Talk:Main Page/Archive 60

This is an archive of past discussions about Main Page. 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.

Archive 55

←

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

→

Archive 65

I would like to ask the Wikipedia staff a question, to give an idea that is... Why don't you make Quzzes here in Wikipedia about various topics? It all can be arranged like in Encarta (for ideas see www.encarta.com). The quiz categories can be arranged, like, you know - history quiz, geography quiz, maths quiz etc. It would be really fun to make such a thing. Articles in Wikipedia can be the sources for quizzes... What do you think about that? Maybe more people would come to Wikipedia?

Boky 14:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Boris

You mean like Wikifun? GeeJo _{(t) (c)} • 15:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

What about the ones who aren't in your Wiki circlejerk? I never know about the hundreds of side-projects, because it seems half of them are confined to the talk pages. Talk pages the majority of us never frequent.

I think it is great that on the Spanish wikipedia that users can search for text within an article, not just for the title. Is there a way to do that on the English version? (On the Spanish main page there is a search box and two buttons below it, translated meaning "Search for an exact match" and "Search the full text") What do you think? I have found something about quisses: QUIZ --mets501 16:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It's exactly the same on the English Wikipedia. "Go" is the same as "Search for an exact match", and "Search" is the same as "Search the full text". κаллэмакс 18:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, you're right! I'm such an idiot. Thanks! --Jeremy

I think that this is a great website. The english version is very well setup. All the articles are well organized with proficient and accurate information.

The intro for the featured article uses "US" in place of "U.S." a few times. According to the manual of style U.S. is the preferred usage. Could an admin please change this? Dismas|^(talk) 00:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 02:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I realise that not every anniversary can be remembered, (If that's the right word) but today, (March 13th) is ten years to the day of the Dunblane School Massacre, in my own Scotland. Thought I'd suggest that perhaps, as it's ten years, it's worthy of a mention? A mere thought is all.

Kaenei 02:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It certainly seems significant. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 02:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Dunblane massacre is on the MainPage now on the 10th anniversary. -- PFHLai 19:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one noticed yet, but there's an error in the featured article: "He was a famous historian and naturalist; his 15 books including works on outdoor life, natural history, U.S. Western and political history, an autobiography and a host of other topics." That should be written with a comma or 'include', and since it's 'include' in the full article, I guess it should be be that. Tell me if I'm wrong. ROY YOЯ 04:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I changed it to "include" now. Shanes 04:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Could there be a link to the main page new design from the main page so that everybody that doesn't visit the C.P. will know about it. At least for the last week considering that less than 1% of the total active WP community voted. Lincher 04:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

See #So, what do you think of the Main Page election? above. - BanyanTree 17:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I am so angry about this horrible new main page design. Linking on the discussion page was insufficient. I don't know how on earth an average wikipedian like myself, who loads the main page 20 times a day, so has a vested interest in this, could have known this 'election' was going on mgekelly 09:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Main page sucks Perrymason 16:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The redesign is a ripoff of Uncyclopedia, and I didn't even know there was a vote. This needs to be redone.

~regruBgniK

doesn't say which article (battle of hindenburg line) is pictured. is this standard for that sectioN? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aeosynth (talk • contribs) 04:46, 2006 March 13 (UTC).

That's correct. The DYK image always goes with the top item in that section. -- PFHLai 19:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Before his presidency, Roosevelt served as a New York State assemblyman, Police Commissioner of New York City, U.S. Civil Service Commissioner, and Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Navy.

Shouldn't the bolded "and" be added?

Added. Thanks, BanyanTree 18:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this link in the 1881 aniversary link to Nihilist movement rather than Nihilism ? -Robmods 16:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks. I've re-wikified the link as suggested. -- PFHLai 19:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

(This discussion has nothing to do with Main Page. Moved to the talkpage of the Wikipedian who asked the questions.) -- PFHLai 21:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The Japanese War Tuba link doesn't appear to go anywhere. --Serie 22:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it does to me. Must've been a database error. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} • 23:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Can "Governor of New Jersey" be changed to "Royal Governor of New Jersey" under the last "DYK" option? Thanx 68.39.174.238 00:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd put something up about it on the talk page. Ed Smilde

I was referring to the link to that articel on the Main Page. 68.39.174.238 19:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (Granted the whole things pointless now). 68.39.174.238 19:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

is "messy".

html problem?

That is not a picture of him on the Main Page. Strange joke? --Scaife ^(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 02:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It was a mistake. The wrong pic is gone now. --PFHLai 22:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom is spelled Kindgom. It's been fixed in the article but not on the main page. Osomec 03:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Now it's fixed on the MainPage. Thanks for pointing this out. -- PFHLai 21:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

On the main page, "cataracts" in the extract from the featured article links to cataracts of the eye, not Cataracts of the Nile. In the article itself, the link is correct. CJ Withers 03:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please check the picture and replace it with the one in the indicated article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.138.67.237 (talk • contribs) .

As of 0800 GMT Tuesday, the "new" Venezuelan flag pictured on ITN is incorrect - it should have the coat of arms in the top left corner. Darcyj 08:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

And the new heradically correct coat of arms should have the horsey running left. An older one had the horsey running right, cowardly running away from the enemy. DanielDemaret 10:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This looks right: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Venezuela_%28state%29.svg DanielDemaret 10:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. according to this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Flag_of_Venezuela.svg there are two flags in use. DanielDemaret 10:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't Einstein listed in the selected anniversaries ? He was born March 14, 1879. —This unsigned comment is by 83.203.63.171 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 2006 March 14 (UTC).

Because we don't usually do birthdays. Sometimes, we do it for very notable historical figures on special occasions such as the 100th, 250th, 400th ... etc. birthday. -- PFHLai 21:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

For a list of other people with the same birthday, please see March 14#Births. --PFHLai 22:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

Add a column for the most recent additions to the encycolpedia. A running list updated daily or more frequently, based on the number of articles submitted.

regards ila

There's a whole page for new additions: Special:Newpages. You can access this and other special pages from the tool box on the left-hand side of your window. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

And for a selection of the more interesting or well-written examples, there's Did you know. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} • 16:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

passed the 1000 articles. add them to main page.

and th.wikipedia passed 10K. update!

Thai WP just passed the 10,000 articles on 14 March 2006. I'm wondering if anyone can change that. Thank you. --Manop - TH 21:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Updated. Congratulations to the Thai and Yiddish Wikipedians! - BanyanTree 22:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd thought that it was policy not to announce recent deaths in the "In the News" section unless there was something particularly newsworthy about the death itself. The only other death I can remember seeing in the box was the death of the previous Pope. Not really that fussed about it, just curious why Lennart Meri appears while the others in Recent Deaths don't. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} • 16:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That was against ITN guidelines. It's been removed from the MainPage. -- PFHLai 22:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Erm...no it hasn't been -Elmer Clark 01:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd removed the obituary from ITN, then I was accused of 'wheel warring'. I'm staying off ITN for now. I hope my fellow admins can come to a conclusion soon. For those interested, please see Template talk:In the news#Lennart Meri. Feel free to voice your opinion on this over there. To obit., or not obit. That's the question on ITN today. -- PFHLai 02:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

After my comments regarding the change from 'BC' to 'BCE' just for migrating information from the original page to the Main Page, it has happened again whereas 'BC' and 'AD' are both changed to 'BCE' and 'CE'. I believe this was done only because of my earlier comments. This is rude, unneccesary and AGAINST Wikipedia policy and is discriminatory since Wikipedia accepts both systems as fair usage. I demand this be reverted immediately or I will contact Jimbo Wales about this personally. CrazyInSane 17:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Since we are trying to create an encyclopedia here, I think we should adopt a policy rather than continuing with the current wish-washy, anything-goes attitude. Academic standards call for CE and BCE, so that is what should be used. That should take care of such complaints. --Nelson Ricardo 18:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about the present, not your hopeful future. This alteration from anno Domini to "common era" terms is against Wikipedia's MOS and is blatantly POV and discriminatory against Christianity and Xian terms. CrazyInSane 18:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

There are a million people here. You needn't assume malice. After all, you are merely one of the million voices on this global site. Heaven forfend you should offend someone. Peace. 18:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Not all of here accept that it is the year of your lord. It would seem to be against our rights to have such terminolgy forced upon us. Why should Christianity have special protections? --Nelson Ricardo 19:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

There already is a policy, it's that either BC or BCE can be used with no preference for either, as long as it's consistent in the same article, and fighting about the issue is discouraged since it's a waste of time for all involved. We have a similar policy for American/British spellings. Redquark 19:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Nelson, first of all you shouldn't completely change your comment after it's already been displayed. Secondly, nothing is "favoring Christianity", its just that people like you (there are alot of them) somehow are offended by Christian terms only, not other terms that force religious beliefs like Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, January, etc. They are all asserting the existence of other religious gods but nobody ever complains. So its either we rename every single religious-related word there is...or allow AD and BC to be used without discrimination. CrazyInSane 19:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please provive links to WP's policy regarding BC/BCE and AD/CE. The only thing I remember reading about this was the suggestion that consistency within an article was important. I think that we all could use some policy guidance about this. --hydnjo talk 19:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

See here, where it states the following:

When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable. -- Thus meaning that 'BC/AD' shall not be changed to 'BCE/CE' when transferred from today's featured article to the actual Main Page. CrazyInSane 19:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC).

