Talk:Main Page/Archive 55

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50 ← Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 → Archive 60


Mozart

Where on the Main Page is mention of Mozart's birthday? Was it an oversight? MathStatWoman

Wikipedia runs on Coordinated Universal Time, which is 5 hours ahead of East coast US time and 8 hours ahead of West coast US time. Mozart's birthday was yesterday on Wikipedia, and yes, it did appear on the main page. — Scm83x talk 00:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some too. Is there a way to easily revert vandalism?

See Wikipedia:Revert for more info. - BanyanTree 02:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Intersting I also have been given a warning for vandalism,... how about putting a policy/golden rule on the main page or a link to wiki policy for newcommers? 24.43.51.199 02:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. There are too many people around here that like to give out warnings to assert their self-supposed superiority when no actual vandalism has occurred depending on what the definition of vandalism is. Being a "vandal fighter" is the easiest way to get praise around here (even if you have to sacrifice a few innocent editors in the process).



                    yours t-lovingly

Alexa page rank: 821- due to colocation move

Relax folks, Alexa had a colocation move and consequent glitches: "JANUARY 27, 2006 - Posted By Geoffrey Mack: Uh, Oh, Wait. Hold on. Hmmm... Just a quick update on our data center move. The machines are in place, powered up and working... kind of. The network configuration is different, some would say better, and it has had some unanticipated consequences." --Ancheta Wis 02:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Alexa is back. ! The site says we are at 16 as of 11:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC), just two spots behind a well-known software company. !--Ancheta Wis

okay okay

Help!

dears Friends:
In the Wiki in spaniard languaje.
En la Wikipedia en idioma español es:Wikipedia algunos "bibliotecrios" (CEST) bloquean a su capricho o antojo a aquellos colaboradores del wikiproyecto que no les gusta o no les place, se nota lo que en español (spanish) se llama "amiguismo": "aquel que no es amigo, es "enemigo" y, a la menor ocasión es bloqueado bajo cualquier pretexto, o sus artículos son borrados (censureds) o alterados hasta la tergiverzación total bajo pretexto de "wikification", a estas horas por ejemplo un sujeto que se apoda "taichi" o algo así está bloqueando vandalicamente al proyecto de toda la wiki, ese sujeto increiblemente ha llegado a ser (por "amiguismo") nombrado "cest" y, aunque el reglamento o estatuto de Wikipedia diga todo lo contrario se cree "dueño" de la Wikipedia en español y con los "botones" que se le han cedido está bloqueando e incluso borrando lo que otros wikipedistas editan e informan. Si el proyecto sigue controlado a nivel "bibliotecarios" (así se les llama en la Wikipedia española) pierde toda credibilidad.--200.125.110.99 05:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, English only here kid. No habla Español aqui. Now go ask your question where someone will understand it. MrVoluntarist 05:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Even if this should not become a habit (spanish text on the en wikipedia), maybe we could be nice this time. Some people *do* understand spanish here, and this fellow wikipedian deserves an answer. — Hillel 05:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
My spanish is about 8 years rusty, but I do believe he's complaining that the admins on the spanish wikipedia are capricious and vindictive. Raul654 05:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah that's basically what he says. It's easy to believe: on some smaller wikipedias the situation has really gotten out of hands. On the english WP I'd say he's wrong but on the spanish one it's not impossible. — Hillel 05:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll ask him for his spanish Wikipedia user name (if he has one). That way, people who want to continue this discussion can do so on the spanish Wikipedia. That doesn't mean a debate on the subject can't continue on the english WP as well, but in english, and possibly somewhere else. — Hillel 05:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Hola amigo wikipedista, podrias dejar aqui tu nombre de usuario en la Wikipedia española? Asi los que quieren seguir ese debate en español podran hacerlo alli (empezando en tu pagina de usuario). Aqui no es un buen lugar. Nota personal: entiendo lo que quieres decir, pero no hay mucho que hacer. Saludos, Hillel 05:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Simplemente una advertencia: User:Hillel es un judío. Pensé que usted quisiera saber. MrVoluntarist 17:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Come on, is that really necessary?--Pharos 17:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I am unfamiliar with both the practices of es:Wikipedia and the lines of grant of admins on the various xx:Wikipedias, but (having read the above) if our amigo wikipedista is in a situation where,
  • He has no confidence in es:Wikipedia administrators
  • Alleges that practices are well outside of core standards, to the detriment of es:Wikipedia content and community
  • He may be presumed not to understand the finer ins-and-outs of Wikipedia practice
  • Does not have a functional command of English
...there may be an obligation on the part of en:Wikipedia administrators to request an investigation at the appropriate level of review.
StrangerInParadise 22:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm a frequent editor on es and an admin here, so I think I can address this. Policy on es is not as rigid as it is here on en—I just recently helped create a policy on references, for example. Furthermore, they have no arbcom, and thus administrators are left with the task of dealing with problem users. There is less process there, and administrators have more discretion. Thus, if some of them did over here what they do over there, there would be problems. One of the users that this anon refers to, Taichi, is a well respected administrator who blocked this user for a week because of a "lack of wikietiquette toward an admin". Thus, the editor is speaking to us here, since he can't edit there. I presume the block is a result of a number of malicious edits on es:Usuario Discusión:Dianai, an es admin's talk page. IMO, he lacks wikietiquette, but is asking for more admin accountability. Perhaps not a bad thing, but the best way to change things isn't to fight the current system. --Spangineer (háblame) 05:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Challenger explosion

