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.

' The Bush administration is reported to have exaggerated the danger posed by most of the detainees held at the controversial Camp X-ray at Guantanamo and the intelligence they have provided. '

what is this about? I read thru google news perhaps a dozen times a day, and I've seen nothing about this, besides which it is clearly a less than neutral interpretation. Sam [Spade] 19:17, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I certainly saw it somewhere - The Times, maybe? The only internet mention I can find quickly is from the Chicago Sun-Times [1] Harry R 19:39, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I NPOVed the original, based on the New York Times article. I think word "controversial" should also be dropped from the item. [2]

Disagree with dropping word. It's not only true, it cuts to the heart of why that story is featured on the main page. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:56, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the change, clarifying the source of the allegation is much more NPOV. Sam [Spade] 18:51, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Is it just me or did the font size get smaller? It's so tiny, difficult to read!! What happened? Please fix it back to the previous size.

I don't think the font size got smaller...but they did change something with the paragraph spacing. It does look weird.172.139.130.176 20:11, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Move to Wikipedia:Reference_Desk

There is a blank line at the top of the page. Could somebody with access please remove it, fx by moving "Welcome to Wikipedia!" up on the same line as "|width="85%" bgcolor="white"|". Thue 00:48, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

hmm, it seems to be fixed now, though I can't see any edits in the page history. Thue 21:54, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I played with my wikipedia settings, and for some reason I had to reset my style settings. Now the blank line on top of the page is back. Thue | talk 15:12, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm sick of the blank lines at the top of so many pages... but it's a disgrace when they keep reappearing on the main page. Please sort it out Dmn 18:45, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've noticed that Wikipedia no longer uses Google and Yahoo searches by default. Instead, it uses its own system. I think that the Yahoo and Google search options should still be available easily, maybe placed under the Wikipedia search results. So far it seems to me that they still provide better results.

Besides that, isn't it easier for Wikipedia's servers if an external search engine is used? --Exigentsky 19:30, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like the default button to be search and not go. Ilyanep (Talk) 19:59, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Both options are available, so I'm not sure what you mean by default button. Go simply reverts to the search option if it doesn't find a match.

The search function has been disabled for a long time due to the performance demands, but apparently we're now in position to support it again. If we provide a search function, it should really be our own. Yahoo and Google were temporary fill-ins while the search function was unavailable. If you still want to use such tools, you can look at Wikipedia:Searching for guidance. Also, the internal search function will provide the most updated results; if you use Yahoo or Google, search results may be weeks old, depending on when they last went through any particular article. --Michael Snow 20:47, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well it seems to have been reverted now because I am getting Yahoo! and Google for searching. THe WIkipedia search option really does not strike me as very friendly or even accurate. For the same searches Google and Yahoo! brought up exactly the result I wanted first and Wikipedia instead had several choices first before it displayed what I wanted. Maybe Wikipedia's search could ahve some kind fo PageRank so that when people search for the same thing and click the same thing after they see the results, that result goes to the top.

In addition, the results should be easier to see and eachs ection of domain searching should be clearly separated. Whatever happens, I still want a Google and Yahoo! textbox somewhere in the search page.

Also, does Wikipedia really have that much free cycles to spare to allow such a search and still be very fast? If so, congratulations! --Exigentsky

Oh great its back again! =( It doesn't even have spell check and information is more inaccurate and ahrder to distinguish (no Page Rank technology etc.), not to mention it sucks up bandwidth, I hope this is reverted.

Note you can still search Wikipedia with Google - type "site:en.wikipedia.org blah blah blah" into the box at google.com. Obviously it will have old information compared to the internal search, but at least you have the choice. Pcb21| Pete 20:44, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I suggest changing the title "Featured article" to "Today's featured article". This is more transparent. The first time I saw the featured article section, I thought "what is special about this particular topic that it is highlighted on the main page?" After realising that it is changed on a daily basis, it made rather more sense. ,,,Trainspotter,,, 22:40, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

agree. Ilyanep (Talk) 22:42, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Too wordy. Fine the way it is. --mav 08:06, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In the News -- "ruling champions" to "reigning champions" plz. TwoOneTwo 21:48, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That text is included from Template:In_the_news which is not protected. I have implemented. Thue 21:59, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

hi every body,

hope this time u r in a good mood. i am bharat seeking info about economics. i am very much eager to know about some thing special about economics. hope u will help me. bye......

