Misplaced Pages

Talk:Main Page: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:13, 26 March 2006 view sourceHereToHelp (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,936 edits →There are articles in the English version.← Previous edit Revision as of 16:08, 26 March 2006 view source Dralwik (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users25,766 edits archivingNext edit →
Line 3: Line 3:


__TOC__ __TOC__

== Article count in the header ==

When the draft of the Main Page redesign was deemed to be in its final state ready for a vote, the article count didn't appear in the top header, though it remained on the first line of the Languages section. Seven days into the voting process, administrator ] added this back to the protected page in response to some conditional support votes requesting its reappearance. I haven't followed the process meticulously, but the form of the article count (as we see it now, enclosed by emdashes) is unlike any of the many I've seen in previous drafts. Am I the only one who thinks this a little underhand? I am relatively neutral about the include-or-remove question, but I really don't like the form it's in at the moment. If there are sufficiently mixed opinions then maybe we ought to consider the options for change, and establish a consensus on the best option. It's not too late is it? ] 14:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

:No, it's never too late to edit a wiki (which is why it wasn't inappropriate to do so in response to the comments, most of which were from '''''un'''''conditional supporters). I personally oppose the inclusion of the article count in the header, and I welcome further discussion.

:In the meantime, adding the following code to your personal CSS file (], if you're using the default skin) will suppress the text's display:

/* <pre> */
#articlecount {display: none}
/* </pre> */

:&mdash;] 15:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks for the handy CSS tip that I'd already seen; it's not my viewing I'm concerned about (to be honest this applies to anyone who regularly works with things like talk pages). It's more about new users who see the count and get the wrong impression. And those of sounder integrity who see the count and think "damn that's messy". These are two separate issues. See my proposal below for what in my view is a better-looking header, if it to contain an article count at all. ] 17:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
-

::Given the enormous amount of voting and discussion, it was a laudable effort to keep an eye on everything and those who organised the redesign and the vote made a great effort to address all relevant questions. Kudos! While I have not followed everything, it was my impression that the matter of the article count was not handled overly transparently, as the design over which we voted seems to have been changed during the process (my apologies if I am mistaken). Given that there has been relevant criticism and that the original new design seems to have excluded the counter from its prominent position (with the rationale that our focus should be quality instead of article numbers), it seems a questionable move to have it return there. I would suggest to remove it, as the current design is apparently not that on which the vote was started, and discuss the matter again, separately from the new design per se.
::May I repeat my suggestion to count featured articles instead of total articles. I believe that might help shift the focus from ammassing text "that anyone can dump here" (which is what many people read in "that anyone can edit") to refining articles to a really high standard. ] 15:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Most of the voting and discussion occurred after the article count was retored to the header, and a great deal of support for this change was expressed prior to its implementation. This is a wiki, so we obviously weren't considering an exact design that would never be modified. We could have waited until after the election concluded, but how would that have been more transparent?

:::Yes, this is an issue that should be discussed, but consensus thus far favors the article count's inclusion in the header. &mdash;] 16:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

::::I think counting featured articles at the top would be a bit ridiculous, simply because 923 is not a high enough number. I suppose it ''would'' be nice to add a sentence to the Languages section, to the tune of: "923 of these articles have become ]. I think the only measure of credibility of Misplaced Pages is through the featured content boxes and by more in-depth investigation. It cannot be condensed to a tally at the top. As such, if the article count is only there to serve as a way of measuring Misplaced Pages's progress, it should be gone. But short of remove it altogether, I propose at least a different way of presenting it. The em dashes are inappropriately used for aesthetics which I don't find that aesthetically pleasing anyway. May I suggest something like this:
<!-- ---------- BEGINNING OF HEADER SECTION -------------------------- -->
{|style="width:100%; margin-top:+.7em; background-color:#fcfcfc; border: 1px solid #ccc"
|style="width:56%;color:#000"|
{| width="300px" style="border:solid 0px;background:none"
|-
| style="width:300px;text-align:center; white-space: nowrap; color:#000" |
<h1 style="font-size: 162%; border: none; margin: 0; padding:.1em; color:#000">
Welcome to <span class="nounderlines">''']''',</span></h1>
<div style="top: +0.2em; font-size: 95%">the '''💕''' that ''']'''.</div>
<div style="width:100%;text-align:center:padding:1em;font-size:85%;">''This ] has ] articles.''</div>
|-
|}
<!-- ----------Portals Follow----------------------------- -->
|style="width:11%;font-size:95%;color:#000"|
*]
*]
*]
|style="width:11%;font-size:95%"|
*]
*]
*]
|style="width:11%;font-size:95%"|
*]
*]
*''']'''
|}

::::I removed the articlecount id so everyone can see it. Another alternative caption might be, "We are working on {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} English articles."

::::As for consensus, David, if consensus was thus then why has it not resulted in the draft reflecting this, and why was a vote page written outlining why the draft had resulted in its ommission? If you have answers to these then fine, but I hope that answers your question about transparency. This should have been clear from the start, and I don't think consensus really has been formed properly yet, judging by the confusion. This is what this discussion is for. ] 17:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::Firstly, I (and some of the other editors from the redesign project) firmly believe that the article count should ''not'' be included in the header. (The aforementioned explanation reflected this fact.) It wasn't until the election was underway that the consensus began to emerge.

:::::But yes, consensus can change, and I wholeheartedly advocate further discussion on this matter. &mdash;] 17:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

:(re-indent)I dont know if that was a call for input on this here&now, but i'll reiterate my opinions:
*I '''Oppose''' the inclusion of the headerbar line that says "1,032,932 articles in English".
*It implies "that our site is no greater than the sum of its parts"
*It is discussed in depth , , , and . (newest to oldest)
*<s>I '''dislike''' the emdashes as a styling flourish. If the count remains, i propose we change the emdashes to something else.</s> '''done''' --] 00:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Why is the em dash used? --] 21:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
:The em dashes are gone now as noted in your new section below. Any thoughts on the wording or appearance of the line? ] 16:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
::None, thanks. --] 20:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: In IE7B2P, the full articlecount text is not visible. --] <small>] ] ]</small> 23:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a couple of suggestions for alternative wordings:
* ''']''' | ] articles.
* ''']''' (with ] articles).
* ''']'''
I would prefer to have the article count '''easily accessable''' - rather than just ''at the top'' - because I like checking up on it. Having to manually scroll down every time you want to check it isn't enough imo. As such I could live with the bottom of the options I listed. I find it hard to imagine a good arguement against that: it's not 'gloating' about quantity and it still leaves the actual count a couple of micro-seconds away. What are your thoughts?

