Talk:Main Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This page is for discussing the Main Page only.

This is not a place to ask general questions.

If your question is not directly related to the Main Page, consider the following locations:
If in doubt, please see the Questions Help page before posting a question unrelated to the Main Page.
    Skip to table of contents    

[edit] Main Page error reports

Main Page Toolbox
June 9
June 10, 2008
June 11
POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v.
POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v.
POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v.
In the news / In the news suggestions
Did you know / DYK Next Update / DYK Suggestions
Protected main page images
Protected pages associated with Main Page articles
Error reports · General discussions · FAQ
It is now 03:52 UTC
Purge the Main Page
Purge this page

To report an error you have noticed on the current Main Page or tomorrow's Main Page please add it to the appropriate section below. You can do this by pressing the [edit] button to the right of the appropriate section's heading. Also, please sign your post using four tildes ( ~~~~ )

Note that the current date and time are in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), which may not coincide with your local time zone. The next day's featured article of the day, picture of the day, and anniversaries update at midnight (00:00) according to UTC. The current time is 03:52 on June 10, 2008 (UTC). (Update)

Once an error has been fixed, the error report will be removed from this page; please check the page's history to verify that the error has been rectified and for any other comments the administrator may have made. Lengthy discussions should not take place here, and should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere.

References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error, and a suggested rewording is helpful with a stylistic complaint. The main page usually defers to supporting pages when there is disagreement, so it is best to achieve consensus and make any necessary changes there first.

[edit] Errors in the summary of Today's featured article on the Main Page

[edit] Errors in In the news

[edit] Next update

Comment A new item should be added to the template by Wednesday, 11 June 2008 00:42 Wikipedia time (UTC).

Today is Tuesday, June 10, 2008; it is now 03:52 (UTC)

Time since last update: 3 hours. (verify)

To update this updateclock to the current time use: {{ITN-Update|2008|06|10|03|57|38}}

Reset Clock | Purge

[edit] Errors in Selected anniversaries/On this day

  • 1935 – American physician Bob Smith first became sober from alcohol, traditionally marking the founding of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Pls change to "..., marking the traditional founding date of Alcoholics Anonymous." -- (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Presumably he was sober as a child? 'first became sober from alcohol' doesn't really make sense, and is it really necessary to include 'from alcohol'? Modest Genius talk 00:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
One is far more likely to become drunk than sober from alcohol. DuncanHill (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
(2x edit conflict)I tried to clarify the wording. - BanyanTree 00:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Errors in Picture of the Day/Today's featured picture

[edit] Errors in Did you know?

[edit] Next update

Comment Earliest time for next update is Tuesday, 10 June 2008 08:44 Wikipedia time (UTC).

Today is Tuesday, June 10, 2008; it is now 03:52 (UTC)

Time since last update: 1 hour. (verify)

To update this refresh clock to the current time use: {{DYK-Refresh|2008|06|10|03|57|38}}

Reset Clock | Purge

[edit] General discussion


[edit] TFA without date of birth or death

There seems to be a policy, or just a habit, of excluding the birth and death years of people when they are featured on the front page. I can't understand why this is done. The years appear in the article itself right after the person's name, and they have obvious relevance to understanding the context of the biography, just as it is relevant to describe someone's educational background. Whenever I read a biographical TFA, I find myself trying to figure out what period this person lived in, from various "hints" in the TFA blurb.

Example: Today's article is about Harold Innis and says he was a Canadian economic historian. Hmm, I think, that means he must have lived late enough to have had a sizable amount of economic history of Canada to work on. On the other hand, there's a black and white photo, so he can't have lived too recently... Wouldn't it be better if I didn't need to guess? --Zvika (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the purpose of TFA is to garner enough interest for you to click the link to the whole article and read more about it. That may not be the reason DOB/DOD is in there, but that's my impression :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't make much sense. If that were the case, why not leave out other crucial bits of information? The TFA text is just a summary of the LEAD, and I claim that the DOB/DOD is an important part of the LEAD. --Zvika (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I think they're conserving the number of characters for other info. Having DOB+DOD can pretty much lengthen the blurb. The tense (is/was) is good enough to establish whether the person is living or dead. I think that'll be enough. --Howard the Duck 14:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Todays FA (Émile Lemoine) is actually a good example of why this would be useful, since the blurb gives essentially NO clues as to the time period. The presence of a black & white photo gives some indication, but a very imprecise one. How about a compromise in which the years of birth and death are given, but not the precise dates? 'Émile Lemoine (1840-1912)' doesn't take up much space but gets the information across. Modest Genius talk 03:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. In today's FA, for example, one could prune off some of the blurb to make room for the dates of birth and death, so that the blurb wouldn't be lengthened. Consider the following: "He was educated at a variety of institutions, including the Prytanée National Militaire and, most notably, the École Polytechnique." Is the "most notably" really necessary? Take it out and there's the room for the dates of birth and death. I think "most notably" adds very little to the blurb while the dates add a significant amount. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there a policy on this somewhere? I had a quick look, but couldn't find any guidelines for the TFA blurb. It might be worth trying to get this adopted. Modest Genius talk 16:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
AFAIK, the Featured Article Director (Raul654) has never formally written guidelines for TFA blurbs. But then again he is the only one who primarily writes them. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tenses?

