Talk:Main Page/Archive 119

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

Lunar Eclipse

I don't think that deserves to be in the "In the News" section. Lunar Eclipses occur all the time, and this is the firs time I've seen one on the main page. What about the partial Solar Eclipse that occurred a few weeks ago in the Southern Hemisphere? It wasn't up on the Main Page, so what makes this one any different? Nick Warren (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:ITN/C for the discussion. --Howard the Duck 08:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The header at the top of the page

Ì have a question about the box at the top of the page (apology's if this isn't the place for it). Why can't I seem to edit it? Who oversees it? 74.220.207.186 (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The template is transcluded onto this page, the code isn't actually here. If you wish to edit it, it can be found at Talk:Main Page/HelpBox. J Milburn (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah I see, so its like a PHP include statement yes? And who oversees it? 74.220.207.186 (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It's explained (rather complicatedly) at Wikipedia:Transclusion.
I don't think anyone "oversees" it in the traditional sense. People who are interested keep an eye on the page (through the WP:Watchlist featrue), if two people disagree they try to reach a compromise. A Wikipedia policy, WP:Be bold, encourages people to go ahead and make the edits they feel are necessary. The whole Wikipedia project is a collaborative effort-nobody is a leader. Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia

How long does it take from my starting being an editor (this week) to becoming an actual Wikipedia administrator? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangola (talk • contribs) 22:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the quality of your edits and how well you collaborate with others in the project, usually at least a few months. BTW, please read the instructions at the top of this page. Thanks. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that becoming an administrator isn't in itself a particularly good reason for editing. No-one will treat you any differently, you don't receive any prizes, and the extra tools are designed only to allow you to take on extra janitorial work around the place. There are many people who contribute greatly to Wikipedia without the mop and bucket. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 00:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually they do treat you differently: they complain to you more. Prodego talk 00:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Sound's kind of stupid but I mistook editor for administrator :S. Since looking it up I see that an admin is in fact some kind of powerful housekeeper, lol. --Tangola (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Once you have had an account for 4 days you have full editor abilities. See WP:UAL for exactly what that is. Prodego talk 16:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: new main page layout

I invite you all to comment on my proposed new main page layout at the village pump. A rough sketch of the new layout is available at User:Charles Stewart/Sandbox Charles Stewart (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Line height of Today's Featured Article

Has anyone else noticed the difference in line height on Today's Featured Article? The lines are so close together, I can hardly read it. My eyes keep skipping lines! — Jeremy 03:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean in the article itself? I don't see anything weird on the main page proper. What style sheet are you using? Psu256 (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to the "Today's Featured Article" green box thingy on the main page. The actual articles, and all other elements of the main page are fine. But it's moot as of now -- I did a hard refresh, and somebody's fixed it. — Jeremy 04:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Zomg bias!

Not actually a complaint, but I didn't recognize this talk page without some thread about bias. It seemed naked :) Raul654 (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

And you have a problem with nakedness? Anti-naturist bias, clearly. Joe 07:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we should block Raul for a day or two for his blatant bias-bias ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 11:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately he currently appears to be scheduling the TFA only a day or two in advanced so it will likely mean we risk having no TFA on one day or at least no tomorrow's FA for a long time (yes I know someone else could technically schedule a TFA) Nil Einne (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a cunning plan to prevent him being removed. If he scheduled them long in advance then the agents of the cabal could replace him, and no-one would be any the wiser.... Macbi (talk)
Yes, and replace him with a user called Rual645 and hope no one see's ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 11:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be a violation of Wikipedia:Username policy? Not to mention Rual645 would need a WP:RfA? Nil Einne (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes but don't forget this is the cabal (that obviously exists and can't possibly be a misinterpretation of the experienced Wikipedia community's respect for consensus) that we're talking about here Nil :). ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 21:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
There's always User:Raul315. :-) --74.14.17.79 (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This whole conversation is entirely wrong. I move to...ahhh...something...is...controlling...my...thoughts... . I'm sorry, I most go contribute to a GA article. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The Raul Castro "In the News" item demonstrates a bias toward people named Raul. There. Mike R (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Link to Cuban presidential election, 2008?

Should a link to Cuban presidential election, 2008 be added to the thing about Castro? – Zntrip 20:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it should, it would help out a little bit moreAlan’s 1st Sweetheart (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe it should since he's part of the Cuban governmentAlan’s 1st Sweetheart (talk) 21:53, 24 February
It's there already. Next time, you may want to bring this up at WP:ITN/C, instead of here. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It's amusing that Raul Castro is pictured next to a link to No Country for Old Men. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 11:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he's very elderly. Mike R (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

