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.

>1948 - The Marshall Plan, an economic recovery program established by U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall >to assist the post-World War II re-building of Europe, was signed into law.

This is very biased! The programme was intended to re-build ONLY western Europe (the self-declared "free world" part only), not the entire Europe. The soviet sphere of influence (USSR and eastern-european satellite states) were purposefully excluded by crafting humiliating conditions which were not acceptable considering that WWII destruction was at least 5x more severe east of the Elbe.

Therefore the above sentence is dishonest.!

With these kind of "America is always right" style worded articles there is no wonder that scholars consider traditional encyclopaedias more trusted. Those are done by researchers who are bound by the inherent honesty of scientific methodology. Here on the Internet the numerically superior anglo-saxon netpopulation rewords history to its own liking regardless of the truth. Regards, Tamas Feher from Hungary. 195.70.32.136 08:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Your whole rant is factually untrue, in particular, "The soviet sphere of influence (USSR and eastern-european satellite states) were purposefully excluded by crafting humiliating conditions which were not acceptable". As stated in the beginning of the article, "The reconstruction plan was developed at a meeting of the participating European states in July 1947. The Soviet Union and the states of Eastern Europe were invited, but Stalin saw the plan as a threat and did not allow the participation of any countries under Soviet control. " Oh, and those "humiliating" conditions (as described in teh article) were that indepedent assessment of the economic status of nations was required. In other words, the Western Nations were not going to take Soviet claims at face value. The write up is correct as-is. Raul654 08:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you think in your rights mind that after Churchill's infamous threatening Fulton speech the USSR could with any dignity and sanity allowed the anglo-saxons to see every industrial resource it had, including the secrets of its military manufacturing capacity strenghts, to disclose all its economic weaknesses at a time of danger, when two japanese cities have been obliterated by A-bombs for no other aims but to intimidate the USSR?

Don't forget that the USSR was not a defeated country, but an unconquered and victorious party in the WWII, therefore it could not be expected to submit to the humiliating naked transparency conditions which were dictated for Germany and France, for example, countries which were soundly defeated and conquered during WWII and lost their independence. The USSR bore the blunt of the entire WWII, 60% or more, but what the russkies got from the eastern european satellite states was very little, because those countries themselves were ripped of most resources and industry by war destruction and retreating german and local nazi troops. For example in Hungary, my country, the only oil field we had, called Zala mezo", was already sucked dry by early 1945 to serve Wehrmacht needs, and all our factories and 100% of railway rolling stock ended up in Germany and never came back. There was about nothing left the USSR could take from us to fulfill its 300 million reparations bill as provided by the Paris peace accord. The Marshall plan was very biased and not worthy of the Nobel price, as it condemned the eastern and central european people to decades of great suffering in order to hurt the soviet bloc. 195.70.32.136 12:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not sufficiently informed to have a real opinion on this debate, but it seems to me there would be no harm in changing the front-page blurb from "Europe" to "Western Europe". Whatever the initial aims of the plan, those were the countries that were mainly helped in practice. Redquark 15:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Western Europe" would be wrong, too. Sweden, Greece and Turkey will never be considered "Western European" no matter how you play with your map and compass. Yet they benefited from the Marshall Plan. -- 199.71.174.100 13:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Sweden is most definitely considered to be a Western European country.

Northern Europe, maybe. At the most Northwestern. Not Western. -- 199.71.174.100 22:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"look TAMAS FEHER. is interesting to see your view from ex-east sphere country. You talk about humilliating conditions, and about the real intention of the marshall plan being to benefit only west sphere. Whats the news in that. INternational competition against the soviet sphere was sometheing ovious then and now. The real benefits of americans plan is being feel only nowadays by east-european countries, with their captation within the european union, which economic goodstanding is a consecuence of american effort, as eastern european countries possibility to join it is too. I hope you dont understand my words as vulgar proamerican ideology since it could have been exactly the other way round, if the USSR could have found a way for its economic and political problems for an international structure based on socialism. But its leaders were too obstinated, and its sphere countries had to wait the 1990s for political definition and the 2000s for economic. Leandro from Argentina.

The Marshall Plan WAS NOT intended only to rebuild western Europe. Unless Stalin played a role in creating the plan, which of course is highly improbable. However, Stalin did play a role in carrying out the plan, as he viewed the plan as a ploy to trick the Soviet Union into conforming to capitalism. Stalin would not allow the plan to apply to his iron curtain-protected European countries, as the plan was the ultimate form of international capitalism. This my friends is why western Europe recovered from the aftermath of WWII much more quickly than eastern Europe. This plan helped to bring people left in poverty by the war back to a level of economic feasability. As for what the second anti-Marshall commentator said on this strain, it is his "must find something wrong with an American accomplishment" ideology that is the true source of bias. It is shameful to misconstrue the Cold War status of eastern Europe as America's fault. How easily we forget the tanks poised on the Soviet side of the Berlin wall, preventing any access to help the impovershed people in eastern Europe, or the Berlin arilift, or the countless other humanitarian efforts of the United States to aid eastern Europe. How can the United States be blamed for Stalin's evil, yes evil, desire to spread his Communist sphere of influence by keeping nations in poverty? Perhaps the flaw lies in his ideology, or in Communism as a whole (ps- if I hear another anti-western, uninformed person hate on the US for using the atomic bomb to end the fascist campaign of Japan, I may vomit). Conclusivly, Stalin was wrong, Marshall was right, the text in the article is accurate. It appears all of Stalin's propaganda still lingers in eastern Europe. Regards, Hendrickson03 21:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC) from the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Why have all the clickable words become underlined?`It is very annoying I think!

