Talk:Main Page/Archive 126

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 120 Archive 124 Archive 125 Archive 126 Archive 127 Archive 128 Archive 130
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

Pay for play: Let's make feature ads a revenue source.

It's apparent that the Main Page feature articles have deteriorated into a stream of ads. People clearly lack the will to change this, finding an endless stream of petty reasons to oppose articles about any messy real-world topic while judging that articles about a product can be fully comprehensive and accurate by using all the industry articles promoting it, which is all that can be researched. So let's give up. It's time for the WMF to rule that nothing gets run without payola, period. Money to support the WMF that is, not whoever gets these ad-articles through the FAC process. Wnt (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[]

It seems that you do not know what wikipedia is about or how the "editprotected" template works. Needless to say, no one is going to support this. Wikipedia is not for profit. Your last sentence, about FAC sums up wikipedia's position nicely; it is about getting it through to FAC. Tourskin (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Tourskin, you've missed the point! Wnt is being cynical. Like many of us, he is fed up with the main page of Wikipedia being used as a platform to sell current computer games. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and has some astonishingly good content. Why clutter up the main page with this junk and put off potential readers? Twilde (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[]
And I think you have missed the point. The people who write these articles (or the majority of them...) are probably fans of the game/album/band, yes, but they have nothing to gain from people buying them. Featured articles are balanced- no doubt this article will include any criticism the game has received. I don't understand why you think that an article about a product is automatically an advert. J Milburn (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Actually they do have something to gain from people buying a game (or whatever). Generally speaking, the more successful a game (or whatever), the more likely there will be a sequel or similar future products. With some products, the price may also go down if the product is successful (although the opposite may happen in some circumstanceS.) (Also there are a bunch of other more perverse but not uncommon reasons why a fan may like to promote a product, e.g. they can claim that they were the first to notice the product; the simple believe that because they like the product, they have to convince everyone else it's the best thing since sliced bread; etc i.e. behaviour commonly considered fanboyish.) I don't actually think there is anything wrong with the article or it being TFA, nor that the only reason the article was made is because fans want to promote it or that the article is overun by deranged fanboys, indeed I think this is another nonsense complaint we get all the time about TFAs; I'm simply pointing out it's not true that fans have no personal interest in promoting a product. Nil Einne (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Well, I certainly was not trying to promote the product in any way when I wrote my featured article. Wnt, do you propose that I contact Midnight Syndicate/Wizards of the Coast and demand money before it goes on the front page? J Milburn (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Milburn, you are right and I would like to withdraw what I said above, which was very badly phrased. I agree that these frequent front page articles about computer games almost certainly ARE written by enthusiasts with nothing to gain financially from them being featured on the front page. I also don't believe that Wikipedia benefits financially from making them into the featured article. However, my point is that when they deal with a recently-released product they read AS IF they are a commercial advert, and therefore put off more general readers by giving the wrong idea about Wikipedia. I don't see anything wrong with such articles being in the encyclopedia - but I'd make it a general rule not to make any articles about current games into the featured article. Twilde (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[]
I'd make it a general rule not to make any articles about current games into the featured article - Uh, no, request denied. <sarcasm> I do like your featured article payola suggestion though - I could definitely use more money. Perhaps I should open a paypal account to make it easier for people to bribe me.</sarcasm> - The FA Director 20:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Sarcasm uncalled for. (And directed at the wrong contributor anyway). You have a nice day. Twilde (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Oops, sorry, the payola comment should have been directed at Wmt. Raul654 (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Frequent? Barely one a month. It could be much worse, and it is excruciatingly hard to get them on the main page now that an entire team of people at the nomination section have taken blood oaths to stop video game articles from getting any kind of recognition. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 22:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[]

When I look at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 2008, I would class roughly eleven of the entries as promoting a product (or in one case a current political bill). Admittedly the boundary I set is open to debate, and the articles for To Kill a Mockingbird and the obscure baseball card are probably motivated more by interest than by desire to collect copyright royalties or drive up the trading value. Still, there is a distinction from articles on genetics and long dead African politicians which have no obvious product tie-ins. I am too cynical to seriously entertain the idea that software companies truly do not contribute any effort to getting their products covered.
My comment was not directed at Raul654, but at whatever unknown individuals in my cynical view are paid to shepherd some commercially relevant articles through the Featured Article process, because the last time I checked, the featured articles passed were usually ending up on the Main Page, and more to the point, the FAC discussion doesn't represent a less commercial assortment. At least, it is clear that if Raul654 were getting paid he still could be getting paid more by acting in a different way than so far as I know he is. The real problem is that a) the process makes it very easy for a small closely-knit (e.g. paid) group to support one anothers' efforts, b) such a group can actually do a very good job editing professionally, and c) because it is too easy to say that a broad topic is not comprehensively covered, when all of the information conceivably available is not traceable to the publicity efforts of its manufacturer. Wnt (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Wow! Let me say congratulations on the extensive discussion since I left. Now let me make the small point that even if we are to buy into this conspiracy theory that a "small group of people" are paid to write about these products, they won't get Featured unless they are balanced, fair and not ad-like. All these criteria dispell the posibility of the article being an ad; someone above has already mentioned the fact that these articles' attempt at being balanced contain sources of criticism in them anyways, answering these criticism to present facts which may make the product being "advertized" appear "nicer" or more appealing is not wikipedia's concern. Have I still not got the point? Tourskin (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Remember, Wnt, there's only a cabal if you want there to be one. Raul, or his assistant, is the one who has the final say on A) Whether an article is promoted and B) When it appears on the main page. As User:Tourskin has said, the WP:FACR prevents advertizing-like pages from becoming FAs. ffm 15:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[]
To be fair though, any publicity is good publicity. After reading yesterday's article, I was reminded of how I still haven't got around to buying the game. It is written from a neutral point of view, but that doesn't mean the company won't benefit in some small way. That said, the potential gain from having a featured article on Wikipedia is absolutely not worth the covert source tweaking, group voting and hours of writing that you seem to imply that exists- perhaps if John already writes for Wikipedia at home, he will be inclined to try and write an article about his new novel to FA, but I can't see these multi-national corporations being overly interested. J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[]
I wonder why everyone considers putting a product or company on the Main Page "advertising", but nobody has a problem with displaying a resort town (thus promoting tourism there), an athlete (creating more fans), a painting (increasing ticket and merchandise revenue at the museum where it hangs), a dead prelate (increasing the sales of memorabilia), a historic relic (increasing knowledge and through it demand for it, and therefore its price at an auction), an armed conflict (increasing the sales of books about it because of more interested people who want to learn more about the subject)...
Seriously, it only requires a small stretch to see how ridiculous it can really be. There is no line here. We are an encyclopaedia, and we document the world around us. And when we do it well, we tell people about it through the Main Page. It is as simple as that. Waltham, The Duke of 14:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[]
I agree with The Duke, and furthermore I'd argue that including a videogame that is well-known can only increase traffic to wikipedia moreso than it's possible implication on game sales. If an article is well written it deserves every right to be included as a featured article no matter what it's content. I have a feeling anti-sentament towards such things has an alterior motive as it seems bleedingly obvious that it is no more advertising than any documentation of an event. Lympathy Talk 14:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Lympathy and The Duke both make very valid points. I definitely agree that articles on products have a place on Wikipedia and, if they're good enough, on the main page. J Milburn (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Wikipedia does not showcase the best that the videogame world (or the capitalist world in general) has to offer. Wikipedia showcases the best that Wikipedia has to offer, and if that happens to be an article on a topic you don't find encyclopedic, you need to help "more encyclopedic" articles achieve FA status. People put a lot of time and effort into conforming various product-related articles to a high standard of quality, and they should be rewarded for their work, regardless of whether they are neutral parties, opponents, advocates, or the bloody CEO of the company in question. The quality of the article is what determines the article's status. (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[]

The meaning of Free

(If this has already been discussed before, please point me to the discussion.)

