Talk:Main Page/Archive 130

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 125 Archive 128 Archive 129 Archive 130 Archive 131 Archive 132 Archive 135
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


What does it take to get an article up here on the main page? Does it have to be FA quality or a DYK article or can it be some article of B class quality aswell? Oh, and I also wonder: does anyone ever vandalise the main page? Because it protected...J.B. (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[]

Yes, all articles on the main page are FA. The DYKs I don't know about. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[]
Depends on what article you talk about. Today's Featured article has to be an FA. See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests for more information. Also, DYK needs to be a new article that is not a stub, or a stub article expanded by over fivefold over the past five days. ITN articles must cover the topic in question, that is, the topic should be updated. Does this help? Zithan (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[]
DYK also requires to have a hook that can be adequately sourced. (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]

That answers my first two questions, thanks for that. What about vandalism? Are there still admins vandalising the main page? Has it happened in the past (just curiousity)? J.B. (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[]

It has happened. (That user was de-adminned about ten minutes later.) Hut 8.5 11:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[]

Pretty strange though... how one would do all his best to become admin and then does something like that. I fail to understand his motives... J.B. (talk) 11:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[]

The common reasons are 1) an admin account is compromised, e.g. because it has an insecure password (although I think measures have been implemented to make dictionary attacks more difficult so this may be less common now) 2) an admin account is left logged on and someone with (usually) legitimate access to the computer uses it 3) an admin decides to quit wikipedia for whatever reason and decides to go out with a 'bang'. In cases 1 and 2, the admins will usually get their adminship back once they have proven their identity and explained what actually happened Nil Einne (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[]
What happened to that guy, then? Was it reason 1 or 2, or was he going out with a bang (3)? BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 17:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[]
We don't know for sure but about a month before User talk:Robdurbar he said he was leaving. There was no contribs after until someone started fooling around [1]. This likely suggests it Robdurbar deciding to go out with a bang (whether it was him or he lent his account to someone else we don't know), although it's obviously still possible someone broke into his account. Nil Einne (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[]
This user has gone on several other rampages with admin sockpuppets - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Robdurbar. Hut 8.5 07:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[]

US election candidates on main page

US election coverage has been moved to /Archive 129. ffm 00:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Interesting - the way the time zones worked out, election day ended for Wikipedia before any more than one or two states had been called in the U.S. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Not really, since votes are cast during one day, but the results aren't announced until early on the the next one Modest Genius talk 03:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Yes, but the polls were still open in virtually every U.S. state, meaning the voting hadn't been completed. In fact, voting is still going on in Alaska right now. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Wikipedia doesn't care about election day Nil Einne (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Obama's name is spelled wrong

His name should be spelled as "Barack Obama", not "Barrack Obama". Thanks, ♪TempoDiValse♪ 04:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Never mind, someone fixed it. Thanks. ♪TempoDiValse♪ 04:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]

How is the

Main page edited? It has changes but, no visible change in the history.--Jakezing (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Through templates like Template:In the news. - Mark 04:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
And its automaticly edited into the page without any notice?--Jakezing (talk) 04:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Yes. See WP:TRANSCLUDE. –Howard the Duck 04:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
That goes over my head but ok.--Jakezing (talk) 04:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Is there a particular section of it you want to watch? We can point you to it if you like. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]

In the News

Ah, any chance in switching the order of In the News from leading off with "an airplane crashes" to instead leading off with the Barack Obama story. His photo is the only one on the In the News Main Page section and it seems a bigger story. Thanks. -- Suntag 04:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Does itm atter? No.--Jakezing (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
While I don't object to reversing the order given that both stories were about the same time, your premise is flawed. We always only have one ITN picture and we don't sort by priority but chronologically. In any case, this really belongs in errors above or WP:ITN/C Nil Einne (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
I dunno what time the plane crashed but Obama was elected a few (if you're at the West Coast) hours ago... –Howard the Duck 04:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Does the donate ad need to be so big? It hasn't been in the past, and, honestly, it looks unprofessional being so big and in-your-face. Sure, you can make it smaller, but for the casual user, this massive ad, bigger even than banner ads on other web sites, is the first thing he's going to see. zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Wikimedia needs money!! --Domthedude001 03:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
... and is unlikely to get any by being pushy. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
It was sooooo tempting to put a {{sodonate}} template here... But honestly, it's either this or actual ads. ffm 03:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
A badly done ad that generates ill will is not worth the short-term gains. To me, this looks like a knee-jerk reaction to the results of the survey. Feezo (Talk) 06:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
How so? We have a fund-raising drive at around the same time every year, and every year it's the end of the world, but here we are, 1 year after the last one, 2 years after the one two years ago, three years after the one before that (not sure about this one), and the world is still spinning, wikipedia is still here, etc Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Ugly, ugly, ugly! It's even huger and uglier than most web page banner ads. --FOo (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Agreed, it looks terrible. The red box is too big compared to the Donate Now text and is too bright of a shade of red. I think red text on a white background would suffice It screams 'banner ad'. On the plus side it might just annoy enough people to donate enough that it goes away faster :) Mfield (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
It wouldn't be quite so bad if the "hide" button actually hid it, instead of just making it smaller. To actually hide it — for example if you've already donated — you can disable Javascript. I highly recommend NoScript for this purpose. Feezo (Talk)

