Wikipedia talk:Community portal/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Wikipedia:Design overhaul, 2006

The Wikipedia:Design overhaul, 2006 was started by User:PZFUN who now seems to be inactive. What do you think should happen to this project? -- youman

Wiki Email

Hello, I would like to know how I can get my own wiki email address. I would love to have one and I have supported wiki ever since I visited for the first time! User:Resources of Sheboygan Club

Sorry, none of the Wikimedia Foundation websites (which include Wikipedia) provide e-mail addresses - they are all for members of the board etc. However there are many websites such as Google Mail that provide e-mail addresses for free. Please note you should use the + button at the top to add a message to a page and can sign your comments with ~~~~ that produces your username and a timestamp. Lcarsdata (Talk) 06:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think what you're thinking of is the feature that allows people to e-mail a particulat user, using an email address chosen by that particular user, without the actual email address being revealed to the general public. Harryboyles 06:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Motto

Hi! I am the Overseer pro tem for Motto of the Day. Does anyone object to the placement of a banner displaying the motto of the day on the Community Portal.Geo. 23:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

(He's talking about: Wikipedia:Motto of the day)

I object to it being on the Community Portal. Primarily because of all the subjective and ambiguous humour in the currently 'approved' list at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Schedule. I think it would be better kept to just userspace, like userboxes.

Instead, i've added a link to it under the Resources "Community Information" section, next to Games and Humour. --Quiddity 00:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What needs to be done for you to not object to its inclusion Geo. 06:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing, sorry. I simply don't find the content funny or relevant. Though I do note that noone has disagreed with me in 5 days...

To me, there is no significant difference between these mottos and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Humor. Keep it in userspace. --Quiddity 19:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

admin comment please

HI i had two suggestions i would appreciate a reply from any administrator on whether these are feasble:

1 a VERY user friendly tutorial on how to contribute prominently positioned on the main page i am a passionate fan of wiki but i found it difficult to get the hang of: creating new articles, inserting images and most importantly the conventions of wikipedia, i think we need a more simplified tutorial page.

2. can wiki develop a: "did you mean" spelling correction thingy like yahoo or google i think this would improve our user friendliness.--Esmehwk 23:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In reply to your comments (from a non admin):

1) No one in a high status would ever support this, the main page does have a promenent link to the tutorial pages but will never be converted to a tutorial as it is meant to be a gateway for both editors and readers to the encyclopedia. Prehaps if you gave your opinion in the sidebar redesign you might get a link in the sidebar.

2)I have been told, or read, somewhere that this is avalible but disabled to save server bandwidth. I don't acutally think it is possible with the current MediaWiki software, however it is always possible for someone to make a mod to add it or make a change to the MediaWiki software itself, however it is unlikely that if this was done it would be implemented for the reason that it would use up to much server bandwidth (I have been told or seen).

I hope this gives you an answer to your question as I doubt an admin would have come round anytime soon as they have far too much other work to do than replying to, what many people would think, is a new user who is trying to suggest changes to Wikipedia that they don't understand Lcarsdata (Talk) 17:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, click on anyone can edit on the main page, for the introduction-tutorial. --Quiddity·(talk) 17:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Lcarsdata, on the contrary. Admins do try to help new users; after all, admins were new users too at some point in time. Why exactly would there be no support for a contributors' guide? (I'm an admin with 23,000 edits, by the way.)

However, about the tutorial: There's several ways to start contributing, so there's really no "catch-all" way to point new users to things that need doing, yet we try to provide Wikipedia:Introduction. However, a few good places to start are Your first article, for those interested in writing about new subjects (make sure you just don't step into anything that could be covered by notability guidelines, and you'll be safe). If you're looking for places to copyedit, try having a look at Cleanup; however, I'd recommend confining yourself to an area of your own interest, so try looking if there's a good WikiProject in which you would fit.