On the main page is written in the news section loads of stuff in the present tense. Although this is what has already happened, otherwise it wouldn't be news! Why can't Wikipedia put stuff into the correct tense in the news section? Or am I missing something important that is a reason for the present tense. Cribrad (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Given this is a news section, most of the stuff should be information from things currently happening. You know, the kind you would see on -CamT|C 16:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I realise that. Although I can't help noticing that some of these things, although happened recently, actually occured in the past from when the news written. Such as this from the news today: 'A suicide car bomb explodes outside the Danish embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, killing at least five.' I would have thought in this case it should be displayed as : 'A suicide car bomb exploded outside the Danish embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, which killed at least five.' Cribrad (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
These short news vignettes are written in a form of headlinese (probably because it sounds "newsy") - if you pay attention to most newspaper headlines, you'll note that they will use present tense when describing events in the recent past. Apparently, though, there isn't an official style guide for "In the news". I suggest you bring up the issue at Template talk:In the news. -- (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Style - BanyanTree 01:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Note however the 'killing' may be ongoing. It's easily possible there are victims in hospital in critical condition who may die after the headline was written. These deaths will generally be attributed to the bomb. While it is not inaccurate to say that the bomb killed at least 5 people if it has killed that many so far, since this is a recent even there's also nothing with saying 'killing at least 5' since the event is recent, and the death toll may change Nil Einne (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You can use that tense for events that are explicitly in the past anyway. "In World War II, Nazi Germany organized the Holocaust, killing millions of Jews and other minority groups." Sounds fine to me at least; I've never heard that such uses were wrong. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there's a rule in grammar that no two clauses in a sentence(with atleast one finite verb) can have the same form of tense."In World War II, Nazi Germany organized the Holocaust, killing millions of Jews and other minority groups." - it's not possible to say- ""In World War II, Nazi Germany organized the Holocaust, killed millions of Jews and other minority groups." using '-ing' form nullifies the verb, and hence the present continuous tense is used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arundhati Arjun (talkcontribs) 15:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Perhaps it's just me....

Does anyone else happen to think that the recent deaths section is, well, not very tasteful.While sure, it is a public manner, death that is, especially that which occurs to someone with celebrity status, do you think it should be something that we display so abruptly, especially on the front page? I feel that other things could be used to fill this space. Perhaps there should be a discussion held, and see what other Wikipedians have to say. -CamT|C 03:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, sorry to be blunt and patronising, but Wikipedia contains content that you may find distasteful. I personally don't think it's distasteful anyway- I mean, you'd certainly get obituaries in newspapers- we have a list of rather than obituaries as firstly, we're not a newspaper, and secondly, we cover a lot more people than your average newspaper would. J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

i think milburn is right. obviously, we have to face what is supposedly distasteful, that's the whole point of getting news, it's not selective news, anyway.Arundhati Arjun (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Links to Wikinews

In the In the News section on the Main Page, how about having links to more information after the headline.

How many times have I read a one sentence headline and then tried to find more info and failed?

All it needs is More information after the end of each headline, and when you click on the link it takes you to the Wikinews story.

Yes, I know there's all kinds of ways to find out more info if you want to, but how much easier would it be to have an easy link to Wikinews?

Let's do it!