As I read the it, the intent would seem to preclude changing the word "colour" within an article to "color" in a summary of that article. Does anyone disagree with my interpretation ? hydnjo talk 19:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

*Sigh*, just click on the link would you? -- Here it is again :--->>>>>>Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Eras...that's where I got the quote from and you can see it's perfectly in context with the 'BC/AD' situation. CrazyInSane 20:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Umm, I did read it. I was only trying to pull the argument out of the religeous arena by providing another example where change for the sake of change would be unacceptable. hydnjo talk 20:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Where did I change my comment? I posted two comments. You'll find both above, and the page history will absolve me of any allegations of changing my comment. Perhaps some of us are offended by Christain terms due to the way so many (certainly not all) Christians try to inflict their beliefs on others. I can't recall the last time a pagan or a follower of Norse mythology tried to inflict their beliefs on me. Remember the Crusades (year, I know along, long time ago)? Are you aware of the bile some Christians spew against homosexuals? I guess having been raised Christian (Roman Catholic) makes me a bit of an expert (not). --Nelson Ricardo 20:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, CrazyInSane, your first post on this talkpage regarding this issue was made at 02:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC). The MainPage TFA template was prepared at 05:01, 2006 March 11 (UTC), i.e. before your msg. BCE and CE were already in use at the time. The edit history indicates that BCE and CE were also already in use on Makuria at the time. Your accusation of a "change from 'BC' to 'BCE' just for migrating information from the original page to the Main Page" is false because such a change never happened. Do you still "believe this was done only because of (your) earlier comments" ? Please check the edit history of Makuria before you "contact Jimbo Wales about this personally". You may want to complain on Talk:Makuria, instead of this talkpage here. -- PFHLai 21:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Has this made it into the stupidest edit wars ever article yet? Because it certainly has gotten quite ridiculous. MarcusGraly 15:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it the "Featured Article" or "Edited Article" of the day? If an article needs editing do it in the original.

dear Wikipedians and all others like:

i think this site should have the word of the day, quote of the day (by people, not stock quotes), and the picture of the day. i think that would be a cool idea because then it would be more consistent with uncyclopedia. besides, not many people now days are very good with their vocab, and quotations are inspiring ways of talking to people. alright, tell me what you think.

User:Xinyu

A word of the day would be more appropriate on our sister project Wiktionary, and quote of the day on Wikiquote. As for picture of the day, the upcoming redesign will include it. Redquark 20:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

These days, a Picture of the day is featured on MainPage on weekends. -- PFHLai 20:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    Thanks for the comments gals and guys, just my opinions - User:Xinyu

Today is Einsteins birthday —This unsigned comment is by 84.173.5.84 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 2006 March 14(UTC).

Please see above Talk:Main Page #Albert Einstein's Birthday ?. --PFHLai 22:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

i need help on info about copperheads

Please see our Copperhead disambiguation page to choose which "Copperhead" you would like to know more about. Cheers, BanyanTree 00:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

A deletion discussion is currently going on at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Click_and_Template:Titled-click which could result in some changes to the Main Page. Specifically, deletion of the templates would cause clicking on the icons for the sister projects to take you to the image description page for each icon rather than to the sister project in question as they do currently. Please see the discussion at the link above for pros and cons of deleting these templates. --CBDunkerson 02:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like the Hungarian Revolution of 15 March 1848 , be mentioned under the Anniversaries, until it's too late ie. it's 16 March. Thank you -- bdamokos18:12, March 15, 2006 (UTC)

What relevant wikiarticles about the events in Hungary on 15 March 1848 should be featured ? We don't feature stubs, or pages with problem tags such as {{POV}} on MainPage. 1848 Hungarian Revolution redirects to Revolutions of 1848 in the Habsburg areas, but this page is tagged with {{cleanup}}, so we can't use this. Lajos Kossuth makes not mention, and Lajos Batthyány is a stub. Any other suggestions ? Maybe someone should start a new article or re-write/clean up the aforementioned articles for 2007.... -- PFHLai 20:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation, I shall look into the Hungarian Wikipages and try to translate their articles on the subject--Dami 14:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a superfluous "a" in the sentence about British Rail's crazy flying machine.

Also, should the "St George" bit refer to "on Victory Day" rather than "on the Victory Day"? PeteVerdon 18:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks, BanyanTree 19:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In did you know?, the caption of the picture of the Ribbon of Saint George says "Astra Palace", is that correct? Afonso Silva 19:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Forgetting to change the alt text of an image while updating text is one of the more common flubs. Thanks, BanyanTree 19:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Every time a featured article ends up on the Main Page, it's always an easy target for vandals who want to mess it up in the worst way possible. Most of this intolerable activity happens on the day it shows up as such; for recent examples, see the page histories on Yagan ([1]) and Makuria ([2]).

So, as a result of this, I would like to see featured articles protected or semi-protected in future. That way, it should take away other Wikipedians' pains of, and struggles in, reverting to the right version every time vandalism is done. If the accompanying picture is already protected during the day it appears on the page, then why not the article itself?

I've had some experience with [such] vandals...and it's not looking any prettier, not even on the best FA's. We need to keep most of them from coming to do whatever they please, and do them a lot of justice in the process.

Your thoughts on the matter are welcome. --Slgrandson 22:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

While yes it's annoying, I think it's a general policy that we don't protect anything linked from the main page. While these articles make easy targets for vandals, new prospective editors also see these articles. Often articles linked on the main page actually improve (greatly), from their spent on the main page. Vandalism is usually dealt with very quickly. One useful tool, among other means, to spot vandalism is checking Special:Recentchangeslinked/Main_Page. -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Protection of the day's feaured article is avoided if at all possible. See User:Raul654/protection for more information. Canderson7 ^(talk) 23:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious - can anyone show me one example of an article that improved greatly while it was on the main page due to new users finding it and editing it? I've never seen a single one. Fixed typos? Sure. Grammatical errors? Maybe. Huge improvements? Never. These are featured articles to begin with; they don't need big changes. If they do, they shouldn't be on the main page in the first place. I could provide hundreds of examples of extreme vandalism on main page articles, but not a single instance of significant improvement of a main page article by new users. It's a myth. Kafziel 16:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Cheese, when it was featured on the main page, recieved a little under 400 edits and did improve quite a bit. This is just one example, there are plenty others. Raul654 17:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, this is a loaded question - how do you "substantially" improve an article that's 60kb and has already been checked for mistakes (of facts, grammer, spelling, style, prose, 'etc). And, generall, the people who are inclined to make such changes are the ones who have already written thea rticle. So, to put it bluntly, you're asking for the impossible. Raul654 17:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"...the people who are inclined to make such changes are the ones who have already written the article."

Exactly! And they'd still be able to fix it even if it was semi-protected. I can't tell from looking at the history on Cheese exactly when it was on the main page, but almost every edit in its history that was done by an IP has been reverted as vandalism. Nearly half of the first 500 edits on that page are reverts, which means the other half are bad edits. I doubt things were any better when it was the article of the day.

My point is that nobody is going to show up at Wikipedia having never edited an article before and improve a featured article in any meaningful way. Established editors do, yes. But they could edit them anyway. More experienced IP users improve articles, too, but if they're not brand new then they know how to search for what interests them and they're not relying on editing the first thing they come across on the main page. What are the chances that a guy who has never seen Wikipedia before is going to show up and say, holy crap, I know way more about the Second Malaysia Plan than the dozens of others who came before me, and I will add NPOV, sourced content with proper citations and formatting"? Pretty much no chance at all. What are the chances that a guy will show up and say, "Shoe polish (or insert other article name here)? Who cares about shoe polish? I'll replace the article with a big photo of my cock. And I'll do it over and over again, no matter how many times they revert me." The chances of that are, in fact, 100 percent. Kafziel 17:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

(indent shift) What we're missing is that not all vandals stay vandals. Some people just don't believe that they can actually edit Wikipedia, and the featured article of the day is one of the places where people start to realise that, yes, they can edit! If we get one good long term contributor for every day of the year, it will have been worth all that vandalism. Johnleemk | Talk 17:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

How awesome is it that somebody vandalized this page right after you said that? [3] Oh man, did that ever crack me up.

