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.

If any image is protected under crown copyright, is it fair use? If not, I'll have to retract my "new" Expo 67 images. -- user:zanimum

The rules for CC are fairly complicated - see the guidance on the HMSO website at http://www.hmso.gov.uk/copyright/licences/click-use-home.htm . -- ChrisO 23:40, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

When I go into a page history, there's check boxes. What are they for? Is there a page explaining them, because I can't find it. -- user:zanimum

Don't feel so bad - it took me a good 3-5 minutes to figure it out. I was even thinking about posting to the pump. Anyway, check any two boxes, and it'll show you the difference beteween the 2 versions you select. →Raul654 14:32, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been brought up in the past, but it seems to me it would be a good idea to list articles on the main page that need some work--granted, the main page is a user's first look at Wikipedia and these articles will look ugly initially, but I think putting articles needing work on the main page would be an excellent way to improve articles that have been overlooked. After the article has been improved significantly, it could then be removed from both the Wikipedia Main Page and the PNA page. Just a thought :) Sarge Baldy 21:35, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

Disagree. As you said, "the main page is a user's first look at Wikipedia and these articles will look ugly". —Noldoaran (Talk) 04:42, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Short Sunderland is listed on this page as a featured article, but is not, in fact a featured article. A cursory look at the article looked very good, but I think we should refrain from putting non-featured articles in the featured article list. Unless someone objects, I intend to remove it shortly. →Raul654 23:57, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

You're right, Raul--I'm sure Arwel just forgot. Please do make the change. :) Jwrosenzweig 00:05, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK, sorry -- it is a good one, though! :) Arwel 00:07, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I removed it from the main page, but nominated it on the Featured article candidates. →Raul654 00:15, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

Why not just add it in as a new article? Sarge Baldy 00:24, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

That's a good idea. →Raul654 00:27, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

The aviation guys are in the process of installing their new taxobox on all the plane articles, and don't seem to be too particular about leaving the articles in a sane state (I think they're inserting the taxobox in all, and then planning to return to format it properly later). There's a danger they'll do so for this article, and leave it looking like AH-64 Apache does now. I don't think that would be ideal for anything linked from the main page. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:40, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I just made the same mistake myself earlier... I wasn't aware brilliant prose was now featured articles and that was where everything in that category was was dug up from :) Sarge Baldy 00:31, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

It's easily done -- I have a suspicion that I missed a number of new policies when I broke my leg a couple of weeks ago and spent a week in hospital, so I've not been paying too much attention to Wikipedia lately! -- Arwel 12:29, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've always found the list of options under "Community" a little dizzying, not to mention it doesn't always have what I expect or what I'm looking for. We have so many Meta articles, that I thought they deserved some hierachization. I'd like to stick them on the Main Page in some prominent way, assuming others agree they're useful, but I don't know anything about layout. So far, here are the pages I've created:

• Community Information
• WikiCivics
• Style and How-to
• The Policy Library

which are part of the Metadirectory project I've started.168...|...Talk

Would someone delete links to Wikipedia:Wikicivics and Wikipedia:Meta-page directory. Though I don't know if they are useful or not, having those links at the main page is cluttering and redundant. Thanks. -- Taku 01:54, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Taku. These links do not belong on the main page, at least not where they are currently placed, or with their present names and content. I think we have insufficient agreement on the value of these pages - 168 seems to have protected them all, and the protection is debated. The meaning of the titles "Wikicivics" and "Meta-page directory" is not sufficiently clear to someone visiting the main page. For example, Meta-page directory is confusing, since it should normally refer to the Meta-Wikipedia site, not the Wikipedia: namespace. While I appreciate 168's interest in improving the organization of the Wikipedia: namespace, it's a project that requires more input. --Michael Snow 04:20, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wikicivics needs to be accessible via the main page. In what way is it redundant? Kingturtle 04:37, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Michael - at the moment, those pages do not belong on the main page. Once there is general agreement on their content, we should reconsider the issue. →Raul654 06:52, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

re: "Wikipedia is a multilingual project to create a complete and accurate free content encyclopedia."

I got this from a Slashdot comment and I think it is a good point. Perhaps we should swap complete and accurate so as to prevent subconscious misunderstandings. And looking at the archive perhaps we could change complete to comprehensive given the fact any encyclopedia can never be complete since the world is always changing.

So either:

"Wikipedia is a multilingual project to create an accurate and complete free content encyclopedia." or

"Wikipedia is a multilingual project to create an accurate and comprehensive free content encyclopedia." : ChrisG

Just to nitpick, I would go with: "Wikipedia is a multilingual project to create an accurate and comprehensive, free-content encyclopedia." →Raul654 11:42, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thats a lot better getting rid of any potential misunderstandings. :ChrisG

I never did like "complete" - it seems a bit pretentious and arrogant. Ok, so we're agreed that the top should read:

Wikipedia is a multilingual project to create an accurate and comprehensive, free-content encyclopedia.