Nettyboo (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You can already click the bolded link and be taken to the Wikipedia article that has been updated. If people wanted to go to Wikinews, they would, but they have come to Wikipedia. In any case, why should we push Wikinews on our main page more than our other sister projects? J Milburn (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but you don't know if you want to know about that news until you see it on the Main Page. All the updated article does is mention what the headline just told you anyway. It wouldn't be pushing Wikinews, it would just be giving people the option of getting more info. Nettyboo (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikinews is not part of Wikipedia, but a completely independent project that uses the same software. If you want news, go there. (There is a link at the bottom of ITN.) If you want encyclopedic articles, stay in Wikipedia. The articles are different. There may be links in the articles connecting the two. -- (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It is not. Jimbo Wales said Wikia is completly different and it is. However, WikiNews, is a Wikimedia project, so it is related. StewieGriffin! • Talk 16:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
But we arn't one big project, we just happen to have the same org. run it. We already have a wikinews link at the bottom of the column, and in the respective articles. ffm 16:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia is the 800lb gorilla of all the projects. Yes, the person raising this has suggested links to Wikinews, but why not take advantage of the power Wikipedia has to promote other projects? A link to a Wikinews article where one exists would be great. You could go further and have "Quote of the day" from Wikiquote. The projects need to work together and be less self-centered. --Brian McNeil /talk 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please make such suggestions on WP:ITN2. ffm 17:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe if you check there you'll find I already have. --Brian McNeil /talk 18:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, then this conversation is moot. ffm 00:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
"Why not take advantage of the power Wikipedia has to promote other projects?" Wrong question. The correct question is "Why?" not "Why not?"
An 800lb gorilla can exercise its power in all sorts of ways. If you want it to exercise its power in a particular way, then you have to give reasons that single out that way and not the 1,000,000 other ways.
Otherwise Wikipedia's front page will consist of "We are Wikipedia. Today's article is Einstein." and then there will be 500 pages of other websites that "we ought to promote, because what harm does it do us?" -- (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

How many people really know about Wikinews? (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the implication that the reason more Wikipedia readers don't read Wikinews is because we're too stupid to find it. (there are already at least two links.) Perhaps we only have time to read one and we find encyclopedias more interesting.--APL (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The disadvantage of a "more" link to Wikinews is that newbies might be confused. They wouldnt know that they have left Wikipedia. Then theyd'd be confused why they can't find the encylopedic article they were looking for (they'd search Wikinews instead of Wikipedia).
But what we could do is include a link "Read more news at Wikinews" in one of the lower corners of ITN. Puchiko (Talk-email) 11:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Ooops, didn't notice that there already is such a link. Puchiko (Talk-email) 11:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the thing. If someone clicks 'read more' when they're on Wikipedia, they want an encyclopedia article, not get transported to some vaguely related site that they may not 'get'. J Milburn (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with you on that. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're not giving enough credit to the reader. (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As Someone who is primarily a reader I would like the Mainpage To remain free of both advertising and links whose purpose is primarily to promote other projects.
Give the reader a little credit. As it stands, it takes only a moment to locate Wikinews. If readers are not looking at the sister projects perhaps it is because they simply don't want to. Don't beat us over the head with links that try to trick us into generating traffic for some other project. Thank you. --APL (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos to Cuba

Cuba is now offering free sex reassignment surgery.[1][2] Someone should add this to the "In the news" section of the Main page for Wikipedia.-- (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Post it at WP:ITN/C, if no one comments in a couple of hours, look for an admin and tell him/her to add it pronto. --Howard the Duck 03:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Nothing's been updated, which is a shame. J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The proper place for these news items is Portal: Current events. Don't go to WP:ITN/C till you have a well updated article in Wikipedia. -- (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to NPOV?

What is this kind of thing doing on the Main Page?

The formation and evolution of the Solar System began 4.6 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud.

I thought Wikipedia holds a neutral point of view. This is very disappointing. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 00:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm failing to see how it violates WP:NPOV... Maybe I'm just not understanding what you're complaint is. ¢rassic! (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I thinks its about Creationism vs. Evolution -- Coasttocoast (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The featured article is called Formation and evolution of the Solar System, and taking a look at its talk page, it seems that nobody has brought that up before. You would probably want to discuss it there. — Wenli (reply here) 01:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I think he's taking the piss. Lighten up :) Naerii - Talk 14:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:NPOV does not apply to things that are true vs. things that are not true. (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
HOW DOES THAT RELATE???!!! IT IS A MATTER OF OPINION!!! THAT IS WHY THEY CALL IT THE BIG BANG THEORY!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Googolme (talkcontribs) 15:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Scientific theory would enhance your knowledge, I see. Imagine Reason (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I just realized that Conservapedia has probably already quoted the main page as an example of why Wikipedia is run by the evil ultra-liberal gay cabal. « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 12:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Do they run old news? Imagine Reason (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

They say "teach the controversy" but the only controversy is between the institution of science, which has proven its arguments beyond a reasonable doubt, and those who are vandalizing knowledge with their disregard for the scientific process or empirical evidence. MessedRocker (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to propose that the main page lead is changed to read:

The formation and evolution of the Solar System is a theory which claims that the solar system began 4.6 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud.