We have lots of articles on Economics, and if you ask a specific question I'm sure we can help you. Here are just some examples of what we cover:

• List of economics topics
• List of business ethics, political economy, and philosophy of business topics
• List of international trade topics

Good luck ✏ Sverdrup 10:20, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be more discussion before Template:Wikipediatoc gets changed? Right now, Physics is not a topic on the Main Page, for example. As a fundamental science, it deserves that mention. Ancheta Wis 13:57, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for noting this!, it is now fixed. ✏ Sverdrup 14:22, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea for Wikipedia to sport a google-like big search box in a prominent position on the front page in addition to the small search box on the sidebar? Although it's nice to have news articles and interesting facts being displayed at the front, many users visit wikipedia to find information quickly and efficiently. A prominent search box may help in breaking down any barriers new users may find to the system, especially after they have used other online encyclopedias such as Britannica (see their home page for an example). Enochlau 15:28, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No - 1 search box is enough. We don't need the main page filled up with needless redundancy→Raul654 15:35, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the search box we have should perhaps be more prominent. ✏ Sverdrup 16:07, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi,

you write that Karl Malden was born in Gary, Indiana. But according to his autobiography he was born in Chicago. The family moved to Gary when he was about 5 years old. Kind regards Martin Bablick m.bablick@staedtische.co.at

Thanks for noting, Karl Malden has now been updated with the correct facts. By the way, did you know that you can correct fact details yourself, or that you can discuss an article on it's relevant Talk page? ✏ Sverdrup 02:41, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Are we allowed to site? i.e. sexual acts...

Afraid not. We show some images (see penis) as clinical information, but their inclusion is controversial, and anything more explicit or graphic would be absolutely rejected. Our job is to offer neutral encyclopedic information. Kicks can be found elsewhere on the net with little difficulty. Jwrosenzweig 20:45, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh thanks for the response! I was just about to add pornography on to the self-titled article. (I was going to show a woman having her clitoris licked by a man, and also a man getting his penis sucked by two women.) Thank you!

Pornography would not be acceptable on Wikipedia as Wikipedia serves a purpose, and pornography, by one definition, does not. However, what would make pictures of sexual acts non-neutral? Hyacinth 23:18, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Also, please point us to a prior discussion or decision on pictures of sexual activity. Thanks. Hyacinth 23:19, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with showing porn if it's for informational purposes? No one said anything about trying to get off with it. BTW, Hyacinth is an idiot if he thinks porn "serves no purpose". Even if it didn't, just because Wikipedia has a purpose, why the hell should the subject of every single article at the Wikipedia have to have a purpose?! I think mosquitoes are pretty damn pointless, but I'm sure the average encyclopedia has an article about them! Plus, if porn's so purposeless and Wikipedia articles can't be about anything that doesn't serve a purpose, then why's there an article on pornography already ON the Wiki? Hyacinth has no purpose!

I don't see anything wrong with it if it is for a pornography article. --Exigentsky

Agree, we have an apple on Apple and should have example porn on Pornography --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:02, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)

I imagine that if this happened Wikipedia would be blacklisted by web filters, and there goes our audience of student researchers unlucky enough to have paranoid parents. I think the kind of pictures we have now is enough - the most I'd condone is linking to these images. Direct inclusion is crazy - we'd get a bit of bad publicity, maybe some downward rankings on search engines, and who knows what else. Johnleemk | Talk 14:00, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Wikipedia is already blacklisted by some web filters-- the one I have, ContentBarrier X (for Macs), doesn't allow the user to view some pages of the Wiki (religion springs to mind). Kai 1650, 29 Jun 2004 (EST)

Would it be possible to take a poll, if no Wikipedia administrators respond to this?