Seeing as how today is the twentieth anniversary of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, I'd politely suggest changing the image on anniversaries to one of the disaster. Palm_Dogg 06:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense, but should we do that every year? — Hillel 06:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
1986 - NASA Space Shuttle Challenger exploded 73 seconds into its tenth mission.
Can we change the wording? It did not technically explode. -- Chupon 08:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The picture should at least be moved near the mention of the anniversary. It's really small and at first I didn't know what it was. It was placed next to the Diet of Worms and I first thought it might somebody's idea of a joke as it looked sorta like a picture of some white worms in a jar! But then once I clicked on it I knew exactly what it was. I remember the day it happened and seeing it over and over again on television. H2O 09:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Would someone please help and type in "(pictured)" at the end of the 1986 anniversary ? Enlarging the image a bit would be great, too. Thanks. --199.71.174.100 10:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've made the picture slightly larger, added "(picured)", and changed "exploded" to "disintegrated". Do people like it now? Canderson7 (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes that's good, thanks. -- Chupon 21:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeap. Thanks, Canderson7. -- 199.71.174.100 05:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we put a Nazi symbol on the front page of Wikipedia?

I am just curious: can we put a Nazi symbol on the front page of Wikipedia? For most people in China and some Asian countries, the Imperial Japanese Navy flag on the front page is a Nazi symbol.--Jinhuili 18:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It is the factually accurate image for the Imperial Japanese Navy and, since the article is on the main page, the article will not endorse Nazi activity and will have a neutral point of view. For that reason it is surely fine to have this image on the front page - it is the correct historical image. Martin Hinks 18:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
My question is: Can we put this Nazi symbol [1] on the front page on the Jewish New Year's day? Today is Chinese New Year's Day. Happy New Year! --Jinhuili 18:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Nah, that will anger the Jewish. Funnybunny 22:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
That's a very unfortunate coincidence and I'll assume that it's no more than a coincidence. Otherwise, Martin's analysis is correct. Marskell 18:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
(Son of a bitch!) Theoretically people are supposed to look ahead in the queue and warn me about these kinds of coincidences. Obviously that didn't happen in this case. Raul654 19:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
If it matters, Chinese New Year is actually tomorrow UTC time.--Pharos 19:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I hope that was a coincidence. Nice job wikipedia!--Muchosucko 20:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh come on, it's been listed as the Featured Article for today for over a week. While I agree that this is a major case of poor timing, you can't blame Wikipedia if none of us caught it either. Palm_Dogg 21:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

IT's OK as ong as we are not saying they were right in their intentions of killing the Jewish Population of the world

Hey look...there is a swastika on the front page :\ :( — Ilyanep (Talk) 00:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Saturn

Could we have the following on the main page? Saturn is in opposition (180 degrees from the sun) now. The view of Saturn's rings is about 19 to 20 degrees, and quite a sight to behold. A telescope or even binoculars with just 30 times magnification gives a great view. MathStatWoman 01:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You could suggest this as a Did You Know candidate at Template_talk:Did_you_know. Martin Hinks 11:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


COOL

Round 6 Voting ends February 4th

Round 6 of the Main Page Redesign Project has produced 12 redesigns of the main page for you to look at. This is the last round before an official election. To see the drafts and join in on the fun, CLICK HERE

Search box focus?

It would be really great if someone could put

onload="document.getElementById('searchInput').focus()"

in the <body> tag of the main page!

Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why doesn't the cursor appear in the search box, like with Google? may be applicable. Cheers, BanyanTree 17:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I would be opposed to this. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the FAQ link. I still think there are more who would find it useful than who would be annoyed by it. But I don't really care anymore, because I just discovered wikipedia.org auto-focuses. :-)

January 29 Picture of the day

Could an admin please edit Wikipedia:Today's second feature/January 29, 2006 to link the word "jetpack" to jet pack? I have already made the change to Wikipedia:Picture of the day/January 29, 2006. Thanks, TacoDeposit 16:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, BanyanTree 16:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Being extremely picky

"A roof collapse in Poland kills at least 60 people, with over 100 people still trapped awaiting rescue."

You are not in these people's heads. Although they probably are "awaiting rescue", it is wrong to put words in their heads. We are not in these people's POV. I think this should be reworded. Bsd987 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed "awaiting rescue", which just dodges the assumption about what they are thinking. Thanks, - BanyanTree 17:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
This is NPOV taken to an absurd extreme. --Nelson Ricardo 21:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
And I take pride in that!!! Although, I did say "being extremely picky".... Bsd987 22:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Roof collapse news needs updating

I suggest:

"A roof collapse in Poland kills at least 66 people, leaving 141 injured." 83.22.113.227 20:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The article itself would have to be updated with this information before we update the ITN blurb. Thanks, BanyanTree 20:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The article has been updated. Lukasz.w 21:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Updated. - BanyanTree 22:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

different skins

I like the look and feel of this one best, but all the choices of things to do, nicely laid out at the bottom with links in the "chick" skin are so appealing. I know I want to change skins. Would Those In Charge consider adding them to this skin? I will hold off on making a decision for a few days, if giving thinking time will help. <hopeful expression> 23:25 29 Jan 2006 tygerbryght

science project

Charles I

I have a slight concern here. Since September 7, 2004, we've had Henry VIII, Mary I, Elizabeth I, James I, Charles I, Charles II, Mary II, Anne, George III and Victoria on the main page.

As an English historian myself, I'm delighted that so many of the British monarch articles have reached featured standard (in fact, seven more british monarchs have achieved this honour. Bravo!) But is not the main page article supposed to showcase the diversity of Wikipedia, as well as the quality? In other words, we've reached double digits in little more than a year, enough British monarchs for a while? Eixo 01:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to one particularly good writer, we have a disproportionally large number of featured articles on british monarchs, which is why you tend to see them more often than you'd expect. Raul654 04:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
That's impressive. And he's 17!? I wish someone would do the same with the medieval monarchs, some of which are quite frankly depressing. Eixo 14:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Or the Chinese dynasties, or the Japanese emperors, or or or!   freshgavin TALK    01:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

In the news mess up... again.

When you scroll over the picture of the president of finland, it says flag of Finland. schyler 01:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Unmessedup. -Splashtalk 02:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Charles I (more...)

No biggie, but the (more...) at the end of the Charles I main page description links to a disambiguation page of Charles I and not to the main article at Charles I of England. --Ataricodfish 03:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales' Personal Appeal

I don't think this really belongs on the Main Page discussion page, but I'm not sure where else to put it, so here goes:

I think the "Personal Appeal from Jimmy Wales" that appears at the top of every page to a non-logged-in-user should be taken down. It is downright anti-Wikipedia to have any one person speak for the project as a whole, even just to ask for donations. While Wikipedia might not exist without Mr. Wales, that doesn't mean that every page should link to a page with a picture of him on it. The whole idea of Wikipedia is that there is no "owner" per se - it is a collaborative site, with all contributions considered equal. As such, an appeal for donations should be from all Wikipedians, not just one (and especially not one who makes edits like this).

--User:Alex S, 04:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I see that this wording has now been changed, but no comment has been added here. What is going on? When I tried to view the source of this page, it didn't give any indication as to where the "donation appeal" tag is added from, or where it can be discussed. Could it be made clearer on Wikipedia pages who edits the layout _outside_ the editable parts of the page (including the top area and the side bar area). Thanks. 194.200.237.219 10:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Fair point in theory, but the fact is that when a generic appeal was replaced with a personal appeal during the last fund raising drive the daily rate of donations doubled or trebled, and wikipedia needs the money. 62.31.55.223 19:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The page is MediaWiki:Anonnotice, but it can only be edited by administrators. --Spangineer (háblame) 05:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Winston Churchill

Whilst I fully accept that there is a limited amount of space in the Selected Anniversaries, I was mildly surprised to note that 30th Januray 2006 was not marked as the date of the State Funeral of Sir Winston Churchill in 1965. This event is notable as it remains one of the very few State Funerals for non-Royal people. DAAdshead 13:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Major vandalism in progress

There's a major vandalism effort in progress on main-page article Dixie (song). Someone please protect this page!!! altmany 00:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hitler redirects

Someone keeps redirecting pages to the Hitler page

Grammar Error in Did You Know . .

