Talk:Main Page/Archive 114

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Pro Wrestling WikiProject

The above WikiProject has 7 articles nominated at WP:GAN.

If someone is interested in reviewing the articles, please do so; as members of the WikiProject to not want to review the articles, because of accusations of conflict of interest. Lex T/C Guest Book 17:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the Main Page or its Talk Page and therefore does not belong here, try Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) instead. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 18:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to add "Today's featured list" to the main page

See Wikipedia:Today's featured list.

The Transhumanist    09:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if we can make room. Ultimately though, people hardly see the featured picture as it is. Adding more stuff will just clutter it up more. snowball71 (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

History

When is this Website is first formed and created? How did the makers made a website like this? How did the Admins create this? Where is the device that the people used to make this Website?(Thunderclacker the F22 (talk) 07:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC))

See Wikipedia, History of Wikipedia, and MediaWiki.-gadfium 08:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction in messages regarding main page

When I select "View Source" on the main page, I get the message "You do not have permission to do that, for the following reasons: This page is currently protected from editing..."

That doesn't make sense. I didn't select an icon to edit the main page, only to view the source. I am allowed to view the source (but not edit the page). It does display the source of the page much further down.

Is there any way this can be amended please?90.204.70.87 (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "permission to do that" should be changed to "permission to edit". This goes for all protected pages, not just the Main Page. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Humm...after a bit of research, it looks to be like the offending text (found, in the MediaWiki namespace at MediaWiki:Permissionserrorstext) seems to have something to do with the cascade protection, it dosn't appear in regualrly protected pages. I also had a look at the cascade protection related pages in MediaWiki, and it doesn't appear to be related to any of them. My guess is it only shows up when a page is protected two ways, the full protection and the cascade, as is the main page and not many, if any, others. An admin, then, would need to change MediaWiki:Permissionserrorstext, but, being that the wording doesn't mention protected pages, I'd make sure its not doing something else before changing it.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It's the catch-all for protection permissions that haven't been properly set up; it may also occur under certain other events. It doesn't occur when attempting to delete or block a user when not an admin, but there may be certain circumstances where it does (perhaps if I tried to use checkuser?) and as such, it should be kept general. Laïka 20:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Tendentious caption

"killed and set aflame" - aside from the fact that "cremated" might be a more accurate description, it begs asking the question whether a dead body can be referred to as a "boy". Coupled with the fact that there is no comment on the allied soldiers casually strolling by, I'd say this is straight American propaganda. Shame on you! Let's be impartial (talk) 06:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh? It does appear to be a boy who was killed and set aflame. I suppose "Two soldiers walk past..." could be prepended, if that helps any. If not, I'm not entirely sure what the nature of your complaint is. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
1. That's not what "cremation" means.
2. Are you actually disputing that the picture shows a young boy who has been killed and set aflame?
3. Those soldiers are British, not American.
4. Any assertion that those soldiers are "casually strolling by" is not supported by the content of the picture. For all we know, they're "surveying the damage resignedly." Both of these assertions are plausible; neither should be presented in the caption as fact.
71.235.98.141 (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Why a fair use image on the main page?

Didn't Jimbo ban fair use images from the main page? Image:Angel-gabriel.jpg is clearly a fair use image since Folke Heybroek, the artist who created this work of art, died in 1983. The work of art depicted is not even 30 years old and Panoramafreiheit doesn't apply in Sweden. Valentinian T / C 08:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And this image was tagged with {{c-uploaded}} even though the filename corresponds to no image in Wikimedia Commons! --74.13.128.15 (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Not only that, all {{c-uploaded}} images must also include a copy of the source information and the licence tag from the Commons along with the image.[1] This also helps verify that the source and copyright are correct and valid, especially if the image was uploaded locally here on Wikipedia by a non-admin, which in this case was. Clearly, the admin who posted it on DYK missed the ball on that one hi. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured Pics

Why does it seem that many of the featured pictures are so disturbing, nauseating, and utterly disgusting? I know, I know, Wikipedia is not censored, but why must we have a picture of a boy burning to death? I know it is reality for him, but must this photo be viewed by millions of people every day? I really think that some more thought needs to be given to Wikipedia policies regarding, not all images, but the ones that go on the front page where they are viewed by a vastly greater audience. Benjamin 01:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, even though Wikipedia is not censored an image like this is pushing it for a page that will be viewed by such a vast amount of people. These images have a place on Wikipedia, that place is not on the main page in my opinion. What is our next featured image? A close up of a man getting blown up by an RPG? Dodo48 (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Currently on December 4 there will be a boy holding a grenade launcher. Evil Monkey - Hello 03:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
These complaints are not new. This is not the first, fifth, tenth, even fiftieth time someone has objected to the main page featured image. The community at large strongly opposes imposing restrictions on what may be shown on the Main Page, and this is very unlikely to change in the future. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it the community at large or is it just those who know how to voice their opinions? I doubt you can truly say more people want these images than those who don't based on the entire viewer base of Wikipedia. Don't get me wrong i support that Wikipedia is not censored i just think we should make the main page more universally suitable. Some people take pictures very seriously and can get very uneasy with pictures like these. Those people obviously do not search for pictures like these, why throw one in their face on the main page? Showing a dead young man burning in a picture on a main page is kind of extreme. Please don't respond with "Think about the children!" this is not what i am getting at. Dodo48 (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you find the realities of our world disturbing. So do I. You may, however, wish to address your complaints to the world rather than to Wikipedia. Censoring Wikipedia to shield readers from the world's horrors (war, in this case) only makes it more likely that those readers will continue their unwitting toleration of those horrors in real life.71.235.98.141 (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Start uploading and nominating pictures you prefer, guys. --74.13.128.15 (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the first two comments - today's picture should not be shown. Children will be disturbed looking at this picture - and many adults will as well. Please consider who will check out the front page before putting images like this on the front in future. I know Wikipedia is not censored - but with that freedom comes responsibility.194.105.120.80 (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The problems is/are who decides and/or how should the community decide what image should appear. --Howard the Duck 08:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The point is not whether these images should be included in Wikipedia but rather whether presenting them in the Front Page, which I (and other people) use as our home page, without any sort of warning, is fair. It's one thing to find these images while looking for them and another to have them shoved into our faces. For years I had little trouble with this but recently I've been fearing to scroll down to the bottom because of the disturbing imagery. I'm tired of this and will not check the Picture of the Day anymore until some guarantee is given to us that better judgment will be used in the picture selection. Alternatively: how about giving us the option of simply blocking the PotD image, as is the case with the ad for the Wikipedia donations? That would at least give those of us who check the Front Page regularly the ability to do so without effectively having to hide from our own Home Pages. -Wilfredo Martinez (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia should just go ahead an implement the "Featured Flower or Non-Predatory Insect That Is Not Mating" 72.10.110.107 (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If you care to answer User:Howard the Duck's comment above (who will decide what should or should not be shown), then the problem will be solved and no-one offended any more. I think it's an excellent example of the sort of picture which more people should see. Whilst the event it shows happened over half a century ago, the same is happening now to similar people in various places around the world. Perhaps if more young people were exposed to what really happens in conflicts, rather than just receive the sanitised TV versions of events, they might be more informed in later life when it came to choosing who they wish to be led by. Bazza (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This whole argument about what should and should not get on the front page, whether as TFA, INT, DYK or OTD, goes right to the heart of censorship. People bandy terms such as "better judgement" about, without considering that what one person considers "better" isn't necessarily what another would call it. That's what censorship is about; one person, or a group of people, with their own principles and morals imposing those morals and principles on others. Who is to judge whether one viewpoint or another is correct? Certainly I wouldn't trust anyone who appointed themselves sole arbiter of what we may and may not view, within the bounds of law. The answer can only lie in user choice; whether by allowing users to opt out of seeing the picture (doesn't help non-registered users), to educate users (go get Firefox, install AdBlock, set it up so you don't see the picture, for example), or some other means...that is the question. Anything other than user choice is censorship, and talking about sensitivities or "protect the children" (who play 1st person shoot-em-up video games, watch the blood and gore Hollywood churns out, etc etc) just hides censorship behind "morality" or "good taste". These continuing and pointless debates about individual PoTDs don't get anywhere, and do no good.
The day that Wikipedia falls into the hands of any group that restricts freedom of choice, freedom of expression, or civil liberties is probably about the day that Jimbo and many other people go off and set up a competitor. Carre (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia, by necessity, already restricts all of these things to some extent (even if in some cases only due to legal considerations). It would be better to recognise that and lay down more non-changing rules (beyond the likes of NPOV and others) to clarify exactly what boundaries there are. "Anything goes" is not a Wikipedia principle, even if "Anything you can get away with" is often a de facto principle. 193.1.100.110 (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This would be impossible to implement, I tell you. --Howard the Duck 16:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