Note: Logged in users can hide the banner by going to Special:Preferences → Gadgets. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]

There is no easy way of knowing this. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Where is this banner located? I did a search and couldn't find it - also the image it uses doesn't appear to be in Image: space. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Loaded from Meta. See WP:NOTICES for a bit more information. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Thanks. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Good to know, thanks. Mfield (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Hideous and intrusive. Almost makes me want to go on Wiki-strike. Gandalf61 (talk) 06:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]

I'm logging in for the first time in a while to comment on how intrusive this banner is. Maybe that was the point. But I agree with pretty much all the comments above. TOO BIIIG!. QmunkE (talk) 07:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Why does the ad say "now it [Wikipedia] needs you"? Along with the ad's prominence, it makes it look like there's a sudden financial crisis. If so, it should have a link to a "more info" page with an explanation for the urgency. If not, it's crying wolf and should be reduced/deleted. (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]

I agree. It's just too... red. Why can't we have the small, unintrusive signs we had in previous years? --Zvika (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Then again that puzzle-piece looks entirely cheesy. That, and a bright red button is not to be fooled around with. "Hide" should hide the colored button - unless you're willing to change Monobook to make it bright orange and flash at 12 cycles a second. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 21:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Snowflake ---> Rubik's cube

Just curious. How comes the picture for today's article has changed, as shown in the title? Simply south (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Probably because the new image suited the article more. -Domthedude001 16:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[]

List of donors

Where can I find a list of all donations? There used to be some information at (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[] Note that, although not mentioned anywhere on the donation form, there is a minimum size that donations must be in order to appear here (something like $1) -- Gurch (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
That's not what I want. The list is incomplete, and I would like totals. (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
There is, but I think it's lying -- Gurch (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
What currency is the above link in? SpencerT♦C 21:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
US$ I guess. When has the foundation ever listed their donations in anything else? They are an American foundation after all Nil Einne (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[]
See also More tools are supposed to be coming but not yet available. Dragons flight (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[]

linguistic imperialism

My annoyance with the "Foundation" and their annoying donate flag... it cuts into minor wikipedia projects in ENGLISH. Very culturally imperialistic. (The major languages have localized versions luckly though.) Someone please tell them to take away their imperialistic tendencies and wake up and realize the true nature of Wikipedia ? Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[]

The true nature of Wikipedia is that there is a constant need of volunteer translators for things like this. Wanna help?
"Annoyance"? Which wikipedia projects are you calling "minor"? Your belittling late-starting projects is more annoying than the donate flag.
BTW, if you have a problem with the Foundation, complain at the Foundation's website. Please do not post here on Talk:Main Page messages that have nothing to do with Main Page of English Wikipedia. That's annoying, too. -- (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[]
This is the English language Wikipedia. Garden. 21:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Automatic placement in search bar

Why does the main page not place the cursor automatically in the search bar? The central page does this as soon as you open the page: is there any reason why the main page shouldn't do this too? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[]

See the FAQ response. [2] --Siradia (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Donations drive

Can't see anyone else noting this, but the donations drive notice is extremely large and, no, it's not hidable. Wikimedia just guaranteed that I'm not going to donate to them now, and I'm a long time contributor. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Just found that it is hidable. But why so hidden in preferences? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
There's a discussion above — I fully agree with you by the way. Feezo (Talk) 09:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Ah-hah! I shall donate to wikipedia if I so wish, its my money. I do not need a huge unavoidable (until I read this) banner to tell me to "DONATE NOW!" Kennedy (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Agree, I have been using Wikipedia for years and (on my screen) this stands out as an odd blemish on an otherwise excellent open culture site. Please can we get it reduced in size? - David Higham

