Talk:Main Page/Archive 53

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 60

Another Typo in Today's "Did you know it ?"

"that "truthiness," an word made by Stephen Colbert of The Colbert Report, was selected as the 2005 Word of the Year by the American Dialect Society?"

It should be "a word," not "an word." Yep.

Facty. -- 02:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Correction needed with Cormorant photo

The text states that the Cormorant stretches it's wings out after diving for fish in order to dry out it's wings. This is not a fact but a theory! Experts have no evidence of this and it is still a mystery why they do it. dvc214 07:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[]

  It isn't it's unless you mean it is.

typo in today's did you know

"reduced the mass of the Golden Gate Bridge by by 11,160 metric tons?"--Joris Gillis 11:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 22:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC) wow thats pretty cool i am using this site for a project and its great thanks a lot ok keep it real! --Alex Torres © ™--§ 22:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Fixed now. Shanes 11:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]
Noticed it. Thanks--Joris Gillis 11:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]


We need a page, in which, we dedicate to artist/artwork, etc.

What do you mean? Please be more specific. Run! 16:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]
Sounds like a proposal for a Wiki-deviant art.   freshgavin TALK    10:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Fair Use in homepage?

Is allowed Fair Use image at the homepage? --555pt 20:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]

No. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]


Why aren't there any Interwiki-Link on that page, like on every other main page ? -- Amtiss, SNAFU ? 20:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]

EN goes with the template route for the main page rather using interwikis. This allows the grouping by size, as well as English translations of the languages for those of us who are language challenged but think it's nice to see what the other major Wikipedias are. - BanyanTree 21:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Typo on Wikinews

"Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon is rushed to hospital"

Forgot a sentence article. Shouldn't it be "Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon is rushed to a hospital"?--Aleron235 22:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]

  • It's correct; this is a US/British grammar difference. BTW, you're not talking about Wikinews, which is a separate sister project of Wikipedia. --Pharos 22:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]
    • Alright. I was just referring to the current events section of the Main Page.--Aleron235 23:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]
Not a US/British grammar difference, it's a grammar difference in article/title style for brevity and impact. The/a/an are almost always omitted, even is in this sentence is unnecessary.   freshgavin TALK    10:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]
Actually, since sentence style is used in 'In the News', that seems unlikely. It is a British/American difference. 'Rushed to hospital' means rushed to any hospital in general, in UK English. Rushed to a hospital would sound weird to such ears, suggesting he was maybe visiting someone, but is normal in the US. 14:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) (Skittle)

For anyone who knows anything about paramedicine will tell you that people are never rushed to hospital. They are taken at an appropriate pace. Just imagine if you're half alive in the back of the ambulance and it goes around even a mild corner at 100kph. You, and the paramedic with you, would be flung around everywhere. And the patient, once being peeled off the side of the amublance wall, would probably br dead. Being rushed to hospital is something the media says. It sounds dramatic, but it's rarely ever true.

Where's the 900,000 banner?! We're there already!

We have reached 900,000 articles! Where's our celebratory banner? We do deserve one after all. 22:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Nah - we'll deserve a 1 million banner, but not for this one. violet/riga (t) 23:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]
But for those interested in tagging the 900,000th article, the count was 900,276 articles at 23:09 UTC today. Just count back 276 from time 23:09 UTC in New Articles --Ancheta Wis 23:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]
Anybody ever figure out just what article that was? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[]
I'm not entirely sure I counted the hours right. (The rotation of the Earth hurts my brain.) Did anyone else checking get three possible articles (because of three articles created in the same minute that we're counting back from): Paul Maurice, 60s psyechedelic songs (sic) and Leila denmark (sic, since moved to Leila Denmark)? All created by accounts without user pages. If we have a choice, I like the last one. - BanyanTree 15:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[]
I'm mistaken according to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#900,000 articles, which states that it was Trackdown. - BanyanTree 16:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[]
I have posted on my User page that I am interested in creating Wikipedia's 1,000,000th article, but in case you haven't seen my User page, if you see on the Main Page that there are 999,999 articles, NOBODY START ANY NEW ARTICLES, but let me know instead. --QQQ (1-4-06)
According to calculations, I predict the 8th as the D-Day. Be ready. —Ilyanep (Talk) 03:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[]
That or the 30th. —Ilyanep (Talk) 03:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[]

"stroke" should link to "Stroke"

The word "stroke" in the news section links to "cerebrovascular accident" when it should just directly link to "stroke."

fixed it. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Speaking of numbers

I don't know where to bring this up, but the "description" meta tag for the main wikipedia main page [1] says "500,000 articles and counting," but just from adding up the numbers on that page from the top 10 we're more like 2.3 million and counting, and including the lower ones above 10k, at least 2.5 million. If my math is right (sometimes is it's not)... Is there anyone here who's empowered to update that page? jengod 00:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Are you sure you're not including user/help/reference pages?   freshgavin TALK    10:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]
I think you're getting mixed up over what's being counted. The 500,000 tag refers only to the English articles and will get updated when we reach a million. I don't see any overall count on the main disambig portal at


Popular Australian television series which ran in the 70's. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

You mean Homicide (TV series)? Please direct any questions to the talk page for the article. - BanyanTree 13:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[]

ATTENTION:Picture-of-the-day expert needed

The Main Page redesign project is nearing completion. And by popular demand, the Picture of the day is included! However, we have run into a bit of an impasse. We've pulled in the condensed version of the Picture of the day, but the built-in border is wreaking havoc with the page's format. Please take a look and advise. Is there any way to pull the picture-of-the-day onto a page without the border coming with it? Sincerely, Go for it! 15:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Failing that, is there a way to remove the space around your border so it matches a page's padding? Go for it! 15:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[]

-> this problem can probably be fixed fairly easily by condensing the border into one (currently there are two) and making sure the picture space is set to 100% width of the table cell. As a side note, a more commonsense approach would be to design the page separating content from design, using CSS. An example of the simplicity and versatility of CSS can be found at the CSS Zen Garden ( 23:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

By the way, if you'd like to comment on the proposed Main Page redesign draft, there's still time. Let us know what you think! Go for it! 15:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Manson article

"Absolutely fantastic" Is that objective?

