Talk:Main Page/Archive 61

Archive 55

←

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

→

Archive 65

Sister projects on new Main Page

The new Main Page is wonderful, and congratulations!

Nevertheless, for the bottom of the page, could some admin please work in the up-to-date Sister projects template as per the discussion here? The one that currently appears is is out-of-date, has incorrect links, and doesn't look as good. Dovi 08:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As per user:David Levy's suggestion, I am bringing the discussion here (please see also the template talk and David's talk page). Here are David's previous comments and my previous reply:

Just some basic information: "The free library" has achieved unusually strong across-the-board consensus at Wikisource, in all of its language versions. Take a look here and here. This was already discussed earlier on the template talk, and discussion was brief out of the simple realization that this is common courtesy towards the sister project. Dovi 09:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The "discussion" consisted of you requesting the change, someone else complying, and a third person protesting the change (due to exactly the same concerns that I cited). That was it (until you finally added a reply today—four months later). —David Levy 14:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it would be nice to sign your edits. I just suggested on the en.wikisource.org scriptorium to refer to Wikipedia as the "collection of free content knowlegde wiki texts". Please tell me what you think about this idea before we proceed. I personally find it great, but I would like to receive some feedback. Indeed, the previous slogan, "The Free Encyclopedia", was not at all self explanatory. It was even misleading, because there are several other free encyclopedias on Wikisource; such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911. And they are all free! How wrong then to assert that wikipedia is "the" free encyclopedia, when there are many? In contrast, "collection of free content knowledge wiki texts" perfectly reflects what you are. If you think it does not, I am open to adding more adjectives upon enlightened suggestion. ThomasV 15:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I apologize for neglecting to sign one of my comments. 2. If such a change is backed by consensus, I have no objection to the replacement of the Wikipedia slogan with a description along the lines of the one cited above. —David Levy 16:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"Free-content source texts," YUK. Yet another mangling of the English language by business-speak. Please tell us what is wrong with "Wikisource: The free library." Don't readers know what a library is? Apwoolrich 15:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "free content source texts" appears on the Wikisource main page. I realize that "the free library" is the official slogan, but it isn't as useful as a description. (It could just as easily be applied to Wikibooks.) And again, we don't include slogans for any of the other sister projects. —David Levy 16:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has indicated in the past that he is not happy with changing the slogan, at all. I don't think that the support for the new main page design carries any kind of weight in changing the slogan of the whole site. -Splash^talk 16:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"Free-content source texts" is not being presented as a slogan; it's merely descriptive text (similar to what accompanies all of the other sister project links). —David Levy 16:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, "free content source texts" is useless because it mangles what's trying to be said (although not as well as "collection of free content knowledge wiki texts"!) - remember a lot of readers aren't necessarily IT-literate and will not know what "content source texts" are. Why isn't "the free library" useful as a description? —This unsigned comment was added by 86.136.190.159 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC).

If "free content source texts" isn't a useful description, why is it included on the Wikisource main page? Again, "the free library" is a nifty slogan, but it doesn't convey any sort of distinction between Wikisource and Wikibooks (which also could be referred to as a "free library"). —David Levy 16:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks is not a library in the sense everyone knows "Library", it is a very specific collection of original-content books created by Wikipedians for a very specific purpose, educational text books, it is an "education textbook library". Wikisource is a true Library, it is a collection of any and all books that are published - that's what Library means to most people. It is important that the Wikisource library slogan be on the page. -- Stbalbach 17:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't share your perception of the word "library," and I'm not the first person to express this concern. Why is it important to include that particular sister project's slogan (instead of a descriptive phrase that appears on their main page), given the fact that we don't include slogans of any of the other sister projects? —David Levy 17:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi David. Can you please take a step back and look at this with a fresh eye. On Wikisource's main page it reads

Wikisource – The Free Library – is an online collection of free content source texts built by its contributors.

It is obvious that phrase you chose to copy is used simply to allow links to different concepts and is not used as a desciption of the site in Wikipedia's article on Wikisource which reads

Wikisource – The Free Library – is a Wikimedia project to build a free, wiki library of source texts, along with translations of source-texts into any language and other supporting materials. It is located at www.wikisource.org.

The free library has also historically been part of the Sister Projects Template. So it is not as though we asking for someting new. I do not entirely understand what the reasoning was for changing it. Did the other sister projects complain they didn't like us having a slogan? Do you personally dislike the free library slogan? Do you really honestly like the current description? You say other people had concerns about the use libary as well. Unfortunately the people at Wikisource were unaware of this. We are now all watching this discussion and are ready to answer those concerns if you please reiterate them. I really think the current phrase is horrible without being wikilinked like it is on Wikisource's Main Page, simply because it is hard to understand. I understand that you are defensive at being questioned about this and you have taken a lot of heat over various things during the Main Page Redesign. I know this change was made with good intentions, perhaps simply for love of consistancy. Please step back and look at this again. Is really so important to you to keep the new phrase? The Free Library is a very important concept to us, it is only natural that is more important to us than it is to you. In trying to describe Wikisoure's acceptance guidelines I often use the idea of if you would find something in a library. It really helps explain why we would host astromical charts and not a list of people killed in Iraq. Thank you for all the hard work you did on the new main page there was a lot of drudergy involved. I am impressed with the overall result, although obviously not this one issue which must seem small to you after all you have done --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I sincerely appreciate your non-adversarial tone. I understand that your slogan is important to you, but the goal of the sister project summaries is to unambiguously describe the nature of the material contained therein. I have no particular attachment to the specific wording "free-content source texts," but I don't believe that the phrase "the free library" adequately conveys the site's content. (What type of "library" is it?)

FYI, the slogan was added on 15 September 2005, following a request by User:Dovi. (Up to that point, it contained the text "Free source documents.") A couple of months later, Minh Nguyễn raised exactly the same concerns that I've cited, and this user received no reply (until Dovi posted one today). That was the extent of the "discussion" that Dovi claimed had occurred. Dovi also has indicated that Wikipedia has no say in the matter. (We're required to include your slogan, despite the fact that we do not include the slogan of any other sister project.)

I've inserted the wording "free library of source texts." Is that an acceptable compromise? Can you suggest another variation that's more descriptive than "the free library"? —David Levy 21:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

RESTART INDENT Thanks for your reply. The "free library of source texts" is a definate improvement over what was there moments ago. However I do not see an ambiguity in the simple description of "The free library". If you would find something at any sort of library it fits the mission of Wikisource. This includes mathmatical reference tables, cout case decisions, the US Code, almanacs, encyclopedias, election data, computer source code, poems, national anthems, novels, essays, speeches, etc. Also as a libary Wikisource does not publish any new material but collects things which have already been published. WS is simply limited by copyright which is why the description is prefaced with free. I don't believe adding "of source texts" adds any clarification, especially as it is an obsure term. Most people would think "texts" would not include the variety of data that WS does actually accept. I am also concerned about the attitude that the people of Wikisource are somehow outsiders in this disscussion. I do not believe my contributions to Wikipedia have been minor and believe many other people from Wikisource contribute here. This does not need to devolve into them or us. The fact that other sister projects have not declared the manner in which they would like to be represented does not mean that Wikisource is wrong to do so. I am personally very considerate of how WS represents other sister projects. I changed the Wikispecies logo in WS's sisterproject template as soon as I noticed they had agreed on it without being asked. I made sure to cite Wikipedia in the manner recomended by Wikipedia in s:Gettysburg Address, researching Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. This was then incorperated into the template s:Template:wikipediaref so wikipedia is easily cited as "on Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia." per WP's preference. Beyond these examples I in general believe in honoring the opinions of those most affected in minor discrepencies. So I am having diffculty understanding your position in this case. I think your sense of ambiguity with the description must come from misunderstanding. As I am much more familar with Wikisource than you are, please let me assure you it is an appropriate description for Wikisource. I am saddened that this opportunity is not being used to promote harmony and cooperation between all the sister projects. We are not only all together in our desire to spread free information, but we are also here as a service to each other, providing a space and direction for the things other sisters projects do not want to host.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my reply to Dovi, I'm not implying that a member of the Wikisource community is any less a member of the Wikipedia community. My point is that a group of Wikisource users recruited for the purpose of arguing this point is not a valid cross-sampling of Wikipedians.

I certainly don't see this dispute as "us vs. you." As you wrote, we share the common goal of spreading information, and it's the readers whose interests I have in mind. You point out that you're much more familiar with Wikisource than I am, but I'm thinking of people with no such familiarity. You have a very specific definition of "library" in mind, and I don't believe that it's shared by everyone. —David Levy 00:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

In truth I have the most general definition of a library as possible in mind. In fact so general that to try and define it more specifically is in effect misleading to the readers. I am sorry I have been unable explain this in a manner you can understand. Because I am sure you would have agreed with me otherwise. Lets give people a bit more time to find this discussion and weigh in. Perhaps someone else can convey what I mean with more justice--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 00:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but here's an analogy:

Suppose that I were to open a store that sells a very wide range of products. Would it be sufficient to advertise it simply as "a store"? Would that be interpreted as "a store that sells lots of things," or would people wonder "what kind of store"? Wouldn't "department store" send a clearer message?