Agreed too. It looks hideous and almost trying to force people to contribute. I'm not impressed by the way it has been done this time. There is a village pump discussion about it and here Count Blofeld 12:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]

You can turn it off in special/preferences/gadgets. That's only for registered users though, so tough luck anoyonmous IP scum! Lugnuts (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Excuse me Lugnuts? -.- (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
You've read it - you can't unread it! Lugnuts (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[]
They're not all trouble makers. Maybe 99.9% of them are, but not all of them. : ) Pacific Coast Highway {talkcontribs} 23:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Presumably Lugnuts is referring to the fact that, at the whim of the foundation, IP users are not only being subjected to one of the ugliest things I have ever seen, but are unable to remove it. I guess the foundation hates anonymous users. Algebraist 11:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Criteria for bold words on "In the news" section

What is the criteria for bolded words? Right now there are 8 names total in the various headlines combined, but only 4 of them are bolded. Also, certain events are bolded and some aren't ("2008 presidential elections" is in bold but "2008 Formula One Drivers' Championship" is not). Just wondering if it's random or what. NIRVANA2764 (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Primary article which carries the news is bold. Other links point to articles which might help understand the news item better. --GPPande talk! 20:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Exactly. Usually it is whichever article has the most substantial update, though sometimes admins prefer to bold a more well-developed article at the expense of a slightly larger update. In the Palau entry I'm pretty sure only the elections article should be bolded, since we normally bold only one link in each hook. Random89 20:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Fixed the Palau elections one. SpencerT♦C 16:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Discussion at WT:DYK that may be more relevant here

I just posted this and an edit conflict was automatically resolved. However, since I share the view of the preceding editor that we need to be open minded about possible solutions, it may be more appropriate to move the discussion here. Geometry guy 20:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[]

  • Comment That DYK discussion was about expanding the Main Page content to include GA articles as part of DYK. -- Suntag 20:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Commented there, I'd like to encourage all interested in the content of the Main Page to do so as well. Modest Genius talk 23:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[]
There is also related discussion at Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal#Featured content. Thanks to OhanaUnited for pointing this out at WT:GA. Geometry guy 16:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[]

US bias

Why wasn't the NZ election featured? I remember: "We're not bias, what makes you think we won't do this for other elections?" Ya, well why don't you make good on your word? Sir Stig (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[]

It is now. It usually takes some time to post the news to ITN as only admins can do so. We have few admins who are dedicated to this work. You are encouraged to nominated news at WP:ITN/C. --GPPande talk! 17:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Ya, sorry, that came off as angry. I don't even live in NZ, but I'm trying to provide an objective POV. My point is that there wasn't any featured article for the NZ elections like the US ones. Sir Stig (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[]
I am sorry - I thought you were pointing to ITN section. Well, is there any article of FA class which is related to this election? If there is one, I know there is some point-based mechanism stating when the FA will be on main page. People with more knowledge can pitch in here. --GPPande talk! 19:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[]
In any case, people write about what they are interested in. FAs are also selected for quality, not relevance. If there was an appropreate FA, I'm sure there would not be a problem getting it on the MP. ffm 20:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[]

The correct word is "biased" not "bias". Argh! (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[]

John Key and Helen Clark are not featured articles, while John McCain and Barack Obama are both featured articles. If the New Zealand candidate articles were brought to featured status, then they would be eligible to be featured on the main page. --Aude (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Although, given the way that the Westminster system works, the more appropriate articles would be New Zealand National Party and New Zealand Labour Party. The position of Prime Minister isn't up for vote, only the seats in the New Zealand House of Representatives. If John Key were to resign (or die), his Party would put forward a new Prime Minister without public ballot, and it wouldn't necessarily be the Deputy Prime Minister (e.g. Gordon Brown assuming Premiership rather than John Prescott in the UK) GeeJo (t)(c) • 21:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[]

I actually find the sign a little distracting, I'm sorry to say, but it's true. I don't find it hideable, contrary to what is said above. A great deal of it remains after one clicks the "hide" option, and tyhe red button catches your eye much more than the article you're trying to read --Maurice45 (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]