Late influences have come from the absolutley fantastic literature and poetry of David Beckham, whose chameleon-like ability to shift from one style to another, replete with a new look and musical philosophy, was a characteristic which would also be frequently ascribed to Marilyn. --Bad carpet 17:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Where do you see this text? It's not anywhere on the main page. If it was at the Marilyn Manson article, it was probably vandalism, and has since been removed. — Dan | talk 21:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[]
David Beckam was a typo/old vandalism for David Bowie.   freshgavin TALK    10:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Anti-Semitism on the front page??????

In today's (6 Jan 05) featured article, there is an accompanying picture that shows five names, four generic, and one a historical figure who happened to be extremely anti-Semitic -- Henry Ford. Guess who is voted for? HENRY FORD! So none of the generic names is chosed, but the totally out of place racist name IS chosen. Geez, normally FA summaries are subtle with their biases, but to plunge into subliminal messages? I think that's a little too far. Can we replace the pic with one without Henry Ford and someone else chosen? (Keep in mind, if it were just five historical figures with Henry Ford selected, that probably wouldn't be a big deal, but when the one recognizable name, which happens to be that of a major racist who helped in the Holocaust, is selected, that doesn't look good.) MrVoluntarist 01:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Perhaps the vote is for censure? -- 01:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]
Perhaps you should take the Holocaust seriously? MrVoluntarist 01:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]
I think you're reading too much into this, and there does not appear to be any subliminal message. How do you know what is being voted on? And to tell the truth, if someone had to vote between four people they'd never heard of and one they had, most would probably select the one they were familiar with. Also, there don't appear to be any subliminal messages here. — Knowledge Seeker 02:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]
You're taking this way too far, man. No one is being racist, and no one is not taking the Holocaust seriously. If someone were, the Main Page would start like "What's the difference between a Jew and a Pizza..." Eightball 02:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Saying goodbye to tact since 1988[]

Do you want me to tell the ADL about this or not? They do not think Henry Ford is "Number 1" like it said in the picture in the FA I removed. MrVoluntarist 02:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Do you honestly think they'll care? If the selected person was Adolf Hitler, possibly. You're being completely and utterly paranoid and over the top about this. --Kiand 02:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]
I think the ADL would be sad to think you're on their side. By the way, if they don't think Ford is #1, then get on out and vote. Every one counts! Eightball 02:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Let's show everyone the picture I delinked, shown at your right. MrVoluntarist 02:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

And? It doesn't refer to Henry Ford, the same way none of the other names on that list refer to real people. --Kiand 03:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]
THAT'S THE PROBLEM! Why is the ONLY NAME that means something, and that meaning is anti-Semitism, chosen? MrVoluntarist 03:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]
Have you considered that there might be an actually inoccous reason behind it, such as the person who created it owning a Ford car? There are other things in this world, you have to accept that. You're taking paranoia to a new level here. --Kiand 03:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]
Oh really? There are many people with the name Ford. How about Henry Ford III, who has given money to Jews to undo his grandfather's image AND is associated with Ford Motor Company. Harrison Ford? Maria Ford? MrVoluntarist 03:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]
You're clutching at straws. If someone showed me a Ford logo or evenn just gave me the name Ford and asked me to think of a person, the first one would be Henry Ford. There is low to no chance of there being any anti-semitic intent behind that image, and I would advise you to just accept that. --Kiand 03:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

You know who you should talk to? Rspeer. If you would take the time, which obviously you haven't because you are just an utterly ignorant person, and click on the image you would see it was created by one of our own users. Why don't you ask him? See how he takes it. Eightball 03:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Done and done. MrVoluntarist 03:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]
Apparently, an admin approved a picture hinting that an anti-Semite assistant to the Holocaust is "Number 1".

Okay, the article is fixed. Can someone fix the front page itself please? MrVoluntarist 03:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

I'm sorry for using the names that were used on other ballot examples without looking into the implications of them. I didn't mean anything by them. Thanks to people who are fixing the images. There are more that I didn't make on Approval voting and some other articles that I'm frantically looking for right now. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Another article whose images should be changed is preferential voting. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Haha, whoops. By the way, I count at least 4 names with meaning. Joe Smith is possibly Joseph Smith from Mormonism, Fred Rubble is from the Flinstones, Jane Doe is the term used for an unknown female (typically an unidentified corpse at the coroner), and Henry Ford is discussed above. I do remind you, however, to assume good faith. Something like this being controversial probably could have been avoided if we had a longer scheduling of future front page featured articles (this one was scheduled to appear only 2 days before it actually did). Still, you are way, way, way overreacting here. Scott Ritchie 03:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

I personally will oppose any attempt to change the main page; there is no racism there. It is sheer coincidence, and we shouldn't give in to these absurd demands. This a community; a community that is run by consensus, not the judgement of the minority. Eightball 03:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

I'm glad the image has been changed. It's an easy fix, and we should avoid even the appearance of bigotry. There is just no compelling reason against changing it. Eightball, please remember not to use personal attacks. Thanks. Rhobite 03:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

I'm sorry but this is just a complete joke. MrVoluntarist you are going to have a tough online life if you go so paranoid so easily. violet/riga (t) 11:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

I was completely unaware Ford was a bigot and will immediately sell my Cortina. In the mean time I note the front page contains a news article, which states Ehud Olmert is acting Prime Minister of Israel. I am shocked and appalled. Clearly appointing a person with a funny sounding foreign name is blatant antisemitism by the Knesset and personally I blame Wikipedia for reporting it.

