Talk:Main Page/Archive 110

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 105 Archive 108 Archive 109 Archive 110 Archive 111 Archive 112 Archive 115
Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive.

001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202

Non sequitur in featured article

The sentence "Beginning in the 7th millennium BC, human populations moved into the Chadian basin in great numbers." in the featured article seems to be in a very odd location. The sentence before is about present-day religion in Chad, and the sentence after is about present-day politics in Chad. These seem to flow well together. The early migration of humans into Chad seems like it would be better discussed either immediately after the discussion of the geographical features of the country, or perhaps at the end. Xargque 02:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[]

My fault - in shortening it for the main page, I deleted some sentences around it, turning it into a non-sequitor. I've removed it entirely now. Raul654 03:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[]


"killed ... due to mismanagement" seems an utterly bizarre way to describe the Cambodian genocide! Sdedeo (tips) 03:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[]

Pls go to WP:ERRORS above to suggest alternate wording. -- 05:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Wait a minute... This is not on the main page at all! What is this about, Sdedeo? Are you sure you're posting on the right talk page? -- 05:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[]
It was on the page - unless I was seeing things the main page featured a news item about a UN led group or something about a Cambodian genocide and I specifically remember seeing the words mismangement. Tourskin 07:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Sdedeo references this item about the detainment of Nuon Chea; in view of its being a stub and to balance out the main page, it was removed around ninety minutes after its posting. It is, IMHO, a not-bad candidate to return to ITN, though, and so it would be entirely appropriate to take the issue of wording to the article's ITN candidacy section. (On the substantive issue, I gather the item means to suggest that not all of those who died under the Khmer Rouge died as a result of the regime's willful and active undertakings—some, for instance, died of starvation in part because of the government's dereliction [whether intentional/knowing or simply incompetent]—but I appreciate that the wording might be a bit confusing/imprecise.) Joe 07:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[]

News not really news

There seems to be a problem with the news section of the main page. It seems like it is updated every week, with stories coming out in clusters. It should be updated over time as apposed to clusters, or renamed 'recent history'. Contralya 11:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[]

There is often confusion over the purpose of ITN. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and therefore ITN is not intended to be a news service whatever the name may suggest to you. (Wikinews:Main Page is a newspaper.) Template:In the news describes briefly what ITN is and Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page goes in more detail. There have been suggestions to rename ITN but for a variety of reasons these haven't got far. You may want to check out and/or continue the discussion here Template talk:In the news#Proposal to rename In the news to Current events. Cheers Nil Einne 12:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[]

ITN Article Links

Sometimes there are no obvious (or even any) links in the summary to the actual article in Wikinews. There may be a number of links to Wikipedia articles about various topics but no hint as to which goes to the news article - it may take a lot of hovering to search this out and then find no link to the article. Would it be possible to put a specific link at an uniform spot, start or end? W#hile I have been able several times to simply go to Wikinews and see the story on other occassions, if it is an older story, I have not been able to quickly find it there. s-slater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[]

Please note that Wikipedia and Wikinews are two separate online operations. Some people take part in both projects, but the two are independent. If you want to complain that Wikinews doesn't have the news or the hyperlinks you are looking for, you should go there to do so. -- 20:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[]

Typo on main page

Normally I'd fix it myself, but it's protected, so ...

In the In The News section, right at the top, some people participate in some protests "lead" by some group. I'm pretty sure this should be past-tense, so "led" with no "a"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 12:01, 24 September 2007

See WP:ERRORS. -- 16:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[]

Main page default cursor position

I think that the main page should load in your browser with the cursor default position in the search box. 21:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)mdm[]

That's been discussed previously discussed. I think the consensus is not to do that. --Agüeybaná 21:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why doesn't the cursor appear in the search box, like with Google? - BanyanTree 23:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[]

Someone put this photo on czech airlines please. CSA airplane in new livery! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[]

You should go ask this at the discussion page in the Czech Airlines page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tourskin (talkcontribs) 18:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[]
You need to stop this. This is at least the third time you've posted this here. You've been told it's not appropriate, and where you should bring it up. Harassing people on the main page won't get things done faster. -Elmer Clark 02:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Are you talking to me? It wasn't me who posted this, only the response the first time. Just to clarify. Tourskin 06:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[]
By indenting at the same level as you, Elmer Clark was too responding to the original poster. If Elmer had indented further, as I have with this post, he'd have been talking to you. Have a read of Wikipedia:Guide to good indentation. Hammer Raccoon 09:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[]
No. Have you read everything in Wikipedia? Can you assume that everyone out there knows the rules about indenting? Don't assume everyone knows what you know. Tourskin 00:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[]
I'm sorry? You seemed to be confused about who Elmer was replying to, so I sought to clarify the situation, and provided a useful essay to further explain indentation. I don't assume everyone knows the "rules", which is why I directed you towards the supplement. I'm sorry if I somehow offended you; my intentions were only to clarify who was talking to who. Hammer Raccoon 10:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[]

Sep[1]. You did post on the talk page, so why post it here? And stop posting here. AxG @ talk 19:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[]

I dont mean th logo. I mean th photo of a real aircraft in the new livery

Talk:Main Page is still the wrong place to ask. Try Talk:Czech Airlines. --Howard the Duck 14:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[]


In today's TFA, it has a transwiki link to "shambolic". Besides the fact that there is probably a better word (or at least one that sounds better) than shambolic, is it standard form to have transwiki links in main page content? Mbisanz 03:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[]

I've never seen it before, but it can't hurt to give wiktionary a bit of prime-time advertising. —METS501 (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Or to provide a definition for a word most users are unlikely to know. Atropos 05:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Why should Wikipedia even use words that the average reader is unlikely to know when an alternative is available, especially in such a high-profile location? Why not just change it to "chaotic?" This does seem silly. -Elmer Clark 06:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Why dumb down Wikipedia? When you read an article are you just supposed to be learning about the subject alone? Or is it possible to learn a new word at the same time? Dismas|(talk) 06:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Good point - you beat me to it at an edit conflict. As an encyclopedia it does its job by teaching others "words that the average reader is unlikely to know", quoting from you. Besides, my arguments with the word Plurality, a word never used in the British or the American media taught me that you can't say things like "the average reader" - because you do not and will not ever know what the average read knows. So you can't argue that shambolic is unknown, only to yourself and others who post a response.Tourskin 06:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Since the OED says its been in use since 1958, I don't have a problem using difficult words, it just seemed awkward in the article and the link to wikitionary threw me. Mbisanz 07:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[]
We might not be able to argue that shambolic is unknown, but we can argue that it's less known than chaotic or disorderly—words that almost any English speaker will understand. There's no good reason to use British slang introduced in 1958 when plainer, more widely known alternatives are available. Teaching words is not the job of the encyclopedia. Punctured Bicycle 14:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[]
I don't have an opinion on whether or not the word shambolic is appropriate. My message was more a polite reminder that the transwiki link is far more important as a method of education than a method of advertisement. Atropos 01:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[]
I like the word and would've thought it fairly well-known, but it's probably not as internationally known as it is in the UK. If there is a direct replacement that is more readily understood we should always look at using that instead, but we should also be wary of repetitive wording (which is not a problem in this case, I don't think). violet/riga (t) 11:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[]
I don't think this is a simple matter. It's true that as an encylopaedia we should aim to make our content accessible. However most people would probably agree we shouldn't aim to be the simple English wikipedia. While we probably would lose content if we go that far there are a lot of words which are perhaps less known then some alternatives but in many cases IMHO they should not be replaced even if it doesn't lead to repetition. While it's not an encylopaedia's job to teach words it's also not an encylopaedia's to assume all readers are stupid and incapable of looking up a word they don't know. Where to draw the line between being unnecessarily inaccesible and allowing less known but valid words ultimately comes down to personal opinions IMHO and I'm not convinced either way. Also, if the article has a clear WP:ENGVAR preference (as in this case), and one word is equally understood in this ENGVAR (not sure if this is the case here) then IMHO there is definitely no justification for changing it even if an alternative word is understood much better in other areas. In more neutral articles where we're going by first author's preference that's a different matter Nil Einne 15:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[]

good point —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[]

GE New Horizons error message

Hi what would cause me to get this message? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[]

If you are experiencing a bug, you can report it. ffm 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[]

FA image...