spoiler on the front page:<

i wanted to see the oscars at my own time:( --Leladax (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC) (ps. at least link to them, don't say the winners) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leladax (talk • contribs) 10:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but the general agreement is that the main page is not censored and we don't worry about spoilers, whether for sports, awards or fiction anywhere on the main page Nil Einne (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Saying censorship you make it sound like I proposed Nazism and the removal of the information from all pages. The fact is, all those awards are mostly a show, and they are nearly worthless without watching the show itself. --Leladax (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
No, there isn't a dictionary out there that would define censorship as Nazism, censorship was a word that existed long before them. Nothing Nil said even pointed in Nazisms general direction. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 18:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't literal. geez. --Leladax (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with you, actually. I have never found award ceremonies very good viewing, but I am interested in who wins the awards. I don't think spoilers for award ceremonies, sports and the like is quite on par with spoilers for popular culture (films, episodes, newer books etc) J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It is for some. The world isn't made in your image. --Leladax (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, and it isn't in yours either. God, there's no need to be so obnoxious. I was trying to be diplomatic. J Milburn (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, the fact is that the entire purpose of this page is to convey interesting information, and the most interesting thing about and award ceremony, is who got themselves a shiny statue. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 19:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
That one could learn by clicking a link. --Leladax (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, alright, we'll just remove all content from the main page, and replace it with links. The idea is that the snippet on the main page sparks your interest, leading to you reading the article. J Milburn (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It'll be great, pretty blue links with no context what-so-ever, I imagine no-one will notice the difference. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 19:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm down with links only! Who needs information when you can have simple, pretty links? :) Rayne 19:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.208.93.60 (talk)
I'm personally with Leledax. I think that we should say, the oscars took place, but not announce who won. Right now, it's like announcing that VH1 is doing one of those top video countdown shows, except for we put right out there who's number one, which is really the purpose of the show. People watch the Oscars to see who wins, but also to see the show itself. And anyways, why are we just announcing who won best picture? Is there something magical about best picture that puts it above every single other Oscar? If we could get it down, or at least consider doing so,that would be great, and J Milburn, try not to bite the newbies...and also, I would have to say that the Oscars are pop culture, I'm not sure how you would not put them in a pop culture category. Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 21:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
They are meta-culture, rather than culture. I was meaning that it couldn't really be compared to revealing (for instance) plot details of a new film. In any case, I think the appropriate place to point this discussion is towards the content disclaimer. J Milburn (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
In any case, compare to the press- newspapers and television/internet/radio/whatever news services reveal the winners within these competitions, but don't reveal the endings of new books and films. J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
IMO such awards are mostly about the show announcing them. Nowadays, IMDB is much more important to me compared to such awards by "elite" voters. In that train of thought, while they aren't the most important thing in the universe, they aren't really much worth without watching the show. --Leladax (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I can see where that's coming from. About the content disclaimer, though, anyone going to Wikipedia is really forced to look at the main page and see about who won four oscars. I mean, you can choose to read an article in a newspaper or on here, but you can't choose not to look at the main page, or at least you shouldn't have to. Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 21:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I do sympathise with your view, but I just believe that we should draw the line here. What next, people annoyed we report the winners of a sports competition because they wanted to watch it on the reruns? People annoyed we report anything because they would rather they read it in their favourite paper? J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Watching a re-run is different that having people who live closer to Japan go "nah nah nah-nah nah, I know who won" in your face. -Violask81976 22:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth the headline "Coen film wins four Oscars" appears on the BBC's "Americas" page, though in small type. On CNN's "Entertainment page" there is a giant "'No Country' takes best picture" headline. APL (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And Leladax should be watching TV (or contributing in article space), instead of surfing the internet (or complaining on this talk page)... --74.14.17.189 (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Violask, I'm not sure what you mean, but there is clearly a great similarity between sports events and awards shows. In both cases, people for a variety of reason may be planning to watch a recorded versiom. re-run or delayed telecast and may not wish to know the results until they've done so. But it doesn't make much sense for us to limit what we say about these events for such people. For starters most news sites will say what the results are. And while wikipedia is not a news site, we do mention events that are of international interest with good encylopaedic coverage. As such, people planning to watch non-live coverage of an event need to be self aware that they should not check out news sites or wikipedia and if they are not, we can't help them. To take it to an extreme, I'm sure there must be a few people who record election coverage in their own countries because they are unable to watch it live and don't want to know what happened until they've watched it themselves. Should we not mention election results for these people either? In other words, if we are going to censor wikipedia for these people, where should we draw the line? And how long? Do we wait 12 hours? 24? 7 days? My point about fiction was that there is also similarity there. We had complaints about Lost spoilers for an episode which had already been broadcast in a number of countries. We had complaints (I'm not sure serious or not) about spoilers for some Shakespear play. The reality is, we are likely to have complaints for every single work of fiction and related FA (e.g. one on Darth Vader) featured on TFA. Where should we draw the line? 5 years after the release of the work of the fiction? 10? IMHO, the best thing is simply not to draw a line. In nearly all cases with TFAs we won't be giving spoilers in the first line or two, so we can hope that readers are smart enough to start reading the blurb from the beginning and if it covers something they probably don't want to know about, stop reading. Just as similarly as with ITN, we can hope that readers are smart enough to realise that given we cover events of international interest, we are going to reveal the results of these events and if they don't want to know them, don't read ITN Nil Einne (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Once more, try not to take this as meaning imposing the Nazi Party to wikipedia. It was strictly about the main page and not internal pages that one would choose to visit. --Leladax (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So far, your the only person to bring up the Nazi Party. And nothing I, or most people have said talked about internal pages Nil Einne (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is a good example of Godwin's law, which states, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." Lovelac7 05:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC) (See also Reductio ad Hitlerum). Lovelac7 05:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Well it only took 3 posts for the first Nazi reference to be made, however it wasn't a Nazi comparison but rather someone claiming that the other side had made a Nazi comparison even though it was never made. I guess you could call it an anti-Godwin's law, when someone accuses the other side of making a Nazi comparison but none was made. BTW, in case anyone is unaware, censorship is practiced by various people, governments, agencies, etc all over the world. It pre-dated and post-dated the Nazi Party Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Godwin's law was a joke that is nowadays used extensively to inflict censorship on the internet by intimidation. I ignore Godwin's law and I propose to do the same because if you are so anti-censorship on the front page, then you'd be also in allowing people to bring up the nazi party. The phenomenon while it may sound trivial at first, took saddening proportions the last few years since it's almost impossible to discuss the middle east wars and the nazis at the same time. Censorship by popular culture intimidation should not be tolerated. Arguments, do you have them? Godwin's law is not one. --Leladax (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Godwin's law isn't about censorship. It's an observation about a common form of hyperbole and irrational argument. APL (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You could ask our lawyer User:Mike Godwin if he think it's a joke and is used to inflict censorship on the internet by intimidation. (Note that Godwin has not argued a Nazi/Hitler comparison is never justified, just that they are overused.) Also regardless of how it is used in the Middle East wars, we aren't talking about them here, and you were the one who brought up Nazism yet have not been able to explain why you feel it was somehow helpful to the discussion. BTW, I never said I was against censorship, I'm actually not in some circumstances. However for better or worse, wikipedia isn't censorsed which is generally taken to mean, amongst other things, we don't hide spoilers. P.S. I made an extensive argument, which you have not responded to other then to bring up Nazism again without explaining how exactly it fits at all into what I have saying. Oh and of course also bringing up internal pages, even though as I have already stated, I didn't discuss internal pages nor did most people, we are solely talking about the main page. I also responded to your old point that seemed to suggest censorship was only evere practiced by the Nazi party (it wasn't). Finally, I didn't bring up Godwin's law, even though I was well aware of it and after it was brought up I pointed out it didn't really apply since you weren't accusing me of being a Nazi or comparing me to a Nazi/Hitler but saying that I was somehow accusing you/comparing you to the Nazi party, even though I wasn't. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Every time you violate Godwin's law, God kills a kitten. :) Lovelac7 15:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

News isn't supposedly hidden for spoilers, right? That's why they're news. --Howard the Duck 13:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

TO Nil Einne: What I'm saying is, there's a difference between waiting and watching a re-run and not being able to because of your tiem zone. He isn't saying he wants to watching it optionally later, he has not been able to watch it because his time zone has not reached that time yet. Remember, everybody is not watching the awards at the exact same time. -Violask81976 19:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Backup Main Pages

I was just curious why there are ten backup Main Pages? Also, I was wondering why they all have cascading protection with the Main Page transcluded while the Main Page its self is protected? Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised this isn't in the FAQ. Anyway, I believe they're there to make it more difficult for an in-experienced vandal with access to an admin account to unprotect the main page Nil Einne (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, ok. This probably should be in the Main Page FAQ. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It has been on that page since January. Look carefully at the first few sections. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I meant more like having its own section. But the way it is makes since. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 03:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and gave this question its own section on the FAQ. Lovelac7 04:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Change interwiki link for Hebrew

The interwiki link to Hebrew - [[he:עמוד ראשי]] in the source code - is currently alphabetized as "Hebrew" and thus appears before "Hrvatski". I suggest alphabetizing it as "Ivrit", thus moving it to right after "Italiano." This is conventional in numerous pages, which I can cite if anyone wants to see the evidence for themselves. Any administrator should feel free to make this uncontroversial change. Thank you. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. howcheng {chat} 07:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Watermark on FA image.