NB. I also think punctuation ''should'' be left off the third suggestion, but that's just my opinion. - ] 06:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

:I very much like that 3rd option listed. Plus it gives a good example of interpage linking, to aclimatize new users to jumping around within the wiki and its pages. Good stuff :) --] 11:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::Could an admin please unprotect ] so that we can experiment with design changes and code upgrades there. thanks :)
::::::I pasted the current Main Page code to ] (instead of the redirect that points to the still protected page linked above), so that we can continue to test options there.
::::::Then I inserted the "3rd option" from this thread, to see how it looks. --] 23:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I have two objections to the "English edition" idea: 1. The phrase itself implies that all of the Wikipedias are direct translations of the same articles. This is why the statement formerly contained in the header (now located in the "Misplaced Pages languages" section) was reworded. 2. It does nothing to address the aesthetic concerns. (A third line makes the header appear too crowded.) If we're going to have any text there, it might as well be what people requested. &mdash;] 00:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::::I don't think it implies a translation at all: newspapers regularly use 'edition' as a word to distinguish between ''related'' versions. People who read them generally know that it doesn't even mean the same editorial team are involved (because they usually aren't). If people use the other wikipedias then they'll '''instantly''' know what the score is, right? If they don't use the others then it doesn't matter ''if'' they make that assumption. The header isn't supposed to be about showing off, remember.

:::::::::The word 'edition' can '''also''' imply that it is a direct translation. The point is that unless the phrasing is carefully chosen, it is ''very'' easy for people to make this mistake, and it can take a long time for them to realise their mistake. I suspect that many of the less-experienced editors who never visit other language wikipedias make the same assumption. Even the language interwiki links can be misleading. If you assemble a set of articles linked by language interwikis, you might expect to get articles that are similar once translated, but this is exceedingly rare. You are more likely to get a different slant on things from each language. Which is in itself interesting, but makes it even more important that people don't think everything is translated. ] 02:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Also, very few people mentioned that three lines makes the header look crowded. I was one of only two I believe. Regardless, I think we established that the old motto won't change, so either we have no third line or no link to the article count. - ] 03:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Agreed. I don't like it either. I originally and still believe the 3rd line/article count should be removed. --] 08:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Just to make it clear, I quite strongly prefer to have the ] obvious to all who arrive at the homepage. I think having something as fundamental as the article/edit/member/etc. count right there for everyone. Isn't it important to make people believe that they are ''deeply involved'' with all this? - ] 03:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
So where ''have'' all the people who want this header to stay gone? I'm beginning to feel like those who want the count at the top do so somewhat whimsically, whereas those who thoroughly consider it would prefer it removed. I realise this is a gross generalisation, but if it's not true, someone who wants to keep it speak up! Please make clear what wording you'd prefer in the third line. ] 19:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
:Most of the arguments FOR the article count were appeals-to-tradition.<br>We could copy the reasons against it to a thread at the bottom of this page, remove the count from the Main Page, and see if anyone replies with debate, maybe? --] 21:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
:I suspect that most of the support for the article count being in the header had less to do with tradition, and more the glow of "pride" people get from seeing the number up there everytime they visit the Main Page. People miss this, without realising why, and then ask for the article count to be put back without thinking things over dispassionately. I should make clear here that I am in the "no need for article count at all - it looks like boasting, and I've seen enough of the bad articles to know that we need to head for quality not quantity" school of thought. ] 01:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
::I think what you say is a gross generalisation. If you actually '''read''' ] during the voting then you'd see that what you say isn't apparent. I for one just want to have instant access to what's going on with Misplaced Pages. Think of it this way: if you were an administrator over a network of <whatever>, wouldn't you want to always know what its status is? Everyone is the admin for Misplaced Pages (in essence), so the point is that ''we'' should '''never''' patronise anyone by making the important less obvious. - ] 03:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Article count is not the status of Misplaced Pages. And it's not in any way practically useful to any editor of Misplaced Pages. Take a look at any graph of article count against time and you will see how accurately you can extrapolate today's current article count - it should come as no surprise whatever the figure. Even if superficially you check the article count in the name of checking how the project is going, you know (or should do) what to expect, so really it is just for the pride of seeing the number go up. Either that or you're a mass article-adder and want to see how hight you can bump the article count, in which case you're the very person we don't want to see the count (I'm not actually suggesting this is true!). Wikipedian pride as an argument is fine, if that's what people want it for, but don't start suggesting the count is actually ''useful''. ] 15:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

== Distracting numbered headings ==

I've turned on numbered headings in my preferences, and the numbers aren't bolded in the headings in the featured-DYK space. Actually, I'd like them to be off just for the Main Page (just for myself). Any way to do one or both? ] <small>]</small> 01:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

:Heh, this is a direct result of the work further up the page to restore header tags on these items. The old main page had each of these sections as headers and thus showed the numbers. If we remove the numbers then screen-reader software loses the ability to navigate around on the page. --] 01:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

::Yay, somebody fixed the bolding. I wish the heading numbers were inside span tags or something, but I'll have to bring that to ]. :) ] <small>]</small> 22:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

==Intel 80486DX2==
The writeup for the POTD says this chip is '''slower''' than a 80486DX at the same processor speed. The ] article said the same thing until half an hour ago, when an anon changed it to read '''faster'''. I think the anon is right, in which case the POTD writeup should also be changed, but I'm a little confused. The DX2 is twice as fast as the DX at a given '''bus speed''', but the '''processor speed''' is perhaps not the same as bus speed. I suppose the DX2 might be slightly less efficient in some way than the DX, so if you compare a DX 50 MHz (on a 50 MHz bus) against a DX2 50 MHz (on a 25 MHz bus), do you get exactly the same number of cycles per second (ignoring efficiency of other components; I do realise overall throughput of the DX 50 will be greater)?-] 01:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

: No, the anon is mistaken. At 20MHz CPU clock, a DX2 will only drive the system bus at 10MHz, whereas a DX would drive it at the full 20MHz; thus, the performance would be substantially reduced at like-for-like clocks. The point was that the same technology would allow a whopping 40MHz clock, without re-designing the motherboard, the bus, the devices hanging off it, or the memory.
: ] ] 01:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

::So you are saying that the processor speed sets the bus speed in this technology. I always thought it was the other way around, and the article says:
:::Essentially, the processor's speed is set to double of the speed of the system bus.
::A DX2 will run faster than a DX for a given bus speed. I think the article would be more easily understandable if the appropriate sentence in the lead paragraph was changed to
:::Because of this, an Intel 80486DX2 is '''faster''' than an Intel 80486DX-based system at the same '''bus''' speed.
::from the text prior to the anon's edit of
:::Because of this, an Intel 80486DX2 is '''slower''' than an Intel 80486DX-based system at the same '''processor''' speed.
::(I've highlighted the differences). The writeup for the POTD should match.-] 02:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Aside from that, the blurb should actually link to the DX2 article, and the 486DX article shouldn't be linked twice. Also "Chart created by:" makes no sense. It's a photograph isn't it? ] 03:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

(The below is copied from my talk page-] 03:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC))

Hey Gadfium, Here is my reply to James F, about the 486 vs 486 DX2 processor debate. Sorry about the Anon part, using a govt computer.

Mr Forrestor,

You stated on Misplaced Pages that "No, the anon is mistaken. At 20MHz CPU clock, a DX2 will only drive the system bus at 10MHz, whereas a DX would drive it at the full 20MHz; thus, the performance would be substantially reduced at like-for-like clocks. The point was that the same technology would allow a whopping 40MHz clock, without re-designing the motherboard, the bus, the devices hanging off it, or the memory.
James F. (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC):"

I am that anon...

Actually this is comparing apples to oranges. With the DX2 running at 10 MHZ and the DX running at 20, the system bus's are running at different speeds. You should compare chips with the SAME BUS speed, not PROCESSOR speed.

