Talk:Main Page: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:15, 6 March 2004

Latest revision as of 03:23, 19 August 2025

Line 1:

{{Short description|Wikimedia project page for Main Page discussion}}

<center>Today is {{CURRENTDAYNAME}}, [[{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}]], [[{{CURRENTYEAR}}]]; it is now {{CURRENTTIME}} ([[UTC]])</center><P>

{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}}}<!--

'''See [[wikipedia:FAQ|Wikipedia FAQ]] for ''general'' questions about Wikipedia; you can ask questions at the [[wikipedia:Village pump|Village pump]]. See [[talk:Wikipedia category schemes]] for general discussion of the category scheme on Wikipedia's Main Page.'''

Please start new discussions at the bottom of this talk page using the "NEW SECTION" tab, or use the "EDIT" link beside the section heading to add to it. The section edit link and "New section" tab are important, so please use them.

-->{{Talk:Main Page/HelpBox}}

{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp-vandalism}}}}

{{Annual readership|title=the Main Page}}

{{Talk:Main Page/Archives}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 200k

|counter = 208

|minthreadsleft = 1

|algo = old(3d)

|archive = Talk:Main Page/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{MPH alert}}

{{Centralized discussion}}

{{bots|deny=SineBot}} <!-- disable SineBot on this page to make reverts easier per discussion 20/02/2013 [[Special:PermanentLink/539296113#Could we maybe turn off SineBot on this page?]] -->

[[Category:Main Page discussions]]

__TOC__

{{clear}}

= Main Page error reports =

Please post screenshots of the current Main Page to '''[[Main Page/Screenshots]]''' to assist in debugging design issues, especially when you notice that it looks different from the screenshots which are there.

{{Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors}}

<!-- ---------------

Please do not write anything here.

Please go to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors to place an error report.

To discuss the contents of the Main Page, please start a new discussion using the "New section" button above, or use the "[edit]" link beside a heading to add to an existing section.

--------------- -->

= General discussion =

Subsections of the page have been moved into the [[Wikipedia:MediaWiki namespace|MediaWiki namespace]] to make them editable. See [[Wikipedia:Editing the main page]].

{{Shortcut|T:MP|WT:MP}}

* [[MediaWiki:Feature|"Featured article" section]]

<!-- ---------------

* [[MediaWiki:Itn|"In the news" section]]

Please *start* a new discussion at the bottom of this talk page (e.g. using the "New section" button above), or use the "[edit]" link beside a heading to add to an existing section.

* [[MediaWiki:Dyk|"Did you know..." section]]

---------------- -->

* [[MediaWiki:Wikipediatoc|"Browse Wikipedia by topic" section]]

* [[MediaWiki:Wikipedialang|"Wikipedia in other languages" section]]

* [[MediaWiki:Wikipediasister|"Sister Projects" section]]

* [[Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries|"Selected anniversaries ..." section data is mainly in MediaWiki, but the top-level resides at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries]].

NOTE: Any '''bolded''' item that appears on the [[Main Page]] ''must'' be updated and listed on its corresponding subject area page ''before'' being listed on the [[Main Page]]. For example, a news item should first be listed on [[current events]], then the article on the subject of that news item should be updated to reflect a current event. ''Then'' that item can be placed on [[MediaWiki:Itn]].

See [[Main Page/Old]] for the old Main Page design.

<center>'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Main_Page&action=edit&section=new Post a comment]'''</center>

-------

==Archived talk==

Archives of older material from this talk page: Archives [[talk:Main Page/Archive 1|1]], [[talk:Main Page/Archive 2|2]], [[talk:Main Page/Archive 3|3]], [[talk:Main Page/Archive 4|4]], [[talk:Main Page/Archive 5|5]], [[talk:Main Page/Archive 6|6]], [[talk:Main Page/Archive 7|7]], [[talk:Main Page/Archive 8|8]], [[talk:Main Page/Archive 9|9]], [[talk:Main Page/Archive 10|10]], [[talk:Main Page/Archive 11|11]], [[talk:Main Page/Archive 12|12]], [[talk:Main Page/Archive 13|13]].

The layout of the Main Page underwent a significant redesign, implemented on 23 Feb 2004. Talk archives 1-13 relate to the old design. Archives after this date: [[talk:Main Page/Archive 14|14]], [[talk:Main Page/Archive 15|15]].

Talk pages specifically dealing with layout and design, or alternative designs for the Main Page:

*[[talk:Main Page/New Design]]

* [[talk:Main Page/Temp]]

* [[talk:Main Page/Temp2]]

* [[talk:Main Page/Temp3]]

* [[talk:Main Page/Temp5]] (previously Temp4)

* [[talk:Main Page/Temp6]]

* [[talk:Main Page/Temp7]]

* [[talk:Main Page/Temp9]] (a draft)

* [[talk:Main Page/Temp10]]

----

== Main Page/Classic ==

I created [[Main Page/Classic]] so that it can be maintained and updated. The ''new'' Main Page system is a 30-day trial. It has not yet been approved. And we need to maintain the Classic version through this time period. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 01:20, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

: Huh? Where did you get the idea that the new Main Page is on a 30-day trial?[[User:Eloquence|&mdash;Eloquence]] 01:26, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

::That is how it was presented to me. Let me try to dig up where I read it. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 01:28, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

::I sure hope not. 30 days is way too long to keep this crap. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|Anthony DiPierro]] 01:31, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The text-only link I can see the usefulness of. The table-free version link I can barely tolerate. But a link to a version which is clearly inferior yet uses the same layout elements (i.e. there's no technical reason to keep it alive) is simply not acceptable. Wikipedia operates on a consensus model. There have been some objections, and we have tried to work together to overcome these concerns. But [[User:Eloquence/Positive feedback|the vast majority of comments]] have been highly positive. This is a continuing development process. If you are so unhappy with this page that you think it cannot be improved for you to accept it, then you can of course campaign for a vote. I suggest that we work together to find ways to make this page more acceptable to everyone instead.[[User:Eloquence|&mdash;Eloquence]] 01:34, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

:Hmmm. I cannot find where I got the 30-day notion. Am I the only one who remembers that? It is unlikely me to mis-remember something like that.

:As for my rationale behind creating the Classic page and linking it to the Main Page....it was not because I am unhappy with the Main Page. It was because I thought it was a trial period. And I didn't want the other version to get out of date. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 02:00, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC) P.S. I have removed the Classic page link from the Main Page because I cannot find anything written to support what I perceived.

