Talk:Main Page

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Godrickwok (talk | contribs) at 04:45, 1 January 2005 (→‎Supporting the change by ugent: wording). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Wikipedia Main Page: please read the information below to find the best place for your comment or question. For error reports, go here. Thank you.

Today's featured picture

  • Today's featured picture is taken from the list of successful featured pictures, If you would like to nominate a picture to be featured see Picture of the Day.
  • To report an error with "Today's featured picture...", add a note at the Error Report.

Main Page and beyond

Otherwise; please read through this page to see if your comment has already been made by someone else before adding a new section by clicking the little + sign at the top of the page.

Main page discussion

  • This page is for the discussion of technical issues with the main page's operations. See the help boxes above for possible better places for your post.
  • Please add new topics to the bottom of this page. If you press the plus sign to the right of the edit this page button it will automatically add a new section for your post.
  • Please sign your post with --~~~~. It will add the time and your name automatically.

Time for a 50k article group of languages?

We've now got five Wikipedia languages??more groups is bad. It makes finding any particular language harder, and it makes it look cluttered. Aronsson practically killed an encyclopedia? Anyway, the swedes clearly call themselves the wiki was because of vandalism. Wouldn't be a good start to exponential growth will curb at some point. We might as well recognize wikipedia already has this milestone: it shows that English would help offset the obvious language bias. I think it's more important showing this information than 1000 languages, which IMHO is beginning to clutter up the main page a bit much.

talk

LOGIN FUGUEUR

Auriez

Dirty front page

Lengthy discussion on Main Page featured article selection/censorship moved to a more long-term section: Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Dirty Front Page. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 11:17, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

This has now been moved to its own page, Wikipedia talk:Dirty front page. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ]] 21:00, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have moved it back, that lone talk page without an article makes no sense, especially with that title. If you want to make it into a proper policy discussion, feel free to do so. Also the discussion is not that long to warrant its own article just for that reason alone. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 07:58, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
Well... it is likely to produce some sort of policy, isn't it? It also takes up the majority of Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article, which is messy. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ]] 08:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the news

Hamid Karzai (pictured right)

No, he isn't pictured right ;)

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:12, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The national day is in Bahrain, but the Bangladesh flag is shown. Strange :) Cmapm 00:19, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Less boxy version

I just created Main Page/Less boxy, which is the same as the current main page except with fewer boxes and some minor modifications. I think this looks a lot cleaner. (Also, the donations message is more prominent.) Thoughts? Fredrik | talk 11:05, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nice attempt for sure, but I personally like the current "boxy" version better, although the difference is pretty small. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 11:11, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
I'd don't see any differences at all. -- user:zanimum. -- user:zanimum
Huh? Scroll down. Fredrik | talk 08:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Error message

Every page I open starts with an error message about a syntaxiserror. I have to click 'yes' to see anything. It doesn't happen on German and Dutch Wikis and it started a week ago. It's not a big pain but I just wanna let you know. Greets, B kimmel 14:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Evolution

I''' personally do not belive in Evolution.[[Media:I have a ten page report due This friday. I was wondering if you new where i could find info on Fossil dating,and Natrual selection]] --4.154.39.142 16:52, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)From sdasdfasdfafdasfas--4.154.39.142 16:52, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)stafford'

do you, personally, believe in orthography? or google? dab (ᛏ)
I do not believe in you, so you don't exist, ergo, I don't have to help you. ;) MikeCapone 21:53, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Taiwan island image

The tool tip (caption) on the island image says it's the flag of Taiwan. It should read something more like "A view of the island of Taiwan from space." Brian Sayrs 19:10, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Methods to Learn topics

I just had access to wikipedia. If you wanted to learn all about wikipedia guide you through learning about chemistry from basic to the more advanced stuff?but i'm really stoned right now...Dessert island.

One problem is that Wikipedia doesn't know who the reader is and what the reader doesn't know. The articles can't all be written to people stranded on a desert island?actually, a topic they would like to see. Could be so that one could easily toggle between the entry's incarnation that's mostly suited for those people who know so much about the topic that they can barely communicate with non-knowers, and something that is actually geared for someone who might just be stopping by. Which does actually exist in developing the implementation of it a bit.

One written towards those presumed to have incarnation of this kinda thing could be adopted just by convention, without the idea of taking it towards Wikibooks. I think it's important to keep their experience at the forefront of our minds.

Anyhoo, just a thought. Ozzyslovechild 17:13, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

5 days left to nominate for the Webbys— is Wikipedia in?

See: Talk:Webby_Awards#5_days_left.97_is_Wikipedia_in.3F

help. aristotelian model of compassion vs. dalai lama's view

can anyone help me understand the aristotelian model? - Transferred your question to the reference desk. Ancheta Wis 05:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Pinochet's alleged indictment, allegedly allegedly

I think talking about Pinochet's "alleged" human rights abuses is the kind of "balance" that wants to give equal time to creationism. Now I'm no expert on the english language, but if "charged" is the same as "indicted", it would probably be better to use since indictement sounds like convictement. If it's obvious that he isn't convicted yet, the "alleged" should be dropped. Vintermann 13:38, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Indictment: a formal statement of accusation, so it means exactly what is intended here. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 16:19, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Dayton Agreement

I think that The Dayton Agreement was signed in Dayton, USA, not in Paris, France.

Well, the initial conference was held in Dayton and ended on 21 November 1995, but the official signing occurred in Paris. See Dayton Agreement and for instance [1]. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 16:26, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Where to report Wikipedia abuse?

Not sure if this is the appropriate place.

Cyprus2k1 is a religious Baha'i who keeps deleting and reverting virtually all content on the Bahai page that disagrees with the official Baha'i PR program. I suspect he is acting in an official capacity for the Baha'i organization.