You should compare the 33 Mhz system bus with a DX and a DX2 (Yes I have swapped the chips many a time in the day, in fact a better swap was the DX4 which gave you a 100 Mhz processor speed, with 33 Mhz system bus)

Here are the true stats
*486 DX 33 MHz with 27 MIPS (15.86 SPECint92)
*486 DX2 (Same 33 Mhz bus speed) 66 MHz with 54 MIPS (39.6 SPECint92)
*486 DX4 (Once again 33 Mhz bus speed) 100 MHz with 70.7 MIPS (54.59 SPECint92)

Same bus speed, but the Mips doubled with the DX2, and nearly tripled with the DX4

SGT Matthew Smith<br>
25 Bravo (Network Engineer), US Army Reserve<br>
(email removed to reduce spam)
:Matthew Smith has updated the 486DX2 page again to clarify the matter. Any objections if I now update the POTD writeup to match? I'll fix the points made by Ziggur as well.-] 03:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
::I've updated it.-] 04:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

== Main page enhancement ==

] Could we align the "Did you know" box with the "On this day..." box? - ] 02:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
:I'm afraid not. The boxes move up and down depending on the contents of the sections above them (featured article, and in the news). If they were aligned there would be the potential for lots of "whitespace" above one of them on any given day, which would look just as odd. :) --] 06:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
::Fair enough. - ] 12:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
:::I came to make the same <s>complaint</s> comment. Exatcly how much white space are we talking about, because I know it's personal preferance but I find it terribly jarring when they don't ''quite'' line up... <br/>]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 06:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::Also, it depends on the actual size of the display font, which is dependant on the browser. So if it were changesd, the white space would not be constant either. ] 07:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::: We could always use table cells to align the boxes up can't we? Place each of the boxes in a table cell, and the rows and columns will force the boxes to line up. ] (]) 12:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::Aye, and in most cases a little bit (but not a lot!) of white space would be less distracting? Noting of course that I was nowhere to be seen during the whole new main page process and it looks great and kudos all around but that every time I see that ''slight'' misalign I cringe. - ]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 17:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
:See ] for an example of one way to 'line up' these headings. --] 18:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
::In my opinion, that looks much worse. The current setup divides the four features in question into two thematic, color-coded pairings (the main reason behind swapping the positions of "Did you know..." and "On this day..."). In addition to spoiling that arrangement, splitting these sections into four separate boxes would waste a considerable amount of space. I honestly don't see what's so bad about not having the headings line up; this is nothing new. &mdash;] 18:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Doesn't matter to me - just showing that it can be done. I made another change to reduce the size of the gap between tables. At this point it really doesn't take up any more space than the current version... though it would if upper left were larger than upper right while lower right was larger than lower left. The 'column' format allows these to effectively 'balance out' while four boxes compounds any top/bottom size disparities if they are in opposite columns. Conversely, the four box format 'balances out' any white space when one column is shorter than the other in both rows. The breaks between sections could be gotten rid of by using a different table class, but it would have to be un-bordered or it would put a line between the top and bottom sections. --] 19:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

== Bilingual grammar ==

It's nice that ]'s birthday is mentionned in the selected anniversaries, but the phrase "a Fiestas Patrias" is awkward in bilingual grammar (if there is such a thing). "Fiestas Patrias" is plural, so the phrase makes as much sense as saying that the 4th of July is "an American holidays". A suggested rewording might be "one of Mexico's Fiestas Patrias". ] 02:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

... or simply change it to the singular. That worked out all right as well, thanks. ] 14:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

== Today's Feature Article hyperlink ==

I'm a Misplaced Pages novice and I'm not sure how to change it (otherwise I would), but I don't think the destination of the hyperlink attached to "Cape Horn" is entirely appropriate for Misplaced Pages.

Someone is seriously deranged.
:I think you saw the article while it was briefly in a vandalised state. Vandalism of the featured article doesn't usually last very long, so if you reload the article it will probably be all right. If you want to help, see ].-] 05:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

:Are you talking about this edit? ?? It is vandalism. --<small>]<sup>]|]</sup></small> 06:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

== Link needs dab on main page ==

Currently ''Cyclone Larry makes landfall in Queensland, ] with 250 km/h winds, the strongest in over 70 years.'' ] needs to link to ]. ▫ ] <sup>]</sup> 14:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
:Actually, I came here to ask that AU be spelled out. I don't think it's a standard abbreviation. I will accept US as standard, but I wold request periods be used, making it "U.S." instead. (I realize the Brits don't like using full stops in abbreviations.) --] 16:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

== 'In The News' Picture ==
The picture of Alexander Lukashenko looks a tad bad. The 'Rule of Thirds' does not look good in the Main page featuring people. Is there any way we can get a picture of him that's more whole? ] 14:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

How many viewers of this page will realize that the photo in In the news is not of the Swedish fellow but rather of the Belarusian? A fix would be to swap the positions of the first two In the news sentences.<br>
—] 15:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

:"Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko ('''''pictured''''') is re-elected amid widespread condemnation of the election's validity." - emphasis mine. - ] ] 15:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I didn't see "pictured," but I hope the presence of the word isn't taken to legitimize the placement of the photo not only unnecessarily far from the corresponding text, but also adjacent to text which it can easily -- but erroneously -- be thought to illuminate.<br>
—] 17:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

:From the comments within the news section: "Newest item goes on the top, older items are removed from the bottom." - ] ] 18:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

== In the News ==

I just saw that the news that swedish foriegn minister Laila Freivalds have resigned was put up on the main page. The blurb states that it was due to the Muhammad Cartoons controversy, which is true to a point, but gives a very wrong impression of what happened. She resigned after allegations that the Foreign Ministry called the ISP of a fringe swedish party (the ]) and asked them (the ISP that is) to censor the partys page after the they (the Sweden Democrats that is) had solicited reader submissions of cartoons of Muhammad to publish in their paper. The ISP did shut down the site, and when the asked about this, Freivalds lied about her involvement in the shutdown. So it's not because of the cartoon controversy per se, more about a censorship issue, tangentially related to the cartoons thing. A more appropriate text would perhaps be:

:''Swedish Foreign Affairs Minister Laila Freivalds resigns due to allegations of censorship in the wake of the Muhammad cartoons controversy.''

I'm not a stellar writer as you might have noticed, so please, fix my languge :)

Also, she has gotten alot of heat even alot of talk of impeachment earlier this year due to her tragic mishandling of the tsunami rescue effort, where >500 swedes died. This was just the straw that broke the camels back. ] 16:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
:I was about to post exactly the same thing... As it stands that news item is misleading. Will an admin please reword it? ] ] 18:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


== Is the browsebar useful? == == Is the browsebar useful? ==

Revision as of 16:08, 26 March 2006

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
Template:Main Page discussion header is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see ] instead.
13:22, Tuesday, December 24, 2024 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Misplaced Pages Main Page: please read the information below to find the best place for your comment or question. For error reports, go here. Thank you.

Today's featured article

Did you know...

In the news

  • "In the news" items are listed as they are added – there is no subjective order.
  • To suggest a Misplaced Pages article that has been updated with new material, see the "In the news" page.
  • To report an error you've seen in "In the news", leave a note at the Error Report.