Cyrruss 08:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• It's been like that since the beginning of time. Harro5 09:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Has it? When I first started using wikipedia they were underlined, but for the vast majority of the time the wikilinks aren't underlined at all.  -- Run!  14:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to vary day by day; it's some kind of quirk with Wikipedia's web code. It'll go back to not-underlined soon. Redquark 15:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

For me, it's underlined when I log in, but not underlined when I'm logged off. Ocasionally, I will log on and it will remain not-underlined but since I'm so used to it being underlined I just log off, close the browser, occasionally clear all my history, and then restart the browser... that always gets it back to being underline while logged on. I guess I'm the oddball here, but I prefer it underlined (I'm just used to it is all). -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 17:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You should be able to set whether underlines are displayed in your preferences on the 'Misc' page. --CBDunkerson 01:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why they wouldn't be underlined. It's like that on the rest of the Web... Dragon Expert 15:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok this is driving me crazy, unless these underlines go away I will be totally unable to continue to contribute sainly to wikipedia... PLEASE FIX THIS!!!!!! ---T-rex 16:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Please retain your sanity long enough to check out CBDunkerson's suggestion, the third paragraph up from here. hydnjo talk 17:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

ten German nuclear scientists were detained and secretly microphoned at a house in England

How does one "microphone" someone? Were these scientists secretly struck about the head with a large foam-covered microphone? "Microphone" is a noun not a verb... and I doubt it can even exist as "microphoned". Thankfully the above text does not appear to be present in the body of the article... it is surprising to see it on the main page.

I've changed: "secretly microphoned" -> "wiretapped". - UtherSRG (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

One of the current features of the English language is that you can verb any noun, as in she birthed the baby. I first noted this tendency about 1990. Oh, wait, I just remembered the phrase married and babied, about 1975-80. --Ancheta Wis 01:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The NFL (National Football League) uses the term "Mic'ed up" to refer to a player or coach wearing a microphone during a (American Football, not Soccer) football game. So, there is precedence for the use of a form of "microphone" as a verb. In our (American English) vernacular any noun can be verbed as this editor and a previous just did to "verb". As for Secretly "Microphoning" someone, we might say "Bugged" instead. (This editor knows nothing of the Operation Epsilon topic, but stumbled upon this Talk Page.

--TecBrat 22:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

PHP MySQL Playground

I believe wiretap would apply to something like telephone. Perhaps secretly recorded using hidden microphones would be the most faithful representation of the truth, if they were in fact microphoned. --129.15.169.147 20:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Something which has been bugging me ever since I've first seen the main page: isnt it possible to list the article with the picture next to the picture. Its mighty confusing, even for regular users (I still find myself occasionally surprised, and then remind myself of the fact that its not necessarily adjacent). The fact that its a recurring complaint by anons (meaning simple readers) means that its confusing to a larger audience as well.

Should be hard to implement methinks?

Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 11:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean the "In the news" and "On this day" sections? I agree. Carcharoth 12:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is today's featured article "The New England Patriots," when today is:

1) Opening Day for most of Major League Baseball's 30 teams; and 2) The day that the NCAA Division 1 Men's Basketball Championship will be decided.

I am a diehard Patriots fan, but this seems kind of silly, especially since the Patriots did not even play in the most recent Super Bowl. I would rather have seen the Boston Red Sox as today's feature, or maybe even the Boston Marathon, which will be run two weeks from today on April 17.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.204.134.1 (talk • contribs)

The daily featured articles are normally not chosen to reflect specific dates or events and the fact that the Patriots were featured today is almost certainly a coincidence. The date an article is chosen to be featured is either requested by a user, or chosen randomly by our Featured Article director a few days before the actual date. Usually, the only deciding factor other than a request by a user is how many days have passed since this specific category (in this case, Sports) has been featured as long as a related topic isn't already on the mainpage (such as Flag of Mexico being featured on the day Mexico holds national elections); exceptions may occur. Also, featured articles must meet a certain quality and standard before they can be called featured and thus be eligible to become today's featured article. Neither Boston Red Sox nor the Boston Marathon has yet achieved this title, so they can not be featured on the main page until they do. They only baseball related featured article is baseball itself, and this article has been previously featured (and thus cannot be featured again for some time); even so, featuring a baseball related article would probably coincide with baseball being in the news or a big topic and thus violates the previous policy. That's basically the gist of it, though there are many other variables involved I'm sure. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Can someone get a better picture of the Patriots? The current one may look good in normal size but when smaller it looks like a bunch of world leaders meeting for some economic summit somewhere (Davos?). --One Salient Oversight 00:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the bolding of the title and slogan looks very childish and over-the-top. It looks a bit like a persons first go at programming HTML, using all of the ways of formatting text as he can. What do other people think? --Celestianpower ^háblame 14:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the same applies to the italics as well. With the links in those lines, it looks very messy indeed. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I forgot to remove those when I was editing. --Celestianpower ^háblame 15:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the text looks better (and more professional) without the bolding, and the italicized second line was even worse. ("Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." is one sentence, so it's illogical to use inconsistent styling.) —David Levy 15:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I liked the bolding. It made the title stand out more. -EdGl 20:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"that the Autumn of Nations, which begun in Poland, marked the end of the Cold War?" - Kind of anal, but it should read "began" rather than "begun" -Elmer Clark 22:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. —David Levy 22:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence of today's featured article has incorrect grammar. It reads "The history of Limerick, the third largest city in the Republic of Ireland and a major cultural and industrial centre, stretches back to its establishment by the Vikings as a walled city on "King's Island" (an island in the River Shannon) in 812, and received its charter in 1197." Stripping out adjectives, appositives, and such this becomes "The history of Limerick stretches back to its establishment and received its charter in 1197." The easiest fix would be just to remove the word "received," though that's still sylistically sub-par. ^L_Wizard @ 00:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 02:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The In the News section states:

"A jury finds Zacarias Moussaoui (pictured) guilty for the deaths in the September 11 attacks. Moussaoui's trial now enters the death penalty phase, where he may be sentenced to execution."