The anti-Semitism charge above is pretty laughable. I'm glad Rspeer changed it, but it's obvious no malice was intended. Should the graphic be played with more, though, it might be nice to see the names changed to non-Western ones, with an even male/female split. Throw a "Zhang Quan" on there, or a "Yvette Ngoa". — BrianSmithson 12:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Sell it? Well that would be highly immoral. Shouldn't you burn it, and maybe dance around it in a loin cloth, then sacrifice a ram to the gods? --Nathan (Talk) 02:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[]

This is yet another instance of senseless Political Correctness - people trying to find sinister connotations in completely harmless comments. Altering the image sends the wrong message to these people; this site should not be meticulously censored to appease the easily offended. Let them grow up!

Perhaps the vote was to acknowledge Henry Ford for later publicly acknowledging that antisemitism is wrong and that he'd been wrong. Anyway, it has been changed. gidonb 20:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

My God, this is one of the stupidest things I've ever read. I thought the Henry Ford thing was weird too - four fake names and one real one - but sweet persecution complex dude, you're way over the top. 18:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Sorry my cinism did not get across. I will add a wink next time ;-) gidonb 20:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[]

This is all absurb paranoia. Henry Ford is famous as a car designer. To the 99% of the world population that isn't actively involved in pro/anti semitism his politics are utterly obscure. 06:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[]

  • Surprisingly an anon comment is the most sensical comment here. He hit the nail on the head. Anyone who thinks this is anti-semitic is actively looking for a reason to be offended. --Cyde Weys votetalk 06:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[]

This may be, and I don't say this lightly, the most ridiculous example of a hysterical overreaction that I have ever seen on the Internet. If the name was Hitler, Himmler, or Goebels, I might see a problem. But as said above, most of the world knows nothing more about Henry Ford than the fact that he founded Ford Motor Company. Charles Lindbergh was anti-semetic as well, but most people don't know that. The mere fact that something can be interpreted as racist or anti-semetic does not mean that it was meant to be or should be interpreted that way. Relax, get a massage, and try to stop looking for reasons to get upset. I say this as a person of Jewish heritage, so don't try to call me an anti-Semite. Jrkarp 21:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[]

As a progressive, I see the petty fascination with minute correctness as harmful to the cause and a waste of capital. Choose your battles carefully. Don't feed the cons more ammunition which they are well practiced at using.


In Selected Anniversaries, the Bojinka plot was foiled, that is, it was stopped because of the fire. So the word "unfoiling" should be "foiling". Art LaPella 01:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

I second that, I've never hear of the word "unfoiling" before, at least not for that meaning. Shogun 03:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, BanyanTree 04:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Featured Article Layout

I've noticed that the featured article tends to update either more than once a day or (less often) less than once a day. While I like more frequent updates, as they highlight many of the more interesting corners of the Wiki, it seems odd that the featured article updates so erratically. I'm not sure whether there is a specific time that the page is intended to be updated, but I thought that the problem might be solved by adding a date-stamp to the featured article, i.e. Today's Featured Article: 1/5/06, or something of that nature.

Just a thought. --Moriane 03:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

The featured article is automatically updated daily, and they are all linked to a certain day. If you're seeing a lag, it may be a caching issue. Try hitting the purge button at the top of this page and see if it works. Good luck! jengod 03:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

People might also be confused because the FA changes at "midnight", which on the wikipedia server is actually around 9 p.m. Eastern Time (U.S.).

Actually, it happens at midnight UTC, which is at 7 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (8 during DST). --Nelson Ricardo 11:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

I could have sworn that I've seen it change twice in the same day. Not at 9 pm either, like I get up in the morning and check the wiki, then check it again before I go to work(4 pm or so), and the featured article would be different. Tigger89 15:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Well, if you are on the west coast of North America or thereabouts, that would make sense, as it would change at 4pm pacific time. --Siradia 18:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]
I'm east coast, same as Moriane. If I'd been the only one to notice this, then I'd put it down to confusion, but it's odd that both of us noticed it. Tigger89 00:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[]
No, it definitely changes exactly once a day, at 00:00 UTC. Back in early 2004, before we got the automated setup, I changed it manually around midnight UTC (almost always plus or minus an hour); however, since last August, it has been automated (Thank god). Anyway, it's possible that both of you are seeing a cached, out of date copy. Between the Wikipedia servers and your eyeballs there are two levels of caching - Server side (Wikipedia's squid proxy servers) and client side (your browser's cache). Raul654 05:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Henry Paget DYK

spent a lot on clothes, jewelry and parties that he went bankrupt ... doesn't make sense. It should be changed to spent so much.

DYK Picture

The Fire Station text should have a "(pictured)" next to it, IMO. --RealGrouchy 19:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Typo on main page!!!