The main page doesn't explain the meaning of "free" in "The free encyclopedia".

For comparison, on the main pages of Hebrew and Russian Wikipedias the word "free" is a link to their respective language versions of free content.

Although it is better than nothing, i don't think that it's an excellent solution.

There should be a page in the Wikipedia namespace where the "free"-ness of Wikipedia is properly explained in plain language. It's a core policy, even a meta-policy. Links to the GFDL that appear on every page are certainly far from enough: GFDL is too legalese. WP:FAQ and WP:ABOUT are also very thin on explaining what does it mean that Wikipedia is free.

If such a page indeed does not exist, i can write it myself. If it does exist, then it is probably quite hard to find it. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[]

You mean like Gratis versus Libre? Modest Genius talk 20:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[]
That's an encyclopedic article, like Free content. I am thinking about a page in the Wikipedia namespace that explains how the free content ideology applies to Wikipedia and what "Free" in "The Free Encyclopedia" stands for.
I understand the concepts of free software, free content, free culture, free-as-in-beer/speech very well. The problem is that a lot of beginner editors misunderstand them and think that "free" refers to price or to their freedom to write anything they want. Both of these are right to a certain limit, but "free" in "The Free Encyclopedia" refers first and foremost to licensing. The current wording "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" definitely contributes to that misunderstanding - i often see both trolls and good-faith editors using this phrase mockingly, such as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit as long as they agree with the cabal".
I would expect that the shortcut WP:FREE would lead to such a page, but it leads to Wikipedia:Free speech; i agree with the content of that page, but it has a pretty misleading title and somewhat hostile tone. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Sounds like an open task in Wikipedia space. Go for it!  :) -- (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[]
OK, i wrote something: User:Amire80/The Free Encyclopedia.
I'll be glad to hear comments on it and to see it moved to the Wikipedia namespace and linked from the main page. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Does free "first and foremost to the licensing terms of Wikipedia's content"? I always thought it had several deliberately ambiguous equally true meanings. I think you've chosen your own interpretation and are trying to push it as the primary one. - (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[]
That's my understanding of it. The closest thing that supports this understanding can be found in the main page FAQ, in a question about the different translations of "free".
This ultra-important core meta-concept of Wikipedia must be properly defined. If it's ambiguous, then it should be explicitly written somewhere, because it is a frequent point of debate. Today i saw it on an AfD and i often see it on talk pages of frustrated users that keep getting their edits reverted.
Indeed, Wikipedia's close relation with the GNU-style Free software and Lawrence Lessig-style free culture was one of the things that attracted me to it in the first place, so it is natural for me to emphasize this, but i also believe that that was the intention of the creators of the site. If you genuinely think that what i wrote goes against the consensus, then, by all means be bold and correct it. One user already improved the page i wrote and i hope that there will be more. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Both [Wikipedia] and [Wikipedia:About] link to [Free content] in their introductions, indicating the rights-oriented term as opposed to the cost-oriented. As Amire80 notes above, Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page says that "[having few restrictions on what may be modified or replicated elsewhere] is ... more fundamental to the character of Wikipedia." This is why Wikipedias in languages that maintain a distinction between gratis and libre use the latter word in their slogans. While Wikipedia is certainly intended to be available free of charge, it is not limited to that method of distribution. In fact, Wikipedia's licensing allows people to sell copies, while the rights to reuse and modification are irrevocable. I think that Amire80 is justified in saying that the understanding of "free" as "libre" is the primary one. (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Seeing some support here i decided to be bold and moved it to the Wikipedia namespace, still with the essay tag, of course: Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia. Feel free to improve it further. Even the title can be changed. Be bold. Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[]

In-the-meantime idea

In the interim, would anyone object to the linking of "free" to free content? If no objections are voiced within 4 days, I'll make the change. ffm 16:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[]

  • I support such an idea. It may mean free content could do with a few more eyes, but it will help people understand what we're all about. J Milburn (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Change made, please discuss if there's a problem with it. ffm 18:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Main page interwikis

Just wondering who decides what interwiki links are displayed on the main page? Clearly it doesn't link to every wikipedia, and clearly it is not based on article count or else the Telugu wikipedia (among others) would be displayed there instead of, say the Icelandic or Albanian ones. Is there a system for determining which interwikis are displayed there? Thanks... Betterusername (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Each Wikipedia must have at least 20,000 articles and a depth of 5, according to the Main Page FAQ. Nufy8 (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Joe Dudley

If I were Joe Dudley, I wouldn't want to see on Wikipedia's main page about my speech disorder and the fact that I used to be considered mentally retarded. Please be considerate instead of hiding behind policies and claiming that no rules have been broken. If you smart people in Wikipedia have never been misdiagnosed as "mentally retarded", let me tell you that the sting just never goes away. Please be more sensitive to others and change that DYK hook to something like:

Thank you. -- (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Absolutely agreed. It's being taken care of at the moment. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Yup fully agree - I've changed it to your suggestion. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[]
  • I disagreed fully as someone with a family member who is currently dealing with many of the same issues that Joe Dudley dealt with in his childhood. I found the original hook to be inspirational and moving, prompting me to shared Joe Dudley's story with my sister and niece. I find the fact that the hook was changed to be deeply offensive and hurtful. Rather than tout the astounding strength of the human spirit to overcome adversity, it implies that my niece should be ashamed of her condition and hidden away. That is a very wrong-headed view for Wikipedia to espouse. While I don't doubt the sincerely good intention, they are none the less misplaced. My niece has NOTHING to be ashamed of and Joe Dudley's story is a wonderful story for her and others like her. AgneCheese/Wine 20:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Right, your niece has nothing to be ashamed of. And there's no reason to feature such a fact on Wikipedia's main page, either. -- (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[]
(ec)Really? Mr Dudley doesn't seem to be too terribly sensitive about it himself. It's certainly not something he makes a secret of.[1] The fact that his teachers decided he was retarded because of a speech impediment says a lot more about them than it does about him. The fact that he went through something like that and 'made good' anyway, however, says quite a lot about him. The only problem with the old hook, imo, is that it left out the key word mistakenly. -- Vary | Talk 20:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[]
A doctor's misdiagnosis several decades ago isn't notable or newsworthy. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Says who? Mr. Dudley apparently makes this fact a bit of a point of pride. He's not ashamed of being misdiagnosed and held back in first grade, just rightly proud of what he's accomplished since, in spite of what his teachers thought of him. Lots of people have built enormous businesses from next to nothing. How many of them were informed at the age of six that they were retarded? --- Vary | Talk 21:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Mr. Dudley apparently makes this fact a bit of a point of pride? The article could use this info. If this is in the article with references, we can have a different hook. -- (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[]
There are other things in the article for making DYK hooks. Bringing up the sad past that point is so unnecessary. Thank you for changing the hook on the main page. -- (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[]
The fact that you describes this as a "sad past" is very insulting and insensitive. You should be more considerate about how people could perceives things. AgneCheese/Wine 21:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[]
You are right on that and I apologize. -- (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[]