Why can't this image be used: Image:Clark2-Pilot.jpg? Wikidudeman (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[]

It's unfree. Regardless of how relevant, I can't remember the last time a fair use image was allowed on the Main Page. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[]
There use to be an exemption on the main page, but after the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions#Removing exception in policy for "Main Page", and this edit by Jimbo, it has been removed from policy. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Thanks for those links. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Mostly after the edit by Jimbo, anyway. The debate didn't really have any sort of consensus. 19:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[]

I would just get rid of this image. It is not discussed in the short summary and seems completely out of place. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-27 16:02Z

I'd say get rid of it since it's not Lana Lang. hahaha --Howard the Duck 16:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[]

Get rid of Michael Rosenbaum's picture! 16:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Normally I would object since I think ignoring our female and gay male is systemic bias but he's hardly a hunk so I guess there's no harm :-P Nil Einne 19:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[]


Just thought it interesting that the day "Smallville" has its premiere, the featured article is for a "Smallville" episode. I'd find it extremely hard to believe if that's just a coincidence. 17:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[]

Of course not. See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. --Howard the Duck 17:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Specifically, this request Raul654 18:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[]

Vietnam bridge collapse

Collapse kill 56 and 132 missing. Should be in main news,2933,298068,00.html 20:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding comment added by (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[]

WP:ITN/C. Since you went through all the trouble of finding the news reports, you are undoubtedly the most qualified person on the wiki right now to start the article. You can create an account, required for creating pages, using the link in the top right of the screen. We look forward to your contribution, BanyanTree 22:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[]
I'm so sick of people with this attitude, the one shown in BanyanTree's comment. You know what I'm talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:10, 27 September 2007
What's wrong with BanyanTree's comment? -- 05:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Generally speaking if you want an article the best thing to do is to create it yourself. If you do want to ask others for help in creating articles, there are various ways to request it. The Main Page talk page isn't the proper place. There is no harm in pointing either of these out to people. 85.71... has repeatedly posted off topic 'requests' to the main page and has previously been directed at more appropriate places so frankly BanyanTree's comment is extremely polite given this Nil Einne 06:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[]
I agree that he was polite but would just like to note that the anon's post, while not in the "correct place" could still prove beneficial and inspire people to create the article, giving them appropriate sources. As things stand on this page such things are not welcomed, but I think we should be more accepting of people posting things here - it gets quite frustrating seeing people moan that an error has not been reported in the correct place when a person may be making their first, inexperienced edit in a good faith attempt to help fix a problem. violet/riga (t) 12:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Well as I've said, this is not the first time the anon has posted offtopic stuff to the main page talk page and said anon has been told multiple times there are better places to do this. More importantly, you see moaning, I see a helpful comment informing people about the best way to do things in the future. If someone replies to a comment with 'fuck you, you fucking idiot learn to fucking read before you post' then when have a major problem. If someone says 'The best way to do this is to go to XYZ' how is harmful to anyone? Especially when it's the first response... Isn't it better to politely tell people the best way to do things rather then to ignore them and hope they learn themselves (and if they don't get annoyed at them)? Speaking of error reports, personally if I see an error report I usually just move it (along with a mention of that) if it hasn't been dealt with yet. If it has and no one's already mentioned it, I just politely mention it might be best to report it to the error report in the future. I'm not saying this is what everyone should do, I'm a strong believer in lettign people deal with things in their own way to a degree but I don't see anything wrong with this approach and IMHO getting to worked up about which approach is better is usually more harmful. It's not as if we remove comments. Nil Einne 12:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[]
When someone comes here trying to help some people moan. Others might be nice and friendly (as in this case) but some people aren't particularly helpful. violet/riga (t) 21:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Actually, the news links should be on Portal:Current events, not here. I've moved the BBC link over there. If there isn't an article about this news story, this shouldn't go to ITN/C yet. -- 05:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Genghiskhanviet started the article Collapse of Can Tho Bridge of 2007 earlier today, and it's now featured on ITN. How nice. -- 23:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[]

I'm not saying BanyanTree wasn't helpful, but it's sounds like such an automatic repsonse. It's also how he/she makes it sound like this anon user is now obliged to start an article - instead of thanking the anon for the links which could be to some use to someone who does have the time to start an article. The comment was polite, but it was "forced" politeness - kind of like how people at supermarkets tell you to "have a nice day". It is also was a bit sarcastic, using phrases like "Since you went through all the trouble" and "you are undoubtedly the most qualified person". I'm sorry to pick on BanyanTree like this, but many other comments on talk pages are like this to new users, so it's just a bit of an example. —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[]

When I first read BanyanTree's response I didn't feel the politeness came across as forced. I especially didn't think the reply was sarcastic... just honest. I feel a lot of people who read this talk page don't necessarily assume good faith, which in itself is a problem (and that wasn't sarcasm). Fakelvis 12:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[]

I came to this talk page wondering why the article about this news event, is totally uncited. But, now that I have found the list of citations above, I am going to take the initiative and copy them to the article... In general, I find that by using the pronoun "I" instead of "you", people rarely take offense to my comments. -- SamuelWantman 18:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[]

Size of wikipedia

Has anybody ever stopped to think that this encyclopedia could be getting too big? Its mind numbing knowing how huge it is and how many articles it will have in the future. Is there any maximum limit it could have? The Wild West guy 16:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[]

Well, owing to technical limitations, the title of each article has to be under 256 characters (though ones of a similar length to A Dissertation on the American Justice System by People Who Have Never Been Inside a Courtroom, Let Alone Know Anything About the Law, but Have Seen Way Too Many Legal Thrillers or Stereophonic Musical Listenings That Have Been Origin in Moving Film "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan" start to display uncomfortably), there is a practical upper limit to the number of potential article titles for the English Wikipedia. I suspect we may run out of topics to describe before we hit that limit, though :) GeeJo (t)(c) • 17:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[]
And of course, that limit could be removed with a bit of work in the future, if it became necessary. The next practical limit would be something akin to The Library of Babel, with the maximum article length set at ~300kb (The only article currently over that limit is the monstrous List of Unicode characters WARNING: Clicking that link may cause your browser to crash.). GeeJo (t)(c) • 17:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Lol thats at AFD. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[]
I've come across larger stuff before especially unarchived talk pages. I think one was like 800k or something. It didn't cause any problems with my browsers altho on slow internet connections and mobile phones and the like I guess it may be problematic. Editing it was very annoying especially when you had an edit conflict or had to edit the whole page for some reason Nil Einne 17:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Well, thanks to an edit by User:Violetriga clearing a goodly portion of the dross, the article's now down to a somewhat reasonable 104kb, meaning that every article in Wikipedia is now <300kb in length :) GeeJo (t)(c) • 19:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[]