As for the search, we use Lucene search to try to look for common typos, so it isn't something that needs to be fixed in MediaWiki, but rather in LuceneSearch . I believe some work was being done about that, but I have no clue what ended up happening to it, as it was rather low-priority compared with other critical issues, such as Single log-in and well-known bugs. Titoxd^(?!?) 09:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I meant no one would in a high status would support changing the Main Page into a user tutorial. I probably mis-interpreted Esmehwk's idea. Lcarsdata (Talk) 20:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Instance of advertisement

The article Tumkur has a clear piece of advertisement in it. I don't know what to do with it. Can an experienced user please look into it and also advise me as to what to do if I come across such things. Thanks Shruth 07:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Simply add {{Advert}} to the top of the article (or section) that is a piece of advertisment. Lcarsdata (Talk) 10:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Media guidelines

Can we add a link to the media creation guidelines I suppose are here?--I hate to register 12:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

They are not guidlines as far as I can tell, so they probably do not merit a place on the Community Portal however if that page was promoted to guideline or policy it would. Lcarsdata (Talk) 17:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's linked at Help:Contents (and doesnt need to be a guideline. It's just a help page). --Quiddity·(talk) 17:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost

Being slightly pedantic - the entry/title "Guidance on publicity photos called dangerous" is slightly ambiguous. Jackiespeel 17:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If you would like to contact someone about this please contact the Wikipedia Signpost, they are not related to the Community Portal (except the subscription is here). Lcarsdata (Talk) 16:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

New references format

Is the references form at new references format policy? Why is it being "pushed" on the Wikipedia: Community Portal? SteveMc 00:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I would hardly say it is being pushed, however I don't see why you have a problem with it - it's something people can help with. Lcarsdata (Talk) 17:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's at a user subpage, because he wrote it, and the tool itself resides at his own website. (Nothing has to be "formal" around here. We're just a community of volunteers after all ;) --Quiddity·(talk) 22:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Add Template:Cent to CBB?

Centralized discussion

Discussions

• Removing warnings (cent)
• Apartheid (cent)
• German de-adminship solution
• Administrator recall (revised)
• Cross-namespace redirects
• Fair use images in lists
• Spoiler warnings (RFC)
• Userbox-related:
  • Simple userbox solution
  • Userbox policy
  • German userbox solution

Straw polls

• State route naming conventions
• Admin accountability
• Blocking policy proposal
• AfD reform
• Ref reform

I'd like to propose adding a "cleaned up" version of Template:Cent to the Community Bulletin Board (directly under the Signpost, same width). This seems to be a well-managed list of centralized discussions, many of which get their one-week-of-fame in the notices. Since these important discussions last longer than one week, the compressed list format offers good access for the productive life of each discussion. What do you all say? Rfrisbie^talk 15:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I added a simple mock-up for a visual aid. Rfrisbie^talk 17:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be useful I would agree with it being added, however I think it should be left off until community concencus is clear. Their has been a lot of disscussion about the CBB so I think it should wait until others have had a chance to comment. It would make the area look more balanced and also neater. Lcarsdata (Talk) 18:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, there's no hurry. Here's a test layout of the proposed box in the CBB. Rfrisbie^talk 19:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As your test layout shows, it's a bit too long! It would leave an even larger empty-whitespace gap than we already have (which is what the numerous CBB redesign tweaks had been futile attempts to fix).

As an alternative, could I suggest that perhaps a new page of advanced user tool-templates be created (and linked to from somewhere on the CP). There are numerous other highly useful ones, like Wikipedia:RFA summary and those at User:Dragons flight/Category tracker, and some of the templates from User:Zondor/Toolboxes, eg {{WikiProjectWikifyTasks}}, and {{Active Wiki Fixup Projects}}.