::Thank you for removing the link. I don't think a trial period makes sense here, but as I said, anyone who has strong negative feelings about this page can call for a vote. I predict there would be overwhelming support for the current page, though.[[User:Eloquence|&mdash;Eloquence]] 02:01, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

:::There already is a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_14#Straw_poll vote]. The old version is winning. At the very least you should take out the font resizing. It looks like crap on my computer with the font resizing, and 90% is almost the same as 100% anyway. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|Anthony DiPierro]] 05:55, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

::: Yes, lets have a vote to find out whether there is consensus to replace the old page with the proposed one. [[User:Jamesday|Jamesday]] 08:51, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:::: One week after starting the poll, the old one is still the most popular choice. [[User:Jamesday|Jamesday]] 21:54, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:::I for one continue to see the new changes as a tremendous improvement. I'm actually reading much of the posted material (something I've not done for awhile), which raises, for me, a question for the naysayers. Clearly the presentation is a vast improvement&mdash;more attractive, more professional looking, anyway you look at it. However, it may well contain many inconveniences for some (links too far down, pictures slow to load, navigation not what you are used to)&mdash;but get real. If you are a regular here, you go right away to your login, then off to your tasks. The main page is not for you; never has been, never will be. It is for people coming here to get an encyclopedia. It has to be attractive to them&mdash;100%. The rest of us can use it, but do not need it. I see no vote of the mass of editors as having much relevence. It is the anonymous users that need to decide these questions of acceptability. Keep tweaking it; but always in the direction of simplicity and wow! for the public, not the editors - [[User:Marshman|Marshman]] 05:19, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:::: This is probably obvious, but I think it's worth mentioning now that there is hardly any content in the source of the Main Page (it's all in the MediaWiki namespace), editors can create alternate "main pages" customized for their tastes; people can create summary pages with Anniversaries, In the News, etc. all on one page, and just plug the msg: thingies into whatever formatting they want. This is pretty cool, and I think some people have already done this. -- [[User:Merphant|Merphant]] 05:34, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The old page is not winning the straw poll. It was supposed to consider variations in the design of the new page as we tried to compact things down. If you combine all the votes for the different new versions, they outnumber the votes for the old version. The simple old vs. new question should be handled separately. --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 00:14, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The old page has the most votes. And people can vote for multiple pages. Ergo, the old page is winning. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|Anthony DiPierro]] 03:15, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:Hardly. Right now it's 11 to 8 in favor of the new version in some form, counting only unique users (and counting you as a voter for the old page, even though you've also voted for new versions). Not to mention two voters down below who apparently also favor the new version. --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 19:21, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:: What's the count after excluding those who developed the new one? With either count, do you come up with a consensus or something close to a consensus that the new one is an improvement and should be used? It's clear that it's going to take changes, based on the feedback which has been given, before that consensus arrives. [[User:Jamesday|Jamesday]] 21:59, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

==Main page/image confusion==

Is it too much to ask to only bold items on the main page which are depicted in images? Often it's difficult to tell what the image refers to, and all of the bold text amidst all of the short lines and links makes the text difficult to read. - [[User:Seth Ilys|Seth Ilys]] 05:54, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

: I agree, there is too much arbitrary bolding of words. I'm not sure why '''van bomb exploded''' is bold and not World Trade Center, or '''Luftwaffe''' and not Hitler. Also, as Seth Ilys points out, there are no picture captions, so it's not clear what's referring to what. I happened to recognize the picture of Ferdinand Marcos, but I'm sure there were plenty of folks who were wondering "Who's dat?" See my comments also at: [[MediaWiki talk:Dih]] [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] 06:17, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

::The bold always means: Where can I read more about this specific item, rather than any subtext thereof. I think it's a good idea to bold the links to the main article for each item to make sure we ''have'' a main article for each item. I agree a better solution needs to be found for images, e.g. a) image always refers to top item, b) supersmall caption below image, c) some nice vertical spacing etc.[[User:Eloquence|&mdash;Eloquence]] 06:30, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

:::I agree, except I tend to prefer captions since the aniv section rotates its images. But there is no easy way to add captions. IMO annotation text should become caption text for all images, not just thumbnails. This in fact was noted as the expected behavior when the new image code hit the streets. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 00:44, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:::It is always possible to float your mouse cursor over the image to see the ALT title, which should be named after the topic of the image. [[User:Ancheta Wis|Ancheta Wis]] 20:18, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

== Get a real forum ==

Why dont you guys get a real forum instead of this?

cuz we don't like to talk to each other [[User:Lir|Lirath Q. Pynnor]]

*Once you get the rhythm and put in the time, you will see that TALK pages have many advantages over forums. Join Wikipedia and start your own ''watch list''. :) [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 06:39, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

**Watchlists start to lose their usefulness after the first few thousand articles have been added to them. : \ [[User:Lir|Lirath Q. Pynnor]]

:::As a matter of fact, we '''do''' have a vbulliten (php) forum, and it does have advantages over talk pages. [[User:Perl|Perl]] 22:28, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

== Great job!!!! ==

Great job w the front page, I think your going to attract ALOT more people w this format than the last one, its awesome! Woo-hoo! [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 08:57, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

== Recent deaths ==

Excuse me for not wading through all the previous discussion, but what happened to recent deaths? Does it belong under the news now? --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']] 09:25, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:Yes - but in both cases only the most well-developed articles are '''featured'''. Note the the first item in that section is a recent death (although it is very event-like). --[[User:Maveric149|mav]]

That is NOT! Hermann Göring!!! It's Gerhard Schröder

That's true; Hermann Göring never has been the chancellor of Germany. You'd better changed that.

:Fixed. --mav

== 50%/50% ==

I suggest that a sysop change the tables so they are both he same size. There used to be more on the left than on the right, but this has now changed with the removal of "obituaries". [[User:Perl|Perl]] 21:07, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)~

:I strongly disagree - such a layout would be visually boring. We already had this discussion over a year ago when the last Main Page went was developed. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]]

== [Idea] Wikilary - A multilingual vocabulary ==

It would be great make a vocabulary like www.wordreference.com or www.babylon.com, but free. Is it possible? Sounds interesting to you?

: Have a look at [http://wiktionary.org Wiktionary]. -- [[User:Merphant|Merphant]] 22:35, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

==Today's front page==

The thing about the spacewalk is wrong.

The entire Russian crew of Mir would routinely go on spacewalks together. Perhaps "a craft's entire" should be changed to "the craft's entire"

Re this: "that U.S. President LBJ once battered Canadian Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson over Canada's Vietnam War policy?"

*Lyndon Johnson should be refered to by his name, not the acronym LBJ.