As long a Wikimedia continues to be supported by public and private contributions, the only real limit to the quantity of articles will be proportinal to actual harddrive space on the servers. Rsrblm1 17:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[]

Let's focus on quality, instead of quantity, shall we ? -- 05:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Improving existing articles generally involves making them longer, better reference, etc, which still takes up more hard drive space... -Elmer Clark 09:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Yes, but as noted above, there is no limit to hard drive space potentially available as long as the Foundation has enough funds. However, lovely Mr Anon above is correct - let the number of articles steadily increase, but at the same time let's focus on improving the current articles as much as we can, whether this involves cutting out the crap or adding in material. To a thousand more years! —Vanderdeckenξφ 16:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Vanderdecken, you are lovely, too. :-) -- 17:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[]
When improving Wikipedia's quality, don't forget to delete the junk. Anyways, size doesn't matter in this case. Quality is more important. -- 16:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[]

Lol, a look at Shows that, apparently the page updated just as 2 pages were vandalized, showing them to be 800,000+ long. 23:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[]

That's weird. Special:Longpages doesn't seem to work properly. APL 01:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[]
What exactly is wrong with it? Dreamy \*/!$! 01:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Maybe I missunderstand how its supposed to work, but why is it listing stubs and other short articles and listing numbers like [288,466 bytes] next to them? 01:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[]
It's gone now, but yesterday, someone vandalized a few pages (one was the E-mail pages. don't remember the others) and increased there size by a few hundred thousend bytes. Before they were reverted, about a minute later, the Long pages page updated itself, and so it read pages like the E-mail page as being really huge. Tesfan 17:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Nope, wasn't the E-mail page =/ 03:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[]
I think it was E-mail_address. 19:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[]

Hypothetical article

Let's say someone wants to make an article on something called Main Page. How can they make that article if there is already a page titled "Main Page" -- the main page. If this page is moved to the Wikipedia namespace, then somebody can create an article on Main Page if they want to. Someone the Person 16:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[]

What is this "main page?" Is it a band? A book? Something else? Then the page would be named Main_Page_(band) or Main_Page_(book) or the like. We'd probably need some sort of disamb at the top of this main page if such a thing happened, though... which might mar the way it looks... that is an excellent question, that I don't know the answer to. Gscshoyru 16:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[]
I haven't heard of anything actually existing that is called "Main Page," but just in case... Someone the Person 16:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[]
We'd cross that bridge when we got to it. 17Drew 16:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[]
This has been discussed before quite a number of times. Many people agree that having Main Page in the article space is a bad idea for many reasons including the one you mention. Many people have pointed out that crossing the bridge when we come to it is a bad idea because amongst other things it means that we will have to carry out the change much faster then we would like and we may not be able to have a simple redirect which we could do at the moment. Unfortunately (IMHO anyway) many other people disagree for a variety of reasons so there is no consensus either way. It has been a while since we've had a serious discussion (it's brought up every so often but usually by people who aren't aware of the previous discussions so usually people just recommend they check the archives and it ends there) so you're welcome to try and resurrect the discussion but you should familiarise yourself with the previous discussions in the archives first. The last major discussion occured some time in December last year I believe (it we definitely either late last year or early this year anyway): Nil Einne 18:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why is Main Page in the main namespace? The latest proposal was in February 2007. - BanyanTree 07:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Simple. We just put a dablink at the top. "This article is not actually an article but is in article space for reasons too complex to explain here at the top of the Main Page. For other uses of Main Page, see Main Page (disambiguation)." :) --Dreaded Walrus t c 01:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Interestingly, and against what I intended to do, the link I just provided was deleted once before, in December, so Nil Einne is probably right with his dating of the last major discussion. --Dreaded Walrus t c 01:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[]
If there are any namespace diehards out there, now's your opportunity to write the perhaps-not-bestselling-but-nonetheless-notable book Main Page: A novel receiving reviews in several major newspapers and force the issue.--Pharos 02:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[]
There probably is something out there called Main Page, but just you try searching for it on Google... Lots of chaff. Carcharoth 16:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[]
There are several encyclopedic meanings for "main page", actually; Homepage is thae sense that we use it in, and it can also be used as a synonym for the Front Page of a newspaper, or the main body of the page as opposed to the footnotes. But these uses are probably not specific enough.--Pharos 17:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Aren't we lucky the Main Page wasn't called Front Page... I see we have a hatnote there pointing at our Front Page. Silly. Carcharoth 17:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Ironically, if it had actually been called Front Page, it would have been moved out of the article space years ago, and there would be no issue at all today.--Pharos 20:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[]
I have just noticed that on Wiktionary, the main page is titled Wiktionary:Main Page. This is probably because there would be a dictionary entry for "main page." Also, if we make the change, we could, instead of a redirect, make a page under the title "Main Page" that says, "The main page has been moved to the Wikipedia namespace," leave it there for long enough to get rid of most ot the confusion, and then delete it. I noticed that Wikipedia:Main Page redirects here. Someone the Person 22:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[]
I dont think it redirects here, I think its a mirror of the page, because the URL remains on the Wikipedia name space. The problem with moving the page would be the many, many pages out there that link in, those would all have to be update, an article about mainpages would be one of the highest hitted ones on Wikipedia for no real reason, lol.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 16:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Just as an aside, Wikipedia:Main Page does indeed redirect to Main Page. (Link with redirect suppressed.) The URL's staying the same is how all redirects work.--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 16:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[]
All good, my main point was the external links bit, I had a quick look at your main page and I'm totally the same with Avatar btw :)
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 16:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[]

the main page should indeed be in Wikipedia: namespace. The fact that it is not serves as an excellent reminder that we will always make exceptions to any policy if it strikes everybody as the common-sensical thing to do :) --dab (𒁳) 19:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[]

search box

Moved from WP:ERRORS

I notice that when I come to the home page that you have no search box up-top for words or articles - such as Find: ? It would be a real help if someone would introduce this to the Main page. Otherwise a person is at his wits end trying to find a topic on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[]

That would be because the searchbox is on the left of any page, and this really isnt that place for this kind of query
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 21:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[]
For better places see Wikipedia:Questions, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. Art LaPella 01:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[]

Can people get in trouble for mis-editing Wiki?