These are all (like {{cent}}) too large, or specialized, to be on the CBB, but might be nice to have grouped together somewhere? Just a thought. --Quiddity 01:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

All good ideas! I don't like the white space either. It seems the "left-column" content has been a bit too sparce of late...begging the question of it's "status" as "Table 1." A three-across row with the Signpost & the two discussion sections probably would fill the space better, but being dynamic, it always would take putzing. But...it seems like there are at least four hierarchical levels of bringing in and formatting content to the "Community Portal" concept from other pages: 1) lists, like "Things to do"; 2) boxes, like "Signpost"; 3) thematic tables, like "CBB" and 4) pages, like Quiddity's suggested "advanced user" page. If there's really a "missing theme," at CP, e.g., "advanced user topics" (already needs a new name ;), my first choice would be to try out a new CP table layout first, rather than going "off page," but I suppose size does matter in this case. If this topic turns into a page, then I would hope to develop it to the status of a reference page. After that, The Sidebar!!! >;-o) Rfrisbie^talk 02:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have done a test at User:Lcarsdata/Sandbox#Revised, the colors of the boxes on the left could be changed and I can't think of a good width to set the boxes on the left at to make it look even. The ones on the left all need the same width otherwise it will look ugly. Also the lists in the left boxes can be split into two columns if the need arises. Lcarsdata (Talk) 09:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. However, now that Quiddity has come up with another good idea about "similar" boxes, I wonder. Is there a "single best" CBB-related template, or are there multiple contenders? All the other CP sections are larger than CBB and use a two-column layout. Would it help to solidify a list of "high-level, current information" templates that would fit into a slightly expanded scope for CBB? Rfrisbie^talk 17:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I just stumbled across Wikipedia:Watch. Is this a prototype for the "advanced user" page? Rfrisbie^talk 02:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I like that page, prehaps we could link to it from the CBB. It could do with some work though. Lcarsdata (Talk) 16:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

High-level page color palettes

Is there much interest in doing a little more coordination of the high-level color palettes on pages like this, the reference page headers and the main page? I've listed some of these palettes at User:Rfrisbie/Palettes and have been following Wikipedia:Colours. Overall, the palettes are fairly well stylized with some minor inconsistencies here and there. Agreeing to some HSV color space palette conventions, existing or revised, could tighten things up a bit, as well as offer guidance for adding additional hues and/or multi-header palettes, whether on high level pages or others that want to use the style. Rfrisbie^talk 04:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for it, I kinda hoped you and John were going to just forge ahead with it ;) --Quiddity 05:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My wikitime has been reduced lately, plus high profile pages seem to need a little more consensus-building than most. I could tweak the colors here just a bit for starters, if no one objects. Rfrisbie^talk 05:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and adjusted all color palettes to.. Border: Hn S15 V75; Header: Hn S15 V95; Background: Hn S4 V100. The biggest noticeable change should be the borders will appear slightly darker. This is because I went with header borders all around each section, since they have no spacing to separate the main border and header border. Other than that, I went with a 60 degree increment for the closest Hue values, plus Saturation and Value (brightness) values described at Wikipedia:Colours. Here's a hex and HSV summary. Rfrisbie^talk 15:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Community Portal palettes
Section	Border		Header		Background
CBB	#B1A3BF	H:270 S:15 V:75	#E0CEF2	H:270 S:15 V:95	#FAF5FF	H:270 S:4 V:100
To do	#A3BFB1	H:150 S:15 V:75	#CEF2E0	H:150 S:15 V:95	#F5FFFA	H:150 S:4 V:100
Collab	#BFB1A3	H:30 S:15 V:75	#F2E0CE	H:30 S:15 V:95	#FFFAF5	H:30 S:4 V:100
Help	#A3B1BF	H:210 S:15 V:75	#CEE0F2	H:210 S:15 V:95	#F5FAFF	H:210 S:4 V:100

It looks great :) --Quiddity 18:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Tabs?

I'm a big fan of breaking long pages like this into tabbed subpages. My suggestion would be to go for a more streamlined style like at the top of every page. Here's a draft example for another group of pages. [1] What do you all think of doing something like that here? :-) Rfrisbie^talk 03:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The main problem with using subpages, is the additional loading time. I prefer the speed and centrality advantages of having it all on one page. Secondly it's not something we would recommend applying in mainspace, so I'd be hesistant to use it a lot in projectspace.

Also, I think the tabbed-subpage style is being used at Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:Tutorial, primarily so as not to overwhelm the new users they're aimed at.

