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.

"Sedentenland--" should be "Sudetenland"

Yep, someone seems to have edited the first e to change it to a u, but has not removed the n before the first t. Mamawrites 08:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

"the day before German troos marched across the border." Missing a P there. --Golfhaus 01:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

This is the second time in a week (Heraldry of Canada) that the main page has featured something that I was looking at only a few days ago. Freaky. LOL. CalgaryWikifan 00:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not Wikipedia - it's just me :) →Raul654 02:09, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I thought I was the only one that happened to. I was looking for the Monty Hall problem two days before it was the Featured Article of the day. :P Acetic Acid 01:38, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is successful only because it's the perfect hive mind; it becomes what people want it to be. Then it attacks your mind and pulls you into itself. — Sverdrup 02:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow me too. I was going a school project on Louis Riel and it was the featured article the next day. --Jammoe 16:27, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Ha ha, I was reading about autism last night. Guess What?

I've often found the concept that I wanted to refer on the top of the watchlist recent changes as soon as I refresh the browser! I'd earlier attributed this to "noticing the hits, forgetting the misses phenomenon" and birthday paradox. It now appears that it may have something to do with systemic influence on the flow of information. Perhaps we should move this to the reference desk? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 16:38, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the "In the news" section mention the new computer worm going around? See this page for more information. --Mb1000 01:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Please beef up the Rbot.cbq stub, and propose a line for ITN at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Thanks. -- PFHLai 09:15, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

This worm seems neither particularly infectious nor damaging. The only reason CNN has it on their front page is because their own computers happened to get infected. Let's not get caught up in the media circus here. Redquark 13:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I think a 7.2 magnitude earthquake is worth putting on the front page. Although there isn't a 2005 Miyagi Earthquake page at the time, I (or someone else) could possibly copy the article from Wikinews into a new article. -Nameneko 03:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Please merge that with 2005 Honshu Coast Quake, and propose a line for ITN at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Thanks. -- PFHLai 09:13, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

Done and done. The only images I have, though, are maps, so I don't know how that will fare.. -Nameneko 22:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I kept counting, recounting and double checking to find out why there are 42 wikipedias listed in the category 1000-10,000 at m:List of Wikipedias, but only 41 on the Main Page - then I found the one that is missing - Macedonian. Any particular reason? Codex Sinaiticus 06:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• I can't see any reason not to list it either; I guess it's just that noone from that Wikipedia updated us here. Thanks for noticing it- I've added Macedonian to the list.--Pharos 07:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Why did we have featured graphic for a day and then go back to 'did you know?'

Featured pictures are on weekends and did you know on weekdays gkhan 10:16, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

The main page contains images of a penis, both flaccid and erect. While there is nothing wrong with images of the human anatomy, this looks like the handiwork of a malicious poster / hack.

I wonder how that happened? It would have to have been by an admin, as regular users can't edit the main page. Admins, take it away. --CFIF 11:20, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

The main page uses transclusion for most of the content and this anon found that ((SelAnnivFooter)) wasn't protected. It is now. violet/riga (t) 11:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The swedish wikipedia will soon have 100000+ articles (it's at 97000 or so right now. I am not familiar with the growth rate of sv to be able to say a specific date, but I assume it is soon). At that point we will have four wikis with 100000+ articles (well, five if you count english). Shouldn't we revisit the topic of the division of the sizes of the wikipedias in the "other languages" section? German has more than 200000 and it feels a little strange to be still groupingit with the other 50Ks. So, {1k, 10k, 50k, 100k} or {1k, 10k, 100k} or {10k, 50k, 100k}, or what? Any other ones? gkhan 12:43, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Ohh, and by the way, I am not bringing this up just because I am swedish. This is purly in the interest of the main page. Ok, ok, 1% national pride, 99% academical interest.....maybe more like 30-70. Anyway, what do people think? gkhan 12:43, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

you can keep dividing and subdividing by every milestone, why not just keep it like it's now. Boneyard 13:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think 'Wikipedia in other languages' should just be a social pyramid with increasingly 'elite' categories to a pinnacle-thin top of golden glory. It won't be that long before all of the current 50K Wikipedias or an equal number perhaps including some others will reach 100k; at that time we should just relabel that section; 1K -> 10K -> 50K is sort of inconsistent anyway. So let's just keep it to three levels. BTW, congratulations to the Swedish Wikipedia on their upcoming major milestone.--Pharos 21:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we should do 1K 10K 50K 100K and at least three years from now, 500K. As all wikipedias are expanding but some are left behind. The pyramid is not an elitest thing its just showing how well each pedia is doing. For example I was surprised that the Russian one isn't bigger. Its more for interest than eliticism. Thanks, Redwolf24 22:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It's useful to organize Wikipedias into three simple sections to highlight those that have a decent amount of coverage. I'm not saying it's elitist, I just don't think it's very useful to put up a full-blown pyramid with a very narrow top level.--Pharos 23:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should establish a threshold value at which point we would restructure the categories; for example, once the top category reaches 15 -pedias all the categories are shifted up. I'm curious if any attempts have been made to track the growth of different -pedias over time. Perhaps then we could predict when said restructuring would become necessary. For now though, I don't think it is necessary. Comment by User:Theshibboleth

What about this as a rule of thumb: No matter what, we will never define a size class of Wikipedias that has fewer than ten members. Right now, the largest (50K) class has ten members, including English. We would not establish a 100K class until there are at least 10 Wikipedias in both the 50K and 100K classes.--Pharos 02:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

1,2.5,10 ... x10^n is a common technique to identify doubling which seems (IMO) a reasonable indicator of progress. hydnjo talk 02:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Just pointing out that the Did You Know section claims that Foundation 9 Entertainment is the largest video game developer in North America, whereas it's actually the largest indie video game developer, and is substantially smaller than any of the major commercial game developers. Kupos 02:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• OK, I fixed it. Thanks for pointing that out.--Pharos 02:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It's still totally misleading. "independent" in this business means "not also a hardware manufacturer", and in that case Electronic Arts is by far the biggest independent publisher, followed distantly by Vivendi. If we're using "indie" to mean "not affiliated with a big corporate publisher", then we're saying that F9 is the biggest developer that's not a big developer, which is meaningless. Collabi 18:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Should there be an 's' in 'innings' ?

...that Brendon Kuruppu was the first Sri Lankan cricketer to score more than 200 runs (a double century) in a Test innings?

I don't think so. How about [[innings|inning]] ? -- 199.71.174.100 07:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• "Innings" is fine; this isn't American baseball. Please see the Innings article.--Pharos 07:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Cool. I've learnt something cute right there.... Thanks. :-) -- 199.71.174.100 07:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

There are two minor errors in Selected Anniversaries today. Can someone with sysop powers take a look at Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/August 18 and fix them, please ? Thanks. -- 199.71.174.100 07:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Fixed both. Thanks. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:11, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. -- 199.71.174.100 07:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Today's anniversary section seems to link the establishment of the first temple of Venus to the Vinalia, but the Vinalia article has this to say: "On the same day likewise fell the dedication of a temple to Venus; whence some authors have fallen into a mistake, that these Vinalia were sacred to Venus." Maybe I'm missing something (it's past 1am), but that sounds like a contradiction to me - if the Vinalia aren't related to Venus, then they shouldn't be mentioned here, should they? Or is the article wrong -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 23:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

There is some language in this header attempting to distinguish WP:HD from WP:RD for the novice user. Still, many questions end up in the wrong place. If whoever is in charge of the header template has a moment to take a look at Wikipedia:Ask a question, they may find some alternative language to distinguish between those sometimes confusing pagenames. Or perhaps, even substituting any explanation at all with direction towards a link to WP:AQ. Thanks for your attention and your comments. hydnjo talk 00:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Just so there's no confusion, I was referring to the header on this talk page. hydnjo talk 14:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm adding it to the header myself. Superm401 | Talk 16:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

There is an error in the section "In the news": in the entry about Sergei Krikalev it mentions a picture in the right that does not exist. Apparently no one remembered to remove it when removing the picture it refered to. Can an administrator, a bureaucrat or anyone else high in the Wikipedian Ladder of Power fix it now? Thanks in advance. --Bill the Greek 07:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:12, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your swift reaction. --Bill the Greek 07:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Is the main page dynamic or do new links have to be be manually inserted? Any way to add dynamic external content to the main page??