It reads "...Robin Reed could pin every member of the 1924 United States Olympic wrestling team...". I believe it should be "every other member." Though he could probably pin himself, it's not worth conveying.

Fixing validation

There were some identical id= statements in the Main Page. I fixed them, in this diff. If it horribly breaks something, I'm the one to blame, I suppose. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Coretta Scott King

According to CNN sources Coretta Scott King, wife of former civil rights activist, Martin Luther King, Jr., passed away this morning (Tuesday January 31, 2006). Would you add a proper entry for this on the main page, which highlights news, as well as the wiki news page?

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/31/king.obit.ap/index.html

I think there's a rule for the "In the News" section that you aren't supposed to announce people who died of natural causes (the only exception that I can remember was the pope) Raul654 13:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I think her article should at least be considered for "Today's Featured Article" in the immediate future. --SigmaX54 22:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not a wikipedia:featured article. Raul654 22:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Reference to Nasa Columbia Disaster

In the (today this happened) seciton of the main page, there is a reference to the space shuttle columbia disaster. All the other events are signified by the country involved, but this blurb seems to say that the US doesn't need to be mentioned. Shouldn't it be rewritten on the terms, the US space program, NASA, .......... Just a thought. Theuedimaster 05:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"The NASA Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated over Texas during reentry into the Earth's atmosphere on its 28th and final mission. (Mission insignia shown) This was the second total loss of a Space Shuttle." Hmm, this sounds awkward. Why does "second total loss of a Space Shuttle" link to the article on the disaster? That's not what I would expect; maybe link "disintegrated"? Anyways, "Mission insignia shown" needs to have a period and be moved to the end of the paragraph. --Bryan Nguyen | Talk 05:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

New Current Event?

Can someone add Bush's State of the Union? That should be seen as a current event, right? Kazuhite 06:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The ITN folks normally try to spread the ITN wealth around the world and the Alito confirmation is already up. IMO, the SC confirmation is a lot more important that another SOTU photo op. - BanyanTree 15:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Rumorpedia

Why does my Rumorpedia article keep being deleted, I am a fan of Wiki's and just want my article to describe why I set up Rumorpedia and I'm not doing anyone any harm? Who is to say that my subject matter is any less important that other subject matter? I am not happy! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Visualize (talk • contribs) .

Hi Visualize, your repeatedly deleted article (1) does not assert notability and (2) is an advertisement. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for the former and Wikipedia:Spam for the latter. If you make your tone encyclopedic, it's possible that it would be sent to WP:AFD for people to argue over its notability but as there are no hits for "Rumorpedia" on Google, I am 99% sure it will be deleted again. The safest bet is to worry about your own website and let somebody else write the article about it in due course. Cheers, BanyanTree 17:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I want new article!

What's up with the featured article? It's 10 past midnight and the new one still isn't up. I spent the whole day waiting for this. --BadSeed 00:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you proposing a Featured Article of the Hour?   freshgavin TALK    01:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Be still thy evil tongue, heathen! Raul654 02:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

merge wikipedia and wiktionary

why have two different sites that both define words when you can cross reference them? I auctually have better luck looking up unfamiliar words on wikipedia

-jak from south carolina

  • Wiktionary is still in its infancy but fulfills an entirely different purpose. Its unlikely you'll find origins of words, and the same word in foreign languages, or find foreign words on wikipedia. Granted their are some, but wiktionary is still relatively new.(It is however 19th most used dictionary on the web). 12.220.94.199 02:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Front Page Mistake

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Community Portal
Samuel Alito isn't the 96th Justice, he is the 110th I believe. Someone should change that quickly, it's a really blatant messup and it looks stupid. --Robsomebody 02:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

According to his article he is the "the Court's 110th Justice", so my guess is that he is the 96th person to be appointed as an associate justice and the 110 number includes those appointed to be Chief Justices. I don't know enough to change it either way. Evil Monkey - Hello 03:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Evil monkey beat me to it. Raul654 19:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The article might be incorrect too, a few news sources online say he is the 110th associate justice. --Robsomebody 19:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
...is anyone going to change it? Do some research, it is on the front page, which should be setting a good example for Wikipedia. I might be wrong, but I think I'm right. Here's a source I found: [[2]] --Robsomebody 01:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
CNN says 100th justice (not associate) see this. BrokenSegue 23:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The article doesn't say anything about a '96th associate justice'. I searched online and found a handful of results of a 96th associate justice, most of which were wikipedia articles. Clearly more research on the matter needs to be done, regardless of what I or others think, especially since this is on the front page. --Robsomebody 00:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
There have been 17 chief justices (3 of which were promoted from assoc justice. So 110-(17-3)=96. Okay? I'm looing for another (external) source right now. BrokenSegue 00:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Test