On this day...

  • If an important event isn't mentioned in "On this day...", it may be because you haven't suggested it yet at Selected anniversaries.
  • To report an error in "On this day...", leave a note at the Error Report.

Today's featured picture

  • Today's featured picture is taken from the list of successful featured pictures, If you would like to nominate a picture to be featured see Picture of the Day.
  • To report an error with "Today's featured picture...", add a note at the Error Report.

Main Page and beyond

Otherwise; please read through this page to see if your comment has already been made by someone else before adding a new section by clicking the little + sign at the top of the page.


Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27
Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30
Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33
Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36
Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42
Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45
Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48
Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51
Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54
Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57
Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60
Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63
Archive 64Archive 65Archive 66
Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69
Archive 70Archive 71Archive 72
Archive 73Archive 74Archive 75
Archive 76Archive 77Archive 78
Archive 79Archive 80Archive 81
Archive 82Archive 83Archive 84
Archive 85Archive 86Archive 87
Archive 88Archive 89Archive 90
Archive 91Archive 92Archive 93
Archive 94Archive 95Archive 96
Archive 97Archive 98Archive 99
Archive 100Archive 101Archive 102
Archive 103Archive 104Archive 105
Archive 106Archive 107Archive 108
Archive 109Archive 110Archive 111
Archive 112Archive 113Archive 114
Archive 115Archive 116Archive 117
Archive 118Archive 119Archive 120
Archive 121Archive 122Archive 123
Archive 124Archive 125Archive 126
Archive 127Archive 128Archive 129
Archive 130Archive 131Archive 132
Archive 133Archive 134Archive 135
Archive 136Archive 137Archive 138
Archive 139Archive 140Archive 141
Archive 142Archive 143Archive 144
Archive 145Archive 146Archive 147
Archive 148Archive 149Archive 150
Archive 151Archive 152Archive 153
Archive 154Archive 155Archive 156
Archive 157Archive 158Archive 159
Archive 160Archive 161Archive 162
Archive 163Archive 164Archive 165
Archive 166Archive 167Archive 168
Archive 169Archive 170Archive 171
Archive 172Archive 173Archive 174
Archive 175Archive 176Archive 177
Archive 178Archive 179Archive 180
Archive 181Archive 182Archive 183
Archive 184Archive 185Archive 186
Archive 187Archive 188Archive 189
Archive 190Archive 191Archive 192
Archive 193Archive 194Archive 195
Archive 196Archive 197Archive 198
Archive 199Archive 200Archive 201
Archive 202Archive 203Archive 204
Archive 205Archive 206Archive 207

Main page discussion

  • This page is for the discussion of technical issues with the main page's operations. See the help boxes above for possible better places for your post.
  • Please add new topics to the bottom of this page. If you press the plus sign to the right of the edit this page button it will automatically add a new section for your post.
  • Please sign your post with --~~~~. It will add the time and your name automatically.


Is the browsebar useful?

This is not exactly about the main page, but it is about {{browsebar}} which is intimately related to the question of usability of Misplaced Pages. I would appreciate comments on the discussion I started at Template talk:Browsebar#Is this bar useful?. Thanks a lot, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Categories · Glossaries · Lists · Overviews · Portals · Questions · Reference · Site news · A-Z Index

Arts | Biography | Culture | Geography | History | Mathematics | Philosophy | Science | Society | Technology

That is, discussion is underway to remove links from the above bar, as well as remove the bar itself from many of its current locations. We need lots of feedback on this issue, to make sure we aren't about to remove something that gets a lot of use. What we really need to know, is: do you ever use the above browsebar? And if so, how often do you use it and what do you use it for? Please CLICK HERE to tell us. --Go for it! 23:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Question

How do I edit this main page to add news? DanielDemaret 17:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You can't. Only admins can edit the main page. (and for good reason, IMAGINE the vandalism...) Mikker 18:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Most of the Main Page is assembled templates. The news section can be accessed from Template:In_the_news. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


Thanks, Mikkerpikker and UtherSRG!82.182.115.181 21:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The logo

Is there something wrong with the logo in the top left hand corner? Where it says wikipedia it's got a black background, which shouldn't be there. Of course, it could just be my browser. Willnz0 22:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Diff views have no title heading

The diffs and oldid views don't have a "Main Page" heading, which I find annoying because (1) the header is there on the history page and on diffs for every other page, and (2) old revision views have older and newer revision links in the header. Can we get the "Main Page" h1 back on the diff and oldid views? æle ✆ 22:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it has been fixed. You may have to clear your browser's cache to see the changes. RexNL 00:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we have a 'tomorrow' link now?

Very nice redesign - congratulations to all.

Can a 'tomorrow' link be added programmatically to On This Day? Since Misplaced Pages seems to run on UTC/GMT or AAT (America Awakens Time), On This Day only changes after the four billion or so people who live east of Greenwich have already begun to experience the next day. We aren't so impressive at the watercooler/pump when we're talking about yesterday's events! Assuming Misplaced Pages won't undergo a virtual relocation to the international dateline, perhaps the masters of the mainpage could save us a click or two by providing a link to the forthcoming day as well as the last three? How about it? --Brian Samosa 22:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Even though I'm GMT scum I second this. Jellypuzzle | 23:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, for me it is "On Yesterday"... which is kinda annoying. I third that proposal. Actually what would be really good (but software would probably need to change) is if it could detect what zone you are in (through the preferences) and put in that days info. --Midnighttonight 01:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I fourth. --Quiddity 01:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Fifthed. Or use GMT. Lankiveil 05:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC).

See Tomorrow's Main Page. --CBDunkerson 13:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Brian Samosa's request would require changing the Misplaced Pages:Selected anniversaries/March 22 page for each day of the year to include a 'tomorrow' link. Since that would have to be set on each page it could be done with a different date on each, using {{day+1}} on all, or with a separate date on most and {{leapday}} for 'tomorrow' of February 28th. Midnighttonight's idea of linking it to each user's timezone setting would likely require a system change (I don't know of any way to get the timezone onto the page currently) and might cause confusion with people getting different content while viewing the page at the same time. --CBDunkerson 14:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Tomorrow and Yesterday pages have been created:

US -> U.S. per Misplaced Pages:Manual of style#Acronyms and abbreviations_U.S._per_Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Acronyms_and_abbreviations-2006-03-21T23:04:00.000Z">

In the "In the news" section on the main page, the abbreviation of "US" is used for the United States. According to the manual of style, "U.S." should be used. Could someone fix this please? Thanks, Dismas| 23:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)_U.S._per_Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Acronyms_and_abbreviations"> _U.S._per_Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Acronyms_and_abbreviations">

Why the fuck is the front page so much uglier?
Beauty is in the eye of.............. What gets me is that we need to say "Main Page. " and then immediately below that say "Welcome to Misplaced Pages,the 💕 that anyone can edit". Why this need to state the (Main Page) obvious, and why the duplication? I think I'll create a List of websites that say "Main Page" on their Main Page. It'll be a stub for sure. ):- Moriori 20:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The "Main Page" header has been suppressed. You may need to clear your cache to see the changes, and I'm not sure whether the suppression works across all platforms. Carcharoth 11:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

BAD WEBSITE!

i think this whole website is a big hudge scam. Any old person can come on here and edit the page and put any thing they wont on there it's bad. I think this website should be closed down. I got introuble becaused I used information from this site on a paper i was doin for school and the teacher would not take it because I got my information from this site. I don't agree with this site!!! --- a upset user. —This signed comment was added by 208.0.239.92 (talk • contribs) .