But seriously, I agree that it's a swell theory but there's absolutely no proof to back it up. I didn't start out on Wikipedia by editing articles on the main page. Few do. Most worthwhile contributors use the wiki for a while before they ever try to edit it. If your first edit is on an article you care about, chances are it will be a good edit. If your first edit is on the first article you ever see, chances are it won't be. I'm not advocating locking the articles down completely or permanently. If the edit is that important, it can wait a day until the article is unlocked or a request for the change can be made on the talk page, just like they are here. Kafziel 18:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course far from everyone started out this way. But people who make bad edits (i.e. tests) can and have been turned into good editors. Some people even have vandalism way back in the dusty archives of their contributions. Denying people the opportunity to edit -- even if that edit may be terrible or totally worthless -- is pretty much depriving us of one or two potential good editors (at least). In this particular case, test-like vandalism paves the way for future editors. Semi-protecting the featured article of the day denies particularly untech-savvy newcomers that "aha" moment when they realise anyone can edit. Johnleemk | Talk 18:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

But why can't they say "aha" on a different article? Nobody should be editing before they even know how to search. If you are unable to find an article besides the article of the day, you shouldn't be anywhere near the edit button.

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that vandals can become good editors, but that's still no reason to offer them the main page. You seem to be saying that vandalizing pages is good practice. No way I'm buying that. If that's the kind of practice they need, we don't need them. Kafziel 18:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As a little postscript to that, I just combed through the edit history of Second Malaysia Plan. During the time it has been on the main page, there have been about three (possibly) well-intentioned edits. Two of them were wrong (they were overlooked and have not yet been corrected), and the other was a minor grammatical change. On the other hand, we had lots of this sort of thing, the sight of which would just as easily drive off even more potential good editors than the inability to edit one article out of (literally) a million would. Kafziel 19:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back. The only valuable (minor) edit was by an IP address, but not a brand-new user as I originally thought. So there have actually been absolutely no good contributions by new users whatsoever, even including minor edits. Kafziel 19:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I see it now. "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia anyone can edit. Except you can't actually edit pages linked to from our main page; they're sacred." Rob Church 15:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The main page itself is "sacred". Why? Because that's the face we're presenting to the world. So why should the contents be any different? I'm sure new vandals users would love to edit the main page, but that's too bad. They can't. Are they deterred by that? No. They go find another article. They'd do the same thing if we semi-protected the article of the day. And if they really want to edit that specific article, they can come back the next day when it's a free-for-all again.

I've never met anybody who said, "I don't use Wikipedia because one time they didn't let me edit an article." On the other hand, I've met lots of people who have said, "I don't use Wikipedia because every article I click on is filled with vandalism and bullshit."

But for some reason everyone clings blindly to the myth that new, unregistered users make important improvements to featured articles. No matter how much evidence is offered to the contrary, no matter how many people we do drive away because this is the first (and last) article they ever see, some editors just want to believe that it would be evil, in some abstract and undefined way, to semi-protect an article for a few hours. Kafziel 19:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

comment. Both sides make compelling rational arguments. As someone who dislikes dealing with vandalism as part of his wiki-activities, I end up agreeing/believing that Heavily vandalised main-page-linked articles should either be semi-protected, or get a Header Template of some sort (like the "being slashdot'd" ones). However, very likely this is mis-directed empathy for those who do actually do the vandal patrols, and don't actually dislike it with a passion as I do. As long as there are enough active/aware editors that the articles are being watched and reverted Very rapidly, then we should be fine as we are. --Quiddity 09:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I think the crux of the problem here is that some of us think of Wikipedia as a finished (or almost finished) work that ought to be mostly stable and some of us think of it as a huge work in progress. I am not necessarily referring to the featured article of the day -- often there is little that the average Joe can do to improve it. However, people who have no idea that Wikipedia is editable (this happens a lot more often than you might think) can be introduced to this by the FAOTD. It's the most visible link from the main page, and the main page itself cannot be edited. (Looking only at new accounts is not a good metric; many people don't even realise that the option of creating an account exists, or think that only those with accounts can edit.) The FAOTD should exemplify the best of Wikipedia, and this includes the ability to improve the article (however near-perfect it may be). It's a way to introduce people to editing, even if their first edit is a test. Until we're finished or near-completion, it's probably not a good idea to discourage editing from new editors. Vandalism is a minor inconvenience. Johnleemk | Talk 11:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

or whole Wikimedia system is crashing now? I cannot edit or save anything! AshishG^talk_{11:11, November 17, 2024 (UTC).}

Obviously not, because you were able to save this :). – Gweit Gischguniwi 00:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

it has been slower and crashing more often recently, for me, on several machines, but not a serious issue, just monir irritation. moza 10:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some mention on the main page news section about the 2006 Commonwealth Games, which have just begun here in Melbourne? Knyght27 03:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Also (this probably won't be implemented) but should there be a section on the Main Page for the 2006 Commonwealth Games under the news like the Winter Olympic Games were? After all, the Commonwealth Games is the second largest international sports event (the first is the Summer Olympic Games). If the Winter Games (which has half as many athletes as the Commonwealth Games competing) were on the Main Page, the Commonwealth Games should be. —This unsigned comment is by 203.208.88.138 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 2006 March 16 (UTC).

Yes, but you'll need to find an admin willing to do regular updates. Good Luck. -- PFHLai 05:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we do have some good luck ! ITN now has a new section on the Commonwealth Games ! --PFHLai 17:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that the Commonwealth Games do involve fewer countries. But nevertheless, it does deserve a mention on the Main Page. joturner 03:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's up there on ITN now. -- PFHLai 05:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks a bit strange not being bullet pointed like the other news in the ITN section. User:Tim_teddybear

Blah. Take it down. The Commonwealth Games often go unnoticed even in Commonwealth nations. —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 18 March 2006 @ 00:05 (UTC)

Take it down??? I'm positive even in the isle of man and norfolk island half the population are watching the games right now. It's the second biggest event in Melbourne and third biggest in Australia (behind the 1956 Summer Olympics, and the 2000 Summer Olympics) and is setting new standards just like the 1956 Melbourne Olympics did by bringing the atheletes togeather during the closing ceremony. It's the first time elite atheletes have competed at the same time as the normal events and their medals are counted on the main tally. Also, it was the first time ever an opening ceremony was staged outside of the main stadium in adition to within it. I'm positive once again Melbourne will set the trends that will become the norm throughout the rest of the world. I think the current arrangement on the main page is perfect the way it is. Oh and by the way, just because the states isnt a member of the commonwealth nations dosent mean the games dosent mean alot to those 70 odd nations that participate in it every 4 years. 144.132.21.233 09:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion; I generally consider myself a Brit living in America rather than an American, but you can have it that way if you want. However, while you sound like a Commonwealth Games organizer, I can assure you that the British care not a whit, at least the vast majority, for the Commonwealth Games, and I would assume that the attitude is the same across the Commonwealth, even in Melbourne. Light, even the Olympics barely get attention any more! —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 19 March 2006 @ 01:11 (UTC)

As a Brit living in America, on what do you base your assurance about what the British back home think about the games? There might be no interest where you are but in the UK the games are being shown daily and people are interested. 86.136.190.159 16:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

News is limited to Gold medals?

Yep, the way it is is fine. I guess it's like all sport, it's only interesting and potentially amazing if the team/person/people/etc who you are supporting are doing well, or achieve somthing good or great in the eyes of the supporter. Nevertheless, here in Melbourne it's one of the biggest things thats ever happened, and we're thrashing every other country by a hell of alot in the medal tally.

Recognition for same-sex couples in the Czech Republic has been granted by their Parliament [4]. Shall this make it into the Main News section? --Cumbiagermen 03:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You are encouraged to post a news headline along with external newslinks on Current events. For the ITN section on MainPage, relevant wikiarticles need to be updated first. Once this is done, please post a suggested headline at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Having said that, I have to say that this topic has been on ITN before (when the first few countries adopted same-sex marriage), it's unlikely to get on ITN again. -- PFHLai 05:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If you really think this should be on ITN, you are welcome to present your case on the Candidates' page. -- PFHLai 20:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"The remains of former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milošević is flown to Serbia for burial" should say the remains ... are.