I am a former member of the Baha'i faith who is commenting anonymously to avoid retribution against members of my family who are still members of the Baha'i faith organization. I would like to be able to include relevant critical information in the Baha'i article without having it reverted the next day. I'm fine with having my work EDITED, but Cyprus is simply deleting information he doesn't care for. 65.184.35.245 22:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution. &#0xfeff;--fvw* 22:34, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)
"I suspect he is acting in an official capacity for the Baha'i organization."lol, please...... - --Cyprus2k1 16:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ml.wikipedia.org

has more than 100 articles - please add it to the list

I was about to, but it looks like it has already been done. [2] -- TomPreuss 17:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Add Ma On Shan (KCRC) as the featured article

I want to add Ma On Shan (KCRC) as the featured article on December 21, 2004. Would you accept my request? --202.75.80.6 04:54, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You need to nominate it as a featured article. If it is accepted there, it becomes eligible to be the front page featured article for a day, but there is no formal mechanism that I know of to determine when a given article appears on the front page. Get it to the featured article status first, then ask how to get it on the front page for an appropriate date.-gadfium (talk) 05:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I choose the featured articles for the main page. The formal mechanism is that once it becomes a featured article, you ask me :) →Raul654 19:25, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Easy-to-fix CODE TYPO on Main Page

WikiCookie
WikiCookie

Sorry to yell, but last time I mentioned this here it was ignored and fell into the archive. On the ninth ("other languages") code line of the Main Page, </i> should be </li>. Kdau 06:49, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Good spotting there. Thanks, it should be fixed now. You win a cookie. - Mark 13:00, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hey, I just ate some of those. Chocolate chip cookies rule. Along with Bruce Springsteen, they are one of the few unilaterally positive things to come from the United States. Of course, they had to borrow the word for them from us, but still... 82.92.119.11 21:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Portugese

Should say "Portuguese" Juppiter 04:05, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fixed. (be bold!) 68.81.231.127 09:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Defecation

On the main page, as we speak, the word Defecation is being pipe-linked to Defecate. This seems unnecessary, as the Wikipedia article concerning this topic is found at Defecation (unpiped) anyway. I hope I'm not splitting hairs. Bobo192 08:01, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nope, little errors should be fixed (even mine [3]). I fixed it, but in the future, feel free to be be bold! 68.81.231.127 09:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unnecessary text in Anniversaries?

Recent days: December 18 – December 17 – December 16

Do we really need to say Recent Days? Perhaps there could be a more efficient system. Even just putting Dec 18, 17, 16 would be better...

Going backwards in time by a day each time is a very simple thing to understand :) unlike the very useful "recents" of the other groups.

Hope that made sense

Yukos

"To the previously unknown and recently-founded Baikalfinansgroup." If they registered it last week, maybe it's not so strange no body has heard of it. - Jerryseinfeld 21:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Strange upload behaviour

Something strange is happening now.. When I want to upload a new image, it tells me, that there already is one, but isn't! I agree to save it, but the image page opens, but the image itself is empty. I have to reupload again, but it appears twice in history. It happened with my Image:tartaric acids.png and Image:L-tartaric acid.png. The latter wasn't actually reuploaded, so the oddity can be seen in action. --Mykhal 22:46, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I apologize. The warning message was not about that there already is such image, but about name change. And the upload now also seem so work properly. --Mykhal 23:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bad grammar on main page

This sentence is incorrect: "The phrase "up to us" is vague admits of a variety of interpretations." You can afford carelessness like this on the rest of the Wikipedia, but not on a page that is uneditable. Proofread, people.

Thanks, fixed.-gadfium (talk) 01:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Announce request to rename page

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.


today's "Did you know..."

on my screen, the entire section of the Did you know... section appears in a smaller font than the rest of the main page. is this happening with anyone else? can this be fixed? Kingturtle 15:38, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • It's the same for me, but I don't know enough about wikipedia to tell what causes it. Jeltz talk 15:41, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

The other hero is likewise to Arland Williams

New layout

This is so much uglier than the old design, and it seems to waste a large amount of space, the red box is about 30 lines longer than it needs to be.--naryathegreat 00:31, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

the picture of David Blunkett should be lower and be identified. He has nothing to do with Mosul. Jim 04:43, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

The blunkett story is NPOV tory proganda. "the application but said it was not possible to determine if Blunkett had personally ordered the visa to be fast-tracked"--Jirate 14:07, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

Propaganda, by definition is not NPoV and vice versa. Hu 06:33, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

Content Rating

I noticed that when using a content filter program (i.e. parental filter) that they warn that wikipedia pages do not have a content rating. I suggest that all pages of wikipedia get a content rating (I think a snippet of code can accomplish this). Specifically, the content should be rated as "educational"--jabelar 14:07, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

While this sounds like a good idea, this page is for discussion of the main page. You might repeat your suggestion at the village pump. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 21:49, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Upgrade

Wikipedia upgraded to 1.4b3 tonight. Can we put this somewhere on the Main Page along with a change log?--Sean Kelly 03:54, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Why would you want such on the main page? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Well where is it? I ended up going onto IRC and asking. --Sean Kelly 06:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is the Wikipedia logo looking out of focus this evening? 172.175.127.8 06:03, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Must be you (or at least it looks fine for me). -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) [[]] 06:12, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The logo is rendered twice, slightly horizontally offset causing an out-of-focus appearance for me too. (XP IE6/SP2) --218.50.191.197 06:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. 172.175.127.8 06:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Known bug, being investigated. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Fixed. It was an old work-around mucking up a new work-around! Tom- 15:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where'd the days go?

I note that the links to the last few days have gone from below the Selected anniversaries section. Shame, I liked those. For example, it was by birthday recently and when I visited Wikipedia a day later, it was great to be able to still click on my b'day. The 'Archives' and 'More selected...' also kinda sound like the same thing, even if they aren't. Confusing. Dan100 15:21, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Today's featured article

Can I suggest that the text 'Recently featured' be bolded, to distinguish it more noticeably from the text of the article above it? Dan100 15:24, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

  • User:Raul654 is the "director" of the featured article template. Perhaps you might want to bring it up with him. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:17, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks, done. Dan100 22:40, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

What happened to the discussions that were here yesterday?