To Wilfredo Martinez, you have every right to not check the picture of the day, that is the proper response to something that disturbs you. You do not have the right, however, to prevent other people from viewing that content. This is an encyclopedia, and I oppose wholeheartedly any censorship, even on the main page. If you don't want to see it, don't scroll down that far. Mad031683 (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the alternative main pages would be to Mr. Martinez's liking. There isn't one that looks exactly like the current layout sans POTD, but Classic(2006) comes close. 72.10.110.107 (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I know it is reality for him, but must this photo be viewed by millions of people every day?
This is reality for millions of people, everyday.67.173.131.28 (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It's trivial to create one: Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (no TFA). This should be exactly the same as the main page, but minus TFA. Laïka 20:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
You mean "no TFP". I'd fix it myself, but I'm not 100% sure how, sorry. 72.10.110.107 (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Moved. You do it by clicking the 'move' tag at the top of the page, but you have to be a registered user whose account is at least a few days old. Algebraist 01:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are you complaining? The picture isn't easy to see. All you have to do is read the comment. If you don't want to see a dead boy. You can safely avoid it. But this is important. To show the reality of war. Shielding reality is the reason why war hawks and armchair warriors drive nations to wage wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.107.45 (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not advocating censorship *at all*, I'm defending the right of people not to see disturbing imagery if they don't want to. To those of you who think doing so would increase awareness of injustice, it's a noble idea but such shocking approaches can backfire by driving people *away* from the topics that you want to be discussed; think about that, or better yet, research it here in Wikipedia. Right now, I just want to be able to go back to reading the Main Page every morning without having to wonder what new disturbing image has been posted. I'm going to try the alternatives mentioned, because it would feel really silly to avoid the images just by not scrolling down, especially when many of the FPs HAVE been interesting and educative. -Wilfredo Martinez (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just wondering-have you considered spending your time at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates? I mean, there's always plenty of criticism when a controversial image is featured, but at that time nothing can be done about it. If you want such images not to appear on the main page, you should raise the concern at WP:FPC. This image's nomination passed with 15 supports, and 0 opposes. The only concern raised was the POV-ness of the caption, and that was fixed. Puchiko (Talk-email) 22:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but no. I believe I have done my duty to Wikipedia by voicing my concerns here. I have now changed my Home Page to the NFA alternative, that is enough for me. Of course, this doesn't resolve the PR problems the image selection is causing Wikipedia, but that is in other people's hands now. -Wilfredo Martinez (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This debate is as gay as this. --Howard the Duck 06:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, do you think for the Christmas day featured picture, we can perhaps get a picture of a over-weight, old white guy with a long white jolly beard getting ran over by a truck with it's gas tank exploding above his head? I'm sure there is a picture like that on here somewhere. As a plus, it would fit right in with the other featured pictures and it would even be festive! 68.143.88.2 (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. Please read Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria before nominating an image. I am afraid that a picture of a over-weight, old white guy with a long white jolly beard getting ran over by a truck with it's gas tank exploding above his head has little or no encyclopaedic value. Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Newest articles links

The top one has links to content that could be harmful to children viewing the encyclopedia for school work or research.

Shouldn't the main page have censored content due to the traffic coming to this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.130.174 (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia is not censored. The article in bold font should be safe to read in school, though. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Better they should learn here than on the streets. —Nricardo (talk) 07:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Though I'm not sure how many streets would teach people about mammals displaying homosexual behaviour. :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 12:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately? Your opinion, guy. I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of knowledge. Some things may be controversial, but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Death, drugs, sex, violence etc are very real things. Its not up to us what children should or shouldn't see or read - that's for their parents, tutors and teachers. --Soetermans (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Not that I agree with the OP, but I believe Jeffrey meant 'unfortunately for the OP' not his own belief. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
It's important for people to understand that Wikipedia is not safe for kids, period. Any vandal can add a link to any page that could funnel a kid to a pedophile's Web site or tries to trick him into releasing exploitable information. There's no way that you can have an encyclopedia that anyone can edit which does not allow Internet's least ethical people free access. The only way to keep kids safe here is to train them to protect themselves - and if you don't want them to learn inconvenient things you'll have to trust them not to look. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Again, Wikipedia is not censored for minors. Sorry, just something that is. <DREAMAFTER><TALK> 23:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I can take care of myself (and I am still a minor). I am also mature about *sensitive subjects*. Unfortunately, not everyone else is, but I would really rather *they* learn than be sheltered from it all for their entire childhood and therefore "tolerance through ignorance". ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 03:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Any featured pictures of old white guys?