Just about to mention this myself... it certainly does. Stealthychimp 11:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Dang, somebody already got there :-) - MatthewDBA 11:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It still says "is". Kafziel 13:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Quick, somebody make me an admin so I can fix it! ;) Kafziel 13:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks, BanyanTree 15:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The current Second Malaysia Plan featured article has an image that is very hard to understand in low resolution. It looks abstract to me, and I didn't figure out that it was a tree until I saw the full-sized version. The Image:Malaysiaparliament.jpg image (from the Politics of Malaysia page) would be much more useful for main page context on this article. -Harmil 16:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a policy, but images in the TFA section are usually chosen from those already on the featured article. Not much choice today, unfortunately. -- PFHLai 19:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think some context could be provided by amending the text to read: "The Second Malaysia Plan was an economic development plan set out by the government of Malaysia between 1971 and 1975, with the goal of implementing the aims of the New Economic Policy." - Gobeirne 23:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it's too late now. We now have a different featured article on MainPage. -- PFHLai 07:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Cough. Wikipedia:Do not bite the newbies. Cough. Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers. Hint hint. Rob Church 15:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, Rob Church, can I help you ? Try some dextromethorphan. Hope this helps. :-) -- PFHLai 15:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I seem to have stumbled in on some private discussion between you two. And I hope you're not calling me a newbie! :) - Gobeirne 19:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I have, for good reasons, renamed Abur to Old Permic script. I recommend changing Permian alphabet to Old Permic script on this page, or at least changing the link to that instead of the redirecting Abur. Evertype 09:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

That item about Stephen of Perm is no longer on MainPage. Wish I had seen this earlier. -- PFHLai 15:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the Manual of Style, italics should be used for television show titles and double quotes should be used for episode titles. Right now the DYK section says, "...award-winning Star Trek: The Next Generation episode The Inner Light is..." Could someone please fix this? Dismas|^(talk) 13:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks, BanyanTree 14:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

And thank you! Dismas|^(talk) 17:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

In Anniversaries, californium should not be capitalized. --Cam 15:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks, BanyanTree 16:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

As with the Winter Olympics Wikipedia included news on the happenings of each day in the headlines. There should be a section in English wikipedia detailing the games. -- User:Tim_teddybear

2 reasons why this likely wouldn't happen. The Commonwealth Games is less international, and more importantly the articles relating to the Games aren't being as actively updated. If you could put in more info the article 2006 Commonwealth Games, they'd be more likely to appear prominently on the front page. -- Zanimum 17:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There are simply too many of these competitions to keep them all on the mainpage. We settled for the Olympics, them being the most international event and occuring only once every 2 years (winter/summer). If we start including other, less international competitions, there's also Mediterranean Games, Balkan Games, Goodwill Games, etc, etc. We should get rid of the separate section and include any newsworthy results in the main body of ITN. Zocky | picture popups 17:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm wondering why it has made it to the mainpage. Nickpowerz 17:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the wikipages for Mediterranean Games, Balkan Games, Goodwill Games, .... will get updated well enough to deserve being featured on ITN. -- PFHLai 18:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a major international competition, with more than 1 in 3 of the world's nations competing?! Batmanand | Talk 19:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It's still not international as in "any country may appear". It's simply not the same level as Olympics. Remember, we don't normally do sports on the main page - we made an exception for Olympics, as opposed to setting a new rule. Zocky | picture popups 20:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The page 2006 Commonwealth Games page seems to be updated enough (with a medal tally, and daily highlights). To anyone who says it isn't an "international" event, it is actually the second largest international sport event (first is the Summer Games), with twice as many athletes than the Olympics Winter Games. I can see what other people mean, though, but if the Winter Games is featured, than so should the Commonwealth Games.

I would like to see the Millennium Development Goals discussed on the front page. The plan to end world hunger is underway and agreed to by every nation on earth and I think Wikipedia could play an important role in bringing attention to the international agreement that will lift 600 million people out of hunger by 2015. The Borgen Project is a good source for more info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.17.58.206 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a short article at Millennium Development Goals. With some effort I'm sure it could be expanded to potentially featured article candidacy. --Quiddity 22:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Last week's is up again instead of a new one. —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 18 March 2006 @ 00:02 (UTC)

And it's not {{mprotected}}. --199.71.174.100 00:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. RexNL 00:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The link under American West is U.S. West, which redirects to some bell comany. American West itself redircets to the correct article for the situation. —This unsigned comment was added by Theunknown42 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC).

Such as Western United States. -- 199.71.174.100 01:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Or better, American Old West. EdC 02:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, American Old West is indeed better. Where are the admins when we need them ? -- 199.71.174.100 02:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully the rest of the cabal is out someplace with green beer. Fixed. Thanks, BanyanTree 02:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the timetable is for implementation of the new design, since it appears to have consensus? Just wondering... it's still the old Main Page that is serving that role at this moment... --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

See discussion. hydnjo talk 01:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a Wikiportal now.--Kross^Talk 04:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I was asked, in my capacity as a bureacrat, to take a look at the vote and render an official decision. I decided that roughly 75% was consensus, and went ahead and implimented the new design. Raul654 04:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[PS - expect a titanic revert war, followed by a wheel war, followed by 17 RFCs and 3 arbcom cases ;) ] Raul654 04:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• LOL, hehehe... ;) - Mailer Diablo 05:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• It would have been nice for the new main page designers to actually specificy the text color, so that people with custom skins can still read the text. Right now, my main page is light green text on light green background. They specified the text color in the old main page, why not in this one? Or did they just not think of it? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 04:51
  • You're the first person to complain about this. Please insert whatever code is missing. —David Levy 05:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I complained about it with the old main page, but apparently the designers of the new page missed that. I've fixed most of the problem, although everything from the POTD down is still unreadable, and I can't figure out how to get the text to be defined as black so that it is readable. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 05:49

• I still have major problems with this design... I know others like it so is there any way of having a skin which allows some of us to have the old main page instead whilst everyone else has this design? I've looked through the current options and I can't find such at current. - JVG 05:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The old main page is saved somewhere for people to use, and you can use javascript to get your Main Page links to go to that page. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 05:35
    • The link is Main Page alternate (Classic 2006). Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you :) - JVG 12:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
      • What should I put in my monobook to use that?--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 21:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way someone could put a tad bit more space between the featured picture and the text of section? It looks cramped. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 05:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is something to do with an "margin-right:0.9em" or something of that source. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 05:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You would have to change it in all of the Wikipedia:POTD row subpages, and make sure that people keep using this change in the future. If you do do this, please make sure to add color:#000 to all their style definitions so that people like me with custom skins can read the text. :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 06:07

Change is bad. --NoPetrol 05:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC) One of the main arguments for the new design is that Welcome to Wikipedia REPLACES the Main Page title at the top. Your implementation completely ignores this.

As long as we have this hideous design (didn't even realize they were making a change until it was implemented; it should have been advertised better that there was a vote for a new page design), the least we can do is fix the featured picture section. Every time I come to the main page now I have to refresh it to have the text aligned correctly in the featured picture section. I'm not sure if it's the main page or my browser, but it's very annoying. Does everybody have this problem, or is it just me? bob rulz 06:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Try pressing Ctrl-Shift-Reload to flush your cache, that might fix things. And the main page voting has been going on for awhile. --Cyde Weys 06:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Say what you will about the design, but saying it wasn't well advertised is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a valid criticism. It's been featured at the top of this page for weeks; it was mentioend multiple times in the signpost, at goings-on, on the announcements page, at the village pump, and on the community portal (among others). Several outside news sites even picked it up [5]. Short of hiring people to write it in the sky, I don't see what more they could have done. Raul654 06:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

They succeeded in advertising it. Now if only they could have succeeded in increasing its usability... — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 07:56

A small notice at the bottom of the Main Page itself, perhaps... anyhow, has anyone looked into the fact that the "Main Page" heading disappears for the Main Page's page history too? It looks quite ugly, and it seems a line or two of JavaScript could fix it. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I can't replicate that problem on my browser. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• I noticed this as well (in Firefox). I also noticed that, for some reason, the main page background colorings are "bleeding over" onto the history. My skin defaults to black background, and everything shows up that way, even histories. The old main page's history always looked that way. Now with this one, the defined white background of the main page are causing the main page's history background to become white as well. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 07:58
  • I've attempted to correct the background issue in MediaWiki:Monobook.js. Please let me know if this worked. (You might have to clear your cache.) I suspect that some (perhaps most) of that code is no longer needed, but I don't know how much of it can safely be removed. (Tom- is the expert.) —David Levy 08:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Yep, that worked. Thanks! — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 08:15

• i think it looks fine and dandy Rubber cat 08:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Portals: Any reason why only 8 of the Category:Top 10 portals are listed in the top bar? Did Culture and Philosophy lose a bet?--Mike Selinker 08:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That interests me, too. --Missmarple 16:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Top 10 was created with virtually no discussion. There's been talk of restructuring the portal hierarchy (which would necessitate modifying the list), so it would be premature to add new ones to the main page at this time. (There's no consensus for which ones should be added, and we didn't want to tie this into the redesign.) —David Levy 16:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• I don't agree with the new off centre title and portals list. The gap in between looks large and out of place for a title bar, at least in my resolution. Much prefered old centralised list of portals, capitalised, which added prominence to them, being categories. As of now they appear as normal links to the side. There are very few items justified to the right in wikipedia, it simply doesn't do them justice. I don't see why the title can't be centralised with the portals as a horizontal list underneath. --Liquid121 09:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think the new design is excellent - the portals list is far clearer and more user-friendly than before. Well done! Martpol 13:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The new Main Page is wonderful, and congratulations!