It is generated from various templates. Is there a particular change you want to make? [[smoddy]] 09:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The name lives on in the well-known global computer programming language, which appropriately is a classic example of a structured language that encourages clear thinking and planning and that is suitable for a whole range of subject applications.

Quite so - see Pascal programming language, and Pascal for a few other things he has given his name to. -- Solipsist 12:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

On the current version of Did You Know?, there's a link in the story about the Nurek Dam in Tajikistan that mentions hyrdroelctric power. Oops! Dralwik 17:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you.-gadfium 20:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Died from coma is like saying 'he went to jail for a parole violation'. It's not inaccurate but it's uninformative. I don't know who can edit it but can we add a little more, like 'died from a coma caused by a fall' Vicarious 20:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

'died from a coma caused by a fall caused by a loss of balance cause by a brain tumor'? [NB I agree the "coma" line is awful] --Dtcdthingy 20:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Not sure why the second feature has just stopped working (redirect transclusion problem?) but I've temporarily reverted to the old system (bypassing the redirect). The problem can still be seen at User:Violetriga/inprogress. violet/riga (t) 10:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

,

• I think this is part of a general problem with redirects. For example, click on this Commons image (or any Commons image).--Pharos 10:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oh my, I'm seeing the same thing on the French Wikipedia. I think this problem may be Wikimedia-wide.--Pharos 10:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I just typed WP:FP and didn't get redirected. I've seen this before, and I'm sure it'll be fixed shortly. violet/riga (t) 10:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It's been fixed. violet/riga (t) 11:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I think someone should put on the front page that Mo Mowlam has died because she was as great British stateswomen.--TracyRenee 12:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

moved from Wikipedia:Free encyclopedia talk.

Can someone please delink this page from the front page? This is positioned as an introduction but this quote was not meant for the job. Jimbo covered a number of issues including speaking about "the case of proprietary file formats...". It's also dry and unpolished. lots of issues | leave me a message 12:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you bring that up at Talk:Main Page where people are more likely to see it? In the meantime I'm protecting the page because the only edits for a while have been vandalism. -- Francs2000 | Talk 12:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The anons have also correct spelling mistakes. Now that the page is protected I can't correct another problem -- we spelled encyclopedia incorrectly in our own introduction. The page is embarrassing -- please eliminate it from the front page. lots of issues | leave me a message 13:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and de-linked it. This isn't really the sort of thing that belongs on the Main Page, at least not in that format.--Pharos 13:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree too - there are too many red links and I can't see how it really gives any information over and above what is linked from the Main Page already. violet/riga (t) 13:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

"It uses a fission bomb as a trigger, to ignite a fusion explosion..." should not have a comma. ~~ N (t/c) 13:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It would be very spiffy to have an RSS/Atom feed for the daily Featured Article and In the News, not to mention the anniversaries, etc. It would serve as a means to bring interested users back to the site more often, as well as be a handy feature. I realize there's an email list for the Featured Article, but this would be more comprehensive as well as fitting into the aggregator world. What do y'all think? --RobertDaeley 17:34, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea! Could we create one using an external service, so we would have to take up the time of programmers who are working on making 1.5 run more efficiently? Mamawrites 19:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

This has been suggested about 2 million times before. The answer is always the same - we don't have RSS feeds because of their bandwidth-hungry nature and tendancy to all hit at the same time. →Raul654 19:27, August 20, 2005 (UTC) Also, while we don't have an official feed, other people have employed screenscraping to generate their own RSS feeds. →Raul654 19:28, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

• See WP:RSS for some feeds, including a funky new Picture of the Day one. Might be nice to link them off the main page though. the wub "?/!" 09:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The link in anniversaries is to the disambig page. Can someone change the link to target Santa Fe, New Mexico? Algebraist 01:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Done.--Pharos 01:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Can somebody confirm whether or not the Featured article blur should start with "the Anschluss" instead of just "Anschluss"?Circeus 04:54, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Also, in the Featured article blurb, "Sudentenland" should be replaced with "Sudetenland", I think. 217.209.222.226 09:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia encyclopedia languages with over 50,000 articles
Deutsch (German) · Español (Spanish) · Français (French) · Italiano (Italian) · 日本語 (Japanese) · Nederlands (Dutch) · Polski (Polish) · Português (Portuguese) · Svenska (Swedish)
Wikipedia encyclopedia languages with over 10,000 articles
Български (Bulgarian) · Català (Catalan) · Česká (Czech) · Dansk (Danish) · Eesti (Estonian) · Esperanto · Suomi (Finnish) · עברית (Hebrew) · Magyar (Hungarian) · Bahasa Indonesia
Wikipedia encyclopedia languages with over 1,000 articles
Afrikaans · العربية (Arabic) · Asturianu (Asturian) · Bân-lâm-gú (Min Nan) · Беларуская (Belarusian) · Bosanski (Bosnian) · Cymraeg (Welsh) · Ελληνικά (Greek) · Euskara (Basque) · فارسی (Persian)

Looking at the 3 categories, Category 2 is the same as Category 3 in description. Shouldn't Category 3 read as: Wikipedia encyclopedia languages with less than 1,000 articles? PM Poon 05:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The descriptions are different. Category 2 is for greater than ten thousand articles, whereas category 3 is for greater than one thousand articles. No, actually, there are a large number of Wikipedia versions in various languages that have fewer than a thousand articles; these are not listed here. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:01, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Subsequently == Later

Consequently == So

I can't read Wikipedia because every page has to say SUBSEQUENT or CONSEQUENT in every paragraph.

Where is the 'tips for writers' section?

I would suggest we also, please, stop, using, so, many, commas, and, please, please, stop, using, furthermore, moreover, however, additionally, so, often, and, with, so, m, a, n, y, , c, o, m, m, a, s.

It is really rather quite a bit annoying actually.

sofixit This link is Broken 13:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

You should take a look at the Simple English Wikipedia, which seems to be more appropriate for your level of knowledege of the language. Nelson Ricardo 21:02, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Who was that addressed to, anyway? ~~ N (t/c) 21:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

In fairness to the original suggestion, it doesn't sound like they are suggesting the complete removal of all long words when shorter ones are available; rather, it sounds like they are suggesting that some Wikipedia articles use them excessively without variation. In other words, don't replace every instance of "Subsequently" with "Later" and similar, but don't always use the same word either.

Agreed, the person knows what the word means, but thinks we over use it. No policy change is needed. Instead, the person could rephrase thigns whenever, he/she sees it. I haven't noticed this, but its concievable I just haven't run into the same articles as the anon. Oh and please sign your messages, even if you are an IP. This link is Broken 21:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Stalking Cat now lives in the State of Washington Too Old 00:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific about what needs to be fixed and where, please ? Or has the problem been eliminated from the MainPage already ? -- PFHLai 07:39, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

The link text '1952 Helsinki games' links to 1956_Summer_Olympics, should be 1952_Summer_Olympics.