We're so close to the quintuple combo... --- RockMFR 04:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Very funny :) Raul654 (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • What is the quintuple combo may I ask? -Susanlesch (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Presumably all 5 main page images being of old white men. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Christopher Parham, thank you. Best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I've swapped in a cropped picture of Nancy Astor, Viscountess Astor at SA/OTD. Hope this helps in WP:CSB for pictures of middle-age white males on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
We've got plenty of old white guy FPs. If anyone wants to set a day, I'll be happy to schedule the right one. :) howcheng {chat} 17:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there an FP of an over-weight, old white guy with a long white jolly beard wearing a red suit? We could use such an FP in about 4 weeks. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Santa Claus is copyrighted. --Howard the Duck 09:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Not at all; he is effectively a fictionalised historical character (like Robin Hood), first created well over 100 years ago. As such, much public domain art of him exists: just see Commons:Category:Santa Claus). Laïka 12:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

News addition - URGENT

Wikinews has just published its story on the World Economic Forum's 2008 Technology Pioneers. See Wikimedia Foundation among World Economic Forum's 2008 Technology Pioneers for details. I'd like to see this up on the main page news section, and passed around various other languages.

This has been done in secret over the last few days, the WEF have been most helpful, provided we stuck to their 15:00 CET embargo time today. Versions in a variety of languages will be available shortly after the English version. --Brianmc (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please make suggestions at WP:ITN/Candidates. However, I am not sure if this passes the criteria.
I'll post this to the village pump though, where it is likely to be seen by interested contributors. Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sister Projects

Any reason we list the other wikimedia projects and not[2]Wikijunior on the main page?Mbisanz 16:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly because it's a subsection of WikiBooks? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
This list seems to indicate otherwise [3]. Mbisanz 18:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Its location at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior seems to indicate that it's a subsection of Wikibooks, and it's explicitly stated on this page that "Wikijunior is a part of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikibooks and is subject to their rules and policies." —David Levy 22:00/22:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yea, thats pretty ironclad. On its own site, junior says "However, Wikijunior aims to produce a separate website, a "children's portal" that is suitable for children to browse the content" Maybe we should mock-up a sister-project design with an extra space. Even if junior doesn't become a new project, I'm sure there will be something at somepoint. Mbisanz 06:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit protected

In order to preserve NPOV, add the word "allegedly" before "insulting Muhammad" in the "In the News" section at the upper right. Chardish 06:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Pls scroll to #Main page error reports above and re-post your request. --74.13.129.11 08:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
And also, she was found guilty of "insulting religion", so there is no allegedly about it. 08:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evil Monkey (talk • contribs)

Help Desk vs. Reference Desk

It seems to me that the Help Desk and Reference Desk are not adequately separated on the Main Page. The Help Desk as an entity is only for questions about using Wikipedia as a whole, yet it is constantly barraged with questions that should clearly be asked at the Reference Desk. Perhaps the two could be more clearly distinguished here on the Main Page? Presently, it states that the Help Desk is for questions about using Wikipedia; perhaps it should say "using site functions of Wikipedia" instead? Just something that clarifies a little more that the Help Desk is only for using Wikipedia. Apologies, I'm sure this has been brought up before. GlassCobra 23:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it'd be easier on new users if we just switched from "Help Desk" to "Reference Desk: Wikipedia". But like a number of other institutions of the website, it's never going to undergo that drastic a change thanks to folks who'll keep appealing to tradition long after it's been established there's a better way. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 12:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course, there's other folk who like to invoke Strawmen. 72.10.110.107 16:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Portals on the main page

Regarding the listing of portals on the very top of the page, what ever happened to the major category called Health? You could easily add another row and/or column to this display section which would add back three more major portal categories. -- John Gohde (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be cool, or even moving "All portals" down to the menu line to make room for another portal link. The Transhumanist (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
At {{browsebar}} we just changed all the links to be directly to subsections of Portal:Portals, instead of individual portals. We would advocate doing something similar here. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Specifically, this diff illustrates a possible change for the Main Page. Instead of pointing to specific portals (of variable quality), the links point to the subsections of Portal:Portals. (See discussion at Template talk:Browsebar#This Browse Bar is All Wrong). Thoughts? -- Quiddity (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Some of the portals linked now are not taken care of well, so I think what you propose is a good idea. The way you show the change in that diff looks good to me. --Aude (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I support the update. It synchronizes the main portals navigation bar and the Main Page links with the structure of the comprehensive list of portals. RichardF (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Gives all portals better visibility, too. -- John Gohde (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Instead of linking to the same page numerous times (which seems redundant to me), perhaps we could link to it just once (and allow users to scroll). This would free up the space for something else. —David Levy 03:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
That begs the question of what else. Plus that would remove the only topical links there. The question then becomes, what's the best way to present topical navigation links on the Main Page? Since portals are designed to help readers find the full range of pages on a topic, including, articles, categories, images, current events, projects, and more, they continue to offer the most comprehensive option for topical links. RichardF (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm just brainstorming. I don't know what we'd use the space for (links to featured content that doesn't appear on the main page?), but it's something to consider.
As for topical links, we already have a better list at the top of Portal:Portals, so I don't see why we shouldn't simply send users there. In addition to conserving space, this would be simpler and less intimidating than the implication that they need to follow eight additional links to view the advertised content. —David Levy 19:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The current system is giving a handfull of top level portals access to clicks from visitors to our main page. The proposed change will give all portals equal access to visits from the public. The Portal:Biography, has absolutely no portal listing on it. The Portal:Science, as another example, puts their portal listing on a separate tab that is hidden from visitors unless they happen to click on it. The current system is simply not fair to the vast majority of portals that are being developed on Wikipedia, presumably for the explicit purpose of being seen by people searching on their respective topics. -- John Gohde (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not arguing in favor of the current setup. I'm suggesting that there might be a better way to implement the general idea proposed above. —David Levy 19:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
To say that linking to different section headers on one list is redundant, simply is technically incorrect. It is called being efficient. It is done in order to avoid using multiple lists. -- John Gohde (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is "incorrect"?
I believe that providing one prominent link to a page (which already contains a good navigation system) is more efficient than linking to the same page nine times. —David Levy 19:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to reframe the basic question so that the possible solutions might or might not be links about portals and they might or might not be to multiple pages. What is the best way to present topical navigation links on the Main Page? RichardF (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The main page design layout looks to me almost exactly like a portal. And, if that is the case, which in my opinion it is, then the standard format is to display the portal broswebar on the very top of the main page portal. Why should the main page portal design be any different from any other portal? The entire point of portals is to advertise their respective topics. -- John Gohde (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
{{Categorybrowsebar}} is what was on the Main Page years ago, and I don't think {{browsebar}} is any better. {{Contents pages (header bar)}} is a slightly better fit contextually (although none of them fit aesthetically...), but it's still not optimal because:
There is an ongoing dispute/indecision as to what title/namespace the various subpages of Wikipedia:Contents pages belong at, and the quality of their contents is also of some concern (all have haphazard selection and organization).
I'm now thinking that we need to hold off on any changes here, until all of that is better resolved.
Also, I agree with David that the 9 links are quite repetitious (and even confusing) coming from this page. They make sense in the context of the browsebar, but not at this page. Plus David's/RichardF's question is well stated - there might be better ways to link to our various topical navigation pages. Brainstorm first, edit second :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree. For as long as I can remember, there has always been a list of topics to select from at the very top of the main page. The issue at hand is making the list of topics to select from both more equiable to all the editors on Wikipedia and easier for the visitors to use. The current list of topics offers in some cases a dead end which is not at all user friendly to visitors to Wikipedia. I started this comment in order to point out what is to me an obvious defect. I would hope that the people in charge will see fit to correct this defect. -- John Gohde 14:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but you don't get to unilaterally define "the issue at hand." If we want to discuss alternative setups, we will. You're welcome, of course, to advocate whatever layout you prefer.
Incidentally, any decision of this nature is to be made by establishing consensus, not by convincing "the people in charge." —David Levy 18:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I added the {{Topics Navchart}} to Portal:Contents as a way to show how topic classifications are covered on the contents pages. It offers a quick way to browse each section. It also can be used as a tool for topics classifications and contents pages or links discussions such as this. I doubt anything like that ever would make it to the Main Page, but it does show the scope and relationships of topical contents pages. At this point I don't see any "good" way of getting around multiple links to a single compilations page of some sort. Different topically named pages are insufficient IMHO for now. Mechanically, the alternative could be to create a new set of pages by topic that are populated by the sections from the current contents pages for each row of the chart. If all sections were subpages that could be transcluded by type and topic, then the editing redundancy problem wouldn't happen. But who would be crazy enough to do something like that?! ;-) RichardF 03:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Topical links on the Main Page based on twelve new pages related to the {{Topics Navchart}} rows with sections related to its columns could look something like this. Obviously, the layout is a bit of a problem for 800X600 displays, but at least this shows another possibility for a very comprehensive way to have unique, topical links on the Main Page. RichardF 14:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks like a good time to start another topics-based contents pages project, so I added a to-do list at the top of Portal talk:Contents. I outlined the three based steps as:
  • STEP 1: Move sections on current type-based contents pages to subpages.
  • STEP 2: Create topics-based contents pages.
  • STEP 3: Add links to topics-based contents pages on Main Page.
The rest is detail... Does anyone see that pesky devil sneaking around anywhere? ;-) RichardF 16:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I created Portal:Contents/Arts and culture as a mock-up using basic portal elements to build the page. I believe this is the most adaptable and accepted structure for building pages in Portal: namespace. Any comments about linking to topical contents pages like this from the Main Page? RichardF 06:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The most active discussion on this topic these days is at Portal talk:Contents. Feel free to weigh in. RichardF 18:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