Numerous pages (including at Wikisource itself) identify the site was a collection of source texts. Is there a better means of classifying its content (rather than leaving it to the reader to draw conclusions about the lack of specificity)? —David Levy 00:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that there are such things as law libraries and patent libraries. However most libraries unlike stores have no other description short of describing access (ie public or University), Actually contributors at Wikisoure use "source text" in a non standard way because there is not such an expression that is accurate. Which is why I feel it is misleading to readers. I doubt most people would take "source text" to encompass sound recordings and computer code. However most readers would know you can find sound recordings at a library, computer code is little new for readers to have many expectations at all. I would rather have readers be unsure of what we contain than decide we wouldn't have what they are interested in because it isn't a "text" in their minds. I do not see the lack specificity as a problem but an intrinsic part of Wikisource.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

---

In reply to David Levy: The phrase "the free library" is a horrible description for Wikibooks. Wikisource is a general free library; it includes fiction (Wikisource:Author:L. Frank Baum) and encyclopedias (Wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica). Though Wikibooks has multiple books, and those are free, thus making Wikibooks a free library, it is not a general library. Official policy at Wikibooks:Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks prohibits fiction, encyclopedias, and essays. --Kernigh 18:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that "the free library" is a good description for either site; it doesn't convey the types of works that are included. We specify that Wikibooks contains textbooks and manuals, so why shouldn't we specify that Wikisource contains source texts? —David Levy 18:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Stbalbach: Actually, we who write Wikibooks are Wikibookians, not Wikipedians. There is no rule that requires one to be a Wikipedian to join Wikibooks, and I was not a Wikipedian when I joined. --Kernigh 18:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC) (same as Wikibooks:User:Kernigh, Wikisource:User:Kernigh)

To sum up:

• Wikisource slogan is "The free library." That should be respected unless there is an extremely good reason not to.

  1. I've cited reasons. 2. We don't include any other sister project slogans. What makes yours so special?

• The overwhelming approval for the new Main Page implies nothing about this change. Most voters were scarcely aware of it, and Wikisource was not asked.

  I don't know why you believe that the Wikisource community is responsible for dictating the content of our main page.

• There is no confusion with Wikibooks, whose overall mission is not to provide published works and is not a library. Both Wikisource and Wikibooks are OK with this slogan, which actually does a very good job clarifying the differences between them.

  1. Wikibooks can be considered a library. 2. Your perspective is that of someone who's familiar with both projects. I'm thinking of readers who know nothing about either. It's our job to inform them. Indicating that one contains textbooks and manuals and that the other is some sort of library (A library of what?) falls short of accomplishing this.

• "The free library" is an extemely good and accurate description of what Wikisource is and does. In fact, there is no possible better description. Wikisourcerors (or whatever we are called) should know.

  "The free library" is a good slogan, but it fails to convey the specific nature of the material contained therein.

• Consensus should have been needed to make the change in the first place, not to revert it back now. For clear lack of such consensus, we (the Wikisource contributors who commented above) ask that David Levy or some other admin please restore "The free library." Enough is enough, and this is common courtesy.Dovi 21:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  There was no consensus (on this site) to change the wording to "the free library." I've switched to "free library of source texts," and you have yet to comment on this. Are you totally unwilling to even consider compromise? —David Levy 22:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

PS Like Birgitte above, I think the new Main Page is outstanding, and I am greatful to David Levy and others for the excellent work they did on it. I'm sorry a small thing like this got blown out of proportion (one small problem versus a huge improvement to Wikipedia). Nevertheless, I think David's insistance not to do this small but important courtesy is out of place. Please respect the Wikisource decision, just like all of the English sister projects list Wikipedia as "The free encyclopedia" without splitting hairs. Go take a look, once again, and the "sister projects" templates on all of their main pages. Dovi 22:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Why can't you do the readers the courtesy of allowing us to explain what type of content Wikisource offers? —David Levy 22:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

We disagree that what you are offering is a courtesy, or any improvement in any way over "The free library." Your objections have been noted, but other users do not agree with them. Plus, we fundamentally disagree that consensus should be required to reinstate "The free library" - on the contrary, consensus should be required to write anything else, since it is the Wikisource slogan/description.

David, you asked me to move discussion here so I did. You asked to look for consensus (even though we at Wikisource feel none is necessary) and the nearly all here consider the slogan is perfectly fine. Since you are the only one who seriously objects, it would be proper to reinstate it. Dovi 22:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

When I suggested that you initiate a discussion, I meant that you should attempt to forge consensus among the members of this community. I didn't mean that you should rally support from the members of a different community.

And again, you're yet to explain why we should display your exact slogan (despite the fact that we include none of the other sister projects' slogans), and you haven't specifically addressed the new compromise wording (which actually contains the phrase "free library"). —David Levy 22:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi David. The members of the "other community" are of course good Wikipedians too. But you have to admit that as "Wikisourcerors" :-) they have a special and legitimate interest in this.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that these users aren't upstanding Wikipedians as well. The problem is that they aren't a valid cross-sampling of the Wikipedia community as a whole. If the situation were reversed, I wouldn't expect you to allow "consensus" on Wikisource to be determined by a group of people recruited from Wikipedia.

You are the only Wikipedian who strongly objects to using the slogan/description (it is perfectly fine as both in our opinion despite your objections) that Wikisource itself has chosen. So yes, in a sense you have taken it upon yourself.

The above post preceded CBDunkerson's and Quiddity's comments, but I don't understand why you disregarded that of Minh Nguyễn.

We are not the only sister project with a slogan. Wikipedia has one too, and it appears in all sister-project templates. These templates do not exist in a vacuum; this is a Wikimedia issue, not just a Wikipedia issue. Wikipedia doesn't exist in a vacuum either, and just as WP slogan appears with no nit-picking on sister projects, WS can be on WP.

I believe that "the free encyclopedia" is a suitably specific description. If you disagree, feel free to discuss changing it at Wikisource. I promise not to send a bunch of Wikipedians to complain.

Well, I'm going to sleep already. I think it is quite clear that were this not a protected template, it would already use the WS slogan/description. Please use your admin tools in the spirit of both the majority will and common courtersy here. Dovi 23:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you object to the very concept of allowing a fair discussion to run its course. Regardless of the outcome, the walls won't come tumbling down if the "wrong" version is displayed for a few days. —David Levy 23:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the label text for Wikisource on the various sister projects has been inconsistent across projects for a long time. Currently we've got "Free library of source texts" on Wikipedia, "Free source documents" on three, "The free library" on three, and no sister projects section on MetaWiki. I agree with David that 'The free library' is a bad description as it could apply to MOST of the projects... 'free library of quotations', 'free library of textbooks', et cetera. It doesn't tell a user what they can expect to find there. --CBDunkerson 23:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This is where I think the misuderstanding is Wikisource's mission is actually inclusive of the material found on other sister projects. Although we accept it in a different form. The Enclypedia Britannica published in 1911 is being put on Wikisource slowly but surely. Any public domain book of quotations would be appropriate on Wikisource. The same with public domain dictionaries. I believe WS already has some primer's, which in the past where used as textbooks. While the other sister projects narrower missions, Wikisource truly is a library. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I understand... Wikisource is the WikiMedia equivalent of [Project Gutenberg. Since it includes any published document which is in the 'public domain' it covers a wide array of topics and is a 'library' in all ways except that it cannot include copyrighted works. Thus, 'The free library' is an excellent slogan... but it is not a good description. A user unfamiliar with the projects looking at 'Wikisource - The free library' and 'Wikibooks - Free textbooks and manuals' could not possibly understand the difference. A good description might be something like, 'Wikisource - Public domain books'. Most people know what 'public domain' means and it is more specific than 'library'. I guess it comes down to whether it is more important to have a slogan which makes sense to experienced users or a description which makes sense to people who don't know anything about the project. --CBDunkerson 00:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid you do not understand. "Wikisource - Public domain books" would be inappropriate as WS niether contains solely public domain items nor solely books. For example WS recently added a recording of Vietnam era airforce mission transcribed by one of the participiants. I understand that people here think they have correctly described what can be found at Wikisource to readers. As someone with a greater knowledge of what can be found at Wikisource, let me assure you that your description is misleading. I do not understand what the hang up is over "The free library" being a slogan. It is still the best desription of Wikisource, regardless. Please take some time looking at the variety of materials at Wikisource. I can think of no free content available at any sort of library that would not be welcomed of Wikisource. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 00:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I knew there were other materials (though I can't think of what wikisource would contain which is not public domain)... I just thought that 'books' was a primary focus and more understandable than 'source documents'. Just as Wikipedia is listed as an 'encyclopedia'... but you don't usually find sound files and animated images in encyclopedias. We can't give a detailed description of everything included in each project. The problem I have with library is that 'Wikibooks' is a 'library'... of user created textbooks, and 'Wikiquotes' is a 'library' of quotations, and 'Wikipedia' is a 'library' of human knowledge, et cetera. Amongst the other libraries it doesn't explain the distinction. The term 'free content' you use above might serve; Wikisource - The free content library. Only adds one word. A library of all content which is freely available. No longer expresses that the library itself is free, but that seems self-evident. --CBDunkerson 02:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the other projects can be classified as libraries. Wikibooks is more of a publishing house restricted to instructional material than anything else. A library of quotations has never existed. Wikiquote is more equivalent to a multi-volume book of quotations. I also think the people here would object to the idea that Wikipedia is a library of human knowledge. After all, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. But if you want to define Wikipedia as a library of human knowledge try and get consensus for it :). I truly don't see the difference between "free library" and "free content library" since the objection was library was to vague rather than free. But I don't have any problem with it either. "Wikisoure - The free content library" is completely accurate.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