Please use the Sandbox if you'd like to fiddle around with the wiki markup.   freshgavin TALK    04:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Make meaning of "English" clearer and linking to www.wikipedia.org

[Copying this from Template:MainPageIntro which it seems was the wrong place to try and discuss this - can it also be made clearer at the main page templates that discussion generally takes place on the main page?]

This comment is based on, and quotes material from here and here.

I don't think the tagline phrasing "In this English version" is very clear. I suggest adding an emphasis to "English", either by using bold typeface, or linking to an explanation of Wikipedias in different languages.

"It's a question of emphasis. If you put the emphasis on "this", then it implies there are several English versions. If you put the emphasis on "English", then it is one of several versions in different languages. If you use no emphasis, it becomes unclear. I suggest putting "English" in bold (as a way of emphasising it), or making "English" a wikilink to something explaining different languages, like the www.wikipedia.org page. I was surprised to struggle to find a link to this overarching wikipedia portal on the English wikipedia Main Page.
In this English version...
In this English version...
In this English version...
I hope these examples make my point clear."

The second point is related to linking to www.wikipedia.org:

"I am trying to work out how to link between areas of the main page. In the discussion above on the phrasing of "English version" in the Wikipedia tagline that appears on the current main page, I suggested making "English" link to the English subsection of the en.wikipedia page on Wikipedia: Wikipedia#Language_editions, but it could equally well link to [the "Other languages"] part of the main page, if that was possible (doesn't seem possible at the moment) [...] Also, somewhere in this "other languages" section, and somewhere on the main page, there should, IMO, be a link to www.wikipedia.org, which is the overarching portal for all the languages. I looked, but couldn't find it. If I missed it, it should be made more prominent within this section. I tried to link, but could only get it as an external link [3]."

Maybe I am missing a piping trick somewhere here? Carcharoth 10:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Doh! Forgot that external links don't use that piping symbol. My comment above can now be summed up as two points: (1) Why not change the "In this English version" wording to either (a) "In this English version" or (b) "In this English version" or (c) "In this English version", any of which emphasise 'English' over 'this' and some of which make the meaning of "English" clearer by providing a self-explanatory link; and (2) To include a link to the multilingual portal in the "other languages" section of the main page, either in the first few sentences, or in the centred horizontal list (currently of three) at the bottom of the section: Multilingual portal. If there is some reason not to put external links on the main page, surely a link to www.wikipedia.org is a suitable exception? Carcharoth 16:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Is this really a matter of confusion, or did you see that discussion first then think this up? What I saw valid in it, was the use of the word "version". This could imply that the various language wikis have the same content in different languages. So, while "the English wiki" is a version of Wikipedia, the various language wikis are not versions of each other. And therein lies the rub. --24.26.178.224 18:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't really confuse me. It just annoys the pedant in me that sees links from the tagline to: (a) an article explaining what Wikipedia is, and (b) an explanation of how anyone can edit. There is also a link in the tagline for people to follow up on the quoted number of articles. I can understand not linking to an explanation of 'free', because that can cause confusion, but (moving on to the subtitle of the tagline) I can't understand not linking to an explanation of how Wikipedia is multilingual. I agree though that it all comes back to how to make clear that this is the en (English language) part of Wikipedia, which ties in with the confusion caused by the word 'version', which you mention above. This could be rather intractable, as I assume whoever wrote "English version" considered other words and failed to find something suitable. Looking around, other possible phrases could be: "English edition"; "English language edition"; "English language portal", "English language part", "English language area". I still think a phrasing like this would work:
"Welcome to Wikipedia, the multilingual free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. This is the portal for articles written in English. We are currently working on xxx articles."
The date thing is nice, but not essential IMO. Note that the phrase "free encyclopedia" has to be kept together, and not split up by inserting multilingual to get "free multilingual encyclopedia". The word 'multilingual' could be dropped if the main tagline is too well-established to change. Also, the phrase 'wiki' is not synonymous with 'wikipedia' and I wouldn't call the English language area of Wikipedia a version of Wikipedia - it is a part of the whole. And there is overlap (though small) between the language areas by translations (though editing after translation soon gets rid of that), so a precise description would probably call Wikipedia an "interlocking collection of wikipedias written in different languages". Carcharoth 11:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Royal Dutch Shell