Special day today, but mention on the front page! No article on 08/08/08 (like 06/06/06)? (talk) 07:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[]

That was only 'of interest' because 06/06/06 looks vaguely like 666 which if you interpret a certain superstition incorrectly is loosely related to a mythical figure. Nah, I'm being overly cynical, thanks for pointing out today's date. J Milburn (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Actually the 8/8/8 is of interest to various people. There is a reason why the Olympics opening ceremony started at 8:08 08/08/08 and why the birth and marriage rate spiked today in various places. See Eight for further details Nil Einne (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[]
On the other hand we have an olympics opening and a war starting today so not exactly short of things to put on the front page.Geni 21:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[]
But it's Day.  LATICS  talk  02:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[]
If you want we can add it to the Main Page for the next 08/08/08, which is a mere 100 years away. :) Lovelac7 05:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[]
On a more serious note: if you create a well-written, well-referenced article about 08/08/08 and its cultural significance, you could get it on "Did You Know?". Lovelac7 05:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Tisha B'av

Today is a major Jewish holiday called Tisha B'Av. Why is it not mentioned on the main page under the holiday section?David Betesh (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Betesh (talkcontribs) 17:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Because no one suggested it on WP:OTD? Hint: Once a major holiday approaches, edit the selected anniversaries section in the talk page of the day it falls under a couple of days before the holiday. Most of the time it's not protected. --Howard the Duck 16:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[]
{{sofixit}} —Vanderdeckenξφ 17:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[]
There was a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/August 10#Tisha B'Av whether it should have been posted on August 9, when it began at sunset (which it previously was), or today on August 10. It is now currently posted today on August 10. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[]


In my opinion it's better to undo all the merges, I noticed that a lot of information got lost in the process and it's easier when pages are shorter. If I got a very long merged page I don't want to read them most of the time. Could you please undo those merges— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[]

No idea what you're talking about. This is the Main Page - if you want to talk to a specific editor, you need to find their talk page. If you're discussing an article, find the article then hit the Discussion tab at the top. —Vanderdeckenξφ 17:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Dubious content in the main page!

The main page currently says: "Though recognized as a legitimate scientific field by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, active parapsychologists have admitted difficulty in getting scientists to accept their research", which I dispute because what it claims is not in the reference given in the parapsychology article, see Talk:Parapsychology#Dubious. We must quickly correct this misinformation both in the main page and the article. NerdyNSK (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Once it is corrected in the article, post at WP:ERRORS and, if necessary, use {{editprotected}} to attract an admin. J Milburn (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Google Analytics for 7 days

Hello, per discussions here, I would like to add a snippet of Javascript code to the main page for 7 days, in order to collect use data through Google Analytics, specifically to create a clickmap to facilitate redesign discussions. If anyone strongly objects to this, let me know. Kaldari (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Google Analytics is prohibited per the Foundation Privacy Policy (because it gives traffic and IP data to Google). Other attempts to use Analytics have been discussed and rejected on the Foundation mailing list foundation-l. Dragons flight (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Is there some reason the big table at the top of this page labeled "Results of main page traffic experiment" is insufficient? Or is this just a case of two groups of people not coordinating? -- (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[]
It's now Talk:Main Page/Archive 125#Results of main page traffic experiment. --PFHLai (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[]
There are roughly 100 static links on the home page. That list only includes 30 of them, and doesn't include the Go and Search buttons at all. My guess is that searching is the most common thing people do on the home page and thus it should be more prominent, but I can't find any data to back up this assumption. Kaldari (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Also, why do we care if we give traffic and IP data to Google? Our privacy policy does not seem to address the issue, nor would I suspect that anyone would have a reasonable assumption that their IP address (in and of itself) is private information. Kaldari (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[]
As per Dragon's comments - and in addition I find it highly objectionable - the mindset of "tracking" everything is not good, even if it is for the goals of a redesign. People come to wikipedia for a lot of reasons, and amongst them is that there is no "tracking", "targeting" and all the rest of the "2.0" nonsense. The main page has successfully evolved for 6 years without the need for ultra detailed tracking statistics to direct its design - I see no reason why we should start now. If there were endless "the main page layout is terrible, I can't find anything" comments appearing here everyday then I might agree - but that isn't the case. SFC9394 (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Probably because no one can find the talk page. J Milburn (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[]
So people come to Wikipedia because it doesn't track them? Funny I thought they came here to find information. Too bad the page is such a mess that it's hard to figure out how to find much of anything. Kaldari (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[]
"So people come to Wikipedia because it doesn't track them?" - amongst other things some people will. I never said that was the only reason, or implied it, so don't attempt to draw that out and then rebut it with some sarky "Funny I thought..." reply. Thanks. SFC9394 (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Frankly I found the statement ridiculous and thus worthy of snark. How can we justify screwing millions of users out of a decent user interface solely to appease the 0.001% of visitors who are worried about their browsing habits on the home page being tracked? Kaldari (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Such a action would require:
A) Special talks with google so that IPs are not logged or are anonymized
B) Alteration of the foundation's privacy-policy.
Good luck. ffm 18:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[]
The privacy policy already informs users that their IP addresses are logged. Unless you consider IP addresses as "personally identifiable information" (most major websites do not), nothing else in the privacy policy addresses this issue. Regarding point A, I see no reason why this would be necessary as Google Analytics doesn't report visitor's IP addresses, it merely logs them. Why would they need to anonymized if our own logs are not? Kaldari (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Although I think it is unfortunate, it appears that the Google Analytics idea doesn't have much chance of happening. Can anyone suggest an alternative method of generating a clickmap for the home page (including search and navbar usage)? Kaldari (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Wikimedia does consider IP addresses to be personally identifiable information, and in most cases IP information is scrubbed from the internal logs after ~2 weeks. More to the point though, some people are pretty paranoid about giving user information away to anyone. Dragons flight (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[]
The thing is our own logs are own logs, the WMF controls them and are able to enforce whatever policy they want. With Google, we have no way of knowing what they do with their logs and no way of controlling what they do. I haven't read the Google Analytics TOS but I suspect they aren't particularly fair to the person using them. And since the WMF doesn't and probably won't even be able to get a contract with Google (in any case, do we really want them to?) it's likely the WMF can't even take action against Google if we use Google Analytics and they violate their own privacy policy. Remember that the IP address of a logged in user is considered highly sensitive information according to the WMF privacy policy and generally can't be revealed under any circumstances. While it's relatively unlikely Google will be able to tie IP address to most accounts, they will have a log containing the IP and visit time and potentially other details of every (logged-in) user who visits whatever wikipedia page is being analysed even though the WMF privacy policy states that the WMF tries to keep this information confidental. Nil Einne (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Although I am a fan of Google (I use GMail, the main engine, Google Books, Google News, Google Maps, Google Earth, Google Alerts...) I do not support allowing a business to have a large amount of access to information about our users. Many people are concerned about privacy, and I think we should respect that. J Milburn (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[]
I may be mistaken but I think there is basically no way this can be done with a non-WMF controlled website since any external site is going to get traffic including IP information which the WMF is never going to agree to. So the only real questions are can a tool be designed that will run on WMF servers without major upheval (since I doubt the WMF will agree to spend a significant amount of their time on this) and will the WMF agree to run such a tool (which depends on whether they feel it raises privacy issues, whether the servers can handle the load generated by such a tool and whether the tool is coded well enough that they trust it). My gut feeling is that whatever the case it will take several months to get this up, approved and running so unless the redesign team is willing to wait that long, there's probably no point discussing it. In any case, I suggest you first check whether the WMF will even consider such a tool. Of course it's possible this can already be done with existing WMF software Nil Einne (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[]