*What does "battered" mean? Did Johnson cover Pearson with batter? Did he pummel him with his fists? Are there other definitions of "batter" I am unaware of? [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 01:21, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:See [[MediaWiki:dyk]] page history for explanation of the change. [[User:Jengod|jengod]] 01:26, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

::Well that's very interesting but doesn't alter the fact that the usage of "battered" is wrong and should be corrected, and that many people won't know who "LBJ" was. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 02:21, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

::I saw battered and wondered the same thing. Did LBJ beat the Canadian Prime minister? Wouldn't this be illegal? [[User:Perl|Perl]] 02:23, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:::Apparently he grabbed him by the collar and slammed him into a wall. That is a physical assault, but it is not "battery", which means "striking repeatedly with the fists." (And, yes, it probably is illegal).

::::For the love of god, if you don't like it, just go change it and stop moaning! Please. :) [[User:Jengod|jengod]] 03:08, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

::::The main page is a protected page. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 04:00, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:::::Adam, the main page has been broken up into little MediaWiki chunks that normal users can edit. However, this needs to be documented much better, as it's very hard to figure out. Also, the names like [[MediaWiki:dih]] are quite cryptic. [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] 04:02, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

::::::It's called [[security by obscurity]].[[User:Eloquence|&mdash;Eloquence]]

::::::: Which, as everyone knows, is a really bad security design. :-) [[User:Evercat|Evercat]] 04:07, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:::::I was the one who made the sections into mediawiki msgs. Yes, it is definately not a perfect system and it is hard to figure out, but its better than not being able to edit it at all. There will be a problem, however, with looking at "snapshots" (old versions) of the main page&mdash;you will have to also find the old versions of each mediawiki msg. I don't know if there will be a way to allow only selected users to edit the main page in the future. Thats up to the developers to decide. [[User:Perl|Perl]] 14:17, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

==Title of main page==

Could I suggest that '''Main Page''' is a rather dull and obvious title for our front window to the world? What about '''Welcome to Wikipedia''' or something a bit more zippy? [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 09:11, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:I'm not advocating a change, but editing [[MediaWiki:Mainpage]] does that. That also changes the [[Main Page]] link in the sidebar and on the bottom of every page. 'Welcome to Wikipedia' would be a bit long for those areas. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]]

Yes I have to agree with that. It's a pity the title of the main page is linked to the name of the links on all the other pages, which I agree ought to say '''Main page'''. Is there no way they can be delinked? [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 11:36, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:I don't think there is. When I changed ''Main Page'' in [[WikiBooks:MediaWiki:Mainpage]] to ''Wikibooks'' the links in the side and footer bars changed. --mav

==The McEncyclopedia==

The front page has a distinctly "USA Today" look and feel. "Did you know?" WTF? It reads like a placemat at a Chuck E. Cheese, or something one would expect from World Book, not Britannica. [[User:Jordan Langelier|Jordan Langelier]]

: Did you look at the [http://www.britannica.com/ Britannica frontpage]? It has a similar selection: "Biography of the Day", "This Day in History", "Britannica Highlights", "What's New?", "Monthly Focus". Theirs are ridiculously small and narrow, but the basic idea is the same.[[User:Eloquence|&mdash;Eloquence]] 15:43, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

:: Which Chuckie Cheese ___location has "...that industrialist Nazi Party member John Rabe saved more than 50,000 Chinese nationals from the Rape of Nanking?" or "...that the Palau Congressional Library was founded in 1981, and has a staff of two?" or "...that because of an effort to curb the spread of STDs, prostitution in Germany has been legal since the 1920s?" -- [[user:zanimum]]

:The comparison with World Book is not one to avoid, IMO. Wikipedia has more popular appeal than academic appeal. If there is a stated goal to evolve Wikipedia towards a Britannica-like format, I must have missed it. (I only recall scope comparisons, say gross numbers of articles, comparisons). - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 16:22, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

== Opening paragraph overloaded ==

I think the opening paragraph has a tad too many links in it, which make it too overloaded, and I think people might just skip reading it. How about just:

:[[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|Welcome]] to [[Wikipedia]], a multilingual, free-content encyclopedia. We started in January 2001 and are now working on {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} articles in the English version. To learn how ''you'' can edit any article right now, visit the '''[[Wikipedia:Main Page|Community Main Page]]''' or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&amp;action=edit experiment] in the sandbox.

I'm taking the extreme position here, but seriously, how many people do you think will click and read on all those links. [[User:Dori|Dori]] | [[User talk:Dori|Talk]] 15:54, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

: I tend to agree. It's the fit-everything-in syndrome.[[User:Eloquence|&mdash;Eloquence]] 15:59, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

: I agree with both Dori and Eloquence, which is that people tend not to click on links in text while they are in "reading mode" and too many links just makes them glaze over. So in that respect we should cut them down in the paragraph. But that also means it is problematic, in that we provide fewer entry points to have them discover our community and the revolution part of Wikipedia, the editability. The quickbar link might help (see below) but it's still a weakness of the current design. [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] 00:14, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

== Other Languages ==

With the new layout, the links to other language versions (and anything below it) is impossible to see (at least for me) Is it possible to fix this?

---[[User:TorreFernando|Fern]] 22:34, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

: Have you tried increasing your browser font size?[[User:Eloquence|&mdash;Eloquence]]

== We need to have a button on the quickbar for the Community Page. ==

We need to have a button on the quickbar for the Community Page. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 23:15, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:Agreed. [[User:Jengod|jengod]] 23:22, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

::I'm thinking about various solutions that do not take additional vertical space.[[User:Eloquence|&mdash;Eloquence]]

:::IMHO, there is enough space for one more button on the sidebar. It makes complete sense (to me) to have a Community Page button above the Recent Changes button. If you are looking for other solutions, how about this....make it so clicking on the Wikipedia-icon takes the user to the Community Page. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 23:31, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

::::Yes, this is one of the solutions I am considering. The problem is that in "floating" mode, the sidebar is not scrollable, so if it gets too long, the stuff at the bottom gets invisible and unreachable on low screen solutions (possibly including the quite common 800x600).[[User:Eloquence|&mdash;Eloquence]]

:::Also, I'd be willing to have ''current events'' removed and ''community page'' added. I never ever click on that current events button. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 23:44, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:::The current events button is very important and I'm pretty sure that it '''won't''' be removed. [[User:Perl|Perl]] 23:51, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

::How about ''related changes''? :) [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 23:52, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:::::Please see a moderately-lengthy discussion of this very point at [[Wikipedia_talk:Main_Page#Problems_with_dual_mainpage_system]]. :) [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]] 00:19, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:::::By "this very point" I mean a previous discussion of this general idea, not cutting related changes....which is of course a bad idea, in my opinion. :) [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]]

::The sidebar is overall too-flooded with links. I'd like to throw out a bunch of them. Until then I don't think we should have the CMP link there too, even though I agree that it should be there somewhere in time.