It turns out that Ehud Olmert is releasing a Windows update! Well bugger me! 20:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Forgive my confusion, but where does it say that? I see an in-the-news item on Ehud Olmert and another on the Windows Update, but they're quite separate. — Dan | talk 20:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Selected anniversaries, 1558

possession, not posession Art LaPella 00:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Thanks; fixed.--Pharos 01:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Regarding the images

I think these would look better with a thin 1px black border around them, something to separate them from the rest of the page. However I don’t know how to go about suggesting this to the People With The Power, so… I‘m asking here! porges 08:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[]

This is probably something to add to the redesign on the Main Page and its associated discussion. -- Solipsist 10:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Fixing the completely first page

I wasn't sure where to post this, but could someone fix the text "Česká" on the page (not this main page, rather the first page you come to when typing '' into your browser). It should read "Česky" , meaning [in] Czech. -- Hexagon1 14:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I've reposted your comment at portal, which is the completely unintuitively located talk page for the front page at People there will probably be able to do something about it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[]
I have fixt that. If there is anything else you can ask me. --Walter 23:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[]
OK, Thanks - someone seems to just have copied the word out of the Czech Wikipedia with no regard for context. -- Hexagon1 09:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
This seems to get raised every few days. Could we maybe settle the "Česká"-"Česky" puzzle to Czech people's satisfaction, then put a comment at the top of this page or something, letting people know which is correct. Since it's been raised several times, I can only assume it gets reverted. 14:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) (Skittle)

Presence of the other languages of Wikipedia on the main page

I think everything is said. :-) Why should we not add, on the left column of the page, the links to the others wikipedias languages ? All of the other languages wikipedias offer a link towards the other "Main Page" in this column. It would be great to put this in the left column too ! Links between wikipedias are a good thing in order to developp an international share of knowledge (moreover, I'm french and I often read some articles of english wikipedia in order to translate them in french wikipedia). What do you think about it ? 18:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Scroll down 01:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[]
We're currently working on a possible main page redesign (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft. I like your suggestion and will look into implementing it. Thanks. -Aude (talk | contribs) 05:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Featured article addition

I think it would be a good idea if the one-paragraph lede for the feature article of the day, every day, were concluded with a link that said "Read the full article". I realize the paragraph already includes a bold-faced link to the full article, but it might not be clear to people who are new to Wikipedia, seeing the home page for the first time, that each of the hyperlinks goes to an entire encyclopedia article. They might think that the single paragraph constitutes the whole "featured article"! Andrew Levine 11:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[]

There's currently an attempt going on to redesign the main page here so you might want to suggest that there. I think it's a good idea as it really isn't completely obvious. My mum once asked me whether that was all the article had to say so I'm sure there are many more people out there who think (at least at first) it's that short. Jellypuzzle | Talk 13:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[]
Woah. I just clicked "Talk" to suggest the exact same thing. I was thinking more allong the lines of a (more...) link. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 20:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[]
For the record, I added "(more...)" to tomorrow's FA as an experiment and left User:Raul654 a message about it since he's nominally in charge of the FA's. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 02:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[]
I like the addition, and I hope Raul agrees. Andrew Levine 11:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[]
I agree, if anyone feels the need for support from an anon! I used to wonder how to get to the full thing quickly, when I was a newbie. 14:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) (Skittle)
I see it's gone again. Jellypuzzle | Talk 00:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[]
As I said on my talk page, I'm not very fond of it. It seems to be pandering to people who don't recognize (what I consider to be) the obvious. Raul654 18:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[]
Also, it's now created a redundancy in the blurb. Raul654 18:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[]
I don't think it's obvious (and several other have said the same), and I don't think that it's uncommon either: I've seen plenty of forums, blog postings and so on where both the headline link and the "more" link lead to the same place. Anyway, it seems logically a little strange that a link within an article should lead to the article itself -- not that I'm thinking this should be changed, but that it may explain people's confusion. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 21:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[]
It's obvious to you, because you are used to the way wiki works. The main page gets a lot of hits from people who are unfamiliar with the workings of it. For example, when I first came I tried to click on the words 'featured article', but that didn't take me there. I tried clicking many places before I realised it was the first words of the article itself. If there had been a 'read more' link, or similar, that would have made it a lot simpler. I was familiar enough with the concepts to expect there to be more, and to keep clicking until I found it. This is not the case for a lot of our readers.Skittle 09:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[]
Personally, I agree that it's a simple addition that could do a lot of good. Even if you know how wiki works, which surely many Wikipedia readers (most of whom aren't contributors) don't, it improves the reading flow because you don't have to move your eyes back to the start of the summary in order to get to the main article. The change has the three magic qualities: logical, useful, and no reason why not. --Malthusian (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[]
May I chime in on this issue? I agree with the idea of the (...more) link, because sometimes (I've noticed this several times on the 'Current Events' column) the front page blurb does not contain a link to the news item. This seems to happen when the subject of the article (usually a person or a place) is already wikilinked. --Anchoress 11:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Selected anniversaries, 1964

panamanian should be capitalized and civillians should be spelled civilians. While you're at it, you might want to make the sentence fragment a sentence. And was Martyrs' Day one of 4 days of fighting, or was there only one day? Art LaPella 00:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[]

First and second done. For the third, consider making a specific suggestion. Don't know about the fourth. — Knowledge Seeker 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[]


In the DYK? section Drayton Hall is referred to as being "one of the handsomest Neo-Palladian houses in North America." While handsomest is a word, it is an awkward form that we perhaps should shy away from using in favor of most handsome. - Cuivienen 03:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Done. — Knowledge Seeker 06:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[]


My question somewhat refers to the main page but is also slightly irrelevent, hopefully it stays up.

Basically what i would like to ask and although it may not be philosophically sound the main point will get through.

Pretend you believe in God.(im going to refer to God as "he", if your a feminist or care or whatever im sorry in advance) Since god is Omnipotent he can do anything. So he can choose any single person and take the nessasary(sp) steps to make them not only believe in him but also do the right things to be a good christian and a good person. However in the realms of our world and our reality he cant just make everyone beleive in him and be good people (well i guess if hes omnipotent he really can)but the point is,

What does it come down to? A numbers game? Does god do what he knows will save the maximum amount of souls? Or does he choose the souls he likes the most and then does what it takes to save them?