@Kaldari: Wikimedia policy is, that third parties will not get sensitive data of our visitors. But it would be possible to log non-sensitive data internally, see MediaZilla:15059 and MediaZilla:15060. --- Best regards, Melancholie (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[]

This also was tried before in a smaller wiki, and it was removed rather quickly. I don't remember in which wiki this happened, though... but the point is, the Foundation really doesn't like this idea. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Isn't the main thing people want to monitor precisely which areas of wikipedia are clicked/used, and how often anyway? While I guess the redesign team would also like to know about stats for browsers, resolutions and stuff it wasn't the request which started this thread if I understand correctly. Nil Einne (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[]
I for one use and contribute to this project as I percieve it to be a distributor, not collector, of information and content. Removing the perception of non-collection of information about my usage patterns and other personal information would, for me, be sufficient to discontinue contribution, or support fork-ing of content. I trade my time, in the form of contributions, for more than the content. Were content sufficient, I would go and join the knol project instead. It is the notion of libre vs gratis. Whilst I respect the idea of people wanting information to redesign, I completely do not support the idea that privacy may be transgressed in the name of progress -- that tis a slippery slope! Apologies for the pointedness of this response, but it is how I see it. User A1 (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[]

What about a sort of opt-in system? The concern seems to be users with an expectation of privacy having no choice and being potentially unaware that they are giving up their IP address and perhaps other information. Google, I'm pretty sure, already has access to my soul anyway with all of their products I use, so I wouldn't have a problem with it, but I can (sort of) understand why other people might. What I would propose is a line of text at the top of the page somewhere along the lines of: 'Care to help improve the Wikipedia experience? Consider browsing from this main page where limited information is tracked.' The limited information link leading to a page explaining exactly what is tracked, how long it will be stored and where, who will be able to access it, and such. The only concern would be that very casual users would probably be less likely to use the Googlized page, not giving an accurate cross-section of all Wikipedia users, but it would be better than nothing, no? --Fourth Planet (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[] - languages?

What has happened to Last time I checked the different versions were ranked on how many articles they had, now they seem to be placed randomly around the wikipedia logo? What's the point? --Winterus (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[]

It's been changed to list the most visited Wikipedias instead of the largest ones, which shuffled things around a bit - see meta:Top Ten Wikipedias/poll for the discussion that led to this. Gavia immer (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Wow, that's exactly how it shouldn't be done. The ones already visited are already visited. They don't need promotion. It shows how blunt democracy destroys minorities. The reason national sovereignties exist. --Leladax (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[]
This is the wrong place for such a discussion. However, this is done because (allegedly) we want to make about the readers, and provide them with the information they are most likely to want. In the future, we'll bold/gold-border the language they are most likely to speak (based on geoip). ffm 22:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[]
God forbid we try and make it easier for people to get where they want. tusho (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Aren't there some "huge" ones that are essentially full of bot-created stubs? --NE2 06:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[]

I know of some that are big because of human-created stubs. They would have close to or above 10,000 articles but at the most have one or two article close to our WP:FA standards. GizzaDiscuss © 06:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Our FAs are of a far higher quality than many. I would imagine that the majority of Wikipedias don't have any articles that would match up to our FA criteria. J Milburn (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Sorry I meant that these Wikipedias don't even have FAs that satisfy their own standards since so many of them are one or two sentence stubs. GizzaDiscuss © 12:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[]

I wonder why the Spanish wikipedia has so few articles considering its huge amount of traffic. Theories? --Winterus (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[]

People speak it, and are able to access it (unlike china) ffm 00:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Theory: In 2002, the Spanish Wikipedia forked off into Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español, and took most of the Spanish language Wikipedians. This reduced the number of articles in both encyclopedias due to the split efforts of writers, despite the fact that Spanish is one of the most widely spoken languages. The greater brand cachet of Wikipedia gradually drove traffic to Spanish Wikipedia, overwhelming Enciclopedia Libre. The current situation of relatively low article account and high traffic is a direct result of the 2002 fork for a language with a lot of internet users. - BanyanTree 02:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[]
I would attribute it to the tighter inclusion standards they have on Lots of things in here would be outright speedied there. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[]
And the winner is........... titoxTempla grial (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Kudos to whoever done that! THAT IS how it should have been done on the first place. This way is promoting quality(over quantity), making editors more likely to think about usability then overall "article number" standings. I hate to use one of the top 10 Wiktionary - it got excellent number of articles, most of witch is bot generated stubs. And THAT teach user not to click "blue links" even if he/she see one. In a fast manner. Vitall (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]

ITN item order

I'd sugest that the 2008 South Ossetia War is moved to the top. The ongoing war between Russia and Georgia is much more important than yesterday's opening cermony of the Beijing games. Hapsala (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[]

The news is in reverse chronological order (the most recent at the top), not in order of 'importance'. J Milburn (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[]
I think it should be updated to reflect the fact that Georgia has declared that a state of war exists. That's making news around the world. DOSGuy (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[]
It's been done by another administrator because the stories were on the same day. However, for the record, we don't tweak the dates by importance. It is systematically chronological, and there are no plans to change this. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Actually, I am wrong about that; see here for more information. I must've misunderstood the guidelines when I read through them, so my apologies for that. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Anyway there appears to have been some developments in that story, with military action seemingly stopping. So it should be back up on the top now. :) --Candlewicke Consortiums Limited 17:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Ah yes, there we go. It's sorted now. Until something else comes along. --Candlewicke Consortiums Limited 00:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Main Page redesign survey

There is an ongoing proposal to redesign the Main Page. Some alternate designs have been created, but larger input is needed to make a page good for readers and editors. A survey has been created, and all users are encouraged to give thier input. Thanks, --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]