I posted a message about the logo being out of focus, now I don't even see anything in the history which shows that that discussion ever took place. 172.196.66.177 04:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How odd. Now it's there. I wonder what happened. 172.196.66.177 04:07, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

'languages' icon

I'm not too much into all these icons anyway, but that 'other languges' one, I don't know, it's particularly nondescript. A globe, fair enough. An arabic kaf, a french c-cedille, and a chinese, what, 'man' or something? how does that translate to 'languages'? if we really (really really) need an icon for 'languages', better make it a talking head or something, along the lines of Ferdinand de Saussure's [4] dab (ᛏ) 20:21, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I designed it (or tried to, I'm not that artistic!), tried to get a feeling of lots of different languages in a multilingual way. Feel free to make a better design. Tom- 20:30, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
no offence, Tom. It boils down to a matter of taste, I suppose. dab (ᛏ) 20:36, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I moved it from the template to the Main page itself for now. See Template talk:Wikipedialang. dab (ᛏ) 10:01, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

at the moment, the icon serves no purpose: it leads to a page containing exactly the same table right next to it. I think it was originally intended to be at the top of the page. Is say either move it back to the top, or remove it altogether. dab (ᛏ) 11:36, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


sandbox

Is it just me?

I really liked having a link to the sandbox on the title page.

Article number comma separation

Is there any way to put commas in the "number of articles we're currently working on"? For example, right now it says "We are currently working on 431943 articles." Is there any way we could make it 431,943? I mean, I'm sure there's a way, has the topic come up before? I realize the comma delimeters are not standard (I think they're just American, and Europe uses periods), but, to me, it increases readability a great deal. LockeShocke 20:56, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Just American?! aaargh! violet/riga (t) 21:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think these commas are also British, Canadian, Australian, etc. It's continental (non-English-speaking) Europe that uses the dot, to the best of my knowledge. Slim 23:25, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Well, sorry. The point is - why don't we do it? LockeShocke 22:10, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
The best way would be to have it space seperated as according to the SI standard. "We are currently working on 431 943 articles."--Clawed 00:38, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That's just as good, anything for readability, some sort of separation. Now... uhm, how does it get done? :) LockeShocke 02:26, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
place a feature request here http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/ to set the wheels in motion --Clawed 11:42, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I hate to rain your parade, but space separation is [a bad idea]. Standards be damned. What is this? 123 456 Two numbers "123" and "456" or "123456". What a ridiculous standard. --Anon_E_Mouse 14:15, 29 Dec 2004 (Central, clock on the wall)
I've always liked using space separation, although I fell out of the habit of using it about 30 years ago. I think you are supposed to use a hairspace (&hairsp;) but that doesn't work on my browser (Firefox on XP).-gadfium 00:25, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I personally find it ridiculous that 123,456 doesn't mean 123, 456. Fredrik | talk 20:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
well, there's aloways 1.23456 x 105 :) Grutness|hello? 23:35, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In this English version, started in 2001, we are currently working on 436 451 articles.

In this English version, started in 2001, we are currently working on 436,451 articles.

In this English version, started in 2001, we are currently working on over 400 000 articles.

In this English version, started in 2001, we are currently working on 1.23456 x 105 articles.

Edit Page Code Problems

Didn't know where else to leave this. On EVERY "edit this page" (including this one!) near the bottom, the "special characters" box suddenly has no top border for some reason. Also, next to the buttons for "SAVE PAGE" and "SHOW PREVIEW" " the words "Cancel|Editing help (opens in new window)" are in italics for some reason, but the style doesn't seem to match the rest of the links. Can someone with access fix these (admittedly trivial) matters?

what does lung fibrosis or minimal subsegmental atelectasis mean?

If someone can explain this please do

Well, I will, but I confess I'm confused as to why this comes up on the Main Page talk page....

These are phrases that describe abnormal conditions of the lungs...probably used by a radiologist. "Lung fibrosis" means that the lung tissue itself has become thicker (more "fibrotic") than normal, probably to a degree that might interfere with oxygenation of the blood and might cause shortness of breath. When used by a radiologist, it simply means the lung tissue appears "whiter" on an x-ray than normal - though this finding can be simulated by an underexposed x-ray. "Atelectasis" is a collapse of the small airways of the lung. Each lung is anatomically divided into "segments", and so "subsegmental" means that the condition doesn't involve a whole segment. "Minimal" more or less speaks for itself. "Minimal subsegmental atelectasis" means that the radiologist has again seen, or is again describing, an area of whiteness in a small area of the lung that is not particularly severe. The interpretation of those radiological findings will be based on the clinical condition and other symptoms of the patient (and on the reason an x-ray was done in the first place). Atelectasis is sometimes found in pneumonias. - Nunh-huh 00:17, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Happy Christmas oggs at bottom?