That seems like quite an exaggeration. It sounds as though Moussaoui is responsible for the deaths of all those who were killed on 9|11. In addition, the part about the death penalty phase to me sounds a bit redundant. Clearly, the death penalty phase involves execution. Perhaps it would be more accurate and concise to say...

"A jury finds Zacarias Moussaoui (pictured) partially liable for the deaths in the September 11 attacks, making him eligible for the death penalty."

joturner 02:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the original is more clear because it includes important procedural phases of the verdict process that the later, more summed-up version leaves out. However, I'll submit that the original is a little unclear. It should read: "A jury finds Zacarias Moussaoui (pictured) guilty in conspiracy to murder those killed in the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks. The trial now moves into the death penalty phase, where the jury will decide first whether Moussaoui is eligible for the death penalty, and if so, whether that will be his sentence." Hendrickson03 20:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

what timezone is the main page displaying? according to my watch, it is only the 3rd.Joeyramoney 02:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It displays UTC, which is currently on April 4. joturner 02:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

An article in the DYK section mentions "Congressional Medal of Honor", but in the CMOH article, it says that this is actually incorrect.

Further to people's complaints above regarding how it is confusing at first as to which article belongs to the picture; There is a little (pictured) caption in the text so it's not a huge issue but how about somethig like this?.. (Rough mockup, it might look stupid in your browser)

...to highlight the appropriate article entry? --Monotonehell 06:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

And maybe a thin blue border for the picture to link them better intuitively. Great idea. --Quiddity 06:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh I wanted to do that but couldn't work out the wiki-table layout >.> EDIT:messed with it a bit--Monotonehell 07:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me – it won't make much of a difference to the page, but if people find the current arrangement confusing, it ought to be changed – Gurch 12:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd still prefer just putting the pictured news on top. Seems like the easiest solution to me..

Still, I like your suggestion. Two questions though. Can the border on the pic be a bit larger? It took me a while to actually notice it. second, mort importantly, doesnt this makeup get messy once the news item moves more towards the bottom? The Minister of War ^(Peace) 13:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This is just a QaD mockup in wiki:table markup, I imagine that the CSS for the front page could include a special element for the appropriate box somehow. So yes the border can be any thickness (I couldn't work it out in wiki markup though). It would get separated from the picture if it slid down yes. But if it were the only highlighted entry the viewer's eyes would be drawn to it more quickly than the obscured (pictured) tag. --Monotonehell 14:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with using ALT on the image ? Just move the mouse over and the text would pop on screen. So easy.... --199.71.174.100 15:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing you mean the title html tag? It doesn't show up in all browsers and the current IE doesn't handle it correctly. Also this would require the user to move the mouse over the picture. The issue here is not the picture but which text goes with it. We could always put a caption under the picture but I was thinking that an obvious visual clue would be better. --Monotonehell 18:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The "title" html tag is for anchors (a href), the "alt" html tag is alternate text for images. ;-) -Quiddity 21:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No, not quite right. ;) "alt" contains the ALTernate text description for an image. To be displayed if the image is not, to aid people reading the page in text only browsers or for accesibility issues (for the vision impared) or to provide information about the image for indexing engines etcetera. "title" is a HTML core standard attribute for any entity that defines what text should be displayed in a tooltip.

The whole issue was complicated by IE displaying the alt text instead of the title text in its tooltips. --Monotonehell 09:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd still support some changes to show the link between text and picture more prominently. Is this one of those things that everybody is going to agree on, but gets archived without ever being implemented? The Minister of War ^(Peace) 09:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Atnetion: In the News says Zacarias is pictures, but its the Canadian Prime-minister who appears! Its not on purpose, now is it? :) muriel@pt 12:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. - UtherSRG (talk)

A jury finds Zacarias Moussaoui (pictured) liable for the deaths in the September 11 attacks: Moussaoui is not pictured - it's Stephen Harper. ▫ UrbaneLegend ^talk 12:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Really, this happens too often when the picture is changed. Admins shouldn't take changing the news pictures so lightly. Ziggur 12:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. - UtherSRG (talk)

It's the new Canadian bigwig and not the guy found guilty who is depicted. Could you please correct this? --62.67.194.45 12:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC) (Ah, I see that while I was typing this somebody else has already pointed it out.)

Fixed. - UtherSRG (talk)

Damn, I just referenced in my essay that Moussaoui was the new Canadian PM!! hehe. There should be more control on the frontpage really. --Midnighttonight 08:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The opening of the 39th parliament has Governor-General....this is incorrect...there is no hyphen. I realize it redirects but this should still be corrected. KsprayDad 13:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 14:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In the opening of the 39th parliament, the Speech from the Throne should be delivered by the Governor General on behalf of the Queen of Canada, and written by the newly-elected government of Stephen Harper.dancheng 01:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, it became extinct in 1930 because of Spanish missionaries? My knowledge of American history is imperfect, but hadn't California already been admitted to the union by then? Surely it therefore became extinct because no-one in the US made any attempt to preserve it..? AND- can someone explain to me what this means- "...that the Russian clown Slava Polunin celebrated the 20th anniversary of his theater by organizing its funerals?". Maybe a bit more QC-ing for the main page could be in order. Badgerpatrol 15:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The article was a POV misreading of a source text. I changed the article text to a more NPOV handling, though it's too late for DYK. In any case the DYK articles are often written by one person (I should know, I hit it regularly!) and thus don't get much editorial input. But being featured in DYK gives editors a chance to find it more quickly. --Dhartung | Talk 22:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else think Tom Delay's resignation might deserve a space on "In the news"? I think it does. But then again, there is important stuff already there... Could the Thai newspaper get bumped off? (Trying not to have a U.S. bias...) Grandmasterka 15:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Both Tom DeLay and the Thai newspaper bit are insignificant.