::My nominations of links to cut:

::*My contributions

::*Current events

::*Related Changes

::*Special pages

::I understand that there is a certain group of users that will defend each of these items, but.. this is my opinion. There is another alternative, and that is to refactor the sidebar and bottom and top links totally. Do we need some of the links in both places? Maybe we should keep MP, RC, Edit, Disc, PH in the top/bottom toolbars only and rethink (''a little'') our sidebar? [[User:Sverdrup|&mdash; Sverdrup]] [[User talk:Sverdrup|(talk)]] 00:24, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:::I read some of those posts JW referenced. I don't want to be forced to ''see the main page'' when I don't want to. I'll review the main page when I want to, not because I am forced to. I want to go directly to items which USED TO BE ON the main page, but are no longer there. It should be one-click to get there. How can such a simple request take so long to figure out. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 00:27, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

::::Re: Sverdrup's remarks, I completely disagree....except for ''perhaps'' Special pages, all of those suggestions need to stay. I use two of them frequently, and a 3rd (current events) has a very loyal group of users who are frequent clickers of it. Re: Kt, I agree that we need a direct link, but I don't think there's any need to become upset (you seem upset, anyway). We've had this new page less than a week. It'll take time to sort these things out. I do feel like we're close to consensus, though -- maybe we can add the link somehow over the weekend? [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]] 00:32, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:::Yes, I am a bit upset. I cannot find resources quickly right now. And I don't like having to poke around. With all the bold moves being made to the main page, I am just surprised the quickbar is being treated so sacredly. I'll be ok. :) [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 00:39, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

::: I want to see numbers about the "loyal group of users" on Current Events. It was never done well before, it is not a core competency of Wikipedia, and I'm surprised it is being treated as a sacred cow over what should be crucial information - how to edit a page, welcome newcomers, FAQ, etc. [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] 00:43, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

::::Fuzheado, I have no idea what the numbers are, but that page has recently been taking a pretty stready stream of 30-50 edits a day....seems like it's important to a lot of people, if you ask me. :) [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]] 00:49, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:::::It gets edits so that people can update the main page news; since it's linked on the main page, that should be enough. In my opinion, Current Events and/or Special Pages can be replaced with the Community Main Page. --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 00:52, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I believe a button for the Community Main Page would be a great improvement over the directories and backlinks [[User:168...]] created. I tried to clean those out, but 168... reverted me. If you have an opinion, see [[Wikipedia talk:Main Page]]. --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 00:55, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'll add a poll to [[Wikipedia talk:Main Page]].[[User:Eloquence|&mdash;Eloquence]] 01:13, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

== A rare plea ==

I have a form of [[dyslexia]]. The [[Main Page]]/[[Wikipedia:Main Page]] and [[Talk:Main Page]]/[[Wikipedia talk:Main Page]] is really blowing my mind up. I am getting very confused at which is which. When my brain gets crossed up like this for long periods of time, I get headaches and I get frustrated. I should get used to the difference eventually. But I may just keep getting headaches. Is there any way we can rename "Wikipedia:Main Page" to something else that doesn't so closely resemble "Main Page"...anything, I don't care, as long as it isn't so similar? [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 00:45, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

: I don't have dyslexia, and I find it confusing as well. Especially since the naming conventions turns "namespace:foo" into "namespace talk: foo". It could be fixed simply by turning Wikipedia:Main Page into Wikipedia:Community Page or something like that. But I agree it's confusing, and I get confused looking at my watchlist as to which conversation is which. [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] 01:04, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:I agree - it is confusing. [[Wikipedia:Community home page]] would be better. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 05:10, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

: I heartily endorse this sentiment. -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] 18:47, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Re this, allow me to re-float my suggestion from above that '''Main Page''' is a very boring name for our front page and should be renamed something more welcoming. That would also end the confusion KT refers to. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 02:28, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:Something welcoming like "Welcome" would be good. And while we are at it, how about a "Community" link in the left panel, under "Current events" - [[User:Gaz|Gaz]] 13:21, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad everyone agrees, because so do I. :-) I've moved it to [[Wikipedia:Community Portal]]. &mdash; [[User:Timwi|Timwi]] 13:45, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

*Thanks! Much easier for me! [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 18:26, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

==wow==

The Main Page is so much cooler than the previous Main Page. Thank you, it makes Wikipedia make really professional. [[User:RickK|RickK]] 07:26, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

=="Selected anniversaries"==

Selected anniversaries strikes me as still a little strange. Why not have it be something nice and general like "In history..."? [[User:ekips|ekips]]

: I agree. Now that the content switches automatically, "This day in history" would work well.[[User:Eloquence|&mdash;Eloquence]] 00:21, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

:: Not even "This day" -- just "In history..." It's highly flexible, you could list events for maybe the past two or three days since there is no date specified, and it doesn't seem quite as awkward as "Selected anniversaries" strikes me. (I don't know why, but it just seems misplaced.) [[User:Ekips|Ekips]] 00:29, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Holidays also go in that section now, so "In history" and esp "This day in history" do not work. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]]

: If holidays go in now, then how does "Selected anniversaries" work? Presidents' Day is not exactly an anniversary. Nor is Valentine's Day, or Labor Day, or Memorial Day, or Thanksgiving for that matter. (Just to cover US holidays) [[User:Ekips|Ekips]] 05:12, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

::Consult your dictionary:

1. The annual return of the day on which any notable event

took place, or is wont to be celebrated; as, the

anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

::See also [[List of historical anniversaries|List of historical '''anniversaries''']]. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]]

::: I never said anything about Independence Day. There are some holidays that are plainly not anniversaries. Independence Day is not one of them, certainly. [[User:Ekips|Ekips]] 18:19, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

::::Read the definition - the example is just an example. Now what holidays are not anniversaries? If it happens once a year at a predetermined date, then it is an anniversary. --mav

----

The spacewalk was not the first spacewalk ever involving the crafts entire crew -- the Russians have been doing this for years. It is the first ''America'' spacewalk ever involving the crafts entire crew. [[User:Lir|Lirath Q. Pynnor]]

:If you find a problem with it, fix it. Thats what the wiki is all about! [[User:Perl|Perl]] 03:21, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:...