Why is this company called British? The news flash states: Royal Dutch Shell break the record for the highest ever annual profit for a British company with a total of £13.12bn.. According to the Royal Dutch Shell article, its corporate headquarters are in The Hague and it is tax resident in the Netherlands. --Rsmelt 11:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The company is British (or rather English) - for tax reasons. It was an off the shelf company incorporated in 2002 as Forthdeal Limited, (registered number 04366849). The rules changed to mean it was advantageous for RDS to be an English company before a certain deadline, so they simply bought a company registered here before the deadline and changed its name to Royal Dutch Shell. DavidFarmbrough 12:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It also has its main listing in the UK, and I believe the order of location of shareholdings is 1) the U.S. 2) the UK 3) the Netherlands. Merchbow 15:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Adriaen van der Donck

"...was a lawyer and landowner in New Netherland, for whom the city of Yonkers, New York is named" This needs correction in line with the Adriaen van der Donck article, to say 'after whom the city....was named'. It wasn't named for him. DavidFarmbrough 12:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

And how does Yonkers derive from van der Donck? --Rsmelt 14:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Read Yonkers, New York. "Van der Donck was known locally as the Jonkheer (etymologically, "young gentleman"; in effect, "Squire"), a word from which the name "Yonkers" was directly derived." -- Plutor 15:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Shell Grammar

There's a spelling error on the front page: 

..Shell break the record for the highest ever annual...

should be 

..Shell broke the record for the highest ever annual...

~ Cheers —This user has left wikipedia 13:58 2006-02-02

Actually, keeping in line with the tense of the rest of the news, it should be breaks. -- Plutor 15:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. It should be "breaks". Merchbow 15:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I already re-wrote the sentence altogether anyway. I even managed to use a semicolon. -Splashtalk 17:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, those Brits and their funny treatment of collective(ish) nouns. --Nelson Ricardo 22:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Is how much Shell made this year really THAT big a headline?

It's really not the biggest news out there. --Mb1000 20:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If you have something else, you know where to suggest it... -Splashtalk 20:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not that big a headline if you don't care about the complete oblivion of the earth's natural resources.   freshgavin TALK    04:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Did You Know? error

It's not possible for a 1939 composition to have been performed at US Political conventions that same year, as they're held every four years - even the article says it was performed in 1940, NOT 1939, as the DYK blurb states. :) (User:JohnDBuell, who isn't signed in at his Mac at the moment).

Shell figures and Exxon addition

Are the figures for Shell's profit given actually correct? I read in my newspaper (Frankfurter Rundschau of Fri 3) the following numbers: 25,3 billion US$ (21,3 billion euros). Can somebody please double-check that? Furthermore, in connection with this and with respect to the oil price high it might be worthwhile mentioning in the same paragraph that Exxon-Mobil reported an even higher profit of 36.1 billion US$ earlier this week. TomR 22:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)--

The 13.2bn is certainly correct; this is what is reported in the media and is presumably taken straight out of their actual documents. The conversions rely, I presume on whichever currency conversion service is used. At present, http://www.xe.com agrees spot on with the dollar and euro values. -Splashtalk 23:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Number of articles vs. Detroit

Just a statistical tidbit: the English Wikipedia now has more articles than the 2000 population of Detroit (951,270)! Happy editing! --- Dralwik|Have a Chat My "Great Project"

Does this mean we're pulling in some editors from Windsor now? Who knows, someday Wikipedia may attract editors from all across the Great Lakes region. I know it's a mad dream, but Buffalo, anyone?--Pharos 03:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll believe that only when they discover the internet.   freshgavin TALK    04:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