What on earth is their function? It seems rather christanocentric (to coin a term?) - we did not observe Ramadan or Chanukah. This is ludicrous, completely unacceptable - please remove it. --80.225.33.122 23:01, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

well, it could be worse. say, your browser could be starting to play a MIDI version of jingle bells as it loads the page (the horror). I suggest you exert some tolerance, I am sure they will be gone in a day or two. dab (ᛏ) 23:11, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, and of course they'll be back next year and all the years after that, because nobody really protested this year. Something like that? :-)
I find it amusing how the "we will have fun dammit" people override the "this is not neutral" people so easily. You'd expect the former to be more easy-going than the latter. Not so.
Incidentally, why not an ogg that says "My name is Jimbo Wales and I pronounce Wikipedia as Wikipedia"? Just a little thing to celebrate "the encyclopedia that Slashdot built". ;-D 82.92.119.11 23:17, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's Christmas and virtually all the people that visit the English Wikipedia will be celebrating. violet/riga (t) 23:21, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I didn't say I disagreed. Just that I find it interesting that there's an enormous and implicit consensus that these celebrations must be represented on the Main Page somehow. If it weren't Christmas, it would really be a bit spooky. (And I still disagree, even though we're "all" celebrating over here.) 82.92.119.11 23:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"It's Christmas and virtually all the people that visit the English Wikipedia will be celebrating" -- That's a really POV statement and untrue. Virtually all people here aren't Christian and even if they were, I don't think we should place other holidays lower on the totum pole. We all use computers, but computer articles should be more important on the main page than other articles. If we are to decide to celebrate holidays in the future in this manner, I think we should avoid cultural bias. --Sketchee 02:17, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
Seems like they've disappeared anyway. And I vote for themed Wikipedia logos for major events. :) violet/riga (t) 23:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I didn't say I agree with them. I didn't even say I'm celebrating christmas. But I don't mind people enjoying their holidays, and if that results in couple of links to ogg files, I think this is harmless and not worth getting upset about. dab (ᛏ) 09:16, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
also, look at bg:. Now this, I agree, is dreadful, and I think I would assist you there. dab (ᛏ) 09:46, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Good gravy, they don't just put it at the top of the Main Page, they have jolly Santa flying around the Wiki globe for crying out loud! Really, an autoplay midi is the only thing missing. Why not animated GIFs with Christmas lights while we're at it? Dreadful. If they'd done this on the en Wikipedia, I really would have run off and hidden under the Christmas tree for the duration. Vulgar Bulgars! :-) JRM 15:24, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

People, notice the picture of the Christmas tree we have now at "Selected anniversaries". If you don't mind me saying so: this is how you do it. Simple, uncontroversial, and a lovely image. Kudos to Jengod. God jul! JRM 21:27, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

You guys should see what we did at the Icelandic wikipedia ;) -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:48, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)
Oh no. Oh no, no, no. You didn't. Heathens! Infidels! The Really Reformed Church of Wikipedia will burn you all at the stake! :-) JRM 02:24, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
Perhaps..... Perhaps there could be a frame on the bottom of the main page (use of frame here is the HTML term) that has "Choose your holiday" on the top, with links to all the holidays going on during this season, including a "No Holiday" link. When a user selects a link, a cookie could be stored on the users computer (again the HTML term) with the holiday selected. Next time the user visits the main page, the frame would look for the cookie, read it, and display the holday's symbols. If there isn't a cookie, the frame will display the "Choose your holiday" page again.

Just a suggestion....do you think the admin could try something like this?
--Ptolmey 22:15, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Wtf?

I am extremely unhappy about the fact that major changes to the introduction of the main page is now being made in a new subsection, even though there is a link up the top. I did NOT give permission for my text to be moved in a place that is out of the way! When and who decided that we would do this? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:04, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did NOT give permission for my text to be moved in a place that is out of the way! - Notice that whenever you edit any page, in big bold text at the bottom it says "All contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License". You gave permission to do exactly that when you saved it. →Raul654 15:30, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
The guy's an admin and he didnt know that... -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:46, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

I can understand you're not happy it's been moved - I was suprised at first - but it does kinda make sense, not having it spread down this page mixed up with other stuff. The new subpage has also been linked to from the Village pump and Request for Comments, to draw attention to it. Dan100 16:38, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

I think the new "Introduction Wizard" has substantial weakness (e.g. Editing Tutorial is hiding TOO DEEP within the wizard (3-page intro page-set) It's not convinient even for newbies. I'd say it's forcing people (new and old) to follow its own dictatorship on how to use Wikipedia. I'll post follow up discussion after the Tsunami Disaster effort is settled. --Godric 17:25, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

leonardo davinchi

leonardo davinchi -> Leonardo da Vinci

Boxing Day

On the "selected anniversaries", it mentions Boxing Day as being today, which is obviously incorrect. Although it could be construed as being an "anniversary" of Boxing Day in most other years, it is misleading and suggests that today is Boxing Day. --Thomas 11:34, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. It is December 26 where I am, your time stamp says it is December 26, and even taking timezones into account, it was December 26 in pretty much most of the world when you wrote that. -- Chuq 12:00, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think I know what he means, I thought the same thing - how can you have an anniversary of a 'day'? It's either Boxing Day or it's not, it can't be an anniversary of boxing day. Or another way around - today is boxing day, so today can't also be an anniversary of it. Dan100 12:38, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

The items with the bullet points are the historical anniversaries. The items on the same line as the date are repeated observances on this particular day. - Mark 14:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You are invited to contribute to the Selected Anniversaries pages, (just follow the guidelines); there you will see that both anniversaries and observances can be selected there, up to a maximum of 5 anniversaries, along with the observances. Keep the verbs in past tense, as they are on the same page as In the News Ancheta Wis 14:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Today isn't boxing day; today is a Sunday, and boxing day can't fall on a Sunday according to legislation (also, historically, right up until last time December the 26th was a Sunday (1999?), boxing day was postponed to the 27th. Perhaps this is just a British thing, but no mention was made) . Regardless of which, it's nearly over now (at least here) and won't arise for some years so I shan't lose any sleep over it. --Thomas 23:22, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I believe that boxing day can fall on a Sunday, but the public holiday is postponed to the Monday. violet/riga (t) 23:27, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC) — In fact, just look at Boxing Day and it explains it for you! violet/riga (t) 23:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, in Australia this year, Christmas Day is the 25th, Boxing Day is the 26th, Christmas Day public holiday is the 27th, and the Boxing Day public holiday is the 28th. This is followed next weekend with New Year Day on the 1st and the New Years Day public holiday on the 3rd. To me it seems it doesn't matter what day the public holiday is, the day itself is still the usual date. (We had our Christmas dinner on the 25th, the Boxing Day Test Match started on the 26th, and no-one would dream of celebrating New Years Eve on the evening of January 2nd!) -- Chuq 00:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


bobcat hybrids?