First of all, we don't poll before we've had a full discussion. Second of all, a poll here would be the wrong location for this topic. Third, there is a tentative policy (expressed in part at Wikipedia:Profanity and Wikipedia:Choosing appropriate illustrations) that guides us away from such things. There is currently considerable question as to the legality of displaying pornography to minors in the United States, where the Wikipedia servers are located. Unless we are willing to ask for AdultCheck ids or credit card numbers from all readers at this site, it is my understanding that we may be in violation of U.S. federal statutes if we display pornography here (which is very vaguely defined under the law). We are within our rights to display clinical photographs of genitalia -- graphic depiction of sexual acts, however, may well be illegal. Certainly it will alienate many potential readers, and limit our ability to reach children with this resource (an oft-stated goal of this enterprise). There is of course some disagreement on this issue, but I think you'll find that few Wikipedians advocate pornography being displayed here. The discussion usually centers around whether or not clitorises and penises deserve pictures, and if they should be treated equally. If you feel this issue is important, please start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Profanity and note that this discussion is occurring by posting notices at the Wikipedia:Village pump and on the wikien-l mailing list -- if you're confused about how to do this, leave a note at the pump and someone will help you. Thanks. Jwrosenzweig 18:48, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, what constitutes a full discusion? Hyacinth 20:53, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I like porn as much as the next guy, and I see that it would be appropriate in the Pornography article, but we have to be sensible here. We need a professional-looking encyclopaedia, and such things do not have porn all over them. If a user of an online resource wants to see porn, it's just a couple of clicks away. It must be the easiest thing to find on the Internet. We don't need it here, and it would be detrimental for various reasons. — Chameleon My page/My talk 20:00, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think URLs should be provided, not working links though. Like in the shock sites article.

I don't understand why the links to pornographic sites I posted were deleted, but links to some porn sites are kept as links (for instance Playboy.)

Wikipedia shouldn't have to worry about policing people. There's already some pretty graphic stuff available at this site. There are pictures of penises and vaginas. The "clitoris" article, as of the last time I've been to that page, includes a picture of a woman touching her clit. In fact, about a year ago, there was a controversy as to one clit picture looking "too pornographic" because the woman who was touching her clit had purple nail polish on. Some people said that this gave the impression that the picture was a porn pic, so that pic was removed and a "less offensive" one was placed on the page instead (still, the "porn" pic with the purple nail polish will be forever retrievable, thanks to the "Page History" link). However, to many, many parents, a picture of a clitoris or even one of the naked penis or vagina is something they don't want their young children to see. Wikipedia also has images of decapitated and mutilated war/terrorism victims, including videos of the recent Iraq beheadings. Again, many parents would find such things very offensive and do not want their children viewing such materials. However, I respect Wiki for including these things for those who do wish to judge them for themselves. Decapitation, rape, nudity, intercourse, war, etc, are not pleasant topics, but a thorough encyclopedia must deal with them in a frank matter, as all subjects should be explained in an encyclopedia. Children who shouldn't be looking at those things should obey the warnings that already exist on the Wikipedia, on several pages about said "taboo" subjects. But, including the warnings is really the only way that Wikipedia can be responsible for anyone who uses this site.

An example of why I believe some pornographic pictures are necessary: I was reading the Wikipedia article on Hentai the other night. I'd heard of the Japanese artform before, but I had no clear idea what it really was. The article explained the topic well. I now realize it's a form of porn, not simply a type of cartoon that children watch. I also understand that it somehow comes across as being animated kiddie porn, at least to us Westerners; however, the Japanese think the characters in Hentai actually look older than they're meant to be. BUT...I still don't really have a good idea what actual Hentai must look like. What gives the impression that these cartoon characters are young? Does Japanese Hentai look significantly different than some of the American porn sites that feature Disney characters? Does the animation look similar to Japanese Manga comic books? Some of these questions can probably only be answered by seeing pictures of the porn. Likewise, I don't know if there's an article about various sexual positions, but if there is, I could imagine it being difficult for many to understand the positions without seeing some sort of visual. There definitely are valid educational reasons why people might want to see pornographic pictures at this site, the least of which is to get off.