I concur. The donation sign is freakin' massive. We just suffered through a U.S. election, and we've experienced enough signs asking for support to last a lifetime. I'd rather be gagged with a popsicle stick than stare at a "give me money" banner in the only place that provides temporary sanctuary while I'm working. DigitalNinja 14:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
check your user prefs.Geni 15:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
In particular, in "gadgets", which isn't obvious. --NE2 15:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Thanks guys --Maurice45 (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
I've added a section near the top of this page about how to remove the notice, as it seems inevitable that there will otherwise be multiple posts about it here -- Gurch (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Unfortunately, it's far enough down that I doubt anyone will see it. --NE2 19:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Well from my experience, the first few days of the banner there will always be people who don't notice the thousnds of other discussions so it's probably pretty pointless. Heck I suspect if we put another banner under the fundraising banner describing how to get rid of the fundraising banner (and itself of course) we would still have people coming here Nil Einne (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[]
That section claims that it is beyond the control of en.wikipedia to remove the notice entirely. This is not true. Any admin could do it by editing Mediawiki:Common.css. Algebraist 14:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[]
I'm pretty sure that would be grounds for immediate desysopping maybe even with a ban thrown in. If you don't agree with the foundation, you discuss the matter with them, not overide them. They run the site, they make the decision. It's either directly stated, or strongly implied, that when the foundation put up a fundraising notice without saying you can take it off if you want, you don't bloody well take it off unless you get their permission. So yeah, it is beyond our control. I mean technically yeah, if the FBI don't like Obama they could murder him. But that would clearly be illegal and unacceptable so Obama becoming president is beyond their control Nil Einne (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Of course there are always conspiracies and just like the FBI may blame it on terrorists the admins may get Jimbo drunk or something and make him remove it. >.> -- Mentisock 17:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[]
I was the one who added the note about it being beyond our control. I think it is, as Nil said, beyond our control (whether by technical restrictions or not). I would like to re-add that sentence to the note, but will not edit-war over it. Consensus? Random89 21:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Well, wikimedia just ensured I won't be making any donations any time soon. GJ, well played. Modest Genius talk 18:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[]

HI, can someone please tell me how to get rid of the big thermometer with the donations at the top of my welcome page? It is an eye sore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Hit the "Collapse" button in the upper right of the advertisement. APL (talk) 04:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[]
First you register, then you sign in, then go to your preferences > gadgets > click the box to disable the banner. §hep¡Talk to me! 04:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Very weird. The banner seems to change every time I load a page. Sometimes there is a period after the word "project", sometimes not. Sometimes there is a big red button, sometimes not. (If not, sometimes there are two dashes before the link, sometimes not.) Very disconcerting to have it look different every time.APL (talk) 07:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Picture for In the News

Is it possible to move the small picture for In the News to beside the relevant news snippet? When it's at the top, I would instinctively assume it to be related to the first news snippet. This can be perplexing when you get a picture of John Kelley smiling next to news of deaths on a Russian submarine. (talk) 09:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Pls see Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why are the images on "In the news" and "On this day" not aligned next to each relevant entry?. Also, if you use a bigger monitor or a smaller font, the smiling Mr. Key would still be next to the corresponding headline about his election victory. -- (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[]


This is a request for someone more knowledgeable them myself to post in depth information on hyper-consumption. I'm astonished that this is not on Wikipedia. It's a large part of the American culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keianc (talkcontribs) 21:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Here is not the place for such a request; perhaps you could try Wikipedia:Requested articles or Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics? I assume it's an economic term, if not, then another appropriate Wikiproject may be able to help. J Milburn (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Do the articles on consumerism, consumer capitalism and conspicuous consumption help?-gadfium 01:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[]


what is the point of wikipedia beoing 'a non-profit project' if it ends up containing ads bigger and moer intrusive then for-profit websites like google or yahoo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[]

See above discussions. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[]
I don't find the ad that intrusive to be honest and I have seen a lot worse, namely those that expand and cover the page when you scroll over them. They should be banned.Dark verdant (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[]
You ask PBS! Pretty soon they'll replace our regularly scheduled articles with Peter Paul and Mary, and Victor Borge until we pay them to stop. :-)
Seriously, though, it's easy enough to hide the notice. APL (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[]


When I would want to get an article on the main page, how do I do that? I mean, an article that is not new (DYK) or FA-class, namely Pier Gerlofs Donia? How could I get that article on the main page? J.B. (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[]

If it is not FA-class, then it can't be Today's featured article, and if it is not new or recently expanded then it can't be on DYK. That leaves In The News (current events) or On This Day (historical events). Was Pier Gerlofs Donia a key player in a significant historical event (see Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries for an idea of what is considered significant)? If yes then that would be your best bet, otherwise I'd say work on getting it to FA-class. — jwillbur 15:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[]
DYK accepts five-fold expansions of existing articles. -- (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Featured image