How many @!$%?*# times are people going to try to redesign the Main Page? Leave it alone and focus on getting our articles up to scratch. Too many people are getting into petty squabbles and edit wars and constructing straw polls over whether we should give the search box focus, or make the main page templates have shadows, or which pastel colours we should use for the headers - when there are Wikiprojects with hundreds if not thousands of pages needing attention, for cleanup, categorisation, references, verification, tagging and so on. Go to Wikipedia:Community portal, and do what many people seem never to do - scroll down further than the purple community bulletin board box - look! A Help Out box! Go fight some vandalism, help out new users, wikify an article, copyright tag or clean up images, and stop blethering like British politicians over the Main Page. WP:BROKE, for goodness' sake. This isn't an attack at you, Nick, but please everyone - consider this. We're getting too caught up in petty presentation on the Main Page, while the press are criticising us for the poor quality of our articles - which are the important part of this encyclopaedia. —Vanderdeckenξφ 09:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Fair enough, I can understand your frustration. But, there is not deadline, and I think the main page is fun to work on, since it's a different gear than working on regular articles. It's not like the two are mutually exclusive. And I do think the main page is worth work on, since it is the "face" of Wikipedia to regular users. --NickPenguin(contribs) 11:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]
No offense, but this is still part of the same original proposal to change the main page. This isn't like a new attempt or anything. Besides, the main page is the front of Wikipedia, and it is the first impression people get when they come here. Besides, while I have been fairly involved in the process of creating that survey and other discussions on the talk page, I do edit elsewhere too. Besides, if there was a user that solely participated in redesign discussions, I wouldn't be annoyed myself: we are volunteers after all! Deamon138 (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[]


Wouldn't this be better?

*The 2008 Summer Olympics is underway after the Opening Ceremony held at the Beijing National Stadium on August 8, 2008.

DORC (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[]

I agree, minus the date. Added links. —Vanderdeckenξφ 17:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Actually, the 2008 Summer Olympics were already underway before the Opening Ceremony was held. Football started two days early. --PFHLai (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Well how about the following? :)

Why would something continuing after the opening ceremony be news? -- (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Olympic rings

Might be an idea to add a small olympic rings icon to the Olympics highlights link in the In the News section to give it more prominence - they appear to be public domain now. Not totally sure if this is the right place, but it does concern the main page rather than being a suggested in the news item. Jw6aa (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Check out Template talk:In the news#Olympic highlights. --Howard the Duck 17:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[]

What happened to the Olympic updates link that was next to the deaths and news? I thought that was a great page and idea... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Ya I agree put it back on. Thankyoubaby (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[] this is the one, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[]

An admin mini-wheel-warred (good thing the second party didn't return the favor) but it's now back. –Howard the Duck 04:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[]

2 500 000 articles!

Any forecast for when this will happen? How many articles where added since yesterday? OWP (talk) 07:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Within 12 hours is my guess.--Winterus (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[]
You say before 23:00 UTC, then. I'll put it a little later, around tomorrow noon. Waltham, The Duke of 13:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Note that there is often a spurt of article creations as the number approaches as people aim to have one of their articles crowned the [number]th. Might join in myself... J Milburn (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[]

2.500.000 articles! incredible!

By the way, what article is the 2.500.000? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixman (talkcontribs) 22:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[]

I'm a bit curious about this as well actually, anyone's got the ability to find out? Lampman (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]
I think a developer (either Tim or Brion) had to query the database when we passed the 2,000,000-article milestone in order to find, with a reasonable degree of certainty, the 2,000,000th article. —Animum (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]
2,500,000 think that there were less than 1,500,000 when I registered. :) I'm not sure who will be able to find out what the 2,500,000th article is, but I believe someone can. I think that Kanab ambersnail was the 1,500,000th article. Impressive. Acalamari 01:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Hey, I remember when it was a huge deal when we hit a million!
[] *waits for someone to talk about the days before 100,000 articles* hbdragon88 (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]
It was definitely an article created by Wizardman (talk · contribs), during his stub creating spree. The current thought is that Joe Connor was the milestone. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]
This is incredible. When I joined Wikipedia, we had about 2 million articles. Now we have 2.5 million articles. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]
When I joined, we had less than 1 million. :P I was *taps fingers* 13 when I created an account. —Vanderdeckenξφ 09:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]
When I joined, there were fewer than 400,000... ;-) Sam Korn (smoddy) 13:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Oh look, a pissing contest. Well sorry Sam, when I joined there were only 150,000 articles.  ;-P Dragons flight (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Its odd but when we hit 1.5 million articles there was a thanks to editors for creating them message on the front page. Now we have hit 2.5 million it seems some people are embarrassed that we have reached this figure given tha a high proportion are still stubs or unreferenced. Wikipedia has more than doubled in size since I started when it had 1.1 million. ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]

How verifiable is Joe Connor as the 2,500,000 article? If someone can show some proof, I'll put a note in the {{Main Page banner}}. Happymelon 13:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]
I've seen several different possibilities, so I doubt it's certain enough to add to the Main page. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]
I'm probably wrong. But anyway, the main page says '2,501,192' ... so I went to New Pages and went back 1,192 pages ... I came up with 2003 Philadelphia Eagles season? Latics 17:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]
That doesn't work because there is at least one deleted article for every three created. Hence you have to count back at least 1/3 further to figure out what was 2500000 at the time it was created. Really though, you want to cross-reference creations with the deletion log to reconstruct the at the moment total. Dragons flight (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[][]
I figured as much. But really, crosschecking new pages and the deletion log ... too long and boring for me. :P Latics 17:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]
You also need to figure in articles in the move log, due to the large number of editors who prepare articles in the user space and move them to article space when ready. Jim Miller See me | Touch me | Review me 18:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Hmmm. All this talk of large numbered articles. What of the first article? And if it was the Main Page (which I suspect someone will suggest) what then was the second article? --Candlewicke Consortiums Limited 00:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Wikipedia:UuU contains the oldest edit, so it was probably the first article, before it was moved. – FISDOF9 00:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Also, the first edits were by Jimbo. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[]
This page may be of interest to you. Short answer- we don't know. J Milburn (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[]

You young whippersnappers! There were fewer than 20,000 articles when I started. 8-) Anyway, I don't think we should worry about the number of articles as much anymore (recall Jimbo: Quality not quantity). In fact, I think we should say something like 'XXX,000 articles that probably don't suck in English' (with the number a total of all B class and above articles). I'm only half joking. --mav (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[]

It would have to be a general number, as only a bot could viably keep an accurate count going, and the community is still subject to moral panic at the thought of adminbots. See Template:FA number and its history for a ugly hack to give the community an FA counter, and the failed attempt to work around the admin requirement to get it on the Main Page. - BanyanTree 08:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[]

The current "thanks for over 2.5 million articles" banner


I know it's nitpicking, but, on the other hand, many people are likely to read this banner, so: I think there's a hyphen missing between "English" and "language", no? Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Done. ffm 14:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]
  • Thanks. I think I can go on living now. Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]

I wonder when will the quality over quantity peeps begin to wreak havoc... –Howard the Duck 16:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]

I have in the section above. :D —Vanderdeckenξφ 19:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]

