and I cite aesthetics and balance as my reasons.  But even Caesar's wife must be above reproach, and thus Wikipedia itself must stand tall before the wagon of her conventions. —ExplorerCDT 21:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: this proposal only exists to illustrate ExplorerCDT's dislike of the title case naming convention. Rd232 18:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thanks for stating the obvious.  It's not like I haven't made my intentions clear from the get-go. —ExplorerCDT 18:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *See Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point - Fredrik | talk 19:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *See Civil disobedience. Sometimes you just have to force a discussion over arbitrary rule. It's not disruptive, it's constructive.  Further, read the top of the page you recommended to me...it says: This is a proposed policy. While it is not an official guideline of Wikipedia and carries neither official weight nor provisions for enforcement... Wikipedia can only benefit from this discussion. —ExplorerCDT 19:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: *There is no supreme authority to be disobedient against on Wikipedia, only the community of Wikipedians. Disrespect for the community won't get you its support. To quote the page, "In general, such illustrative edits are not well-received and are hardly ever effective tools of persuasion. Rather, they simply come off as spiteful or vengeful.". Yes, Wikipedia benefits from discussion, but you should have brought this up on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions or the village pump instead. Fredrik | talk 19:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *Receive it as you may. I prefer to compel discussion through demonstration. —ExplorerCDT 19:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: your opinion of the naming convention is not very well illustrated by objecting to a special case. You would rather have to show that it is bad for titling regular articles (which I think is not the case). dab (ᛏ) 20:07, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Main Page]] → [[Main page]] 

message: A bunch of large pages like Google, Yahoo! and Amazon.com has put up links where you can donate money to disaster-relief organizations because of the earth-quake. I think Wikipedia should have one on the main page too. It doesn't necassarily need to be on the top, but wouldn't it be nice to have it just below the browse bar? I quickly made a little page that shows how it might look. What do you think? Gkhan 17:32, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
*BTW, im no great wiki-artist, someone has to make a nicer link Gkhan 17:38, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
:If there is no objection, I will use the new box thing on Main Page/Main Page suggestion (originally here) on the Main Page. ugen64 23:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth-quake disaster relief link 

message: "The death toll from the Indian Ocean Earthquake and subsequent tsunamis on December 26 has exceeded 80,000 people in 12 countries from Malaysia to Somalia." And South Africa, which is outside those bounds.  Grutness|hello?  23:27, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: In the news query

message: I don't care that Jimbo doesn't like it. I don't care that Brittanica haven't got one. There is clear community consensus for it and let's be honest here, it is the right thing to do.
If any admin is reading this, please restore it at the earliest possible opportunity. Thanks in advance. Dan100 10:00, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
:That won't happen. The clique is more important than helping people in a disaster which the death toll will probably rise to 150,000. A recent email to me from an admin shows the problem - "I agree with you Xed, but I can't take any action because my admin privileges might be withdrawn". I've received several emails with a similar kind of message. No admin is willing to risk their adminship. Thousands will no doubt suffer because of this attitude, but that's of no consequence to Jimbo Wales and his various sycophants - XED.talk.stalk. mail.csb 10:15, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Knock off the personal attacks right now. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --mav 16:06, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't like this, people. I don't care if Jimbo likes it, it should be a matter of consensus. And most of the posts above seem to support the template. I don't like the 'slippery slope' argument, and I will gladly support another banner, should there be a comparable disaster in the future. I don't like the 'clique' accusations based on this either. I am not afraid of losing my adminship over this. It will cost another admin one click to revert me. I suppose it's just that most admins have learned that it's pointless to revert disputed changes, because it will just lead to fruitless edit warring. Look: this haggling over the donations template really makes WP turn sour for me, right now. I will put it back once, and then not touch the topic again. dab (ᛏ) 10:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit small - XED.talk.stalk. mail.csb 11:16, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Just wanted to butt in to say: Woohoo!. Now that it's over with, I don't think the slippery slope argument is applicable here. Sure, the addition of the bar breaks the principle of having none such things, and it's now potentially possible to have donations bars for non-worthwhile causes. Helping the SE Asia quake victims, however, is extremely far from being such a cause. Far enough IMAO for the problem to be irrelevant. We're talking about another slope altogether. -- Kizor 11:50, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I apologize, no implication of heartlessness was intended. I was unhappy with the haggling in general (including the cabalistic remarks that nobody dare put it back because we're afraid of Jimbo), not the fact that we may disagree about it. As I said, if somebody reverts me, I'll not touch it again. But maybe it would be better procedure to have a quick poll about it? dab (ᛏ) 11:33, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in favour of the donation box, and have changed it to a template (Template:helpout). Now any user can edit the notice. Also, users can if they want add  to their userpages if they want. JOHN COLLISON (An Liúdramán) 11:40, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: We now have two links to donations on the main page. I think it is overdoing when whe write it with letters bigger than 100%. Andries 12:16, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. it should be prominent, but not screaming. dab (ᛏ) 12:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that there should be a donation box. If this discussion is going to continue either here or on User talk:Jimbo Wales, it might be a good idea to create a Wikipedia:Earthquake discussion or similar. Just a suggestion.--Honeycake (internal ID number: 118170) 09:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How long is the donation box going to stay?? I thought 24-48 hours should be adequate. Clawed 22:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we have the donations box back ''now'', please 

message: I think the ability to e-mail an article to user or even subscribe to any updates to a topic would be really useful.  Is that something easy to do?
:It's being worked on, but this is not the correct place to discuss such things, perhaps the village pump might be more appropriate. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 21:15, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
::That feature had been scheduled,I'm told, for 1.4, which ahas just been deployed.  For whatever reason, implementation of the mail notification feature was pushed back into the 1.5 release.  Whether such a feature would be *enabled* on *this implementation* of Mediawiki, Wikipedia, is another mattter entirely, and I don't think I'd bet on it.  -- Baylink 21:34, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  E-mail to/ Subscribe 

message: Don't know where to ask this question (sorry if it doesn't belong here), but what's the reason for all history pages having "no index, no follow" robot instructions, thus telling search engines not to index them? --rydel 02:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Major load issues related to allowing spiders to look at each and every page version (this is esp true now that all old versions are heavily compressed). We also do not want search engines to index old page versions since that would lead to them directing people to our old versions and they may edit the page to fix it - thus overwriting many other edits. Lastly, old versions are more likely than cur ones to be out of date, wrong, incomplete, or contain copyright violations. --mav 05:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "no index, no follow" on history pages