USD 1,000,000

The fundraising reached $1,000,000 today. --Camptown 19:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That probably should have been our goal. Our current one seems to have been a little overambitious... -Elmer Clark 02:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

In the News POV

"Venezuelan voters reject President Hugo Chávez's constitutional amendments."

However accurate that may be, the wording is way too strong for it. It should read something more to the effect of, "President Hugo Chávez's constitutional amendments are defeated in Venezuelan elections." That's off the top of my head but I do think it should be changed. Just my opinion. Fatla00 02:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Pls see #Main page error reports above. --74.14.20.67 03:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

New format?

Is this a new format, that the Wikipedia globe-logo now hangs out from the menu at left, obscuring the text and illustrations this way? Post-literate innovation! Let's do away with stodgy old text altogether! --Wetman 09:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm babbling! I had temporarily reset my own parameters, went to dinner, and forgot! Pay no heed. --Wetman 09:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Greek erotic art on the main page

No objection to the Greek pornographic vase from some prudish family-values type? Aww, and when I saw it I was all geared up to mention that Wikipedia is not censored. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.158.179 (talk) 08:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess that means that whenever we want to spread our insidious pornographic, graphic or violent Wikipedia pictures, we should confine them to the Did You Know section. 128.227.57.119 09:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Or put them on vases and feature those :) 130.88.140.4 10:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Blame the ancient Greeks.--74.14.19.239 13:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Strawman. Erotic art from the Classical Period is not especially offensive to the average person. HiramShadraski 16:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Really? You should read Talk:History_of_erotic_depictions/Archive1#Kinda_Inappropriate_for_Feature... and especially all the subsections here: Talk:Main_Page/Archive_84#Erotic_picture.2Farticle. Classical period porn is just as offensive to those people. 128.227.67.42 17:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
First of all, it's unknown what those commentators were referring to. Second, please note that the only person who commented on the Oinochoe was someone snarkily lamenting that he had nobody to abuse over calls for "censorship." HiramShadraski 18:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
They were referring to the pictures in History of erotic depictions(Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/November_30,_2006) unless you are trying to specify which one of the pictures in that article offended the commentators. 128.227.67.42 18:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it was the DYK picture yesterday/earlier today (depending on where you are). It has some Greek erotic art on it. --74.14.19.239 18:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Nobody complained about that, at least not here. Hence my "strawman" comment. HiramShadraski 19:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
...this is pretty obviously a joke. -Elmer Clark 20:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The point is that we have previously had complaints for similar pictures. For this reason, it wasn't unresonable to expect there to be complaints about yesterday's picture. Whether or not the pictures are 'offensive to the average person' is somewhat irrelevant since some people ('average' or not) were offended by the pictures last year. The fact that we didn't have complaints is good (other then the fact it was less visible being in DYK and not there for the whole day, it probably helps that it's too small to actually see anything) but it doesn't exactly make it a strawman argument, it was obviously intended to be a joke anyway. 06:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nil Einne (talk • contribs)

Michigan football

Are you serious? Five days in a row? There have to be better new articles out there somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.162.148.103 (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are 6, 7 others listed at DYK at the same time, all about something else. Where's your article, presumably about something else, too? You should blame yourself for not submitting articles not about Michigan football, rather than complain about other people's good work on articles about Michigan football. --74.14.20.134 (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Article about main pages

Where is the article about main pages, what they are on different websites etc? Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 23:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

See homepage. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 23:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the fact that this keeps being brought up really should be addressed... Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 05:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and I can't ignore the absurdness of the current setup. --Howard the Duck 05:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
From what I've seen, it hasn't really "kept coming up". Its possible I'm wrong, but just about every other time I remember somebody bringing this up was after one of the "move the main page" discussions had already started.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I've seen at least one other and I think 2 or 3 other ones where someone brought the issue up independently of anything else although I can't be sure they weren't already aware of the issue and were just trying to prove a point Nil Einne (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Grammatical errors & POV in Main Page articles