As the cartoons of Mohammed in Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy are currently at the top of the page, it might be a good idea to link to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (no images) from the main page to prevent offending Muslim readers. —Ruud 03:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored - Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive - Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Raul654 03:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
As per the overwhelming (85 to 8) consensus among editors on the relevant page, the better article is the one with pictures included. Linking to the inferior version makes no sense, bypasses the entire process we've gone through of developing a consensus, and I totally oppose Rudd's suggestion. Nor do I support maintaining the fork of this article. Babajobu 03:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
No, that'd be making a decision for all based on a desire to avoid offending one group. The fork shouldn't even exist, imo — I am tempted to speedy it, but if it survives the night it should probably go to AfD. -Splashtalk 03:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with splash. While I normally avoid VFD/AFD like the plague, this seems like the exception that proves the rule. Raul654 03:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it could be speedied under CSD A8 as a blatant copyright infingement, as none of the creators of the original article are given credit? Babajobu 04:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
That's stretching things a bit, since it'd be easy enough to add a link giving them credit. -Splashtalk 04:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I already tagged is as CSD. There must be some kind of rule against forks, I'd reckon. —Ruud 04:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Anyways, It might be quicker just to as User:Gregstephens to have it deleted on authors request. —Ruud 04:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not that there's a specific rule against forks, per se -- it's just (1) they're almost always a bad idea, and (2) we've already fought this battle so very many times over. (see also penis, vagina, autofellatio, abu ghraib, 'etc) The "some people might be offended by the contents of this article" argumenet really doesn't carry much weight around here, especially not to justify the existance of a forked article. Raul654 04:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Now Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (no images) has been deleted/changed into a redirect. The downside of that being that anyone using that link (they are all over the place), expecting no images, instead gets the illustrated article. Kind of misleading and definetely not putting out any fires --Rsmelt 07:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Shays Rebellion

Shays Rebellion points to a redirect. Think of the millions of page requests that can be saved by changing it to Shays' Rebellion. Piet 08:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Changed; thanks. -Splashtalk 12:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia

Can I add a hypertext link for the word "Encyclopedia" on the front page? --Nick Dillinger 08:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea is that people are supposed to follow the Wikipedia link, and then follow the encyclopedia link in that article. And you need to ask an admin to edit the main page, as it is protected from editing by others. Hopefully an admin will respond to your question. Carcharoth 14:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC) :D!
It's actually a bit of an attempt to direct readers. One could write "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" in order to provide as much information as possible, but you risk just confusing people with too many options. Limiting the links to a definition of Wikipedia that includes how it differs from a traditional encyclopedia and an introduction on how to edit seems like a reasonable compromise. - BanyanTree 16:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that you're pushing the slippery slope argument too far. hypertexing the words free, that, anyone, can and edit kind of takes it too far, but since wikipedia is an encyclopedia, adding that encyclopedia link on the front page does make alot of sense. --Nick Dillinger 21:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, probably a bit of an overstatement with the "the" and "that".  ;) I would still mildly disagree. People have a sense of what an encylopedia is. Far fewer know what Wikipedia is. Pretty much all the links in the header have to do with definitions, FAQs, navigation, and categorization - lots of meta data, in other words. The four central templates are the only ones that mainly link to articles. Encyclopedia just seems a little out of place if you look at the kinds of links with which it is grouped. I wouldn't be particularly fussed if someone did link to it, and it may even be in one of the new designs under consideration, but it seems like the odd link out. - BanyanTree 21:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to link the word encyclopedia. BrokenSegue 23:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Al-Salam Boccaccio 98

Why is this not capitalized on the front page ("al-Salam Boccaccio 98")? Capitalization does not exist in Arabic, so either the enitre title should be lower case or it should use English capitalization conventions (i.e. "Al-Salam Boccaccio 98"). 24.63.125.223 20:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my experience is that there's a convention for capitalization of Arabic phrases in English, and "al-Salam Boccaccio 98" follows that convention. --Dhartung | Talk 20:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Can you provide a source? Even if there is such a convention, it is overwhelmingly ignored (see the English-language pages of Al-Jazeera ( http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage ), Al-Ahram ( http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/ ), etc.). In fact, the Shipping Company's own site ( http://www.elsalammaritime.com/ ) uses "El Salam." 24.63.125.223 20:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Google "al Qaeda", for starters. But I agree we should follow the Naming conventions policy insofar as it covers these instances (it's a bit vague on this particular point), since it represents extant editor consensus. --Dhartung | Talk 07:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The ship's website ( http://www.elsalammaritime.com/pvessels.html ) uses "M/V Al Salam Boccaccio '98." 24.63.125.223 20:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The relevant page on Wikipedia are the proposed guidelines at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Arabic). - BanyanTree 21:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Emperor Meiji

Emperor Meiji did not take the title Meiji when he became emperor. Meiji isn't even a title, it is a name. When he became emperor the era was named Meiji. After he died he was renamed Meiji Tenno (Emperor Meiji), a posthumous name, which is how he is known today. Neither his name nor his title was Meiji while he was alive.-Jefu 23:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Then Meiji period#The Meiji Restoration and the Emperor should be revised accordingly by someone familiar with the topic. --199.71.174.100 01:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Done.-Jefu 02:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

In the news picture - map of Red Sea

It's pretty big on 800x600. Don't know if you worry about that resolution, but I thought I'd say it. --Grocer 01:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I shrunk it to the more standard "In the News" width of 110px. Is that better? It seems barely legible now. -Splashtalk 01:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Aye, I suppose it's a trade-off either way. The text looks reasonable now though, yes. Quick work! --Grocer 01:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


Indian language pages

why arent the indian language pages working.or is that my browser is not supporting.i am using opera. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.141.29.35 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC).