ditto reasoning per CBDunkerson and David Levy. --Quiddity 23:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with "The free content library". And it fits. but would we need to use "The free-content library" to fit with the wikinews subtitle? --Quiddity 03:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It would have to be "Free-content library," because appending "the" would falsely imply that this is an official slogan. —David Levy 03:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Good morning. I doubt anyone would object in the meantime to the specific addition of "the." It sounds better and moves closer to what Wikisource itself wants. One needn't be purer ("falsely imply... official slogan") than are the purists themselves...

I object to the inclusion of "the" (for the reason cited above). "Free-content library" is an accurate description (à la those of the other sister projects), while "The free-content library" is a degradation of your slogan. We don't append "the" to any of the other descriptions, and your apparent desire to make Wikisource stand out from the pack is not a valid reason to deviate from the usual styling. —David Levy 16:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, David, you still have yet to explain, in what now seems like the absence of a complete consensus (will a vote be needed?), why the option that is against what Wikisource itself wants is the default option. You wrote above why not wait a few days... Well, why don't you yourself wait a few days? I think that from the beginning you have taken unfair advantage of the fact that this is a protected template to insert your own position as the default one.

You seem to be implying that I simply tossed in the wording of my choosing. In fact, it was the exact wording that was included in the successful main page candidate. I'm not claiming that the respondents specifically addressed this particular element, but you were the only person to complain. Furthermore, the slogan was inserted without any real discussion at this site (despite your claims to the contrary). You requested the change, and an admin made it. Of course, your stance is that no discussion was necessary (because we're required to comply with your demand). Again, Wikisource is entitled to determine its own slogan, but it is not entitled to dictate that it appear on a sister project's main page. (I'm not trying to be rude or disrespectful, so please don't interpret my comments in such a manner.) —David Levy 16:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You also still have yet to justify your position that this is internal Wikipedia matter, and should be decided as such. Just because this template appears on Wikipedia's main page doesn't make this specific phrase a Wikipedia decision.Dovi 08:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Please cite evidence to support your position. Obviously, it's our responsibility to not display false or misleading information (such as an incorrect logo or URL), but I can't imagine why you believe that we're required to display your slogan instead of a description. Again, we don't do this for any of the other sister projects. —David Levy 16:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I take the lack of other admins stepping in and refuting his arguments to be evidence of concensus (at least on a very high traffic page like this). Any other admin could have made the change by now too; be aware of personal biases in a matter before making accusations of power abuse ;). David Levy is rational and even-headed, and I for one will often not reply to an ongoing thread because he has stated my exact position already so very much more clearly. On the other hand, sometimes a "me too" is required (like now). --Quiddity 08:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes since one admin is "already involved" others just don't get involved, and that seems to have happened here. David is quite rational and even-headed, but that doesn't make him right or wrong in this particular case. I am well aware of my personal biases and the other Wikisource contributors. The question is why people here refuse to honor those "biases" - which I would prefer to instead call an across-the-board Wikisource concensus - even if they have a few quibbles about it.

Why do we place more value in our readers' comprehension than we do in making you happy by deferring to your judgement without discussion? Need I answer that? —David Levy 16:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"The free library" is "who we are" and it is how we are represented on our Main Page across all languages. Questions about it can and may be raised, but Wikisource is the place to discuss them, not the Wikipedia Main Page!

I don't doubt the existence of "an across-the-board Wikisource consensus" in favor of your slogan, but that has no direct bearing on whether we use said slogan as our Wikisource description. —David Levy 16:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line the brief representation of Wikisource in this template should be a Wikisource decision, even on Wikipedia, unless there is an extremely good reason not to. Despite some quibbles above (which as the conversation shows are not terribly convincing to most), no extremely good reason has been given. In the absense of this, I fail to see why David Levy's representation of Wikisource should appear even now on the Main Page. Dovi 09:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of this discussion, and I respectfully request that you please stop implying that I've unilaterally imposed my will on the community. —David Levy 16:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

(imho) it boils down to:

• Your arguments appeal to the pride and morale of the wikisource team
• Our(david's) arguments appeal to increased usability for the new user.

yours is a more noble and generous perspective, ours is more practical. (i like reductionism. it speeds things up). --Quiddity 09:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You have not made any arguments convincing to the majority that yours is more usable or practicle either. "The free library" is still by far the most straightforward and clear, even for what you claim to appeal to. Frankly, Wikisource is in a better position to determine what best describes itself on that level too. Dovi 10:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to convince a majority, i was just stating my opinion ;)

I do agree that it could be changed at any time. No one could, should, or is waiting on david levy to change his opinion OR decision. any admin will do.

But i do agree with the wikians whom seem to have agreed upon "Free-content library" as an amicable and sensible compromise. and That is what i would suggest said admin should implement asap. --Quiddity 10:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if I have understood correctly, David's last comment was meant for Wikisource's benefit. But since there is no objection to "the" - we are now down to "The free content library."Dovi 14:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I object. This is for Wikisource's benefit, but not exclusively. Accuracy benefits everyone involved. —David Levy 16:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently then I really didn't understand your previous comment. Oh well. Though I'm not surprised anymore that you object each and every time on these details. Your zealous committment to your special version of accuracy is admirable. Dovi 19:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I "object each and every time on these details"?! I've made every effort to find an acceptable compromise, but you object to anything other than your way (and claim that our failure to simply do as we're told is discourteous). —David Levy 19:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to wonder why this is such a big issue, but the three other projects which currently don't display 'The free library' are not. Perhaps there should be a general discussion on how these should be displayed in all projects if we really want them to be consistent. They aren't currently and haven't been for a long time so far as I can see. --CBDunkerson 17:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I just went and looked again. In February I asked all the projects to change their templates after it become completely clear that Wikisources in all languages were adopting this slogan happily. Best example of true concensus ever. Not a debate or a vote. No one was asked to do anything for the various languages, but everyone simply realized, "Yes, this describes us perfectly" (and accurately).

It seems that on Wikiquote, Wikispecies, and Commons, the requests I left on each of the template talk pages were simply never noticed or acted upon. I never even realized this myself until now. This is one of the necessary disadvantages of locked texts: sometimes things are simply not taken care of.

"Perhaps there should be a general discussion on how these should be displayed in all projects if we really want them to be consistent." Actually, Birgitte suggested this exact idea today on the Foundation mailing list, and I think it's a great idea. Dovi 19:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. —David Levy 19:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

For all practical purposes, discussion is continuuing at Template_talk:WikipediaSister#Wikisource, which is the proper context for it anyways. Here is Main Page talk there is far too much activity about unrelated topics. Dovi 07:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I only have one comment to add to this long discussion, which is that during the main page redesign I added a link to a Wikimedia Foundation page on the projects. This link currently appears in the blurb introducing the "Sister Projects" section, and is what I assumed was the most authoritative meta-page giving an overview of the projects - though for information about individual projects, I would always go to the individual projects themselves for the most authoritative view. Incidentially, is a distinction drawn between linking: (a) within a projects (in this case within Wikipedia); (b) to another Wikimedia project; (c) to the Wikimedia Foundation as the overarching parent body; and finally (d) to true external links? In other words, how "external" are the links to other projects where you have to create different accounts (unless Universal Log-in has arrived already)? Carcharoth 11:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi! The projects page on the Foundation website is entirely outdated, from the time when Wikisource was still a backwater project... :-) Proof is in the links there to oldwikisource: and Hebrew Wikisource. I don't blame you for thinking "Yeah, that must be the page - I would have thought the same thing. Maybe the link prominent link you put in will spur people at Foundation to update it. Dovi 14:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Dang! :-) I got a horrible feeling from this discussion that that page was out-of-date. I guess I kind of put it in there in the hope that it would eventually include all the other projects, or proposed projects, that aren't listed in the Sister Projects template. I will start a new comment to try and find a new link or find out how to ask whether the Wikimedia Foundation have any plans to update that page anytime soon. Thanks for the head's up. Carcharoth 08:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Without going into the details of this overlong discussion, we do indeed have a problem with the unclear distinction between Wikibooks and Wikisource. But it seems to me that the problem is with Wikibooks' slogan, not with Wikisource's. While free library is understandable enough, open-content textbooks collection doesn't really tell the reader that Wikibooks (unlike Wikisource) is about collaborative writing of (text)books. Zocky | picture popups 18:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Headings on new main page