  • Wikipedia isn't a place for theological discussions, but you would probably be interested in our Salvation article, which gives the perspective of different religious traditions on the topic.--Pharos 06:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[]


"Doctors prepare to revive Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon after five days in an induced coma." I certainly wouldn't want doctors who had been in an induced coma for five days trying to revive me! Adam 08:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[]

"Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to be revived by doctors after five days in an induced coma." ?  Run!  09:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[]

"Doctors prepare to revive Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who has been in an induced coma for five days." Adam 09:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[]

After Laurent Desire Kabyla, president of the Democratic Republic of Kongo, was killed, all the the Western World newspapers wrote <<necrologs>> with words You certainly wouldn't apply for Your most hated ennemy. And what is going on here with a Zionistic terrorist Ariel Sharon ? Why do more than 25 Arabian states now not acknowledge USrael(counted in the first round only the states in the ""Liga of States" of Arabian Nations)? Is it in the next round clear that in Asia there is "The Islamic Republic" of Malaysia ? And there are in Asia further such states? So what has happened NOT in wikipedia but in all other western medias ? Are we following the Christian science?

On behalf of NON-Christians everywhere, take a chill-pill. There's nothing lionizing or demonizing him here. When it says "Doctors prepare to revive Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who has been in an induced coma for five days. Sharon is best known for peeing gold and shitting diamonds, and helping to rid the Middle East of towel-heads," THEN you can complain.

Selected anniversaries, 1878

"Humbert the Good"? I think nobody remembers him as Humbert the Good, he's the Piedmont/Italy King with the worst reputation (after his son Victor Emmanuel III of Italy). As a matter of fact I never heard this nickname until today. I suggest to fall back to "Humbert I became King of Italy of Italy", as in 9 January. GhePeU 10:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Arbcom elections link please

To Whom It May Concern: Why is there no notification on the Main Page about the current important Arbcom Elections presently underway and a LINK to where Wikipedia users can cast their votes? I don't even know where to look for it. At this time it's probably more important to have that notification at the top of all pages than to have this newly-minted request for more donations which is becoming something of an eye-sore. The appeals for donations were supposed to have been for a limited amount of time, now they seem to have veered towards becoming permanent "fixtures"... do people enjoy that so much? Is there a consensus for that? Somehow I doubt it. At any rate, please let's have a sign that links to the important ArbCom vote. Thank you. IZAK 17:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[]