Thanks for pointing out. I've fixed it. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:03, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Why is DYK? so far offset from the bottom of in the news?--nixie 00:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Seems that ITN has grown an invisible tail with the addition of a number of interwiki links. I've added a little space between TFA and SA to balance the MainPage. Is it better now ? -- PFHLai 03:23, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

Much better, thanks for sorting that out. It didn't look so bad in monobook, but was very noticable on classic, look good on both now.--nixie 05:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a space (i.e. US $200,000)? Or why not say 200,000 US Dollar fund drive instead? I think it would look better. Citizen Premier 02:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

My personal preference would be to write it 200,000 $US or possibly 200 k$US. It seems more logical to treat currency like any other unit of measurement. Besides, that's the way it reads: « two hundred thousand dollars american », not « dollars american two hundred thousand »...Urhixidur 04:07, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

US$200,000 is the standard way of writing two hundred thousand Unites States dollars. I see no reason why we should deviate away from this. Once you see prices in shops written as 200 k$ then there might be a case to change it here. --Clawed 04:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Personal preference aside, I would have thought the standard way to write it would be "US $200,000". — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'll back Clawed up. The standard way to write it is US$200,000. Notice that there are no spaces. --Davidstrauss 05:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Your second suggestion is almost comically ugly.

Dear Friends:

Near the bottom of the Main Page is a listing of some of the editions of Wikipedia in other languages grouped into categories such as: "Over 50,000 articles," "Over 10,000 articles," and the like. Well, the German edition is getting close to 300,000 articles and there are editions in at least 2 other languages (French and Japanese) that are well over 100,000 articles.

I notice the Portuguese edition already has a category for editions with over 100,000 articles. I think it would be good to highlight how extensive the various editions of Wikipedia have become and show that by having more categories. How about a 250,000 and a 100,000 catgory for a start?

Just a thought.

Cheers,

John Hill

Please see above Talk:Main_Page#I_would_like_to_apologise_in_advance_to_regular_wikipedians_for_bringing_up_this_topic. Thanks. -- 199.71.174.100 06:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

This is regarding the 'Did you know' entry claiming that the Vijayanagara empire was the last great Hindu kingdom in South India. I am not sure how solid this claim is.

While the Vijayanagara empire was truly a great one, it was followed by the Maratha kingdom in Thanjavur (1675 CE to circa 1800s CE), whose rulers were of no mean achievement. Many elements of South Indian culture, notably Carnatic Music, developed during this rule. Although Wikipedia does not have an article on the Thanjavur Maratha kingdom, some details are available at [1] . (The above source is the Sarasvati Mahal Library, which was (incidentally) started by the Thanjavur Maratha rulers, and which still functions as a reputed collection of many rare manuscripts.)

This claim depends on where exactly your borderline for a great kingdom is.

Please discuss this further, or correct the claim. Thanks. Gajamukhu 06:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Even I had a slight discomfort regarding the wording. Being knowledgable on this, you're most welcome to create an article on Thanjavur Maratha kingdom, correct any mistakes in Vijayanagara empire article, add more details to Tamil Nadu article and more. You might also be interested in the following links (shameless promotion ;)

v t e Links for Wikipedians interested in India-related content
This is a collection of links to WikiProject pages and Category pages relevant to India-related content
WP:India	Noticeboard Discussion board Article alerts Deletion talks Unreferenced BLPs India Portal Collaborations of the month India stubs Category adoptions Article requests
WikiProjects	Region India States Districts Cities Religion Hinduism Buddhism Jainism Sikhism Zoroastrianism Islam Christianity State Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Goa Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Odisha Punjab Rajasthan Sikkim Tamil Nadu Telangana Tripura Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand West Bengal UTs Andaman and Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra and Nagar Haveli Daman and Diu Delhi Jammu and Kashmir Lakshadweep Puducherry Cities Chennai Hyderabad Mangalore Mumbai Patna Culture Translation Classical Tamil Literature Hindustani and allied languages Music Cinema Television Other Education Geography Localisation Caste system Trade History Maps Politics Indian portals Military history Biodiversity, Protected areas & Environment Transport (Railways & Roads) Indian and Pakistani Wikipedians cooperation board
Newcomers	Indian Wikipedians (add [[Category:Wikipedians in India]] to your userpage) India category Wikimedia India English mailing list Wikimedia India mailing list

-- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I've reworded it for a more neutral point of view. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Claims of greatness are always open to debate, but true greatness can vaguely measured by the existence of such empires in history texts like books etc. though not belittling the maratha mpire in thajavur, many in the south don't regard it as a "great" empire, just because of advancements in culture alone. moreover many southerners felt that the marathas despite their hindu relgious background were still "from the north" (uttaradulu as in telugu). this is solidified (some might argue flimsy) when one notes that the dravidians are the traditional rulers of the south and a typical southern kingdom is ruled by the south and not by people from the north who expanded and confined themselves to the south. I agree it gets complicated, but historians in India agree that Vijayanagar and not X number of smaller hindu kingdoms that followed it in the south, that was the last truly "great" empire as their contribution ranged from art, architecture, culture and maintaining one of the most powerful armies until the defeat in the battle of telikota. Idleguy 07:32, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Should "Seven times Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong" be "Seven-time Tour de France..."? Fang Aili 12:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

DYK has a couple of typos: "... that men who practice snake charming often also use thier skills as form of pest control?" "Thier" should be "Their", and there should be an "a" between "as" and "form": " "... that men who practice snake charming often also use their skills as a form of pest control?" BrianSmithson 13:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Fixed.--nixie 13:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Snake charmers are not an effective form of pest control. though many can handle snakes, they are not really effective at catching the really dangerous snakes. Snake man Romulus Whitaker and many others like the legendary Bill Haust have constantly tried to undervalue the snake charmer as someone who can catch snakes. only a few people in india are traditional snake catchers. most notably the tribes of irulas (I will add an article on them). They are the original professional snake catchers and have been accepted by all herpetologists as such.

Thus, I find the word pest control way out of context in the main page's DYK. It's ok to have the line in the article, but to put it as the main focus for the article is plain wrong. Idleguy 14:05, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

L'Équipe is a general sports paper, not just cycling.

I have just realized how nice RSS can be. Not only to be updated about current news, but also to be informed about interesting updates on other sites. Why is there no RSS feed for the updates on the main page? I would love to get updates about new featured articles or other interesting suggestions of things to read. - Nikolas

Check out Wikipedia:Syndication for some externally provided feeds. My understanding is that there are concerns about bandwidth issues that have lead Wikipedia to a consensus against providing official feeds. Mamawrites 15:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Any reason why the Israeli flag was replaced with the one from Niger? It was the Israeli earlier this morning (USA Pacific morning, that is)... I saw the Niger one later on and can't figure out why.

Thanks!

--Sebastian Kessel 21:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Forget It, I should learn to read

--Sebastian Kessel 21:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'd just like to point out that there has been a TV programme in Danish TV about Autism some days ago. Does anyone know whether this is the reason for the selection of today's Featured Article?

--Mathew 20:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• I doubt it. It's most likely coincidence. But ask User:Raul654 — he is the Featured Article Director. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• No connection whatsoever (I don't want Danish TV nor speak the language). →Raul654 21:30, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, see the thread higher on this page - "Wikipedia is reading my mind LOL" →Raul654 21:31, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Watch your mind -- sooner than you think Wikipedia will be in your head, in your friend's heads and even running the Danish TV. Wikipedia is soon you. — Sverdrup 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

In Soviet Russia, your mind reads Wikipedia! --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

In Soviet Russia, Wikipedia edit you! -- User:Dhartung

In Soviet Russia, that joke is probably still funny. ;-) — ceejayoz ^★ 21:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The front page under selected anniverseries currenty claims that the White House became white after smoke damage was painted over. This is an urban legend according to Snopes.com: http://www.snopes.com/language/colors/whithous.htm Filur 00:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice catch, even the article say it's a myth. I've removed it. --fvw* 01:12, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

It's also an urban legend according to the article linked there, Burning_of_Washington "Although a popular myth has it that the modern name White House came from the rebuilt mansion being painted white to cover smoke damage, the name is recorded earlier than the war, and it was first painted white in 1798, before it was used by any President." Come homies, get your facts in order.--Boycottthecaf 01:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Washington DC was indeed burnt down in 1814. The selected anniversary was deleted, but now partially restored without the confusing and often over-interpreted part. -- PFHLai 02:02, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

Yeah, I changed the Burning of Washington article when I saw that, but I was called away while I was trying to decide where to notify someone. The wording on the front page wasn't actually very wrong, but left the wrong impression (based on the incorrect wording in the article when it was posted, which accepted the legend at face value). The White House article itself, btw, had the correct information. -- User:Dhartung (not logged in)

I think the "Selected anniversaries" feature should be removed from the front page. It's not really interesting and there are a lot of other things you could replace it with, that would be alot more interesting. It could for example be replaced by a science section, or what about a section dedicated to the community portal. That would be alot more interesting for the wikipedia users.