Let's remember, the nudity and the violent imagery that already exists at this site is also illegal, at least in America. Still, pictures of such things, when used educationally, are generally acceptable to most adults. It's no different with pornographic pictures that are used in a similar fashion. (BTW, to the person who is worried about porn pictures causing the Wikipedia's web ranking to fall, that really shouldn't be a concern. The quality, accuracy, and detail of this project should be a top priority; getting a #1 ranking should not, especially if it's at the expense of candor.)

Please sign messages, thanks. Hyacinth 05:57, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean?

For instance, you could use ~~~, or four tildes to include the date, or you could simply type in your preferred name. That way folks may read our conversation on one page, without having to examine the talk history and piecing together who said what. Thanks. Hyacinth 04:21, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for actually being nice and helpful for a change. I never knew about the "64.12.117.13 20:54, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)" thing. Now I do. I don't have a user name, as we've already discussed, so it'll only display my current I.P. address. Would it be more sensible if I just signed with my real name?

Its completely up to you. Some users sign with their real name, some use a pseudonym, and some use an IP address. Some use a combination of two or all three. See: Wikipedia:Why create an account? for some discussion of this. Hyacinth 22:03, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem using my I.P. address as long as others don't. I've read the information about why people should create an account, but I don't really think most of that stuff would apply to me anyway. Maybe I'll make one some day, but for the time being I'm comfortable just using my I.P. address. For the most part, I'll be using the same one (the one everyone's trying to ban), so it doesn't really make a difference if it's an I.P. address or a pseudonym--that number will always be me.205.188.116.198 00:39, 6 Jul 2004

I think that having a prefix for offensive articles could fix this.

--bbotbuilder 14:38, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Exactly...and there used to be one. As I recall, the "clitoris" picture, as well as the links to the Iraq beheading videos, once had such warning statements.205.188.116.198 16:59, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have recently discovered http://rateyourmusic.com

On submitting an article, I discovered that there is a spelling checker before articles are submitted. Is there potential for Wikipedia to use such a system?

Paidforit 10:50, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I just discovered [3] which has adapted MediaWiki to use a spell checker, so I'd say the potential is there. Dori | Talk 18:13, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

So are there any plans to implement it?
SimonMayer 01:47, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why does the Michael Moore page list critical sources and links while the Rush Limbaugh page does not list critical sources and links?

Because nobody's gotten to it yet. You're welcome to add them yourself; in fact, I would strongly encourage it (I'm not a big Limbaugh fan, to say the least). We encourage you to be bold in editing. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 12:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We here at the non-profit lefty liberal open source software, free content Wikimedia Foundation love Limbaugh and hate Moore. Pcb21| Pete 01:18, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Must be the vast right-wing conspiracy :).Ilyanep (Talk) 17:45, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Shouldnt we write 'free content' since it is The Free Encyclopedia and other languages write about free, not open? --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:38, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)

Check open content. Fredrik | talk 22:40, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I know of that, my point was that since we are The Free Encyclopedia we should use an analogy with free software, not open source. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:11, 2004 Jun 30 (UTC)

In fact, we have an article on Free content, what i wanted is consistancy, we always talk about free but in this one place it's open, it just doesnt fit. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:37, 2004 Jun 30 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, and I believe the conclusion is that "open content" best communicates the information without causing confusion. The alternatives proposed have been "copyleft" and "free content". The introductory text needs to be reasonably comprehensible to people who know nothing about Wikipedia, the principle of copyleft, or the open source movement. For such people, copyleft is just pseudo-legal jargon that doesn't communicate anything at all. Free content has too much potential for confusion because people are likely to think that it means only free of charge, and miss the meaning related to freedom. Open content gives them an idea that there's something else involved, though we don't have space to fully explain the principle in the introduction.