It's at the top of every watchlist, and it's in the sighpost -- Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote. We don't put it on hte main page because the main page is for readers, who are (in point of fact) not allowed to vote unless they have had an active account for sevreal months. Raul654 17:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[]
Raul: But when most people log on they are taken to the Main Page, and the ArbCom link should be on EVERY article, putting it on watchlists marginalizes it, and if you have a rule that users need to be active for a few months then their vote won't be registered regardless of what page they come from. At this stage it's more important to educate new users and the public about an important vote taking place within Wikipedia than to have the request for MONEY on every page which makes Wikipedia look greedy after they just raised around $300,000, don't you think? Get rid of the merchandising and commercializing junk and mention the ArbCom stuff that is more to the core of what Wikipedia is about, a participatory effort and not just a scheme to raise money. Some of us are having trouble writing and editing articles with that flashing "Dollar sign" on top of every page. I hope you understand the importance of this. It's about the kind of image Wikipedia wants to project about itself, and someone has made a bad decision here lately it seems to me. IZAK 17:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[]
Please separate out your comments about the election vs the donations link, as you appear to be conflating the two, which confuses this discussion. Regarding the elections comment, Raul654 has it right. The election is only open to users who have accounts from at least 30 September 2005 and have a minimum of 150 edits. A number of votes have already been discounted because the voter does not have suffrage and this would only get worse if it was advertised to readers in general, who are rather unlikely to be eligible to vote. Voting is open until the 22nd, and eligible Wikipedians who don't check their watchlist over a two week period are almost certainly not on Wikipedia and wouldn't see a general notice, and are the least likely to take an interest in ArbCom anyway. - BanyanTree 19:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[]
Banyan: Ok, so this is the sequence of events: I am a frequent user of Wikipedia. I log onto the Main Page. I have heard about the ArbCom elections. I don't understand why there is no link to the ArbCom vote on the Main Page, I then click/look at this article and that article, still no sign of an ArbCom vote. I stare hard at the page, and all I see is links at the top making appeals for more MONEY by Mr. Wales. I think to myslef: Heck didn't they just finish with an appeal that gained them over 300,000 bucks, so why are they pushing new links to sell me junk, when all I want is to go vote in an important election? Then I think, hey, wait a minute, didn't they say that the appeal/s would be limited to "four times a year" (also too many compared to the number of past appeals we were subjected to) and I figure, you know, they maybe don't care enough about the ArbCom votes because if they did they would make space for that link on the top of every page instead of subjecting people to solicitations for more $$$,$$$. Listen, I have been a Wikipedian for over three years, and I have not seen this kind of fundraising push aside other more normative functions of Wikipedia, like ArbCom votes. Face the fact, there is something wrong if users have to stare at a fundraisng link now ALL THE TIME, and only get to find out about ArbCom votes when they finally get around to looking at their "watchlists". If people don't see the problem here, then they should get their (MORAL) vision checked. IZAK 19:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[]
Anybody who knows enough about other wikipedians enough to have a reason to vote in the ArbCom elections either checks their watchlist regularly or is well aware of what's going on through some other means, if nothing else one of the other special pages it appears on. On the other hand, Wikimedia cannot afford to run Wikipedia without funding drives. Donations and appeal prominence may be on the increase, but so is the volume of WP traffic, by a lot. Any regular knows how much the servers are suffering; any additional funds to improve this situation are very much worth it for the user experience. Jimmy Wales has no financial interest in the funding drives; Wikimedia is non-profit. It would be great if they didn't have to beg, but Wikipedia is with the big boys now and they do. --BigBlueFish 20:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[]
BigBlue: Just because an organization has to do serious fundraisng does not mean it has to "check in it's brains at the door" and start acting like a five hundred pound gorrilla stuck in a room with a bunch of regular people. If there is a need for a constant appeal, it need not be so ostentatious and showy (which will raise eyebrows, no matter what you claim). If you have to, put the appeal into the "navigation" box, below "Current events" and call it "Contributions to Wikipedia", but please have mercy on editors and writers who are working on articles and/or controlling vandalism and sockpuppets and at the same time have to stare at "Gimme, gimme, gimme more $$$,$$$" which is just gross, considering we are volunteers working for FREE, and we were recently told that there would be "only four" appeals and now we are faced with glittering appeals for more money 24/7 all year round, like those gamblimg ads on the Internet that beg suckers to be lured in. So please, don't be in denial and let us not throw discretion to the wind. Wikipedia is still in need of an ArbCom and now we are having a show of democracy. Why claim the vote notice will be seen by people who check their "watchlists", because I have news for you, many people do not look at their watchlists but they do want to know about Wikipedia's ArbCom vote since the ArbCom is the "Final Court of Appeal" on Wikipedia and we all know that. Do not sacrifice your "democracy" (the vote) and the "judiciary" (the ArbCom) in the name of the expense of your "treasury" (the fundraising) for the need of "technology" (the hardware). Bye for now. IZAK 21:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[]
There is a discussion about the donations link started at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#When do the fundraiser end???. - BanyanTree 21:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[]
I also agree with Raul. I had no problems finding the ArbCom voting, and also I have no problems with the fundraising banner on each page. (1) It's a thank you to those that donated. I gave $100+ and appreciate the thanks. (2) Wikimedia came up short of the $500,000 goal. The fundraising banner helps highlight the fact that Wikimedia accepts donations all the time. I'll be glad to give more, to support the foundation. -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Kmf: While you may have had no problems, I have heard from some users who agree with me that they too had problems finding the vote page initially. And, while you may have no problem with a flashy fundraisng banner staring you in the face all the time, you may have already noticed that it's already been done away with and replaced with a skinny one-liner and an added feature in the "navigation" box asking for "Donations", so obvioulsy my position had merits and has had a salutary effect already.
No-one is begrudging Wikipedia donations, the more the merrier, but Wikipedia is first and foremost a place where people come to either read articles or to contribute to them and we don't want to be plagued and bombarded with cheap-looking "Telemarketing" ads here too (there are more than enough of them in the media and our lives already that we all hate).
As for what amount of money Wikipedia needs to meet its budgets, unless you are the official treasurer or accountant or money manager with inside information, there is no way anyone can tell what any of these figures really mean or translate into in terms of money raised and cost-benefit ratios. I actually think that Wikipedia exceeded its wildest dreams when it just raised an unprecedented 300+ grand compared to past appeals which were shorter and brought in perhaps a tenth of this.
So let's not let people get too smug or cocky or self-righteous, and let's just get real and not lose sight of reality and that Wikipedia requires a certain decorum and a work-environment where editors and readers feel they are part of an evolving online encyclopedia project and not that its somehow or other just one huge appendix to a fund-raising drive that threatens to engulf everything else. Money, as always, is a delicate matter, and I am confident that Wikipedia will meet all its financial needs, and then some, but it need not go over-board and lose sight of what it stands for in fending for itself. IZAK 14:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[]

I also want to congratulate Wikipedia on getting rid of the begging banner, though there's still a begging note at the top of every page. Which could get almost as irritating after a while. But whaddaya gonna do? If Wikipedia refuses to sell ads to outsiders, then the only alternative is the collection plate and lots of begging. The budget is growing big-time, which is no surprise given the explosive growth in size and use of the encyclopedia.
This is heresy, but I'd rather have ordinary banner ads than a begging banner. I can and do easily ignore most normal Internet ads, but begging catches my eye in an unpleasant way. I chipped in $100 to the last fundraiser, and I've added plenty of (halfway decent, if I say so myself) text to the encyclopedia itself. So the begging does get old fast.
As for the ArbCom elections, I have no strong feelings one way or the other. I've never had to go to ArbCom, and it would be a desperate, awful, crummy, stinking, really not swell, and completely last-ditch resort for me. Casey Abell 17:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[]

In the news: UK Liberal Democrats, not British

news item reads: "Following controversy over his confessed alcoholism, Charles Kennedy resigns as leader of the British Liberal Democrats party."

should read, at least: "Following controversy over his confessed alcoholism, Charles Kennedy resigns as leader of the UK Liberal Democrats party."

I prefer: "Following controversy over his confessed alcoholism, Charles Kennedy resigns as leader of the Liberal Democrats, the third-largest political party in the United Kingdom."

("UK Liberal Democrats party" is a bit unwieldy.) The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omphaloscope (talk • contribs) 02:40, 10 January 2006.