What are the consequences if someone deliberatly adds bad information to a page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[]

If a person repeatedly adds bad information to a page they may be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Blocking policy for some more information. Raven4x4x 11:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Not only bad information, but deliberate attempts to degrade the encyclopedia, Vandalism is not tolerated, and neither is spamming or harassment, among other things. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[]
But note you are only blocked from editing. You can still view the articles on the site. You just can't touch them. I imagine vandalism would almost come to a halt if they were punished by being blocked from the site altogether. GizzaDiscuss © 11:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[]

City & S London Did you know

This is a slightly controversial fact as basically both the City & South London Railway and the Tower Subway are seen as the world's first. Simply south 12:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[]

Please clarify - first what? What DYK are you specifically referring to? And in the future please add any potential error reports to the top where it says "Errors in Todays Did you know" Thanks Tourskin 23:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[]
I have taken a look at the DYK I think you are referring to (1890 subway?) and the article of the DYK clearly says that the tube was built after Tower Subway. The DYK does not say the first tube but the first major tube. So there is nothing controversial unless you contest how "major" it was. Tourskin 23:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[]

Non-free image on the Main Page

So we finally decided to use non-free images on the Main Page. The FA write up on the Main Page does look good with the Image:Ernest Emerson.jpg. -- Jreferee t/c 01:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[]

The image description page is kinda of confusing with {{GFDL}}, {{ConfirmationImageOTRS}} and {{Non-free fair use rationale}} all on there. Someone who has access to the OTRS system and can look up OTRS number 2007010410021786 would be appreciated. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[]
My best guess is that the image was orginally used under fair use, but was subsequently released and confirmed under GFDL, and the rationale template just got left on there. Hard to be totally sure, though.--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 02:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[]
I have verified that that ticket does in fact license that image under the GFDL. – ABCD 11:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Note that if this has not been a free image, I don't think there is much support for it to be allowed. While there have been calls for fair use images on the main page, most of these have concentrated on cases when a free image is unlikely or not possible and said image is allowed in the article. However fair use images to simply show what a living person looks like, particularly when said person is from an English speaking developed country like the US, and who regularly makes public apperances, is a completely different matter and is generally not allowed on articles either Nil Einne 13:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[]

I've removed the rationale template. --- RockMFR 03:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[]

standardized main page layout across languages

This is probably quite random, but why is the main page layout (and, to some extent, the Wikipedia UI) not standardized across languages?

Well, each language sort of does its own thing. The Wikimedia Foundation oversees the projects, but it doesn't demand a certain layout, and I imagine trying to gather a consensus among the different projects would be pretty hard. 17Drew 05:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[]

Where is the best place to request an event to be added to the news section?

Two people I greatly admire had a very good day. Viswanathan Anand won the world chess championship and Haile Gebrselassie set a new world record in the marathon. I found out about Anand's achievement through Wikipedia but I found out about Haile's record elsewhere. I'd like to nominate the marathon record for the news section but I'm not sure where the best place to do that is. Thanks! Synesthetic 05:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates, which has the shortcut WP:ITN/C. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 05:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Thanks! It looks like there's a whole discussion going on on over there about this. Synesthetic 06:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[]

WIkipedias by size and language

Forgive me, if this has been raised some where in the 101 archives, but why are other Wikipedias listed on the front page as >250K, >75K, >50K, >25K entries? Meanwhile the listing by size is by order of magnitude, base 10. Which means it breaks at 100K which the front page list ignores. I know the numbers are abitrary, but I would have expected something like >500K, >250K, >100K, >50K, >25K, giving a roughly gemetrical progression with increments of x2, or x2.5.--Peter cohen 19:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[]

Well, it's a tad early to create a 500K+ section, but I've no objection to shifting the 75K to 100K. GeeJo (t)(c) • 20:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[]
I also have no objection to shifting the 75K limit to 100K. feydey 21:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[]
The limits have been chosen such that there are approximately the same number of items in each section of the list. Your best bet is to contribute 25,000 articles to each of the wikis in the 75K section, thereby allowing us to change the limit without affecting the layout – – Gurch 22:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[]
That's nice, but they won't always be so evenly distributed. As they grow, we will either have to adapt by changing the limits or we'll have some lopsided listings. I like the geometrical progression idea. So what if it's a little uneven? Antimatter--talk-- 01:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Yes that's been done before, there's nothing wrong with it. It's not just a matter of being a little uneven. If we were to change 75k back to 100k (I believe it was 100k for a while but this was changed because people realised it look bad) we would have 5 items in 100k and 9 (existing) + 6 (under 100k) = 15 items in 50k. Edit: here's what it used to look like before 100k was changed to 75k. [2] It would still look fairly similar Nil Einne 02:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[]
I don't mind lop-sided listings. So what if only two languages will be in the 500K plus category? 2m+ compared with 250K+ makes it look as if the English wiki is an order of magnitude bigger than the others. Some in the 500+ and we're only three or four times bigger than our nearest rival. I think it's good for Wikipedia to say that the German and French wikis aren't that far behind the English. And 75K is such a strange number, it looks as if none of those wikis are bigger than 100K when six are.
BTW, it's interesting to look at the list from 2.5 months ago and see that 7 wikis (Swedish, Lithuanian, Slovenian, Serb, Persian, Newar and Nynorsk) have gone up a size category in that time and one (Volapuk) has gone up two. --Peter cohen 15:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[]
I disagree. I don't see why anyone should assume we have no wiki's bigger then 100k but smaller then 250k any more then they should assume we have no wiki's bigger then 150k but smaller then 250k or with 63,791 articles or whatever. It seems fairly clear to me that any wiki's in the 50k cat have less then 75k articles but 50k or more. Whether that's 74999 or 50000 is indeterminate and the cat doesn't imply either way. Similarly any wiki in the 75k cat has between 75000 and 249999 articles. In particular, I don't think there will be much support for a 500k cat since one of the whole reasons we have a 25k minimum is to keep the list shortish. By adding another cat, you're going to make it unnecessarily longer. Nil Einne 16:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Should be discussed at Template:Wikipedialang. --Quiddity 19:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[]


Did Wikipedia change the font or is something wrong with my computer? Why the change? 22:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia has not changed its font. You may have changed the default font size for your browser, which will affect font size on Wikipedia. —Verrai 22:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Please see also #Still all in Arial Black with IE7! above. --PFHLai 03:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[]

I tried it on AOL explorer and changed my default font on IE and the font is still weird. Arigont 19:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[]

It appears others have had this problem before Talk:Main Page/Archive 107. Upgrading to IE7 may help. If you don't want to, you can try asking on WP:VPT to see if there's a way to fix this Nil Einne 12:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[]


Many people mistakenly believe the ship shown exploding is USS Arizona, whose destruction during the attack accounted for over half of the men killed in action during the battle.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I was always under the impression that a battle was a fight between two sides.[3]

Whereas the event in Pearl Harbor is commonly referred to as the Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor. Why? Because Uncle Sam took it in the bum without response.

In fact, the clause "during the battle" strikes me as superfluous given that the reader is made aware that this was "during the attack" earlier in the sentence. So get it fixed. -- 03:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[]

You are mistaken:
  • A battle, as you yourself described it is a fight between two sides, more or less. This was a fight, a fight which was one-sided due to the surprise achieved by the Japanese. Whether or not it was one-sided does not make it any less of a battle - you can call it an ambush, treachery etc but its still a battle.
  • The United States managed to shoot 29 planes so it was not totally without loss for the Japanese. If you had read the article, you would know that it was one of the reasons why a third wave was avoided by the Imperial forces of Japan.