Basically, the differeneces between that and what we have now

• complete -> accurate
• accurate -> comprehensive,
• free content -> free-content

Does anyone object to that change? →Raul654 12:03, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

I don't, I think it's a very nice clarification. Sarge Baldy 12:12, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

No objection to the improved language, but to nitpick further, the comma does not belong. It interrupts the flow of the sentence and is not required grammatically. The hyphen was an improvement, in my opinion. --Michael Snow 17:28, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't like the comma either, it feels grammatically incorrect although maybe it isn't. Anyone else have an opinion one way or the other? Sarge Baldy 23:47, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Upon reflection I think the comma should go. We needed the comma to seperate accurate and free to establish some distance, but since we have changed the order and changed free content to free-content we don't need the comma anymore. :ChrisG 01:50, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's enough for me :P If someone wants to contest the removal of it later feel free. Sarge Baldy 02:03, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, although I think it's kinda funny to sit around and debate whether or not to use a comma ;) →Raul654 02:04, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

I like the new language, but there should be either the comma or the hyphen, not both. —Noldoaran (Talk) 04:39, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

How is Compile time a new article? The edit history goes back to March 2003! Kosebamse 14:10, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oh dear. That edit history did not exist as of a couple hours ago. I think someone restored some deleted edits. Ok, I'll removed it from the main page. →Raul654 14:52, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I came here just now from wiki.jp. Today is the day Ehimemaru sank, 2001. If you have a faith or not, give your one minutes for the dead clews. KIZU 08:13, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please remember only to add articles listed on Wikipedia:Featured articles Bmills 12:32, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There has been a discussion about Recent Deaths and the negative impression it gives on the first page the people see. What about a People in the news section? This would of course include recent deaths (perhaps with a † sign), but also other stuff like death anniversaries (Immanuel Kant comes to my mind). A better title for this section could surely be found (I'm not a native english speaker). -- Stw 17:47, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Disagree. There's a reason that newspapers include the obits every day. It may not be a bright and happy one, but it's appreciated to know who has passed on. →Raul654 17:52, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

People in the news usually show up in the general In the news category. I prefer having separate categories for deaths and anniversaries, because they may be noteworthy but they're less important in affecting current events (usually: for example, if they both died today, Tony Blair might belong in In the news, but Margaret Thatcher would have to go in Recent deaths).

As an alternative, I suggest that we rearrange the order in which categories appear, so that Recent deaths is not so prominently placed. My suggested order:

1. In the news
2. Featured articles
3. New articles
4. Recent deaths
5. Anniversaries

This not only reduces the emphasis on the morbid, but does more to *feature* the featured articles. --Michael Snow 22:43, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Michael Snow. Unless someone objects, I think this should be implimented soon. →Raul654 23:13, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

That would be fine by me. -- Infrogmation 23:18, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I object. I think it is fine the way it is. Kingturtle 23:18, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think it is OK how it is, but the proposed order is better. Why do you object KingTurtle? --HappyDog 18:39, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The reason "Recent deaths" is there in the first place is the same reason "In the news" is there. We want the Main Page to feature items people are looking for. Therefore, they are listed 1 and 2. Obituaries are not morbid; they are celebrations. Kingturtle 18:55, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) P.S. Death anniversaries are covered in Anniversaries.

Many people find the presence of obituaries morbid, even though I agree the content is usually not. That's a reason to move Recent deaths down in the order, not to remove it. Also, the Main Page does not exist solely to feature items people are looking for. It should also offer items that can trigger people's interest, even if they didn't come here looking for them. I think both functions are equally valuable. --Michael Snow 22:37, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Day after tomorrow (February 14th) marks 200 years from the First Serbian Uprising. I think that this anniversary is important enough for the main page. Nikola 19:31, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi, i think Manchuguo on the Anniversary column was now an off-topic. It was established in Feb. 18. KIZU

• Anniversaries listed get bumped further down the list each day with more current items. An item can linger a few days because it hasn't yet been completely bumped off yet.Kingturtle 03:55, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

May us get a link to the Persian Wikipedia as "فارسی (Farsi) -"? Roozbeh 17:05, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Done. -- Arwel 20:24, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Can we retain a link to the google search on the search engine page?

I just expanded the article on Ryszard Kuklinski, a cold-war masterspy who died Feb 11. I think he deserves a mention on the front page right after Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev and before Claude Ryan. Bartosz 21:08, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Done. →Raul654 21:22, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Was there a problem this morning - for some reason when I accessed Wikipedia, the front page appeared in Russian, and it was not possible to do any searches. Maybe something to do with the new servers, or was there some other problem? David Martland 11:12, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

May I add Kim Jong Il to the anniversary section? It's quite an important holiday in the DPRK. See, e.g., 1, 2, 3, and 4. Although I'm an admin, I don't know the procedure for editing the main page, and wanted to check before I made any changes on my own. 172 09:06, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

should include some text on how the day is celebrated. --Jiang

Is his birthday February 16 (as the news stories say) or February 15 (as our article says)? Kingturtle 09:16, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

P.S. I placed the article on the main page. please feel free to do so in the future. Kingturtle 09:31, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In the news, Recent deaths, New articles, Featured articles... it is becoming quite a clutter. we need a redesign. At the least an image for each of these sections... like a newspaper for In the news... etc. --Hemanshu 15:18, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Main Page/Test --Jiang

That is much more comprehensive and detailed. Do we have enough admins to maintain that and keep it current? dave 17:14, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

In case someone argues that Howard Dean stepping is not big news, I think it is simply because he was originally the front runner before the real voting ever started. I was contemplating putting up European Union or something like that, after this recent big-3 meeting. Anyone agree? dave 18:43, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

Main Page/Test will go live shortly, I hope. Martin 18:55, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Jiang - I saw "Jeffery Skilling" in your edit summary for the main page, and I thought "Yes! They finally nailed that bastard!", only to find out it's a new article instead of "In the news" →Raul654 05:22, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

• Which brings up an interesting dilemma. Where should Jeffrey Skilling go? IMHO, it should be listed under current events, because that is where people might look to find it. Kingturtle 05:31, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK to have it on the New articles line for a day. Then put it on the In the news line. --mav 10:13, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yay! I have had two articles on the main page now... Jeffrey Skilling and William S. Rosecrans... and yeah, it belongs in "In the News" (frankly, it's not one of my better articles...) ugen64 00:13, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)