I disagree. I check out those articles, and I edit about 1 in 4. Though the front page could use a science feature of some kind. --Dhartung | Talk 18:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Why? What's special about science above all the other content in Wikipedia? --Ngb 18:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, User:85.164.35.75, for sharing your feelings about Sel.Anniv.

Everybody has their own favourite things. We can't cater to everyone by taking out Sel.Anniv. no matter what the replacement is. Having a dedicated science section may be difficult, as this will probably require daily attention of experts and specialists. (Checking dates of anniversaries before posting them on the MainPage is relatively easy.) However, I suppose, beneath the current four sections on the MainPage, we can have a 5th and a 6th section that we'll need to scroll down to view on screen. We can have the picture of the day on one side, and perhaps "Biography of the Day", "Famous Quote of the Day", etc. (or Science Formula of the Day ? Haha...) on the other. .... Do I hear someone saying that MainPage is already jam-packed ? Is that you, Raul ? .... :-) Well, yeah, that's a problem, too. So, nothing is perfect.... I'm quite happy with the current setup on MainPage, except that there is too much violence -- too many selected anniversaries of wars and battles, massacres and assassinations.... oh, well... -- PFHLai 02:06, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

You took the words right out of my mouth :) →Raul654 02:16, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

In the links to other wikipedias at the bottom of the page, Macedonian and Talega have the name of the language in English spelling, followed by the name in the other language. This is opposite the order of the other links. DDerby 13:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• OK, I've fixed it, thanks for pointing that out. Discussion of this sort of thing generally takes place at Template talk:Wikipedialang.--Pharos 13:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Right now there's a picture of Florida, probably in regard to the hurricane warning due to Tropical Storm Katrina, but there is no corresponding blurb. Shouldn't there be a mention? --TheMidnighters 21:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Either the Did you know... is stressing that it's really uncommon, or it's a typo. -- Norvy (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I just took out the second "uncommon". Thanks for pointing that out. -- PFHLai 01:09, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

Just coincidence that all the featured articles lately have started with the letter A? --24.78.34.179 01:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

For like three days. Not that low a probability... just 26² if all letters had an equal chance, and A starts many more words than Z. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's a total coincidence, although it's amusing to see people making these connections →Raul654 04:52, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's been four straight days now: A. E. J. Collins, Autism, African American literature, and Angkor Wat. Sadly, the streak ends today, as tomorrow starts with an 'R.' Acetic Acid 08:26, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... The username of "Acetic Acid" sure continues that "A" theme, doesn't it?  Denelson83  08:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

THE PLOT THICKENS! — ceejayoz ^★ 21:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

When I said that it was only three days... it was like an hour past midnight UTC so I didnt notice the new article. Anywho, let's say one in every ten articles start with a. Then the chance would be 1 in 10³, or 1000. Redwolf24 (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

If we count Anschluss and move 'Congress of the United States' to A$$h***s where there belong (POV), we would have six in a row. Way to go, August ! :-) -- PFHLai 19:31, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

I've created a page titled Wikipedia:Wikiportal Browse and I think it should be linked in the main page. How about changing the ((Categorybrowsebar)) to:

Culture | Geography | History | Life | Mathematics | Science | Society | Technology

Browse Wikipedia · Browse Portals · Article overviews · Alphabetical index · Other indexes

I'd do it myself but the template is protected. Comment by User:Trevor macinnis

• Um, you know the page you made is just an alternate version of Wikipedia:Browse, which is already linked to there. If you don't like the setup at Wikipedia:Browse, you can just edit that page.--Pharos 01:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • That's right, it is an alternate to Wikipedia:Browse, just as Article overviews and Alphabetical index are alternatives. In fact everything on the second line is an alternate way of browsing Wikipedia, depending on the type of browsing you want to do. I believe that the total lack of mention of Portals (which now merit their own namespace, and I've moved the page to Portal:Browse to reflect this) is a travesty, and I want to provide a quick access to them, and perhaps enlighten readers who have no idea they exist if they have not seen the links on the Wikipedia:Browse page. I also think the portals links on the Wp:Browse page can be removed, lets keep the two types of browsing seperate. I apologise if it seems like I'm over-reaching here, but for now lets Be Bold and perhaps later something better will come along, but at the moment another option hasn't presented itself to me and I think this is the best way to go. Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 00:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• This link is the nose of the camel, which is trying to enter the Big Tent of the Circus commonly called the Main Page. Perhaps there ought to be some more discussion and consensus about the Wikiportal/Portal namespace currently under discussion under Wikipedia:Wikiportals. One of the issues I see with the proposal above is that Portal is a different, perhaps independent noun from Wikipedia. Ancheta Wis 15:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the namespace issue is now resolved (considering that all the pages have been moved to Portal:Whatever), but if your concern is providing a "united front" of portal editors then lets see what they say at the related discusion Wikipedia_talk:Wikiportal#Issues.2C_proposals_and_votes - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 00:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no need to show Euros as well as Dollars on the fundraising report. If we must have it, can we also have British pounds, the second most used currency in the English speaking world? And what about Canada and Australia etc? And Japan, which has an important currency and provides lots of traffic. No, just go back to how it was. Wikipedia's budget is in US dollars, so that is the relevant currency. CalJW 02:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if fundraising efforts on the following few days of the fund drive are steered towards people who use Euros ? Who knows... I'd say we let the fundraisers do their jobs. -- PFHLai 02:42, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

You should've also added the amount in NZD (New Zealand dollars.) Scott Gall 06:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

To avoid stepping on any big toes, why not give the amount in Norwegian kroner? --Eddi (Talk) 02:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

What's the Rai stone exchange rate, again? Actually, I think the assumption is that the Euro will be easily "translated" by many more people than a single country's. It doesn't bother me (an American). --Dhartung | Talk 04:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

It will bother me (a New Zealander) to an extent, but so long as there are good currency converters online, it's all right. :-) Scott Gall 06:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The euro amount was not added by one of the fundraising coordinators - just an en.wiki contributor [2]. — Dan | Talk 05:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

We could put it in Oil prices, just to be neutral:-) 140,000$ = 1,986 BBL. Seabhcán 08:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Or maybe in gold ounces. 140,000 USD = 315.564 XAU. Scott Gall 06:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It currently reads:

1. Hurricane Katrina strengthens further to a Category 4 hurricane with winds of 233 km/h (145 mph) and begins moving towards New Orleans, Louisiana, after killing seven people in the U.S. state of Florida.

You should have it read:

1. Hurricane Katrina strengthens further to a Category 4 hurricane with winds of 150 mph and begins moving towards New Orleans, Louisiana, after killing seven people in the state of Florida. It is currently the second most intense named storm in the United States since 1851.

That provides much more insight about the gravity of the situation. And here is the proof: The Most Intense Hurricanes in the United States 1851-2004 with [3]. "The pressure dropped to 915 mb at 6 am. " and the last storm with that level or lower was Hurricane Camille in 1969 at 909. Hurricane Katrina is now the second most intense named hurricane since 1851 in the United States. 71.32.199.15 09:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Please consider updating Current events with newslinks and submitting headlines at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Thanks. -- PFHLai 11:31, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

Category five

http://www.weather.com/index.html katrina has winds now of at least 160 mph and rapdily growing

Please add these details to the Hurricane Katrina page. And, please sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. -- PFHLai 12:04, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

I don't like the connection between the LIFE hyperlink and Portal:Personal life, because it confuses the reader. When one sees the name of the hyperlink ("LIFE") without looking at the tooltip that says "Portal:Personal life" or at the status bar of the Web browser, one might probably think that the LIFE hyperlink directs to a page that has to do with life in general, not just human life.