Image:Centaur (ARTV09088).png

I removed the watermark (as requested at the bottom of the original image's page - but I can't replace it because it's locked. To avoid further JPEG degradation, I saved the image in PNG format.

Could someone with appropriate privilages get the image where it needs to be - thanks!

SteveBaker (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. howcheng {chat} 06:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
There may be some sort of licence issue here. Commons:Image:Centaur (ARTV09088).jpg states that "The copyright has expired on this image. The AWM, however, requires that the AWM watermark is not removed and that permission be sought for commercial use." (emphasis added). As I read the copyright info page, it may be too restrictive for use on as "free use" under Wikipedia and Commons' definition and may have to be deleted. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know -- I think we would contest this under Bridgeman v. Corel (which I know is not applicable in Australia, but still). howcheng {chat} 07:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I was also thinking about that. But then again, I do not know how Australian laws would put into play while this web site is based in the USA. But like any other image currently on the main page, I would rather deal with gray, uncertain copyright matter after they have fallen off the home page. See also Meta:Avoid copyright paranoia. Cheers Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If the copyright has expired, the image is in the public domain, and you can do whatever you want with it. They have no claims on the image, and any statements like that are simply wholly optional requests. Raul654 (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Today's featured article (27 Feb 2008)

I don't much care for the lead sentence "There was considerable Axis naval activity in Australian waters..." I note that is the title of the article and the lead sentence of the article follows the same format. But in my opinion articles should always start with the title as a means of getting the reader's attention and making the subject of the article clear from the outset. And this should apply a fortiori to the main page FA box. --Richardrj talk email 11:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the links for German and Japanese warships should be [[Kriegsmarine|German]] and [[Imperial Japanese Navy|Japanese warships]] not links to their respective governments and warship. -Harmil (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Harmil's request done. howcheng {chat} 17:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The error report should have been posted at WP:ERRORS. --74.13.129.202 (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Moon-centric

FA from two days ago being Ban Ki-moon and today Europa? Reeks of Moon-centricism to me -Halo (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I find today's refreshing. Ordinarily, the Main Page is extremely terracentric. This is a nice break from all the Earth-related articles.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Enough talk of moons. We've got kittens to worry about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.11.85 (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WIKIPEDIA'S OBVIOUS PRO-AUSTRALIA BIAS! [1][2][3] Ceiling Cat (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This is clearly getting out of hand. Just look at today's featured picture. When will the luna[r]cy end? Hammer Raccoon (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Earthquake hits Lincoinshire!

Here is something for in the news. A reported 5.3 earthquake has hit Lincoinshire and was felt throughout much of England. Its epicentre was 8km west of Market Rasen. I didn't feel it down here on the south coast though. Unisouth (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This sort of suggestion should usually go to In The News Candidates:, but while we do have an article (2008 Lincolnshire earthquake), I don't think it's internationally important enough to meet the criteria for the main page. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC) (PS: I felt it in Oxford.)
The purpose of ITN is highlighting articles that reflect current events. It's not so much about highlighting the current events themselves. The fact we have a relatively extensive article should take precedence over "notability" (we have random less important events all the time in ITN, it's not about the "five most important news stories according to Wikipedia"). zoney ♣ talk 15:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Pro Cuba Bias??

How long is Raul Castro's picture going to stay there??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.94.199.9 (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Until we have a suitable replacement. Perhaps Image:Academy Award Oscar.jpg is suitable but I don't see what else; we don't currently have and are probably not going to have any image for the North Korean concert and I don't know whether a picture of a Euro note or US dollar is going to be very meaninful. Your best bet is probably if you are able to come up with a graph to show the changes in the Euro/US dollar exchange rate over the past year or 5 years or whatever that is meaningful at 100 pixels. If you have any other suggestions, check out WP:ITN/C Nil Einne (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Everyone hates old dudes. --Howard the Duck 16:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering the same thing. I'm a political conservative and some of my friends refuse to use Wikipedia because they claim that it has a left-wing bias. What better way to perpetuate that thought than to leave a picture of a Communist dictator on the front page for almost a week! I think it's been up longer than Nancy Pelosi's was! I wonder if a conservative's story were in the news how long it would take before his/her picture would disappear off the main page?Gschrive87 (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be there until there was one to replace it, same as this one.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Well how many conservatives with worldwide importance are there outside the USA and the Middle East (and maybe France and Germany)? 128.227.5.69 (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
That comment is demonstratable false. Raul was added about 4 days and ~7 hours ago now added. The eclipse picture which preceeded it was there for 3 days and ~19 hours added. Nancy Pelosi was there for 4 days and 21 hours added removed. Raul is still there so he may or may not eventually be there for longer then Pelosi (who I'm pretty sure wasn't the longest we've had), but clearly he has been yet and at the time of your comment he had barely been there longer for the eclipse image. You may want to consider whether your own bias is influencing what you see before you make a fuss about bias on wikipedia Nil Einne (talk) 06:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
What's more, the M62 Motorway is a highway on which people habitually drive on the left-hand side of the road - clearly a subliminal message of left-wing bias. When will this conspiracy be exposed for what it is? ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.11.85 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I personally think that it's an anti-American bias: Euro reaches high against dollar, a British TFA followed by a Canadian one, and Castro still up there. How many more American kittens must die?! Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 02:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing really anti-American about the Euro being high against the dollar. Good for them! Anyone who thinks the U.S. should be the best at everything has a screw loose. As for Castro's picture: he's a normal looking guy, at least we don't have Kim Jong Il (with his bizarre haircut), Michael Jackson, or (God forbid) George W. Bush. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 14:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
That news has an American bias! Why compare it to the US dollar?! Why not any other currency?[several exclamation marks] J Milburn (talk) 14:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
So you admit Wikipedia has an anti-ugly bias? :P AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Castro was removed at 14:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC). howcheng {chat} 18:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! Wikipedia's been Castroted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.11.85 (talk) 20:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