We have lived in Texas for over 50 years and have been seeing extraordinarily large bobcats in the last few years. They are more of a russet color than the typical sandy bobcats we have always seen and are much taller with larger heads.They are being seen along the Trinity River south of the DFW metroplex where the terrain begins to change to small hills, rocky cliffs, and a number of lakes. Mountain lions have been prevalent in this area for many years. Could it be they are hybrids of bobcats and the mountain lions? Also, there are a number of exotic animal parks and ranchers who own various types of wild game and hybrids in the vicinity. Or could it just be there is enough genetic variability to allow for changes in diet that would lead to such enormous bobcats?

Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion

I have refreshed the Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion page several times now, but it will not completely display, so I can't get to the bottom of the page to post a new comment, so I'm going to do it here. Why are all of the VfD listings from Dec 20-Dec 24 repeated on the Wikipedia: Votes for deletion page? 172.198.86.142 22:41, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Viktor Yushchenko

I'm removing this from "In the news": "Early reports indicate that pro-democracy opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko is leading."

The "pro-democracy" part indicates that his opponent is somehow anti-democracy or less democratic, which is clearly POV. Spazzm 00:28, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

Article on survey of Chinese languages

THis is referred to on the main page but withut a link to the article. Where is it?

Follow the link on the main page to Current events, and you'll find the stories reported with sources. In this case, the source is (China Daily)-gadfium 02:12, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin Vandalism

Hi, just to let you know the Shroud of Turin page seems to have been vandalised. My computer won't let me edit it so I thought I'd post up here so someone can fix it.

New entry: FUGIO

FUGIO: literally, Latin for "I flee".

"Fugio" was one of three mottoes the American Founding Fathers ordered to be used in our earliest currency ? twice, on 17 February 1776 (prior to the Declaration of Independence) and on 6 July 1787 (while the Constitutional Convention was in session). In that context, "Fugio" was placed on the obverse of coins and paper money, next to a sundial (representing "Time"), so that together they meant "I, Time, am fleeting", or "Time Flies".

The other motto on the obverse was "Mind Your Business" (in English). On the reverse was the motto "We Are One" (in English). The design of that currency is sometimes attributed to Benjamin Franklin.

[On 4 July 1776, immediately after the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress appointed a committee to design a Great Seal of the United States. The members were Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. The motto "E Pluribus Unum" ("From Many, One") was considered for inclusion in the Great Seal; Congress tabled that design on 20 August 1776. The final design for the Great Seal was approved on 20 June 1782; it included "E Pluribus Unum" which remained as the national motto until 30 July 1956 when we were dis-united by the new motto "In God We Trust".]

[The first use of the words "In God We Trust" on currency was on a Union 2-cent coin in 1864, over a year before the end of the Civil War.]