You may not have the proper fonts installed. --Nelson Ricardo 19:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Multilingual portal link needed on the Main Page?

Would it be possible to add a link to the multilingual portal to the Main Page? I would suggest adding it to Template:Wikipedialang, at the front of the list at the end of that template, so the full list would then be:

Multilingual portal· Complete list· Multilingual coordination· Start a Wikipedia in another language

If there is a policy not to link to the multilingual portal, I haven't been able to find it. I'm not sure why there would be such a policy, but there seems to be a distinct lack of links to this portal from the English Wikipedia. Maybe a lack of visibility? Carcharoth 10:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why there would need to be a link to it. New users will access that page by default and those who skip it will be able to find all the language information they need easily enough.   freshgavin TALK    14:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I kind of see your point. But if it is a case of not needing a link like that, why have links to anything at all? Even if you follow the links currently in the language section, it is difficult to find anything linking to that multilingual portal. I would surmise that many users enter Wikipedia from results returned through a search engine, and those will be into one of the language areas, not to the multilingual portal (which appears second or third on a Google search for 'Wikipedia'). I am saying that many users may not even be _aware_ of the existence of this multilingual portal. How long has it been since the switch-over occurred into the language areas? If linking to the multilingual portal from the Main Page is for some reason not needed, then maybe I should add it to as many "interlanguage" pages as I can find, at least on the English Wikipedia. Maybe it will help if I say that this whole thing started when I idly thought to myself: "Surely there must be a link to that nice multilingual portal from the English Wikipedia..." I really struggled to find a link to it, so I came here to suggest linking it from the main page. Carcharoth 15:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
It's simply not a normal procedure for a page to link to its own entry portal, and I still don't think it necessary to link to the page at all.   freshgavin TALK    02:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you will find that all the pages you click on, on the Main Page, have a link leading back to the Main Page (it's the Wikipedia logo). Maybe I should suggest that the multilingual portal link goes "outside the box", somewhere in the mediawiki space, along with the Wikipedia logo, or in the navigation bar on the side of the page. Consider it a link to the "meta-home page" if you will. That addresses the point that you raised. What about the points that I raised, including my premise that many people on the English Wikipedia may be unaware of the existence of this page? What I would like to do is go to www.wikipedia.org and click a "What Links here?" button. But of course I can't. But I will raise a question on one of the village pump desks about this. Carcharoth 08:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
You should probably bring it up there. Concerning people being unaware of its existance, I don't believe that's a problem. Concerning not being able to check "What links here?", well there are many pages that don't let you do that, in fact most (all?) of the Special pages don't.   freshgavin TALK    08:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for discussing this. It's been a great help to get some other views on this. Carcharoth 09:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

In the news typo

Should "Danish Embassy" be "Danish embassy"? --Grocer 16:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Now it appears not to mention embassy afterwords. -- user:zanimum

It's the general consulate -- can someone change? Lotsofissues 12:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you want it changed to? Is it still the Norwegian embassy? Is it the Danish general consulate in Syria but the consulate in Lebanon? It's probably more helpful to give a specific suggestion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Celtic Harp

I've found some information on the celtic harp origins and every time I post on the site someone takes down my factual information. The celtic harp shape, was invented in scotland rather than Ireland and someone does not like this. I've tried to change this several times but someone always puts the irish referance first and deletes the older scottish one. As Im getting my material from a reliable source, could this page be locked down to prevent others from concealing the truth.

Any questions look at;

http://www.clarsach.net/Bill_Taylor/traditional.htm

I have asked both experts from the Scottish National Museum and Irelands Trinity college and they agree with my findings.

User:Celtic harper 16:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions, I don't see you being reverted. Your most recent edit is the last at Harp. If you have a problem try solving it at Talk:Harp and if that doesn't work ask the user who is reverting you about it on his/her user talk. - BanyanTree 18:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Column width

Why don't the two columns of the table on the main page have the same width? The left column occupies 55% of the space vs. 45% for the right column. Wouldn't it be better to make it 50%/50%, making the table more symmetrical? RexNL 18:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Make your suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft for the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draftnew main page draft - JustinWick 18:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC) If you did come here to discuss the Main Page or its contents:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page/Archive_55&oldid=1146345599"