Nevertheless, for the bottom of the page, could some admin please work in the up-to-date Sister projects template as per the discussion here? The one that currently appears is is out-of-date, has incorrect links, and doesn't look as good. Dovi 08:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As per user:David Levy's suggestion, I am bringing the discussion here (please see also the template talk and David's talk page). Here are David's previous comments and my previous reply:

I disagree with the idea of including the slogan (instead of the description "Free-content source texts," which is based upon wording from the Wikisource main page). We don't list slogans for any of the other sister projects, and descriptions are more useful in this context. ("The free library" could just as easily be applied to Wikibooks.) We certainly should include whichever text is backed by consensus, so please feel free to raise this issue at Talk:Main Page.

The slogan is a Wikisource decision, as is the logo that appears in the template. (The logo currently happens to be undergoing intense discussion at Wikisource. If and when Wikisouce changes it, it will change on the Main Page here too). Wikibooks is in no way an open library, nor does it claim to be. Wikipedia is listed as "The free encyclopedia" in "sister-links" from all the other projects, and I would expect the same courtesy here. Perhaps, however, we will change our Wikipedia link to something more descriptive and attractive, like "Wikipedia - Open-source information articles..." Dovi 09:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see my replies on Dovi'a talk page. —David Levy 14:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Just some basic information: "The free library" has achieved unusually strong across-the-board consensus at Wikisource, in all of its language versions. Take a look here and here. This was already discussed earlier on the template talk, and discussion was brief out of the simple realization that this is common courtesy towards the sister project. Dovi 09:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The "discussion" consisted of you requesting the change, someone else complying, and a third person protesting the change (due to exactly the same concerns that I cited). That was it (until you finally added a reply today—four months later). —David Levy 14:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it would be nice to sign your edits. I just suggested on the en.wikisource.org scriptorium to refer to Wikipedia as the "collection of free content knowlegde wiki texts". Please tell me what you think about this idea before we proceed. I personally find it great, but I would like to receive some feedback. Indeed, the previous slogan, "The Free Encyclopedia", was not at all self explanatory. It was even misleading, because there are several other free encyclopedias on Wikisource; such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911. And they are all free! How wrong then to assert that wikipedia is "the" free encyclopedia, when there are many? In contrast, "collection of free content knowledge wiki texts" perfectly reflects what you are. If you think it does not, I am open to adding more adjectives upon enlightened suggestion. ThomasV 15:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I apologize for neglecting to sign one of my comments. 2. If such a change is backed by consensus, I have no objection to the replacement of the Wikipedia slogan with a description along the lines of the one cited above. —David Levy 16:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"Free-content source texts," YUK. Yet another mangling of the English language by business-speak. Please tell us what is wrong with "Wikisource: The free library." Don't readers know what a library is? Apwoolrich 15:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "free content source texts" appears on the Wikisource main page. I realize that "the free library" is the official slogan, but it isn't as useful as a description. (It could just as easily be applied to Wikibooks.) And again, we don't include slogans for any of the other sister projects. —David Levy 16:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has indicated in the past that he is not happy with changing the slogan, at all. I don't think that the support for the new main page design carries any kind of weight in changing the slogan of the whole site. -Splash^talk 16:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"Free-content source texts" is not being presented as a slogan; it's merely descriptive text (similar to what accompanies all of the other sister project links). —David Levy 16:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, "free content source texts" is useless because it mangles what's trying to be said (although not as well as "collection of free content knowledge wiki texts"!) - remember a lot of readers aren't necessarily IT-literate and will not know what "content source texts" are. Why isn't "the free library" useful as a description? —This unsigned comment was added by 86.136.190.159 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC).

If "free content source texts" isn't a useful description, why is it included on the Wikisource main page? Again, "the free library" is a nifty slogan, but it doesn't convey any sort of distinction between Wikisource and Wikibooks (which also could be referred to as a "free library"). —David Levy 16:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks is not a library in the sense everyone knows "Library", it is a very specific collection of original-content books created by Wikipedians for a very specific purpose, educational text books, it is an "education textbook library". Wikisource is a true Library, it is a collection of any and all books that are published - that's what Library means to most people. It is important that the Wikisource library slogan be on the page. -- Stbalbach 17:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't share your perception of the word "library," and I'm not the first person to express this concern. Why is it important to include that particular sister project's slogan (instead of a descriptive phrase that appears on their main page), given the fact that we don't include slogans of any of the other sister projects? —David Levy 17:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi David. Can you please take a step back and look at this with a fresh eye. On Wikisource's main page it reads

Wikisource – The Free Library – is an online collection of free content source texts built by its contributors.

It is obvious that phrase you chose to copy is used simply to allow links to different concepts and is not used as a desciption of the site in Wikipedia's article on Wikisource which reads

Wikisource – The Free Library – is a Wikimedia project to build a free, wiki library of source texts, along with translations of source-texts into any language and other supporting materials. It is located at www.wikisource.org.

The free library has also historically been part of the Sister Projects Template. So it is not as though we asking for someting new. I do not entirely understand what the reasoning was for changing it. Did the other sister projects complain they didn't like us having a slogan? Do you personally dislike the free library slogan? Do you really honestly like the current description? You say other people had concerns about the use libary as well. Unfortunately the people at Wikisource were unaware of this. We are now all watching this discussion and are ready to answer those concerns if you please reiterate them. I really think the current phrase is horrible without being wikilinked like it is on Wikisource's Main Page, simply because it is hard to understand. I understand that you are defensive at being questioned about this and you have taken a lot of heat over various things during the Main Page Redesign. I know this change was made with good intentions, perhaps simply for love of consistancy. Please step back and look at this again. Is really so important to you to keep the new phrase? The Free Library is a very important concept to us, it is only natural that is more important to us than it is to you. In trying to describe Wikisoure's acceptance guidelines I often use the idea of if you would find something in a library. It really helps explain why we would host astromical charts and not a list of people killed in Iraq. Thank you for all the hard work you did on the new main page there was a lot of drudergy involved. I am impressed with the overall result, although obviously not this one issue which must seem small to you after all you have done --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I sincerely appreciate your non-adversarial tone. I understand that your slogan is important to you, but the goal of the sister project summaries is to unambiguously describe the nature of the material contained therein. I have no particular attachment to the specific wording "free-content source texts," but I don't believe that the phrase "the free library" adequately conveys the site's content. (What type of "library" is it?)

FYI, the slogan was added on 15 September 2005, following a request by User:Dovi. (Up to that point, it contained the text "Free source documents.") A couple of months later, Minh Nguyễn raised exactly the same concerns that I've cited, and this user received no reply (until Dovi posted one today). That was the extent of the "discussion" that Dovi claimed had occurred. Dovi also has indicated that Wikipedia has no say in the matter. (We're required to include your slogan, despite the fact that we do not include the slogan of any other sister project.)