ON this day on Feb 28

On the "on this day" section, under news the date is feb 29. 1 day in advance

Sahilm (talk) 00:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes on a different time zone than you I guess...76.69.140.101 (talk) 00:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Check out the date stamp on the post you just made. You posted that message at 12:51 am on the 29th in Greenwich mean time. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Redemption

I would like to take this time to redeem my past self for attacking the DYK's by saying that the Pot-de-fer article was, pardon the pun, explosively interesting. lol. Tourskin (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Attack on Gaza

Shouldn't be news mentioning the massacre in Gaza ? i mean for crying out loud at lest 70 people died, among them a large number of children all within 36 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.6.113.191 (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to suggest items for the ITN section- please see WP:ITN/C. J Milburn (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Very enlightening

Hello, your website is very informative and useful, I would like to share with you links, send all the questions on my e-mail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.100.22 (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to hear that you find Wikipedia to be a useful resource. Maybe you'd like to create an account and help us? --Elliskev 19:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Israel-Gaza violence

Its urgent that we mention the recent violence in Gaza on the main page. According to the BBC, its been the worst fighting since Israel withdrew from the Strip in 20005. At least 52 Palestinians were killed as well as two Israelis soldiers. Hamas also responded by firing 50 rockets at Israel. Of the Palestinian causalities eight were children and 16 were militants. Abbas referred to the attacks as "more than a holocaust" while Ehud Barak said "Hamas and those who fire rockets at Israel are responsible and they will pay the price". Khaled Meshaal (Hamas leader) also referred to the attacks as a holocaust. At least 91 Palestinians and three Israelis have been killed in the past four days.[4] --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, please direct your comments towards WP:ITN/C. That's where the people who reguarly deal with that section are likely to see it. J Milburn (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Main Page Header

Anyone care to comment on my new layout for the header? I made it because people just aren't following the link, so I moved the relevant links to the start of the each line. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 13:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You're never going to get 100% of the editors to use the new section link. I'm not sure how effective these notifications are. Nakon 16:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't expect 100%, but I would like to cut down the off topic remarks so that we might see a day when none are posted, even if for that one day only. The placement of the header to my mined decreased the off topics by a noticeable amount, I'm just trying to optimise this effect. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 17:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You might want a link to where reports on vandalism are posted. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
There already is, its second from the bottom, The Administrators Noticeboard. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 18:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant at "the start of the each line". I didn't see that earlier. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
For each topic, the talk page of where the link goes (assuming it isn't a talk page) is the place to post vandalism reports, but the Admin Noticeboard covers all, irrelevant of place. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 18:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


How about a new header like this:

Welcome

to the page where you arrive if you come to Wikipedia and click the link that says "discussion".

If you're here to:

  • ask a general question about Wikipedia,
  • comment on the featured article,
  • report an error about a current item on the main page, or
  • discuss the structure and the design of the main page,

please do so, and you will receive an informative answer or a link to the information you seek.

If anybody starts complaining that this is not the exactly right place to ask your (or anybody else's) question, feel free to frown upon them.