I think this would be more neutral. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 21:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it doesn't actually make sense. "The formation and evolution of the solar system is a theory"? There might be theories about the formation of the solar system, but the fact that it did form (or was formed) is, I think, a fairly well-established and uncontested fact. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Not as much as you might think. J Milburn (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Ack. The sentence still doesn't make sense. "The formation of the solar system is a theory that the solar system was formed" is, at best, truistic, at worst, meaningless. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't apply here, it would apply if the line read The formation and evolution of the Solar System began 4.6 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud, but really didn't affect anything or other such point of view issues. If the article is properly referenced, and doesn't change the facts that are in those references, this is a non-issue. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 21:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, though, the steady state theory pretty much went the way of the flat earth when we discovered cosmic background radiation. Imagine Reason (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but it was respected by the scientific community in living memory, and, as far as 'scientific explanations' go, it's probably the second. By comparison, creationism has never been respected by the scientific community, and is not really based on science at all. J Milburn (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The complaint/joke revolves around the idea that some people would contest what is said in the article, and so stating those things as fact is non-neutral. J Milburn (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I know :). It took all my will power not to make a god reference instead of the "not changing much" thing. Last thing I need is creationalists after me. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 21:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Hoorah for atheism. =D weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Even better, a lot of these intelligent design/creationism types would claim that their 'scientific' views have nothing to do with their faith... J Milburn (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, exactly... I think it should be left as it is. Seriously, it's only there for a day. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I hope it's not a biblical day. Imagine Reason (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A lot of this could be solved by adding the word "estimated". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That implies more uncertainty than is the case. Imagine Reason (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I am no creationist by any means. But numbers such as the estimated age of the universe and stuff like that are subject to change based on the latest observations. My first thought on reading a bold statement like "the universe is such-and-such age", is "how do they know that?" The answer is that they don't "know" that. It's an estimate based on the the most recent observations. To boldly state it as fact is skirting POV on its face, never mind the creationist nonsense. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, we know that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, plus or minus a few hundred million years. It was in the news recently, if I'm not mistaken. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
We don't know any such thing. The number is the latest estimate based on available evidence. The creationists "know" for sure, and they're wrong. And when scientists claim they "know" such a nebulous figure, they're wrong too. Religionists "know" for sure. All scientists can do is report the latest findings. That's why science trumps religionism. But as soon as they claim they "know", they are setting themselves up to be proven wrong. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the more applicable policy/guideline here is Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought that even if one person doesn't believe it Wikipedia should not take the opposite point of view. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 23:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Undue_weight. ffm 00:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Baseball Bugs and Diligent Terrier. The stars and planets we can observe cannot put their existence into question: they are fact. The explanations of how they came about can only be considered as theories. The word "theory" should be used in this case. Hypocampelephantocamelos 15:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypocampelephantocamelos (talkcontribs)
Bearing in mind that creationism is not even a theory. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is moot, it is no longer on the main page. ffm 17:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] His name is Prince

And it's his birthday (Proof). His 50th one, I might add. Thus, he should have an appearance on the On This Day section.--Montaced (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, births and deaths can only be used on centennials, etc. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UTC vs. change for local time??