And you think it agrees with you? Seriously, Misplaced Pages is a source of information. If, however, you're going to use it as your ONLY source of information for school work, you deserve to get into trouble. You can choose not to use it, or use it as a starting point for further research. How would closing it down help anyone? You shouldn't be using a single source. 57.66.51.165 13:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, see Misplaced Pages:Researching with Misplaced Pages. — mark ✎ 19:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Regarding: "Any old person can come on here and edit the page and put any thing they wont on there it's bad." Actually, any old, any young, or any whatever aged person can do that. They don't have to be any particular age or level of education. --hydnjo talk 19:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't reference Misplaced Pages, use it as a base from which you can think about the topic, then expand out using the External Links at the bottom of most pages. And considering you used "wont" instead of "want", I'm thinking there may be other reasons you failed. --Midnighttonight 21:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I find Misplaced Pages to be very suitable to cite as source. Most of the time, its content is very valid to a point where it contains the same amount of errors as a "professional" source. Of course, let's also keep in mind that teachers are generally not always that unbiased and neutral, either. They're actually prone to twisting things around a little bit in order to further their point into a certain direction. A rather extreme case was my christian biology teacher, whose prime interest it was to prove to us that the bible really is right, even from a scientific point of view. Long story short, I think that peer review is a good way to get valid content, and feel that just using Misplaced Pages materials is appropriate for a study or paper. (That's assuming you're not going to copypaste it, but rather use it as citation source while writing the study yourself, of course.) --Michiel Sikma 21:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The main problem with citing Misplaced Pages as a source is that most of an article might be very well-researched and accurate, but part of it could contain gross errors, archaicisms (things that were accurate in the 1911 Brittanica...), or misleading statements - or these things could be added after you've made the reference. The problem is that contributors sign on to edits, not articles, so no one guarantees the entire text of an entry at one time. I believe that Misplaced Pages needs to add a mechanism by which people can 'curate' entries - to choose to archive a stable version, certifying that they've read and agree with everything in it from beginning to end. Then have a link from the main Misplaced Pages entry to call up the list of 'curated' versions, each with a one-line description of the author and whatever qualifications he chooses to claim. Such a curated version would be suitable to reference in an academic context, because every fact in it would have a consistent authorship and date of publication.Mike Serfas 00:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
See Article validation and Stable versions. Titoxd 00:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Disgruntled old history teachers around the world are teaching children that Misplaced Pages is a "bad website"... I'll bet the original complaint here is rephrased from what his teacher told him. Ashibaka tock 22:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Misplaced Pages gets a lot of bad-mouthing outside, especially from teachers. Mostly, I think it stems from the belief that at any given moment someone is attempting to vandalise every page on Misplaced Pages. Just some general advice to those using Misplaced Pages for research: while it is important to be aware that what you are reading may have been vandalised, vandalism is nearly always extremely obvious, and very few people bother to go around and subtly insert false information into articles. The only articles that get vandalised with any regularity are those about touchy subjects such as Adolf Hitler and Hurricane Katrina. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 23 March 2006 @ 00:20 (UTC)
And in articles that are truly controversial, like Katrina, you can be sure that someone is looking through every single little edit to weed out the bad ones. Titoxd 04:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Not where I work. Here, teachers use it as part of some classes. Rob cowie 10:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
That's really neat, it teaches the kids about technology as well as the given topic at the same time. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib 20:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I think university professors dislike it because one too many students will try to use wikipedia as a sole source in "research", but they do badmouth it a bit more than entirely necessary. It is a very useful tool, at the very least in the "i wonder..." minor curiosity sense. Novium 09:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

i think this whole website is a big hudge scam. Any old person can come on here and edit the page and put any thing they wont on there it's bad. I think this website should be closed down. I got introuble becaused I used information from this site on a paper i was doin for school and the teacher would not take it because I got my information from this site. I don't agree with this site!!!
You do not copy work from others and then give it to your teacher. Ever heard of the word Plaguarism? And, Misplaced Pages is too popular to be closed down. You deserve to be punished because Misplaced Pages is a source of information. If, however, you're going to use it as your ONLY source of information for school work, you deserve to get into trouble. You can, however, use it for your personal needs, not affiliation with schoolwork or homework.

Random curiosity

Usually when you arrive at an article by way of a redirect, it says "(Redirected from )". However, when you follow the link Misplaced Pages:Main Page to arrive at the Main Page, that note is missing. Why? —Keenan Pepper 17:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I see (Redirected from Misplaced Pages:Main Page) just fine. Raul654 17:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't. Uh oh. :{ Johnleemk | Talk 17:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see it ether, but i doubt it matters that much. however i bet it's due to the removale of the normal page tital from the main page. (if you notice, the new main page doesn't have the same page heder section that all other pages have on it. tooto 17:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct. This is part of the MediaWiki title header, which is suppressed in some skins (including the default "MonoBook" skin). —David Levy 17:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

A spelling mistake

"This is the English language Misplaced Pages, which was started in 2001. It currently contains 1,037,905 articles." -> "This is the English language Misplaced Pages, which was started in 2001, it currently contains 1,037,905 articles." or rewritten in some other way.--Andreas Müller 17:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Andreas, you cannot join two independant clauses with a comma. Your correction is gramatically incorrect.

I've editted thusly: "This is the English language Misplaced Pages. Started in 2001, it currently contains 1,037,920 articles." - UtherSRG (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
What was wrong with the original wording? BigBlueFish 20:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I don't see any spelling mistakes, and the original wording was fine. The new version is fine, so it's neither here nor there, but the complaint was baseless. Kafziel 20:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The original wording was syntactically sound (and I don't understand the complaint), but the new version is more elegant (IMHO). —David Levy 21:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
On the old main page, it was "This is the English language Misplaced Pages, started in 2001" until a sneaky user (yours truly) added "which was" to the proposed main page and wasn't reverted in the mad rush of edits a number of weeks ago. Anyway, I like the new version better than both the previous ones. —Spangineer (háblame) 04:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious! This is the sort of tweaking of sentences I do a lot of (day job, you know...). There are subtle differences between all these versions, but I'd just like to point out that having two sentences is more "punchy" than stringing all the clauses together with commas. The other extreme is having three sentences: "This is the English language Misplaced Pages. It was started in 2001. It currently contains 1,037,920 articles." This, of course, sounds horrible. Changing the order of the clauses is also something that could be debated, but the order language>date>size seems best. Moving the 2001 start date from one of the sentences to the other associates the date more closely with the number of articles, rather than with the language, and this is the most logical way to put it. Carcharoth 08:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

ETA

"The ETA declares a permanent ceasefire..." This should read: "ETA declares a permanent ceasefire" as it is more common to style the organisation "ETA" rather than "the ETA". This is because ETA is not an English name (like "the IRA") and is usually spoken as "eet-ah" or "eh-tah" rather than "the Ee-Tee-Ay".