Next time please report possible errors at the top where it says "Errors in picture of the Day/Today's Featured Picture" Tourskin 05:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[]

So, if I walk up to a stranger on the street an beat him about the head, you call that a battle? I'd call that an attack. That's why it is called the Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor. -- 11:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[]

Yet that's not what happened - taking on your poor analogy, the stranger retaliated and broke your arm --> battle. 11:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[]

Perhaps before arguing over word choice, you should consider style. The word "attack" is used twice in the blurb, so using it a third time (and second in the last sentence) would sound redundant. Sasha Callahan 15:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Two people constitute a battle? Don't you need at least a small army or naval fleet for that? --
Battle fits fine. They did shoot back at the attackers. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Funny you should give such a poor analogy because battle comes from the word batuere which means ‘to strike, beat’. So yes if you were to beat someone on the street, that would be a battle. Or more like a bateure. Tourskin 22:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[]
...ok buddy. Anyway, I agree with this post - Pearl Harbor isn't generally referred to as a battle. The stylistic complaints are valid too. -Elmer Clark 09:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[]
It may not be referred to as a battle but then again how many people call the 1st Iraq War Operation Desertstorm? Few if any, theyc all it the Gulf War. You see theres a difference between what something is (a battle) and what something is called. Any military or aggressive attack in war is a battle, no matter how small or how one-sided or how sneaky. Full-stop. Tourskin 20:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[]
[citation needed] 21:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Dude a lot of people around here call it Desertstorm...ownt nublet.
Citation? Oh You want citation? How bout every single recorded encounter in history? Thats called a battle? Hmm? Tourskin 06:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[]
You seem to be taking this a little personally Fourskin. I suggest you chill out. And for what it's worth, it wasn't a battle. It was an attack. --JohnO 09:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Great Freudian slip - or were you calling him a dick? Either way - kudos. 00:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[]

Oh gees. The only dicks around here are people who leave such immature nonesense. If you check out Pacific Ocean theater of World War II#Major campaigns and battles, it has Pearl Harbour beneath. Hmmm, looks like it was a battle. Tourskin 00:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[]

Mr mystery guest - yes, user We at wikipedia don't normally call each other dicks. And we try not too. So understand that there is no room here for immature cuss matches. Tourskin 02:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Not meaning to patronize you, but it's quite clear that you are not a native speaker; English is obviously not your first language. So trust me on this, you are wrong. --JohnO 08:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[]
It was a joke guys - lighten up. And still - it wasn't me who first wrote "Fourskin", so get off of my case - all I was doing was making a comical observation.
Also - "Mr mystery guest"? - give me a break, I can't possibly be the first WP user to feel lazy and not log in properly just to leave a Talk comment.
Finally, "we at Wikipedia"? Get off of your high horse, I have just as much cause to speak for WP as you do. I am no stranger here and I have seen much more vulgar, much less civil behavior displayed at WP.Drewson99 15:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Fourskin? Aha! It all becomes clear. I must have made a typo. I didn't realize. So sorry. Tourskin, I may not agree with your opinion and I think your supercilious attitude is a disgraceful advertisement for the Wikipedia project, but had I wished to pun on your name, I would have gone with Foreskin. Why? Because I can spell and I know the meaning of words. Thanks. --JohnO 03:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[]
My high horse? I was addressing the person who hadn't signed in - and I didn't notice that it was you at the time. You knew this. Nice contradiction to yourself. Now my advice to you, as an over-reacting and high-horsed wikipedian is that you stop the personal attacks. Some users here can be on wikipeda for a long time but they still can't get th hang of the game, just as your talk page does with its comments about incivility. No English is not my first language. Aramaic is. Do you know what that is? Can you speak more than one language? I wouldn't believe that you would answer yes to these questions. I don't give damn if my first language is not English. It means that I, unlike native users, have an excuse to mispell once in a while. Tourskin 03:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[]
I think his point is that someone who speaks English as a second language shouldn't act like they're intimately familiar with its workings. higasi
You argue it should be referred to as a "battle", not because of the actual definition, but because it's commonly referred to as a battle. Words shouldn't be used by their popular meaning, especially not in an encyclopedia. 18:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Perhaps you missed the above in which I used the definition of Battle. You are mistaken - why are you making stuff up? I never argued that battle was the more commonly used word. In fact the word "Attack" is more commonly used (as the first user argued) and the word Battle, for a battle did take place indeed, is the correct wording that should be used since it fits with the convention of all other engagements in World War 2. Like the Battle of Taranto - which was Britains' pearl harbour to Italy. Tourskin 18:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[]
You seem to be confusing Drewson99 with me. But I can guess which comments are aimed at me, so allow me to respond.
  1. I have made no personal attacks on you.
  2. I keep the "warning" from P.B.Pilhet on my talk page because it reminds me of just how many wankers are patrolling these pages as self-elected policemen.
  3. I do know what Aramaic is.
  4. I speak three languages. (One Romance, one West Germanic and one [possibly] Altaic.)
  5. I don't care what you believe.
  6. The poor syntax of your sentences and your atrocious spelling (mispell!! [sic]) leads me to question your expertise on the meaning of words such as attack and battle.
  7. But most importantly, while the original poster (User: was being a little provocative with the phrase Uncle Sam took it in the bum, his point that "the clause "during the battle" [is] superfluous given that the reader is made aware that this was "during the attack" earlier in the sentence" is wholly valid. What is wrong with the reading "Many people mistakenly believe the ship shown exploding is USS Arizona, whose destruction during the attack accounted for over half of the men killed in action."?
  • The final phrase is superfluous. (That means extra, if you didn't know...)

--JohnO 10:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[]

I never stated my beliefs so i dont know what u r on about. I think that this argument is "superfluous". Tourskin 04:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[]

Well, let me see...

"I wouldn't believe that you would answer yes to these questions."

That's my point. Strands of this argument are a waste of time. But User: made a valid point and that's all I wanted to discuss. --JohnO 12:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[]

If you call that a "belief". Tourskin 16:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[]

I do. --JohnO 18:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Guest here, I was just amazed that you guys would argue that much about the meaning of "battle" and get all flustered. In the grand scope of over 2 bil. articles does it really matter? Moreover, not many of you have excellent syntax or style, nor do I for that matter, but that's alright, not everyone can be an English whiz. In the end I guess I'm trying to tell you guys to go do more productive things with your time. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[]
In the grand scope of things someone decided that Pearl Harbour was not a battle, another user (or should I say loser thought that he was smart by pointing out a typo accidentally done by John and I was taking this " a little too personally". Well when someone calls you "Foreskin" and points out that your not an English native, it gets personal because personal things are involved, such as names and nationality. Should have just deleted User:'s comment and not started the whole thing - that I regret. Tourskin 01:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[]

Information.svg With regard to your comments on Talk:Main_Page#Battle.3F.3F.21.21.3F ("another user (or should I say loser") Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --JohnO 02:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Information.svg With regard to your comments on Talk:Main_Page#Battle.3F.3F.21.21.3F ("but it's quite clear that you are not a native speaker...That means extra, if you didn't know...I think your supercilious attitude is a disgraceful advertisement for the Wikipedia project)") Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Tourskin 02:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[]

As you can see, the Personal attacks in this discussion were mutual of nature - thats often the case. Can you not see the personal attack of the user who didn't login? Tourskin 02:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Please refrain from being angry mastodons. You are arguing over the wording of a single sentence that was on the page more than a week ago. Let's all just calm down. Atropos 03:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[]

I would consider a battle to be between two opponents postured for an ensuing engagement. In the case of Pearl Harbor, it was a covert operation making it an attack or ambush rather than a battle. Srazzano 12:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Then what about the Battle of Taranto? Hmm? Thats just like Pearl Harbour as well. An ambush is a battle. Just one-sided and carefully planned out in favor of the ambusher (for the most part). Tourskin 18:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[]

I'm a bit late to this, but an ATTACK (initiated) was executed by the Japanese on Pearl Harbour, therein sparking a BATTLE. Nevertheless, the Japanese were on the ATTACK throughout the BATTLE. Therefore, one could say, "during the attack" and be contextually correct.

"The Attack on Pearl Harbor" is the name given to this event and has it's roots in Rosevelt's speach immediately afterward.