That's enough

Right now, Howard. Okay, we get the point we have lots of articles. Way too many articles. After 24 hours I'd appreciate it if the banner was taken down so we don't give people the idea that thousands of stubs are good. When we say quality, not quantity we mean it. Reywas92Talk 19:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Perhaps when we finally track down the 2,500,000 article and link it from the main page, we can see how quickly it develops. Rather than assuming that the glass is half-empty and bemoaning the poor quality of the article, whichever it is, why don't we all try and improve it, and all its 6394731 friends, to be the best it can be? Happymelon 20:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Hmm, random thought... We put examples of our best articles on the main page, why not put some crappy ones up to see if they get improved. Mr.Z-man 20:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]
That's actually a great idea. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Like so, may be: Featured page of crap? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Bad idea (if it was a serious suggestion). Main page is for readers, not editors. J Milburn (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]
It's actually a great idea. Basically DYK but with less developed articles. DYK is nice, but there isn't as much that could be added to them. Reywas92Talk 21:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]
I clicked that random link and actually got a pretty good article. I think it's a great idea - but no on the Main Page. Like J says, the Main Page is for readers, not editors. We want it to be transparent to the workings of Wikipedia as much as possible. High prominence on the CP? —Vanderdeckenξφ 21:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Howabout a "You Can Help!" page; find stub articles and then rotate a set list of them akin to DYK, FA, etc? That way, stub articles get noticed and people can add their input (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Why is this message in Verdana when the rest of the page is in Arial? Basic graphic design; you don't use fonts that are that similar (both sans-serif). howcheng {chat} 23:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Also, we should asertain what the article is first before we make the effort of listing it as the 2,500,000th article. If I remember right, the 2 millionth was an episode of a short lived mexican comedy show, and the article was terrible quality. Odds are, the 2.5 millionth is something just as mundane. --Simpsons fan 66 06:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[]
El Hormiguero, which was a show from Spain, btw. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[]
And does it have to be brown? I don't know of a better color, but it just looks like a stain. ALTON .ıl 07:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Keeping Wikipedia guarded from dumps of "bad" quality articles is good, and let's continue this brave fight. But why not have a parallel kind of Essentialpedia, with much more stringent criteria for inclusion? Daughter of Mímir (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[]

That's Veropedia. J Milburn (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[]

IMHO, bringing an article up to FA status isn't worth it. It stays there for a day on the main page for what? It gets vandalized 100x than normal after other people strip you of your dignity at WP:FAC? I'd rather see the articles I've worked on cited somewhere, like even on a web discussion forum or websites themselves, that means the article was good enough. –Howard the Duck 09:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[]

That's not what having a featured article is about, I don't think. I have a grand total of one featured article, and I feel I have achieved what I wanted with that article. Like with DYK- for me, it's not that it appeared on the main page so much as that it was good enough to get some 'official' recognition. J Milburn (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Besides, everyone knows the real reason people make featured articles. GeeJo (t)(c) • 04:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[]

'In the news' of the front page better be general than trying to be very on topic

For example, the Georgia-Russia incident advances too fast to make sense on the front page: a) Russians are withdrawing attack and generally the changes of the whole incident are too many to catch anyway, and b) there's talk of efforts in 3 international organisations while a very important one, UN which made at least 3 security council sessions on the matter (even if they failed) is not even mentioned. --Leladax (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]

To propose a new headline on ITN, pls go to WP:ITN/C. -- (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Russia-Georgia War

I suggest, do to the unreliablilty of sources, that we take the news our all together, we have sources saying they are pulling out, that they are driving past gori, that they have gori, they don't have gori. honestly, we can'tr just keep updating the situation based on weak and currently, unreliable sources.--Jakezing (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Sorry? If you have a concern regarding reliability of sources, please raise your concerns on the appropriate article talk page. J Milburn (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Georgia: Not "fighting" but pillaging

See --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[]

To propose a new line on ITN, pls go to WP:ITN/C. -- (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[]

More on Russia/Georgia conflict

Given the reports of continued Russian troop movements, perhaps we jumped the gun a bit in reporting that: "Russia calls an end to its military offensive in Georgia..." They may have said they were halting the offensive, but it does not look as if this is actually the case. Blueboar (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Absolutely. Plus, as I said, people may be dying (killed by rampaging Russian militias) but it's not "reports of fighting". There's no combat now. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[]

To propose a new line on ITN, pls go to WP:ITN/C. -- (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[]


Why is the time 1 hour slow? Tharnton345 (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[]

As stated near the top of this page, the current date and time are in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). If your local time is Western European Summer Time or British Summer Time, then it would seem like it is one hour slow. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[]


Why is the Assumption of the Virgin Mary (Roman Catholicism)/The Dormition of the Theotokos (Eastern Catholicism and those Orthodox on the New Calendar) not listed in the "On this day..." section for August 15? This is one of the most important and celebrated feasts within these faith traditions and celebrated by over 1.4 billion people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Because no one suggested/edited it on WP:OTD or Talk:August 15. –Howard the Duck 07:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[]


Will someone heed the anniversay discussion before the day ends? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalco (talkcontribs) 13:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Sorry? Anniversary of what? J Milburn (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[]

'In the news' shouldn't give focus (bold letters) on an 'appointed' dictator but to the dictatorship

Democracy should be respected, it's more NPOV promoting than Dictatorships. Apotetios (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[]

The news is that the leader has been officially put into power, not that the dictatorship continues (not that I have any opinion on whether it is a dictatorship, nor do I feel that Wikipedia should, for obvious reasons). Promoting democracy is obviously not more NPOV than reporting what happened- there are a lot of people who reject elements of democracy for one reason or another, myself included. J Milburn (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[]
The people of that country did not Appoint their leader. A dictatorship did. i.e. The majority of people from that country if they had a voice would want to talk about the Dictatorship, not an insignificant Appointee. Since the focus is on the Dictatorship and not the Appointed official, it's more relevant to wikipedia and more NPOV to wikipedia and more - in the end - Informative for Wikipedia users to read about the Dictatorship and not the appointee. Apotetios (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Maybe, but that isn't the news. The only reason that it's on the main page is that the leader was appointed (and don't give me 'not appointed by the people'- that's an abstract concept. He has been given power, it doesn't matter who gave him that power- it is official and recognised power). Furthermore, I'm not quite sure we can speak for the average person in X-country, and, again, that isn't our place. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[]
How do you actually know what the majority of people want? Did you do a survey? Nil Einne (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[]
You are supposed to be giving good faith to a (recently) democratically elected government over a military coup. You can't be sure 100%, but why exactly would give good faith to the coup? Apotetios (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[]
It isn't our business to judge who should rightfully be in power. We're giving good faith to neither- this person is now the leader of the country, no matter how he got there. We're simply reporting that. J Milburn (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Even if you did, we're not using it unless it is published. J Milburn (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Bolding is only used to indicate which page got updated with the news materials. Don't read too much into things. -- (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[]

phelps is the also highest (joint highest with spitz) olympic gold collecting individual in a single olympics

please update the seventh gold medal won by phelps by 0.01 sec.. this could be made the main page latest news line instead of a 2 day old record! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[]

To propose a new headline on ITN, pls go to WP:ITN/C.
BTW, Phelps may not be done yet. -- (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Pls see WP:ITN/C#ITN Candidates for August 16. -- (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Proposal to celebrate historic anniversary of recording technology by putting the first couple bits of recorded music on Main page

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Early_audio_files_on_main_page.3F Given the anniversary is tomorrow, I figured we'd best sort this quick =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[]

It sounds like a good idea, but I'm not certain that all of our readers will have the necessary software to play it. Where would the sound be placed on the page? —Animum (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Replace the featured picture for the day. Tomorrow's featured picture has already been chosen, so I think this suggestion is a little late. I am pretty sure someone could put it on OTD uncontroversially. J Milburn (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Now we have ~5 years to plan ahead for the 125th anniversary. No more excuses for any more last minute requests! -- (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Yeah, this one came in too late. It would've been cool though. –Howard the Duck 05:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Instead, there is something currently on OTD mentioning The Lost Chord being played during that London press conference. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Good choice, Zzyzx11. --PFHLai (talk) 04:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Lugo's back!