Would it be theoretically possible for the main page to skip forward a day or backward a day based on time zone? I live several hours off of UTC and am constantly getting the date wrong because the date changes after 6:00pm. I really think it would clear a few things up. Googolme* 15:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd trust the clock on my computer than the one on a community website. That is not a function of Wikipedia. Imagine Reason (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You are kidding, no? Wikipedia is much better than the clocks on my computers which are always losing or gaining time in the same way as any cheap clock. Almost everyone does not live on UTC time but making these mental adjustments is very much a part of living in the 21st century internet world. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
If it was possible, it would be very awkward and create a lot of work for admins. It would also make discussing the main page (and any other page affected) practically impossible. Sorry, I don't think it's going to happen. J Milburn (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why it would make a lot of work. We have tomorrow's, and yesterday's, main pages set up already, don't we? I thought we also had handy little pages that modelled them. It would surely not be that hard to set it up so that logged in users who had specified a different time zone saw the appropriate main page? I concede that this could lead to confusion when discussing it here, but given this would only apply to those who had taken the time and effort to specify a different time zone for their user, it shouldn't be that big a deal. You could even have an opt-out and informative message when people alter their time zone. Or we could just have "THE DATE WHERE YOU ARE IS ... " in big letters at the top of the screen... (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
How about, next to the date on the main page, we add "[[UTC]]"? That way, there will be no confusion about whether the date on the main page is 'right'. J Milburn (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, actually, despite all of these "end of the world" predictions, I don't see why this wouldn't be possible, for a logged in user at least. Simply use javascript such that whenever the Main Page is visited, load yesterday's, today's, or tomorrow's main page instead, depending on the UTC time + an offset. The talk links would lead to the page to discuss tomorrow's, yesterday's or today's, depending on which is applicable. Of course, ITN would need to be dealt with somehow, but still, I don't see any major problems. Prodego talk 23:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, then you write it. ffm 00:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, actually Googolme should write it, Googolme wants it. But the question wasn't will some one make it, it is can't this be done. I personally have no trouble with UTC, I have a javascript UTC clock that I use to let me know down to the second times. Prodego talk 03:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Look at the lower right corner of OTD. -- (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obama

Hillary has already conceded (see hers and Obama's websites), so shouldn't the news be updated? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Update the article (if not done already) then post at WP:ITN/C or WP:ERRORS above. ffm 02:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

yes, but how can we call him the first 'black'prez, when he's only half-black? does'nt it seem like he's taking advantage of the sympathy factor here? Arundhati Arjun (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WAP version

I think that there should be a link to the mobile / WAP version in a prominent position on this page. The reason is that many people ask for a mobile version on OTRS, and even journalists specialized in IT stuff do not know it exists. Any opposition ? David.Monniaux (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We have a WP:WAP version? *gasp*. ffm 17:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
People actually use WAP? *gasp* ;) Modest Genius talk 18:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I do. When you're on a PSP, NDS, or an actual phone, it can be useful. ffm 18:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Obviously your sarcasm detector needs new batteries. I was referring WAP's commercial flop. Modest Genius talk 21:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Remember, sarcasm is really helpful. ffm 22:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
To add to Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives? -- (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It isn't an alternative main page skin, but more of a alternate wiki-wide skin. ffm 22:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
David, where are you thinking of placing it? I haven't seen the OTRS messages you have been been getting, but I don't see how this could be pressing enough to merit being placed 'above the fold'.- BanyanTree 01:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It might be possible, using CSS, to only display a message to handheld devices. Using something like:

@media all {
    #mainpage-wap-notice { display:none }
@media handheld {
    #mainpage-wap-notice { position:absolute; z-index:100; right:55px; top:10px; display:block; }

we could display something wrapped in a <div id="mainpage-wap-notice"> only to users using a handheld device, assuming they are CSS2 compatible. The above code would display the notice in the same location as the protection icons, regardless of its position in the wikitext. Mr.Z-man 19:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but does WAP implement CSS2? In any case, is this to be wiki-wide? If yes, see WP:VPP. If not, ignore the last sentence. ffm 20:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
According to the article, there isn't a good way to tell if you're on a handheld or not. ffm 20:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
No, the idea is that we put something on the normal main page with a message displayed only to mobile users that we have a WAP version, there's no need to put it on every page. I would assume that since there is a "handheld" media type that at least some mobile browsers support it. The only other way to detect a mobile phone is using Javascript to detect the useragent, but given the huge number of different mobile browsers, it would probably be too much of a performance hit, especially for the mobile users (and fewer mobile browsers probably support Javascript then CSS2). Mr.Z-man 00:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expression Error: Unexpected operator

Could this be on my end maybe? Pleasee see screenshot: TJSwoboda (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK has an expression error

DYK has an expression error in the lbs field --Lemmey talk 00:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That actually appears to be an error in {{convert}}. §hep¡Talk to me! 00:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but the template wasn't modified. It seems to have appeared only for some users while it was on the Main Page. Weird... - BanyanTree 03:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)