I do not think using "open content" in conjunction with "The Free Encyclopedia" is inconsistent. Rather, I believe using both open and free to address a similar point allows us to communicate more of what we want to get across, by benefiting from the different connotations of the two words. --Michael Snow 16:42, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How would 'free' be so confusing? I think open is confusing, what is 'open'? what is 'closed' content? ( anyway thats what Wikification(TM) is for ) it just doesnt make sense, and using your reasoning wont people think it's about price when we say "The Free Encyclopedia", if anything once people get that they get it all, and dont have to also think about what open is, how that differs from freedom and so on --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:40, 2004 Jun 30 (UTC)

Some people may well think that "The Free Encyclopedia" refers only to price. But by saying open content where we might say free content, we give these people a clue that there is something more to it than price. I grant that open or closed may not be completely intuitive, but it will only make them wonder about the meaning, instead of giving them the wrong idea. At that point, having the text wikified gives people a place to go for the more detailed explanation. --Michael Snow 16:32, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Could we refrain from putting mathematical articles on the Main Page until they've had a chance to be viewed and edited for a while? This is especially important in mathematics, because errors really give a wrong impression to someone first visiting the site. If articles are well-established and have a fairly good history, that's okay. It might also be a good idea to run the article by one of the math people, to get their input first. Revolver 01:13, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't really see how that is any less important in other areas than mathematics? Pcb21| Pete 01:20, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I can't speak to the rest of the main page, but the "featured article" that I put there is chosen from Wikipedia:Featured articles. Featured articles are reviewed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates before being promoted. Any factual errors get quashed pretty quickly. But if you want to review articles, the next mathematics article to go up will almost certainly be one of: Ackermann function, Algorithm, Computational complexity theory, or Vacuous truth - as soon as someone adds a relavant picture to one of them. →Raul654 03:03, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

Any factual errors get quashed pretty quickly. Well, that didn't happen in the case of Ruffini's rule, which was full of inaccuracies, mistaken reasoning, and false statements. (It was an initial page...needed a lot of cleaning up.) As to Pete's question, the reason it's particular important in math is because things in mathematics are fairly black-and-white as to truth values, the truth or falsity of a statement is not really a matter of opinion. And when a math article says "Did you know?...blah, blah, blah" it would be nice if the facts being related are really facts. How did Ruffini's rule manage to pass through this review process? The mistakes in it were elementary and fundamental. Just because a page has existed a while or been sitting on a "featured article candidates" doesn't seem to be enough to guarantee that it's close to correct. Revolver 08:51, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I just checked - Ruffini's rule is linked from "Did you Know?" which is where we feature promising new articles. Being that they are new, the expectation of quality from those articles is definitely lower than the rest of Wikipedia. →Raul654 09:40, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

Revolver has a good point though. To Regular Joe Reader, there is no indication that the "Did you know?" section refers to new articles only. It sounds like it should refer to odd little titbits contained within the 'pedia. There must be some reason why we ended up with this quite peculiar set-up, but I don't know what it is. Pcb21| Pete 18:07, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I did not know the "did you know" was supposed to be "promising new articles", and I've been here over a year, 1000+ edits. And with math, what if someone starts a new article with a claim that's just not true?...then this claim gets on the main page ("Did you know...every polynomial with real coefficients has a real root?") Revolver 20:16, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is an extra layer of difficulty because the person adding the "did you know" is unlikely to be an expert in any particular article, and there can be errors introduced when transferring an article into one short line ... for example here presumably the original sentence said something like "every odd-order polynomial..." Pcb21| Pete 23:58, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Jengod has now added From Wikipedia's newest articles, which helps a lot. Pcb21| Pete 00:52, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And now User:Eloquence has removed it because s/he finds it 'annoying'. Any chance of consensus? The phrasing was a bit odd - more natural would be something like New Wikipedia articles: did you know... as the header for the whole section. I do think some kind of indication that those are new articles is a good idea - how are people expected to know? Harry R 15:07, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How about changing it to "Facts from Wikipedia's newest articles"? The template, etc. would have to be changed, but I think it's wise to prevent controversies instead of fixing them. Johnleemk | Talk 06:43, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I love the ISO date and time format and want to see it too here (a person that doesn´t understand english can understand 2004-07-01, but not july the first 2004 (?) Mac 17:13, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, there is ambiguity here. Not as much as 01-07-2004, but, because of the different traditions of day or month first, certainly room for confusion. Mark Richards 21:02, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I read on a yahoo article about a clock that has IIII instead of IV for 4. It mentioned Wikipedia. Just thought I'd bring this up.