On the other hand, that is kinda what happened to Help:Contents; resulting in many subpages, and the all-in-1 Help:Contents/Site map, so if enough people agree with the idea, it's a possibility with options. :) --Quiddity 04:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought one advantage of subpages was speedier loading time, but I guess CP isn't really all that big. I still think tabs are a good way to manage subpages, when a topic gets to that size. At least it's something to keep in mind. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 14:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers

Is it really necessary to post the disclaimer that information is a "spoiler" as is the case in an increasing number of articles? This seems inappropriate to me in an encyclopedia format. I understand why this is used in fan forums but the Wikipedia ideally provides authouritative articles on a variety of subject matter. There should be a n assumption that if someone is looking up an article that it may to contain a comprehensive account of a subject. I don't think it's appropriate to adopt a fan page convention in this case.

I think it would be rude to tell people that SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE or that [deleted], especially if they hadn't read the book/seen the movie/whatever. ~ Flameviper 21:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

OMG! You just told me what happens in the story, I haven't finished it yet. :( Lcarsdata (Talk) 06:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the 2nd spoiler. Some people won't have read the book yet, and don't need it spoiled here. --Quiddity 07:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL! You just proved my point! ~ Flameviper 16:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted it again. Please stop spoiling things. Thank you. --Quiddity 19:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Pulldates?

I understand the principle of a pulldate; to keep the list from growing like something that grows out of control. But what if there's only one thing on the list? It could just stay there until something else comes up. Whatever. ~ Flameviper 16:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the CBB looks weird when it is empty. Lcarsdata (Talk) 16:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Norfuk Community Portal

Could someone please create an interwiki link to pih:Wikipedia:Trii'nohlij? Thanks. Norfuker 10:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC).

Done. Misza13 10:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou! =) Norfuker 10:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Largest Organism

I'm a bit new to wikipedia as an editor, but a long time reader... I think this may be a good place to mention this though I a bit unsure. Anyway, the Largest Organism page has more errors than any other page I have ever seen on wiki, the page is tagged, but it seems noone with any expertese has stoped by in a few months or so. could someone please tak a look? Thanks, if this is the wrong place to mention this sort of thing plese steer me in the right direction, thanks again. John Doe or Jane Doe 11:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Expanding Wiki to WAP wiki

Are there any plans to allow access to Wikipedia via WAP?, or does it already exsist?. If not this would be the ultimate for those Pub Quiz's!. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lz57s9 (talk • contribs) .

See Wikipedia:WAP access. -Quiddity 18:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Good!

Reviewing the discussions I have encountered during my short time on Wikipedia – when I look back on it all – either in disagreement or consensus; what a wonderful place to be this is, whether we need it or not – instantaneous democracy – whatever it means – with all its faults and fruits is hardly expressed better than within this forum. So many hard feelings have been expressed towards a result that is so good that I can't but embrace our disputes. --Profero 21:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This isn't exactly the place for this type of comment...but we appreciate nonetheless!--HereToHelp 23:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem with today's tip

The long plaintext url in the codesample at Wikipedia:Tip of the day/November 4, 2006 is breaking the layout at Wikipedia:Community Portal#Departments. I'm unsure how to fix this, or reword it. Thanks. --Quiddity 01:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's okay now on larger screens, but causes some scrolling on smaller screens. --Aude (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

My TOTD edits didn't work for all screen sizes. I reverted back to your version, but relocated TOTD on the community portal for today to the bottom of the page, full width. It can be reverted back to normal tomorrow. Or maybe someone else has a better solution? --Aude (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Screenshot of original problem added. It was worse with the PRE tag, but still causes (or would be) a lot of bunching in the left column. --Quiddity 04:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Assigments for Mid-Term Election Pages

Should Wiki assign editors for editing or semi-protect the United States general elections, 2006 election pages for November 7th, because vandals/trolls will most likely cause harm to the pages? Should we assign frequent editors on specific pages to update results, or should we just wait until November 8th when the (hopefully uncontested) results come in? ---- Bearly541 talk 01:55, Sunday November 5, 2006 (UTC)

If there is vandalism, a request to protect the page can be made at WP:RFPP. Regarding updates, it is best to just wait. Wikipedia is not a news source. —Centrx→talk • 07:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Any Rules Requiring Evidence to Back Up Your Claims?