Fixed. —David Levy 18:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Isambard Kingdom Brunel problem

This featured article link is either not working or someone (or a technical bug) has deleted the article entirely - the FA link leads to a deleted page. Bwithh 00:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

typo in the did you know section

The "Olympia" in USS Olympia should be in italics as the name of a ship according to the Manual of Style. Could someone fix this? Dismas| 00:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone has.-gadfium 05:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The Isambard Kingdom Brunel article has been tampered with

Some immature person has put disgusting pictures and words in the Isambard Kingdom Brunel article. Could someone please fix that? I would do it myself but I don't know how and would rather not have to go to the page again. I joined just now to inform someone else.

Also, the version of this page I viewed before I joined said "this is where you suck ballz", so if someone could take care of that too? >_<

Thanks.--68.229.9.156 03:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Perth airport

Perth is not the "only city in the world where aircraft can land in the central business district." Burke Lakefront Airport is in downtown Cleveland, Ohio. You've got to be careful with words like "only." -- Mwalcoff 02:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention London City Airport, tiny STOL-airport, but still served 2M people in one of europe's most important financial districts... Andreala 03:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Article count

How many of the 1,000,000+ articles have been deleted? I'd be interested to know whether the number goes down if an article has been deleted or not. Otherwise, then the figure may not be a very accurate representation, since many many thousands of spam/troll/vanity articles have been created since the beginning of Misplaced Pages. --Revolución hablar ver 03:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

1,000,000 article means 1,000,000 articles that exist. If an article is deleated, the number goes down. --Banana04131 04:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else recall the total count dropping noticeably after a new deletion policy went into effect and there were some mass deletions? Maybe late 2004 or very early 2005? - BanyanTree 14:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Talking of which... Are there any reliable article statistics (maybe using the Categories), such as how many of the million articles are in different areas (history, maths, technology, and so on). I know there are sampling experiments that have looked at how many of each type of article (stubs, lists, bad, good stuff) there is, but I haven't seen anything that attempts to give an idea of how large different areas of Misplaced Pages are. I realise there will be lots of overlap, but can it be said for sure that Misplaced Pages has more history articles than maths articles (for example)? Carcharoth 17:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture of the day/Discussion archive

Tram should probably be linked, eh?

Also, this page is huge, is it going to be archived? Ziggur 04:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see all the admins reading this page and making changes. Jellypuzzle | 18:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The talk page was archived but nobody linked tram. Ziggur 21:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Departartment

Currently, the Main Page says "that /.../ Department of /.../ was the first /.../ departartment in the world". Could someone fix the departartment, please? --Oop 07:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed.-gadfium 08:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Projects link from Sister Projects area

I've been told that the current projects link in the Sister Projects section is to an out-of date page. Is there any way to find out whether the Wikimedia Foundation plan to update that page anytime soon? Is there a better link to use in the meantime? Carcharoth 08:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrong flag

ITN says "basque flag pictured", but flag of Iraq appears.

Plagiarism!

Since when did Uncyclopedia give Misplaced Pages permission to blatantly steal the main page design? I better have a good explanation for this... --Lugiatm (talk • contribs) 15:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's the other way around... they copied off of our main page drafts. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 15:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, don't they use the GFDL as well? Batmanand | Talk 18:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
No, they use a Creative Commons license (cc-by-nc-sa), so they are probably shouldn't be using the layout. -Splash 21:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
They probably can because parody is fair use. I'm completely unsure about this and someone knowledgeable on copyright should reply here. --Michiel Sikma 22:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Heading font

Seems that the original request was archived, so I'll mention it again: some of the headers on the new main page seem to have Arial and Helvetica hardcoded as font. I prefer browsing Misplaced Pages in Verdana because I find it much more legible (mainly due to its large x-height and punch size which seem to really benefit its screen readability). Could these hardcoded fonts please be set to "sans-serif" instead so that I can choose the font in my browser? --Michiel Sikma 22:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I was waiting for someone more knowledgeable to do this, but because that hasn't occurred, I've made the attempt myself. Please let me know if I succeeded. —David Levy 22:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! --Bryan Nguyen | Talk 01:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that works just fine. All the font-family tags have been altered, and there aren't anymore traces of defined fonts in the code. Thanks! --Michiel Sikma 06:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
That change was a good temporary measure. Is anyone working to make new CSS ids so they can be customized? --Yath 18:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Design

Nice New look. (Hpetwe 01:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC))


Hi can you all, anyone that reads this add xx_boy_crazy_xx@hotmail.com please? thank you

The 💕 that anyone can edit? Then why can't anyone edit the Main Page? -- Zondor 03:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Because it would be subjected to unbelievable amounts of vandalism. The stuff on the main page are the results of many collaberations that anyone can be a part of, and it is the face for the rest of the encyclopedia, it is not an article or a talk page, but provides short summaries and links to those pages that anyone can edit. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Scientology

I would like someone too explain to me the meaning of this so-called BELIEFE. I read a lot about many religions and beliefs but this is one that gets to me. Ever since Issac Hayes left south park i have read more and more about this religion and do not understand how anyone could believe much of this. It angers me that people do give in to much of this but i guess it is a way for them to....follow through with questions they may have. Were does scientolgy beieve we came from and whom is its HIGHER POWER??

This is not a chat room. Feel free to check out the Misplaced Pages article on Scientology, but don't post this kind of thing here in the future. -Elmer Clark 04:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article typo

Canberra is unusual amongst Australian capital cities... How many Australian capital cities are there? I think it should just say Australian cities? ::Supergolden:: 10:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Chris j wood appears to have fixed it – Gurch 12:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
How about Canberra actually IS unusual amongst Australian Capital cities? it is in my opinion and Ive been to most of them lots. How about its the ONLY designed city in the set? I'm sure that there are many unusual attributes, and how many capital cities does a country need to qualify for one of them being unusual? moza 23:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Six states and 2 territories: Australia#States_and_territories. ;-) --Quiddity 01:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

King James errors?

Couple of questions; why is the article called "King James I of England," when James was a Scot, born in Scotland, and King in official capacity of Scotland well before England? Secondly I don't really think it should be, "The first British Monarch ..." As the concept of Britain, and a permanent union of the crowns isn't until 1707. Isn't it far more accurate to say that Queen Anne is in fact the first "British" Monarch?

I would suggest instead, "King James VI of Scotland becomes King of England, and Ireland, unifiying the crowns of the Three Kingdoms for the first time." Or something to that effect.