My proposal is to do one of following things:

1. Change the target page from Portal:Personal life to Portal:Biology.
2. Change the text of the hyperlink from "LIFE" to "PERSONAL LIFE" or "HUMAN LIFE".

2004-12-29T22:45Z 03:00, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

There are a few other possibilities in addition to your suggestion. I quote from the life (disambiguation) page: ... WordNet identifies fourteen different senses of the word "life" and the Longman Web Dictionary enumerates thirty-five. The Main Page Browse Bar settled on the names of the links in a consensus process which dates back to 2004. In response to your concern, the disambiguation header from the Life page has been added to the Category:Personal life and to the Portal:Personal life pages. Ancheta Wis 02:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Is John Brogden, randy ex-leader of Australia's main opposition party, more important than the imminent destruction of New Orleans? Brogden's big smiling mug and a large chunk of text seems to have undue prominence. -Ashley Pomeroy 09:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, that item is hardly newsworthy for an international audience.--nixie 09:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It says now on my television that Hurricane Katrina is now a Category 3 Hurricane, should the front page now be updated then? (Jamandell (d69) 15:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC))

If the article has been updated to say the same, yes. violet/riga (t) 15:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it says it is a category 3 on the Wiki article. But the front page is yet to be updated. (Jamandell (d69) 15:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC))

The mention of Katrina's grade was removed hours ago in anticipation that the information will date quickly. Do you still see that on the MainPage ? I hope not. If you do, you may have a cache problem. Please refresh. -- PFHLai 22:52, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

Well, you may notice that I made my comment hours before you posted! Hehe. (Jamandell (d69) 17:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC))

Why is Pat "the only good government is a Xtian government" Robertson's apology still listed under recent/breaking news? It's been five days now. --Jay (Histrion) 20:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

We need another Wikiarticle updated with some recent and important news to displace that ancient Pat Gone Wild item. Suggestions are welcome. Please post them at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Thanks. -- PFHLai 22:49, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

Today's Main Page shows the 2nd Battle of Bull Run occuring in 1863. It needs to be corrected to 1862. Johnwrobertsjr 00:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. -- PFHLai 01:02, 2005 August 30 (UTC)

zOMG Menstrual cycle. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh Noes! Why, oh why, won't someone *PLEASE* think of the children?! →Raul654 03:43, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I will sue you all111!!!1111oneone Redwolf24 (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

This will be nothing compared of putting Autofellatio as the FA. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Autofellatio has already been on the main page - just never intentionally :) →Raul654 03:48, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Complete with video. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Of Raul O.O Redwolf24 (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 03:48, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

WP:NOT a collection of Raul on video. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

My 12-year-old son daughter visited this site today for a school project. I allow my son daughter to visit sites like Wikipedia, because I feel they build a family-friendly framework to the internet. Suddenly, my son daughter ran up to me and said, "Mom, what's menstrual mean?" Naturally, I was shocked. "Where did you hear such naughty terms?" I asked. "On the Wiki-pedia," she said nonchalantly. I am angered that you would allow such vile filth on my site, and I'm starting an online petition to ban Wikipedia from the internet. This is a CLEAR violation of Florida law. I trust that it will not come to that, and that you will take your servers down voluntarily. -Julie Langston, Salt Lake City, Utah, 11:48:22 p.m. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ral315 (talk • contribs) This was a joke, for the few who didn't realize this upfront..

It gets worse! Did you know Wikipedia was founded by a pornographer? Surely he must intend to corrupt our children and win them over to the Gay Secular Humanist Liberal Conspiracy!!!! Asshat 22:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh my god! An ovary on the main page! How dare Wikipedia put such utter SMUT on the main page for everyone to see! →Raul654 04:15, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I eat ovalries. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

More ovaltine, please! ral315 04:28, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Now with 50% more ground up fetus! →Raul654 04:29, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

What naughtiness ? I thought that image was a picture of bloody Katrina on some satellite image .... (See ITN.) -- 199.71.174.100 04:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I know it's a joke, but wouldn't a 12-year-old girl know what "menstrual" means anyway? —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 06:48, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I originally posted as my son, not my daughter. I have no idea why someone changed it, but... ral315 14:45, August 30, 2005 (UTC)d

The ITN blurb on Katrina reads: "Hurricane Katrina strikes Louisiana coast with heavy rain and wind, forcing the evacuation of the city of New Orleans."

Shouldn't it be: "Hurricane Katrina strikes the Louisiana coast with heavy rain and wind, forcing the evacuation of the city of New Orleans." I'm not sure if this is the right place to bring up this kind of stuff, so if it isn't, please be kind enough to point me so I can go to the correct place in the future. --Titoxd 04:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Ther place to post this sort of thing, correcting an existing ITN item, is generally Template talk:ITN.--Pharos 23:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

the words "menstrual cycle" in big bold letters while eating dinner. Thanks, Wikipedia! --69.234.223.139 06:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

After reading about menstrual cycle, I am feeling quite hungry now. --Clawed 06:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

would you by any chance be having eggs for dinner?--222.152.128.238 07:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Eggs and a Bloody Mary. Yum!

Yes. This selection was in poor taste. The illustration's useless too. 82.35.34.11 20:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

In all seriousness, the menstrual cycle is a fine featured article. The article is balanced, NPOV, and while the subject matter is slightly different from what we're accustomed to, one might say that Hey Jude, which appeared a few weeks ago, is controversial. After all, John Lennon yells a swear word in the background. How dare we glamorize such language! ral315 14:47, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Horses win the Kentucky Derby, not African-Americans. Perhaps the word "jockey" should be inserted? --Locarno 13:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

It is said that the jockeys win the race as well; at least, that's the way I would think of it. This bit from Mike Smith (jockey: "The win, Smith's first in the Derby, ..." makes it seem like the phrasing can be used interchangably. ral315 14:49, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

It's best just to clarify it, so I have. Thanks. violet/riga (t) 14:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

An Australian politician is currently accussed of making "racial remarks". What he said was that another politician's East Asian wife was a mail order bride. Many mail order brides are white. Jumping to the conclusion that the remark is racial is clearly pov - it leaves one in little doubt that the writer of the sentence is a person of left-liberal politically correct persuasion. Fine in the New York Times perhaps, but if Wikipedia wants to be credible as a neutral source, one shouldn't be able to tell. 82.35.34.11 20:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

You have a point, but..... Because people in Sydney know that the lady in question is Malaysian, they get the point being made by the Australian politician. I sure get his point, even though I have no idea whether she is white/coffee/black. I don't think I am of left-liberal politically correct persuasion, but I think it was racist. Didn't the politician think so too when he apologised? Moriori 23:40, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

"You think" = it's your point of view. He's a politician, so I expect he's willing to apologise in whatever manner will be of most benefit to his future career. Hardly any news sources I've looked at use the r word in their first paragraph, so Wikipedia is out on the left on this story. Bhoeble 01:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It's just not my POV as you claim, and Wikipedia is certainly not alone in reporting this as racism. Try these:

• Asia Pacific News The opposition leader in the Australian state of New South Wales, John Brogden, has resigned over a racist slur he made against the Malaysian-born wife of the former premier, Bob Carr.

• Japan Today - NSW opposition leader resigns over racist slur - John Brogden resigned..... following a racist comment he made about

• The Star online - Senior Aussie politician quits over racial slur - A senior political leader .....quit yesterday over a racial slur

• CNN.com -'Racist' remark politician quits - Every Asian family in Australia has been diminished by John Brogden's racism," - (says Bob Carr)

• ABC's The World - ..... John Brogden, stepped down today after admitting that he'd made a racist comment .....