Sails on a small ship as seen from below

Can I get the following image featured on the main page? J.B. (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[]

To be on Wikipedia:Picture of the day, it must first pass the Featured picture process. To pass it must meet the featured picture criteria, and the process is pretty rigorous. — jwillbur 15:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[]
I should also point out that images are currently shown on the main page largely in order of them becoming a FP and IIRC, the timeframe between an image becoming FP and being TFP is 6 months or more Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[]
This image will not pass FPC I'm afraid - it'll be shot down on lack of encyclopaedic value, lack of sharpness, lack of wow factor and noise. —Vanderdeckenξφ 09:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Oh boy. Another American war machine as the featured image. El Genie (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Well, when the US government puts out lots of free pictures, there's bound to be a a good number of them that are of high quality and historic importance. howcheng {chat} 05:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[]

today's featured picture

who's responsible for today's picture? there was a moment today in which the picture of the day was not this one but another, showing a man with a bottle sticking out of his ass. how can this happen in a protected page?? i suggest the bad taste joker be banned from wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Yeah, I'd be curious how this happened as well, and it's been a real pain to get all the thumbnails purged from caches (despite going around trying action=purge on every possibly relevant page... think most/all are gone now about 20 mins later?). Aren't images on the main page automatically cascade-protected? --Delirium (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Got hit on commons where it appears it wasn't protected.Geni 15:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Should've uploaded to en for local protection. -- (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[]
User:MPUploadBot is supposed to take care of it. I will have to bug User:X! about it. howcheng {chat} 16:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[]

New topic

How do you write about a new topic, cause i want to write a biography about people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[]

See Wikipedia:Your first article. howcheng {chat} 16:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[]

featured article

why is some british guy there on veterans day? shouldn't it be something veterans day related? gah (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Raul654 gets accused of being biased in favor of the United States more often than Adolf Hitler gets accused of being an anti-semite. I guess he wanted a day off from that... or perhaps there were no FA-quality articles that fit the holiday. *shrugs* Happy Veterans Day, everyone, and thanks to Raul654 for always doing a dang good job. (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[]
It is. Happy Remembrance Day. Maybe you think only Americans fight wars? Dragons flight (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[]
most of wikipedia's readers are from america anyway. (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[]
What the hell are you basing that on? J Milburn (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[]
I do not know about readership, (indeed, I do not think it is possible to know), but according to this chart, nearly 48% of the English Wikipedia's contributors come from locations other than the US. I would assume that this largely reflects the readership percentages. J.delanoygabsadds 17:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[]
I suspect there would be a higher proportion of readers who do not speak English as a first language than there are contributors who do not speak English as a first language, but I admit I am shocked more than half of our contributors are American. J Milburn (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[]
The USA accounts for ~65% of all people who speak English as their first language. Dragons flight (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[]
The last time I looked at the Alexa rankings, the largest group of visitors came from the US, around 25%. The second largest group was either Germany or Japan, and came in around 10%. I believe the UK comes in around 5th or 6th with only a few percentage points. - auburnpilot talk 19:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[]
25% hardly qualifies as "most of wikipedia's readers are from america". -- (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[]
To be fair, those stats are for all Wikipedias, not just the English one. J Milburn (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Alexa rankings are a highly flawed statistic anyway especially when your talking about something across such a diverse geographical range, recently stopped using them to decide which wikipedia languages should be on top (which it was decided should be based on the most popular) and turned to own statistics and IIRC, this changed the result a fair bit. See template for details. We don't however have visitor geographical location statistics per wikipedia AFAIK and indeed I'm not even sure if the foundation would allow something like that Nil Einne (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Veterans day is ONLY in US...pretty much entire commonwealth has remembrance day hence a british soldier (seeing at it marks the end of world war 1). I have seen a lot of US related articles that get posted on their related day and yes ppl do complain about US-Bias but it always resorts to fact that wiki will also feature other country's article if one is available. I was actually happy for the fact that finally something other that US gets posted and then i see this conversation. Seriously you guys really make wikipedia look like USpedia sometimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashishg55 (talkcontribs) 23:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Why does everybody constantly complain about the United States? It's very irritating. I remember people complaining about having 9/11 on as the featured article (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Everybody doesn't. I count one in this thread. Algebraist 03:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Because there was no heavy Rwanda emphasis on April 6? etc. Everybody constantly complains because there IS something wrong.EamonnPKeane (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[]