I wager that one would be more likely to work. Zocky | picture popups 05:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No I'm fairly sure that that would completely, totally and unequivically defeat the purpose of the header... ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 14:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I should also point out that reporting errors here is grand, just so long as its done where all those big Error looking words up there are, and not down here where those big General Discussion looking words here. I know its complicated, but forgive me for not having a brain that converts an ordered system into a chaotic free for all. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 14:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, maybe we should try bigger letters, since people still miss them sometimes? And maybe next time we can try even bigger? Or we could make them flash?
Or, we could just abandon the whole silly over-pedantic tendency and accept that visitors don't read banners? Zocky | picture popups 20:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
No, since we made the banner more direct the off topic comments have cut down, I just want to optomise the effect, which is very real. The main page is more then important enough to not be misinterpreted as a free-for-all forum, and its not as if the Village Pump etc. doesn't exist. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 21:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, counting the current sections on this talk page, there are 4 that "should" be here, 1 jokular, and 5 that "shouldn't" be here. The banner doesn't seem to be doing such a good job, eh? Zocky | picture popups 23:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Where as it used to be populated almost exclusively be ones that shouldn't, at least the 4 that shouldn't can be forgiven as they relate to the content on the Main Page. We used to have all sorts; policy debates, complaints, even all out disputes, thoroughly enjoyable I'm sure. I'm certain your not so naive as to believe that reviewing the current status is an effective means of finding out how effective a change is without knowing how it was beforehand, and if you are that naive then I'm going to ask you to drop it. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 23:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I remember very well how it was before the header, and before the WP:ERRORS page, and it was quite alright. At least judging by your contribs page, you don't actually remember how it was before, so I'm going to ask you to drop the attitude, OK? Zocky | picture popups 00:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Your the one making blind assumptions, two of which you've made so far. I only created an account in the last year or two, but I edited as an IP for a long time. Also, your the one making the unrealistic sarcastic comments, not the least of which was your "proposal" above. Taking into account those two things I think the attitude adjustment needs to be on your end. Having said that, I'm not going to let this turn into a personal dispute, so I'm going to leave this sub-thread as it is. I'll happily talk about serious improvement suggestions for the template above however. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 00:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't the one trying to lecture a long-time user about how things worked until relatively recently.
Anyway, while I was obviously somewhat joking with the new banner, my suggestion to stop the whole charade is completely serious. After more than a year, if not two, of the new "system", almost half of all sections on this talk page end with pointers to other places, even when actually answering the questions would often take just as much effort as saying "this is the wrong place". Sneering at people who ask at the wrong place is not as commonplace as it was a year ago, but it does still happen.
We have to be realistic. This is the talk page which is linked from the most visited page on Wikipedia, and it's unrealistic to expect people to read a long banner with a dozen links in detail before posting. If we really need to separate the on-topic discussion from the general questions, it would be much easier to redirect the experienced users to another page and let this one be used as most visitors use it.
In the meantime, tinkering with the header will not change anything. The kind of people who read talk page headers will read it even if it's written in plain text, and the kind of people who don't, won't read it even in giant orange flashing letters. Zocky | picture popups 00:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)This is no charade. A talk page of any page is for its developement, nothing else, high profile or not. Instead of reversing the process were using, which I say again, has had a positive effect; now that the Main Page is in a class of its own after the Betacommandbot sega, I wonder how difficult it would be to add a "Help" tab to the top of the page beside discussion...
That being my main point here, I should also point out that the people who show up on this page and bite the newcomers are usually admonished for doing so. Also, the fact that the invalid posts end in a redirecting link is a plus, because it stops the invalid discussions being carried on here, which is the whole idea, if only a little late in the day. Also, yes, it sometimes takes a little more effort to create the links then to answer, but the repeat offenders are almost 0%, if not that.
I'm also going to sidestep that long-term user line for the reason I posted beforehand. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 01:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A talk page of any page is for its developement, nothing else - I think that we should apply the principle of avoiding foolish consistency here, like we do with the Main page itself, which purists insist should be in the Portal: namespace.
And please, there are no invalid discussions for our purpose. When people who don't know better start a discussion at the most obvious place, they are engaging with the project, which we should encourage not frown upon. Don't get me wrong: It's a good thing that we have more specialized places for discussing specific topics, and it's a good thing that people get directed to them. The underlying problems here are that most visitors don't know how we use the talk pages, and that many if most people don't read boxy headers on top of pages. Both are outside our powers to change.
OTOH, it's a bad thing that we have a large box with traffic signs and big threatening words at the top of the page. We shout in colour, bold, italic and underline at the people who read headers, and it gets ignored by the people that it's meant for, i.e. those that don't read headers. It's also a bad thing that users have to click a non-obvious link on this page to report an error, then when they add the error report and click save, they end up on a different page, and when they find their way back here, the text confusingly (for a newbies) appears on this page.
So, IMO, we should keep the good and get rid of the bad. WP:ERRORS should go, and the banner should be reduced in (font) size and made calmer in tone and appearance. The errors should be reported on this talk page (as they are at every other protected page's talk page), and the general questions should be answered, if possible, and the users directed to the more useful place (the latter already happens most of the time). Zocky | picture popups 01:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I hardly think one of the most basic principles of MediaWiki can be considered a "foolish consistency", and now that you mention it, I say Wikipedia is the appropriate name space for this page, but I never argue the point. In the general sense, there is indeed no invalid discussion, but on a single page, of course there is, would you go to a travel agents to report a crime? Thats what reporting Vandalism here is essentially, and if you'd like me to come up with some more metaphors for the other invalid discussions that occur here feel free to ask.
I agree that most people don't know the exact purpose of the talk page, and I might change the first line of the box in a few minutes to suit, but that doesn't change that fact that the purpose is the purpose.
I can concede that maybe we should/could talk about the Main Pages errors here, thats not outside of basic consideration, but general questions should not be answered here, if we do that, the page will develop a reputation as being for that use. If you wish to use a service you learn its policy's and methods, simple as that. If theres a place for something, you go there, not try and make the wrong place into something its not. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 01:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said last time I participated in a discussion like this, I for one am perfectly willing to let the main page talk page be a free for all, if all the people who suggest it are willing to be the ones to ensure the vast majority of free for all issues raised are dealt with. I will not be one of the people who will be dealing with a free for all main page by and large and I suspect nor will a number of people who currently deal with it. Sadly, even though a number of people have supported the either, they don't seem to be volunteering to deal with the mess (or whatever you want to call it) they are planning to create.
The reality is, at the moment there is a very real risk any off topic commentary here is not going to be dealt with. Even if it is left here often all that will happen will be someone will either say it is the wrong place and/or will direct the person to the proper place. But since the vast majority of people probably don't check back, if someone is pointing out vandalism or whatever that needs our attention, it's just going to be missed. This will only get worse if the amount of people dealing with the stuff reduces and/or the amount that we receive increase, both of which I fear your proposal is likely to cause. It is in the best interest of wikipedia, and the people who would otherwise post stuff here in a free for all that they are directed to the proper place
Nil Einne (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
My proposal is basically to get rid of WP:ERRORS and reduce the visual screaming in the header. Neither would have any effect on the amount of general questions that are asked here, IMO. Zocky | picture popups 15:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't get rid of WP:ERRORS. We need that to stay on the watchlist of the many helpful admins who monitor the main page. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 11:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The way I see it, there are two basic possibilities of what the header does. Perhaps it has absolutely no effect in which case while not a solution, it's not a problem so getting rid of it is not urgent. Or alternatively it must have some effect. Whether people are being frightened away and not asking their questions at all, or alternatively they are going to the right place is an interesting issue. But you can't argue that the template frightens new users from using wikipedia and then in the same breath argue it has no affect on the number of general questions. There are mutually exclusive options... BTW I'm not saying that frightening new users is good, simply pointing out it doesn't make sense to claim it has no effect if the reason you want to remove it is because you think it frightens new editors. In any case, as I've already said, until and unless we have contributors who are willing to deal with the proposed free fall all which will result, then I don't really see it as a viable alternative. I for one would be willing to give up monitoring talk:main page if you want to change the header, I would presume that anyone asking for such a change is willing since if not, I don't see any point discussing the issue further. However I cannot accept a situation where we turn the main page talk page into a free fall all and no one actually bothers to deal with the mess that was created. It's IMHO far better that some people are directed to the right place even if we frightenen other people off then no one at all is helped because someone had the bright idea to turn the main page talk page into a free fall all but didn't actually deal with the mess that was created. P.S. I should add that we seem to change the header every 2 months or something and a number of people have experience and opinion that it has reduced the number off topic posts. Nil Einne (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Columbus Globe

re. "Adolf Hitler never thought much of ... despite its iconic status in the U.S." This is misleading as it is suggest that there its "iconic status" has some connection with Hitler's view. What is the connnection. Really it looks more like unnecessary pushing a reference to the USA, which is sadly all too common in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.169.157 (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You wanna handle this one Howard? ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 14:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I don't know anything about this so I won't comment. (In other words, the DYK mainstays should include my new DYK suggestion. LOL.) --Howard the Duck 03:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if the U.S. part was necessary since it appears to be iconic outside the U.S. But from what I can tell, the iconic status part was actually a good idea. The Columbus Globe for State and Industry Leaders appears to be to be mostly of limited notability. Although created for Nazi leaders, there is no evidence any of them really cared much about it, that it was either an important symbol to them or something they found of use. Specifically, in the case of Hitler, the evidence suggests he in fact didn't care much about it. However what makes the globe more noteable is the fact that it is an icononic representation of Hitler's megalomania (even during the war). Given Hitler himself apparently didn't like the globe, you could argue this is a form of propaganda or misrepresentation but that's beside the point... Nil Einne (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
When I originally verified the hook, I had just left it at "iconic status". I guess someone added "in the U.S." since the article discusses at length how it was used as a symbol of Nazi ambitions, particularly in Chaplin's film. I didn't think it was necessary. Daniel Case (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The link for Euro (in the news) is going to trolls

I don't know why. 129.67.125.194 (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed and vandal reported. FYI, error reports like this should go in WP:Errors at the top of this page. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 15:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I wasn't sure that this was an error in the usual sense; the news itself was still correct 129.67.125.194 (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, but yeah, anything at all that you find wrong on the Main Page, weither its factual, grammatical, or vandal, just pop it into the WP:Errors above, thats the place the admins keep an eye on, is mostly normal editors down here in general discussion :). ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 15:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism like Special:Contributions/Notatrolllol is better reported at WP:AIV. --PFHLai (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
No it was a link on the Main Page the IP was concerned about, the IP didn't know it was a redirect. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 15:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
For next time... --PFHLai (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK ... WP:ERRORS ...