Main Page → Main page

Consistency with the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy regarding the non-capitalization of second and subsequent title words that are not proper nouns. I assume the reason for it to be titled Main Page is for aesthetics, that the lowercase p does not look balanced. I admit wholeheartedly, I do not care for this naming convention policy, and I cite aesthetics and balance as my reasons. But even Caesar's wife must be above reproach, and thus Wikipedia itself must stand tall before the wagon of her conventions. —ExplorerCDT 21:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Object - So what if it breaks the naming convention. It's the first page that many new folks will see, and aesthetics matter more there than elsewhere. Ozzyslovechild 14:13, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support —ExplorerCDT 21:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Tentative support - While I recognize that it like is nothing more then a main page, I wouldn't mind some confirmation that Main Page isn't more of a title that we've given to it. Oberiko 21:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment - I can think of a dozen alternate names that would probably do better than "Main P/page", if this is something we are going to open up discussion about a change. -- Netoholic @ 01:19, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
  • Object. Main Page is not an article about main pages, so "Main Page" is no better or worse than "Main page" as far as the convention is concerned. Logically speaking, the main page ought to be in the Wikipedia: namespace rather than the article namespace. But it's probably best to leave it alone. Gdr 13:12, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
  • Object. Leave it where it is. I just don't see the point of putting a redirect between the Main Page and every page that points to it for the sake of satisfying our naming conventions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. This is a unique page that is not an article, nor a 'workspace' page; it is a bridge to both. It is now entrenched under its current capitalization; I see no reason for change. Radagast 13:30, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. It's a unique page; there needs to be a fairly persuasive reason to change it. Rd232 15:07, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, though I certainly won't complain if it doesn't happen. I also agree with Gdr that it would make some sense to have it in the Wikipedia: namespace, but that would add redundancy to the URL. Fredrik | talk 15:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If it were an article about main pages in general, then "Main page" would be an appropriate title, but that's not the case. "Wikipedia:Main page" (or someting else in the Wikipedia namespace) would probably be best if we were starting from scratch, but we are not. Changing it from "Main Page" to anything else would be a disruptive step that would need a very good reason to outweigh the disruption, and no sufficiently good reason is apparent. —AlanBarrett 16:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In addition, would the sidebar be changed if it were moved? - UtherSRG 17:02, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. (And don't get me started on the silliness of title non-capitalization. It's just wrong.) Nelson Ricardo 18:34, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree, the title non-capitalization policy is plain silly. But if they're going to enforce it articles we write, then Wikipedia's basic pages should be subject to the rule. No exceptions. If this fails, the policy should be abandoned. —ExplorerCDT 18:44, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, agree with Gdr, "Main Page is not an article about main pages". dab (ᛏ) 21:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Neither is it an article about something called "Main Page". Fredrik | talk 22:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • indeed. I also agree with the part that it should properly be in the WP: namespace. dab (ᛏ) 20:05, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There may be a better name for the page (as Netaholic suggested above. But the argument seems to be that we need to change it to be consistent with policy (or, that the policy should be eliminated). This is plain folly. There's nothing wrong with having specific exceptions. If people absolutely insist, then change the policy to make a specific exception for the Main Page.
  • Object. This is the page which makes a first impression, as in the title page of a book, which uses different capitalization than the body of text in a book. Ancheta Wis 02:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Further proof that the Naming Conventions policy is arbitrary and wrong. —ExplorerCDT 03:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Comment: this proposal only exists to illustrate ExplorerCDT's dislike of the title case naming convention. Rd232 18:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks for stating the obvious. It's not like I haven't made my intentions clear from the get-go. —ExplorerCDT 18:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • See Civil disobedience. Sometimes you just have to force a discussion over arbitrary rule. It's not disruptive, it's constructive. Further, read the top of the page you recommended to me...it says: This is a proposed policy. While it is not an official guideline of Wikipedia and carries neither official weight nor provisions for enforcement... Wikipedia can only benefit from this discussion. —ExplorerCDT 19:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • There is no supreme authority to be disobedient against on Wikipedia, only the community of Wikipedians. Disrespect for the community won't get you its support. To quote the page, "In general, such illustrative edits are not well-received and are hardly ever effective tools of persuasion. Rather, they simply come off as spiteful or vengeful.". Yes, Wikipedia benefits from discussion, but you should have brought this up on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions or the village pump instead. Fredrik | talk 19:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Receive it as you may. I prefer to compel discussion through demonstration. —ExplorerCDT 19:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
your opinion of the naming convention is not very well illustrated by objecting to a special case. You would rather have to show that it is bad for titling regular articles (which I think is not the case). dab (ᛏ) 20:07, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Violently oppose. Horrible idea. Numerous things depend on the main page being fixed to its current location (screen scrapers in particular). →Raul654 20:05, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Radagast. - Vague | Rant 03:40, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)~ 03:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, for all the reasons given above. A. D. Hair (t&m) 14:14, dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Makes more sense to have it at Main Page, at least in my eyes. The reasons above also justify keeping it well Kiand 15:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose strongly, as someone could conceivably write an article about main pages in general. "Main Page" is the name of the page itself, and that's quite acceptable. --LostLeviathan 02:16, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. There are too many external links to this to move it and have so many people experience a redirect. Angela. 07:49, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • This has been listed for nearly a week, and it's obvious there is not a consensus to move. Can we remove this now? Jonathunder 00:17, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The main page is not an article of the encyclopedia. It is the home page of the web site. Next time try making your point on a talk page. DCEdwards1966 02:56, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but... If this exception is used as an excuse for other execptions, we should change it to keep the integrity of the rule... --Ptolmey 22:22, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Main Page" is a name. Dmn / Դմն 23:34, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose It has been Main Page for soo long now that that is the name of the page. It is a proper noun and correctly capitialised.--Clawed 13:24, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Someone set up us the animated GIF!

Have there been animated GIFs on the main page before? I'm not principally opposed to one — as long as it doesn't loop, like this one. Animation is a perpetual eye-catcher and not a good thing to add to the main page. Have it play three times and keep the final frame, or something. I acknowledge its usefulness in this instance, but please, no looping, no matter how kewl the animation. JRM 09:01, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

it's a nice animation, but I cannot play it, and it just looks broken for me (my problem, of course). I am willing to put up with that for the greatest disaster in history, as long as the practice doesn't catch on... dab (ᛏ) 10:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I won't judge any presentation practice by its topic. Clearly, the animation adds something valuable to the picture here, regardless of how horrible a disaster it was, and that should be the criterion — but I'm just starkly opposed to perpetually looping animations, no matter what they're for. And that goes double for the Main Page. JRM 11:09, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
The greatest disaster in history? Come ON. Anyhow, I don't see anything wrong with either the animation as such or the fact that it's an endless loop; it certainly doesn't distract from the rest of the Main Page more than just about any other picture we have on there. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 11:16, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think JRM has a valuable and reasonable point - the human eye is psyiologically attracted to movement. So yes, in terms of 'distraction' it is quite a bit more noticable than the other sections, and this is something that should be avoided. On the other hand, it is significantly more informative than its still frame counterpart. →Raul654 11:24, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
re 'greatest', that should have read 'greatest natural disaster'. Of course the World Wars were much worse. But I just read in a newspaper that it may well be the natural disaster with the most casualties in history. Don't know it that's true, though. dab (ᛏ) 11:28, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That would require close to 1 million dead.[5] --mav 15:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
See the horribly stubby WP:COTW candidate Tangshan earthquake (estimated at 655,000) or the non-existant Shanxi earthquake (said to be 830,000). violet/riga (t) 17:46, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Earth-quake disaster relief link

A bunch of large pages like Google, Yahoo! and Amazon.com has put up links where you can donate money to disaster-relief organizations because of the earth-quake. I think Wikipedia should have one on the main page too. It doesn't necassarily need to be on the top, but wouldn't it be nice to have it just below the browse bar? I quickly made a little page that shows how it might look. What do you think? Gkhan 17:32, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

  • BTW, im no great wiki-artist, someone has to make a nicer link Gkhan 17:38, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
If there is no objection, I will use the new box thing on Main Page/Main Page suggestion (originally here) on the Main Page. ugen64 23:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the news query

"The death toll from the Indian Ocean Earthquake and subsequent tsunamis on December 26 has exceeded 80,000 people in 12 countries from Malaysia to Somalia." And South Africa, which is outside those bounds. Grutness|hello? 23:27, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tsunami Disaster

First of all let us condole the death of many people .Had this occured if the South and South-east Asian Governments had been proactive ?