==Images==

The image for the periodic table is an example of what I mentioned fearing before we instituted this version of the Main Page. The graphic, in my opinion, looks silly, and doesn't give any impression of "the periodic table". Perhaps a thumbnail that merely showed the square for Hydrogen (or some element) would be better. My point in general would be, I think no image would be classier than a thumbnail that is no longer remotely recognizable. We need to consider how to do this more tastefully (or agree that, some days, there won't be a picture for the featured article....which would be no disaster, in my opinion). Any thoughts? [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]] 04:01, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[[Image:Ptable-MainPage.png]] is a direct resize of the actual table in the article. I think it works rather well.[[User:Eloquence|&mdash;Eloquence]]

:Agreed; anyone who's ever taken a chemistry class (or been introduced to the concept of chemistry in generic "science!" classes) in their entire life will recognize that image. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|Brion]] 05:02, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

::Well, as someone who has taken said science classes (and who feels a trifle insulted by Brion's comment, though I assume it wasn't intended), it wasn't immediately obvious, and I don't think it adds anything to the main page as it stands. If everybody disagrees with me (not a new situation in my life), that's fine. I just don't care for the image: I think a number of well-educated individuals won't instantly recognize it, and that the image when recognized still looks odd. My larger point, though, still stands: what do we do when no picture or recognizable-when-small picture is available? Are we willing to go pictureless? [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]] 05:04, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:::Clarification--the image Eloquence shows and which is now on the main page is, in fact, more recognizable, and far more satisfactory to me. It is not the image I originally objected to (I looked again, said "hey, that's not so bad", and checked) (the image was [[Image:-TableImage.png|100px|Periodic table of elements]])

:::-- I'll drop the issue re: this image, though again I'm concerned on a more general level. [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]] 05:06, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:::I'd prefer not to go pictureless. Pictures are a good way to entice the reader into following the links. But we should not discriminate against articles where pictures are notoriously hard to come by. So we might come up with some more generic drawings and pictures - icons, really - to use for mathematics, chemistry etc. articles. There would only be for the Main Page, of course. Theresa Knott has created some great drawings for Wikibooks, maybe she would be willing to do some for us.[[User:Eloquence|&mdash;Eloquence]]

::::Erik, this sounds good. I was concerned about the kind of articles you mention, and hope we can find a good solution. Perhaps now that the trolls are mostly driven away from Theresa, she can do as you suggest. If not, I hope we can find a similar solution from elsewhere. [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]] 05:11, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:::Okay, [[Image:-TableImage.png|100px|Periodic table of elements]] definitely is less recognizable, since it is not the conventional form of the table that most people would be exposed to. That version was not on the Main Page when I made my above comment. I do stand by my comment in reference to [[Image:Ptable-MainPage.png]]; if you really can't recognize it, I'd be rather surprised. If so, could you show me what the periodic table layout you're familiar with looks like? --[[User:Brion VIBBER|Brion]] 05:15, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

::::Not going to fight you on this one, Brion. :-) I responded to your comments quickly (you had my dander up a bit, I admit) and didn't scrutinize the picture to notice that it had been changed. The first one looked like a blob to me...once I read "periodic table" I figured it out, but initially it looked like an error. The current picture is just fine, yes, and looks like what I remember from the days I was awake. ;-) Sorry if I was brusque. At least we agree now. :-) [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]] 05:17, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[[Image:-TableImage.png|100px|Periodic table of elements]] may not be conventional, but it is the more accurate form of the table. [[Image:Ptable-MainPage.png]] is used more often only due to the fact that the true form of the table is a bit wide, so the f-block is arbitrarily thrown down below the other blocks - that is a distortion of reality. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]]

:Bah. We should use images that people recognize, like the conventional form of the table. Mav, none of the tables are reality in any way, they are just two different systematic schemes, none of them "better". (this is a no-matter now, as the article moved away from the main page for a long time) [[User:Sverdrup|&mdash; Sverdrup]] [[User talk:Sverdrup|(talk)]] 13:00, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

::The wide version is a better representation of the table - See [[period 6 element]] and [[period 7 element]]. Just because people are ignorant doesn't mean we should perpetuate that ignorance when it makes sense not to. Since both images fit, it was better to have the more correct one. --mav

== The centering looks kinda silly ==

Sorry to whine, but I think we should revert the centering of the first paragraph. [[:Image:MainPage-Camino-Sverdrup(slice).png|screenshot]] [[User:Sverdrup|&mdash; Sverdrup]] [[User talk:Sverdrup|(talk)]] 15:13, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

== The "cache purging" thing ==

According to the IRC cabal, it's necessary to make ''some kind of edit'' to force the MSG's which are most of the main page to update. Maybe one of the [[Wikipedia:Maintenance tasks]] should be to make sure an edit is made every 1-2 hours, especially when the UST date changes? [[User:Pakaran|Pakaran]][[User talk:Pakaran|.]] 15:18, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

: It's only the client-side caching that is affected. If you hit shift+reload on the Main Page, you get a fresh copy, and so does any first-time viewer. So it's not really that important to "purge" the MP, but if you make any significant edits, it's probably a good idea. Ideally the page timestamp of all pages using a MediaWiki text should be updated whenever the MediaWiki text is updated.[[User:Eloquence|&mdash;Eloquence]] 15:25, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

::Do you want me to add that last to the SF feature requests page, or will you? [[User:Pakaran|Pakaran]][[User talk:Pakaran|.]] 15:28, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:::Realistically, [[User talk:Tim Starling]] is probably a better place ;-). He coded the MediaWiki stuff.[[User:Eloquence|&mdash;Eloquence]]

President Aristide did not flea but was kidnaped by US troops from Haiti. I hope someone will change the rhetoric of the blurb on the front page. [[User: ALC|&mdash; ALC]] 1 Mar, 2004

:I havent heard any reports of him being kidnapped. [[User:Perl|Perl]] 17:48, 1

Mar 2004 (UTC)

::I have, but they're controversial. The President is claiming he was kidnapped, the US is claiming he was helped to flee for his own security. Best to avoid the controversy altogether. [[User:Randywombat|Toby W]] 11:54, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

::: The Story is still changing as of this morning, Aristide is claiming a group of Haitians and Americans forced him out and not US Marines. I do not doubt that there could be CIA involvement, but, Aristide has been known for streching the truth a bit. They may have made him realize that they would leave him to any fate that the Haitian mob would inflict on him if he didn't have to good sense to leave. That has been in the headlines. Perhaps we should leave it to the fact that he is gone, and let his kidnapping story change a few more times before spreading the rumor. [[User:Dominick|Dominick]] 12:31, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