Are there any rules requiring someone to provide evidence and logical reasoning for his position, especially if he keeps reverting an article? If not, there should be. At one of the articles I frequent, some people have pretty blatantly resorted to the broken record tactic: continually repeating that they are correct, without ever bothering to show how and why they are (they insist that they've already shown the evidence, but that I just ignore it; apparently, copying and pasting or pointing out the specific date when the supposed proof was given is too much for them). Worse, they LOVE hiding behind other rules and functions here at Wikipedia, continuously tossing out "official" warnings telling me to stop reverting or be banned. Today, one of them stooped to an even lower level. Instead of just making up falsehoods about the topic of the article, or how they supposedly already provided proof, he has resorted to making up things about what I said at another internet forum. I asked him twice to support this latest claim, and as usual, he hasn't done it. I'm sure this is violating the spirit of Wiki, even if it's not violating any existing written rule (again, if a rule requiring evidence for claims doesn't exist already, it should be made). Is there any way I can resolve this? I'm not asking for anyone to get involved in the dispute; just for help pointing me towards an authority who can review the situation and force these guys to put up some evidence already, or stop reverting. JimRaynor55 16:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

JimRaynor55 is distorting the situation, as *he* is the one who has continually brought about the reversions and edit warring on the article in question. Also, Raynor's allegation that I have "stooped to a new level" is baseless, as I was immediately able to point out the specific quote he made on another forum that I said he made. Almost the entirety of this editor's "contributions" to Wikipedia have been a continuous effort to remove references to a specific website or idea that he disagrees with. He has made no effort to work with the community, or to abide by consensus, even when other editors have tried to work and/or reason with him. He demands that his views be given precedence over all others, and constantly derides, belittles, or insults the opinions or actions of those who disagree with him. He has been warned about 3RR, and constantly skirts on the edges of violating that rule. TheRealFennShysa 17:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't want to bring others into this, but you did it yourself, TheRealFennShysa. No matter. I'm not afraid of truth, or the evidence. Anyone who wants to get involved, READ the entire article, as well as the discussion page (which is disgustingly repetitive thanks to the actions of guys TheRealFennShysa). Seriously, READ IT. I continually ask TheRealFennShysa for evidence, but he continually ignores the request while saying he's already done it. But if you read through the discussion page, there is NOTHING there. TheRealFennShysa's statements here that almost all of my contributions are on one issue amounts to nothing but an ad hominem, as are his claims that I refuse to work with the "community" and the "consensus." BTW, this supposed "consensus" is made up only of TheRealFennShysa himself and one other active user. A few others have chimed in on both sides, but this is basically just a 2 vs. 1 debate. I see no reason why the two people should automatically get their way, and calling this a "community" is a joke. JimRaynor55 17:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Since I don't want to fill up the community portal with comments about this stupid dispute, I'm asking anyone who wants to comment on this to post in the discussion page of the "Star Wars canon" article instead. However, the request for any information regarding rules for evidence still stands. JimRaynor55 17:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

So in other words, JimRaynor55 wants to get his way, even though (as he even admits) he's outnumbered. I think interested parties will find this post that he made on another forum most interesting, where in addition to some rather colorful language to describe those who disagree with him, he's also soliciting for help from other potential editors in turning the article more to his liking, which is highly inappropriate or unacceptable. MikeWazowski 07:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Two simple rules:

• If a change is disputed, use the older version before the changes was implemented until the dispute is resolved. Do not edit war. Do not revert.
• See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Follow the recommendations of uninterested parties that comment on the dispute.