It was both an attack and ensuing battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[]

Of course it was an attack. I don't deny that. What I don't understad is why some individuals refuse to call it a battle. Tourskin 03:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[]
This attack/battle/conflict/discussion is no longer relevant to MainPage. Please consider continuing elsewhere. Perhaps on one of the participants' usertalk page. Thank you. --PFHLai 03:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Can we continue it on your page? --JohnO 02:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Preferably not, unless you have something to tell me. User talk:JohnOw may be a better place, esp. when Tourskin has already started to post there. --PFHLai 21:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[]

everything about this discussion was entertaining. 20:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[]

This is a fine place to continue discussing it since it was related to the main page and still does relate to the mian page. It is not irrelevant. In time the image will once again appear on the Main Page. Tourskin 20:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Still all in Arial Black with IE7!

WTH is going on with Wikipedia and Internet Explorer? IE6 and now IE7 (and ONLY IE!) displays ALL fonts on Wikipedia as Arial Black. It does that with SOME fonts on a few other sites, but Wikipedia is the only site I've found where the whole thing is in Arial Black. IT DOES NOT DO THIS ON FIREFOX OR NETSCAPE. Nor is any other program afflicted with font problems, so it can't be a problem with the fonts, it has to be something screwed up with IE- something that not even "upgrading" to IE7 corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[]

You probably set your browser's default font to Arial Black somehow. Check your preferences. -Elmer Clark 05:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Specifically Tools>Internet Options>General>that little "Fonts..." button at the bottom. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 02:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[]
So? Use Firefox or Netscape then. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[]

News 2 people died in a crane collapse and dozens were injured -- 15:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[]

The place to post this is WP:ITN/C. Though I have to say I doubt it will make it. Algebraist 15:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[]
See User talk: page talk page. -- 18:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[]

The Hindi letters in the center of the left curving margin of the logo supposed to be pronounced as "Wi"{edit-protected} have been represented wrong. In this case the consonant for "W" should follow the wovel for "I" instead of the characters depicted on the logo. I would have gladly written the correct letters in Hindi if this page had supported hindi text. -ANIL TANWAR, New Delhi, 17:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[]

This is a known problem, and is (supposedly) being worked on. See User talk:Ambuj.Saxena/Wikipedia-logo for details, and links to all known past discussions. --Quiddity 18:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[]

No image for Kingdom Hearts?

It's rare that Today's Featured Article doesn't have a thumbnail accompanying it. Is there a reason why Kingdom Hearts doesn't have an image with it on the Main Page, perhaps because of a desire not to make Wikipedia look like it's promoting the game? Or was this simply an oversight? - Brian Kendig 17:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[]

No, its mearly the policy that only free images and not fair use can be on the main page, so since it is impossible to find a non-fu image for this article, it doens't have a picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Placebo Effect (talkcontribs) 17:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[]
A policy which, incidentally, was brought about without community consensus. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 20:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Ditto on objecting to this rampant copyright paranoia. Zeality 17:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[]
I'm not sure that it's really copyright paranoia in this case: more ideological zealotry, really. The policy was changed after Jimbo removed a FU image from a TFA blurb with the edit summary "please use only free images on the homepage". He's never really explained the reasoning behind it — when asked to clarify, he just said "I think such images should be strongly avoided for the homepage of Wikipedia", without saying why.
Other people who've attempted to interpret Jimbo's comment have engaged in some copyright paranoia (as if downstream users were going to copy the Front Page!), but on the whole this seems to be a combination of argumentum ad Jimbonem and anti-FU zealots taking advantage of the opportunity. The only way in which the policy change at all resembles a consensus is that most administrators aren't willing to do anything about it. (I tried a few months ago, but the result was a nasty wheel war on the front page, which is less than optimal.) And discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions stalled out (twice) with no clear consensus. As it is, we're left with Jimbo's unsupported opinion being treated as policy because of inertia. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 19:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Just to clarify the above: before the aforementioned edit by Jimbo, fair use images were used in TFA blurbs regularly and without controversy.--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 19:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[]
There was definitely controversy. Indeed some people had argued that the exemption had been lost before Jimbo's edit (see Wikipedia_talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions#Removing exception in policy for "Main Page"). I think this whole mess is a lot more complicated then above arguments claims. The use of FU images on the main page has never been clear cut with some people supporting even using a FU image of Ian Thorpe and others opposed to it completely. The policy was also ill-defined with a brief mention of an exemption for the main page but no clarification for when this applies. As a result of numerous things including Jimbo's edit, the general move against what a number of people regard as being too lenient with FU images (e.g. the move against replacable fair use) and the confusion and rewording due to the foundations directive, the exemption was lost (note that the specific wording mentioning the exemption, was lost when the exemption page was reworded due to the directive). While this may have been without consensus I would argue given the way things are, defacto policy is that there is no exemption for the main page. As such, an exemption for the main page now needs consensus not the other way around. Regardless tho, there is no consensus either way. Nil Einne 23:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Also I disagree with the above summation about the lack of consensus. It's true there's a lack of consensus either way. However there are a number of well reasoned arguments that have come up re why fair use images on the main page should not be allowed and also specific arguments which may allow fair use in some very restrictive instances but not for example the Kingdom Hearts instance. Claiming the whole thing is a combination of argumentum ad Jimnonem and anti-FU zealots hardly seems productive, no wonder the discussion has stalled and consensus is not possible. Nil Einne 23:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[]
OK, that's fair — I withdraw the characterization. Although there has been a large degree of argumentum ad Jimbonem and anti-FU zealotry, there are also some reasonable arguments against the use of fair use images on the Main Page. I happen not to find any of them persuasive, but I acknowledge that some of the arguments (such as the claim that although an image may be necessary to encyclopedic coverage of a topic, that image isn't necessary to the main page as a whole) are reasonable. I still think that the educational purpose of the Main Page justifies the use of fair use images to illustrate sample articles (which is what TFA really is), but I apologize for mischaracterizing those who disagree with that judgment. I was just a little frustrated by the lack of progress on this issue, or even the acknowledgement by those who support the new policy that the way it came about was problematic. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Much more important than the fact that that “New York City” is the most populous city in the United States, ...

... Is the fact that the New York City metropolitan area is the most populous metropolitan area in the United States, and is one of the five most populous metropolitan areas in the word.

The opening sentence on NYC should include these facts, and should more importantly link to these lists.

The link that is provided in the sentence that currently exists on this page, rightly lists San Antonio as one of the ten most populous cities in the United States. But of course this is a running joke, because San Antonio is just above 30th on the list of the most populous Metropolitan areas in the United States. The boundaries of San Antonio, are simply drawn so that most areas that would be considered suburbs in most American metropolitan areas, are considered parts of the city. To a lesser degree a similar phenomenon occurs with Houston, which is the fourth largest city in the United States, but which, depending on one's statistics, is either 10th or 11th on the list of metropolitan areas by population. Phoenix and San Diego, both also make the top ten on the popoulous cities list, but not on the populous metropolitan areas list. (5th, and 6th, instead of 13th and 16th). A similar anomaly has long been a running joke in my home state of Ohio, with Columbus having incorporated so many former suburbs, that it has long been the state’s most populous city, while the Cleveland metropolitan area has, at least since the mid 1800s, been the state’s most populous metropolitan area. And even the Cincinnati Metropolitan area is much more populous than the Columbus Metro. And by looking at the most populous city list, I can see that this effect is even greater in Florida, causing Jacksonville to be listed as the state's most populous city, while Miami, Tampa, and Orlando, are all the centers of larger Metropolitan areas.