Links are always nice. --Twinxor 21:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is anyone else having this problem? I go to, let's say the Asia article, at one time it gives me the last update, and another it gives me an old version even though no one edited it or reverted. Then when I return to that article, it's back to normal. Then I try fixing it and it only makes matters work.

I have the same thing with the main page. I think its something to do with the History cashe setttings...Thats my theory anyway :-) Seabhcan 22:21, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Eureka Stockade is to Australia what the Alamo is to America? The Alamo was a Texas thing, perhaps you were thinking of the Declaration of Independence or Lexington and Concord or some other battle, but it ain't the Alamo. That was Texas independence. The Bastille is France. Please know what you're talking about before you say it.

? dvd

Yes, it is possible. However, it is not terribly easy.

If you want all of the English Wikipedia, it's about 11 Gigabytes. If you just want the current revisions and images, then it's only about 3.5 Gigabytes.

Then you'd need to install MySQL, Apache, and MediaWiki. I am aware of no user-friendly download options. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:09, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you want a simple offline version of the older Wikipedia, try this: http://download.wikimedia.org/tomeraider/current/ (Feb 2004).

You have to install Tomereader (shareware). That's all it takes. Wikipedia also works on a PDA. However, some older PDAs may not have the capacity to store Wikipedia in full.

Those haven't been updated since February. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:54, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

ISTR that the whole DB is currently 54Gb. Rich Farmbrough 15:17, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Main Page summary should say the flame is lit with a parabolic mirror not a concave lens; first because it is true [4]; and second because a concave lens cannot focus light (a convex one could).--Henrygb 11:21, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead and change it then ;) Template:Feature is unprotected. Morwen - Talk 11:26, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I didn't know that - too late now. --Henrygb 10:13, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

better put picture of declaration not fireworks, it`s not about them it`s about the paper. Avala 14:48, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't the first record of Elvis Presley be added to the selected anniversaries? KeyStorm 14:33, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It would be very good to have dates on the items in the current events section. Eric B. and Rakim 17:56, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to have something like Wikinews perhaps below In the news, the content of that box would be a Template: which would be a short version of Wikipedia:Announcements. What do you think? --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:24, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

Disagree. Main page is chock full as it is, and announcements is mainly targeted at active users already, as opposed to new users (who are the primary recipients of anything on the main page). Let's not mix our messages. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:26, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Meelar. →Raul654 19:51, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Exactly, new users will see it, currently it looks a little too much like some news site, it would be nice if it had a more community-orinetation to it --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:43, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

We already have a prominent link to the community portal. And, IMO, a new user who sees "The English Wikipedia is now using MediaWiki 1.3" won't feel welcomed, rather they'll feel in over their heads. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:45, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree, and I think the main page on de: is much better in this regard, with the missing and short articles section. On en, it's almost like we're trying to pretend we have a finished encyclopedia already. It is important to show new users that Wikipedia is a work in progress, so they immediately realize that their help is welcome. Fredrik | talk 22:13, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts on the issue, just looked at de: now and it's great. en: reads way too much like, as you say something that is finished. And no, to answer Meelar we wouldnt have software update news, rather voting in progress, big current events such as the 300.000 mark and things like that. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:45, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

de: does look good. And sorry about the misunderstanding, I just looked at the top of Wikipedia:Announcements--though I still think that, say, voting in process would tend to intimidate users who didn't know anything about what was going on here. I'd agree, however, that the current mainpage layout makes it look like we're done. This might not be a bad thing, however, in terms of increasing credibility and reputation. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:01, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking: I've always found the old efforts to list articles by category (in a loose sense of that word) on the main page pretty useless. I'd love to see us switch over to basing this all on the new categories scheme.

1. Do people think this is a good idea?
2. If so, do people think we've hit the critical mass on Categories to make it reasonable to do now?

-- Jmabel 20:35, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Here were my attempts to use Categories, not knowing very much-

1. Tried to get to articles from link Main Page categories: There are only 7 topics in that link on the Main Page, so it means having to search further, re-iterating from the 7 basic topics in the Category:Main Page.
2. Next, tried to get to articles using the search box with Category:Main Page and Category:Fundamental. Each of these has only 7 categories or so, so it means having to search further.
3. Next, tried to get to physics articles using the search box with Category:Physics and got 62 articles, which is better, but still means that you have to know what you are looking for.
4. The Categories root in the Category box at the bottom of many articles gets them sorted in numerical order, so it would take many iterations of Next to get to the Category Physics that way.
5. I still do not know of a nice way to learn what categories there are without a tree traversal, click by click.