I have corrected grammatical and spelling errors in previous FAs and see that a factual error was corrected in today's FA lead. Why aren't FAs scrutinized more thoroughly before being put on the main page? clariosophic (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I guess, there are not enough people who bother to scrutinise a FA before it appears on the main page Nil Einne (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. A couple of reviewers read through it to make sure it can get promoted to FA class, and a couple of editors are always previewing the main page a day early. But we can't those to be informed about that specific subject. Thankfully, factual errors are rare, but they are a major problem when they do occur.
It might be a good idea to notify the wikiprojects whenever "their" article is promoted, and ask them to check over it (People on Wikiproject Chemistry are likely to be interested in chemistry, and therefore know something about it). However, this won't be very efficient in the case of wikiprojects dealing with a broad range of articles (such as Wikiproject Biography).
At the end of the day, it just boils down to one thing: Wikipedia needs more contributors. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Not more (we have plenty of contributors), but better organization of their efforts. Currently everybody putters around working on their own areas of interest. If we required everybody to loan 5% of their contributions to things the project needs doing (like stubsensor, disambig sorting, fact-checking FAs, etc.) just think of the possibilities! Danthemankhan 03:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
But what if I don't want to do those tasks? I'm a volunteer, so as long as all of my activities are good for Wikipedia in some way, I should not be forced to do something else. I helped out with stubsensor once, and found it to be a rather boring repetitive task. I believe that I am much more valuable as a Czech to English translator (currently the only active one). Puchiko (Talk-email) 12:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
There's no great answer to that. We're all volunteers. Unfortunately at least two really bad articles got promoted through Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates in the last few months because like 6 people voted "yes" and there wasn't a chorus of people with some common sense who were interested enough to shout down the proposals. Disclaimer: I don't have time to participate in that either, so I suppose I'm to blame too. Tempshill (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Inaccessible

[[Moved from WP:ERROR Woody (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, you have one of the most difficult web sites to navigate that I have ever encountered. Everytime I have tried to do something or find something or edit something, I have become inundated with information and rules and regulations 90% of which had noting to do with what I was attempting. After hours of trying, I still haven't figured out how to comment on even a simple definition. Think its time for me to throw in the towel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drichar (talk • contribs) 01:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

We could be better, but at least we have a Wikipedia:Help desk. Or tell us what definition you mean. Art LaPella (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean. To find an article, type the general name into the search bar. Wikipedia is not a search engine, so phrases ("Who won the Super Bowl", for example) won't register an immediate article. 99% of Wikipedia's articles are open to all anonymous users for editing, but remember that we have rules and guidelines like any community. Perhaps you could be more specific on what you're trying to find, or what you're trying to edit? ShadowUltra (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
That is why we have the Adoption program and the Welcoming Committee. Marlith T/C 02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Seems you edited this talk page just fine... 68.143.88.2 (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Quotes in the Header

The quotes in the header are really obnoxious....there's something wrong with an encyclopedia posting self-praise at the top of every article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.106.251 (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Obnoxious or not, the quotes are from people who donated to the WMF. Most of them are not involved in the WMF. Some of them may be wikipedians, some of them are probably just readers. As far as I'm aware there is no general restriction on the comments that will show although perhaps excesively rude ones may be removed. If you wanted to donate and say wikipedia is dumb, I suspect it could show. The only thing is, most people who donate must like wikipedia or the WMF or they won't be donating. In any case, my main point is it's questinably if they can really be called self praise. More like a store which shows comments from their customers although at least we aren't (AFAIK) cherry picking the best. Nil Einne (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Firefox and AdBlock Plus will get rid of the whole annoying block. I've forgotten it's even there. 199.89.180.65 (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Or you can click the big "hide this message" button right to the side of it? —Dark•Shikari[T] 21:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Not if you're not logged in. 86.142.48.123 (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Even if you are, it keeps coming back, like the undead. The button is a temporary placebo. --Nricardo (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Jokes

I hope there aren't many jokes about the current FA (Uranus). That's quite old now. Simply south (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Forget the name, That is one boring looking planet. It needs more hurricanes or something. 72.10.110.107 (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirected from Main page

If you click on the Main page link in the navigation sidebar, you see (redirected from Main page) in the upper-left corner. I think you need to change MediaWiki:Mainpage or MediaWiki:Sidebar to fix this. - FISDOF9 00:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of 2007 civil unrest in Villiers-le-Belises (France)

See Template talk:In the news#Removal of 2007 civil unrest in Villiers-le-Belises (France).

In the news: Evil Knievel

moved to WP:ITN/C#December 2.

Unprotected!

The Main Page is unprotected right now, so please protect it. - FISDOF9 05:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but not. The page itself isn't protected, but since its translcuded onto protected pages, it is protected. See WP:PROTECT#Cascading_protection ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 05:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Done. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I have enabled cascade protection for the page. --Meno25 (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So... did anyone happen to notice if either of the backup systems kicked in while the main page was deleted? --- RockMFR 05:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know it was. What are the backup systems? ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 05:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Pathoschild's "We are currently experiencing technical difficulties" image showed up, so yes. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I guess there is only one backup system (the subpages + the cascade notice). --- RockMFR 05:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually David Levy and I set that message up. Prodego talk 19:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the reason why it was "unprotected" was it was deleted, is it possible to "delete-protect" the page (ie only Stewards can delete it)? ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 05:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know of one either, although that's not a bad idea for a feature request.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It's been asked before, actually. Bug 9625, closed previously as WONTFIX... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It wouldn't help anything. Instead of deleting the main page, they'd just edit it. Or do one of the many worse things that can't be fixed by a sysop in 5 seconds... --- RockMFR 05:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Tito, for that link, it pretty much answers my question. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 06:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Although reviewing the patch, it makes it impossible to delete the page by anyone, so that may or may not be good precedent for this case. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Shootings story

I think we should give these stories as little attention as possible, lets not play there game! AJUK Talk!! 16:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Lets also not report the Iraq War. We can't be having terrorists get free publicity. Lets also erase Holocaust and Hitler articles. We can't be giving into posting propaganda for the Neo-Nazis. 128.227.83.204 (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
These people only do these things to get attention, I know hes dead but there are plenty of other potential people like him around! AJUK Talk!! 20:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Is the gunman story the biggest thing in the news? Having it above the Venezuelan Referendum and the story about Iran's nuclear program makes it seem out of place. This isn't something that would be in the news in most countries. Even the story on the mummified dinosaur found in the usa is more appropriate for the main page. --Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Stories are in the order of occurrence, not importance. Evil Monkey - Hello 03:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Newer News?