There is a typo on this page. "52-storey" should be "52-story". I would help, but I am only a regular user (and a real noob too) so I can't do anything to help. Jonathan321 (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Storey is correct British English. We allow either British or American spellings. Dragons flight (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Actually, it should use Australian English since the article concerned is BankWest Tower which is in Australia. The article itself uses 'story' but the correct Australian English spelling is 'storey' as per MacquarieNet.
In any case, sticking to the two major varieties of English will cause no issue, regardless of the specifics of the article or WP:Spelling. Anyway, the variations amongst C'wealth countries (maybe except Canada) are all just versions of "English" English after accounting for region-specific words. (talk) 12:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[]
However those difference should be reflected in articles with strong national ties to a topic per WP:ENGVAR. And per engvar, we don't stick to the two 'major' varieties of English. American English is just a version of English too, it isn't a different language, even if there are more differences to many other versions of English Nil Einne (talk) 06:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[]


Given the situation of the donations not reaching the goal of 6 million dollars in the usual period of time, do you think it's fair to have adds in the main page and the bottom of article pages? Comments are welcome. Nitro4cet  18:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[]

IMO, this is a good start and will greatly improve the situation. I hope they do so. But in the other hand I think that the key is to also integrate the encyclopedia with other services so it can recover the popularity it used to have some years ago. Canolucas (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Given the controvesy over the size of the ads, this will be controversal. YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 18:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[]
I calculate that at the current donation rate of 60 cents a second (averaged over 7 days) it will take a little under 9 weeks to reach 6million... (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Where do you need that money for? What are you going to do with the money you'll receive? Does wikipedia have people in payed service then, and if so, how much and how to become one? J.B. (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[]

A valid point. Clicking the donate button takes you straight to the donate page (fair enough), where there is only a small link for more information. Following that merely takes you to a page that essentially establishes "Yes, we really are a non-profit, here is our structure and charter to prove it." A more prominent essay on why wikipedia runs this fundraiser every so often, and how that money is used might boost income and confidence in that process. My first thought was "What? Again? Didn't they just do this?" I can't be the only one who thought that. El Genie (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[]
See Planned Spending Distribution 2007-2008 for what the money was used for last year. Most of it goes on paying for all our domain names and keeping the servers running. This gives a slightly more detailed example, but without the nice chart. The WMF does have a few staff on the payroll, see Staff. This will give you an idea of what this year's budget will be spent on. Many people seem to misunderstand the difference between income and profit. Happy reading :P. —Vanderdeckenξφ 09:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Indeed! I'm satisfied that it's all good, but how would one normally navigate to these links from the donate button? That's the key point.El Genie (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[]

In all honesty, I feel that that one donation banner is good. However, the content of that donation banner might have to change. I liked last year's banner very much and would have donated if I could.  Marlith (Talk)  04:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[]

I would suggest there is nothing wrong with the advertising type. The reason the goal is not being reached is pretty simple - the global economic crisis. Last time we had a fundraiser times were good so the money was raised easily. Today that is not the case. (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Why all the image swapping for TFA?

Yes, the triforce. It's still PD and ineligible for copyright? Why swap or remove it so many times when it is apropos?  Marlith (Talk)  05:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[]

See Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 21, 2008#Image. -- (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Yellow triangles

Why are there a set of yellow triangles beside today's FA? The image is not mentioned at all in the text, and is not even included in the article itself. Illustrations on the mainpage should illustrate the text, not intrigue the reader. Please can someone remove the image.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[]

The three triangles are the logo of the Zelda franchise. I think they're most relevant non-copyrighted images that they could find.
They appear (partially obscured) on this particular game's box art. Image:ZeldaOoTbox.png (On the shield.) APL (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Perhaps. But since they are not on the article or mentioned in the text, they are confusing and not illustrative.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Can we keep this discussion in one place? Algebraist 15:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[]
yeah, the image of the triforce will confuse people who are unfamiliar of the subject at hand.  Marlith (Talk) 
Marlith, can we keep this discussion in one place, please? -- (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Who could not know what "Zelda" is? It is one of the most faboral games next to "Mario".Firio (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[]

I didn't know what Zelda was before now. I just read the blurb to find out. SpencerT♦C 00:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[]
I have a great aunt named Zelda - but I gather she's not what you are talking about. --Blake the bookbinder (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[]
We had a TFA on your great aunt? l33t Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[]

You should have a TFA on Pier Gerlofs Donia or, maybe later when it passes GA, on Touch the Clouds. Please look into that. J.B. (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[]