== movie poster art, do we have rights to display it, in general? ==

The current Main page has a recent movie's poster art displayed. Under what reasoning is it OK to display this image here in the Wikipedia? - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 21:07, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:Bevo: Yes, we do, under the fair use provisions of US copyright law. See [[fair use]]. -- [[User:Seth Ilys|Seth Ilys]] 02:17, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

: For extensive discussion of this, see [[meta:Do fair use images violate the GFDL?]]. Basically, the answer is that the site is hosted in the US and in the US, if a use is fair use, the right to that use was never granted to the initial copyright holder and it remains in the public ___domain, which is compatible with the GFDL. The images are also not part of the document but are instead associated documents with their own independent history. It's still far from ideal to use fair use images on the main page. Good enough for now but we really do want to be moving away from it. [[User:Jamesday|Jamesday]] 23:54, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

== copyrighted images on the Wikipedia Main page ==

I guess I'm just annoyed that Wikipedia's main page is using a copyrighted image, justly or not. Doesn't seem to fit the openness that is elsewhere so evident here. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 02:22, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

::I think Bevo has a good point. I haven't had time to formulate my own opinion on the issue. [[User:Perl|Perl]] 02:30, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:::[[Wikipedia:Copyrights#Fair_use_materials_and_special_requirements]] is in line with my thinking. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 02:34, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:::: I agree, this is problematic. [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] 02:52, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

::The trend is not good! Now two of the three images on the Main page are under copyright (not public ___domain). I'm glad some others here see the incongruity with the Wikipedia guidelines for contributors to regular articles (that strongly encourage the use of public ___domain images, with only very infrequent use of copyrighted images under "fair use" privileges) -and- the composition of recent Main pages. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 22:25, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:::Is that time magazine image really only fair use? I would think that it is a new creation and should be considered the work of the person who used photoshop. [[User:Perl|Perl]] 22:31, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:::Bevo - everything new we submit here is copyrighted. It is not an evil thing. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]]

::::Bevo has a good point. I don't know why you felt the need to insult him. Your comment seems arrogant and rude. [[User:Perl|Perl]] 23:50, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:::::All the images I submit to Wikipedia are under copyright, and so is everything both you and I write (under the GFDL). Bevo either thinks that that is a bad thing - that only stuff in the public ___domain is good - or Bevo is confused about what "copyrighted" means. But I changed my post anyway. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]]

::::::All I've said was not with regards to anything '''I''' think about the issue. I just wanted to point out what was stated Wikipedia policy (see yesterday's content at [[Wikipedia:Copyrights#Fair_use_materials_and_special_requirements]] ). I see Jamesday has modified it today to not talk of our goals to promote "free content". If that edit stands (I don't plan to edit it), then our Main page practice is now in concert with that Wikipedia guideline. But, it took that edit to get there, and it was not the policy when I first started this thread of discussion. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 00:28, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

::::The original Time images were used as fair use, so the derivative work itself can only be as free as fair use. It is a straightforward case of fair use and is one example of how extremely useful fair use is, being relied on very heavily in news-oriented reporting like this item. [[User:Jamesday|Jamesday]] 23:59, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:I agree - we really should be showcasing free content as much as possible. While fair use is OK, we strongly prefer free content and our main page should reflect that and where we want to end up! [[User:Jamesday|Jamesday]] 23:37, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

== Font size ==

What is the reason for the 90% font size of the introductory paragraph?

It draws the reader's attention away from the basic of explanation of what Wikipedia is in the first place.

Yet that is what makes Wikipedia different from other online encyclopaedias.

Without that paragrph, the user might as well just go back to Britannica!

The size keeps getting reduced again (sometimes to 90%, sometimes to 80%), but I've never seen anybody explain why this is a good thing.

-- [[User:Toby Bartels|Toby Bartels]] 21:16, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

: Toby, I completely agree. This is my big issue with the current redesign -- it does not make it obvious and clear why Wikipedia is anything other than yet another encyclopedia. It should trumpet the fact that it is open content, that anyone can edit, and how they can do it, now. If we had this front page at the time I first discovered Wikipedia, I don't think I would be aware of why it's so revolutionary. [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] 02:56, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

== Locking images on the main page ==

This hasn't happened yet, but it probably will eventually. Someone will vandalize one of the images on the main page. I recommend that the images be locked for the time they are on the main page to prevent this. I suppose we could wait for it to happen first, but why risk it?

-- [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 00:29, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)

:As long as we allow people to edit the MediaWiki for the main page, protecting the images doesn't really do anything, because the vandal could just link to a different image instead of vandalizing the protected image. --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 01:00, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

::It isn't possible to protect images. You can protect the image description page, but that doesn't prevent the image being changed. (It also makes the image appear in the [[Wikipedia:Protection log|Protection log]]). [[User:Angela|Angela]][[user talk:Angela|.]] 01:22, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

:If vandalism does become an issue for MediaWiki pages, maybe we could limit edits to all MediaWiki pages to logged-in users - just like uploads. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 01:24, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

::Thats a very good idea mav! [[User:Perl|Perl]] 01:29, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:::As was pointed out above, I very, very much doubt that an anonymous user would go to the trouble of figuring out how to vandalize the mediawiki articles or to upload images. It'd be much easier just to vandalize the featured article. As my security prof said - you're house doesn't have to be Fort Knox, just a little safer than your neighbor's house. [[User:Raul654|&rarr;Raul654]] 00:22, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

::::Well, since it hasn't been a problem yet, I can see that we don't need to do anything about it yet. However, don't be surprised to find me doing the "I told you so" song and dance when it does become a problem. :-) [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 03:03, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC) I wanted to add that there was a user, I don't remember who it was now, who was subsequently banned after he moved the Main Page. This security hole was promptly fixed. I would suggest, that even if we don't use it right away, that we create the ability to protect images, so that the number of people who can deal with image vandalism is the entire set of admins, not just the developers. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 03:04, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)

:::I remember reading that buddahinside moved the page. [[User:Perl|Perl]] 14:58, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

== Main page and NPOV content ==

Where should I post my opinions about the rhetoric used on the front page to describe what is happening in the news? I feel that the summary on Haiti and Aristide is very problematic and one-sided. How can this be addressed??