-Summary -The Category method needs more cues. User Manual is not yet an obvious way to learn how to get to an article from its category. 169.207.88.69 04:47, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I do agree that the primary categories (i.e. 'main page',particularly, but also perhaps 'fundamental') are far too broad and not intuitive enough. I think you could usefully go straight to the level of categories like Physics, Literature, History, Politics, Botany etc instead of having to decide whether you want 'people' or 'culture'. Sometimes I think people are far too keen to subdivide categories; the main page category list is basically a short index for the entire encyclopedia and could easily have 50 or 70 entries instead of 10. On the other hand, I don't see the need for any *articles* directly in the Main Page category listing. btw, the link 'browse by category' on the main page seems to go to 'category:fundamental'. where's the link to 'category:main page'? Harry R 09:07, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

From your article: " Garland is a city located in Collin County, Texas" Please check your facts. A citizen of Garland, Texas in Dallas, County, Texas

Uh, what? RADICALBENDER★ 21:24, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

He's saying that our article on Garland, Texas claims that the city is in Collin County when (according to him) it should be in Dallas County. →Raul654 22:08, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Huh? It says it is in Dallas County and I don't see that it has been recently changed. Perhaps there is a reference somewhere else. older≠wiser 22:18, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That was my questioning, yes. Especially since I'm monitoring many of the articles related to Garland and I'm pretty sure I would've caught an error like that. RADICALBENDER★ 02:47, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See this page diff. →Raul654 02:52, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

So now we get slammed for mistakes in versions from 17 Feb 2004? Wow. older≠wiser 03:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The standard message at the bottom of each page giving the date and time when it was last edited is very misleading in case of the main page. Here, the last edit is timed only with reference to the format of the page and not with reference to the various sections which are of current importance. So when the main page says that the page was last modified on, say,jun 15th or so and has some news item which deals with events that happened on 7th July it looks very strange. If this automated message is designed to reflect the time of change in the latest of the sub pages such as ITN, Did you know, etc., it would be much better. KRS 16:49, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I thought we should have a plan for the Olympics next month, before they get here and "In the news" is running four stories about archery. I propose that we allow no more than one Olympic story at any given time to make it into "In the News". Perhaps we could have a permanent blurb, saying "The 27th(?) Summer Olympics are ongoing in Athens, Greece", with results there. Just my 2 cents. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:29, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I dislike the approach of keeping any story in the news section on a quasi-permanent basis. The constant updating of current events is one of Wikipedia's best features. But I agree with keeping Olympic coverage limited so that it doesn't drown out other news. People have to use good sense and not make all the news about the Olympics, just like the regular news shouldn't all be about the US. --Michael Snow 19:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that this is a good idea, maybe even have a buildup to the event, one story a day. KRS 13:04, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How about a special Olympics news page linking from Current events for the duration of the games? Bmills 15:02, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm planning on starting a focused Wiki about a single activity in a small region that will include articles too specific to be appropriate for a worldwide wiki. Is it wrong to copy over existing wiki articles (that relate to the activity) on en.wikipedia.org to my wiki so that I may have a good starting point?

See the terms of the GFDL about copying. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:45, 2004 Jul 7 (UTC)

is it just me or is this wrong (in the Mark Antony blurb):

"The second triumvirate ended in 33 BC, and he committed suicide later few days before Cleopatra did."Erich 13:55, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fixed. — Chameleon My page/My talk 14:36, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In the selected anniversaries section, under the 'Battle of Poltava' section, the suffix 'the' before 'Ukraine' is incorrect. We do not say 'the France' or 'the Germany' and do not say 'the Ukraine.' Marlowe 17:22, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes we do. — Chameleon My page/My talk 22:40, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I Fixed it. Selected anniverseries can be fixed by anyone. See this page to see how to edit the selected anniverseries section. Krik 22:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)