Can we get any newer news on the page? The shooter story has been there since the fifth, and now it's the 9th. Mac Davis (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions? There's currently nothing that seems to fit the criteria (at least as accepted by other editors) that have been proposed to WP:ITN/C. We can't exactly make ITN material if none exists (well we could but I wouldn't recommend it) Nil Einne (talk) 11:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The only stories I could come across that hasn't yet been proposed but may fit the bill is the Hebei Spirit oil spill and perhaps the destruction of tapes by the CIA or the 2007 Africa-EU Summit. Unfortunately the first two don't have an article so even if they are suitable, they're still fairly far from reaching ITN. The third one does but it's quite far from ITN standard Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I've started Hebei Spirit oil spill. You're welcome to contribute Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Glad to see this on the Main Page, without Chavez waving at us. Thanks. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

chavez wikipedia's mascot

what is he doing there for a month or something. he's not even in the news anymore. --Leladax (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

By a month, you mean 5 days? 128.227.5.39 (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Apparently the "I hate old white guys on the Main Page syndrome" is now replaced with "I hate old Hispanic guys on the Main Page syndrome". --Howard the Duck 04:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
To be honest I don't think the colour of skin or even the age matters that much. I think given wikipedia's audience the only way to avoid these complaints would be if we had an occasion to feature Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg at ITN for several days. Except that then we'd keep getting complaints about promoting porngraphy and harming kids... Maybe a cute kitten would avoid all complaints (although we'll probably start getting complaints from dog lovers eventually) Nil Einne (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I only said it because he was not in the news at all anymore and strengthened by the fact he was there for a long time. Before both of you do unprovoked attacks, think someone may not be in any agenda against you. Sometimes a cigar.. --Leladax (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
He's pulling a "Nancy Pelosi" The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I've changed it. Borisblue (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to that particular image being on the main page for five days. Or maybe a week. Or a year. Or forever...ShadowUltra (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in wikipedia about who globla warming affects the life cycle.And there is not much information about the life cycle either. How do you expect people to be informed??? You should add something about it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.19.60.123 (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, 87.19.60.123, you should be adding that yourself, too. Wikipedia is never complete and there will be always new stuffs to add. BTW, this page is intended for discussion on the Main Page only. Suggestions for the global warming page should be posted at Talk: Global warming. Thanks. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

New President in Argentina!

What about the appointment in Argentina of the new President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner? It should be on "In the News". The ceremony just finished.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7136835.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.123.166.125 (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Its not really news. She was president elect since October. She was going to be president pending any problems. Since there are no problems, she will become president. Elections are important since they decide the path a country is taking, inaugurations decide nothing. 128.227.87.68 (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Then why we can currently can see the news about Komlan Mally appointment in Togo, on December 6, when he was appointed as a president on December 3??. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.123.166.125 (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I think both shouldn't be there. But if Togo gets it, Argentina should. 128.227.87.68 (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
From what I can tell (suppored by the Komlan Mally article), after the Togo elections it remained unclear who was going to be the prime minister. Also looking through ITN history, I see no evidence we even featured the elections on ITN. BTW a similar discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates#December 10 which is a better place for this discussion to happen Nil Einne (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Craziness on the Main Page

Next time lets not have 11 DYK's when theres only 5 Anniversaries, k? Kinda ruins the whole balance thingTourskin (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This is discussed above in errors. It appears that an admin either unfamiliar with the policies and requirements or in a hurry or both took all DYK items from the next update list and added them Nil Einne (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

John Lennon and (UTC)

Since the attack occurred at 10:50pm EST, wouldn't that make the death December 9, UTC? It always feels like I'm a bit into tomorrow when I log in during the evening, so I want to be sure that local time is the protocol for the event. What if an event occurs over several time zones? MMetro (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I do believe local time zones are used. As for events occurring over multiple time zones, I can't really think of any. Can you? ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 07:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes local time is used. When there is no local time, such as events occuring over multiple timezones without one being the clear cut centre, then we may use UTC but otherwise it's always UTClocal time. John Lennon died on December 8th just as he was born on 9th October Nil Einne (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Virtually anything that happens accross Russia happens across at least 4 time zones.GowsiPowsi (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm mistaken but I would presume most events in Russia are localised to one area. For example a demonstration in Moscow will be in Moscow. A terrorist attack in Beslan is in Beslan. A murder in St Petersburg... An earthquake with its epicentre in Vladisvostok... Of course there will be some events without a clear centre but I guess even when it comes to Russia or the United States, most events occur only in one timezone. In any case, provided the events aren't close to midnight, it's unlikely to affect what day we choose although it may make it difficult to decide what time to choose Nil Einne (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
An example of an event happening on multiple time zones: The Hong Kong handover ceremony, the internationally televised event of the transfer of the sovereignty of Hong Kong, occurred at 16:00 UTC, so it was posted on the June 30 template. Of course, iirc, one day later there was someone here posting why it was not on the July 1 template... And it does not help when the Transfer of the sovereignty of Hong Kong article predominately says "July 1" while the Hong Kong handover ceremony article predominately says "June 30"... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
But the basic rule of thumb, like any other thing on these templates, is that if the UTC date and time is specified and verified in the article, that day is where it will be posted. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries Nil Einne (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
For even more fun — an event that occurs in no time zone — Apollo 11 landing. Evil Monkey - Hello 20:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking of that but if I'm not mistaken most astronaut related events are treated as coming from the timezone either of where they launch from or their mission control. However it occured to me that a good example is an eclipse or an asteroid hitting the moon (large enough that it's visible from the earth). Such events clearly have no time zone either direct or derived Nil Einne (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Still got quite the discussion, I see. For an example, what about a 2004 tsunami timeline? The shock wave eminates and hits at various local times, maybe hitting a farther place at an earlier local time than the original event. Yet, local time is also very important. Did the tourists arrive at the beach yet? Were the fishermen out to sea? Were the kids in school, so that they couldn't have been picking up fish from the exposed seabed? If it happened in the dead of night? MMetro (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Interwikilinks

These can be found at the end of the page we don't need them at the top as well.Geni 19:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Where are you seeing them at the top of the page? Do you mean the portals? The Portals arent other wiki's, there just samples of the 57 catagorys in Wikipedia. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 22:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
try useing the classic skin for a moment.Geni 23:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah ok, now I understand, my apologies for the confusion, to be honest, I would say either Wikipedia:Monobook or Wikipedia Village Pump (Technical) (because you might not get a response over at Monobook) would be a better place to field this query, as its more to do with the skin than the Main Page itself. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 01:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Interwiki links on the classic skin are located in the top and bottom for all pages, so I'm not sure what can be done about that for the Main Page. Unless your question is about why there's double interwikis in any pages, in which case, that's something for VPT to discuss. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm objecting to the double set of interwiki links yes.Geni 18:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Well our friends over at WP:VPT will be more than happy to discuss it Geni :) If you would like me to raise the issue on your behalf just let me know. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 02:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article