What's wrong with using the word British? Talrias (t | e | c) 03:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[]
I can't see a problem with the original, the adjective 'British' doesn't exclude Northern Ireland when used in the right context. Glennh70 04:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[]
Also, as the Lib Dems don't operate in NI, at least not on any scale that has made me notice them doing so, theres nothing wrong with calling them British. --Kiand 10:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[]
They are present in NI, but they don't put candidates up for elections by agreement with the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland. --Nick Boalch ?!? 10:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Why are you arguing semantics when someone's medical condition is losing him his position? Alcoholism is considered in many Countries around the globe as a treatable medical condition and most progressive societies would not allow someone to be fired for it alone. There must be supporting evidence of their being 'unfit' for the job, otherwise their letting go is considered without cause. If it weren't this way, then most alcoholics would never seek treatment. They would remain sick in the shadows, quietly dying and poisioning all around them. Kennedy, like any alcoholic or person suffering with a condition, ought to be given the opportunity to seek treatment first, then to have their performance evaluated beyond that. If it is still lacking, or they continue drinking, then certainly they must be let go.

Speaking as someone from Northern Ireland who loathes British being used out of context, I see no problem with it in this instance since the Lib Dems don't operate over here.

Wrong legion

According to both Legio XIII Gemina and Julius Caesar, Caesar crossed the Rubicon with Legio XIII Gemina, not Legio X Gemina. Please fix the Main Page or the articles. GhePeU 16:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[]

ALoan got it. Thanks, BanyanTree 18:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[]


I want to learn more about the confirmation hearings. The news section needs to give more information on it's articles! Dragon Expert 17:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[]

The In The News section is designed to provide brief summaries of events for which related Wikipedia articles have been updated. Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination would be the article you want for more information. Evil Monkey - Hello 00:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Selected anniversaries

I had to mouseover to ID the photo in "Selected anniversaries" (it's Luther Terry). Don't we usually write "(pictured)" or the like after the name? --Cam 15:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Luther Terry

Should we not have 'Luther Terry (pictured) for clarity here?

Albert Hoffmann

Albert Hofmann celebrates his 100th birthday today; surely this should be under "anniversaries"? dab () 22:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[]

  • We generally don't have birthdays (or death days, unless someone was executed or died in battle) because they point in themselves to insignificant events. Hofmann is currently on for April 16, the anniversary of when he first tried LSD.--Pharos 22:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[]
    • I know that. But his 100th birthday is in itself a notable event. They did an entire symposion in his honour. Imho, round birthdays should on "anniversaries" if we catch them. dab () 16:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Am I able to put my blog site in a link on a relevant page?

[2]like this?

I think not. We rarely link to blogs, and your is sufficiently difficult to read with red text on a black background that I didn't try very hard to determine what it might be relevant to.-gadfium 01:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[]
No. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. --Nelson Ricardo 11:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Little typo to correct in the "Did you know..." section

Can somebody edit the sentence "that in the iconic 1955 Richard Avedon photgraph (sic) [...]" ? Rdavout 07:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Done. Good catch. kmccoy (talk) 07:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[]


ABC Television in Selected Anniversaries does not say anything to me and I suppose to many other people as well. I think, there should be at least written, which country it is from. Jan.Kamenicek 09:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[]

I've broken it out, as ABC can also refer to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, but now it looks awkward. - BanyanTree 17:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[]


The 2nd "In the news" article down (the one about the Asian clean environment something or other) says it is pictured, but the stampede article is now the one with the picture (of the Saudi flag). The wording on the second blurb should be changed. Kafziel 17:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Fixed. Thanks, BanyanTree 17:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[]

frustrated member talking here!

It seems like wikipedia is making it impossible for me to put one, simple, lousy image on my page!!! Maybe its because I barely payed attention to their exsesivly long tutorial!!! I hope they make it better for future members, because right now, I am either not coming back, or erradicating my file.--Calvinsupergenius 19:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Replied on user's talk page. - BanyanTree 19:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[]
dear me, apparently WP is elitist, from some perspectives :p dab () 16:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Browse link

Didn't there used to be a link named "browse" or somesuch which pointed at the top level of categories? I think it was either on the main page or in the nav box..? I found the page anyway, but I always thought it was handy the way it used (?) to get linked --Qirex 03:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Try Portal:Browse. Though, I agree that it should be more obvious. -Aude (talk | contribs) 03:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[]
I think you want Wikipedia:Browse, which used to be on the main page as "Browse" but has been changed to "Categories", since there are other ways to browse (e.g. the Portal linked above). the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 02:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[]

DYK typo

Last I checked there were two question marks on the last factoid in the "Did you know..." section about Lee Redmond. Snowmanmelting 19:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[]


I think it would be good to split the languages listed in 1,000 into a new one inbetween 1,000 and 10,000, for Wikipedias with 5,000+ articles. --Revolución (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Selected anniversaries: Jan14 Makar Sankranti not Pongal

The main festival celebrated across India on Jan 14 is known by Makar Sankranti, and not Pongal, which is a regional variation of the same main festival.

Please change the Selected Anniversaries section accordingly.

So, um, what happened to the main page?

File:917180 going on 100000.png

Yeah. Um, I understand you're discussing changes to the main page appearance, but... you don't have to ruin it in the meantime. Just a thought. MrVoluntarist 05:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[]

I think there's something wrong - I'm getting the text-only page too but then the current revision in the history shows the normal page. Any ideas? Natgoo 14:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[]
Same here. I'm using K-meleon, if that makes a difference. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 14:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[]
I'm think it's a joke. It seems like a page from '99? dunno. Slobo 14:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[]
I can't say its the funniest joke i've seen, its mainly just annoying to try & find things. Swarve 14:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[]
I'm not getting it. Johnleemk | Talk 14:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Yay! It's fixed for me now. Thanks. Natgoo 15:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[]

It's linked to whatever the current page you're on is, instead of the Main Page now. -- 13:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[]

It's fixed now. -- 14:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[]

We want to make over 100,000..