What's missing is the Thailand legislative election, 2006. Thaksin Shinawatra is stepping down as PM even his party has won a majority! --199.71.174.100 15:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Bring it up on Talk:Current events. --Dhartung | Talk 22:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think "emergency" should link to the meaning of the term "Emergency," not "The Emergency." If they are talking about "The Emergency," They should say "...famine, and The Emergency." instead of "...famine, and emergency." Dragon Expert 15:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No, leave it as is. "The Emergency" is the name of the emergency that occurred in Ireland, so it's ok. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 16:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In this case, should "the" be shown ? Or even specifiy when ? --199.71.174.100 17:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Recently, Esperanto Wikipedia decided to not uppercase anymore the surnames in people articles (e.g.: John LENNON). Please feel free to check if interwiki links to Esperanto Wikipedia are working good, since the most of the aforementioned pages are being moved to new title articles (e.g.: John Lennon). Mxcatania 16:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't Main Page related, it should probably be posted on the Village Pump. If you think about it, it makes more sense to go through the Esperanto Wikipedia's 40,000 articles for cognates in the English Wikipedia, because nearly 100% of your 40,000 articles will have them, whereas fewer than 4% of articles here will have Esperanto Wikipedia cognates. I'm not sure if this is something that could be done by a bot or perhaps some other wikipedia tool like AWB. --Dhartung | Talk 22:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know where to ask this. I looked through the FAQ's and everything! Anyway, I made a new article today that I'm very proud of. John Chain. I wanted to know if it could go on the main page in the Did You Know box? How do we do this sort of thing? Thanks! Sarah crane 18:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi :) Look up to the right. There's a link to suggest an entry. --Monotonehell 19:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the picture of the day's text is aligned to the vertical middle of its container. This seems to be illogical, and, most importantly, inconsistent with the rest of the main page's design. I'm not exactly sure how the templates work, but would it be a good idea to have the text content of that table or div align to the top rather than to the middle? I think it would look better that way. --Michiel Sikma 21:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at, and it is different to the rest of the templates, but personally I prefer it the way it is. Although it could do with a slightly larger space between the picture and the text – Gurch 21:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't like it. Maybe some other people could give their opinion? --Michiel Sikma 11:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there a spot for fun facts on the home page? At 1:02:03AM later today, the clock will read: 01:02:03 04/05/06 and I think that's cool enough to get a spot on the home page. In about 3 hours as of this writing UTC will read that time. Europe will have to wait another month because they swap the month and day. Here is a news story about it: [1]

This would only be appropriate if there were a Wikipedia article on such oddities, then it could be in Selected Anniversaries or DYK (but only within 5 days of creation). --Dhartung | Talk 22:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

For most of the world, that will happen on 4 May 2006 not 5 April. I'm sure there is an article somewhere explaining why you Americans (and some others???) use a silly date... ;). --Midnighttonight 08:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because we're leaders not followers :-P. Just kidding, don't go off on me because of that (unless you're also joking). As far as I know, all my cousins and family in Colombia use the US version, not sure if Latin America does it formally or not. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 08:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It's all sweet. Although one has to wonder why and how different countries went for different methods. Did you have a February 30 this year? --Midnighttonight 08:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably cultural evolution... I'm unoficially on the World Calendar, so technically, yes! :-P-- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 08:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The article about funny date formats is at Calendar date, and the American style is referred to as "Middle endian" format. You may have to be a computer programmer to get the joke.-gadfium 08:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Can someone Wikify "tomboy" in the featured article. --130.184.211.35 00:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Ummm? KayEss | talk 06:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hairshirt. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Cheers Knowledge Seeker. Probably should have been linked then. Looked like a prank. KayEss | talk 02:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I linked it after reading you posted your first comment. Thanks for pointing it out. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Minor thing -- Today's "Did You Know?" section refers to a "baseball match," but baseball contests are known as "games," not "matches." -- Mwalcoff 07:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I study Architecture and i am preparing my final project. The topic is Nomadic Architecture. I would love to see what people have to say about Nomadism and the answers would be very important and very helpful for me. Thank you very much!!

HI! :) This is not the place to ask questions. Have a look at the link at the top of the page that says "For questions, find out where to ask them." Good luck! --Monotonehell 13:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Where did the term "Onion Snow" come from as a reference to the last snow of the winter season? (I live in PA - maybe this is a local thing?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.236.197.226 (talk • contribs)

It would be better to ask this at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. Angela. 17:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do the Wikinews stories not have direct links to those stories? Clicking the Wikinews link takes you to the list of stories and I never seem to be able to find the story I am looking for.

I think the bullet should link directly to the Wikinews story. Whaddaythink?