If you want an article to be TFA you need to nominate it at WP:FAC Dark verdant (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Title of News Article

I think, the news article on the Indian Mood Probe is improperly labelled. It currently says "The Moon Impact Probe, released by Indian spacecraft Chandrayaan-1, is successfully crashed into the lunar south pole", whereas the proper way of framing the sentence should be "Successfully landed on the Lunar South Pole" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[]

This has been discussed above: the probe did not land, as that implies a controlled event that does not damage the object. The probe crashed or impacted - it just smacked into the ground at a high velocity. —Vanderdeckenξφ 15:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Indian Mood Probe? What does that do? Sounds interesting. Too bad I already have an account ... it would make a great username. Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Yeah, its improperly labelled, good you noticed! Now notice this: I've got me a kewl signature thanks to OllieFury and Bilby! Jouke Bersma Contribs 11:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[]

There is a discussion above regarding whether it was an impact/crash or if it landed. Also this is not a forum nor for advertisement. Please keep discussion about errors or imporvements to the main page. Dark verdant (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[]


There is a Wikipedia version in Interlingua, its main page link is: Why is Interlingua not in the "Language" box on te left in the english main page? Esperanto is there. It should go between # Hrvatski and # Íslenska. Is there a logic for its exclusion? Could you correct this mistake please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[]

See FAQ --Siradia (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[]


This may not be the place to report this, but why does it say "Support Meta" in the fundraising banner? Did it somehow get mixed up? Lithoderm 01:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[]

And it's back to saying Wikipedia now. Never mind. Lithoderm 02:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[]
The banner crashed on Wiktionary a couple of days ago. As well as being ugly, it's apparently buggy. J Milburn (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[]

On my computer I can't see the main page at all. Danielaustinhall12 (Go Wolverines!) 16:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[]

It's still there. Have you tried purging your cache? J Milburn (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Christmas-themed DYK

I thought I'd give a heads-up here to a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Christmas_DYK. DYK has proposed having a Christmas theme on December 25, and relaxing the rules on when creations/expansions of Christmas-related articles took place to allow more articles on this topic to qualify. This is similar to the recent Halloween theme and an April Fool's theme earlier this year. Other users have suggested that this is biased, as Hannukah, Kwanzaa, and the Islamic New Year all fall during the week of December 25 (Hannukah actually overlaps), but articles about those topics would be excluded from DYK inclusion on the 25th or would not be subject to the same relaxed rules. More voices would be welcome at the discussion to determine a consensus. Karanacs (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Then have a Hannukah+Kwanzaa+Islamic New Year+Christmas-themed DYK week. Happy Holidays! --PFHLai (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[]
  • MerryHappykwanzahannukah.....ah scrap, can't remember that Cell Phone Company (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[]
i agree. do a mix of all them to avoid bias. it would look much more 'international' that way too (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[]

International my ass! If you want to do it international, also include a Sinterklaas theme (there are more dutch people then jews on this earth so sinterklaas would be more suitable then Hanukah would). J.B. (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[]

So go work your ass off to get some Sinterklaas-themed DYKs onto the main page, J.B. -- (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[]

TFA Suggustion

Where could I suggust an article for TFA? "Under the Bridge" was an article I came across today and it looked pretty nice. It hasn't been a TFA as of now so maybe it could be used in the near future. Just a suggustion if someone is ever at a loss. AMM The Great (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[]

You are looking for WP:TFA/R. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[]

ITN deaths again

I thought that deaths (Ibrahim Nasir) were not supposed to be featured in ITN unless the person was a current office holder or the death had some other widespread impact. Has this policy changed? Ellis 01:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

From WP:ITNMP: As of now, deaths are being judged on a case-by-case basis and should not be put up until a consensus has been established on WP:ITN/C.
See also: WP:ITN/C#ITN candidates for November 22. -- (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Hiding TFA

How do I hide the "Featured Article Today" section? I just don't want to look at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Try out some of the versions on Main Page/Alternatives; if you find one you like, bookmark it. Modest Genius talk 21:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Wear a jockstrap. It won't hide the section but it will hide the dirty, embarrassing, ungodly feelings you get by looking at it. -- (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Don't bend the obscure meaning of the above statement. It might have more to do with the film discussed above than any severe allergy to the aforementioned ungodly closeted homosexual desires... --➨Candlewicke  :) Sign/Talk 12:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Albania ITN