DYK that the current first DYK says "that that" where it should say "that"? Wanderer57 (talk) 04:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Report at the errors at the top please, thanks. Tourskin (talk) 05:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Be thankful for people reporting errors and just live with people putting them in the "wrong place". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.208.129 (talk) 13:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason why someone who has posted an error to the wrong place can't be politely informed so that in future, they and others who see errors will report them in the correct place so that they are dealt with more efficiently and are more likely to be dealt with in the first place Nil Einne (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Or you could just get used to the fact that this happens, has happened for years, and will continue to happen. Either develop a way to prevent such comments entirely or accept them and live with them being here all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.208.129 (talk) 15:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
We seem to be going around in circles. No one is denying it happens and will continue to happen. All we're saying is, we already have a way to deal it which is to politely inform those who post in the wrong place to try and reduce instances of it happening in the future. If you have another alternative, why don't you do something about it, instead of complaining about people who are already doing something about it? Bearing in mind neither of the 3 people here are admins so you can do just as much as any of us 2 about it... Your suggestion that if we fail to prevent comments completely then we have somehow completely failed frankly makes no sense Nil Einne (talk) 15:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Protect this page and force people to choose from a few different links: Report an error, Help desk, Reference desk, Village pump. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.208.129 (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
And where will legitimate comments be placed? ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 16:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
At the most relevant location, quite probably Village Pump. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.208.129 (talk) 20:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Ummm, why would we place legitimate comments about the development of the Main Page on the Village Pump? ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 20:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem - create a subpage for discussing the Main Page itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.208.129 (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Such a subpage will end up closely resembling this talkpage. Sigh... --199.71.174.100 (talk) 23:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
No it wouldn't, because the number of people that actually want to discuss the Main Page itself is very small, and the link to the talk subpage would be small too. It makes it more difficult for people to comment about the Main Page. "Sigh" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.208.129 (talk) 23:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and making it more difficult to comment about the Main Page will solve all our problems. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes Wikipedia makes me think that I'm actually Sam Lowry, and the rest of my existence is just a dream. --Elliskev 02:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the fuss? WP:ERRORS is on the top of this page. It's impossible to miss it. --Howard the Duck 04:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, it isn't. That stupid-ass 'go-away-you-stupid-newbies' banner at the top is ineffectual, uninviting, and counter-productive. It was identified as such from the beginning. --Elliskev 19:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the banner is too big! --Howard the Duck 03:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this such a big deal? I mean, when somebody misplaces a comment here, it takes about 45 seconds to direct them to the correct place, or 75 seconds to move it there. Even with three misplaced comments a day, it isn't a huge issue.
If we don't like having a huge talk page we could do it "Czech Wikipedia style". Take a look at cs:Diskuse:Hlavní strana. There are only three threads, and keep in mind that the page isn't archived so the oldest one is from November. The low talk page activity is because each of the sections (Article of the week, DYK, ITN, picture of the week, OTD) has it's talk page to be discussed at, so the main talk page only contains stuff like, "Maybe we should use central Europe time instead of UTC on the Main Page". But I personally don't think this layout is good-when I want to see somebody's comment about the Main Page, I expect to be able to hit the "discussion link" and see all the criticism&praise in one place. I don't want to have to check out six talk pages or click through a disambiguation-I want to be able to see everything at a glance. Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

4 March 1804

Your comment of the event of a convict rebellion in New South Wales should be rewritten to include the article Castle Hill convict rebellionFoofbun (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Gone. Next time, pls use WP:ERRORS. --74.13.125.16 (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


Urgent - March 4 on this day!

moved to Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/March 4. --17:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Help making a "Arthur Polson" page on Wikipedia

I tried to add an article for Arthur Polson, a famous violin player, but as I searched Arthur Polson there were other options showing up in the Wiki Search. I need some help for making this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridem92 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Help desk. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Or post a {{helpme}} on your own talk page. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Admins editing main page

Since when has the community supported making admins into super-editors? The general view is that admins are janitors. Here we see admins being given a priviledged editing position. What community discussion took place to make this so? Wjhonson (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see FAQ Numero Uno ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 03:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I should probably point out that it takes a serious amount of discussion to get any non-bug-fixing edit to the main page approved. If an admin were to make an edit based on his/her personal taste it would be quickly reported and reverted. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 03:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response but it does not address my issue. Semi-protect would accomplish the same thing, that is to stop vandalism. By Full-protect, we create super-editors out of admins. The community never created a super-editor position, and never authorized admins to wield it, full-protect does that inherently. Full was not initially created for this purpose, semi was. Semi-protect is the appropriate protect level. Wjhonson (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
My God, no it isn't. Sleeper accounts would vandalise. Well meaning editors would accidentially vandalise. Annoyed editors would vandalise. Well meaning editors would add their own content when it was not appropriate. Well meaning editors would add their own or someone elses content but format it incorrectly. Spammers would spam, constantly. It would be an absolute mess. This does not make super-editors out of admins; quite the opposite, we do not add our own material to the main page due to COI concerns- instead, we add what the community agrees should be added from various places- WP:ITN/C and the like. J Milburn (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
As a non-admin, I have to agree with J Milburn. The Main Page would be an horrific mess if it were only semi-protected...--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 19:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Plus, you can't cascading protect when it is semi-protected. The Placebo Effect (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I gonna throw in that thats basically what I said :) ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 19:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The community never agreed to create permanent full-protection for this sort of thing. In my opinion, it's a significant violation of our standard of trust to state that vandalism is an appropriate rationale for this. That same vandalism argument could be applied to all of Wikipedia, or all significant pages, or all pages with rampant vandalism. Wjhonson (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been like this for as long as I remember. What advantage to you believe unprotecting the main page would have? From the minutes where the main page has been unprotected after accidental/rogue admin actions, we can see that it is instantly vandalised, over and over. J Milburn (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the community overwhelmingly agrees that it should be full protected, indeed you're the first person I've ever seen make a serious objection to it. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
As the Protection policy states, the Main Page is highly visable, and therefore has indefinite full protection. There isn't any content on the main page anyway, so I'm not sure what you're objecting to, Wjhonson. Everything that appears on the Main Page actually comes from templates, all of which receive their content from admins and non-admins alike. The only "admin editing" that occurs, is when an admin moves the prepared content from an unprotected source (such as Template:Did you know/Next update) to a protected template (such as Template:Did you know). This is very much in keeping with the janitorial/maintenance/housekeeping role admins play. - auburnpilot talk 23:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Not that I disagree with the permanent protection, but discussion has occurred in regard to specific templates, such as ITN. For more info on that, see the appropriate section at Template talk:In the news. But as a rule, full protection here = good idea :) Random89 (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