Kaenei 10:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The 1603 item has been rewritten. Hope it's better now without the word 'British' in the sentence. About the article name, well, check out the talk page, Kaenei. -- PFHLai 16:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

How was "" removed from the Main Page? Not that I want it there, but just wondering how. -- WB 13:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The JavaScript file MediaWiki:Monobook.js removes (more correctly hides) the title and subtitle from the main page. RexNL 15:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Queen of the North

Someone might want to update the Queen of the North headline in the news section. The ferry didn't hit a rock, apparently -- it hit an island. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 16:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, BanyanTree 19:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Afghan citizen Abdul Rahman faces the death penalty

Does he? To me that sounds like he's going to die. Like he's on death row. But according to all the sources it's not been decided yet. So he COULD die or not. I think this should be changed to something a little less ambiguous like..."Afghan citizen Abdul Rahman could potentially be executed..." User:domfeargrieveUser talk:domfeargrieve 19:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I've changed the wording per your suggestion. It's great to see people pick over the main page with such fine-toothed combs. Do you all do this on other articles too? Harro5 00:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Phenomenons

(In the Jackson 5 section.) Should this be "phenomena"? PeteVerdon 00:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Phenomena is probably more correct, but the sentance is a quote so I think it should be left as it is. Raven4x4x 01:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikinews logo

Does anyone else think that it would be better to use a circular version of this logo (with the left and right segments removed) in the sister projects section? Each image is limited to a width of 35 pixels (with the heights varying greatly), and this causes the current version to be so small that it's virtually unrecognizable at higher resolutions. The actual Wikinews site uses just such a variant as their favicon.ico file (the icon that appears in the address bar) for the same reason, so this is far from unprecedented. —David Levy 01:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's being dwarfed by all the other project logos. —Bryan Nguyen | Talk 04:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you know, Seacliff

It says it operated a missile defense and training, while the article only says training and U-boat defense, and I seriously question whether there was missile defence research done during WWI.say1988 01:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The only missiles available during WW-I were of the Monty Python variety. Of course, there were bombards and the like. My big question is how to find the full article that this little talking point on the main page seems to make reference to. I would rather correct the underlying article (for example: Seacliff Missile Defence) than the main page.

Shit on the main page?

I know it's the weekend, and I know Misplaced Pages is not censored for the protection of minors, but is it really such a good idea from a PR standpoint to have a boldface four-letter word on the main page? (granted, below the scroll line, but still ...) Daniel Case 03:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's not like it needs to be used (it's just one of many slang words for hash) and it looks unprofessional. Gflores 04:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely hate censorship, but this does look slightly unprofessional in my opinion. For the Featured Articles, we don't list the alternative names on the front page, so there isn't really a need to for the Featured Pictures either. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above comments, and I've edited the text accordingly. —David Levy 04:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The idea that all restraint and decency is "censorship" is a heartless insult to people who have suffered from real ideologically motivated censorship. Hawkestone 05:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Today's DYK

Crocodile attacks says: "The Saltwater and Nile Crocodiles are the most dangerous, killing hundreds of people each year in parts of South-East Asia and Africa... Since 1990, at least a dozen people from western countries have been killed by crocodiles"

The DYK shortens it to: "a dozen people have been killed by crocodiles in the last decade".

Excellent summary. Arvindn 03:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, only Westerners are actually people. Can an admin change this ASAP. --Midnighttonight 05:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in correcting that. Initially, I only skimmed Arvindn's post, and I didn't realize that the "excellent summary" comment was sarcasm. —David Levy 05:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The DYK text was an accurate summary of the article until a few hours ago, when User:Stbalbach added that hundred of people in Africa and Asia were killed by crocodiles each year. That is unsourced, although I have no reason to doubt it. I don't want to add an unsourced factoid to the front page, so I'll just remove the crocodile DYK entirely.-gadfium 05:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Being in a sarcastic mood, I'll add that I hope the road traffic accident page talks about how many people are killed on the roads worldwide each year (oh, good! it does!). Carcharoth 00:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Error in today's featured article

Re Jackson 5, the plural of "phenomenon" should not be "phenomenons", right? Even if it's a quotation, it makes us look illiterate. Kosebamse 10:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think its okay. "Usage Note: Phenomenon is the only singular form of this noun; phenomena is the usual plural. Phenomenons may also be used as the plural in nonscientific writing when the meaning is "extraordinary things, occurrences, or persons": They were phenomenons in the history of music." (Source: http://thefreedictionary.com/phenomenons). See also mass noun. -- Zondor 10:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Well then... but I would guess that many readers will disagree with that usage. It might be better to remove that sentence from the front page, if not from the article itself. Kosebamse 10:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Or to simply add (sic) to the quotation. GeeJo (t) (c) • 10:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Feast of the Annunciation not only in western christianity

The very article of Annunciation talks about the eastern equivalent of Theotokos and the equivalent "celebration" of 25 march --161.76.99.106 11:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing my reply, I read what you said wrong. -- SmthManly / / 14:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Annunciation is celebrated in Eastern Christianity. However, the date of Christmas in Eastern Christianity varies from place to place. So, the date of Annunciation, 9 months before Christmas, also varies and is not always March 25 as in Western Christianity. --PFHLai 21:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

encyclopaedia vs encyclopedia

Encyclopedia is the American English word where as encyclopaedia is the eglish word, Why does wikipedia spell it in the American way when this is the English encyclopaedia not the American English.--Matthew Fenton 12:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You may note it is called wikipedia not wikipaedia. dunno why but thought id point it out. SECProto 15:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I addressed this issue on Matthew's talk page (after I reverted his move of Encyclopedia to Encyclopaedia). —David Levy 15:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

history

the bird sings in the tall oak tree and takes one from me tall oak tree tall oak tree takes one for me.


JACKSON 5

It should read "The Jackson Five was" not "The Jackson 5 were." The Jackson 5 is the collective, singular name of the group (a group is one entity) and the verb "were" does not properly follow. If you look at the article, it uses the "was" and it makes much more sense gramatically. Please change "were" to "was" in the first sentence, and wherever else necessary. - Paulus89 13:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks. -- SmthManly / / 14:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Properly, this is a BE/AE issue, but AE is probably more suitable for the topic.
James F. (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Belarus

I notice that Belarusian presidential election just fell out of the news section. Things are happening there right now (Saturday) of much greater importance than, say, some ferry in British Columbia. Maybe it should come back up? Eixo 16:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a big story. Considering the risks involved to the protesters, the fact that they are still doing it ought to be mentioned. ProhibitOnions 19:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The possibility of big news unfolding in the future is not big news yet. So far we have not seen bloody clashes. So far the government in Belarus does not appear on the verge of crisis. At this stage the story is no longer one of the top headlines in the international news. 172 | Talk 20:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
It's an unprecedented event taking place in Europe's last dictatorship. That's noteworthy right now, we don't need any blood to make it so (though there was plenty of that too, if that's what you're into). It's also on BBC's front page. Eixo 22:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
BBC tends to give disproportionate coverage to European events, as one would expect for a European news agency. Meanwhile, protests concerning disputing elections happen all the time in the developing world, but they typically don't get the attention that Belarus has already gotten on the main page. 172 | Talk 23:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Where have the links to other language editions gone?

In the old page they were down the left hand side under Toolbox, but now they have disappeared. I cannot find any mention of this in the redesign proposal. How do I find links to other language editions? Do I have to guess the language domain name by trial and error??? Tamino 17:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The links to the other language editions are at the bottom of the page, as they have always been. For a complete list see m:List of Wikipedias The language interwiki links at the left-hand side are generally only there for articles (not the Main Page - though I'm not 100% sure about this), and serve to link you to articles on the same subject written in another language (usually by different people). Carcharoth 18:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Punctuation in the current title

Third text line added to these examples by David Levy 23:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC).