I've inserted the wording "free library of source texts." Is that an acceptable compromise? Can you suggest another variation that's more descriptive than "the free library"? —David Levy 21:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

RESTART INDENT Thanks for your reply. The "free library of source texts" is a definate improvement over what was there moments ago. However I do not see an ambiguity in the simple description of "The free library". If you would find something at any sort of library it fits the mission of Wikisource. This includes mathmatical reference tables, cout case decisions, the US Code, almanacs, encyclopedias, election data, computer source code, poems, national anthems, novels, essays, speeches, etc. Also as a libary Wikisource does not publish any new material but collects things which have already been published. WS is simply limited by copyright which is why the description is prefaced with free. I don't believe adding "of source texts" adds any clarification, especially as it is an obsure term. Most people would think "texts" would not include the variety of data that WS does actually accept. I am also concerned about the attitude that the people of Wikisource are somehow outsiders in this disscussion. I do not believe my contributions to Wikipedia have been minor and believe many other people from Wikisource contribute here. This does not need to devolve into them or us. The fact that other sister projects have not declared the manner in which they would like to be represented does not mean that Wikisource is wrong to do so. I am personally very considerate of how WS represents other sister projects. I changed the Wikispecies logo in WS's sisterproject template as soon as I noticed they had agreed on it without being asked. I made sure to cite Wikipedia in the manner recomended by Wikipedia in s:Gettysburg Address, researching Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. This was then incorperated into the template s:Template:wikipediaref so wikipedia is easily cited as "on Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia." per WP's preference. Beyond these examples I in general believe in honoring the opinions of those most affected in minor discrepencies. So I am having diffculty understanding your position in this case. I think your sense of ambiguity with the description must come from misunderstanding. As I am much more familar with Wikisource than you are, please let me assure you it is an appropriate description for Wikisource. I am saddened that this opportunity is not being used to promote harmony and cooperation between all the sister projects. We are not only all together in our desire to spread free information, but we are also here as a service to each other, providing a space and direction for the things other sisters projects do not want to host.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my reply to Dovi, I'm not implying that a member of the Wikisource community is any less a member of the Wikipedia community. My point is that a group of Wikisource users recruited for the purpose of arguing this point is not a valid cross-sampling of Wikipedians.

I certainly don't see this dispute as "us vs. you." As you wrote, we share the common goal of spreading information, and it's the readers whose interests I have in mind. You point out that you're much more familiar with Wikisource than I am, but I'm thinking of people with no such familiarity. You have a very specific definition of "library" in mind, and I don't believe that it's shared by everyone. —David Levy 00:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

In truth I have the most general definition of a library as possible in mind. In fact so general that to try and define it more specifically is in effect misleading to the readers. I am sorry I have been unable explain this in a manner you can understand. Because I am sure you would have agreed with me otherwise. Lets give people a bit more time to find this discussion and weigh in. Perhaps someone else can convey what I mean with more justice--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 00:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but here's an analogy:

Suppose that I were to open a store that sells a very wide range of products. Would it be sufficient to advertise it simply as "a store"? Would that be interpreted as "a store that sells lots of things," or would people wonder "what kind of store"? Wouldn't "department store" send a clearer message?

Numerous pages (including at Wikisource itself) identify the site was a collection of source texts. Is there a better means of classifying its content (rather than leaving it to the reader to draw conclusions about the lack of specificity)? —David Levy 00:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that there are such things as law libraries and patent libraries. However most libraries unlike stores have no other description short of describing access (ie public or University), Actually contributors at Wikisoure use "source text" in a non standard way because there is not such an expression that is accurate. Which is why I feel it is misleading to readers. I doubt most people would take "source text" to encompass sound recordings and computer code. However most readers would know you can find sound recordings at a library, computer code is little new for readers to have many expectations at all. I would rather have readers be unsure of what we contain than decide we wouldn't have what they are interested in because it isn't a "text" in their minds. I do not see the lack specificity as a problem but an intrinsic part of Wikisource.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

---

In reply to David Levy: The phrase "the free library" is a horrible description for Wikibooks. Wikisource is a general free library; it includes fiction (Wikisource:Author:L. Frank Baum) and encyclopedias (Wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica). Though Wikibooks has multiple books, and those are free, thus making Wikibooks a free library, it is not a general library. Official policy at Wikibooks:Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks prohibits fiction, encyclopedias, and essays. --Kernigh 18:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that "the free library" is a good description for either site; it doesn't convey the types of works that are included. We specify that Wikibooks contains textbooks and manuals, so why shouldn't we specify that Wikisource contains source texts? —David Levy 18:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Stbalbach: Actually, we who write Wikibooks are Wikibookians, not Wikipedians. There is no rule that requires one to be a Wikipedian to join Wikibooks, and I was not a Wikipedian when I joined. --Kernigh 18:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC) (same as Wikibooks:User:Kernigh, Wikisource:User:Kernigh)

To sum up:

• Wikisource slogan is "The free library." That should be respected unless there is an extremely good reason not to.

  1. I've cited reasons. 2. We don't include any other sister project slogans. What makes yours so special?

• The overwhelming approval for the new Main Page implies nothing about this change. Most voters were scarcely aware of it, and Wikisource was not asked.

  I don't know why you believe that the Wikisource community is responsible for dictating the content of our main page.

• There is no confusion with Wikibooks, whose overall mission is not to provide published works and is not a library. Both Wikisource and Wikibooks are OK with this slogan, which actually does a very good job clarifying the differences between them.

  1. Wikibooks can be considered a library. 2. Your perspective is that of someone who's familiar with both projects. I'm thinking of readers who know nothing about either. It's our job to inform them. Indicating that one contains textbooks and manuals and that the other is some sort of library (A library of what?) falls short of accomplishing this.

• "The free library" is an extemely good and accurate description of what Wikisource is and does. In fact, there is no possible better description. Wikisourcerors (or whatever we are called) should know.

  "The free library" is a good slogan, but it fails to convey the specific nature of the material contained therein.

• Consensus should have been needed to make the change in the first place, not to revert it back now. For clear lack of such consensus, we (the Wikisource contributors who commented above) ask that David Levy or some other admin please restore "The free library." Enough is enough, and this is common courtesy.Dovi 21:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  There was no consensus (on this site) to change the wording to "the free library." I've switched to "free library of source texts," and you have yet to comment on this. Are you totally unwilling to even consider compromise? —David Levy 22:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

PS Like Birgitte above, I think the new Main Page is outstanding, and I am greatful to David Levy and others for the excellent work they did on it. I'm sorry a small thing like this got blown out of proportion (one small problem versus a huge improvement to Wikipedia). Nevertheless, I think David's insistance not to do this small but important courtesy is out of place. Please respect the Wikisource decision, just like all of the English sister projects list Wikipedia as "The free encyclopedia" without splitting hairs. Go take a look, once again, and the "sister projects" templates on all of their main pages. Dovi 22:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Why can't you do the readers the courtesy of allowing us to explain what type of content Wikisource offers? —David Levy 22:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

We disagree that what you are offering is a courtesy, or any improvement in any way over "The free library." Your objections have been noted, but other users do not agree with them. Plus, we fundamentally disagree that consensus should be required to reinstate "The free library" - on the contrary, consensus should be required to write anything else, since it is the Wikisource slogan/description.

David, you asked me to move discussion here so I did. You asked to look for consensus (even though we at Wikisource feel none is necessary) and the nearly all here consider the slogan is perfectly fine. Since you are the only one who seriously objects, it would be proper to reinstate it. Dovi 22:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

When I suggested that you initiate a discussion, I meant that you should attempt to forge consensus among the members of this community. I didn't mean that you should rally support from the members of a different community.

And again, you're yet to explain why we should display your exact slogan (despite the fact that we include none of the other sister projects' slogans), and you haven't specifically addressed the new compromise wording (which actually contains the phrase "free library"). —David Levy 22:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi David. The members of the "other community" are of course good Wikipedians too. But you have to admit that as "Wikisourcerors" :-) they have a special and legitimate interest in this.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that these users aren't upstanding Wikipedians as well. The problem is that they aren't a valid cross-sampling of the Wikipedia community as a whole. If the situation were reversed, I wouldn't expect you to allow "consensus" on Wikisource to be determined by a group of people recruited from Wikipedia.

You are the only Wikipedian who strongly objects to using the slogan/description (it is perfectly fine as both in our opinion despite your objections) that Wikisource itself has chosen. So yes, in a sense you have taken it upon yourself.

The above post preceded CBDunkerson's and Quiddity's comments, but I don't understand why you disregarded that of Minh Nguyễn.

We are not the only sister project with a slogan. Wikipedia has one too, and it appears in all sister-project templates. These templates do not exist in a vacuum; this is a Wikimedia issue, not just a Wikipedia issue. Wikipedia doesn't exist in a vacuum either, and just as WP slogan appears with no nit-picking on sister projects, WS can be on WP.

I believe that "the free encyclopedia" is a suitably specific description. If you disagree, feel free to discuss changing it at Wikisource. I promise not to send a bunch of Wikipedians to complain.