All of the characteristics that we associate with large cities, actually correlate much more closely to “metropolitan area size” than to city size.

George Pelly-Bosela

GPelly-Bosela 01:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC) (U.K., Ireland, Iberian Peninsula, far West Africa, and nearby island, time) I removed an email address from the above post to reduce the risk of spam to the address. Also, wikipedians are unlikely to e-mail you to discuss something so it is pointless posting it.[]

See WP:ERRORS above.-- 03:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[]
We do not link to red links, please create an appropriate article first. Also WP:ERRORS is for simple issues. It is not suitable for complex arguments about whether 'metropolitian areas' or cities are better metrics. Nor is this page. Instead, you should take this issue to the NYC talk page first. Once the NYC article has been updated, then feel free to propose a change in [[WP:ERRORS]. In the mean time you could suggest we mention something like "The New York metropolitan area, with a population of nearly 19 million (18,818,536), ranks among the largest urban areas in the world.[1]" from the article itself. (The blurb already mentions that NYC is one of the most populous urban areas in the world, I'm not quite sure what is being requested so again, take it to the NYC talk page) Nil Einne 05:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Not really redlinks. GPelly-Bosela simply did not use the right article names. Try List of cities by population, List of United States cities by population, etc. -- 06:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[]
The blurb already links to the second article. As I understand it, in the second case, GPelly does not agree with the current link because he feels metropolitian area is a more meaningful metric. This may or may not be but without an article to link to it seems irrelevant (and in any case, should be discussed on the talk page). In the first case, we already link to List of metropolitan areas by population so as I said, I don't quite get what GPelly is requesting. GPelly clearly does NOT want us to link to List of cities by population but we don't so it's kind of irrelevant. Edit: List of United States metropolitan areas looks like it might be what GPelly is looking for but again, the NYC article should be updated first. Nil Einne 06:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[]

ITN Archive

How about a link to "archived" ITN news items in the bottom of ITN? --Camptown 08:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[]

I think that the best place to propose that sort of change would be Template talk:In the news. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 08:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Pluto Image

Is now much better. The so called "true color" picture looked like a low resolution shot of a ball of mud. Tourskin 01:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Selection choices for today?

Who thought it would be a good idea to have TWO holocaust related items today (the EinsatzGruppe execution photo, and Night of the Long Knives)? Honestly, are we hitlerpedia now? Couldn't we possibly come up with two unrelated, non-nazi subjects for the main page? SWATJester Denny Crane. 14:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Erm, I have guinea pigs as the FA today, with long knives coming tomorrow. --Dweller 15:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Just TWO items, one is a Featured Article, the other a Featured Image, and the two are used on the main page on DIFFERENT DAYS, and you're complaining? -- 15:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Nazi guinea pig Wikipedia shock. -- !! ?? 15:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Guess what? Just a few days ago, we had someone complaining about Holocaust article not getting featured status. Guess no one is ever happy. 15:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[]
FP and FA are usually chosen independently and as such, it sometimes happens that two items are fairly similar coincidentally. For example one time we had a space related FA and space related FP. As far as I'm aware there has not been a Nazi related subject as FA or FP for a while before these Nil Einne 01:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Also, while Night of the Long Knives is certainly a Third Reich topic, it is not a Holocaust topic. -Elmer Clark 05:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Godwin's Law right out of the starting gate. ffm 14:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Godwin's Law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions. It does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi regime Raul654 14:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[]


Is the picture of Will Shakespeare in Main Page/tomorrow supposed to have an earing? It seems weird to me... Astrale01talkcontribs 00:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[]

In fact, the earring is, strange though it may seem, in the original Chandos portrait. Joe 03:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Moved discussion to Talk:William Shakespeare Nil Einne 10:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[]

9 October: What about Che?

I believe it would be fitting to add Che Guevara's death in 9 Oct 1967 at the "On this Day" section. After all, this is the 40th anniversary. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[]

At present, the guidelines for SA/OTD inclusion provide that a birth or death should be mentioned only on its centennial or subsequent significant anniversary (except to the extent the death itself, as, for instance, the Kennedy assassination, is encyclopedically notable). The last discussion about the issue, though, appears to have occurred nearly two years ago, and so any revisions might surely be suggested at Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries or, I suppose, on this page (of course, if our practice no longer follows the written guidelines, one may, inasmuch as policy is descriptive, not prescriptive, be bold and update them accordingly). Joe 03:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Also, the Che Guevara article has been plagued by edit wars and POV for the past several months – not appropriate to be posted on the main page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Hahaha, I was about to ask why it wasn't featured since most high-profile controversial articles, especially those with edit wars, tend to get improved through community discussion until they're featured. I clicked the link and saw the article is not only featured, but tagged with the {{npov}} template. Nice. 17Drew 06:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Did you Know?

Any particular reason today's DYK is about twice as big as it normally is? 13:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Maybe to compensate the very long ITN? --Howard the Duck 13:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[]
ITN is very long now to compensate for the very long DYK, which has a backlog of eligible and expiring items. We need more admins to keep DYK more frequently updated. -- 15:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Well the frequency of DYK updates diminishes the amount of time an entry is displayed, so I'd rather increase the DYK items with longer refreshes rather than more DYKs with little screen time. But this is not within the scope of this talk page... --Howard the Duck 15:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[]
FAs are shown on the main page for 24 hours. DYKs shouldn't be shown longer than that. The current 6 to 8 hours seems right, except that we don't always have an admin available after each 6~8-hour interval. Suggestions regarding DYK policies can be discussed at Wikipedia talk: Did you know. -- 17:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Someone is playing with Night of the Long Knives

The Vandals are back! Clicking Night of the Long Knives results in a link to a "Penis" article. Can this please be fixed immediately? Thank you! Mkpumphrey 18:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Fixed, in less than a minute. Usual TFA vandalism. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Again, thanks! Mkpumphrey


Dosent Wikipedia have a forum? all other wiki's do. where is it? 19:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[]

It has a mailing list, and a village pump. ffm 20:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[]
...and an IRC channel - oh wait, actually it has several of them. 09:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[]


whenever i try to click on "my talk", the whole set of buttons go across the screen to the wikipedia logo!Starwars55 22:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[]

  • not doing it anymore, strangeStarwars55 23:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Are you using a Mac computer? Perhaps OSX? Your Grace Lord Sir Dreamy of Buckland tm 23:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[]
  • No, i use windows. never used a mac, ever.Starwars55 23:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[]
If not, your settings may be whats making this occur. Your Grace Lord Sir Dreamy of Buckland tm 23:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[]
  • What settings?Starwars55 23:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Starwars55 (talk · contribs), to ask questions about using Wikipedia, please go to Wikipedia:Help desk. -- 04:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[]

It happens to me every so often as well, on many different computers. It's incredibly annoying, but usually stops after a few hours. Skittle 14:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Mathematical formula

Can it be linked "more clearly" - and, as a general request for such articles, a sentence along the lines of "This formula is used in (xxxx field) to do (yyyy process)" - for those of us unfamiliar with the particular topic. Jackiespeel 23:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Are you referring to that formula on DYK earlier ? It's gone now. Next time, to suggest changes to the text on MainPage, please make use of WP:ERRORS. Response is usually quicker there. Thanks. --PFHLai 01:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[]


change "practise" to "practice" Xxanthippe 04:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Fixed, since it being used as a noun. Next time, to suggest changes to the text on Main Page, please post on WP:ERRORS since responses are usually quicker there. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Lost password