We can't say. It's a terrible tragedy though.

Supporting the change by ugent

File:Wikipedia website-disaster victims.png
en.wikipedia.org (2004-Dec-31)
File:Apple website-disaster victims.png
www.apple.com (2004-Dec-31)
File:Amazon website-disaster victims.png
www.amazon.com (2004-Dec-31)
File:Microsoft website-disaster victims.png
www.microsoft.com (2004-Dec-31)
File:Cisco website-disaster victims.png
www.cisco.com (2004-Dec-31)

I support this. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:35, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As do I. - Mark 09:24, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
the change in question is the link to the quake donations article. support, obviously. dab (ᛏ) 09:43, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I also support that change. It is much more relevant to link to the donations article. I created this template (Template:Sig-2004IOEQ) yesterday. It is still a little buggy but its worth a look because it is unobtrusive but it works in many talk pages and signatures. Do what you will with it. --Ctrl buildtalk File:Columbia SEAS.GIF 14:15, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I must say i object to the removal of the banner inserted by Ugen64, sannse removed it stating removing donations box on the suggestion of Jimbo. link is now included in "in the news".

Of course it's still there, but alot less noticeable, and with the lack of noticeability arguably fewer people will donate, and after reading comments such as these: (1, 2.), just here on wikipedia not to mention whats been going around other news sources i really don't think it's such a big thing to ask to have that put back up if it could help just one person.

We put a similar notice when we reached one million articles, i think we can afford something similar when +100K people have already died with thousands more comming, especially if we can somehow do our part in preventing any of it. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:50, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with Jimbo and Sannse: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a fundraising tool, no matter how noble or worthwhile the cause. --fvw* 19:59, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
Amazon.com is not a fundraising tool, either. (Well, not in the real sense of the word.) This is a global disaster, and seeing that Wikipedia is a global project I think it would behoove us to place that donation box somewhere more prominent and visible. Lets have a heart. GRider\talk 20:08, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Nope, but it's a profitable thing to do for Amazon (if it wasn't they'd get slaughtered by their shareholders). Why have a banner for this and not for AIDS research? Or traffic safety? In the long run, both cause more deaths. --fvw* 20:13, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
Nope, but it's a profitable thing to do for Amazon - wrong. If you check, it says 100% of donations go to the charities, meaning that amazon itself is footing the credit card transaction bill (a few cents on every few dollars).
if it wasn't they'd get slaughtered by their shareholders - incorrect. See Corporate social responsibility. Not only do these things generate general goodwill amongst the buying public (which more tangably could lead to better sales later on), but they're generally tax deducatable. →Raul654 20:24, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
Neither are apple.com or microsoft.com. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:10, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
Second this. I only know one thing, we are humans. Human has conscience, human has sympathy, human dictates the purpose of the organization, but NOT the other way around. I urge people not to get caught up by Idealogy, while ignoring what a Human is, and what a Human should do. Donation Box back up! --Godric 23:42, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
Third this. For the love of humanity, correct this mistake ten fold. Bring back a larger-than-life donation box. —RaD Man (talk) 02:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I really ought to comment, as I did the edit. I have to say I agree with Jimbo here. It's not so much about this particular campaign, but a more general worry that this is setting a precedent ... where do we stand the next time there is a terrible war, or a famine, or terrorist attack? Can we remain neutral and unbiased while having a donations banner on our main page in those cases? Of course I have great sympathy for those involved, but I honestly feel that this is not a good idea on our main page. Isn't there some other way we can promote this? Perhaps on a community page or something? Or on as many user pages as possible? -- sannse (talk) 22:14, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Shame on you for making an abstract and rather flimsy "slippery slope" argument in the face of such a disaster. Dante once said something to the effect that the hottest place in hell is reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of peril. Put the donation link back please. You can make your arguments about "precedent" another time.
And hiding the donation link on user pages, where our readers rarely tread, is an especially poor idea. — DV 23:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Second this too. Human dictates Ideology, not the other way around, especially in a non-profit-driven organization like Wikipedia. If even volunteers got tangled up by Ideology (encyclopedia shouldn't fund-raise, blah blah...), then who else on Earth are more suitable to help since volunteers are generally less bounded by profit-driven constraint? Donation Box back up! --Godric 23:42, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