Cyferx 16:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The In the news section on the Main Page lists some current events that may be of interest to readers but it doesn't necessarily mean that there is a Wikinews story. I agree however, that if there is an interwiki link to be had, then displaying it seems appropriate. hydnjo talk 17:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

In the news is for encyclopedia articles about recent news(as I understand it). However a link to wikinews wouldn't hurt. Some stories also link with template:wikinews on the article, but I think a n:blah style link would be good too. Bawolff 22:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've left a note at the Wikinews water cooler (like WP's village pump) about this suggestion. --hydnjo talk 00:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, why is it? —This unsigned comment was added by JohnOw (talk • contribs) 16:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC).

It's a large page (122kb currently) with 7 templates. However, it doesn't seem very slow to me. Angela. 17:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

In the third Did You Know item, "agressive" should be "aggressive". Art LaPella 19:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks for spotting that. i just went and fixed it.--Alhutch 19:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

WTC Cross has been moved to World Trade Center cross, so the DYK's piped link should be fixed to avoid an unneeded redirect. Staxringold 21:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"WTC pecuiliarly shaped worshipped piece of scrap metal" I suppose would not be as poetic. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 21:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed link. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

...This in turn lead to More's execution at the Tower of London.

Shouldn't this be past tense ? Instead of 'lead', should it be 'led' ? -- 199.71.174.100 21:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. I think the problem was someone thinking lead the verb was pronounced like lead the element. — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we avoid advertising this article ? KH is not important. I'm starting to have doubts about wikipedia based on the featured articles lately.

• As I've always understood it, featured articles are based on the quality of the article, not the subjective importance of the article's subject. An article on any subject is a candidate for the Main Page. --flatluigi(^talk/_contrib) 00:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

To elaborate on what Flatluigi said any featured article is eligible to be on the main page though in practice an article can be featured and will never be on the main page since non work safe articles are never put on the main page for obvious reasons. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the first archive of the main pageTalk:Main_Page/Archive_1. People were complaining even then: "Parapsychology should be removed from the main page. It is far too controversial and too exotic to make sense in the first level of a directory. Let's use the space for something more important."

While not a complaint about a featured article, it does show that this concern over how the front page might appear to new users has been with us for a very long time. The standard response is that "featured articles are based on the quality of the article, not the relative importance of the article." That's all well and good, but I do see people complaining about this all the time. Should an article's being well written be enough of a criterion on its own for an article to qualify? How about a referendum on the criteria necessary to qualify as a featured article? --JohnO 04:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and by doing so make all the people editing articles on their favourite subject in order to get it on the front page give up. I personally think there's nothing wrong with featuring Katie Holmes or Cool providing we have at least one conventional encyclopedia topic, History of Limerick, Ta-Yuan, Mário de Andrade linked to under it as a past one. The Cool thing was as far is it goes really as it was a current charting single but even then it's nice for people to find out about something that's in the news or such (another regular complaint is that the featured article isn't relevant to the day it appears on the front page. Jellypuzzle | ^Talk 08:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you don't think it is a good idea, so your vote on changing the criteria would be no, which is fine. But a lot of other people would vote yes, and as this is a recurring issue, it would seem to merit opening a page to discuss this at some length. And while I realise that Wikipedia is not a democracy, according to this, long-running disputes should be the subject of a poll. Well, this is a long running dispute. So, can we have one? Please? --JohnO 09:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should. Still, it has to be very well advertised like the main page redesign was otherwise it wouldn't be fair. Jellypuzzle | ^Talk 09:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a note - there is a distinction being overlooked here between 'featured articles' and 'articles of the day'. People are talking about changing the 'featured article' standards in order to prevent 'non notable' 'articles of the day'. I'd suggest instead just trying to change the 'article of the day' standards. Unlike 'featured articles' the 'article of the day' selection process already makes some distinction for content... as noted above you won't see a 'non work safe' article as the 'article of the day'. Articles of the day are chosen from amongst the pool of featured articles, but not all featured articles are considered for/become articles of the day. If you want to change things then try to adjust the article of the day standards, but there is no reason to alter featured article selection in general. --CBDunkerson 11:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but we should change the article of the day standards. One of the purposes of the article of the day should be to promote Wikipedia. Whether people think it is fair or not Wikipedia has some serious reputational problems, and these surely discourage many potential high quality contributors from getting involved. --CalJW 11:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Sounds good. How do we go about doing that? --JohnO 03:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The featured article feature (sticking on the original point, rather than digressing to the idea of "Article of the day"..) is not intended to self-serve, by any means. That's a blatant insult to those who collaborate to produce the best articles, including all featured articles, for concensus' sake. Katie Holmes not important? We all know what happens to articles which are unable to establish their own notability... Bobo. 03:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. --JohnO 23:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What I meant to say is that I support the idea of people all around the internet wanting to know a lot more about current events, people, and happenings, such as Katie Holmes, and the fact that of all the places around all the internet that could possibly deal with current affairs, the best place for it is Wikipedia. This has got to be a good sign. Katie Holmes as a featured article, therefore, is a very positive thing. Sorry if I sounded unclear before. Bobo. 07:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I beg your pardon if I am mistaken, but this just seems like your vote (and reasons behind it). I would like to get a "real" vote underway to stop the likes of Wario, Layla, Cat, Cheese, Katamari Damacy, Cool_(song), Shoe_polish, Butter and Spoo from making it to the front page. This short list is by no means exhaustive. I realise the articles themselves may be very well written, but I feel the content to be inappropriate, in that it doesn't showcase the more serious articles which are being collaborated upon. And I know from watching this page every day, many more people feel the same way. {If I remember correctly (though I may be mistaken), Shoe polish was created due to a request (just over a year ago) in a list which was, for the most part, a list of absurd potential articles.} But the main point is this: that is just my opinion. And what you wrote is just your opinion. So, please, please, please... can somebody provide details on how to go about starting a discussion which has the potential to get the criteria for articles on the main page changed? --JohnO 13:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how those topics are inappropriate, they're not offensive and they meet the same requirements as "serious topics" would in terms of research, writting, and obvious interest (if someone spent weeks getting this article featured, it must be of high interest to them). I find that occasionally featuring these mainstream articles tends to add an element of fun to the mainpage. Would you really want to see every article on the front page be about nothing but the stuff you fell asleep in high school over? It wouldn't showcase everything that Wikipedia has to offer. Featuring Katie Holmes shows people that we don't only focus on History, Science, Math, and Literature, but also Mainstream Media, Comedy,, and even Trivial Knowledge, something you wouldn't necessarily find in other places... especially as a featured article, where it is more than just a few unsourced paragraphs, but actual sourced, factual, and well written information. I'd occasionally like to see something like Wario, or Cool (song) get featured, to show that we have a very diverse library of topics that can range from the type of stuff you'd fall asleep in class over, such as Trade and usage of saffron, to the stuff you're listening to in class before you fall as sleep, such as Nirvana (band). I also feel that getting "the criteria for articles on the main page changed" is just the stepping stone for getting the criteria for featured articles changed. Today we're not allowing the articles onto the main page, tomorrow they can't become featured because they're not serious enough, next year they're not allowed at all because they don't meet our credibility standards! Removing these articles from the main page will, in my opinion, be censorship under the guise of credibility, and doing so will do nothing but show people that unless you can work on serious articles, don't bother editing. Of course, this is just my opinion, but I hope that if we have a vote, people can consider what I just said. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 15:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to the question of how to pursue this issue... go to the Wikipedia:Today's featured article page and read the current guidelines. Then make comments on the talk page there and/or start a request for comment. --CBDunkerson 15:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Aside from SmthManly, who was making examples to counter the OP's point, I have seen no examples of what articles would be suitable for the Featured Article status. Nirvana, but not Nirvana? Cigarette 04:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, big thanks to CBDunkerson for pointing me in the right direction. As for SmthManly's comments: Perhaps it is so obvious what most people would consider to be appropriate material for the face of wikipedia that very few (including those in favour of keeping the current criteria) are giving examples. Also, I think it is a cheap shot on your part to suggest Trade and usage of saffron is yawn material. Shoe_polish... well, I said enough about that in my last post. But the main page doesn't have to feature a "boring" article. At present there are 946 featured articles. Let's suppose even 25% of those are on ridiculous topics (yes, ridiculous, just like Shoe_polish) that would still leave about 700 featured articles on topics of general interest to people other than cobblers. A two year supply to begin with - during which time, many more articles will be brought up to featured article standard. And if an article is repeated 2 years after it is first shown on the main page, so what??? It's not a case of "Don't bother editing because it'll never make the front page." It's a case of asking why we feel we need to reward people for taking part in a voluntary project. It's not that rewards aren't nice. It's more that we shouldn't feel we have to put fæces on the main page just because someone spent a fortnight crafting it to perfection. (Sorry about the pun - I just couldn't resist. Was that a cheap shot, too?) --JohnO 11:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[undented to more than a couple of centimetres] Actually, I really enjoyed reading Shoe_polish enough to say so in a similar discussion at the time, signing up for my WP username at the same time. I try to give every day's Featured Article a quick glance - some get a full read, others are abandoned. My criterium is usually not whether the subject seems interesting, but that the article is well-written (particularly so in Shoe Polish's case). And this, I think, should remain the reason why a particular article gets featured in this way, not because some people think the subject unworthy. Bazza 13:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What I meant to say by comparing the nirvana and saffron articles was that people would generally appreciate seeing an article they themselves can relate to on the main page every once in a while, whether it's scientific or mainstream media (today it's OpenBSd for the computer wizes, yesterday the Kakapo for the nature buffs, tommorrow Fanny Blankers-Koen for athletic/history patrons, why not Katie Holmes for the hollywood fans, or Wario for the video games nuts?). I still believe removing certain articles from the main page is equal to censorship, and I still believe that it will end up discouraging new users from working on non-serious articles if they can't get a bit of recognition for their work. I also do think people who spend a long time working on a topic should deserve some sort of reward, even if they're volunteering their time; they have worked just as hard as those who worked on serious topics, and even if the reward is only being allowed to showcase their work on the main page then they should have the same opportunity to do so as others who have worked on the serious articles. A while back, people came on this page when TARDIS was featured to mention how it was a welcome change to see an non-serious article on the main page. This shows that featuring these "ridiculous" articles on the main page does pull some strings and make some people happier seeing the project diverge from its normal serious tone. I don't see how in two years worth of featured articles on the main page, including the "ridiculous" ones, Wikipedia's credibility has been damaged or been made to seem like a non-serious project. Placing non-serious articles on the main page just shows that we're full of more information that the normal encyclopedias out there, and that we are fair to all articles, giving equal opportunity to both serious and non-serious topics. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 21:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

No, seriously. Give me examples of what constitutes "general interest". I have no idea why Wario and Nirvana (band) are not general interest. Perhaps if it was The evolution of Princess Peach through the Super Mario Bros. franchise or The perception of women in Spanish Golden Age theatre, I might understand. Those are very specific subjects even within their respective communities. But you say Wario, Layla, Cat, Cheese, Katamari Damacy, Cool_(song), Shoe_polish, Butter and Spoo are not suitable subjects. That's an incredibly broad spectrum. YOu have gaming, pop music, zoology, aristology, television, and Shoe polish. What do you suggest? I'm not going to let you get away with "it's so plain, you're a fool not to see it yourself". Cigarette 06:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've read your opinions and I find a portion of them somewhat compelling - I even understand why you are saying this - though they haven't really changed my point of view, for now. I originally felt as though a lot of people might have backed me up on this, but to no avail. It seems that this protracted debate has, in and of itself, served as a straw poll. I realise that some sort of consensus is needed and I seem to find myself on the wrong side of the general opinion, for now. As such, I will withdraw from this discussion and view things from the sidelines, for now. I do think you're wrong about this, but I'm in the minority, for now. Another triumph for democracy, for now. Not much else to say really, for now. Disappointedly, for now, --JohnO 10:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

JohnOw, you'll feel a lot better if you can make good use of you excellent writing skills and help turn an article of your choice into a featured article. :-) Happy editing. -- PFHLai 23:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Apollo 17 may have been the last lunar landing mission of the Apollo program, but there were five more flights using Apollo hardware that were arguably part of the Apollo program: Skylab 1-4 (the laboratory plus three manned flights in 1973-74) and finally the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP) in 1975. So it would be more accurate to simply say that Apollo 17 was the last lunar landing mission of the Apollo program. -- Karn 04:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with you on ASTP but not on Skylab. According to the NASA website here, ASTP was Apollo 18 but it says no such thing for any of the skylab missions. But other wise I agree with you on changing what it says.Greatigers 15:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Gems should be linked to Gemstones, not to the disambiguation page JanSuchy 08:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've fixed it.-gadfium 09:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that there seem to be small changes happening to the main page, mostly with the top banner (AFAICS). Are these changes done via concensus? I can't see any discussion even being done wrt them. The reason I'm pointing this out now is because the most recent change (as of ~13:40 GMT) has caused there to be 4 lines in the top box. Since 3 was considered a bit much for a fair number of people, I can only guess that this is a mistake? - Drrngrvy 12:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The current Main page design was introduced in mid-March afer considerable discussion and debate. Regarding the "top box", and I'm assuming that you mean the Welcome to Wikipedia box, it renders as three lines in both MonoBook and Classic skins (AFAICS). hydnjo talk 17:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I was refering to this edit but it's been fixed for now. I think it's a little cliquish for administrators to be (seemingly) free to edit the main page. Letting that happen without it being asked for by the community seems a bit wrong to me. - Drrngrvy 17:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes I see now what you meant. I agree with your comment and further I didn't know that editor to be an admin, could someone please shed some light on this. hydnjo talk 20:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• My bad. The person who made that edit is listed as a "semi-active" administrator at WP:LA. Sorry for causing any confusion about his status. I agree with you that the edit was well... anyway it's gone. hydnjo talk 22:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no prohibition against it. It is, after all, a wiki. The reason it isn't tweaked more often is that (1) there's nothing especially wrong with it and (2) admins have been around long enough that they know there'll be a backlash and may not want to deal with the drama, even if they think a change is justified. Going through a four month process involving hundreds of users (per the Usability project discussion) because you think the border of box should be a couple pixels wider or spacing should be modified is just silly. If it's good, it'll stay. If it's bad, it'll be reverted. At least one admin in the past year has done a pretty extensive reformat of the main page that stayed, though that was exceptional. In any case, a really major change, as was done by the Usability project, may perhaps only be possible with massive community input at this stage of Wikipedia. Bring up changes you don't like on this talk and people will most probably enter into a discussion about the merits of the edit, or just agree and revert on your behalf.

If by "clique" you mean a group of users who have technical privileges to edit protected pages, then I suppose that admins are a clique by definition. If by "clique" you mean a group of users who conform to a single viewpoint, you have already pointed out the recent reversion that illustrates that admins are not a clique. Cheers, BanyanTree 22:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the fact that it is only me who is argueing my point makes me the clique should be irrelevant (ha!). I think your point - from BanyanTree(2) - is very pertinent: there should be no assumption that admins (read: people with power) respect tradition, since that tends to be the downfall of most 'concensus-based communities'. In a way, allowing people to modify the main page is helpful - since it's so obvious it encourages discussion reaction - but since so many people are excluded from participation I think that the above editing is hypocritical in the face of such quotes as:

"From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community, but should be a part of the community like anyone else only equipped with a few more tools to do some chores that would potentially be harmful if everyone was entrusted them." - from Wikipedia:Administrators

Given the intense discussion that went on wrt the main page redesign, I think such editing (esp since it was marked as minor) was a bit disrespectful. - Drrngrvy 03:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I second that. I wouldn't make any edits such as that one without discussion, perhaps except for a minor bug fix (would still note it on the talk page). Though, I think all bugs are worked out by now. -Aude (talk | contribs) 03:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the "minor" label either, but the biggest problem with the edit in question was that it was illogical and ugly (IMHO). —David Levy 03:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the original complaint here and the fact that all of the new design elements were tested and debugged using several browsers each using several skins and all at several resolutions (whew!) should give anyone a great deal of pause before making such changes unilaterally and without rigorous testing. hydnjo talk 13:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, Admins should edit it how they wish and, if people dislike it, they should voice their opinion on this talkpage and a rational discussion would ensue. That's how the Wiki works and this case is no different. The worst Admins would do is make it look marginally worse for a few hours. We've entrusted these people with the powers, just let them get on and use them. --Celestianpower ^háblame 13:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Today's main page has an article about AI that Wikinews does not seem to have. Why & how ? Thanks. DLL, --193.56.241.75 14:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Wikinews are seperate projects, and those who contribute to one don't necessarily contribute to the other. As a result, an article not on Wikipedia might escape the notice of those on Wikinews, and vice versa. Lord Bob 14:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I accidentally cleared the page when I was trying to add a comment last time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.84.24 (talk • contribs) . (in regards to this edit)

Ahh, the joys of wikipedia! No worries, then. - Drrngrvy 03:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Like a page with articles that are empty, etc?

Pece Kocovski 09:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia:Requested articles Raul654 09:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there any thing going on with having Wikipedia digitally published? Possibly a DVD set or so?

I think it was the German language WP that decided to go ahead with this idea. But WP is so dynamic that there would be little point in freezing a copy and publishing it. --Monotonehell 17:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Pushing to 1.0. hydnjo talk 19:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

See also An attempt at a Wikipedia CD. Carcharoth 17:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Anna Marly" Did You Know item should start with the word "that", like the other items. Art LaPella 19:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 19:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

There should be a period at the end of the Palestinian Authority news item. zafiroblue05 | Talk 20:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The link for aid (Humanitarian aid) is misleading, since Humanitarian aid is NOT suspened, only political/payroll aid. There is no wiki article for that, that I found, so just remove the link alltogether.

I'm not sure where this feedback should go, but the random article link goes to a 404 for me now (just started happening about 3 minutes ago). Steve 02:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It's back up, thanks for the report. hydnjo talk 02:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

How is the "Main Page" that would ordinarily be at the top of a mediawiki main page supressed on Wikipedia? I can't figure it out. Is it a special hack for Wikipedia? Is there a magic keyword I should know about? --Dwiki 03:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It's done through javascript insertion of CSS into the HTML source of the main page. An if statement in MediaWiki:Monobook.js that's true if you're looking at the main page and its not a diff includes this line:

document.write('<style type="text/css">/*<![CDATA[*/ #siteSub, #contentSub, h1.firstHeading { display: none !important; } /*]]>*/</style>');

Larry Sanger 07:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Could someone add the missing space (ha!) to 2001: A Space Odyssey? Thanks. --Bryan Nguyen | Talk 04:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Done and disambiguated the link to point to 2001: A Space Odyssey (novel). Pepsidrinka 04:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems ironic that the "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" starts off with a completely blocked page. I for one would like to crrect some formatting minor discrepancies, but, alas can't. --Tbeatty 15:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Protection_policy. The Main Page is highly visible and is protected against vandalism. Now, what exactly would you like to correct? You can make suggestions here on the talk page. If reasonable, an admin can go ahead and make the changes. -Aude (talk | contribs) 16:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be too dangerous to unblock it in case any malicious users came and wrecked the main page. It would ruin Wikipedia's image if the Main Page was constantly changing between decent and indecent. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry kid. We got tired of having huge penises replace the content of the Main Page. --mav 18:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Main Page is not an article. For example, I would have no problem deleting anything someone left on my user page, because it's not an article and I'm free to do with it as I

The go-go's that are linked were not around in 1964. (Dr. Who Spoofs)

-Robbrown

It's now linked properly. Thanks for pointing out the error. -Aude (talk | contribs) 18:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The article on Handel's Messiah clearly states that its premiere was on April 13, and not April 8. I just checked another source and confirmed the 13. It looks like Wikipedia is jumping the gun about five days or so. MusicMaker5376 23:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL -- Guess I should have caught that sometime before 8 minutes before it changed.... MusicMaker5376 00:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The wrong date on the article was corrected in July 2004 [2], but the event stayed on the Sel. Anniv. template till today. You won't see the same mistake on MainPage next year. Thank you for pointing this out. -- PFHLai 01:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

A bit strange no one noticed this a year ago. Was it featured back then? -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 01:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes. -- PFHLai 02:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

hey, how can i put the colored boxes around text like on the main page of this site? you, for like news etc.

Use "view source" on the Main Page, or check with "edit this page" on any other page, to learn how anything is done :-) -Quiddity 03:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

In the last Did You Know item, "cracked down" is an intransitive verb. It could be corrected by substituting "quashed" or a similar transitive verb, instead of "cracked down". Art LaPella 00:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You're correct. I revised it; thank you. (For others reading, the change is in the selected anniversaries section.) — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

And thank you for providing a specific change to be made. It is appreciated. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It might be useful to have a random article link, that went to a non-fiction page. Of course this maybe out of the current softwares capability.

You know, if you press alt-x or click on Random article on the navigation bar, you get sent to a random page? Not sure what you mean by a non-fiction page, though. Hyenaste

I was thinking last night that it might be useful for articles to be marked fiction or non-fiction. But that would lead to edit wars. For example most religions could be considered fiction by some and yet they are classified as reference historically in libraries. So maybe not a good idea. ;) --Monotonehell 09:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it wrong for me to want to watch the edit wars in Category:Non-fictional religions? ;P -Quiddity 10:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

and, "most religions could be considered fiction"?!? ;) *coughs* -Quiddity 01:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes okay... all religions are considered fiction. :) Happy now LOL --Monotonehell 04:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

All the articles are suppose to be non-fiction, even if they’re about a work of fiction. Unfortunately a lot of articles, especially with Star Wars and Star Trek, just have a one sentence declaimer and then go on in a fictional context. Seano1 01:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! Ive read a fair few fan written articles (sci-fi and religious texts alike) that read like the whole article is fact. That's what made me think that the article should be tagged as a fictional article. But as I said, edit wars would ensue. --Monotonehell 04:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What about three tags, 'fiction', 'non-fiction', and 'religion', the last of which meaning 'some (significant?) set of people believe this to be true'? There would still be edit wars, I suppose... Steve Pucci | talk 19:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL Yes, yes there would. --Monotonehell 14:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)