On the old main page, I could use the keys h/shift-h (next/previous heading) to navigate between the sections (today's featured article, did you know, ETC), and this was convenient and intuitive when using a screen reader. Now, I can't do this. Would it be possible to have headings separate the sections on the main page, or at least have better navigation markers? It would make things easier for those using screen readers. Graham talk 09:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

On the old main page those sections were marked with '===' to indicate section titles. Now they are marked with a '!'... which indicates a header section in a table. This could either be changed back to '===' format or things like <div id="Did you know"> could be used to set the same sort of anchor points which the '===' uses. The latter is probably better as it doesn't impact the display of the page at all. --CBDunkerson 13:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Can I support this most strongly. I used the document map extension for Firefox to navigate Wikipedia pages; and Wikipedia uses the DOM properly so it is very useful. However as CBDunkerson points out the new page has lost a usability feature. Please add it back. --ChrisG 14:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Reducing accessibility was the last thing that we intended to do, and it's extremely unfortunate that this shortcoming didn't come to light until now. We absolutely must implement a solution as quickly as possible. I wish that I knew exactly what code to insert, and I'll do so as soon as someone tells me. —David Levy 14:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added the div tags. Does it work now? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 17:54

IIRC you need to add some corresponding CSS code (either to your personal monobook.css or to common.css) to tell the browser what to do when it encounters each div. Johnleemk | Talk 19:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the 'id' attribute is 'built in'. Graham, now that I've looked at it closely it seems like the old main page had 'id' links in addition to the '===' headers. Do you remember if you had to 'jump' twice to get to the 'In the news' section? Looking at the code it seems like there'd be a 'box1' anchor around the two items on the left... each with it's own '===' anchor, and then a 'box2' and two '===' anchors on the right... for a total of six jump points. The new setup has id's specified for each segment and thus four total for that section rather than six. Is it working properly now and do you notice any difference from the old behaviour? --CBDunkerson 20:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest in the future that a Usability WikiProject actually investigate usability before assuming they have a full grasp on the situation. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 17:44

We sought as much feedback as possible, but no one brought this to our attention. How were we supposed to know? —David Levy 18:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

To be expected. Even with all the discussion about the page it would be impossible to think of every possible detail that is important to some users. You always find things shaking out and needing to be tweaked when a major revision goes live. What's surprising is that there haven't been MORE issues with the changeover. --CBDunkerson 18:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Document map works on headings (H1, H2, H3 etc.) Fixing div's will not make Wikipedia play nicely. This problem effects many of the portal pages. --81.158.76.242 20:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Attached below are some of the current main page code and comments thereon in relation to this issue;

<h1 style="font-size: 162%; border: none; margin: 0; padding:.1em; color:#000">
Welcome to <span class="nounderlines">'''[[Wikipedia]]''',</span></h1>
<div style="top: +0.2em; font-size: 95%">the '''free encyclopedia''' that '''[[Wikipedia:Introduction|anyone can edit]]'''.</div>

Note the <h1> and </h1>... these place header one around the word Wikipedia. If the anon above is correct about screen-readers and the like linking only to headers rather than other anchor points then we should use tags of this style around each major section. H1 is equivalent to Wiki '=', H2 to '==', H3 to '===', et cetera. However, the font-size and other factors can then be over-ridden by additional HTML/CSS settings.

<div id="articlecount" style="width:100%;text-align:center:padding:1em;font-size:85%;">— [[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] articles in English —</div>

This 'id' creates a point that Wikipedia can link to. For instance the above is what allows a Main page#articlecount link to jump directly to the article count at the top of the page. I'm not sure that a link to that is really needed.

{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#f5fffa"
! style="background-color:#cef2e0; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:120%; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; padding-left: 0.4em;color:#000"  |Today's featured article
|-
|style="color:#000"|<div id="Today's featured article">{{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}</div>

The 'div id' here should probably be moved out to include the actual section title. I believe it can also be put directly into the table markup;

{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#f5fffa"
! style="background-color:#cef2e0; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:120%; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; padding-left: 0.4em;color:#000" id="Today's featured article" |Today's featured article
|-
|style="color:#000"|{{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}

Hopefully these details will help explain how these links work for any admins making updates. I'm not sure how screen-readers utilize these links, but either 'h1'/'h2'/et cetera or 'id' should address the issue here. --CBDunkerson 21:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The headings still don't work like they did in the last main page, but I'm using a version of JAWS that for some reason ignores monobook.css and common.css. I am personally forced to use it until I can find the money to get an upgrade - about 700 Australian dollars -- I have asked my local dealer. The ID tags didn't work either when I tried the demo of jaws 7.0 (the latest release version), but I haven't had a chance to check out the public beta yet.

I can't remember how many times I had to tap 'h' to get to the "in the news" section, but in the Main Page alternate (Classic 2006) version, I have to tap h three times - passing through "today's featured article" and "selected anniversaries".

I think the anon above is right about screen readers not linking to anchor points - mine doesn't appear to. Therefore, h2 and </h2> should be used, or maybe "==" - that doesn't matter to me. Css should be avoided, because sometimes JAWS (and other screen readers) completely ignore it. Graham talk 09:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Adendum to that: the JAWS 7.0 and 6.0 demos (which are time-limited but otherwise fully functional), are ignoring common.css and monobook.css as well at the moment for some reason. Red links do not show up as red, all the colours I can detect are "black and white", ETC, so <h2> and </h2> should be used. Graham talk 09:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Graham87, ChrisG, and anyone else who uses JAWS and the like - please check User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox5 and let me know if it resolves the header problems. I incorporated tags for each section that did not already have them.

David Levy and other people who worked on the layout - please also take a look at User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox5 and note that the title bars for the various sections are now slightly thinner due to the 'header' classification. I didn't attempt to adjust this because 'presentation style' is decidedly not my area. Please feel free to make changes to my page there or copy this elsewhere so that it can be tweaked before putting on the main page if it is found to fix the accessibility issue. --CBDunkerson 14:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

CBDunkerson's version now works with Document Map. Please note I don't use a screen reader myself; though I do know something about them from work. The key point about web pages is that HTML is for the structure of the document while CSS is for layout. A screen reader would not use div's because they are layout constructs. A screen reader would use headings to navigate a document because they are used to structure documents. The usability crew should also note that on some parts of the page that they use paragraph elements as lists; which will confuse a screen reader. Text should be in paragraphs and lists should be in lists or you will confuse accessibility software. Use CSS if you want the list to be displayed horizontally. --ChrisG 23:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Please edit CBDunkerson's version to correct whatever code remains broken. If possible, please also make the headings resemble their counterparts from the actual main page. —David Levy 00:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yippee! Would some kindly admin please copy the changes here onto the main page? You could just copy over User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox5, but someone may make further changes to the Main page between now and then. The changes listed in the link above address the section heading issues for screen-readers with the new main page. I also made some adjustments to keep the header widths and suchlike consistent with the current.

BTW, with the help of AzaToth and Kmf164 a similar change has already been made to Portal:Box-header... which should result in each 'box' on most of the portal pages having a separate 'header' indicator for the document map. Hopefully making the portals in general more navigable. --CBDunkerson 00:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the headings read correctly, and the page works well with JAWS now. Thanks all. Graham talk 11:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Heading font

For headings such as "Today's featured article" etc, would it be possible to control the formatting via the stylesheet instead of explicitly setting it to be Arial? I have a custom font in my monobook.css for the rest of the page text, so the Arial sticks out like a sore thumb. Thanks. enochlau (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

We really should have cleaned the code up before it went live. It's quite embarassingly amateur as code output (a result of dozens of unqualified people tweaking wikicode purely for layout-change purposes. yay!). it's a known problem, hopefully someone qualified will come and save us from ourselves soon. ("those found responsible will be shot" and all that) -Quiddity 09:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I modify my user style-sheet to use Lucida Grande as my sans-serif font and it is really quite ugly to see Arial in the headers. The text is off-centre as well. --Jeremy 00:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I just noticed they're Arial and not my configured Helvetica. Why is Arial specified at all? Isn't the default font already "sans-serif"? --Bryan Nguyen | Talk 02:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there someone currently working to correct this? It's a serious oversight that ought to be fixed quickly. --Yath 20:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. This is very annoying. I'd like to use Verdana (and Helvetica on my Mac box), please. --Michiel Sikma 21:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture of the Day

Can you sort out the text so that it doesn't go over picture. Djm1279 10:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Heading

In the proposed draft of the new page the heading:

Main Page From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

was not shown - instead the banner was at the very top - I thought this was part of the new design - I think it is better with the banner at the very top since on large resolution monitors you can see all 4 main parts and the banner without scrolling Trödel 10:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone just dealt with it -- Gurch 11:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks someone ;) Trödel 11:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Not working again, Mozilla 1.4/WinXP, but it still works fine on the draft. --Geoffrey 23:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Bloody cache. --Geoffrey 23:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Serious problem with Featured Picture display

In IE6, the text of todays Featured Image is spilling over onto the picture, making the text unreadable and the image ugly. Loom91 11:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• See

  

I can confirm that this issue exists in Internet Explorer 5.0, 5.5 and 6.0 – Gurch 12:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be fixed, at least for me -- Gurch 12:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It comes up for me whenever I navigate to the page, but refreshing the page fixes it. This was never a problem in the draft of the new Main Page. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 19 March 2006 @ 13:27 (UTC)

I've fixed the problem. It was on Wikipedia:POTD row/March 19, 2006, not the Main page itself. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 19 March 2006 @ 13:54 (UTC)

Thanks. Funny how simply putting in an image can draw far more attention than simple text! Loom91 14:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

In interest of full disclosure, I think I was the one who originally messed it up, but like I said, I wasn't too sure with the image coding, and had requested help, but since no one seemed to respond, I took it upon myself to try and fix it. It was my mistake, but has been cleared up now, so I don't want to hear any snickering at my skills. ;-) Sorry for any confusion. Ta ta. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

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 David Levy 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? BigBlueFish 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 unconditional 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 (User:Bigbluefish/monobook.css, if you're using the default skin) will suppress the text's display:

/*

 */
#articlecount {display: none}
/* 

*/

—David Levy 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. BigBlueFish 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. Kosebamse 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. —David Levy 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 featured articles. I think the only measure of credibility of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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:

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. This English version has 6,914,960 articles.

Arts Biography Geography

History Mathematics Science

Society Technology All portals

I removed the articlecount id so everyone can see it. Another alternative caption might be, "We are working on 6,914,960 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. BigBlueFish 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. —David Levy 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 [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Final_archive#Article_count here], here, here, and here. (newest to oldest)
• I dislike the emdashes as a styling flourish. If the count remains, i propose we change the emdashes to something else. done --Quiddity 00:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is the em dash used? --Grocer 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? BigBlueFish 16:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

None, thanks. --65.25.219.139 20:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: In IE7B2P, the full articlecount text is not visible. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 23:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a couple of suggestions for alternative wordings:

• English edition | 6,914,960 articles.
• English edition (with 6,914,960 articles).
• English edition

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. - Drrngrvy 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 :) --Quiddity 11:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Could an admin please unprotect Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft so that we can experiment with design changes and code upgrades there. thanks :)

I pasted the current Main Page code to Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page (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. --Quiddity 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 "Wikipedia 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. —David Levy 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.

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. - Drrngrvy 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. --Quiddity 08:45, 23 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. BigBlueFish 19:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of the arguments FOR the article count were appeals-to-tradition. The 2 main editors in the draft process that were arguing for the count were User:Heretohelp and User:Sj (here I asked them to explain their reasons for wanting it, but received no debate in response.)

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? --Quiddity 21:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured article

Why on earth is this the featured article? —This unsigned comment was added by 69.251.23.118 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC).

Why not? —David Levy 17:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a book which may have been extremely influential on the breadth of anti-semitism in the early 20th Century, hence being instrumental in the extent of the success of the Nazi Party, of the Holocaust, and therefore also in the extent of the necessity of the Second World War. We can pose many such "if"s but if this book had not been written, there may have never been WWII, or it may have panned out very differently. The article itself is excellently written and is a great example of the small but important details in major historical eras which are so well-covered by Wikipedia. Is that enough? BigBlueFish 18:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course there's nothing wrong with featuring the article. But with all due respect (and going OT), the idea that there would have been no World War II without the Protocols, or even that they were in any way instrumental to the "success" of the Nazis, is preposterous. The Nazis were supported by influential bankers (like Hjalmar Schacht), industrialists (like Fritz Thyssen), and media tycoons (like Alfred Hugenberg). The desire of the elites in Germany to support a totalitarian regime and another war had nothing to do with the Protocols or even Hitler's anti-Semitism; that desire already manifested itself shortly after World War I when the first attempts were made to destroy the Weimar Republic. The German elites wanted a war, and the "strategy" of appeasement against Hitler's regime and the lack of enforcement of the Treaty of Versailles (regarding the size of the German military) was what allowed it to happen. The Jews were a convenient scapegoat for the lost first World War, and they may have been a personal motivation for Hitler to wage the Second one, but even Hitler's anti-Semitism was not linked to the Protocols alone and would have existed without them; his brief notes in Mein Kampf about the Protocols make that abundantly clear.--Eloquence* 21:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Summary of Usability improvements

Please add to this list any usability improvements or drawbacks that resulted from this new main page design by WikiProject Usability. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 18:00

Usability improvements

1. All 'daily' content now available on the main page every day.
2. Link to all featured content now available on the main page.
3. New navigation and help links now available at top of the main page.
4. New 'other areas' section with links to various 'community' pages.
5. Found to be 'better' in some way by 76% of those who voted Support or Oppose.
6. Navigation and help/info links at top of page separated into two distinct areas.

Usability drawbacks

1. Removed the specific text color definitions, making the text difficult or impossible to read for those with custom skins. - Corrected
2. Removed the "===" headers from sections, making the page difficult or impossible to navigate between sections, as is used by screen readers. - Corrected

• You're listing unintentional coding bugs (which no one brought to our attention until today) as though they were deliberate decisions. We could have used your help during the design process. —David Levy 18:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If you would like to add usability improvements to the list, feel free. Such obvious bugs should've been realized before the page went live. I didn't include the monobook.js bug since that one wasn't as obvious. I apologize for not being available during your design process; I was busy writing articles. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 19:02
    • You've yet to explain how we were supposed to be aware of these "obvious bugs," given the fact that zero respondents (out of over 1,000) brought them to our attention. —David Levy 19:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
      • You could have looked at thjavascript:insertTags('— ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 19:57',,);

Your signature with timestampe original main page's coding, and tried to remain as close to it as possible. People rarely complain unless an obvious problem is thrown right in their faces. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 19:34

• As Mark predicted, "... expect a titanic revert war, followed by a wheel war, followed by 17 RFCs and 3 arbcom cases ;)..." , and I'll add my ;-) at this time. David, please take a well earned rest. The nits and the picks will be here whenever you feel a need. A thousand votes later there are some who will always insist that they've been neglected - a thousand. Has there ever in the recorded history of WP been such a massive outpouring of thoughts on a single subject? And yet, up above the comment "why didn't you tell me..." unashamedly gets posted! Perhaps we need the Never Ending Poll whereby no one will feel neglected, only held in suspense. Again, ;-) hydnjo talk 19:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Clearly you are misunderstanding my replies. I voted Neutral in the main page change, because I didn't care which version was used; the change was not big enough to warrant a support/oppose. That doesn't mean I'm forbidden from pointing out that this change seemed to be more of an improvement appearance than usability. You cannot dismiss this by trying to categorize me as a naysayer opposed to the new page. If your only purpose is to dismiss my claim, why bother to reply at all? You're not being productive. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 19:53

<grrr - triple edit conflict> Brian, what exactly do you hope to achieve with this snide attitude? What is the purpose of listing 'usability drawbacks' which have already been corrected? Consider... alot of people worked on this for a long time and compromised on the version which was approved by the greatest majority. You had other things to do... so did I for that matter. But that lack of participation limits your right to be critical of the outcome. If you feel this strongly that it should have been done another way then you should have been in there saying that... and should be making suggestions for improvements now rather than just being critical. Consider that over six hundred people (76%) approved this page design. It can't be that bad. Do you have ideas for improvements or just want to be nasty for some reason? --CBDunkerson 19:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm trying to figure out if indeed the Usability project went astray from their original purpose, and pinpoint how to prevent it from happening again, that's all. My lack of participation in the original version in no way restricts my ability to criticize the outcome. That is a ridiculous notion which assumes that the community never gains or loses members, that all members are always active, and that everyone in the community was informed of the project and its development. I am not trying to be nasty, but it doesn't help that everyone (you, hydnjo) is dismissing my statements as snide remarks. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 19:57

• ... " it doesn't help that everyone (you, hydnjo) is dismissing my statements as snide remarks "... Umm, I don't understand. Where were the snidines' of my remarks. hydnjo talk 20:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• You (Brian) wrote, "I would suggest in the future that a Usability WikiProject actually investigate usability before assuming they have a full grasp on the situation."
• I ask you... can you read those words and seriously tell me that they weren't "snide remarks"?
• That being said, one aspect of 'usability' is layout and design. Obviously the work on the Main page concentrated on that area more than the various other usability issues listed on the project page. I do note again that the issues you've listed were easily corrected. --CBDunkerson 20:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • That remark was part joke, part snide, yes, but it is undeniable that this change is more aesthetic than anything. You changed some colors, put blocks around headers, moved the portal links up a bit, nothing big, although this is like the result of the democratic process, since compromise usually leads to less improvements. I am still waiting for items to be listed under usability improvements. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 20:17
      • Brian, if you believe that this should be done over, why don't you be construcive and start a WikiProject Usability/Main Page II wherein all of the deficiencies of this effort can be addressed all at once. After all, this rendition is getting kind of old <snide> now that's snide </snide>. hydnjo talk 20:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Where did I say it should be done over? It's just like the old page, but with a few usability problems that were fixed. It is not an improvement beyond the most superficial changes, and was a huge waste of resources. I'm suggesting that if you plan on fixing any other pages, you do it right by researching usability improvements (note: this would involve more than asking the community for any good ideas). — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 21:51
          • • "Where did I say..." No, you never quite do that. You just lay back and expose the deficiencies. Thanks for that I guess.  :-( hydnjo talk 22:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
              • If I never quite say a specific opinion, why do you assign me that opinion? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-20 00:59
      • Actually Brian, >I< did not do any of those things. Like you I'm an uninvolved bystander. I've added some of the obvious usability improvements. --CBDunkerson 20:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
        • First of all, you need to consider the difference between usability and accessibility. Screen reader support is very much an accessibility issue. This does not make it unimportant but please don't make the claim that the improvements have not improved usability. The precise layout and visibility of various links of the main page is absolutely critical to how easy the majority of new visitors find the encyclopedia to use. In this area the new design is enormously more usable than before, and it lends much more easily to the new user trying to find what they want. Secondly, may I ask exactly what the purpose of this edit? The xhtml specification specifically forbids spaces in the id attribute. What is the purpose of the additional div when the parent element does not yet have an id and contains exactly the same content as the div? Why did the edit summary have to be so incivil? Have some respect for the work that has already been done, assume good faith and yes, remember that just as it is your right to make criticisms at this late stage that it to be expected that flaws remain. I cannot believe the attitude I've just seen come from an admin. BigBlueFish 20:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Hi Bigbluefish. The 'id' changes Brian0918 made were in response to this issue further up the page. There may be further adjustments needed to the 'id' and 'h1' type links throughout the page to improve accessibility. --CBDunkerson 21:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
          • My edit summary was not uncivil. It was a simple fact. Please feel free to continue to label me as violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, however. As for my "attitude", please consider the possibility that you are assigning attitudes to my words which may not accurately represent my actual attitude (WP:AGF). — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 21:56
            • I should like to see your evidence that this particular loss of functionality was initiated by a member of the said Wikiproject. Wikiproject Usability was responsible for the organisation and practical running of the drive that led to the redesign. The resulting design is the result of the work of hundreds of Wikipedians from all over the community. It seems quite clear to me that your intent was to juxtapose the two uses of the word "usability" to imply that the Wikiproject was not doing its job properly as a product of this shortcoming. If you are making a criticism like that, and the faith in which it was made may be unclear, then don't point fingers. It did nothing for the Wikiproject or the Main Page. Neither, in particular, did making a list of drawbacks to the new design, which I think is very poor show. The design is not up for reconsideration, so it is not constructive to look at the page in terms of what's bad about it, but how we can fix it. Nobody expected there to be any steps backwards like the small ones you identified; all you had to do was point them out and that could have been the end of it. BigBlueFish 22:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
              • The things that I mentioned above worked fine in the old main page, and were broken in the new version. Doesn't that suggest someone either overlooked it or didn't understand what they were doing when they made those changes? My intent is not to try to bring the page up for reconsideration, but to prevent such a large waste of resources from happening again, as I have said all along. I really hope we haven't effectively frozen the main page now that "hundreds of Wikipedians from all over the community" have voiced their opinions. This would be much worse for improving usability than anything this new design has done. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-20 00:55
          • I was not aware of the problem with spaces in div id's, and have fixed it. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 21:59
          • Thank you. " Since administrators are expected to be experienced members of the community, users seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information. " hydnjo talk 22:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
            • What is the point of your reply? The subject of the discussion is not me. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-20 00:55

• Obviously. hydnjo talk 01:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just read this little discussion, and I have two comments. I've also added an entry to the list of advantages at the top of this discussion. Related to this is the first comment, which is to note that, IMO, not every change of the redesign was documented and summarised before the voting process began (I didn't find time to do this, though others did do what turned out to be an adequate summary - I may still attempt a complete listing of the differences between old and new pages). The second comment is that I agree with Brian0918's comment that a closer look should have been taken at the old page before replacing it. Similar to the need to do a complete and exhaustive listing of the differences, but also looking at the coding issues, which seem to have been overlooked, or lacked an expert to check things over. That would indeed, have picked up on certain points being raised here. Though I suspect that some people in the WikiProject were keen to bring the main page redesign to a successful conclusion. I only arrived late in the process, and it _had_ been going on for several months!! :-) Carcharoth 12:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I had assumed that we would take a week or two to resolve any lingering issues (code cleanup, etc.) before the changeover occurred, but the closing bureaucrat decided to debut the new main page immediately. In retrospect, perhaps we should have brought in an expert before or during the election. —David Levy 14:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with David on this. My hard drive failed last week, so I wasn't online at all over the weekend. I would have liked to go through the code before the main page went live, to double-check for such things as you mention and run through checklists. Anyway, I hope such coding issues are resolved now. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Code cleanup needed

Actually i think all the code needs to be cleaned up by a developer/expert. There are a lot of duplicated style types that could be replaced with css classes, divs that could be spans, and other unnecessary duplication (also in its transcluded templates). Volunteers wanted! --Quiddity 21:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that'd be a good idea... though it is true of most of our complicated pages. I just added header links to the standard portal box templates after someone pointed out above that most of our portals don't have them. Adjusting the code for usability might be an important sub-set of the usability project in general. --CBDunkerson 22:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

wikifying 'In The News'

Could someone wikify Breaststroke and Butterfly stroke at 'In The News', please ? --199.71.174.100 21:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. :) Gflores ^Talk 21:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy-addition, Gflores. :-) -- 199.71.174.100 21:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

News

Could we add the Category 5 Cyclone that is about to hit around Cairns, Austrailia? [1]--Scaife ^(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 22:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Too wide

The main page is too wide when viewed with the Classic skin and an 800 width screen (on Firefox). The culprit is the Welcome/portals listing box. Mixing px and % widths is bad HTML, but in this case changing the two 300px to 250px would work for me. --Henrygb 22:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Browsebar - Why create an account?

(bump/copy comments from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft/Archive_6#Browsebar_items): --Quiddity

how about Why create an account? on the browse bar? Kevin Baas^talk 23:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeahhh! I don't mean First time here? exactly but something recognizing a first-timer and extending our helping hand. That's been missing ever since I got here. We've come to a place where we are not just an enclypedia. We're a web-destination for many many newcomers and our front page has yet to recognize this. We should have a prominent link on our Main Page which hand-holds through their first experience. hydnjo talk 02:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, so long as it isn't a blatant ad but a place ofr the interesting but uninformed user to start.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no extra room in the header (with the 800x600 resolution in mind), but we could consider adding such a link to the "Other areas of Wikipedia" section. —David Levy 00:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, I still believe that the Wikipedia:Searching page is of insufficient quality/utility to merit such prominent placement, and should be delinked from the headerbar. Once it has been improved, perhaps it could also be more usefully placed within the side-nav search box as a "help" link?

Talking of which, could someone take charge of the proposal to highlight the search box using css? --Quiddity 02:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC) done --Quiddity

What a great idea. Therefore, I hereby nominate... you! :-) Seriously, you're the perfect spokeperson for that project. --Go for it! 11:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but the first rule of management: delegate delegate delegate ;) --Quiddity

POTD on the Main Page

Can we make it bigger, please ? We have room to display wider images now. -- 199.71.174.100 00:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

We're trying to be considerate of users with slow Internet connections. We certainly can't approach the image's original dimensions, but it can be clicked on to view the full-size version. —David Levy 00:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Currently at 162 px wide, it's smaller than before, when it alternated with DYK at the lower right corner. --64.229.222.156 08:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this something that could become user-customizable through utilizing Help:Preferences#Files the thumbnail size pref? --Quiddity 23:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

New Look

I love the new format!!! Wandering Star 00:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't. I think it's ugly and I miss the image of the day (Have to scroll to see it - like I'm going to do that every time I visit). :( (Bjorn Tipling 01:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

You preferred having it slightly higher on the page, but only on weekends (instead of every day)? —David Levy 01:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bjorn. I think Featured image should be placed in the centre for best effect and convenience. Bwithh 01:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be placed full size, in the centre of the page, with little links round it to the rest of the wikipedia.... 57.66.51.165 16:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What about the convenience of users with slow Internet connections? And which of the long-running features should be bumped down to create this non-thematic layout? —David Levy 01:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Apart from that, Wikipedia is first of all an encyclopedia. Pictures generally support the written content. Wikimedia Commons is a side project dedicated to free images. Therefore, I think that the featured picture should not be too prominent on the main page. RexNL 01:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree per RexNL. --Quiddity 02:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Pictures are just as important for wikipedia as text. People who contributes good pictures deserves the same recognition as those who contribute good text. Zarniwoot 03:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so now we've expanded the main page's "today's featured picture" section to seven days per week (instead of two), and it even has its own box. —David Levy 03:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the new design is a large improvement. My comment was to RexNL's comment about pictures. Would prefer fp higher up, though Zarniwoot 20:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I count 5 pictures on the main page, not including logos. What more do you need? -EdGl 22:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I also think its brilliant!

Main page heading is not necessary

Why does the main page have a heading saying 'Main Page'? It takes up a lot of unnecessary space and is ugly. Am I the only one that feels this way? Averisk

If you're using a CSS-capable browser, and your skin is "MonoBook" (default), "Chick," "MySkin" or "Simple," bypassing your cache should remove the heading. —David Levy 01:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I didn't do anything but it appears to be fixed. Did someone actually listen to me? =) Averisk

New User

I think they removed a sign-up link! I think this is a big turn-off to users-to-be, such as myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.138.179 (talk • contribs)

Hmmm...It should be there. Contact an admin. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 02:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Template for Wikipedia languages

what about creating a template for the Wikipedia languages on the frontpage

Mateus Zica 02:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

We have one now. Do you mean something different? —David Levy 02:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Nouruz

It's Iranian (Zoroastrian) new year :) Along with the Indian "Holi" celebration (which is related to the Iranian "Nouruz") it is celebrated by more than 500M people all over the world, from Turkey to India, and from Iran to Kazakhstan. I suggest to put some information about Nouruz on the front page. Tajik 02:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It's on the right side of Main Page, mentioned right after the equinox and before Earth Day. A link to Zoroastrianism may be nice there. -- 199.71.174.100 03:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

2006 Commonwealth Games

"Australia sweep" should be "Australia sweeps" ("Australians sweep" would also be OK). Art LaPella 04:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Commonwealth English treats collective nouns differently than we Americans do. --Nelson Ricardo 14:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought Australia was a country, therefore not a collective noun. "The Manchester United swept..." but "Australia sweeps..."

~em dashes in header~

I believe this is open for adjustment, since the article count line was added after the vote was well underway. As I interpret Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes), this is not an acceptable usage of the em dash. The main page of all pages should adhere to standards. And it just looks rather amateur.--Grocer 09:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and changed. -- Zanimum 12:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion above under "Article count in the header" as well. It hasn't really been collectively decided yet what the best way to present that line is. BigBlueFish 15:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Feature article problem

There's a problematic sentence in the featured article:

"The Earth as well as many other bodies (including other planets, asteroids, meteoroids, comets and dust) orbit the Sun, and it accounts for more than 99% of the solar system's mass." Seems like "and it accounts" stands for the Earth! In the original article, it's already corrected, "...which accounts for". Zhuravskij 13:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed it, although in a slightly different way than the main article. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's still wrong. the main point is, that the sun _alone_ accounts for 99% of the solar system mass, not sun + earth + other planets + asteroids, as it appears from your wording Zhuravskij 13:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah! My bad. Thanks for the fix fix. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Most welcome. Zhuravskij 13:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

New main page

The new main page does not bother me at all. It's almost exactly like the old version so I don't see any reason to complain. 206.47.141.21 15:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Nicely done. 68.163.251.199 00:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Just came back to the new main page, and wow, it looks nice! Ashibaka tock 22:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Face-off > face off

"In the news" has this: Cuba and Japan face-off in the finals of the first ever World Baseball Classic in San Diego, California.

"Face-off" is a noun. "Face off" is the verb needed here. Jokestress 15:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what is needed there is the final score. The game has not been played yet. Why is it 'In The News' so soon? --64.229.4.153 15:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Namespace

In the name of semantics, shouldn't the default page of the wiki really be in the Wikipedia namespace? AFAIK it's the only article which isn't an encyclopedia article in the main article namespace. Thinking about it, maybe it should even be in the Portal namespace. Any practical obstacle to this? Thoughts? BigBlueFish 17:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that the "Main Page" heading is gone, arguably there's a better case for moving it to Wikipedia:Main Page. However, Main Page would HAVE to remain as a redirect to the new page, as it would break far too many links, and would be a pain to have to type a URL for. Though there could be a WP:MP shortcut or something (that currently goes to Wikipedia:Million Pool, which is sort of old news now -- Gurch 17:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course. But currently, Wikipedia:Main Page is a redirect. BigBlueFish 17:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Main Page <h1> title

I think the main page title section was removed within one of the .css or .js files used overall. Is there a way to locally (i.e., in my personal .css or .js files) change this back to the original form? Thanks --jοτομικρόν | Talk 17:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposition for featured article for 03/28/06

Greetings,

I was wondering if you might consider featuring the USS Trigger article for the 28th of March. It would be entirely appropriate since that day is the 61st anniversary of the vessel's tour of service. A fitting tribute to those aboard, who gave their lives for their country, (also aboard was my great-great uncle, William Zugecic - he perished along with the Trigger. If any improvements need be made for the article to be featured, I can contribute a few more photos perhaps (if I can negotiate Wikicopyrights =P.) Thanks, Salva 17:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The article on the front page is one of almost a thousand "featured articles" which almost permanently hold the title. To appear on the front page it must first be one such featured article. You can nominate it if you like after reading the criteria at Wikipedia:Featured articles. To nominate a featured article for the main page, see Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article. BigBlueFish 18:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You can start the process to featured article, however i find it unlikely you'll be able to get it nominated, correct anything that is brought up and elected to be the next featured article in one week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.144.194 (talk • contribs)

I agree that the article doesn't meet the criteria, which is why I encouraged Salva to read them. I don't recommend nominating it for that reason though. If you want comments on how the article could improve, you could request a peer review. Only nominate it for FA if you think it will (or should) succeed. BigBlueFish 18:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. Salva 20:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Cyclone Larry

The "In the News" section on Cyclone Larry is misleading. The number shown is wind gusts, which is what the Australian agency uses as its official windspeeds. This would lead people to believe that it is a category 5 cyclone, which would be untrue. The fact that they use gusts makes it inconsistent with the rest of the world and general knowledge. I think it should be changed to the sustained wind speeds, which is the standard for the majority of the world and wouldn't mislead people into thinking it's more powerful than it really is. bob rulz 22:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox5 fix

Um... the bold in the Featured articles, Did you know, and similar sections is now gone... I'd fix it, but I don't know how to. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

bold is much better.Mateus Zica 00:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hrrm, looking at the various skins it looks like the issue is in the Monobook and Cologne Blue skins. The others seem fine. I'm not sure what is different about those skins to cause the text to display in a significantly smaller font. --CBDunkerson 01:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Now I remember why I stopped using the Monobook skin. The exact same code (before David Levy's change) shows the text bold on User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox5 but not bold on the Main page. I think what David did to bold them is sufficient... the skins which were already displaying bold don't look any different. I don't think it will be possible to get the box widths to exactly match in all skins... they are currently pretty close in Classic, but if we tweak them for Monobook the others will go off slightly. --CBDunkerson 01:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Cape Horn

Where is thw article? And also, Saffron is the article shown when clicking "continue". Sorting out needed.

Ive checked the deletion log and noticed its been deleted.

User:Tim_teddybear

Naconkantari deleted the page temporarily to clean up some vandalism from the page history. For that reason the page was unavailable for about 1 minute. RexNL 01:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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 David Levy 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? BigBlueFish 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 unconditional 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 (User:Bigbluefish/monobook.css, if you're using the default skin) will suppress the text's display:

/*

 */
#articlecount {display: none}
/* 

*/

—David Levy 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. BigBlueFish 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. Kosebamse 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. —David Levy 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 featured articles. I think the only measure of credibility of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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:

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. This English version has 6,914,960 articles.

Arts Biography Geography

History Mathematics Science

Society Technology All portals

I removed the articlecount id so everyone can see it. Another alternative caption might be, "We are working on 6,914,960 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. BigBlueFish 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. —David Levy 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 [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Final_archive#Article_count here], here, here, and here. (newest to oldest)
• I dislike the emdashes as a styling flourish. If the count remains, i propose we change the emdashes to something else. done --Quiddity 00:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is the em dash used? --Grocer 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? BigBlueFish 16:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

None, thanks. --65.25.219.139 20:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: In IE7B2P, the full articlecount text is not visible. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 23:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a couple of suggestions for alternative wordings:

• English edition | 6,914,960 articles.
• English edition (with 6,914,960 articles).
• English edition

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. - Drrngrvy 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 :) --Quiddity 11:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Could an admin please unprotect Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft so that we can experiment with design changes and code upgrades there. thanks :)

I pasted the current Main Page code to Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page (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. --Quiddity 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 "Wikipedia 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. —David Levy 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. Carcharoth 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. - Drrngrvy 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. --Quiddity 08:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I quite strongly prefer to have the status of Wikipedia 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? - Drrngrvy 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. BigBlueFish 19:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of the arguments FOR the article count were appeals-to-tradition.
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? --Quiddity 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. Carcharoth 01:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think what you say is a gross generalisation. If you actually read the discussion that went on 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (in essence), so the point is that we should never patronise anyone by making the important less obvious. - Drrngrvy 03:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Article count is not the status of Wikipedia. And it's not in any way practically useful to any editor of Wikipedia. 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. BigBlueFish 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? æle ✆ 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. --CBDunkerson 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 MediaZilla. :) æle ✆ 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 Intel 80486DX2 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)?-gadfium 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.

James F. (talk) 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.-gadfium 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? Ziggur 03:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

(The below is copied from my talk page-gadfium 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 Wikipedia 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
25 Bravo (Network Engineer), US Army Reserve
(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.-gadfium 03:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've updated it.-gadfium 04:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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 David Levy 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? BigBlueFish 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 unconditional 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 (User:Bigbluefish/monobook.css, if you're using the default skin) will suppress the text's display: -

- /*

 */   
- #articlecount {display: none}   
- /* 

*/

- - :—David Levy 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. BigBlueFish 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. Kosebamse 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. —David Levy 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 featured articles. I think the only measure of credibility of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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: - - {|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" |

-

- Welcome to Wikipedia,

-

the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

-

This English version has 6,914,960 articles.

- |- - |} - - |style="width:11%;font-size:95%;color:#000"| - *Arts - *Biography - *Geography - |style="width:11%;font-size:95%"| - *History - *Mathematics - *Science - |style="width:11%;font-size:95%"| - *Society - *Technology - *All portals - |} - - ::::I removed the articlecount id so everyone can see it. Another alternative caption might be, "We are working on 6,914,960 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. BigBlueFish 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. —David Levy 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 [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Final_archive#Article_count here], here, here, and here. (newest to oldest) - *I dislike the emdashes as a styling flourish. If the count remains, i propose we change the emdashes to something else. done --Quiddity 00:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC) - Why is the em dash used? --Grocer 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? BigBlueFish 16:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC) - ::None, thanks. --65.25.219.139 20:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC) - - Note: In IE7B2P, the full articlecount text is not visible. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 23:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC) - - Just a couple of suggestions for alternative wordings: - * English edition | 6,914,960 articles. - * English edition (with 6,914,960 articles). - * English edition - 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. - Drrngrvy 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 :) --Quiddity 11:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC) - :::::Could an admin please unprotect Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft so that we can experiment with design changes and code upgrades there. thanks :) - ::::::I pasted the current Main Page code to Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page (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. --Quiddity 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 "Wikipedia 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. —David Levy 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. Carcharoth 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. - Drrngrvy 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. --Quiddity 08:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC) - :::::::::Just to make it clear, I quite strongly prefer to have the status of Wikipedia 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? - Drrngrvy 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. BigBlueFish 19:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC) - :Most of the arguments FOR the article count were appeals-to-tradition.
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? --Quiddity 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. Carcharoth 01:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC) - ::I think what you say is a gross generalisation. If you actually read the discussion that went on 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (in essence), so the point is that we should never patronise anyone by making the important less obvious. - Drrngrvy 03:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC) - :::Article count is not the status of Wikipedia. And it's not in any way practically useful to any editor of Wikipedia. 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. BigBlueFish 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? æle ✆ 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. --CBDunkerson 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 MediaZilla. :) æle ✆ 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 Intel 80486DX2 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)?-gadfium 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. - : James F. (talk) 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.-gadfium 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? Ziggur 03:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC) - - (The below is copied from my talk page-gadfium 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 Wikipedia 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
- 25 Bravo (Network Engineer), US Army Reserve
- (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.-gadfium 03:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC) - ::I've updated it.-gadfium 04:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC) - - == Main page enhancement == -

-

Could we align the "Did you know" box with the "On this day..." box? - Ta bu shi da yu 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. :) --Quiddity 06:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC) - ::Fair enough. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC) - :::I came to make the same complaint 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...
brenneman^{L} 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. Dforest 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. enochlau (talk) 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. - brenneman^{L} 17:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC) - :See User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox5 for an example of one way to 'line up' these headings. --CBDunkerson 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. —David Levy 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. --CBDunkerson 19:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC) - - == Bilingual grammar == - - It's nice that Benito Juárez'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". Rod ESQ 02:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC) - - ... or simply change it to the singular. That worked out all right as well, thanks. Rod ESQ 14:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC) - - == Today's Feature Article hyperlink == - - I'm a Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. - - 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 How to revert an article.-gadfium 05:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC) - - :Are you talking about this edit? [2]?? It is vandalism. --Hamedog^Talk|@ 06:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC) - - == Link needs dab on main page == - - Currently Cyclone Larry makes landfall in Queensland, AU with 250 km/h winds, the strongest in over 70 years. AU needs to link to Australia. ▫ UrbaneLegend ^talk 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.) --Nelson Ricardo 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? RPharazon 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.
- —67-21-48-122 15:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC) - - :"Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko (pictured) is re-elected amid widespread condemnation of the election's validity." - emphasis mine. - UtherSRG (talk) 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.
- —67-21-48-122 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." - UtherSRG (talk) 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 Sweden Democrats) 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. Oskar 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? Mikker ^... 18:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Main page enhancement

Could we align the "Did you know" box with the "On this day..." box? - Ta bu shi da yu 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. :) --Quiddity 06:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I came to make the same complaint 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...
brenneman^{L} 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. Dforest 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. enochlau (talk) 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. - brenneman^{L} 17:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

See User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox5 for an example of one way to 'line up' these headings. --CBDunkerson 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. —David Levy 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. --CBDunkerson 19:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Bilingual grammar

It's nice that Benito Juárez'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". Rod ESQ 02:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Today's Feature Article hyperlink

I'm a Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.

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 How to revert an article.-gadfium 05:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about this edit? [3]?? It is vandalism. --Hamedog^Talk|@ 06:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Link needs dab on main page

Currently Cyclone Larry makes landfall in Queensland, AU with 250 km/h winds, the strongest in over 70 years. AU needs to link to Australia. ▫ UrbaneLegend ^talk 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.) --Nelson Ricardo 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? RPharazon 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.
—67-21-48-122 15:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko (pictured) is re-elected amid widespread condemnation of the election's validity." - emphasis mine. - UtherSRG (talk) 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.
—67-21-48-122 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." - UtherSRG (talk) 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 Sweden Democrats) 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. Oskar 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? Mikker ^... 18:05, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 | ^Talk 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 Wikipedia: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:

• Main Page alternative (tomorrow)
• Main Page alternative (yesterday)

US -> U.S. per Wikipedia:Manual of style#Acronyms and abbreviations

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|^(talk) 23:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" and then immediately below that say "Welcome to Wikipedia,the free encyclopedia 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)

Researching with Wikipedia

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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia. — 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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^{(?!? - help us)} 00:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Disgruntled old history teachers around the world are teaching children that Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Just some general advice to those using Wikipedia 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^{(?!? - help us)} 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 ^talk 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, Wikipedia is too popular to be closed down. You deserve to be punished because Wikipedia 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 [link to redirect])". However, when you follow the link Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia, which was started in 2001. It currently contains 1,037,905 articles." -> "This is the English language Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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^[es] (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 Wikipedia. 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)

I love the level of intelligence I see all the time in discussions (no sarcasm intended). =) ☭ Zippanova 17:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I like one sentence: "In 2001, the English-language Wikipedia began its growth to over 1,000,000 articles." (Yeah, that's a joke. Kinda.) MusicMaker5376 23:33, 26 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)

http://tismanpash.webs.com/