FA photo

Would http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/49/Corpse_of_Lucien_Lachance._Oblivion_2007-07-11.png/180px-Corpse_of_Lucien_Lachance._Oblivion_2007-07-11.png work for the FA (sorry if this is late). Tesfan (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that's a fair use image. The general consensus is that we don't use fair use images on the main page. Thanks for the suggestion. J Milburn (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo

I've noticed this for some time: Is there any technical reason the "in the news" photo can't move in tandem with the brief it illustrates? As a former newspaper editor, I find it very odd that, for example, a mug of Medvedev is displayed next to a brief about McCain. This seems a fairly glaring fault, as readers will look at the pic & wonder why it's not McCain & who the heck it is.

Sca (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Kinda. The template is used on more pages, and in some of them it's in a horizontal format (example). If we aligned the photo with the hook, it would look great on the Main Page, but really really horrible on others.
I myself don't find this valid. If worst came to worst, we could duplicate efforts and have admins update two templates (a vertical one where the image would be aligned, and a horizontal one). This could even be done by a bot (provided the community is willing to give adminship to a bot-kinda controversial). But I'm sure there's a solution-the current situation is kinda ugly.
The hooks always have "(pictured)" to help you identify the person, and if you hover over the image, it will display the caption. This helps reduce the confusion, but not eliminate it completely. Puchiko (Talk-email) 18:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Sca is right, it should be done, it makes us look stupid half of the days of the week, and the above whining (about unnamed pages that are one-one-billionth as important as the Main Page) is all you ever get by complaining about it. The French wikipedia does it. Tempshill (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my comment came across as whining. I myself disagree with not aligning the photo, and I had tried to make that clear in my above post. I was trying to provide the reason it is not done-I wasn't agreeing with that reason. Again, I apologise. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Colorado river released into Grand Canyon

Hey ppl where do i find info about this??

Probably worthy of putting a link on "In the News" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.197.41 (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't the Colorado River carved the Grand Canyon??? --Howard the Duck 03:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe they recently have/will soon be intentionally flooding the canyon, I'm guessing that's what the question was about. timrem (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the question is about whether we have an article on the high-flow experiment being conducted right now at Glen Canyon Dam. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 17:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Team Origin

In en.wikipedia there are two page about the english sailing team Team origin: TEAMORIGIN and Team Origin. Team Origin must be merged into TEAMORIGIN. --Noname-en (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing in TEAMORIGIN that wasn't already in Team Origin, so I've redirected the first to the second. - auburnpilot talk 20:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
And this really doesn't belong here. Next time, WP:AIV/I. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 22:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Though I'll agree it doesn't belong here, it doesn't belong on the place you linked either. It's a page where you edit the instructions for filing a report about a vandal.
The best place to have raised this would probably have been Talk: Team Origin, but that doesn't matter now. Puchiko (Talk-email) 22:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I assumed that one of them was the result of a page move or some such, no matter now though. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 20:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Random articles

Am i the only one who thinks there should be a random article generator that only generates featured articles? The random article link is great and im sure lots of people use it, but a seperate link that filters out only the high quality articles would be a great addition. Natterjack1 (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Natterjack1, no, your not, I think that would be a good addition, but the fact is that this page is for discussing the Main Page only, for general topics like that, I would suggest taking it up at Village Pump:Proposals ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 14:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You can get a random example of each type of featured content at Portal:Featured content. Graham87 12:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This link does the trick. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 13:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia logo

Hi, this is my first actual comment on wikipedia, so please forgive me if I post this in the wrong area/if it has already been discussed already. Basically, I was looking at the Wikipedia logo and I noticed how the edges of the globe has a white outline around it, possibly from the program used to make the transparency. I was wondering, why this has not been rectified and the edges of the globe alpha blended? In my opinion, this would be a very easy edit and would increase the overall aesthetic quality of the main Wikipedia logo.

Thanks, 78.148.97.236 (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding, from a discussion of this at a meetup, is that the original file in which the logo was created has been lost and we're stuck with it (Isn't there also an upside down Indian letter or something)? Daniel Case (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Geez, we're not "stuck with it", it's a tiny texture, it'd take a couple of days for a good artist to fix. Tempshill (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible if I modified the original logo to get rid of the white outline, it could be uploaded and used as the main wikipedia logo? 78.148.97.236 (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
There are already numerous Wikipedia logos already on here, most without the white outline. Plus you have to have an account to upload. --AxG @ ►talk 22:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It's possible but I'm not sure where to look! Do register a username and then ask again, either here or on Wikipedia:Village Pump in the Technical section. Tempshill (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia has this fixed already. Might be worth combining it with fixing the typographical errors on the logo that are long-standing and haven't been fixed. -62.172.143.205 (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick Question

How many times can one article be featured as the featured article?---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 21:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick answer: 1. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 23:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!!! I think they should be allowed more than once.---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 02:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
But there are so many which have not yet been there... Geuiwogbil (Talk) 02:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok...---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 04:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
And apparently the rate of FA passes is greater than one per day so I last heard when this issue was raised, so it is in fact impossible. Tourskin (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
In January 2008 82 articles were promoted to FA status and 9 were demoted. So the number of FAs increased by 73 articles. That's 2.355 articles promoted a day. In February 2008, 69 articles were promoted to featured status and 10 were demoted. So the number of articles increased by 59, that's 2.034 articles a day. Source: Wikipedia:Featured article statistics. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time that Plano Senior High School has been featured, by the way. --Zadernet 08:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? When was it featured before? Puchiko (Talk-email) 09:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
About a year ago I think.--Zadernet 00:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I checked the FA archive for February 2007, March 2007 and April 2007. Plano Senior High School isn't there. I looked at the milestones listed at the articles talk page. It isn't there. Are you sure you didn't confuse it with a different article? Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Slavery in Ancient Greece

I would respectfully suggest swapping out the current picture for the first picture at Slavery in Ancient Greece as being both more representative of the subject and also more readily identifiable. (I.E. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Stele_Mnesarete_Glyptothek_Munich_491_n1.jpg instead of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Black_slave_Louvre_Br361.jpg) Rorybowman (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please report the inadequacy of the current image and suggest the replacement at #Main Page error reports above (WP:ERRORS) --199.71.174.100 (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Kit Fox

It says on the main page that the Kit Fox is endangered, but in the kit fox article it says "least concerned" Someone should make the two pages line upMikeonatrike (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read the blurb and article carefully, the blurb is specifically referring to the San Joaquin Kit Fox subspecies which according to the Kit Fox article, is indeed endangered; even though the Kit Fox species in general is not. BTW, it is usually best to report these above in the error report place Nil Einne (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article Discrepancy

The Featured Article's blurb on the main page claims that Early Christians supported Greek slavery, but the only mention of Christianity in the article actually claims that they took credit for its downfall. May I ask, WTF?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 08:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You're free to ask, but a better place to do so would be the article's talkpage. --12.169.167.154 (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, the problem seems to be the blurb on the main page, which is why I asked here.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 11:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The statement was originally in the aricle but has been removed, but this appears to be controversial. I suggest you take apart in the discussion and if there is consensus for the removal come back and make an error report above Nil Einne (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Early Christianity never supported slavery - this is yet another fallacy taken out of the context of the bible. Letters written by the Apostles spoke of equality among gentiles and jews, slaves and freemen. Then anti-Christians take this out of context to suggest that Christianity accepted the rank of slave in society, not realizing that in fact it was addressing the down trodden and attempting to give them light in the midst of their miserable lives. I know this was not the place to add this but sorry, could not hold it in my system or be bothered to add it in the talk page. Tourskin (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Your comment does not agree with Christianity and slavery. If you are sure you are right and have sources, I suggest you take part in improving the article there Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
What a mountain of misinterpreted and poorly translated bible passages - hence the template requesting for citations. The whole "Slave to Christ" is just emphasizing how Christians place God so much higher than themselves. Besides, in those days the words for slave and servant, when translated can become very confusingly interchangeable. It was in line with the Socratic thought that a good slave realized that life with his master was better than one without, just as it is with a child and his parent, a wife with her husband (in those days women were not treated well by themselves) and so on. Yes, I will try to improve the article indeed.

Eight people are killed in a shooting at the Mercaz HaRav yeshiva in Jerusalem.

How the hell is this newsworthy enough to be on wikipedia? 8 people? only 8? why are these 8 people so special? is it because they are jewish? what about entire tribes being wiped out in africa? or chinese slaves being worked to death in chinese mines? this stinks of racism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.159.2.32 (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You may want to join the discussion at WP:ITN/C#Jerusalem Attack, instead of whining complaining here. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
For your part, you may want to take your contributions elsewhere, if you are of a temperament that enjoys calling the raising of issues whining. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The word whining is now replaced with complaining. Thank you, 86.44.6.14, for pointing out my poor choice of vocabulary. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Spitzer

Umm, theres no actual article for prostitution ring. - Crunch Captain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crunch Captain (talk • contribs) 20:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So? The article on prostitution covers the whole concept pretty well. J Milburn (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal - Something like this? crassic![talk] 03:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

famed NFL coach Lou Holtz?

You mean NCAA football coach? His record in the NFL is so bad that he quit after less than 1 season. Sarcasm on the main page? That's not too nice. Please remove this from DYK. (already posted at WP:ERRORS, but was ignored.) Thanks. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing, Bongwarrior. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome, thanks for pointing it out. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

EU v Microsoft

Why does the news report of a fine for breach of European law use the American legal term "antitrust"? 11:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Competition commissioner, Neelie Kroes, said in a statement: "Microsoft was the first company in 50 years of EU competition policy that the Commission has had to fine for failure to comply with an antitrust decision." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.11.85 (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Did he/she say that in English, or is that an American translation of what was actually said? 12:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.164.119 (talk)
The European Commission uses the expression 'antitrust', as in this sentence from one of its official English language press releases: "The Commission will continue to conduct antitrust investigations in the energy sector." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.11.85 (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, 82.20.11.85. Please be encouraged to get an account and contribute your knowledge to Wikipedia. --PFHLai (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. What does it tell us about the way the world works that they use American terminology rather than that of their own English-speaking members. 11:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.164.119 (talk)

That cultures and languages borrow words from each other on occasion? Tempshill (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
True, many "English" words are from other languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RJRocket53 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it would not be far fetched to say that most of the English words are either from German or French. Cheers.--ÆN↑Þƺ§®»Ŧ 18:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You forgot Latin. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
And Greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.12.221 (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be misleading though? Both English and German are Germanic languages; it's not the case that German developed first and then English stole its best words. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it would be more like English stole its worst words :)
Actually, the first form of English was Germanic, then it became predominantly French when France ruled Britain (i.e., all the exquisite vocabulary is derived from French). Of course, here I am using German for OG, ME etc., i.e., for the whole family.
These are the big effects. Greek and Latin were used quite late, more as a symbol of renaissance than need.--ÆN↑Þƺ§®»Ŧ 06:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
France never ruled Britain, the Normans did, speaking Norman French. True they did at one point own more of France than the French king, but they weren't 'France'. 130.88.140.109 (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The Norman didn't rule Britain either. They controlled England initially. Then they turned their attention to Wales which they overcame after a long struggle. We're still trying to get rid of the little b**gers even now ;-)
Non-educated (as in, those whose English is not primarily learned at school) English speakers in the Netherlands mostly speak and write in American English. I assume Kroes belongs in this group. User:Krator (t c) 09:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)....
The British government also uses the expression 'antitrust' in its websites. I doubt that there's many many non-educated Netherlanders operating there, but there's probably a few non-educated Brits ;-)

Nobody is "non-educated" because he doesn't speak England's english or english at all, and btw, it's 'uneducated'. --Leladax (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you might have missed Krator's point, which is that he or she was drawing a distinction between English learners who have not received formal lesssons in English, ie the 'non-educated', and English learners who have received formal lessons in the language.

There is no reason why 'non' can't be used with 'educated'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.242.42 (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)