At present we have:

Welcome to Misplaced Pages,

the 💕 that anyone can edit. 6,929,277 articles in English

Although grammatically correct as a sentence, the punctuation looks funny in what is, after all, a title. It might look better if we omit the comma and period thus:

Welcome to Misplaced Pages

the 💕 that anyone can edit 6,929,277 articles in English

I realize that quite a lot of discussion went into the new look. I just find this punctuation a little jarring, somehow. ProhibitOnions 19:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I second this - particularly because the contentious "third line" (see above) doesn't take a similar sentence form. BigBlueFish 21:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I like the punctuation, and I think that the presence of the third line (which isn't a sentence, and therefore should be styled differently) makes it even more important to include. Otherwise, the second and third lines will appear to run together ("the 💕 that anyone can edit 6,929,277 articles in English"). —David Levy 23:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Thirded. The title sets a precedence for correct punctuation on Misplaced Pages, and to some degree (as it is a prominent reference work), the English language. Punctuation shouldn't be a matter of style, and I don't see the reason for marking this as a sentence. --Grocer 23:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, I don't understand your point. This is a sentence, and any decision to change that would be "a matter of style" (as indicated in ProhibitOnions' proposal). Secondly, how do you suggest addressing the issue that I cited above? (For illustration, I've added the third line to the examples.) Do you disagree that this would be a problem? —David Levy 23:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Except in poetry, sentences are written on a single line. My personal feeling is the header should look crisp and devoid of new convention. If it is to be interpreted as a sentence, the sentence should use the same font size and be written on the same line. Currently, they look like titles. --Grocer 00:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Where are these rules written? Why isn't okay for a sentence to wrap (just as your sentences written above do)? I don't see this as a "new convention." Also, you didn't address my concern regarding the third line of text. —David Levy 01:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep punctuation, per David Levy's comments. Carcharoth 00:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This is is more akin to the title and subtitle of on the title page of a book than a sentence. It's more "text as graphic" than sentece. The punctuation should be removed. --Kunzite 00:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Titles used to have punctuation, too - and they used to be complete sentences as well. Keep the punctuation. (But remember, after all, that it's not really a big deal either way.) zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
This exact wording has been featured on the main page (in sentence form) for quite some time. It's merely been restyled to accommodate the new header layout. —David Levy 01:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree to change it. I've noticed the inconsistent grammar before --Joewithajay 11:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

How is the grammar inconsistent, and how do you suggest we demarcate the two statements? —David Levy 14:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess another solution would be to make a sentence of the third line. I still like the old "we are working on" idea, so maybe "We are working on 6,929,277 articles in this English version." although that might be too long. The other suggestion I made above works nicely as a sentence too - "This English version has 6,929,277 articles.". Thoughts? BigBlueFish 14:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Bias/Agenda on the front page

I thought that wikipedia was supposed to be an un-biased site. However, today's picture dealing with illegal drugs seems only to glorify them and does not mention any of the risks or dangers. I realize that the people who are pressing to legalize drugs have an opinion and want to spread their agenda, but the front page of wikipedia is not the place for it!!! Rmisiak 20:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rmisiak. The caption states, "Many people have claimed that using gives them great insights." Well, some would disagree. Having dealt with students who've seemingly come to class "high," I think otherwise. Moreover, the question of glamorizing drug usage is beyond a matter of NPOV. Misplaced Pages's readership is often very young. There are also legitimate public health concerns about leaving a youthful, impressionable readership with the impression that a substance which is banned and controlled almost everywhere is the way of achieving "insights." 172 | Talk 20:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem here seems to be that, although the picture is a featured picture, the article hashish is of a low standard, and has various tags slapped on it. Maybe the people doing picture of the day need to consider where they source the accompanying text from? Carcharoth 21:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. On a related note, I've noticed from time to time sometimes an overt pro-drugs bias in some of Misplaced Pages's articles. Responsible Misplaced Pages editors should be concerned about the possibility that these articles are influencing the behavior of impressionable young people. 172 | Talk 22:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Any articles in particular that you feel deserve an NPOV check, because I am more than willing to do it. Batmanand | Talk 00:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be concerned with harming an "impressionable readership", but concerned with censorship for something factual. People do claim they gain insights, true or not, it's often claimed. As a factual source, I see no reason why this information should be omitted. --Joewithajay 11:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use of Image:Charlestaylor.jpg

I'm curious why its considered fair use to use a screen shot of Charles Taylor here, when normally we're told in other articles you can't do that unless you're actually talking about the TV program. For instance, in an article which mentions the specific TV address, it could be fairuse to have a pic of that address. But the main page is talking about recent events, unconnected the the TV address (the picture description doesn't even give a date). I'm not really opposed to the image's use here, I'm just getting ever more confused by the inconsistency of fairuse rational. --Rob 21:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Special:Statistics has dead links

The links in "Traffic for all Wikimedia sites: daily, monthly, yearly" no longer work because they now always return with "The connection has timed out: The server at noc.wikimedia.org is taking too long to respond.". Can a friendly admin either fix these links, or remove them please?

(OK, this isn't about the Main Page per se, but Special:Statistics has no talk page, and it's linked very prominently from the top of the Main Page, so I thought this was as good a place as any to mention the issue.) GeorgeStepanek\ 22:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, I see what you mean. Sadly though, even admins like I can't change that, I think only the developers can do so. Anyone know? -- Zanimum 22:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Admins can change that page (MediaWiki:Userstatstext). I've removed the dead links. —David Levy 23:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Christian Afgan

The Abdul Rahman aricle section on the main page should actually mention that he is Christian. --Shanedidona 23:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

POTD links to wrong article

Today's POTD links to Arowana not Asian Arowana, the article that actually contains the image. Would an admin fix this? Thanks in advance. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Gflores 01:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Cheers! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


Previous Featured picture

I just noticed this today, never really thought of it before, but why is there no previous or recently featured pictures. There are for featured articles, On this day, archives for did you know and links for the news block. It just seems weird to me that there sn't for the featured picture. Is there a reason this was never added?say1988

Look at the bottom of the Picture of the Day (POTD) box -- click the little word archive. That acts just like the Archives for Selected Anniversaries, Featured Articles, DYK. You can also help out the encyclopedia by Nominating a new image for succeeding days. It's a never-ending process, so you can help out here in a big way. --Ancheta Wis 10:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

On this day: England-Scotland union

As the The 1707 Act of Union says, the 'Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN'. Today may be the anniversary of the passing of the act by one of parliaments, but it is not the anniversary of the union itself. Could someone please remove or amend this item. StockholmSyndrome 09:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Name-adding

I want to add my Name here please, SHIMOZ,B — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.218.194.97 (talk • contribs)

Assuming that you mean you want to sign up for an account... see the signup page. --CBDunkerson 11:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

There are articles in the English version.

During the main page redesign process, a great deal of discussion occurred regarding this statement's wording. It was decided that references to the "English version" (and similar phrases) should be avoided. Such a term can imply that a single collection of articles has been (or is being) translated into multiple languages (an "English version," a "German version," et cetera).

It also was pointed out that the use of "English" in this context can be misinterpreted to mean "of or pertaining to England."

For these two reasons, the statement in the Misplaced Pages languages section refers to "the English language Misplaced Pages." —David Levy 15:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should link "English" to "English language". But whenever this thing changes I need to change my userpage, too. Plus, I'm busy with an RFA (subtle hint).--HereToHelp 15:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Category: