This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Can someone changed the picture of the featured article on the main page, looks extremely small, maybe we should put the image (or another one in the article or resized the image) on the infobox for now. --JForget 02:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Could we possibly get a picture other than a mostly nude female with fishnet stockings on? Is Wikipedia about promoting immodesty to the thousands of young schoolchildren that are looking at the main page every single day? I suppose this is a little better than the History of erotic depictions, but still...must we? Bmrbarre 01:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers.. Picaroon (Talk) 01:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmm... like the featured article that is Jenna Jameson Raul654 04:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Is a pop-song really important enough to feature on the homepage? This song may be liked a lot, but it's not as though it's established itself over decades in the way that, perhaps, Beatles songs have done. I'm concerned at the appearance of trivialising the encyclopedia.

Articles are chosen from the list of featured articles. If you would like a beatles song to be featured, you should work it up to featured status. 11:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There are actually already 5 FAs on Beatles songs Category:FA-Class Beatles articles, 3 of which have already appear on the main page Nil Einne 12:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, in terms of important enough, one has to ask whether, for example El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda can really said to be any more important. Yes 50k people may live there, but it is, after all, just one of the many municipalities in Venezuela. In the end, it doesn't matter. There is a good reason why we avoid importance issues when possible Nil Einne 12:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

At this point, we have as many Gwen Stefani featured articles as we do Beatles, and there are even more for Slayer. Notability and featured status are not closely related. ShadowHalo 12:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe just consume more bananas and it'll be alright. --Howard the Duck 12:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a sad day for Wikipedia when this trashy nonsensical song is a featured article. What's next, anal sex?? 209.191.208.248 19:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If that article meant the criteria then I'd support it being given featured status, yes. FA is about the quality of the article, not the article's subject.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that too many pop artists or songs appear on the featured article. The featured articles should show a bit more diversity.

Once again, Articles are chosen from the list of featured articles. If you would like somthing else to be on the Main Page, then work it up to FA class. ffm ✎talk 13:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we have far too many pop songs. Why, we just had one back in 2005. ShadowHalo 14:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool? --Howard the Duck 14:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Yesterday (song) is the only featured pop song that's not by Gwen Stefani, and that was on the Main Page back in November 2004. ShadowHalo 14:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, after seeing Smells Like Teen Spirit featured less than two weeks ago, it makes me fear Wikipedia is teetering on edge of becoming dominated by fluff pieces. At least with the Nirvana song, it ushered in a whole new genre of rock music. This song has no meaningful cultural, musical or historical significance. I'm surprised an article even existed for the song - a top 10 hit that fades into the background doesn't deserve this level of attention. Wikipedia is in danger of being taken over by slick vanity pieces written by fandom/celebrity marketing firms.

Don't worry, unsigned user, next time, we'd feature grunge bands for a whole month. Maybe in the Year 3000. --Howard the Duck 04:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? I've never understood musical genres that well but according to The Long and Winding Road page, it's genre is pop. Hey Jude's genre is listed as Rock but it was up for a Pop award so I would assume it could be considered a pop song. Or are you excluding these because they're ballads (which doesn't make sense to me since the article says a ballad is a song). These are all Beatles songs of course. As I mentioned above, there are 5 Beatle song FAs (that I've found) and 3 of them have been featured. (I have no idea if any other pop songs have been TFA). BTW, I'm not complaining, simply questioning whether your statistics are accurate Nil Einne 15:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I must have missed The Long and Winding Road. Still, that was TFA over two years ago, before even Cool (song) was. ShadowHalo 15:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This does raise an interesting issue though. Are there any other FAs about pop songs that haven't yet made the main page that aren't from the Beetles or Gwen Stefani? If so, shouldn't our next our preferably be one of these (of course this shouldn't be for a while so I guess we don't really have to worry about it much at the moment) Nil Einne 15:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[outdent] No, those are the only ones. If you consider it pop, Hey Ya! may join them soon, but all pop song FAs are currently all by The Beatles or Gwen Stefani. Our articles about pop songs are generally pretty bad. For examples, see Beautiful Liar, Wannabe (song), or Dirrty. ShadowHalo 21:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I really think Wikipedia should support the Best Viewed With Any Browser Campain.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter1G1Robertson (talk • contribs)

It looks fine in IE and Firefox to me. Probably other browsers too. You might just have an older version and need a newer one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotsleep111 (talk • contribs)

Do you know what it is? They mean ANY browser.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter1G1Robertson (talk • contribs)

I'm pretty sure Wikipedia will work fine with up to date versions of any browser. Older versions may not work, but unless we want to go back to early '90s technology, working with every past version of any browser just isn't feasible.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Read this [[1]]

This belongs at the WP:VPP, not here. ffm ✎talk 20:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to the original suggestion, Wikipedia functions fully with all modern browsers (Firefox, Safari, IE, Netscape and Opera) as well as with reasonably recent versions of said browsers. There is no compelling reason for us to offer full functionality to ancient versions of IE (IE3 and earlier) and Netscape (Netscape 4.08 and earlier), of which the market share is less than 0.1% anyway, at the expense of modern and recent browsers. —Cuiviénen 01:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be using valid HTML code that complies with all Internet standards, which gives a good chance of it working in a wide range of browsers. However, it should generally not be supporting (or opposing) any particular campaigns, as it compromises NPOV to be championing causes. *Dan T.* 02:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

On this last point, NPOV applies only to encyclopedic content, not the choices of the Wikimedia Foundation. One might consider the Foundation itself, building 'a free encyclopedia for every person on the planet in their native language', an advocacy organization. The question is if the cause described and the "cause" of the Foundation align. As ffm states, that is a discussion best left to a more appropriate page. - BanyanTree 04:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe this comment was posted here because it's a suggestion to add a "Best viewed with any browser" banner on the Main Page. But as Dan said, it's not appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia to endorse a campaign. On top of that, the contradicting phrase could attract Grammar Nazis from around the globe to this discussion page ;).--cloviz 13:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

When you say "support" you mean Wikipedia should become evangelist by putting a tacky and somewhat condescending icon on the page somewhere? Because that sort of wearing your browser preference on your shirtsleeve thing went out of style in 1999 and parodies of it went out of style shortly afterwards. 69.95.50.15 17:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did not necessarily meant to have the logo or anything, just try to let the pages look OK in old browsers too. Take a look at BBC, they have a text-only version of their pages, is there a way to make something like that to Wikipedia? The text and graphic version must automatically be linked to each other (editing one of them updates the other). Written by Peter1G1Robertson

People have run Wikipedia in pretty every single browser (including text based and mobile). You can choose a custom skin from your My Preferences tab. I think, being mainly CSS, it should tend to fail gracefully on older browsers (ie; unusable features don't appear, but the page is still perfectly readable). I don't it works on my mobile phone (Motorola V220), though... Laïka 19:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

From memory, it seemed to work okay on my relatively low-end phone (Panasonic VS2) but the data charges on my prepay account are so ludicrious I didn't test extensively... Nil Einne 19:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, we have fully compliant XHTML and CSS (well, all except for column-count, but that'll come soon). Viewable in All Browsers is a lovely ideal, but we can actually implement it by following W3C standards. Gracenotes^T § 22:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

On CSS-less browsers for the Nintendo DS, it can be annoying to have to scroll past what would have been made into a sidebar. Is there a style that I can use to make the sidebar's code appear below the article? ffm ✎talk 00:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what do you have to scroll past? (I assume you're viewing a screen like this) Gracenotes^T § 01:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I mean, if your browser did not have the layout CSS, the above link would be (for you) a good approximation of a CSS-less browser. What is the scrolling issue? Gracenotes^T § 01:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, on the NDS homebrew browser I use, it displays the sidebar at the top and I have to scroll past it every time. ffm ✎talk 13:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest moving Main Page to Wikipedia:Main Page, because I would like to make an article on main pages on the Internet. And "Wikipedia:Main Page" would not appear on top of the main page. ANNAfoxlover 01:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been had at least twice before, and both times it was clear that people wanted the Main Page to remain right where it is. Can you imagine how many links would have to be changed if we moved it and replaced it with a normal article? Millions of links across the whole internet would be wrong, and even on Wikipedia thousands would need updating. To put it simply, while consensus can change, it isn't going to here. If an article on internet main pages is needed, Main page (internet) would work, wouldn't it? Picaroon (Talk) 01:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just write it at homepage.--Pharos 01:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there are too many links to this page, and doing a move would be a mess. Acalamari 01:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You may peruse more fully the arguments offered for and against the moving of the Main Page to Wikipedia:Main Page or Portal:Main Page/Portal:Wikipedia at the most recent relevant discussions, here and here. Although consensus can surely change, and although essentially nothing is immutable here, I cannot imagine that any consensus should develop in the near future for a move, and I don't think it would be useful for the community, at least in the absence of extraordinary developments, to revisit the issue for at least a few more months. Joe 02:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to and I don't think there is any point reopening this this debate. But I would have to seriously disagree with your claim. The was no consensus, not a consensus against the move. Nil Einne 07:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I used to support this, but moving Main Page to another page would have no good effects. And yes, there was no consensus to move the page since too many voted. --Howard the Duck 12:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

i want vi:Trang Chính from Vietnam into en:Main Page like as de:Hauptseite, fr:accueil... ?--125.235.73.30 02:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

At the moment we are only linking directly to the editions of Wikipedia with 25,000 or more articles. The Vietnamese Wikipedia has about 20,000 at the moment.-gadfium 03:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

(moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)) --- RockMFR 16:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't flame at me for everyone already knowing, but The Zoo Tycoon 2: Extinct Animals page is being vandalised by losers who have no live. I say we lock the article. Dinoman96 19:42, 15 June 2007

Since that article has nothing to do with the main page, or is currently even linked to the main page, you will get better results if you post a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:San Antonio Spurs logo.png Someone should add that the San Antonio Spurs have beat the Cleavland Cavaliers 4-0 in the 2007 NBA Finals to win their fourth championship in nine years.

Just wait dude, it's on the way... LeBROOM is still cleaning house... --Howard the Duck 04:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this really deserving of the front page? I can't recall the last time I saw any of my local footy results being heralded as international news on Wikipedia... — Zioroboco 20:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Your local footy team aren't the best soccer players in the world nor is it broadcast all over the globe. Your Britocentrism is lame ColdRedRain 00:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Which begs the question, if you exclude the NBA Finals from ITN, what will be the annual basketball news which will be displayed? The British Basketball League? Considering basketball is probably the second most-popular sport, after "footy". --Howard the Duck 01:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Let's bash some poms! I'm Australian, but it's hardly the point. Wasn't looking for a fight, it just seemed more than a little out of place, from an international perspective. I use the news column of the front page not as my primary news source for every little thing right down to sports results, but rather as a launching platform for more extensive Wiki-trawls snaking through articles relating to a current event. The title of the section isn't 'Today's Headlines,' it's 'In the news,' which perhaps suggests that it is supposed to contain articles which are relevant to the encyclopaedic nature of Wikipedia. This (albeit harmless) little bit of basketball fandom just seems... trivial. Sorry. — Zioroboco 02:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

... Granted, though, that perhaps some people who aren't familiar with basketball could use this entry in the same way I do, and look up articles about the game and the competitions. It can stay for all I care, but I still think your response was a little tactless. — Zioroboco 02:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

For your consideration: National Sport — Zioroboco 02:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

National sport may not the most popular sport played in one country; for example, nobody plays our real national sport at our place. --Howard the Duck 03:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

*blinks* ... — Zioroboco 03:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

After some investigation on that page, football (soccer) was mentioned 89 times, cricket 43 times, basketball 28 times...... and ice hockey 12 times. Now I wonder why nobody complained when NHL's Stanley Cup was mentioned, although they did complain after a few days when it got old. --Howard the Duck 03:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that this mistake has been made before? Oh well, I suppose it was inevitable. "And so began the great Wiki-schism of '07, where all of wiki-kind were divided into us.wikipedia and them.wikipedia. And there was a great weeping and gnashing of teeth." (I don't know... en.wikipedia seemed too -- what was it? -- "Britocentric?") — Zioroboco 03:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

On the plus side, we could finally spell Wikipedia with an 'ae.' I've had just about enough of you damned colonials and your lazy spelling, eh wot? — Lord Zioroboco 04:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC), Esq.

Exactly as I expected, this was just some plain old anti-Americanism. Oh well... There's a Rugby World Cup this year, if there's any consolation. --Howard the Duck 04:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) I'm all for renaming "Wikipedia" with the correct spelling, yes, wot? ITN generally only lists the results of the "grand final" or equivalent event of the highest level of competition. In some sports this can lead to a bit of debate as to what constitutes the highest level. Generally it would involve an international flavour, but in the case of basketball, money tends to act as gravity and most see the (US)NBL as the pinnacle of basketball. Yet others have argued that the US College basketball is higher than that. So it all involves an amount of subjectivity. In the case of football (soccer) it's the "World Game" and we do have an established and widely followed International competition. --Monotonehell 04:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, I would let you have me, if you wanted... — Zioroboco 04:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That's amazing as you're just my type. --Monotonehell 05:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

1. We have a longstanding agreement that the premier championship of any major professional sport qualifies for ITN coverage (assuming that the requisite article exists). Most informed individuals would agree that the event in question is the premier championship of professional men's basketball.
2. The reason for this is that the NBA is the world's premier professional men's basketball league. Many of the best players from around the world participate. In addition to players from the United States, the final two teams that competed for this year's championship have players from Argentina, Brazil, France, Lithuania, Serbia and Slovenia.
3. To the best of my knowledge, Toronto, Ontario is not part of the United States. That city has an NBA team, so I don't understand why anyone would argue that the league is of no interest to non-Americans. It isn't even accurate to claim that interest is limited to Americans and Canadians.
4. Just last month, we featured the outcome of an English football final in ITN. It was not, by any stretch of the imagination, the sport's premier championship event. Nor, for that matter, was the European football tournament that we featured last month. I had hoped that this added leeway would quell the allegations of American bias, but that obviously hasn't occurred.
For the record, I am an American who is not a fan of basketball or any other athletic competition. —David Levy 13:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it inserting a historical POV to say that? I mean, Burnside was not the sharpest tool in the shed, and was certainly unqualified to face Robert E. Lee -- but he performed very well as a division commander in the west, and the fiasco at the Crater was Meade's and Ledlie's fault more than his. I would suggest calling him one of the "least successful" generals instead -- and then finding, if you want, a different adjective to describe the carbine. 209.190.233.66 17:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is this here? If you are talking about an article in particular, discuss on that article's talk page, not here. ffm ✎talk 19:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's in regard to an item that was on DYK (and isn't anymore). Since these items are only up for about 6 hours, it's unfortunately common for them not to be fixed before they get removed - but in this case, I don't see an error - the Ambrose Burnside article makes a good case for his lack of competence. NPOV does not mean refraining from deserved criticism. -- Gavia immer (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There also cited quotes in Burnside carbine that talk about the "incompetence" which is why that particular hook was allowed to go up to the Main Page. howcheng {chat} 17:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Since ya’ll always know where to direct people that aren’t in the correct place, where do I complain about people placing comments in the incorrect place? I know that if I put it in the most accessible place, the Main Page discussion, someone will find the time to correct me. Too often, I read things like, “Why is this here,” or “This should go somewhere else,” and feel, well, disappointed. The Main Page discussion is the easiest place to write suggestions or comments for people that don’t know where else to put them. And of course they get jumped on for not knowing that there was a special page for their concern. Why can’t the Main Page talk be a place of open discussion about Wikipedia in general? Of course someone will tell me that this whole comment would be better on another page. S. Randall 21:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There use to be a template called Template:Main Page discussion header that use to be at the top of this talk page for that kind of purpose, but many more regular users decided to get rid of it because, iirc, it was too big and cumbersome. So it was turned into a redirect. Here is the version before it was removed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we need a link to WP:VP at the top of Talk:Main Page -- bolded and in large fonts -- for those open discussion about Wikipedia in general. --76.64.77.213 23:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

We are always going to have a bit of misplaced discussion here. I don't think the amount has changed since the header was removed. Some discussion doesn't really belong anywhere else - for example, the message above about Zoo Tycoon vandalism doesn't belong anywhere - maybe requests for page protection, but it wouldn't get protected anyways. Some discussion can just be moved to the proper spot (like I did above). If it's nonsense or the old "PLEASE HELP ME WITH MY HOMEWORK" junk or "I love Wikipedia", just blank it and put a message on their talk page if you want to. --- RockMFR 02:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As Zzyzx11 mentioned above, there used to be a large header that undoubtedly helped those who bothered to read it. However there's always those who miss things like that and simply add their comment or question. It was decided to remove the header and just answer everyone's comments or questions here. It was part of the consensus to remove it that we are NOT supposed to bite people who do so and rudely redirect them. Instead we should briefly outline an answer and then perhaps suggest a better place to continue the query. Wikipedia's backrooms are very hard to navigate, even for those familiar with most of it, so most "misplaced" queries can be understood. Anyone who is being a bit terse should perhaps reconsider how they phrase answers to such queries (of course taking the time to offer any help is appreciated). I know I've been guilty of it at times. --Monotonehell 04:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason why we don't want to open the main page talk page for general discussion about anything concerning wikipedia is simple. That would be an extreme mess given the large number of different issues that are already discussed at more appropriate talk pages. Even if we simply discussed issues which were raised here without forwarding them to a more appropriate talk page, that would still mean a lot of people who may otherwise be interested or able to help may miss the discussion. Also, we have a relatively short archive time here because we don't want the page to get too long for various reasons. That means that a lot of discussions which have not yet concluded may be prematurely archived. Of course, some discussion ends up taking place anyway, usually no one cares that much provided it doesn't go on for too long. Nil Einne 09:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, this is in fact the best place to discuss what should and shouldn't be discussed on the main page talk page Nil Einne 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the first crossing of the South Atlantic Ocean by air in 1922, from Lisbon, in Portugal, to Rio de Janeiro, in Brazil, by Portuguese aviators Gago Coutinho and Artur de Sacadura Cabral should be mentioned. Thank you. The Ogre 06:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The event is briefly mentioned in the Gago article but it would be better if a single, central article about the crossing is made IMHO Nil Einne 07:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, please make sugjestions to ITN at WP:ITN/C, not here. ffm ✎talk 13:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the suggestion was for an item to be added to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/June 15 (if I'm wrong, one may disregard the rest of this). To suggest an item for inclusion on the SA (OTD) entry that is on the main page or that for the next day (which, in view of its being transcluded on Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow, is protected), you probably will do well to post here, although it may be unlikely that an admin should edit SA consistent with your suggestion in a timely fashion. To suggest an item for SA inclusion for some future date, you should (to my understanding) be bold and update the corresponding selected anniversaries page; in order that other editors might understand the reason for your addition, you might want to include a note on the requisite date's talk page toward the item's meeting the SA criteria (as Nil observes, the item that you suggest is probably not consistent with the criteria at present, but an event-specific article properly listed at June 15 and otherwise consistent with the criteria would almost surely, IMHO, merit SA inclusion), at least if there is likely to be any doubt. Joe 22:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've copied the suggestion to Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/June 15. You might see this on SA/OTD on the next June 15th. --199.71.174.100 00:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It was only now an idea for the main page struck me that I even noticed we had links to portals on the main page in the top right hand corner. Portals are supposed to act as gateways for readers to visit stuff within that topic, yet no-one outside regular Wikipedians has heard of them. An idea: Create a display box between the main "Welcome to Wikipedia" notice and the TFA and put all the Featured Portals in it (or as the list grows have a random selection appear). It'll generate some decent traffic and form an incentive to some people to try to get their portal featured. We create more content, and people actually see it. How about it? 62.30.56.116 04:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC) (Dev920)

See Talk:Main Page/Archive 98#Portals on the mainpage. --74.14.20.189 04:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Portals are very underrecognizes and undermaintained and I think its a shame. Atropos 05:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

We do get substantial traffic to some portals. See WikiCharts. The current events portal is not typical because it has always had its own link from every Wikipedia page, but the other portals may be getting much of their traffic from the main page links.-gadfium 06:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A good number of featured portals do not even find mention on that page.--Seraphiel 06:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

hi i was doing a project on pythagoras and i didnt find too much information on it i did find information but it was a bit complicated the wikipeadia website was very helpfull --Zunaira

Pythagorean theorem, Pythagoras? --Nricardo 13:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Could someone remove this article? Intrigued by the tease, I clicked on it and found an incoherent article that has already received several POV and cleanup tags and is getting horribly abused on its talk page. It really doesn't make a good statement for Wikipedia as it currently is, even if it apparently met the criteria. Daniel Case 13:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I just finished updating the section, so it will blight the Main Page no more. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 14:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

In the box at the top of the main page in the line "6,753,306 articles in English", I am suggesting that English be changed to English as to let readers know of other wikipedias. « ANIMUM » 15:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If "English" was made a link at all, would it not be better to point it to English language? Readers wishing to get to other Wikipedias need only glance at the sidebar, scroll down a little or visit www.wikipedia.org – Gurch 16:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Most casual readers won't take the time to scroll down on the "main" main page. « ANIMUM » 20:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Until we get people asking here if there are Wikipedias in other languages, it's unlikely that a change like that will be made. There are enough people complaining that the [insert language] isn't linked, but I haven't seen any complaints looking for Wikipedia in other languages, meaning that they're probably accessible enough as it is. ShadowHalo 21:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Today's featured article image, a view of Puerto Rico from space, is pretty dark and it's generally hard to tell what it is. I clicked on it for a better view, and was suprised to find it hasn't been protected. It seems I could upload a new version. In fact, I've got a brightened (levels adjusted) and color-corrected (to remove the red haze) image ready to go. [2] So, can I upload it? Or would that be disruptive? And why is this image being used for the history article, anyway? How about one of the photographs from the article that represent some part of Puerto Rico's history? Please point me to the right spot to discuss this if this isn't the appropriate page. --Martinship 06:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

All of the content transcluded on the main page is cascade-protected. In the future, if you encounter an actual vulnerability of this nature, please don't announce it here. Try the administrators' noticeboard or one of the IRC channels.

I'm not certain that your version of the photograph is more accurate, but this (and the possibility of using a different image) certainly can be discussed. —David Levy 06:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The modified version shouldn't be used, nor should the original. They're both unsourced, and the current one should be tagged with ((nsd)). ShadowHalo 09:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've located the image on the NASA website and added the source information. —David Levy 10:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In hindsight, I realize I should probably have used the flag of Puerto Rico instead. Raul654 19:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with either one, but I thought you tried to avoid flags? (Oh, and thanks David Levy for finding the source. ) ShadowHalo 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Not quite (For this reason, I will not use maps as main page images[1] and generally will not use country flags, except when the country or flag itself is the FA topic.) 'History of <place>' articles can go either way, IMO. If there isn't one representative image, I'm OK using the flag. Raul654 19:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. ShadowHalo 20:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone interested in replying to the Help Desk question about the Main Page posted at Question : Wikipedia May28th page appears on June19th ?? -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Shame on you folk for linking great tit from the main page :) Borisblue 13:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If the linking wasn't bad enough, someone put a picture of a great tit too... Nil Einne 13:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't wait until we get a chance to link to boobies. howcheng {chat} 17:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the NBA ITN item should add a word or two about another boobie. --Howard the Duck 17:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, I find masked boobies cuter than great tits Nil Einne 19:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely this is a preset limit to the number of double entendres can appear on a single page?  :) DoomsDay349 03:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right... So I'll leave the main page alone and go and eat some spotted dick and play with my pussy instead! Nil Einne 10:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations - you just killed a dozen of them with your question ;) Raul654 03:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Kill them? I always thought that tits/boobies are good for feeding small children. --74.14.20.189 05:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Boobies perhaps. But you wouldn't get much from a tit from what I can see... Nil Einne 10:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Why stop after one ? --74.13.130.59 02:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't get us started on the woodcockColdRedRain

On this day, Vlad III Impaler...err, it should say Vlad III Dracula, as it says in the Night Attack, which is the article which is mentioned for today. It is about consistency and nothing else. Vlad III Impaler in one place and Dracula in another? --Thus Spake Anittas 21:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Gd point. Tourskin 21:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Can it be changed? --Thus Spake Anittas 21:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for changes on the main page are usually made at #Main page error reports above. --199.71.174.100 23:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

His title was Vlad Ţepeş, Vlad Dracula III (the Third) (after his father, Vlad Dracul), he was notoriously known as Vlad the Impaler for his enjoyment of having enemies impaled on spikes. Impaler was not part of his given name, it was just a nickname that he acquired. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please update ITN. There are a few suggestions at WP:ITN/C waiting for admins' approval. Thanks. --74.13.130.59 01:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Admin:Zzyzx11. --74.13.130.59 08:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The m:Wikimedia brand survey discussion has had me thinking, and what I think we need is a better way to promote our Wikimedia sister projects (Wiktionary, Wikinews, Wikisource etc.), you know, the ones languishing on the bottom of the other side of this page. I have this crazy feeling that people just don't pay attention to the bottom and that if we moved them to the top, we might just see the leverage of this page propel some projects that are struggling a little into projects that could really thrive with more participation. I know, I know, this will be different, and it just won't feel right to some of us, but please just look at the the demo (not a finished idea at all, just an idea of placement), and decide for yourself whether or not this can help us further our larger goals at Wikimedia. Thanks.--Pharos 06:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)RE

This might work, if there were a way to make the vertical space used by the ((WikipediaSister)) template much smaller. Perhaps by removing the mottos and shrinking icons? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A definite possibility.--Pharos 12:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Main page probably isn't the biggest advert for our sister projects. I'd say the in article templates do a lot more to alert people to them - for example. --Monotonehell 06:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is the long tail and all, but the MainPage is still a pretty big draw — certainly the equivalent of many thousands of dollars in advertising at least. And of course, it would be a considerably bigger advert for the projects if they were placed more prominently.--Pharos 12:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As I've mentioned above, wikinews isn't just at the bottom of the side of the page but most people still seem to miss it. Nil Einne 07:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews is pretty well-hidden in that ITN box, I'd say. We probably get even less clicks from that link than from the one at the bottom.--Pharos 12:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Main Page advertising would really help. What about linking to Wikinews in Template:Current? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A question for Template talk:Current? --74.13.124.115 05:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia and not a central place to link to all the different sister projects. Moving the front page content down detracts from our content here. Personally I think that we just have to face it and realise that the other projects will never be as big as this one. violet/riga (t) 21:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that finding ways to promote other projects is a good thing, but, and no offense intended, I don't think we want to make the Main Page into a billboard.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, that's what the talk page is for. Go to Wikiversity.  ;-P ShadowHalo 20:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What if you put the icons down the right side of the page? People might just be intrigued... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.101.123.219 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Or the 'navbar' on the left. --74.13.124.115 05:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree, and it'll clog up the main page completely. And, why does Wikipedia need a better way to promote its sister projects? I don't think Wikipedia is an advertising vehicle for random-Wikimedia-project-10121, which should live and die on its own merits as much as possible. If you believe the page is too long at the moment, perhaps simplifying the icons or removing the sister projects entirely would be a much better solution for getting rid of extraneous non-Wikipedia-related information. -Halo 19:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not think we should let our sister projects "live or die". We have to recognize that Wikimedia is a whole, a coordinated effort to improve the availability of free knowledge in the world, and we have to let our casual readers know it too. Does Google hide Google Images or Google News at the bottom of their page because they're not "true Google"? We have to rise above such thinking. The other projects may never grow to the size of Wikipedia, but their success is limited not by their current participation only, but by the fundamental low level of awareness of the general public of these projects. And relocating the links to the sister projects will not lengthen the MainPage one iota, nor will it be made in any way less useful to our readers; indeed, they will be more clearly pointed toward where some of the things they expect to find in Wikipedia actually belong.--Pharos 21:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Google advertise Google News, Google Images et al because it's in their commercial (and indeed shareholders) interests to do so and extend their brand, whereas the Wikimedia Foundation is not-for-profit and not chasing page-views to sell ad-space. It's also worth mentioning that Google's solution was to supply easily-ignorable links to their other products, letting them live-and-die, rather than spamming you with large descriptions and icons which is seemingly what you're suggesting. I think the fundamental reason why the other projects have relatively floundered compared to Wikipedia is that, functionally, the wiki-model doesn't work as well, the content overlaps, and there's generally less interest in original news reporting or writing a textbook, and I don't think using half the front-page to push less popular projects is the solution and letting them live-or-die on their own merits, such as Wikipedia did, is better. But then I also don't see Wikimedia Foundation as a "co-ordinated effort to improve the availability of free knowledge in the world" - I see them as a necessary evil and bureaucracy to host several free projects, nothing more or less. -Halo 22:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a strange idea that just because Wikimedia is a non-profit we don't have "interests"; indeed we have non-commercial interests just as every other charitable organization does, and our primary one is improving the availability of free knowledge in the world, whether you agree with that goal or not. I will point out yet again that moving the sister projects box will not eat up one more pixel of screenspace than is used currently.--Pharos 00:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. People come here for Wikipedia, so that is what they should get. I hate websites that try to tell me what I want instead of giving me what I asked for. Commercial websites do that all the time, because they make money on directing people to things they didn't really want, but we should respect our readers. --Apoc2400 08:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Think about it though the whole of all the wiki's is to deliever knowledge to the world and that was one of the main goals that Jimmy Wales set. I believe putting some kind of links at the top of the page will help but not dominant on the page. As mentioned above many people don't know about these sister projects but people that i know would find them very useful. Wikipedia is wikipedia though and people did come here for wikipedia so if this does go ahead i wouldn't make it big on the main page, maybe put it by the links where the portals are. Also shouldn't this be on the proposals page by the village pump.Wiki.user 08:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think this is the solution to promote other Wikimedia projects (and there's the question on whether we should be). There's also the view that Wikiquote, Wikinews, etc. are projects to help Wikipedia, and not separate projects. My view is that they are separate projects, but to use the Main page to promote them is not a good idea. More interwiki stuff like the box on the right is the way to go. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquote has quotations related to Moo.

Pharos mentioned Google's linking to their other projects on their main search page. The thing is that Google doesn't use big, flashy logos for their links like we do— just simple text links. If we eliminate the logo links at the bottom, and add in text links at the top, we could actually free up some space for other uses while promoting the sister projects at the same time. I personally prefer simple text links to clickable logos anyway.—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 01:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not change it for a few days or a week and see how traffic on the sister sites changes? --- RockMFR 01:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've suggested we include a link to them on every page, not just the main page, but working small icons of them all somewhere on the page (e.g. the bottom). All the projects should do this, IMO. It is difficult to work into the layout, but just for convenience it would be worth it. Richard001 05:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

We need something like this User:This, that and the other/mpbox, in a strip below the header. But I haven't got time to make smaller images (16x16 or 20x20). This, that and the other 10:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 11:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should try it for a few days and see how it goes like RockMFR suggested. This should carry on on the proposals page as this is attracting a lot of interest here. Wiki.user 19:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't fit Wikispecies, Commons, Meta-wiki. On my resolution (an unusual 848x600, maximised), nothing more fits. I guess it looks ugly on 800x600 and too much space on 1024x768 plus. This, that and the other 08:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What if you put the titles underneath, like this? —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby (talk • contribs) 20:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That looks pretty good, ya know. And it would take up considerably less room than the current layout. Surely something like this is the perfect compromise?--Pharos 00:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of moving this to the top... especially in it's reduced state as Cadby has shown. Granted, Wikipedia does not have commercial interests, like Google, but increasing the popularity of these projects will also help increase the accuracy of the information. The more people that use these resources, the more people may contribute. Or... what about this idea... Each day there is a featured article and a featured image. What if each day you also have a featured WikiResource. Today it's the Wiktionary... tomorrow, the WikiSpecies project, etc. Then, you can have a small box dedicated to the icon AND the explanation of the sister project. Trigam41 15:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The latest template (by Caddy Waydell) is great in my opinion and i agree with the recent comments above but couldn't you make it a little, little bit smaller.Wiki.user 19:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it looks a bit lumpy, with the captions not lined up. Maybe align them bottom? This, that and the other 07:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm all thumbs with the more esoteric template coding. Can someone help with this?--Pharos 04:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's some more. This version is a bit more compact and more aligned, and This is not only compact, but annoyingly collapsible! —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby (talk • contribs) 07:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC) 07:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"The right-wing Union for a Popular Movement, party of French President Nicolas Sarkozy (pictured), wins a National Assembly majority in the legislative elections."

From an American political perspective, UPM is center-left, not right-wing. Some discernment should be noted, as what constitutes right-wing on the Continent differs from Stateside. - MSTCrow 05:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no point of reference besides the country's political spectrum. The elections were in France; thus we use the French spectrum. The UPM is big and has many factions; but when taken as a whole and within its context, it falls on the right.--cloviz 05:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but centre-right is probably better. That is what the article for the party says, after all. A Geek Tragedy 10:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I'd suggest in the future, for political parties outside of the Anglosphere, it should somehow indicate that under local conditions, Party X is politically Y, and may or may not be considered politically Y within our political frames of reference. I do think it's better it is now listed as centre-right, not conservative. - MSTCrow 02:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"UPM retains majority despite losses" seems a bit of a negative way of presenting this - according to the Economist it's the first time a party has held on to a majority for 29 years. [3] --Dilaudid 20:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Haven't we had enough of FF FAs? I know, I know, the whole schpiel comes up each time, how I ought to improve what I want and submit it...I'm not disagreeing with the way Wikipedia works...the sight just raised an eyebrow over here. 209.190.233.66 14:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that of the 9 oldest main page requests, fully 5 of them are for video games. Raul654 14:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Eheheh...*laughs nervously* Trigger's plot summary could be trimmed, but Cross's is just too complex (that said, there are at least a few FA precedents). I'll have to get MNSG and CT's down a couple notches. My next probable FAC, The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest, will probably have a better chance when it's done. Zeality 19:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Today's main page FA section is missing its thumbnail (normally in the upper right corner). The other thumbnails and POTD appear normal.

The image was originally an image of a SNES console, which I agree wouldn't really be an appropriate image for the article. I would suggest the use of a re-sized version of the image that appears in the infobox on the page. --Credema 20:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just noticing the interwikis. You have CEBUNO but not ÍSLENSKA? (is:) why? Why do you have all the other scandinavian and nordic languages, but not Icelandic? It would be nice if you added it , we do have more then 10.000 articles. Thank you! :) --Ice201 00:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The minimum number to be listed on the main page is 25,000 articles. Is.Wikipedia currently only has about 15,813. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Cebuano has 22.000 articles. Another explanation? I kind of take it to offense how you dont have the Icelandic wikipedia link on there, i mean it is just one more language? We are very active wikipedia, you cant place it on there? We have many edits a day, and it grows faster each day, I am kind of offended I dont see my language there. Thanks! --Ice201 00:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia in Cebuano actually has more than 33,000 articles. Please assume good faith; no one here is against the Icelandic language. Your language is not there just because we need a rule to limit the number of Wikipedias that we can link to in the Main Page; and that rule is: more than 25,000 articles. If Wikipedia in Icelandic is growing as fast as you are saying, it will be there soon. And I don't know why you take it against Cebuano, it's an important language spoken by 20 million people...--cloviz 00:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

so your saying icelandic is not an important language? it is actually where english came from almost. úff... this is wonderful

Looking at the page history, Ceb was added when the limit was only 20,000.[4] When the limit was changed to 25,000, the list was not corrected. So I will correct it now. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the list on Template:MainPageInterwikis is correct. However, I sort of feel like it is a little redundant to the "Wikipedia languages" list at the bottom of the main page, and would prefer to remove one or the other. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it just reassures that fact that wikipedia is bias. I mean, honestly, I never even heard of Cebuano until I saw it on the list , and I am very interested in language. Cebuano seems more of a DIALECT t hen a language of Tagalog or Filipino. --Ice201 01:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh i forgot, Icelandic is a minor language according to your Germanic languages template! --Ice201 01:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick fix, go write 10,000 Icelandic Wiki-articles and get them on the page. I'm willing to bet the whole thing is automated anyway. (It would be a very boring job to have to count wiki-articles. Dachande 01:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Logically, if we were to add Íslenska to the Main Page, we would also have to add Galego, Ελληνικά, ไทย, Nynorsk, فارسی, Bahasa Melayu, नेपाल भाषा, Tiếng Việt, Bosanski, Euskara, Shqip, and বাংলা first, as they have more articles. Just 1 link? Try 14. What would the cut-off be? 15,650? That's a nice round (okay, not quite) number below Íslenska but above the next Wikipedia, Lëtzebuergesch, which you don't seem to want on the main page. But what about all the poor Luxembourgeois? I think they would feel a little cheated by that.

On the other hand, if we were to just remove Sinugboanong Binisaya from the main page, since you seem to object to its presence, we would just also have to remove العربية, Hrvatski, and తెలుగు, as they have less pages than it. What would the cut-of be then? 33,200? That's better than 15,650, at least. But then why does Eesti deserve to be on the main page? Its only got 3,000 more articles. "Lucky Estonians!", the Cebuano speakers will say! Or maybe they'll do what you did, and complain about a language with 17,500 more articles than them (in your case, more than twice the number of articles), which would in this case be Lumbaart. "Lumbaart is not more notable than Sinugboanong Binisaya," they will say to us. "If Lumbaart stays, so should Cebuano!"

What a conundrum this is! I guess the problem is that you are basing what language should be in the main page on some subjective standard of "importance." However, our standards are much clearer. All you have to do is have at least 25,000 articles. Cebuano does; Icelandic doesn't.

A suggestion, though: You can have a bot auto-translate pages about French communes into Icelandic for you. It looks like that's what they did. Of my 10 article random sample, 3 were about Philippine municipalities, (which oddly enough included English words; they could be loanwords I suppose), and 7 were 1 line articles about French communes. Just a helpful hint. Atropos 02:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the guy who said Cebuano is a dialect, he obviously haven't been in the Philippines where people don't seem to understand each other, lol. --Howard the Duck 02:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not really a native english speaker, but I am almost 100% sure that it is he obviously HASN'T been not HAVEN'T. Correct me if I am wrong? About Luxembourgish, you should put Luxembourgish on the front page too. Maybe then, add those 14!! In Icelandic wiki, although I am somewhat against it, we have interwikis for over 10.000, not bad at all, is it? I mean you dont leave out the most active wikipedias. I mean I am not going to get upset over a wikipedia thing, but still add more interwikis! --Ice201 03:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

As expected, corrections will be coming (that was intentional), however if we'll add those, we might as well add Tsonga language. And IMHO, if we'll do what you want, the list will be predominantly Indo-European. --Howard the Duck 04:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"your saying icelandic is not an important language? it is actually where english came from almost." What? How did you figure that out? English is of Latin and West Germanic derivation, and so is Icelandic - one didn't evolve from the other, they both evolved from West Germanic separately. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Compare Old English texts with modern Icelandic texts , then maybe youll find your answer.

We don't consider the 'importance' of languages since we never liked to consider importance on wikipedia as it's too messy and POV. But according to Icelandic language there are 300k speakers (I presume first language). According to Cebuano language it has 20 million first language speakers and 11 million second language. I think you'll find you have difficulty convincing people that Icelandic is of equal importance to Cebuano. We might as well say every language is of equal importance and just put every language... If your only argument is that Icelandic and English share the same history, then are you telling me we should put up the Old English language/Anglo Saxon wikipedia as well? Nil Einne 10:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I could even say Tagalog with 24 million speakers is more important than Cebuano, but with Tagalog Wikipedia's very low article count, it's a good call Tagalog shouldn't be listed at the Main Page. --Howard the Duck 10:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I do think Tagalog should be up there more then Cebuano. And what is wrong with just placing wikipedias more then 10.000 articles on there? I am not arguing saying my language is more important then yours, the most important language in the world is obviously English since its the international, as with the other UN languages. But each language is unique, but to simply place their sister languages (norsk dansk svenska) on the front page and not Icelandic? It is kind of insulting. I am not trying to diminutive Cebuano, it was just Cebuano's lucky day to be used as an example. Please dont take my comments the wrong way as insulting another language, it is just I am finding the english wikipedia very bias. Maybe the front page should be done another way then article count? --Ice201 15:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

But if it were to be done any other way than article count, then that would be showing a bias. Right now, the main page does not state which languages are better or worse, it merely lists the Wikipedias with more than a set number of articles. If that number was lowered to 10,000 articles, then there would be 63 different Wikipedias linked from the front page. Hence why the threshold was raised from 20,000 to 25,000 a while back. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 16:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the day, it's better we don't change anything. Use article counts to determine which goes and which doesn't. That'll be fairer for everyone. --Howard the Duck 16:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wow, I didn't realize this was so important to some people. Of the three languages being discussed (Tagalog, Cebuano, and Icelandic) I speak one. Useight 22:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

My two cents worth. I don't think a sports event deserves to go on the main news menu, on the main page. In fact, it looks grotesque, sandwiched between religious massacres and national elections. Today is one example. Can we devlop a policy to change this? Perhaps relegate sport to a non-news category? Sorry if I am expressing this badly, but it just jars. BrainyBabe 13:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with you. If anything, I think Wikipedia should have a separate sports section for sports championships in major leagues. ColdRedRain 12:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I would agree for regular sports coverage, such as regular season scores, but for a championship, I think that's main page worthy. I'm sure most North American newspapers included the NBA final on the front page alongside "religious massacres and national elections" (all four Toronto dailies featured it on their front pages). Wikipedia needs to cover all aspects of information, and the main page is for news, which includes big sports events. Freshacconci 13:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Freshacconci. Sports events are news. And things like the results of the World Cup or the Superbowl can mean more to some people than pretty much any other piece of news. Sure, it might not be something tragic or something that will change an entire nation (such as a religious massacre, or an election), but I'd say it's certainly worthy of being included in the news. I wouldn't be for including anything outside of major events though. So, for example, I wouldn't have wanted anything on there stating that the fixtures list for the 2007/08 English football season had been announced, or that the NFL drafts had begun. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 13:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

News are mostly sad, sports news are usually happy, unless you're the opposing team's fan. At least ITN isn't just killing and blowing everybody up. --Howard the Duck 13:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well we also nearly always feature elections. While the results may be sad for the losers and some of the voters, they would usually be resonably happy for the majority of voters. Of course there may be some instances when the results are sad for most of the world but I'll refrain from giving any examples. Indeed of the 6 items on ITN at the moment only 2 are clearly 'sad' events (not that I'm saying this is typical of ITN)Nil Einne 18:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Aww, come on! Did the first complaint in a while have to be over an American sport? It's hard enough for us already with these football hooligans. Zeality 19:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Many of what you think are "American" sports are actually international sports with their premier leagues based in the United States. That would be like calling soccer a British sport because the best league in the world is in England (Sorry Spanish and Brazilian soccer fans, the premiership is the gold standard of leagues.)ColdRedRain 12:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The practice in ITN is (supposed to be) to only post results from the ultimate level of competition in any one sport. Sometimes that's something like the NBA, but mostly there is a legitimately International competition we can consider to be "ultimate". By the way this same discussion is going on simultainiously in three places right now and has gone on several times in the past. Mostly people argue REALLY HARD about a complete non-issue (notability) and ignore the facts.--Monotonehell 12:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What are NBA and NFL? Is ITN something to do with sport? --JeremyBoden 14:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(Indent Break) Wikipedia is not a news source. For that, see Wikinews. ffm ✎talk 17:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Rejoice soccer hooligans! The NBA, or especifically, that American related sports item is gone. Don't worry, Mavs fans are happy too. --Howard the Duck 16:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think sports news is just as much news as weather, elections, etc. There shouldn't be a policy against sports headlines in the "in the news" section. Useight 22:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey everybody, I requested a peer review on the Holocaust article, however there has been no response at all, and its been a few weeks. What should I do? Brent Ward

I've found PR less than useful (of course, it would be more useful if I had the time to do PR's myself). What I do is just submit it to WP:FAC and clean it up as concerns are raised. That's how I've gotten my last few articles to FA. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-18 15:59Z

Make sure you've addressed the problems that caused the article to be delisted as a GA first - maybe even see about trying to get it over that hurdle as a form of Peer Review (though the GA system is also fairly backed up). GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... Another post unrelated to Main Page.

This page is not the place to ask general questions. This page is for discussing the Wikipedia page "Main Page". Use this link to find out how to ask questions and get answers.

--74.13.130.59 01:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe ((metatalk)) should also be added at the bottom of the page... --Howard the Duck 05:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah we've been down this road before. We started with metatalk and ended up with the large helpful header after loads of edits. It doesn't matter how much help these headers had, we still had about the same number of people posting unrelated items. The last consensus was to simply help people who post here, redirect them if that would be helpful to them, and not complain about it. --Monotonehell 12:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Not my fault, I tried all of the relevant places and got no advice and, given that the holocaust is a significant article, im sure you wont begrudge me for asking a question on here. Also, given that with your sage advice i hope to make it featured it will be on the main page and therefore, is relevant, albeit prematurely Brent Ward

• Actually featured articles should be discussed on their respective talk pages too. BTW, I think the significance (and large amount of controversy, complexity etc) of the article is part of the problem. Most people are probably scared off by the thought of having to deal with the monumential task of dealing with it unfortunately. And most of those who are willing to be involved probably already are so they can't peer review it Nil Einne 20:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, can anyone explain the technical method used to suppress the words "Main Page" on this main page? We might do the same at Wikisource. Thanks, Dovi 17:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

iirc, it has to do with the code that is currently at the beginning of MediaWiki:Monobook.css labeled "Don't display some stuff on the main page". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

i just wanted to say the site is good but does not always have the info i need i would also like lots of info on history things like the battle of hastings ok things like that

Have you tried typing "battle of hastings" into the search box? It works for me. For other examples, it may help if you use the right capitalisation, ie "Battle of Hastings".-gadfium 20:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You must remember to use correct spellings and capitalisation, as Wikipedia's search function is not as forgiving as that of Google or other search engines in case of errors. --Credema 20:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know,

If you are new to editing Wikipedia, you are probably on the wrong page. Do not ask general questions on this page. Do not talk about articles on this page. This page is for discussing the Wikipedia page Main Page/Archive 101. To comment on an article, go back to that article's talk page. To find out how to ask questions and get answers, see Wikipedia:Questions.

. ffm ✎talk 20:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually personally I always use Google for that reason (amongst others). Usually just typing the subject is enough, if necessary you can add wiki or wikipedia to the search. Obviously the proper way would be site:en.wikipedia.org. Cheers Nil Einne 07:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

aaand, if you're anywhere beyond middle school, you shouldn't trust Wikipedia to do your homework beyond the barest of facts. Take everything you read here with a mine of salt. 209.190.233.66 20:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is fine as a research tool, but never a source. --74.14.18.116 03:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And I'm not positive it's as bad as 209 frames it. Gracenotes^T § 07:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

hm ... depending on the subject matter, probably. Gracenotes^T § 07:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

These responses might overwhelm you but then again, we are here to help. Basically if its an FA article (Featured Article) its good for research. Use wikipedia as a basis for obtaining possible facts in other articles. Then you might wanna do some googling on them later to prove them. Hope that helps. Tourskin 21:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree. Wikipedia is a great source of info, as long as its sources are cited. I'm a college-level student and I use Wikipedia all the time to get info. Then I follow the "External Links" to back up numbers and other data. Either way, Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum, but a place to discuss how to make the article better. Useight 22:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I was surfing thorugh your website, i also saw the gujarati page on your website, i noticed few things i thought they were worth mentioning:

like the tool box is wrongly mentioned as "hathiyar ni peti", actually it should be called "sadhano ni peti"

if you wish i would help you out with translation in gujarati.

I am working in Pune, Maharashtra, India and Imy mother tongue is Gujarati, hence i am able to read, write and understand that language well enough.

<e-mail address removed> - Dreaded Walrus

you can contact me on that, i'll help wikipedia voluntaryly as i personally like this website a lot.

regards,

Shivraj Sharma Sharma shivraj 13:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be talking about the Gujarati Wikipedia. Your assistance would be much appreciated, but you should join that Wikipedia, as this is the English language Wikipedia. An administrator there should be able to help you. If you feel like working on system messages, it appears that 0% of these have been translated into Gujarati. Updates can be posted to bugzilla. - BanyanTree 14:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please update ITN. There are a couple of good suggestions at WP:ITN/C waiting for admins' approval. Thanks. --74.13.124.138 11:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again, Admin:Zzyzx11. --74.14.23.198 04:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As u can read here, the german wikipedia has reached now 600.000 articles. --134.147.117.190 23:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Congrats. ffm ✎talk 00:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I has won the Libertadores and even it is not in the wikinews!!! Where do you live? In the first world?? Give poors the posibility to emocionate a little —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.250.93.141 (talk • contribs).

For those not aware, this user is talking about Boca Juniors, a football (soccer) team, who have recently won the Copa Libertadores, which is the South American equivalent of the UEFA Champions League. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason that this is not on WP:ITN is because no suggestion has been made at WP:ITN/C. ffm ✎talk 00:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

According to Chris Pontius, the Boca Juniors aren't very polite. Hahah! Zeality 02:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is it only the English Wikipedia has a globe with aliased borders? (esp. visible at the bottom of it) --84.159.33.52 08:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't give you a reason for it, but you can find a gallery of the international logos here: Commons:Wikipedia. I wouldn't suggest making any changes to them though, seems how they are all copyrighted, not released under GFDL like everything else... You could suggest a change be made somewhere on the Commons. Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 01:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

wasn't it supposed to be featured today??24.109.218.172 00:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

oh it was in an edit war ok. i know now.24.109.218.172 00:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

hi! i just want to know the opinion of others on this question, experience vs training? is there any difference between this two? can someone explain it to me... tnx!Gurlsweet 08:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This page is not the place to ask general questions. This page is for discussing the Wikipedia page "Main Page/Archive 101". Use this link to find out how to ask questions and get answers.

ffm ✎talk 17:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

However there is no place on wikipedia suitable for questions about opinions unrelated to our task of creating an encylopaedia. You might want to consider usenet or some other internet forum Nil Einne 21:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that what Wikipedia:Reference desk is for? At least that's what Wikipedia:Questions seems to suggest. ShadowHalo 21:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk is better for information, not for people's opinions. You'll need a questionnaire for that. --74.13.128.121 01:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point, although I think the main thing Gurlsweet wanted to know is, "What is the difference between experience and training". Which Wikipedia:Reference desk would be able to help with. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 02:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't know, the question asked for an opinion of others on experience vs training which I presume was asking for an opinion on which one is better. Opinions on topics lead to soapboxing and are not what the reference desk is for. If you want factual answers on the difference between experience and training then that is a different question and may be suitable for the reference desk but such a question should IMHO be phrased better Nil Einne 07:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

A few months ago, anglophones in Montreal felt offended and complained about the accent mark on the letter E in Montreal. How about the letter E in Québec/Quebec? --74.13.128.121 01:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Fête nationale du Québec is the location of the article, so that's what gets on the Main Page. If you wish to move the article so it has the same spelling as Quebec, the place to make a proposal is Talk:Fête nationale du Québec. - BanyanTree 03:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I meant [[Quebec|Québec]] at OTD yesterday. This is not on the main page anymore, so never mind. It's alright. --74.13.130.23 04:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Access to Wikipedia seems to be a bit patchy over the past couple of hours. What's the deal? --Jnelson09 14:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are new to editing Wikipedia, you are probably on the wrong page. Do not ask general questions on this page. Do not talk about articles on this page. This page is for discussing the Wikipedia page Main Page/Archive 101. To comment on an article, go back to that article's talk page. To find out how to ask questions and get answers, see Wikipedia:Questions.

—METS501 (talk) 04:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was a rude response. — Brian (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't even gave the direct link to answer the question, LOL. --Howard the Duck 12:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know the direct link, and I didn't have time to write a whole response ad go looking, so I just used the template from the top of the page :-) Sorry if it seemed rude. —METS501 (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Um...? This can't be a good thing--VectorPotential^Talk 19:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems there's already a discussion going at AN/i--VectorPotential^Talk 19:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way to view old or deleted articles? Thanks. Link's Awakening 22:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the right place to ask general questions about Wikipedia, but no, there isn't a way for users to see deleted articles unless they are restored by an administrator through a process like deletion review. If you mean old versions of existing articles, you can click the "History" tab at the top of any page to see past versions. Leebo ^T/C 22:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

While there is no way for non-administrators to view deleted articles directly, you can request a copy from one of the administrators in Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles to send you a copy, or make a request at WP:DRV#Content review. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 22:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks guys! Link's Awakening 22:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we add something about Chris Benoit's (World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) wrestler) death in "In the news" section? This is major news in the US and Canada and the wrestling world. --Effer^AKS 19:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:ITN/C#June 25. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is very big news along with the circumstances of the death, it should be on the latest news at least, but even chris benoit should be featured on the front page Prem4eva 12:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want this item to be posted on ITN, head on to WP:ITN/C and let your voices be heard. --Howard the Duck 16:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the death of Joseph Smith be noted in the section about what happened today in years passed? Useight 17:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally they only do births/deaths on Big Round Numbered anniversaries. 69.95.50.15

I see, thanks for the info. Useight 00:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely love the new position of the sister projects. Great thanks to Pharos for implementing it! I hope it's there to stay, this should give the sister projects a huge boost. (In both users, contributions, and vandalism). Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 03:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC) I came here to say that I really dislike the new position of the sister projects. It really adds a lot of clutter to the Main Page, and pushes the actual content of wikipedia so that it is less than half the page when the screen first loads. I appreciate the intent, but the sister projects are, from a design standpoint, way too big and way too prominent, right now. I hope we reconsider this move. Also, the "sister projects" table is a different style which I find jarring with the Featured Article and In the News tables. The whole thing looks unappealing and distracting to me, I hope we go back to the old version. --JayHenry 03:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Raul already reverted, but I want to agree with this. People come to Wikipedia looking for encyclopedic content, putting a large sister projects template up top detracts from that and displaces more relevant content. Dragons flight 03:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, he reverted while I was typing my thoughts. Thanks Raul! So that nobody is confused, I was objecting to the design of this version of the Main Page. --JayHenry 03:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing you all didn't peruse the discussion at Talk:Main Page#Radical proposal to help our Wikimedia sister projects. The new version takes up LESS room than the previous version. I really do think you should give it a little bit of time to see how it does. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 04:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. Why push my content further down, making it harder to get to? Very Microsoft & evil. --Knulclunk 04:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Elipongo, you are right, I don't regularly check Talk:Main Page to see if major changes are coming, but when changes do occur, I believe I have a right to state my opinion of them. My point isn't that the page is bigger. My point is that the actual content of Wikipedia was much lower. Thus, when a browser window first opened the main page of the new version, less than half of what was displayed on an actual computer monitor was wikipedia content. There's a difference between clutter at the top of a page and clutter at the bottom. (Consider a newspaper if you will, a well-designed newspaper has a masthead of perhaps two inches, below are the main stories, and then at the bottom it will have a number of keys and guides. Same thing here.) I think the intention was good, but I did not like the way it ultimately looked. I hope that makes sense. --JayHenry 04:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't ever think to stifle your right to state your opinion! I do, however, find it frustrating to watch the admins have a small scale content dispute over something that was discussed already. If I disagreed with a similar good faith edit on a regular article page, I would bring the topic up on the talk page rather than instantly revert as has been done. I agree with you pretty much in terms of the size of the new header, though. My suggestion in the original discussion was to dump the icons and just use text links. That would take up even less room and look less cluttered than the current page. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 05:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I was aware of the discussion, but didn't follow it very closely. Please don't take this personally, but I initially found the proposal so ridiculous that I assumed it would never be tried. Now that it has been tried, I am compelled to say that it is ridiculous. We are here to write and present an encyclopedia. If we can share a little free good will with other projects, then alright, but it shouldn't be pursued at the expense of the utility of the Main Page. The sister projects are a footnote to what Wikipedia is, not a feature. As such their placement at bottom of the page is reasonable, while placement at the top would be distracting and inappropriate. Dragons flight 06:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I briefly participated in the discussion, long enough I think to make it clear I thought it was a pointless idea but didn't follow up much since I presumed it would go no where. I also presumed that if such a major change was going to be tried, there would be a far greater attempt to tell people about it first then some discussion with limited participation. I think people need to realise that if your going to make a substanial edit to a common page/template/etc, there's likely to be significant opposition but many people either won't bother to participate or won't even be aware of the ongoing discussion. Before carrying out any proposal after initial discussion, you need to attract the attention of the silent majority first or you're liable to find your change reverted. Whatever the case tho, standard practice is bold, revert, discuss. As such, it was proper for the change to be reverted when a number of people clearly disagreed with it and the ongoing discussion suggests there is clearly no consensus at the current time. Nil Einne 17:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC) BTW, just to be clear I'm not trying to lay any blame or fault or diss anyone. Just pointing out what I see is the best way to do things Nil Einne 20:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, users don't need to see the sister projects up at the top like that. I think that the proposal was mainly aimed at new users, people without accounts. Is there some way that a cookie or something like that can be set, so that a section containing the sister projects can be hidden for people with accounts or for people with accounts more than X days old? I know I've seen similar things done with a [dismiss] button on the right; can something similar be done here? That way new users (who are not aware of the sister projects) will see them, but regulars (who know very much about them) won't. I do firmly believe though that moving things up helps (which is why I moved Error Reports above the Table of Contents), because people have the attention span of a gnat and aren't likely at all to think there's anything like WikiBooks or Wiktionary out there — Wikipedia is the most well-known out of any of them. Like I said, regular users don't need to see the clutter of the bar, but I'm sure there's some way to get new visitors aware of these projects. —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby (talk • contribs) 07:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd oppose that too. It's nice to help out sister projects, but it shouldn't pushing down our actual content. ShadowHalo 07:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Okay, stupid idea #3: What if we put something in Wikipedia:Introduction that links to sister projects? That way new users interested in editing can be introduced to the other projects at the same time, and it wouldn't impact the Main Page or the people that just want to read but not to get an account. —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby (talk • contribs) 07:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that moving the sister projects listing up is a bad idea, but we should think about using the smaller version of this section that User:Cadby Waydell Bainbrydge developed. Here's what we have now: Template:WikipediaSister Here's the compact version: Template:WikipediaSister-header Λυδαcιτγ 18:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've altered it again to make it more Main-Page-like:

<substed template removed - messed with page's wiki code> —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby (talk • contribs) 02:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm... you're going to want to un-subst that, and just link to it. It's created an entirely new editable section, and messed with a few other things on this page. I'll remove it for now, but there is a link to the version of the page (to the new section, actually), here

I'd say if there was any chance of this going at the top of the page, it would have to be much "less tall" than that. Say, the size it would be without the images, and maybe then some. And that's if it had any chance of going at the top at all. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 02:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I unprotected the template (Template:WikipediaSister-header) so you can edit it, and replaced it with your new version. Dreaded Walrus, I was asking about using this template in the same spot as the current list of sister projects, which is transcluded from Template:WikipediaSister. Λυδαcιτγ 04:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I like that new version at Template:WikipediaSister-header. Just put that where the old list of projects were (or move it above the "Other areas of Wikipedia" section, so it blends in with the other boxed parts of the main page). --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 04:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course it created an entirely new editable section; that's <h2> for you, just the same coding that's on the main page templates anyway. You'll notice even now, without substing it, it still creates a new editable section; it's just the way it works. But considering the template's been updated I suppose it doesn't make a difference, just wanted to extinguish any fears that it'll break the Main Page. :) I think... —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby (talk • contribs) 17:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

For someone with very bad eyesight, I can't read the descriptions. The icons all lined up at one row are cute though. --Howard the Duck 17:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

At higher resolutions, the text is too small. At lower resolutions, the entire layout looks terrible. Regardless of placement, it's disconcerting that Pharos decided to place an earlier version on the main page without proper community testing. It never is safe for anyone to assume that something looks good on everyone's screen simply because it looks good on his/her screen.

We spent months tweaking and testing every little thing, gradually building consensus that clearly doesn't exist for the proposed change (which, like others, I strongly oppose). —David Levy 09:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that everything that goes on the MainPage is liable to some special display issues on different monitor settings. My hope was that any such issues would be corrected relatively quickly, as they have been historically, and are being now in this case. I'm not sure it's always necessary or desirable that every change should really need a six-month lead time. WP:BOLD means something, no? Anyway, it appears we still await the arrival of the perfect template to convince everyone else of the desirability of this change :)--Pharos 01:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for your kind suggestions. I'll have to tweak it a little myself, when I have more time. If someone would be kind enough to help me out with this, I would be most appreciative. Again, thank you for your criticisms, as you know they help in the process of developing a new template. —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby (talk • contribs) 19:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What about really small, like this:

Wikimedia Sister Projects

--Knulclunk 21:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but I'm afraid an icon won't be enough for new users to understand. —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby (talk • contribs) 22:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The template's been changed again; any chance of feedback? —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby (talk • contribs) 23:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The icons aren't justified on my screen - i.e., they're all clustered in the center, with blank space to either side. That's at 1280x800. Λυδαcιτγ 04:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Same here, in both Firefox and IETab. 1280x1024. Also, there seems to be a white background behind the logos for some reason. It's barely noticeable in Firefox (it pretty much just covers the bottom line of text), but in IETab, it looks like, well, this (I recoloured the green bit to red using MSPaint, to make the contrast more visible). --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A smaller version I suggested earlier could be better, but it's missing a couple of wikis due to problems I had under 800x600 resolution. These could be added again, though. As somebody said before, it is small text, and therefore some people could find it hard to read. Also the images link to the image pages. (These might be fixed by the time you read this.) View it here: User:This, that and the other/mpbox This, that and the other _[talk] 07:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

edit break

The now-version takes up two rows on my srtup now. Unlike the previous-version that was all in one row. The problem we're seeing is because you're trying to fit exact pixel width icons into an adaptive space. Our fonts are set from the monobook CSS from our individual browser's x-small fontsize, then adjusted up by percentage. There's no way you'll be able to marry the pixel width of icons with the relative width of font sizes on everyone's browser the same way. --Monotonehell 11:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. What I'd really like to see, is a justified row of icons that can go onto a second row if needed at smaller resolutions, but I'm stuck as to how to go about it. —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby (talk • contribs) 20:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You could use JS, the window.width property gives you the width of the browser window and document.width ("Netscape only", which is a handy tip for modern-day browsers) for the doc itself's width. But MediaWiki isn't good at JS, and it probably won't do it. CSS's "auto-generated content" feature would be another option, but it can't work out that stuff. This, that and the other _[talk] 07:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm not adding anything new, but I'd just like to get in my two cents that I can't stand the way advertising and allegedly helpful links to new features always tend to, over a couple of years, creep into any website that starts off with a purity of purpose. I suppose it's an artifact of any design-by-committee approach. I'm not arguing against change, I'm just arguing that changes should be made with the user's intent in mind. A user visiting en.wikipedia.org wants and expects to see the English encyclopedia, not a collection of non-encyclopedia links that someone has decided that the user needs to be educated about. 69.95.50.15 15:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)