Do you mean 1,000,000? I think you guys are already over 100,000 articles. EDIT: Uh? The main page is now back to normal. Before I wrote this, it was changed. It was all text.

We're experiencing what seems to be a transitory error, where the Main Page is showing its very oldest existing revision (from early 2002) rather than its latest revision. Back then, Wikipedia's target was 100,000 articles (and it was a very ambitious target). If you (or anyone reading this) experiences this problem, click this link. It's times like these you realise how much better our Main Page is now than 4 years ago. :) - Mark 14:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[]
Transitory error, or someone doing the whole wiki retro idea? — Ilyanep (Talk) 05:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[]


The main page says that, "We are trying to get over 100,000." But right before that, it says that we have over 917,000 articles. This doesn't make sense. --Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 14:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[]

We're experiencing what seems to be a transitory error, where the Main Page is showing its very oldest existing revision (from early 2002) rather than its latest revision. Back then, Wikipedia's target was 100,000 articles (and it was a very ambitious target). If you (or anyone reading this) experiences this problem, click this link. It's times like these you realise how much better our Main Page is now than 4 years ago. :) - Mark 14:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[]
Seems like the purge link only works half the time. Looks to me as if some of the webservers are severely out-of-sync. Let's hope it won't descent into FUBAR. CharonX 15:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[]
the deletionists actually are aiming for an encyclopedia of 100,000 articles -- 22:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Isn't it strange that this happened so close to Wikipedia's fifth anniversary? (I won't blame any cabal.) --WCQuidditch 00:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[]


The main page is completely diffrent than before! Theres no Featured article or Featured picture/did you know? It looks ugly! What is this?!!!??

Seems to be a temporary bug, as per the comment above. Shawnc 15:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[]


Ornage revolution Article

That article was really good someone should read it

Happy Birthday to Wikipedia

Happy Birthday! 01:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC) (User:Rickyrab)[]

Indeed! I added a banner to the top of the page. We should all celebrate...+sj + 21:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Selected Anniversaries

2001 - The English Wikipedia, a Wiki free content encyclopedia, was officially launched.

This is a little ambiguous. The sentence could be read as "wiki-free content", etc. A better phrasing would be ". . . a Wiki-based free-content encyclopedia," — orioneight (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[]

  • Thanks, I've adjusted it.--Pharos 04:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[]
    • :-D I actually read it as that the first time.19:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Civillians killed in Pakistan missile attack

The statement on the main page that an American missile attacks "[...] kills 18 civillians [...]" in Pakistan doesn't seem to have been confirmed by any American military sources, and the number of dead is uncertain. Should this be changes to something like "may have killed 18 or more civillians"?

  • From my reading of the news reports (and I read over several carefully to try to get this right), the death of the 18 civilians (one report said 17) is undisputed, though some say there were more civilians or militants also killed. I think there's enough confirmation of the general incident on the ground that we don't need to rely on official American military sources, who have so far said nothing.--Pharos 04:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[]


On today's feature article: "...changing the traction of the trains from gas turbines to electricity from overhead lines after a sharp rise in oil prices,..." The author probably ment propulsion. -- Pinktulip 05:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Probably vandalism. Or a very unfocused author. — Ilyanep (Talk) 05:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[]
"Traction" is railway terminology for power. Traction was required by the first locomotives that were hauled by ropes. Just train jargon. --JC Shepard 16:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[]

External Links

Recently I added this link to a Indian related article. But someone removed it telling to add that link to a new article written related to that site. I would like to know does wikipedia has any terms and conditions in adding links to an article? where can i find it?

It is simple: like Bertrand Russell's example, the present King of France may not crown himself; thus one may not advertise or enter in a self-promotional item. If a disinterested 3rd party were to judge an item to be notable, then it can enter Wikipedia as a proper item. But if self-interest is detected, watch out; the item will likely not survive a call for deletion. --Ancheta Wis 20:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[]
Our guidelines on inclusion of websites can explain this more: here. I think you may have had some bad advice if someone told you to create an article on your own blog: the barrier for inclusion of websites, especially blogs, is pretty high. --Malthusian (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[]

List of languages

On the front page, Simple English is placed before Shqip (Albanian) - shouldn't they be alphabetized? There may be more mistakes, I haven't checked for others.

I believe the language order has been discussed at Template talk:Wikipedialang; you could try asking there. — orioneight (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[]
It should be alphabetized according to their Wikipedia prefix, so simple: goes before sq:. There are occasional calls to change the ordering, but then you get into whether it should be under the name for itself (Shqip or Nihongo) versus the English language name (Albanian or Japanese). In order to avoid the resulting arguments about language imperialism/sensitivity, we put it under the Wikipedia prefix and leave it to community of a particular language Wikipedia to decide if it's worth moving their domain in order to change their ordering. - BanyanTree 20:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[]


When you go to, your blinking cursor is already in the search box, so you do not even have to click it in order to begin typing your query. In #wikipedia, someone pointed this out, and requested that a similar feature could be put in for the Wikipedia search box by the developers. I think that this feature would be very useful, too. Could a developer put it in, please? Thank you in advance. Adniel 01:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[]

See Bug 1864: Cursor should be placed in the search box for the BugZilla report and resulting discussion. Cheers, BanyanTree 03:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[]

mobile access of Wikipedia

i would add Wikipedia:WAP_access somwhere at the main Page to tell users about the mobile possibilities now.


It is Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Not Martin Luther King Day J.Steinbock 15:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC).[]