Well, I'm going to sleep already. I think it is quite clear that were this not a protected template, it would already use the WS slogan/description. Please use your admin tools in the spirit of both the majority will and common courtersy here. Dovi 23:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you object to the very concept of allowing a fair discussion to run its course. Regardless of the outcome, the walls won't come tumbling down if the "wrong" version is displayed for a few days. —David Levy 23:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the label text for Wikisource on the various sister projects has been inconsistent across projects for a long time. Currently we've got "Free library of source texts" on Wikipedia, "Free source documents" on three, "The free library" on three, and no sister projects section on MetaWiki. I agree with David that 'The free library' is a bad description as it could apply to MOST of the projects... 'free library of quotations', 'free library of textbooks', et cetera. It doesn't tell a user what they can expect to find there. --CBDunkerson 23:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This is where I think the misuderstanding is Wikisource's mission is actually inclusive of the material found on other sister projects. Although we accept it in a different form. The Enclypedia Britannica published in 1911 is being put on Wikisource slowly but surely. Any public domain book of quotations would be appropriate on Wikisource. The same with public domain dictionaries. I believe WS already has some primer's, which in the past where used as textbooks. While the other sister projects narrower missions, Wikisource truly is a library. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I understand... Wikisource is the WikiMedia equivalent of [Project Gutenberg. Since it includes any published document which is in the 'public domain' it covers a wide array of topics and is a 'library' in all ways except that it cannot include copyrighted works. Thus, 'The free library' is an excellent slogan... but it is not a good description. A user unfamiliar with the projects looking at 'Wikisource - The free library' and 'Wikibooks - Free textbooks and manuals' could not possibly understand the difference. A good description might be something like, 'Wikisource - Public domain books'. Most people know what 'public domain' means and it is more specific than 'library'. I guess it comes down to whether it is more important to have a slogan which makes sense to experienced users or a description which makes sense to people who don't know anything about the project. --CBDunkerson 00:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid you do not understand. "Wikisource - Public domain books" would be inappropriate as WS niether contains solely public domain items nor solely books. For example WS recently added a recording of Vietnam era airforce mission transcribed by one of the participiants. I understand that people here think they have correctly described what can be found at Wikisource to readers. As someone with a greater knowledge of what can be found at Wikisource, let me assure you that your description is misleading. I do not understand what the hang up is over "The free library" being a slogan. It is still the best desription of Wikisource, regardless. Please take some time looking at the variety of materials at Wikisource. I can think of no free content available at any sort of library that would not be welcomed of Wikisource. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 00:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I knew there were other materials (though I can't think of what wikisource would contain which is not public domain)... I just thought that 'books' was a primary focus and more understandable than 'source documents'. Just as Wikipedia is listed as an 'encyclopedia'... but you don't usually find sound files and animated images in encyclopedias. We can't give a detailed description of everything included in each project. The problem I have with library is that 'Wikibooks' is a 'library'... of user created textbooks, and 'Wikiquotes' is a 'library' of quotations, and 'Wikipedia' is a 'library' of human knowledge, et cetera. Amongst the other libraries it doesn't explain the distinction. The term 'free content' you use above might serve; Wikisource - The free content library. Only adds one word. A library of all content which is freely available. No longer expresses that the library itself is free, but that seems self-evident. --CBDunkerson 02:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the other projects can be classified as libraries. Wikibooks is more of a publishing house restricted to instructional material than anything else. A library of quotations has never existed. Wikiquote is more equivalent to a multi-volume book of quotations. I also think the people here would object to the idea that Wikipedia is a library of human knowledge. After all, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. But if you want to define Wikipedia as a library of human knowledge try and get consensus for it :). I truly don't see the difference between "free library" and "free content library" since the objection was library was to vague rather than free. But I don't have any problem with it either. "Wikisoure - The free content library" is completely accurate.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

ditto reasoning per CBDunkerson and David Levy. --Quiddity 23:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with "The free content library". And it fits. but would we need to use "The free-content library" to fit with the wikinews subtitle? --Quiddity 03:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It would have to be "Free-content library," because appending "the" would falsely imply that this is an official slogan. —David Levy 03:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Good morning. I doubt anyone would object in the meantime to the specific addition of "the." It sounds better and moves closer to what Wikisource itself wants. One needn't be purer ("falsely imply... official slogan") than are the purists themselves...

I object to the inclusion of "the" (for the reason cited above). "Free-content library" is an accurate description (à la those of the other sister projects), while "The free-content library" is a degradation of your slogan. We don't append "the" to any of the other descriptions, and your apparent desire to make Wikisource stand out from the pack is not a valid reason to deviate from the usual styling. —David Levy 16:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, David, you still have yet to explain, in what now seems like the absence of a complete consensus (will a vote be needed?), why the option that is against what Wikisource itself wants is the default option. You wrote above why not wait a few days... Well, why don't you yourself wait a few days? I think that from the beginning you have taken unfair advantage of the fact that this is a protected template to insert your own position as the default one.

You seem to be implying that I simply tossed in the wording of my choosing. In fact, it was the exact wording that was included in the successful main page candidate. I'm not claiming that the respondents specifically addressed this particular element, but you were the only person to complain. Furthermore, the slogan was inserted without any real discussion at this site (despite your claims to the contrary). You requested the change, and an admin made it. Of course, your stance is that no discussion was necessary (because we're required to comply with your demand). Again, Wikisource is entitled to determine its own slogan, but it is not entitled to dictate that it appear on a sister project's main page. (I'm not trying to be rude or disrespectful, so please don't interpret my comments in such a manner.) —David Levy 16:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You also still have yet to justify your position that this is internal Wikipedia matter, and should be decided as such. Just because this template appears on Wikipedia's main page doesn't make this specific phrase a Wikipedia decision.Dovi 08:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Please cite evidence to support your position. Obviously, it's our responsibility to not display false or misleading information (such as an incorrect logo or URL), but I can't imagine why you believe that we're required to display your slogan instead of a description. Again, we don't do this for any of the other sister projects. —David Levy 16:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I take the lack of other admins stepping in and refuting his arguments to be evidence of concensus (at least on a very high traffic page like this). Any other admin could have made the change by now too; be aware of personal biases in a matter before making accusations of power abuse ;). David Levy is rational and even-headed, and I for one will often not reply to an ongoing thread because he has stated my exact position already so very much more clearly. On the other hand, sometimes a "me too" is required (like now). --Quiddity 08:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes since one admin is "already involved" others just don't get involved, and that seems to have happened here. David is quite rational and even-headed, but that doesn't make him right or wrong in this particular case. I am well aware of my personal biases and the other Wikisource contributors. The question is why people here refuse to honor those "biases" - which I would prefer to instead call an across-the-board Wikisource concensus - even if they have a few quibbles about it.

Why do we place more value in our readers' comprehension than we do in making you happy by deferring to your judgement without discussion? Need I answer that? —David Levy 16:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"The free library" is "who we are" and it is how we are represented on our Main Page across all languages. Questions about it can and may be raised, but Wikisource is the place to discuss them, not the Wikipedia Main Page!

I don't doubt the existence of "an across-the-board Wikisource consensus" in favor of your slogan, but that has no direct bearing on whether we use said slogan as our Wikisource description. —David Levy 16:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line the brief representation of Wikisource in this template should be a Wikisource decision, even on Wikipedia, unless there is an extremely good reason not to. Despite some quibbles above (which as the conversation shows are not terribly convincing to most), no extremely good reason has been given. In the absense of this, I fail to see why David Levy's representation of Wikisource should appear even now on the Main Page. Dovi 09:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of this discussion, and I respectfully request that you please stop implying that I've unilaterally imposed my will on the community. —David Levy 16:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

(imho) it boils down to:

• Your arguments appeal to the pride and morale of the wikisource team
• Our(david's) arguments appeal to increased usability for the new user.

yours is a more noble and generous perspective, ours is more practical. (i like reductionism. it speeds things up). --Quiddity 09:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You have not made any arguments convincing to the majority that yours is more usable or practicle either. "The free library" is still by far the most straightforward and clear, even for what you claim to appeal to. Frankly, Wikisource is in a better position to determine what best describes itself on that level too. Dovi 10:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to convince a majority, i was just stating my opinion ;)

I do agree that it could be changed at any time. No one could, should, or is waiting on david levy to change his opinion OR decision. any admin will do.