: Doesn't seem to be anything about Haiti on the Main Page at the moment... [[User:Evercat|Evercat]] 00:27, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

::I'm guessing the anon was referring to the blurb from yesterday about Aristide announcing that he was essentially kidnapped by the US military. --[[User:Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri]] | [[User talk:Dante Alighieri|Talk]] 01:40, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:::I was surprised by the non-NPOV wording, as well. Also, apparently there is no history kept of the Main page revisions, although there is a "Page history" page for it that should contain links to prior revisions. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 01:48, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

::::The history is here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=MediaWiki:Itn&action=history] and the relevant edit is here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=MediaWiki:Itn&diff=2601562&oldid=2588765]. The wording reflected Aristide's claim, which, admittedly, lacked a certain perspective. --[[User:Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri]] | [[User talk:Dante Alighieri|Talk]] 01:51, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:::::I see. You have to consider the templates from which the page is constructed. You do lose the archive of the total composition. In some ways that's regretable. Like not having an archive of covers of magazines, or front pages of newspapers. Oh, well. I guess it's unavoidable. (I suppose that this carries over into regular pages that carry tag expansions as well.) - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 02:01, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

::::Also, check the [[Reuters]] article that was the source for the blurb on the main page, it is linked to from the [[Current Events]] page, but I'll reprint it here to: [http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4471495&section=news]. --[[User:Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri]] | [[User talk:Dante Alighieri|Talk]] 01:57, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

==DYK & Safari==

On Safari right now, the DYK text is slammed all the way to the left border of the left column. Any ideas on why? [[User:Jengod|jengod]] 05:24, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

==Growth==

Just wanted to point out that we reached 200,000 on Feb 2, and 218,000 on Mar 3, which works out to 600 articles per day. Its nice to see en: growing fast again. If the growth curve is linear we will reach 400,000 in 10 more months, if it is exponential we will get there in seven months. -- [[User:Arvindn|Arvindn]] 06:21, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I wonder what the average size of an article is (say, number of words per article, or characters per article), and what the trend has been over the past year of that average. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 11:01, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:[[Wikipedia:Statistics]]: more stats than you can shake a stick at -- [[User:Arvindn|Arvindn]] 12:35, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I miss the new articles section. Can we have it back? [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] 14:48, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

:What content did it have? There is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Newpages that lists all the new articles. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 15:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

----

Wow. [[All your base are belong to us]] is our feature article. -- [[user:zanimum]]

:Expect the end of the world shortly. Not that I mind. -- [[User:Itai|Itai]] 15:08, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

::Hehe. When I decided to feature it, I thought it would be an interesting choice :) [[User:Raul654|&rarr;Raul654]] 16:03, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

----

== Main page composition ==

FWIW, which is little, I think the current Main page is horrible. It looks like a cross between a magazine portal and a current news site. It does not look like an encyclopaedia. The encyclopaedia stuff is scrolled way down the page. Bring back the old version. -- [[User:SGBailey|SGBailey]] 14:51, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)

:I'd like to see the "In the news" portion of the Main page dropped, or at least reduced to a simple link to [[Current events]]. See [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]], especially #16 ... " [Wikipedia is not] A news report. Wikipedia should not offer news reports on breaking stories..." - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 16:48, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

::"But of course creating encyclopedia articles on topics currently in the news is an excellent idea. See current events for some examples. (However, the Wiki process lends itself to collaborative, up-to-the-minute construction of current events of historical significance, as long as these are written as encyclopedia articles.)" The ''In the news'' section encourages those updates. This is also the major difference between us and dead tree encyclopedias. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]]

::: Certainly not ''the'' major difference. None of these dead tree encyclopedias were wikis! ^_^ -- [[User:Toby Bartels|Toby Bartels]] 19:10, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

::::True - but that is process, I was talking about product. --mav

::::Two comments. :-) One, I like the new format, and think that the combination of encyclopedic approach and immediacy is what makes Wikipedia most distinct among encyclopedias online (how long will it be before EB updates its Aristide article? Longer than we take, I guarantee it). Two, "In the news" is distinguished by (a) a focus on encyclopedic type news (we don't list "box-office smashes" or things of that nature) and (b) the fact that we aren't linking to some brief current event, but an article that gives as much as we've got of the entire history. Someone jumping to Aristide doesn't just see the last 24 hours...they see a more holistic approach. I think if people used us like a news site, they'd be much better informed. :-) So I don't mind a news-ish look, even though I think the look we have is an excellent hybrid. [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]] 19:16, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

----

== London Congestion Charge ? ==

[[London Congestion Charge]] is the featured article in today's Main page. An article on a municipality fee is the best showcase article that Wikipedia has today? Are we becoming competition for the [[Drudge Report]]? - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 15:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:Now I see that [[Current Events]] is actually using the [[Drudge Report]] as a source for the Ashcroft's medical condition! - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 15:43, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:Thanks for being so unthinkingly offensive. How many of your articles are on featured articles? [[User:Pcb21|Pete/Pcb21]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|(talk)]] 15:51, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

::I was not feeling so much to giving offence, as to questioning the role of the featured article in this encyclopedia. Obviously, I'm not good at wording these comments to convey my sentiments. I am "thinking". I an thinking about what the world thinks about this encyclopedia, as marketed by the Main page. And, at least you read my mind in thinking that any comparisons with [[Wikipedia]] and the [[Drudge Report]] should be taken as unflattering to the Wikipedia. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 16:05, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:::I don't understand, are you criticising the article as not worthy of being a featured article, or are you criticising displaying a featured article on the front page? And I ''really'' don't understand the analogy with the Drudge report... why on earth would the Drudge Report on a congestion charge????? [[User:Pcb21|Pete/Pcb21]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|(talk)]] 16:12, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

::::You are correct. I think it is worthy of being a featured article. I just feel that the Main page's "best" featured article should be one that has less "current events", and more long-term appeal. And, the overlap with the Drudge Report goes to the controversial nature (or even the novelty) of that fee. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 16:25, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:::::The Charge has been in place for over a year, so isn't really novel or a current event. [[User:Pcb21|Pete/Pcb21]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|(talk)]] 17:42, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

== Did you know blank line ==

Please add a blank line between the second and third facts in the Did You know section - or remove the blank line between the first and second. [[User:R3m0t|r3m0t]] 22:51, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

: Sorry, it isn't a line break problem (see [[MediaWiki:dyk]]) but something with the image. I don't know how to fix it, but at least dyk isn't protected. [[User:R3m0t|r3m0t]] 22:53, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

== Current image ==

Whilst I know what acetosalicylic acid is from the name (although not by diagram), I think that the majority of non-chemistry graduates would be hard pusded to match the picture given with the Asprin article. The addition of the word "Asprin" in parenthesis after the chemical name in the text alternative for the image would probably be a useful addition. [[User:Syntax|Syntax]] 01:06, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

== Did You know: Add==

I am unsure how to go about this, but I think that [[TBF Avenger]] would fit nicely on DYK. However, i wrote it, and I don't know how to edit on the Main Page correctly, so... [[User:Ugen64|ugen64]] 02:26, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

==The slashdotting==

[http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/05/1711252&mode=thread We're being slashdotted]. Burn servers, burn. [[User:Raul654|&rarr;Raul654]] 02:29, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

:Yay! [[User:Ugen64|ugen64]] 02:41, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

==I'm Getting the March 5th Main Page==

Now it's the 6th, but it's been reverted. It talks about Kerry, no mention of Martha Stewart, and the featured article on maths is gone. However, in page history, all is well. Strange. --[[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] 11:29, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:Press CTRL-F5. --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']] 11:31, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:I already tried that several times. Then I waited five minutes and tried again. Now it works. Odd. I could've sworn this happened to the [[2004]] page yesterday too, but maybe I wasn't reading properly then. --[[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] 11:33, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

==Global Warming/In the news==

That the summer was a hot as the one in 1500 doesnt have to do something

with global warming! Its higly hipothetical. Especially cause temperature

around the world wasnt measured like we do today around the world. [[User:62.34.50.99|62.34.50.99]] 15:51, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

== Some questions ==

The opening line of the main page "Welcome to Wikipedia, a multilingual, free-content encyclopedia..." seems depressingly underemphasized to me. Could it be put in a box with a diffrent background so that the eye doesn't slide right down to Featured Article? Also, what is the purpose of "Did you Know"? Finally, my main page wouldn't refresh to the newest version for quite a while - I was still getting "Propaganda" as the featured article long after it had changed. How do I fix that? Thanks, [[User:Alex S|Alex S]] 16:52, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC).

: How do you like the opening now?[[User:Eloquence|&mdash;Eloquence]] 17:19, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

::I rather dislike it. It comes across as very saccharine and pretentious. I suggested on a while back, but it got ignored, and now I can't find it in the talk archive... hmm... -- [[User:Seth Ilys|Seth Ilys]] 17:30, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:::Saccharine? It's supposed to be friendly if that's what you mean. I'd rather be "saccharine" than "depressing". Pretentious? Is it in any way untruthful?[[User:Eloquence|&mdash;Eloquence]] 17:33, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

I'd rather be depressing than saccharine... "We hope you enjoy your stay"?! Come on... that's something you get from an insincere hotel clerk, and it certainly doesn't come across as genuine...

Here's what I suggested before: ''Welcome to Wikipedia, a multilingual, free-content encyclopedia being written collaboratively by thousands of Internet users since January 2001. We're currently working on xxxxxx articles in the English version, and you can help, too. Visit the Community Main Page to find out how.'''

I think a vote on new intro text may be in order, especially if we get some more suggestions in the mix.

I might also note that the yellow box is visually horrendous on my monitor. Yellow has been shown by psychological testing to be a stress-inducing color. Surely we can do better. -- [[User:Seth Ilys|Seth Ilys]] 17:39, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

: I'm open to suggestions re: the colors. I prefer the current text to your version, though. I think it's important to create an emotional bond with the reader, and some positive, uplifting language certainly can't hurt to accomplish that.[[User:Eloquence|&mdash;Eloquence]]

::Emotional bonds? This is an encyclopedia, for crying out load. That's just sillyness. We should strive for '''professionalism.''' -- [[User:Seth Ilys|Seth Ilys]] 17:45, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:::"''Emotional bonds .. for crying out loud''" - interesting irony there. We need to respect the reader's [[emotional intelligence]]; modern psychology, sociology, marketing etc. all build on this knowledge. Human beings are not machines and they should not be treated as such.[[User:Eloquence|&mdash;Eloquence]] 17:52, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

::::We should also not insult our readers with such language as "We hope you enjoy your stay," which is obviously insincere and untruthful. As a point of fact, we do not hope that all users enjoy their stay. We hope that vandals, for instance, are discouraged from their actions (which they presumably enjoy) and stop editing. "Welcome to Wikipedia!" with an exclamation point is similarly off-putting. -- [[User:Seth Ilys|Seth Ilys]] 18:03, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:::::Wishing people a pleasant stay is no more "insincere" or "untruthful" than welcoming them in the first place. To say so is like saying it is insincere to kiss your girlfriend because she ''might'' break up with you some day. We should [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?AssumeGoodFaith assume good faith], and be as friendly and positive in our behavior as we can, until our options are exhausted.[[User:Eloquence|&mdash;Eloquence]] 18:13, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Can I also suggest that we all devlop new language somewhere other than on the main page itself, so that all of us (not just admins) can be involved in the process? -- [[User:Seth Ilys|Seth Ilys]] 17:48, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For the record, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Main_Page&oldid=2653666 here] is the revision with the colored box. I think having some color is not a bad idea, although these particular colors may be a bit too intense.[[User:Eloquence|&mdash;Eloquence]] 17:58, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Some clarification: I meant that the opening text was "depressingly underemphasized," not "depressing." I just think that it is/was a very nice opening blurb that should be the visual beginning of the page. Just plain text doesn't do it justice Also, as for rewording, I suggest this:

:Welcome to Wikipedia! We are building a multilingual encyclopedia that belongs to all of us (copyleft instead of copyright). We hope that you can help us in our project by joining the Wikipedia community. We started in January 2001 and are now working on 220757 articles in the English version. Visit the Community Portal or experiment in the sandbox to find out how you can edit any article right now.

And again, can someone tell me how to get the main page to automatically update itself? What's wrong with my computer? --[[User:Alex S|Alex S]] 18:50, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

== copyleft?? ==

what does copyleft mean? I've never encountered that word. The link takes users to a page that does not explain the term at all. Either change the word on the Main page, or in the first paragraph of [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]], define copyleft. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 19:14, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

* Try [[Copyleft]]. -- [[User:Kwekubo|Kwekubo]] 20:09, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

**Fair enough :) ....but more to the point, if the word is going to redirect new users to [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]], shouldn't [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] have a definition of the term? [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 20:15, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

== Another Cache Problem Question ==

I'm not getting the March 5 page -- instead it's the March 3 version. (Obviously it's a cache thing, either on the server end or my end.) But this leads to a couple of questions:

*Are parts of the Main Page dynamicaly generated (e.g. the &quot;Selected Aniversaries&quot;)? If so which? (BTW, I understand why this is a good thing.)

*If someone with sysop rights makes an edit to a cached image, will there be any warning that the person is altering an out-of-date page? --[[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 19:37, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)