Remember when his pic was there before - he was on the frontpage for months (or so it seemed)! Lugnuts (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Shall we take bets on the over/under on how long it stays this time? 5:15 17:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Not for long -- his article doesn't seem to have much new materials added recently. His electoral victory was already on ITN when the voting results were announced. Not sure how this qualifies for ITN. -- (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Ugh not him again! I was just about to say that he was just up there for months and now he's back again? Come on!--Ninthcloud2 (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Because he was elected as President as Paraguay? A new Head of State isn't exactly a small thing, you know? According to Google News, this is being reported by at least 490 outlets. (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[]
His election as President as Paraguay was already on ITN in April. Why repeat? His article has no mention of any inauguration (yet). Why is this on ITN again? -- (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Teheee- I was just coming here to say the same thing. Raul654 (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[]

I was just making sure I don't go back to the main page until that picture's gone ;P...... Dendodge .. TalkContribs 20:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[]
You might be boycotting it for a while. :-P —Animum (talk) 03:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Amazing... (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Every time you masturbate, Fernando Lugo appears on the main page. Lovelac7 01:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[]

I was also coming here to say the same thing. Haha :P. Lugo drove us all crazy. ¡Amigo se te había extrañado un montón! And yes of course that's true. We missed you, Fernando. Thanks (Thanks?) for coming back.--J.C. (talk) 04:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[]
LOL. (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Michael Phelps

Why the anti-Lugo bias ? Would you people prefer getting Michael Phelps back on ITN ? His face has been on MainPage for 3 straight days already. I'd rather have a new pic on ITN every time I masticate. --PFHLai (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Yay Lugo! Take that, Wikipe-tan! (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[]

I appreicate all the Lugo-love. Lugnuts (talk) 08:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Too bad Ana Ivanovic's cute face was there for like only a few hours... –Howard the Duck 11:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Old news on ITN

Harrington won the PGA championship six days ago.. how is that news? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[]

To propose newer news items to displace old news, please go to WP:ITN/C. -- (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[]
It isn't news, it's just something that everyone was too lazy to write a replacement for. Yeah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[]

2,500,000th on DYK

I just wanted to note that, Joe Connor, Wikipedia's 2,500,000th article created, is on the DYK section on the Main Page with the help from User:Wizardman and myself. It was said that the article was in fact the 2,500,000th article created at an AN discussion. Just a note. -- RyRy (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Direct link to Simeon I?

Any reason why Simeon I isn't linked to directly in the On This Day section? It goes to List of Bulgarian monarchs. I'd change it, but I've never edited the main page before, don't want to get in trouble. --AW (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[]

It seems your mistaken. Simeon I indeed links to the article on the person. Tsar links to list of Bulgarian monarchs. It doesn't look like the OTD entry was modified [2] and this arrangement makes sense to me... Nil Einne (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Ah, I must have clicked on the Tsar part. --AW (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[]
NP, BTW, in future you can make reports to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors which is also shown at the top, although as an admin you don't need to if you're sure (the primary purpose of the section is more to notify admins of things that need to be fixed rather then for intensive discussion of errors). Caution particularly when it comes to the main page is of course a good idea although I suspect in this case it wouldn't have mattered since you would have noticed when you went to modify it. So if you do come across issues of this sort in the future I say go ahead and fix them. Alternatively, if you want to be more involved in the main page you can monitor the error report section or participate in WP:DYK or WP:ITN as both are still in heavy need of more admin attention ;-) Nil Einne (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Problem w/ skin on main page

For some reason, I am getting a different skin on the main page than monobook, although my preferences are set on monobook. All other articles and pages (including this one) come out just fine on monobook. I am using Mozilla Firefox 2.0 in the United States, if the browser makes a difference. Anyone else have this problem? RedThunder 23:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Just fixed, probably just a bug. RedThunder 23:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[]


Why not add the Motto of the day on the top of the Main Page? -- K. Annoyomous24 02:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[]

The most recent discussion on this topic is part of Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal. Based on the recent survey, there was not a whole lot of support, but you still may post a comment on Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[]
I would imagine that most (including my) opposition for this comes from the fact that the main page is for readers, not editors. J Milburn (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[]

"Did you know" misrepresentation (?)

Did you know
  • ... that adherents of the Biblical archaeology school believe there is physical evidence for Old Testament events?

Seems to be a misrepresentation of what the Biblical archaeology school really believe. The article says that the Biblical archaeology school "believe" (or more properly: propone) that archeological evidence should be used to shed more light on the real background behind the Bible, which is a very different thing. Said: Rursus 07:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Please suggest alternative wording at #Main Page error reports above (or WP:ERRORS). -- (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[]

What links here

I know it's a template issue and not a Main Page issue, but I couldn't find where to say this:

The name of the tool "What links here" is unclear and even its tool-tip is ambiguous. Maybe something along the lines of "Referring pages"? (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[]

I think this conversation may fit somewhere in Wikipedia:Village pump. That being said, I think "What links here" is pretty clear but I see your point. Maybe something like "Pages linking here"?-Wafulz (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Alternatively, MediaWiki talk:Sidebar may be an appropriate place for the discussion. If there's no response, try publicising it at the village pump. J Milburn (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Thanks. I added this issue in the MediaWiki talk:Sidebar. (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Again, although not the appropriate place, how about "what links to this page"? Post at the pump. (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Or "pages that link to this article" (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Update of Usain Bolt's accomplishment

I think Usain Bolt's mention in ITN should be updated to reflect his third gold medal (and world record) in the 4x100m. While not an individual accomplishment (Phelps has some relay golds as well), it's newsworthy that he won gold medals in all three of his events, and set or helped to set world records in all of them. DOSGuy (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Here, here! :) Well done and our utmost congrats to that man! Anyway I'm sure it'll be updated soon. --Candlewicke (Talk) 01:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Try WP:ITN/C#ITN Candidates for August 22. -- (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[]

featured article

why has never been the PS3 in the main page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carryminor afaffa (talkcontribs) 18:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[]

PS3, promoted just a few months ago, needs to wait in line behind older FAs in Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page. If you are anxious, try Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. -- (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Pic from Flea article

Can this pic be used? It states it is from a music video, but it is not. The copyrights seem all wrong. --Endless Dan 17:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Looks like a promoshot, perhaps from a promo video. Whatever the case, it's non-free, so no. J Milburn (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[]