I have no idea how to retrieve my password. Apparently, i didn't save an email address so it can't send me a new password. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[]

I'd suggest creating a new account then. 17Drew 13:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Or proving your identity somehow to an Admin. Say if your username had disclosed your real life identity, then you would need to find an admin that you could somehow verify your idntity to and have them reset the pword. Or create a new account. Mbisanz 19:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Admins can't do that. Not sure who can reset passwords, if anyone, but it would probably be a developer, with the person in question needing to verify their identity to some bureaucrat or steward at least. Probably nothing can be done unless you have a committed identity - see Template:User committed identity. But it is simpler to enable an e-mail address and use that next time you lose your password. Just don't lose the password to the e-mail account! :-) Carcharoth 21:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[]


what sort of stuff do they have on wikipedia?T.ZBowman 17:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Everything. Ok, well maybe not everything, but close nonetheless. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 17:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Here is a list. For general information about Wikipedia, see Wikipedia. -Elmer Clark 18:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia has so many things on it! It has so many articles, that even if you type a totally random thing, you'll probably get a really detailed article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreandudette (talkcontribs) 22:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Thank you! Our articles are, after all, written by thousands upon thousands of volunteers! ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 14:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Intelligent design?

What happened? Has Conservapedia finally won? Dr. Cash 00:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Did you even read the blurb? —Nricardo 01:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[]
You really can't please everybody :D --Howard the Duck 03:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Apparently, wikipedians don't understand the definition of sarcasm,... ;-) Dr. Cash 04:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[]
apparently sarcasm is suppose to sound sarcastic. Tourskin 04:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Why are people showing "ownership" of Intelligent design? I got back from another part of Rutgers after finding the IP at my school (Rutgers-Bloustein) blocked for "POV pushing". Upon looking up the edit history, I noticed the IP had been used by someone engaging in an edit war. Furthermore, I noticed that the reverts were often without explanation. While the anon apparently got his or her answer, it was after the block had already been put in place. Methinks this is an example of improper blocking, even if WP:3RR was violated. Would you admins please calm down and have a cup of WP:TEA? 04:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Who are you referring to? Special:Contributions/ edited the ID page 9 times, most or all of these were reverted it appears. The fact that some of these reversion were without comment doesn't change the fact that some of them did have comment including the first reversion and any editor with common sense should realise if people keep reverting your comments you should discuss and not get into a revert war with MULTIPLE editors. While it is unfortunate that this user was not explicitility warned about the 3RR policy earlier (he/she was warned but only after he/she made his/her last edit) it isn't necessary IMHO to warn people since it's resonable to expect that if multiple people revert, there is a problem you need to take to the talk page. User do need to have common sense to edit wikipedia Nil Einne 10:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Intelligent design Is protected

I see User:WJBScribe moved the protection level today. However my understanding was that the main page Featured Article is never protected if possible..... Pedro :  Chat  07:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Yes that is correct, it is should almost never be protected from editing. However, I believe you may be misreading the protection log.[4] It is currently only protected from page moves ([move=sysop]). User:WJBScribe only turned off the semi-protection. The previous settings set by User:Chaser was that the page was both semi-protected and fully protected from page moves (edit=autoconfirmed; move=sysop). Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Also, we do in fact usually turn on move protection because the main page Featured Article does become a target of page move vandalism, and in most cases there is no need to rename the article while it is still posted on the main page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[]
The simple answer that I am indeed mis-reading the page move protection is correct!!!! Doh !!!! Thanks Zzyzx11 Pedro :  Chat  11:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Page structure of the main page for portable devices

The main page structure means that, when navigated to from the limited browsers available on a portable device, the search box (in the quickbar) is almost the very last thing loaded on the main page: necessitating waiting for the entire content to download and then scrolling through it (at least, on my blackberry). The display and structure of content should degrade gracefully with limited browsers and bandwidth, and putting the search functionality (which after all is what most people will be looking for) at the very end, violates this. Any thoughts anyone? James Harvey 00:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Check out Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives, test your Blackberry on one of those pages listed, and set a bookmark or home page to the best one. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[]
I still think that, if a page is not going to work well for portable devices (or for that matter disabled folks with screen readers, or people using text only browsers), it should degrade gracefully: if you're going to have a version better suited to those users, then it should be linked early in the page - not after you ask on the discussion page!
FWIW WCAF 1.0 states in checkpoint 13.8: "Place distinguishing information at the beginning of headings, paragraphs, lists, etc. [Priority 3]. Note. This is commonly referred to as "front-loading" and is especially helpful for people accessing information with serial devices such as speech synthesizers."
Additionally, the pages you refer me to aren't actually any better structured than the main page: but that is an issue I will take up there!
James Harvey 12:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[]
What evidence do you actually have that the search box is what most people are looking for? Also I'm not sure if this is really a main page issue. As I understand it, the search box is provided by the wikimedia software. It's not something directly affected by the wiki source for each page. While there may be some CSS hack, if not if you want the left frame to load before the right frame this would entail a change in the software config and would be en.wikipedia wide. Nil Einne 01:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Freely admit that I don't have any evidence. I was just assuming that people come primarily to an encyclopedia site to search for information. I know I do. The only other options seem to me to be that they come to edit the wiki (a tiny proportion of visits), or that they come to view other content - such as the articles of theday on the main page.
If the issue is wikipedia wide, what is the correct place to discuss (although I think this mainly affects the main page TBH).
James Harvey 10:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[]
I would suspect many people visit pages directly from Google (and other search engines). Others go to and search from there. It's the main Google result after all and also people tend to remember www more then stuff like en. It's also a lot simpler then the main page so if I were bookmarking or otherwise visiting a wikipedia page to search, it would probably be my second choice after Special:Search (which is perhaps something people are less likely to remember or know how to get to). I.E. I suspect that anyone with experience with wikipedia who is just coming here to search and was not interested in the main page content is more likely to visit Anyway, yet others probably use their browser search pane to search wikipedia. The main page gets a lot of visitors. Obviously some just come to search but I'm not convinced it's what most people come to the main page for. I suspect many would at least be just as interested in the main page content. Perhaps it's just me but personally I use external search engines much more then I use internal ones. Even when I do use internal engines, it's far more likely that I use it after visiting a page, I don't go to the page to use the internal engine (i.e. it may be more likely someone will visit an article and then use the search engine rather then come to the main page with the purpose of using the search engine). Anyway try WP:VPT although you'd probably have to take this to meta eventually. Bear in mind that if what you're proposing is implemented for all pages (which would be the simplest option) then this would mean that if someone visits a page like George W. Bush the first thing to load would be the sidebar. Nil Einne 14:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[]
The other option is to use which acts as a proxy server that reformats current Wikipedia content for mobile devices. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Unless you wanted - which is the "official" proxy server for mobile devices. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 00:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[]

New FL on the Main Page proposal

We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1 2007, voting starting December 1 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1 2008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual content will resemble the current content at the featured content page. Such output would probably start at the bottom of the main page. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[]

I'm not sure most featured lists would be of interest to the average reader... -Elmer Clark 03:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Sounds like we're showing the gears of a black box - whats the point? Like Elmar Clark has stated, the reader would probably only be interested in the featured articles. Tourskin 03:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[]
  • Please note that discussion is actually here on a separate proposal page, and not here on this page. ~ Sebi [talk] 04:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[]
  1. ^ "Annual Estimates of the Population of Combined Metropolitan Statistical Areas: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006". U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved 2007-07-26.