—Centrx→talk • 08:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia information on another site?

http://experts.about.com/e/a/as/assassin_(game).htm This is nearly a complete copy of the same article on Wikipedia. Could someone research something about this? --RedKlonoa 17:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I recommend you have a look at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. --Maxamegalon2000 04:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

CBB template

i was just wondering why the Community Bulletin Board is in the Template: namespace, as opposed to, say, Wikipedia: namespace? Mlm42 13:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think WP:CBB is in the Template namespace because that is its purpose on the Community Portal. --Farquaadhnchmn_(Dungeon) 21:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

McCain again

Had a look at the John S. McCain page; there was a references list (thanks), but somehow, the text following fn2 had gotten attached to the references, rather than included in the body. Can somebody fix it? (The correct text is in the edit section, just not showing up.) Trekphiler 07:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion of new Wiki Project

What about a WikiProtocols for scientific protocols??? Most scientists (like myself) would love to have a place to exchange scientific protocols and to discuss their optmization and nuances. Although there are a few sites dedicated to this none of them have the power and influence of the Wiki foundation. Waisberg 19:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)waisberg

This page is just for discussing the design/content of the Community Portal. A suggestion like this belongs at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Thanks :) --Quiddity 20:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

proposal

Does anyone feels that there should be a general rule that all fa articles ought to be maintained? so many of them have now turned garbage thanks to "contributors" who can't write, can't think and has a big problem with npov. such a pity that, after so much sweat, the only way is down. 165.21.83.240 09:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Who would enforce the rule? Anyway, all that'd need to be done to fix it is for someone to pull up a diff from the point at which the article was featured, and either do a full revert if every subsequent edit was garbage, or a small chunk of work checking the diff for improvements and removing the dross. Just a case of being bold. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 12:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for article histories

Idk if this post belongs here, but I couldn't find a better place on Wiki for it. We could benefit from a "suggestion box" page. Anyway, it is hard to locate where the change took place when reviewing a history of changes to articles. Can the changes be highlighted on the history page to make them more visible? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.139.226.34 (talk • contribs) .

Only by using Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. And the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) is essentially the suggestion box. :) --Quiddity 03:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC). Should this not be available in natural course?--Darrendeng 10:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Help out

Something seems to be wrong with this section for me, the section on the left seems to underlap the section on the right, making "[edit]" bits appear to be "[ed" and one line even appearing as

Can you speak another language? There are articles that ne
translation into English.

As it doesn't seem to be mentioned, I'm not sure if it's something wrong with my browser though. Could someone else check this? Akata 18:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't duplicate the problem, or see anything obviously wrong in the code. What browser/OS are you using? -Quiddity 20:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm using Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP SP2. If others aren't seeing it it could just be a problem in IE7 or just my setup. Also in Fay_D._Flourite#Magical_Ability the spoiler line appears to puncture the picture on the left. --Akata 22:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Muahahaha. (And, why?!) The problem is (the manufacturer of) your browser. This (Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes#IE fixes) is why people hate IE. You'll have to ask at WP:VPT. --Quiddity 03:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Music

I recently attempted to play some music on the Beta player, which was aqpparently inaccessible. Why? 75.34.8.146 02:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The code for the beta player is hosted on the toolserver; unfortunately MySQL on that server isn't working, so it's returning errors, The developers know about the toolserver problems, but I don't know when they will be able to fix it – Gurch 05:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible to fix it soon? – 75.34.8.146 02:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be working now – Gurch 04:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

How many new projects is too many new projects?

I'm basically in the process of updating the list of WikiProjects, and find quite a few that are comparatively new and could benefit from new members. Rather a lot, actually. How many projects do you all think should be listed at any one time? I can always stagger the new project listings so that too many don't appear at once. Badbilltucker 22:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Roughly matching the length of the "newsy" column on the right is visually appealing. If you're up for managing the pull dates while you "catch up" the WikiProjects list, I'd suggest keeping it about the length it is now. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 03:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

FIX THE NEW MEXICO PAGE

someone has put indecent images all over the New Mexico state page, please fix immediatley. I would, but I am new and don't know how to change pictures. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to put this here, but it's the only place I can find, but the matter is please fix the New Mexico page from the terrible vandalism! Bcody 00:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Somebody inserted them into a template, which resulted in them showing up on a number of pages including that one. It was fixed fairly quickly – Gurch 05:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That sort of blatant vandalism, especially in a high-profile page or a template that's used in many pages, rarely lasts long even if it goes unreported on talk pages like this. *Dan T.* 17:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)