What would be the appropriate tag for the pic? --Endless Dan 17:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[]

As the header says, this page is for issues relating to the main page, not general help. You should check out Wikipedia:Media copyright questions instead Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Well, this pic is from the featured article. My bad. --Endless Dan 18:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[]
It doesn't however appear on the main page so it doesn't concern the main page. Comment on featured articles belong in their respective talk pages since amongst other reasons, editors of the article are unlikely to read the messages here. Nil Einne (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Alright. My bad. --Endless Dan 18:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[]
This is not the page to post "My bad" on. Instead you should go to Wikipedia:Incredibly obscure pages/Mea culpa. -- (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Hahaha --AW (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Besides, "Alright" should properly be "all right", if you're talking technicalities. (talk) 04:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[]
You're well right, this isn't 'informal English Wikipedia' or nout... It's proper English Wikipedia is what it is. J Milburn (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[]


how old are hens when they begin laying eggs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Hen's don't lay eggs until you ask here. This is the wrong place for those questions. --MattWT 02:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[]
What an interesting EGG to lay... ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 04:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Ba-dum TISH. I'm not a drummer, feel free to shoot me down. J Milburn (talk) 11:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Focus DYK link on Singapore Olympics?

Re: "... that the silver won at the 2008 Summer Olympics by the Singapore women's table tennis team, comprising Feng Tianwei, Li Jiawei and Wang Yuegu, is the second Olympic medal in Singapore's history?" I was expecting one of the links would point to Singapore at the 2008 Summer Olympics. Could the text currently linking to Singapore be changed to point to Singapore at the 2008 Summer Olympics instead? (That link would have an early and easy-to-find link to Singapore, whereas it would be much harder to find a link to Singapore@2008 Olympics in Singapore). -- RealGrouchy (talk) 05:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Please report errors on or suggestions about the current main page sections at the top of this page, which can also be accessed as WP:ERRORS. There is a honking great big box at the top advising you of this fact. —Vanderdeckenξφ 10:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Fixed, though main page errors would have been a more appropriate place for this. No harm done, now you know. J Milburn (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Michael Phelps?

Why is a news headline stating Michael Phelps has won and olympic gold medal? This is unfair as coverage was not given to Nicole Cooke winner of the ladies cycling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Because Phelps has now won more medals than anyone else. J Milburn (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[]
He has won more Gold Medals than any Olympian before him, although a track athlete pointed out this was because of the amount of races that swimmers compete in- if track athletes had the same opportunity they would have won just as many more often...Gavin Scott (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[]
It's not for us to judge IOC rules. We just count medals, and Phelps broke a record. -- (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[]
I was just passing comment. Gavin Scott (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Ditto. -- (talk) 03:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Has anyone noticed that his article has been hacked or something? (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[]

It hasn't been hacked, people edit it. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Typical American Bias. If Phelps wasn't American he wouldn't be on the front page at all.(Butters x (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC))[]

Wikipedia is also Jamaican bias if you're using that logic, too. -- (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[]
This is not an example of American bias. Phelps has made history- he has won more golds than anyone else. Surprisingly, the new ITN rules have not led to a lot of useless American news, which I thought it may, but ITN is actually rather well-balanced at present. A lot of sport (which is to be expected during the Olympics) but it isn't favouring America. J Milburn (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[]
I think that the only bias I can find is that Bolt's nationality is mentioned and Phelps' (and Spitz's) not. -- (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Fixed. Next time, pls make use of WP:ERRORS for omissions like that. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[]
This has to be one of the stupidest "American bias" statements to date. –Howard the Duck 00:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Well, maybe it's not bias, but if the news should represent a worldwide view, why specifying one athlete's nation and not the other? --Walkabout86 (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[]
When it was on the Main Page, it wasn't biased at all. Acalamari 23:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Talking of bias, are there statistics about the nationality associated to "On This Day..." entries ? I perceive a very strong bias toward American History. Is this just because this is the english version of WP ? Wentu (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[]

No, I do not believe that anyone has made some sort of statistics on the yet. But there seems to be a Systemic bias of Wikipedia, so the best way is to help out and create more good articles on non-American topics that qualify for the main page. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Expect an uprising when Olympic men's basketball is over (women's hoops is too close to call)... –Howard the Duck 18:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[]

what this site needs is open editing of the front page, at least in parts of it

{{editprotected}} stop your fascism in the name of 'anti-vandalism' and get off your soapbox. you've all sat comfortably into fascistically locking the front page while you know very well deep inside that's against the spirit of wikipedia. that's right, you know very well I'm right and you can do a lot to change the status quo. Start making parts of the front page editable to common human being. e.g. the description of the main article. get off your soapbox give the common human wikipedia back your highness. -- (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Hmm, should I post a recording of my laughter or just block you as a troll? J.delanoygabsadds 23:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[]
i concur with (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Anybody can edit the Main Page. You simply have to earn the trust of your wikicolleagues first. -- (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[]
The spirit of Wikipedia is to have a 2000 pixel picture of a diseased penis on the main page, viewed by about 175 people per second? Yeah... Only the most fanatical open editing advocates would think the benefit would be worth the problems it would cause. Mr.Z-man 03:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Judging from the main IP's talk page, I've a feeling he's trolling. He added some nonsense to the Phelps talk page and yet wants to be able to edit the main page? I don't think so. :P Look at the early history of the Main Page—open to edit, it never was a great idea.... Latics (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[]
When it has been unprotected, we have seen many vandalistic edits per minute, and this is when the average vandal believes the main page is out of reach. If they knew that they were able to edit it, we would be seeing far, far more. Note that the while the technical ability to edit the main page may only lie with a few, others are welcome to indirectly edit it by posting here, at WP:ERRORS or working on/suggesting/commenting on possible articles or pictures to be featured on the main page. J Milburn (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Where do we lodge complaints about Wikipedia's clear-cut bias against cats? It's been months since one appeared on the main page.Ceiling Cat (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[]
AFAIK, the talk page of the dude in charge of scheduling the featured articles on the main page :-) Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[]
And good luck with that. He absolutely hates cats. KnightLago (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[]
On the contrary, I love cats - they're delicious :p Raul654 (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Please create articles about Felis margarita airensis, Felis margarita margarita, Felis margarita harrisoni, Felis margarita meinertzhageni, Felis margarita thinobia, Felis margarita schef, Felis chaus chaus, Felis chaus affinis, Felis chaus fulvidina, Felis chaus furax, Felis silvestris cafra, Felis silvestris foxi, Felis silvestris caudata, Felis silvestris iraki, Felis silvestris rubida, Felis silvestris vellerosa, ... and nominate them for DYK. You can counter the anti-cat bias by getting these missing cats onto the Main Page. -- (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Added appropriate template. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 04:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[]
☒N {{editprotected}} request declined. It is unclear what edit is requested. Please don't waste our time with frivolous requests.  Sandstein  07:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[]
If you want to request unprotection, go to WP:RFPP. The editprotected template is to request an uncontroversial edit to a protected page, not to request unprotection. I don't recommend you actually post this to RFPP thought, you're liable to be laughed off the stage and may even be warned for wasting peoples time Nil Einne (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[]