Yasser freakin' Arafat. Oh, this ought to be good. HiramShadraski (talk) 05:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I could see it easily competing with Islam and Down syndrome.-Wafulz (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's not forget stuff like 0.999... Nil Einne (talk) 11:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Lol, I remember when that article was Featured, my head was spinning when I read though it. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 02:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Next Update template

Not sure where to put this, but at the top of the page the Time till next update template is currently a harsh almost headache inducing red, which clashes with the rest of the pages light pastel colours. It also makes the black text rather hard to read on monitors running at non-naitive resolutions (as many do) and even on normal monitors, due to the colours not contrasting enough. Why is it like this? It is incredably jaring and doesn't suit the rest of the site at all. TheGreatZorko (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been brought up before at Template talk:DYK-Refresh#uglyness. The short answer is that the template, which is normally a soothing pastel, turns red when its time for an update as a means of annoying admins into action. Please centralize any further discussion at the talk page for Template:DYK-Refresh. Thanks, BanyanTree 11:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Colombia-Nicaragua maritime boundary dispute

Colombia-Nicaragua relations dispute finally solved by the International Court of Justice--Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 11:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

So? Looking for WP:ITN/C? --74.14.19.114 (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

yep--Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 15:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

pointless sentence

Discussion moved to where it should be --Ouro (blah blah) 07:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Tangentially related to today's TFA article

Has Wikimedia ever been threatened with legal action by the church of Scientology? 81.174.226.229 (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you try WP:VPM or something instead. As the very big text at the top says, this is for discussing the main page only Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Same featured picture?

Why has the main page had the same Hitler picture for several days now? It seems to go away for one day and be replaced with a new one, and then come back the next day. Why? Knowitall (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, this one was originally scheduled about a week ago, but was removed from the main page after a few minutes/hours due to copyright issues and/or the start of Hanukkah. I guess it's been re-scheduled for today. --- RockMFR 20:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It was originally here Template:POTD/2007-12-06 and was removed after about 45 minutes. The original reason by the removing admin was because of concerns of insensitivity but this in itself was controversial and was reverted. However concerns about licensing meant this was reverted back after about an hour. While most people were sympathetic to the sensitivity concerns, at least 3 people felt it was insufficent ground for emergency removal of a PoTD already on the main page (such issues should be brought up when an item is scheduled). However copyright concerns definetely are. Nil Einne (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Mitchell Report

This story isn't significant enough to be a main news article. Why not keep things in perspective and only add major news items or items of global importance. Wikipedia isn't just for America? The Mitchell Report item is too specialised a subject and aimed at a niche market. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.208.27 (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates#December 13 where the consensus seems to be for keeping the blurb. Puchiko (Talk-email) 12:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually this has been reported in several news media outside the U.S. so it's notable enough for ITN. --Howard the Duck 14:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S.: ITN is about articles of global importance but of international importance. --Howard the Duck 14:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, international importance, meaning all nations, not just one or two. According to the Major League Baseball page on wikipedia: "Major League Baseball (MLB) is the highest level of play in North American professional baseball. More specifically, Major League Baseball refers to the organization that operates North American professional baseball's two major leagues, the National League and the American League..." The article then goes on to describe in depth the extent to which this sport is completely American. The only indication of the international element of Major League Baseball is the involvement of Canada, and the sometimes involvement of Japanese teams in exhibition games with their American counterparts. This article is definately not of enough INTERNATIONAL interest to be included in ITN. Really, is one country's sport drugs scandal as important as bombings in Algiers, a state of disaster in South Korea or an International Security Assistance Force military campaign in Afghanistan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonzero2 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

International does mean "of or having to do with more than one nation. (ergo, more than 1)" Also, several other nationalities participate in Major League Baseball so to say MLB is not international is wrong, not to mention the MLB teams are the strongest club teams in all of baseball. --Howard the Duck 15:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
So if you turned to the world news section of one of your national dailies and saw a mention of this, you'd be surprised? I must say, I wouldn't be! And in fact a very quick search shows that the online editions of the Guardian, the International Herald Tribune and that bastion of all things baseball, the Telegraph, all have stories (actually multiple stories each) on this. 86.42.83.73 (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm normally sceptical of baseball stories and was especially sceptical of the Barry Bonds charged with perjurty story but this one definitely qualifies for ITN. Whatever baseball may or may not be it's clearly involves enough countries to some degree that at least some stories should make it to ITN. And however important the MLB may or may not be, what is clear is that this is a rather major story in the field of baseball because it affects quite a large number of key players and suggests drugs use is a major problem. Even though the MLB may be a North American league, the US are clearly a major 'player' when it comes to baseball despite their relative poor performance in the international arena. Therefore a major drug scandal affecting many of the top players in the top league in the US is significant enough for ITN ignoring completely the arguments of the involvement of non-American & Canadian players. (My personal point of view is that this just further proves baseball is a shitty sport with serious internal issues and most of the world is smart to ignore it but that's neither here nor there) BTW, it's true that this story is less important then probably all of the stories currently on ITN (although the ICA remains a bit uncertain in my eyes) but there are always going to be some stories more important then others. Nil Einne (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia languages

Ukrainian Wiki already has more, than 80 000 articles. This info should be edited on Main page... --Yarko (talk) 08:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Updated. Thanks, BanyanTree 10:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
U r welcome =) --Yarko (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hungarian WP passed the 80 000 article milestone. Please updete the Main Page. --85.90.172.149 (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"kill dozens of people"

Isn't that a bit like talking about eggs? Though I've no idea if it's considered ok in certain local dialects. --Leladax (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard anything to suggest "dozens" is inappropriate or insensitive when talking about people -Elmer Clark (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Tune into the news more often and you'll here of dozens all the time. I do . Tourskin (talk) 05:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, "tens of people" is never really used in English.--Pharos (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, eggs are hardly ever sold by the dozen nowadays (at least where I live). Packs of six (half a dozen though), ten or thirty are usual, and packs of dozens are a rarity. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
1/2 a dozen (6), a dozen (12), 18 (1 1/2 dozen) and 30 (2 1/2 dozen) are fairly common here with a dozen and 30 probably being the most common so it definitely isn't universal that eggs aren't sold by the dozen. But I've never heard it being offensive to talk about people in dozens either and it seems resonable common from a quick Google search Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The BBC frequently uses "dozens killed" ([4], [5]) and "dozens injured" ([6] [7]); for some reason, English doesn't like pluralising the word "ten" except in the context of "tens of thousands", so dozens seems to be the defacto alternative. Laïka 14:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's common most places English is spoken. News.Google shows many (dozens!) of uses. I can only find one use of "tens" to enumerate people in a headline. I suppose the poster thinks that "dozens" is too imprecise and would like something that implies more accuracy like "more than XX" or "as many as YY". But, since the death toll is still unknown, that would imply more accuracy than it should. 72.10.110.107 (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing offensive or inappropriate about the word dozen. It means twelve. Not everything needs to be base ten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Averyisland (talk • contribs) 17:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Bali?