You won't get anywhere trying to persuade Jimbo Wales to allow Wikipedia to be used to help victims of the tsunami. Jimbo Wales is a notorious follower of Ayn Rand's ideas, and therefore would have little sympathy for organised efforts to reduce the suffering caused by the tsunami, see [6]. See his own Wikipedia article at Jimbo Wales – "He admires the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand". - XED.talk.stalk.mail.csb 01:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stop reserving places in hell for people who don't agree with you, please. Of course Sannse is overgeneralizing by throwing human-caused violence and natural disasters on one big heap. Yes, we can remain "neutral" even if we "blame" the earthquake for "badly" killing tens of thousands of people, and even if we then encourage people to give money to relief funds. But as far as analogies go: has everyone looked at the britannica.com homepage? That's right, no donations. How about the New York Times article linked from there? Bupkis. In fact, the makers of those sites must feel the fires of eternal damnation grow pretty hot around them, because they blatantly advertise for themselves instead of asking money for relief.
Stop using corporate sites as examples. Corporations cannot feel concern. Their employees might, and since corporations are not harmed by efforts to get people to donate (and in fact strengthen their public image with it) they'll endorse it. Don't give me the "even Microsoft is doing it and you know profit-oriented those guys are" argument, it just doesn't wash.
And there is a question of precedent here, no matter how moved you are personally. (Yes, I have donated.) How can we live with ourselves by agreeing with everyone that this warrants us encouraging donations while every other natural disaster does not? Isn't that a lovely statement for a neutral encyclopedia? You can make your arguments about "precedent" another time. Sounds like a neat contradiction in terms.
Back to the main point. Donate your life's savings. Get all your friends to do it. Yes, even urge Wikipedia to do it, you can. The argument's not over. All I'm saying is this: don't label everyone who doesn't immediately fall over to do anything possible in support an evil person. Are you going to argue next that Jimbo is killing people by not doing enough? If so, I can think of plenty of people you've killed that way.
This is just a "community" versus "encyclopedia" issue. The community wants to help out, of course, while the encyclopedia really has nothing to do with it. Should we let the community override the encyclopedia this time? I can't tell you — I'm not qualified to speak for the community. Personally, I would allow it. (Surprised? You shouldn't be.) JRM 01:23, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Thanks for donating, but unless you're related to Bill Gates, it's a drop in the bucket compared to what a link on this site could do.
I'm told that this site is ranked in the top two hundred or so of internet traffic in the entire world. Placing a single, one-line link on the main page could potentially generate more donations than all of us editors put together a million times over. (Don't believe me? Amazon generated hundreds of thousands of dollars within hours of posting their link, and millions within a day or so.)
Placing a single, one-line link on the main page is hardly "immediately falling over to do anything possible". It costs nothing. You can hem and haw all you like, but this is such a small thing to ask, that I find the elaborate arguments against it from you and a few other "slippery slope" zealots to be entirely out of proportion.
Again, this is a once-in-a-lifetime event that is truly exceptional in its scale and impact. There is no precedent.
By the way, Britannica is hardly a good example of how this site should be operated.
Happy holidays. — DV 01:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I sincerely and deeply agree with every word you are saying David. A picture says a thousand words. Hopefully these can help save hundreds of thousands of lives:

—RaD Man (talk) 02:02, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks RaD Man. I moved those picture links up so they line the edge of all the fancy arguments about why Wikipedia is above it all. Interesting philosophy for a foundation that hosts a 9/11 memorial, isn't it? — DV 02:07, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I didn't argue against the link. I argued against crusading against "zealots" by the "reasonable people". I elaborated some of the possible arguments there are against it, as I saw them. I didn't say I found them convincing enough. In fact, I explicitly said I personally would not have disagreed with the link. (I wouldn't have personally put it in, but that's just because I didn't think of it.) I'd like to think I'm not fiddling while Rome burns, here.
Sorry for not wishing you happy holidays right back; I find it hard to do it genuinely through an electronic medium, in the context of a debate (well, more or less). JRM 02:08, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
Every second we spend deliberating and bickering about this is a valuable second wasted. The least we could do is support something along the lines of what mega-giant Wal-Mart [7] has posted. —RaD Man (talk) 02:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Who died and made me admin? Be bold, whoever is able and willing. JRM 03:11, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
This isn't about you, JRM. And the main page is protected so RaD Man and I are powerless to do anything than try and make a case on this page. (I already asked a respected Admin to help but received no reply.)
This isn't about you, JRM. In that case, let all master subtly the art of indentation. My ego may be oversized, but it's mine! :-) JRM 03:33, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
As RaD Man points out, every second does count. Wikipedia is supposedly in the top 200 or so web sites in the world, in terms of traffic.
To put the power of this much traffic into perspective, I just learned that "Amazon is already sending more money for tsunami relief than the French government".
Incidentally, do we have any statistics on how much French individuals are contributing? And let people please keep in mind that Amazon is not sending its own money, they are facilitating donations of individuals. That costs them money, sure. (Just in the name of factual accuracy. I'm not disputing it's a lot of cash. :-) JRM 03:33, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
Amazingly, in the few minutes it has taken me to write this reply, the Amazon total just went up another ten thousand dollars. It's been going up at that rate long enough to raise ten million dollars so far. That's real money.
Happy holidays. — DV 03:18, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm back from work, and guess what? No donation box.
I also realized (made up) the final score of this debate, which is: Face +1, Politics -10000, Humanity -10000000000.
Do you guys know what the single most influential letter within our beloved Licence's name abbreviation is?
GFDL - FREEDOM.
This Donation Box Debate finally resulting in no donation box is a direct contradiction with the F in GFDL, for it is Wikipedia's Soul (and presumably the editors' soul too).
You can freely laugh at my romantic drama here, but I'll keep going until I make clear of my point.
Everything here is basically licensed under (or aimed to be licensed under) GFDL, for Freedom is something every human cherishes, for Freedom is powerful in changing the World. We all are here, mainly because of this F in GFDL. Because we know, our effort, will be assured, via legal protection, to benefit others, the Human Kind, or even the Martians, indefinitely as long as the copyright legal system holds.
However, as of today, Wikipedia has lost its soul.
It did something directly against the principle of GFDL, with persistent and blunt contraditions.
It favors the upholding of Virginity (zero precedence as a donation driving vehicle), at the expense of giving up Freedom, its own freedom, the editors' freedom, and Man Kind's freedom.
It lusts over ideology and fame, at the expense of selling out its soul, the F in GFDL.
It upholds itself intact, but sacrifices others.
It's so selfish, that it goes blind, of the World's misery.
So vivid in front of our eyes, but we let it dive.
into a deep deep utopia called "Wikipedia-land".
where there exists only knowledge, but no heart.
only data, but no meaning.
only order, but no love.
Yes, my soap opera's over... Thank you and Happy Holidays.
--Godric 04:09, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Death toll irregularities

Where are we getting our tsunami death-toll numbers? They are consistently higher than all other major news sources I have seen. Wikipedia should be the most conservative source when it comes to this kind of information. These numbers are hard to verify, and news organizations take a gamble and race to jack up their numbers to appear to have the latest information. (I work for the media.) --Andrew Phelps 17:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We're apparently adding up the numbers reported for each country individually. See the chart on the earthquake/tsunami page. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:38, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The numbers are higly inaccurate, so is everybody elses, thats why we call them estimates. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:43, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=9002303"