• Asia Pacific News - John Brogden has resigned over a racist slur he made

• Border Mail - DISGRACED former NSW Opposition leader John Brogden .....falling on his sword amid a racism and sexism scandal.

And so on. Moriori 02:42, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Someone's race is not just a skin color. There's a lot more races than just black and white and calling someone a "mail order bride" doesn't neccessarily refer to either. Here in Europe it commonly refers to women from poor eastern European countries who are just as white as us, but I've got no idea what the case is in Australia. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:39, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

In the opening blurb on the front page, there are links on the words Wikipedia and anyone can edit. Any comments if I add a link on the word free to point to a relevant article? A bit of effort uncovered Gratis versus Libre, which in my opinion does a good job of explaining what we mean by "free". (Warning: if no one responds, I'll assume the silence means that everyone consents & be bold & make the change.) -- llywrch 23:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, it used to read "open-content"; at the suggestion of Jimbo and RMS it was changed to "free-content", and after some discussion the link was removed and it was truncated to its present state. The archives of this page are numerous, but I'll try to find the relevant one. — Dan | Talk 23:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Please do. I started looking myself, but it was too easy for me to become bogged down reading past conversations. :-\ -- llywrch 18:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

(Via edit conflict) The problem with that is by pointing them to that article we aren't saying if by free we meant as in beer or speech. All a reader will get is an article on the destinction between the two. Free used to link to Jimbo's Wikipedia:Free encyclopedia statement which I think does a fair job of explaining (it also used to link to the free content article), but it was removed after some discussion. This link is Broken 23:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

...that the Bassein Fort was the at centre of Portuguese operations in India during the 16th century?

Please change that to "at the". Thanks. -- 199.71.174.100 03:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Rdsmith4, for fixing this so quickly. -- 199.71.174.100 03:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Young was a polygamist, but his wives were not. I have already corrected the article, but somebody should correct this main page's quote of the article.

• What section was it featured in? - Mgm|^(talk) 20:42, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be "Iron Maiden are a heavy metal band..."? British English normally treats groups such as bands, sports teams etc. as plurals. See American and British English differences#Grammar. sjorford (?!) 08:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming most readers are American anyway. --Kennyisinvisible 18:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

You're assuming very, very, very wrong --Kiand 18:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

What proof do you have? --Kennyisinvisible 18:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

What "proof" do you have, first off? America is not the world, despite what more and more people seem to be programmed to think. Huge numbers of editors here come from the English speaking, or indeed non-English speaking countries of Europe, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Probably more so than come from the USA. 75% wouldn't even be "most", but theres a damn good chance its below 50%. --Kiand 00:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

And yet the whole argument is moot. This link is Broken 01:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Well for one thing there's 300 million of us. --Kennyisinvisible 02:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

And theres well over 6 billion in total. --Kiand 07:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

And not all of them speak english --Kennyisinvisible 11:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Neither do all US citizens. Howver, there are more than 300 million people who can speak English as a first or second language -outside- the US, and assuming that "most" Wikipedia readers are from the US is extremely insular and somewhat xenophobic. --Kiand 11:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether most readers are American or not. The Wikipedia standard is to use local spellings - British English on British articles, American English on American articles, Canadian on Canadian, Australian on Australian and so on. Articles which aren't obviously "owned" by a particular group can use any form, as long as it's consistent within the article; by convention, the style introduced by the first editor is retained through successive edits. Iron Maiden are a British band, ergo the article should use British grammar and spelling. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. sjorford (?!) 19:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, in practice many users aren't aware of this convention. This falls under 'fix it rather than complaining', to my mind. Save the complaining for people who inevitably try reverting your fix. :-) Willhsmit 01:52, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sjorford, you are the sound of reasons. Totally correct. Use the local variant of English wherever possible. It saves a lot of problems. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:44, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Clarification on the treatment of collective noun as plural in British English is helpful for us non-American or British users of Wikipedia. But Filipino's use of English language is basically founded upon American English though. Thanks a lot for the information anyway. {edz]

66.167.137.83 13:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC): The founding of Solidarity seems worth highlighting on the main page; most of the Polish newspapers on the Newseum front page collection highlight the event, some (JPEGs: [4], [5], [6]) quite dramatically.

Solidarity was already featured on the main page on the anniversary of the beginning of the strikes at the Gdansk Shipyards. I forgot the date. It was maybe a couple of weeks ago. -- 64.228.110.4 00:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

with fr: and sv:, as well as de: and ja:, past the 100,000 article threshold, we could consider going back to the "decimal" system and list >100,000 wikis in a separate category. dab (ᛏ) 14:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the current category system is good enough. We should have only a few categories and try to have an even amount in each. It's not the size of your wiki it's how you use it.--Clawed 02:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

There's a discrepancy on the bit about the stampede in Iraq, main pages says 600 article says over 800. --Kennyisinvisible 18:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Of whose liturgical year is Sept 1 the beginning? Not the Christians - or at least, not the Catholics, as far as I know. The blurb links to the Christian liturgical year, though. =\ --User:Jenmoa 02:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

According to the Liturgical year article it is the Eastern Orthodox Church. I've clarified it. Evil Monkey∴Hello 03:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. I skimmed the article, too. Must've missed that. Thanks :) --Jen Moakler 03:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Uzbekistan also celebrates it Independence day on September 1st. Suso 13:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Added to Selected anniversaries. Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverted. It's September 2nd by server time now Evil Monkey, even if here in America is it still the 1st ;-) Redwolf24 (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Oops. Crap. /me bashes head against computer screen. Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, I got your back :P Redwolf24 (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

"recieved" should be "received". --Sophitus 01:56, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out. Rje 02:01, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Why are WikiPortals (or at least a link to WikiPortals) listed on the Main Page? They are supposed to be a jumping off point for readers and editors, but they seem somewhat obscure. I noticed that the tableless Main Page has a list. [[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 03:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

dear sir,

i am a QA Testing profesional.. i want to take training on QA. SO Plz. suggest from where i will be better to be train in India only

please note remark above this page "This page is for discussion of the Main Page only." and "For factual or reference questions, go to Wikipedia:Ask a question." Boneyard 08:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

std::hash_map is better for most purposes Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C]]} 10:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Was this meant to go on this page? ~~ N (t/c) 13:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

that land under cultivation has grown from under 400,000 acres in 1976 to more than eight million acres in 1993 thanks to the irrigation in Saudi Arabia?

the U.S. maintains border preclearance facilities at a number of foreign ports and airports. In these travellers pass through immigration and customs before boarding their plane or boat?

1) Is that land cultivation increase only in Saudi Arabia? That construction seems to imply that it is land elsewhere when SA only appears at the end of the sentence.

2) "In these, travellers pass..."

--Syrthiss 13:15, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

and the question mark in the border preclearance facilities blurb is in the wrong place. it should be at the end of the first sentence. --Syrthiss 13:45, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

it should read ...the U.S. maintains border preclearance facilities at a number of foreign ports and airports"?" In these travellers pass through immigration and customs before boarding their plane or boat"." --Jasongetsdown 15:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

In the news on the right panel is several days old. How is this updated?Kyle Andrew Brown 16:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It is updated by hand at Template:In the news whenever more news of sufficient significance occurs. See Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page for further information, and feel free to suggest new news items here. — Dan | Talk 16:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I put that Australia update in several days ago on Current Events and the stampede story is out of date. The photo is getting old too. I have been working on Current Events items lately, so I just noticed the timeliness of the Main Page coverage. Kyle Andrew Brown 17:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Copyedit: shouldn't "table free" be "table-free" on the main page? --Homer Jay 01:23, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I think we can replace the John Brogden piece with something else, it's kind of old news now, any suggestions? --Brendanfox 11:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see anything about it on the news, and I've tried several different sites. --Kennyisinvisible 03:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

"Chief Justice William Rehnquist died Saturday at age 80." - [7] →Raul654 03:25, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

"William Rehnquist, the chief justice of the United States, is dead." - [8] →Raul654 03:25, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Check any major news network in the US now. --Mcmillin24 03:23, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Rehnquist's proper title is Chief Justice of the United States, nothing more or less. He was a stickler for formality, too, so please change the main page. This reflects, among other things, his role as head of the Judicial Conference of the United States. The title "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court" is not proper, and is not used. Xoloz 03:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Ha! Beat me to it by one minute! LeoO3 03:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. I hope you two are satisfied by the current wording.--Pharos 03:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I was, but then someone changed it back to the old wording. Sigh -- please fix. Xoloz 18:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I reverted back to a version with "Chief Justice of the United States".--Pharos 19:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Rehnquist's proper title was Chief Justice of the United States, not, as given on the Main Page, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. LeoO3 03:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The writing style for the caption of the picture of the day appears to be somewhat clumsy. Please forgive me if I am slow, but what does the writer of this article intend to convey when this exquisite blossum is described as an optical illusion? Any clarification will be useful.