There's been a major UN climate conference going on in Bali. It just ended with some important results. You wouldn't know it by looking at wp main page. Instead, you get Mitchell Report for the last three days. --24.85.68.231 (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you consider, perhaps, improving the relevant article and/or adding this to the suggestions page? Complaining is easier, I'll admit, but not really as effective.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a churlish response to a serious point. Unfortunately, this kind of attitude is all too common here. It doesn't matter what 24.85.68.231 considered. The point being made is that the conference in Bali, which has been concerned with the very future of the planet, hasn't been featured on the main page, whereas the Mitchell Report, which is really only of interest to Americans, has been covered. Is this yet another example of American parochialism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.115.163 (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Please suggest this item in WP:ITN/C. Currently there is a pseudo-suggestion but it wasn't done properly. Talk:Main Page isn't the place to suggest ITN items. ---Howard the Duck 10:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is run by volunteer editors. Generally speaking, none of us are paid to edit. Ergo, the only way things can happen on wikipedia is when volunteer editors like you, me and the other people who have responded make it happen. For an article to get on ITN at least 2 main things need to happen. Firstly, someone needs to write an article of an appropriate quality that it gives a reader an understanding of what the item is about. Secondly, someone needs to propose that this item is featured on ITN. In this case, neither of these have happened yet. Currently we have a very short article 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference permanent link which gives a reader very little information about what the conference was about or what actually happened. Also, no one proposed this item to ITN (not that people should propose it when the article is in such a sorry state). The only way that this item is going to be on ITN if people like you and the person who made the original complaint for example get to working on the article. If you are willing to pay me US$20/hour, I would be willing to work on this article for you and you would then be fully entitled to complain (to my talk page) if I fail to get this item into a state where it's ready for ITN and to propose it to ITN. However randomly complaining to volunteer editors that you are not pleased with the situation without attempting to improve it yourself is not particularly helpful in most cases. BTW, bear in mind ITN despite the rather poor choice of name is not a news service. I suggets you try Wikinews:Main Page if you are looking for such a service Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't bite the newcomers, hes just an unregistered ip address. Tourskin (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Ugh. So sorry I'm not falling all over myself to be all nice and friendly to someone who shows up, makes a caustic comment complaining about something, and can't be bothered to actually do anything about it. Honestly. I mean, if somebody shows up and asks how to do something, that's one thing. But when all they can do is whine that things aren't right, I'm not overly motivated to be all smiles and rainbows.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Lets just say the Main Page Toolbox at the top of this page is your friend. --Howard the Duck 03:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

Why that page protected? I think, allege that page no protected, because haven't a vandalisms. Sharon boyfriend talk to me? 08:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Which page are you referring to? If you mean the Main page, it isn't vandalised because it is protected. Page protection is especially that - in order for pages not to get vandalised by trolls and other such nasties, so that only users with a good edit history will dabble in them. See more here. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 08:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you please unprotect the Main Page Sharon boyfriend talk to me? 09:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Why unprotect the main page? If you want to suggest changes, please do. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

End of talk ok? Sharon boyfriend talk to me? 10:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hungarian WP

Hungarian WP now passed 80,000. Please, update. --Camptown (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Have updated as requested. Davewild (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Main Page Design

It could look quite a bit more professional.--Billy (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Why should it look more professional? Only some people know that it is here. Do you mean that we sould have a coloured background? Or some other astheatic effect? Dreamy § 23:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

more professional? what's wrong with it now? freenaulij 00:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC) How do yall feel about st patricks day. (this comment was added by an unknown anoymous user)

Sorry, I didn't mean as in content or layout. Other wikipedia pages (for example portals) seem to have better aesthetics. What about some icons or something. Its merely a suggestion. There is nothing wrong with the main page.--Billy (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh... You mean the actual main page, not the discussion... Well, it should look good, it is the most viewed page... Dreamy § 00:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Dude, I've said and read things over and over about this, you've got my support if it goes to discussion but to be honest I don't see it happening, soon someone's gonna say "if it ain't broken don't fix it" (which is my pet peeve by the way) and the conversation will go downhill from there. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 02:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Me Too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.194.134 (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Main Page should be more decorative and attractive by changing the backgroud and having all sorts of different news like new books and movies that have been released. --Pure-intellect (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, the average user of Wikipedia hardly sees the main page. Most people just type in "wikipedia.com" or something along those lines, and end up at the welcome page and use search, bypassing the whole main page. Besides, I think the main page is perfect the way it is. It wouldn't be my homepage if it weren't. snowball71 (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone does decide to propose a design you might want to look at the main pages of other language Wikipedias - I particularly like the Spanish, Italian, German and French Main Pages. Whilst I'm at it, I also like the way the French Wikipedia separates indented comments on talk pages. --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 18:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
What a coincidence, I just saw an article that looked good, so I came to the main page to see if it also looked good, but nothing. So, I'll give it a go in about 15 days, after I'm done with finals (exams).
Do I need to check it first with someone? BTW I'm a graphic designer.Brodder (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Last time the main page was changed, there was a 'huge' discussion and several proposals and voting and suchlike. Changing the Main Page is a big deal. You might want to discuss this with people who were involved in changing it last time. btw, the French Wikipedia's style of indenting may look more interesting than the English version, but that talk page looks like a kiddie message board. We have enough trouble persuading people that talk pages are not chat rooms! 130.88.140.39 (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks about the advice, I'll try to reach the people before me and see what's the best route to go. I agree with user PureIntellect and Ferdia O., it needs to be more better! :P Brodder (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
While it's completely up to you, in my opinion your best bet might be to develop a main page alternative and see what people think of that. If people like it, you might have a chance of incorporating some elements into the default main page Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Totally agree Nil. Just a couple more days 'till I finish with school and begin with this :) Comments of course welcome :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brodder (talk • contribs) 00:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
more decorative and attractive by changing the backgroud and having all sorts of different news like new books and movies that have been released? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an almanach for all things good, bad and ugly. Please keep that in mind. One thing I particularly like about Wikipedia is that it doesn't have any unnecessary decorations, gimmicks, flashing, blinking, overly colourful stuff that other pages annoy you with and still call 'attractive design'. Simplistic pages. Content before form. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to hide the donation message for all users in the main page? The donation message moves everything down far, and on my moniter, you only see the first five-six lines of the featured article and such. Can it just be hidden for this one page? Once I log in, I can hide the message, but say I didn't have an account--I'd be annoyed if I was looking. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 00:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem still remains unfixed/unjustified. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 23:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)