But i do agree with the wikians whom seem to have agreed upon "Free-content library" as an amicable and sensible compromise. and That is what i would suggest said admin should implement asap. --Quiddity 10:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if I have understood correctly, David's last comment was meant for Wikisource's benefit. But since there is no objection to "the" - we are now down to "The free content library."Dovi 14:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I object. This is for Wikisource's benefit, but not exclusively. Accuracy benefits everyone involved. —David Levy 16:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently then I really didn't understand your previous comment. Oh well. Though I'm not surprised anymore that you object each and every time on these details. Your zealous committment to your special version of accuracy is admirable. Dovi 19:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I "object each and every time on these details"?! I've made every effort to find an acceptable compromise, but you object to anything other than your way (and claim that our failure to simply do as we're told is discourteous). —David Levy 19:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to wonder why this is such a big issue, but the three other projects which currently don't display 'The free library' are not. Perhaps there should be a general discussion on how these should be displayed in all projects if we really want them to be consistent. They aren't currently and haven't been for a long time so far as I can see. --CBDunkerson 17:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I just went and looked again. In February I asked all the projects to change their templates after it become completely clear that Wikisources in all languages were adopting this slogan happily. Best example of true concensus ever. Not a debate or a vote. No one was asked to do anything for the various languages, but everyone simply realized, "Yes, this describes us perfectly" (and accurately).

It seems that on Wikiquote, Wikispecies, and Commons, the requests I left on each of the template talk pages were simply never noticed or acted upon. I never even realized this myself until now. This is one of the necessary disadvantages of locked texts: sometimes things are simply not taken care of.

"Perhaps there should be a general discussion on how these should be displayed in all projects if we really want them to be consistent." Actually, Birgitte suggested this exact idea today on the Foundation mailing list, and I think it's a great idea. Dovi 19:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. —David Levy 19:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it necessary for the Meta-Wiki subtitle to span 2 lines? The old template didn't and was the same width. Also, this same subtitle breaks into 3 lines at 800x600 resolution. fix per this dif. thanks. --Quiddity 10:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 14:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is Wikitravel not listed as a sister project? It appears neither on the Wikipedia home page, nor on that of the other sister projects. Zingi 15:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikitravel is not a sister project. (It isn't affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation.) —David Levy 16:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem - The text for "Image of the Day" overlaps the picture. I'm using a 1024 x 768 monitor, and IE7.

Just to let you know Neilgravir 09:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

On the old main page, I could use the keys h/shift-h (next/previous heading) to navigate between the sections (today's featured article, did you know, ETC), and this was convenient and intuitive when using a screen reader. Now, I can't do this. Would it be possible to have headings separate the sections on the main page, or at least have better navigation markers? It would make things easier for those using screen readers. Graham talk 09:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

On the old main page those sections were marked with '===' to indicate section titles. Now they are marked with a '!'... which indicates a header section in a table. This could either be changed back to '===' format or things like <div id="Did you know"> could be used to set the same sort of anchor points which the '===' uses. The latter is probably better as it doesn't impact the display of the page at all. --CBDunkerson 13:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Can I support this most strongly. I used the document map extension for Firefox to navigate Wikipedia pages; and Wikipedia uses the DOM properly so it is very useful. However as CBDunkerson points out the new page has lost a usability feature. Please add it back. --ChrisG 14:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Reducing accessibility was the last thing that we intended to do, and it's extremely unfortunate that this shortcoming didn't come to light until now. We absolutely must implement a solution as quickly as possible. I wish that I knew exactly what code to insert, and I'll do so as soon as someone tells me. —David Levy 14:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added the div tags. Does it work now? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 17:54

IIRC you need to add some corresponding CSS code (either to your personal monobook.css or to common.css) to tell the browser what to do when it encounters each div. Johnleemk | Talk 19:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the 'id' attribute is 'built in'. Graham, now that I've looked at it closely it seems like the old main page had 'id' links in addition to the '===' headers. Do you remember if you had to 'jump' twice to get to the 'In the news' section? Looking at the code it seems like there'd be a 'box1' anchor around the two items on the left... each with it's own '===' anchor, and then a 'box2' and two '===' anchors on the right... for a total of six jump points. The new setup has id's specified for each segment and thus four total for that section rather than six. Is it working properly now and do you notice any difference from the old behaviour? --CBDunkerson 20:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest in the future that a Usability WikiProject actually investigate usability before assuming they have a full grasp on the situation. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 17:44

We sought as much feedback as possible, but no one brought this to our attention. How were we supposed to know? —David Levy 18:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

To be expected. Even with all the discussion about the page it would be impossible to think of every possible detail that is important to some users. You always find things shaking out and needing to be tweaked when a major revision goes live. What's surprising is that there haven't been MORE issues with the changeover. --CBDunkerson 18:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Document map works on headings (H1, H2, H3 etc.) Fixing div's will not make Wikipedia play nicely. This problem effects many of the portal pages. --81.158.76.242 20:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Attached below are some of the current main page code and comments thereon in relation to this issue;

<h1 style="font-size: 162%; border: none; margin: 0; padding:.1em; color:#000">
Welcome to <span class="nounderlines">'''[[Wikipedia]]''',</span></h1>
<div style="top: +0.2em; font-size: 95%">the '''free encyclopedia''' that '''[[Wikipedia:Introduction|anyone can edit]]'''.</div>

Note the <h1> and </h1>... these place header one around the word Wikipedia. If the anon above is correct about screen-readers and the like linking only to headers rather than other anchor points then we should use tags of this style around each major section. H1 is equivalent to Wiki '=', H2 to '==', H3 to '===', et cetera. However, the font-size and other factors can then be over-ridden by additional HTML/CSS settings.

<div id="articlecount" style="width:100%;text-align:center:padding:1em;font-size:85%;">— [[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] articles in English —</div>

This 'id' creates a point that Wikipedia can link to. For instance the above is what allows a Main page#articlecount link to jump directly to the article count at the top of the page. I'm not sure that a link to that is really needed.

{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#f5fffa"
! style="background-color:#cef2e0; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:120%; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; padding-left: 0.4em;color:#000"  |Today's featured article
|-
|style="color:#000"|<div id="Today's featured article">{{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}</div>

The 'div id' here should probably be moved out to include the actual section title. I believe it can also be put directly into the table markup;

{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#f5fffa"
! style="background-color:#cef2e0; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:120%; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; padding-left: 0.4em;color:#000" id="Today's featured article" |Today's featured article
|-
|style="color:#000"|{{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}

Hopefully these details will help explain how these links work for any admins making updates. I'm not sure how screen-readers utilize these links, but either 'h1'/'h2'/et cetera or 'id' should address the issue here. --CBDunkerson 21:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The headings still don't work like they did in the last main page, but I'm using a version of JAWS that for some reason ignores monobook.css and common.css. I am personally forced to use it until I can find the money to get an upgrade - about 700 Australian dollars -- I have asked my local dealer. The ID tags didn't work either when I tried the demo of jaws 7.0 (the latest release version), but I haven't had a chance to check out the public beta yet.

I can't remember how many times I had to tap 'h' to get to the "in the news" section, but in the Main Page alternate (Classic 2006) version, I have to tap h three times - passing through "today's featured article" and "selected anniversaries".

I think the anon above is right about screen readers not linking to anchor points - mine doesn't appear to. Therefore, h2 and </h2> should

be used, or maybe "==" - that doesn't matter to me. Css should be avoided, because sometimes JAWS (and other screen readers) completely ignore it. Graham talk 09:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Adendum to that: the JAWS 7.0 and 6.0 demos (which are time-limited but otherwise fully functional), are ignoring common.css and monobook.css as well at the moment for some reason. Red links do not show up as red, all the colours I can detect are "black and white", ETC, so <h2> and </h2> should be used. Graham talk 09:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Graham87, ChrisG, and anyone else who uses JAWS and the like - please check User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox5 and let me know if it resolves the header problems. I incorporated tags for each section that did not already have them.

David Levy and other people who worked on the layout - please also take a look at User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox5 and note that the title bars for the various sections are now slightly thinner due to the 'header' classification. I didn't attempt to adjust this because 'presentation style' is decidedly not my area. Please feel free to make changes to my page there or copy this elsewhere so that it can be tweaked before putting on the main page if it is found to fix the accessibility issue. --CBDunkerson 14:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The only country that lists today as its Father's Day on the Wikipedia article is Belgium. If other countries celebrate this holiday on this day, they should probably be mentioned in the article. The Jade Knight 09:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Scroll further down on that Father's Day page and read carefully, Jade Knight, then you'll see Portugal, Spain, Italy. Belgium got separated 'coz it has 2 Father's Days. --64.229.6.111 17:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The Jade Knight 21:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)