The caption is generally derived from the primary linked article (the bold link), although not always word for word. The 'optical illusion' reference comes from the Osteospermum article - I should ask for clarification there. -- Solipsist 08:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

REQUEST to Administrators of Wikipedia:Religion as a main category at the Main Page. --GalaazV 00:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I personally prefer the category system the way it is now. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:45, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

GalaazV is right: Religion deserves its own category on the main page as much as History, Mathematics, or Science do. I actually find the category system confusing. Society and Culture seem similar enough to belong in the same category. The Life category makes even less sense, and has already been mentioned above on this discussion page. If these belong in the main categories, then surely other broad topics like Politics, Economics, and Religion belong there also.--Pariah 04:13, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Religion is already covered under the Culture category. Ziggur 05:34, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the point. Religion deserves it's own category, because it is not a subset of culture; or if it is, then practically everything is a subset of culture--Pariah 13:05, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

:Category:Society is for communities of like-minded individuals (but especially for those communities which rest upon some form of political power); Category:Culture covers the beliefs and values of groups of people (especially the values that people honor,including, for example, Category:Religion, and specifically not only upon the basis of political power, but some other value, such as Art or Philosophy);Category:Personal life (abbreviation for life (disambiguation)) covers the viewpoint of the individual person (the personal things we familiarly call our life). The limitation on the number of categories was a deliberate choice for Wikipedia, to keep the Main Page from growing without bound. The selection of the categories was by consensus, finally settling on the eight you see on the Main Page. The color scheme of the categories might be considered a clue to the organization of the Main Page categories: :Category:Society Category:Culture and Category:Personal life are people-oriented. Category:Geography and Category:History cover space and time. Category:Mathematics Category:Science and Category:Technology are thing-oriented.

See History of Wikipedia for more on the evolution of the Main Page. Ancheta Wis 13:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't need religion in my face whenever I come here. Culture is a good enough category. Nelson Ricardo 14:38, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Considering "Religion" is a main class of the Dewey Decimal Classification that is omitted from the Main Page, a serious effort is under way to use the DDC as one of the Wikipedia:Category schemes (Wikipedia:Dewey Decimal System), and the size of the List of religious topics, I support the request to add "Religion" as a main category on the Main Page. A main category page layout with an introductory description, "Featured Articles," "Things you can do," "Where to start," "WikiProjects," "Categories," "Subcategories" and such would greatly enhance the usability of this group of articles. – RDF 19:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

p.s. Okay, so I just described the Wikiportal, Portal:Religion! I still think the main category system "needs work," and I'm all for adding "Religion" to it! >;-o) – RDF 20:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I strongly support adding Religion as a main category. Here are my justifications:

• Religion transcends cultures. For example, Christianity and Islam, although commonly associated with aspects of various cultures, are each expressed in a wide variety of cultural settings.
• Just as Mathematics transcends the sciences, Religion transcends cultures. Why would Mathematics be represented and Religion not be?
• Religion transcends corporate and individual contexts. Therefore, Religion is not properly subordinated to either "Life" or "Culture".
• Religion is pertinent to the interests of the vast majority of the world's population, albeit an often personal interest. Access to Religion should be easy to obtain from the main page. My first inclination was to look under Life, and I was wrong. Religion for many people is predominantly personal (Life) - for example, Evangelical Christians; Religion for others has a more corporate emphasis (Culture) - for example, Catholic Christians.
• The main reason one might argue to keep Religion off the main page is that Religion does not pertain to everyone and some Atheists, etc., might be offended by such a placement. We do not exclude Society because some people reject that (see Hermit).

--Mm35173 21:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't make clear who Darryl White's hero was.--165.247.214.14 02:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Why is there no link from this Main Page to other languages' Main Page?

There already is. See Main Page#Wikipedia in other languages. If you follow those links, it will take you to the main pages of the Wikipedias in other languages. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:19, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

OK, thank you. The link to them, though, is displayed far right and the links themselves are placed far down on the page - and not in the left margin as in the other languages' pages. Other languages main pages look more like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia which is linked from this page (See also, for instance, the Swedish Main Page http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huvudsida) So the inconsequence is a little disorienting. But, OK. Robert 16:16, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina is not the top news, yet Rehnqvist's death is. Shouldnt it be the other way round? Katrina is an event of global interest. Rehnquists death means nothing outside the US.--Ezeu 17:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans is what's big now, not the hurricane itself. And US political events effect the whole world. ~~ N (t/c) 17:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Katrina is getting old. Without much new developments in New Orleans, the blurb should move down on the MainPage .... I'd rather have Mandala Airlines Flight 091 as the top news, bumping off Judge Roberts, but I can't find a good "free" picture to go with it. -- PFHLai 23:19, 2005 September 5 (UTC)

I'm American and I cringe at today's featured article. Yes, I realize featured articles are chosen for quality, but we are certainly going to get complaints about Wikipedia being American-centric when we start featuring unimportant politicians. Nelson Ricardo 00:17, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I think is a very poor choice for a feature article. She made news only because she won narrowly in a Republican district against a democrat war veteran. There is nothing extraordinary or interesting about her.

In general, featured articles are chosen for the quality of the articles themselves and not for the significance or interest of the topic. — Dan | Talk 00:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The topics of featured articles are a function of what dedicated contributors happen to be interested in. Thus, the bumper crop of articles on American politics, the history of Cricket, and the cultutral significance of elephants. Gowanus Canal isn't far from featured; perhaps, Nelson, we should collaborate on that and make another obscure FA. BTW, see comment below (not from me).--Pharos 00:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I am sure there are still many other perfectly written articles which concern something interesting. No need to be defensive and cry "you do it better yourself then!". If you don't care about what the readers think, why are you responding to our comments anyway?

We have posted articles like Hero of Belarus on the front, are we Belarusian centric? And for what its work, she won a special election, also we DO have more American traffic that any other country, but we sstill aren't American centric. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with "English" version of Wikipedia being reasonably Anglo-Saxon centric, however Hero of Belarus and Jeanne Schmidt are not that much comparable in terms of interest they spark are they? When you read about Hero of Belarus you learn something about recent political and military events in Belarussia, when you read about Jean Schmidt you learn about someone whose only achievement is barely winning an election in a district she was expected to win in a landslide. I would be surprized if half of her constituents can name her and as she has not yet sworn in, her effect on US policies is probably no more than mine... On the other hand I would like to add also that I did not like the article on Hero of Belarus at the very first place and I would have complained the same way if Wikipedia featured some obscure member of parliament from my home country (not USA) on the first page.

This is not just the English version of Wikipedia, it is also the international version. Many people will look for the English version because of the much larger number of articles. I do feel the main page is too Anglo-Saxon biased sometimes. Which, in general, I don't mind so much. If it would be an article about, say, an American president, or scientist, from the 19th century, I wouldn't mind at all. But this is quite ridiculous. Piet 08:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous choice for a feature article! GO USA! I presume this screws my chances of ever getting a feature article - tant pis! (that's in Freedom - oops! - I mean French) Pmaguire 01:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I even live in this district, and this is the most obscure and bizarre main topic I've seen on here. I know it was national news and all, but jeez. I thought the only time people cared about Cincinnati was when we riot. --68.170.114.89 03:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

A pointless choice for a featured article. What next? Someone's well-written article on their pet rock collection?

Pet rock collections would likely not meet the standards of notability required for inclusion in Wikipedia. Jean Schmidt, however, is certainly signficant enough to merit a Wikipedia article. And any Wikipedia article may be featured if it is well-written enough. Lack of obscurity and lack of bizarreness are not criteria for featured articles. The importance of the article's topic is not a criterion for featured articles, which is why important articles like Biochemistry are not featured (I'm working on that, though). If you would like to help, probably the best thing you can do is find an article on an important topic that you think should be featured, and help get the article to featured status. I've only been involved with one feature nomination so far but I would be happy to offer any advice I can. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:43, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean to seem critical--I imagine the article is well-written and I'm glad it exists. But as an American I'm embarrassed that it is the featured article. When I looked at the main page this morning it felt like I was reading "USA Today". Eric 04:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

September 1 was the Zambezi river. Tomorrow is Hong Kong, the day after is Władysław Sikorski. Apparently your conern is that there should be no US articles in the featured articles. 05:17, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

It seems like we are always getting the same response "An article need only be well written to be featured" but I think it is possible to have an article both well written and about something interesting, is it not? If it is not interesting to read, what is the point in featuring it? Of course I can nominate an article about the most interesting thing that I think should be on the first page, but this misses the point, as I can not nominate everything on the first page. So this is an open letter to people who choose what appears on the first page, today's choice was not a good choice in my opinion and it seems like there are a few other people who think so for various reasons. That is it.

Of course it is possible to have a well-written article on something interesting. Certainly the editors who helped bring Jean Schmidt to featured status felt the topic was interesting. If you don't find the article topics at Wikipedia:Featured articles interesting enough, then you are encouraged to select an interesting topic and bring it to featured status yourself, not complain that people are working on articles you are not interested in. The point of featuring articles is to collect Wikipedia's highest quality articles. Not the ones that are on the most important topics, not the ones on the most interesting topics, not the ones that are on your favorite TV show. Any of these may become featured if they are written well, not because they are in one of those three groups. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:47, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

My point is not at all that the article was a US subject, but that it was about such an insignificant US person. If the featured article concerned Donald Rumsfeld or Condoleezza Rice, for example, or some other person that I personally find utterly obnoxious, at least I would recognise their significance as front page material. Maybe I'll write an article about my neighbour who has just been elected to the administrative council of our apartment block — it was a close fight between himself and this other guy who lives on the fourth floor who is bald and has really bad breath ... (to be continued). — Pmaguire 09:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

If you wrote such an article, as you probably know, it would likely not survive WP:AFD unless there is something more notable about him. If the subject is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, then if such an article is well written, it can be featured. It's really quite simple. Let me summarize: 1) Articles on your neighbor or pet rock collection are probably not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. These would be AfDed and deleted. 2) If the article is notable enough to survive AfD, then it can become a featured article, if it is well written. 3) Interest to you is not a criterion for featured articles. Being recognized by many people is not a criterion for featured article. 4) Significance is not a criterion for featured articles. 5) Liking something is not a criterion for featured articles. — Knowledge Seeker দ 15:28, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

It looks as if you think "it can be featured" and "it should be featured" are the same. Among 700,000+ articles, only 365 of them appear on the front page yearly, so there is a mechanism of selecting articles. Of course they should be well written and I do not object to this being the primary criterion, however I find it difficult to believe that there was no other article that was well written and was about something more significant. This is not about pet rocks or smelly neighbors at all, or about things that I would find interesting. I am not telling you to feature an article on "French Mathematics around the middle of 20th century" which should be an important topic by anyone's measures but interesting to only few. I am not expecting you to feature articles which are interesting to me all the time. I really do not care about Brooklyn Canal either, but I can see that it can be interesting to people who are interested in American History, or history of New York City, or transportation or engineering issues. However it is very hard to see why Jean Schmidt should be interesting to a wide audience outside of her close circle, as various people pointed out above. Well if it is the purpose of the featured article to promote well written articles, it should first be interesting enough for people to read so that they appreciate how well written it is, otherwise I doubt that you are making a point. And please don't tell me to write an interesting article myself, I already explained why that does not solve it above.

Actually I don’t even think it’s a very good article, simply because there should be at least some correspondence between the significance of a subject and the length of its article. The article on what’s-her-face is actually longer than the one on the United Kingdom. An random surfer coming to Wikipedia looking for information on this particular person would quickly be dissuaded by the sheer length of the article, and go look somewhere else. Right now I can’t see how the article would appeal to anyone outside her fan club, aren’t there any restraining mechanisms to avoid articles on obscure subjects running on forever? Eixo 15:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I also want to add that whoever is picking today's articles might be a little too biased towards british sports scene... I really don't care about the youngest soccer player in british history or the cricket player who made this many hat tricks and doubt they are of interest to general wikipedia followers.

Then write an suggest some articles for DYK that do interest you.--nixie 00:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The article today is about an Australian cricketer. Cricket is a popular sport in many countries worldwide so I think there is interest in cricket articles from general wikipedia followers. --Clawed 01:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a fine line between enjoying a sport as a participent or as a spectator and being obsessed with statistics. I have not been to every part of the world but I believe the latter happens more in US and UK than anywhere else. When it comes to cricket and wikipedia, my objections are that its spectator base is limited (former UK colonies except USA and Canada[?]), the statistics given here are more often than not some 100-150 years old making them interesting to probably only a fraction of the fans and there has been too many of them recently. Of course it is the choice of the people who put time and effort in preparing this page, and I am just a reader who puts his input through some well intended criticism. Take it or leave it, no need to get defensive.

As pointed out above, Did You Know is designed to showcase articles created within the last five days. And as long as something can survice articles for deletion, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't get a place on the main page. Evil Monkey∴Hello 05:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

National pastime lists cricket as being popular in many countries, and "cricket-fever" has never been so high in the UK. violet/riga (t) 17:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

If England win the Ashes I expect cricket will be back on the Main Page - this time in the top right hand corner, not the bottom right. Even non-cricket-playing countries like Norway and Japan have been looking at buying rights to the fifth Test. It's probably the best ever Test match series - the two top teams in the world battling for every run and wicket. Richie Benaud has rated it as better than the 1981 series, with only the 1960/1 Australia-West Indies series coming close. Great stuff - I hope to see Michael Vaughan lift the urn sometime Sunday or Monday, jguk 18:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It should be said that the only reason Norway would consider buying rights to a cricket match is that there is a substantial Pakistani minority there. No ethnic Norwegian gives a damn about cricket, and the same goes for most European nations. Go easy on the cricket guys, the front page should show Wikipedia's diversity. Eixo 20:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

If you want non-cricket pages on the front page, may I suggest you create them or nominate them? To me, this is the cricket-supporting community getting their just rewards for some fantastic work. If other sections of Wikipedia were as prolific, I'm sure they would also be represented. So I guess this does show Wikipedia's diversity, to a certain degree. ;-) [[smoddy]] 21:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

why haven't the urdu language been added?

Urdu Wikipedia current has 458 articles, which is less than the 1000 cutoff to appear on the frontpage here. - BanyanTree 17:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

You can help bring it to the frontpage by contributing to the Urdu Wikipedia. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 17:14, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Why does a Cricket topic appear in every other did you know article? That is the only "sport" that ever appears in the did you know.

Wikipedia has a lot of cricket fans, evidently. DYK is a sample of good new articles. To balance it with other sports would require that people be creating lots of new articles on other sports. ~~ N (t/c) 19:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)