I don't want to sound like a whinger, nor am I complaining or saying anything is wrong about this. I am merely pointing out that there are three items concerning Albania in to-day's (11.28) ITN. Thank you for your attention. (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Where? I don't see anything about Albania on ITN right now. -- (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Begging y'all's pardon. I meant OTD. (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[]

It's not that bad. I remembered a few months ago an admin had to add a manga item just to offset the 4 U.S. items. –Howard the Duck 17:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Featured Article Today

This is a minor issue, but the featured article about Harvey Milk, while interesting, is the subject of a film to be released shortly. Unfortunately, after reading the abridged version on the front page I now know what happens in the film. Stupid, I know, but I'd rather not know the ending to films I'm interested in seeing before they come out. In future, perhaps you could wait until after film releases before providing more information. I'm aware that Milk is an established name, but he is not known in England. ([[User

Please see WP:SPOILER Modest Genius talk 19:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Yes, why the hell didn't Wikipedia get into a time machine, go back to 1929, and kill Harvey Milk's parents so that he wouldn't spoil the plot of the movie about his life by living it?
Does Wikipedia even care about its readers? -- (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Such a time machine would better serve Wikipedia if it can be used to prevent vandalism and other dumb edits on this talk page. -- (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Did the information serve an encyclopedic purpose? If the film has not yet been released ought a detailed synopsis be included? Especially if the article itself isn't even about the film but the man within? --➨Candlewicke  :) Sign/Talk 12:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[]
If the film was a fictional story, I might agree. But when you are dealing with a film based on the real life of a notable person from the past, with hundreds of articles and references written about him, I do not see how it is "a spoiler" that needs to be censored from the Main Page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Nobody forced you to read the article. At least, I hope not. Grandmasterka 02:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[]

For what it's worth. let me suggest that the screenwriter and director probably intended the film to be seen by folks broadly familiar with Milk's life, and that the film's characterizations probably cannot be fully appreciated if you don't know the history.--Pharos (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[]

This is one of the more bizzare spoiler complaints I've come across. Let's just hope we don't feature Jesus Christ on the main page. I'm sure there are a lot of people who haven't finished his biographies Nil Einne (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[]
How is the choser of the featured article supposed to know that there is a film coming out about someone. I've never heard of the guy nor knew about a film. Dark verdant (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[]
Well if it's an up to date FA and a film with decent notability the FA itself will probably say. And actually the FA in question does say Nil Einne (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Monitor poll

Polling to figure out who is using what monitor resolution; this way we can factor that into future redesign attempts, as we know stuff shows up differently depending on aspect ratio. Poll is here. Also, we're trying to reach mostly readers; vote on whether or not you'd be ok with using MediaWiki:Sitenotice to notify people of the poll's existence. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 01:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[]

This is silly. The user's browser can be obtained by the site itself - I suggest you contact Wikimedia for some statistics. This poll will only include people who know who to edit, who found the poll, and can be bothered to write in it. --Teggles (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[]
This is nothing to do with their browser, it's the resolution and aspect ratio of their screen, which cannot be obtained from the user agent. —Vanderdeckenξφ 12:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Which is also irrelevant to wikipedia, what's needed is the size of their browser window. Modest Genius talk 17:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[]
In my experience, many people who always browse full-screen can't be easily made to understand that other people don't. It's some sort of weird force of habit thing. You can explain all day the various reasons for browsing windowed, but in the end they still come away thinking that you're talking about some bizarre exceptional circumstances, and a few odd-balls who don't know how to maximize their window. (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[]
The resolution of the user's screen cannot be obtained from the browser ID string (I assume you mean User-Agent), but it can easily be obtained using Javascript's screen.width and screen.height variables. When I said the user's browser, I meant their resolution, which can be easily obtained by the website itself. This poll will be incredibly inaccurate. --Teggles (talk) 12:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Terror attacks in Mumbai


The In the News section describes these attacks as "Terror attacks" - which they obviously are- but doesn't that contravene WP:WTA? NoCal100 (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Pls suggest alternative wording at WP:ERRORS. -- (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[]
Suggestion: "Attacks" instead of "Terror attacks". --Teggles (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[]
Pls suggest alternative wording at WP:ERRORS (or WP:ITN/C.) Posting here doesn't always get you the attention of the right admins. -- (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[]
Done. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 10:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[]

What "at least" Really Means

Concerning the recent terrorist attacks in Mombei, the term "at least (#) killed" was used. The problem is, that a number (190+) seems to to have been settled upon that was at the higher end of the estimated killed. The phrase "at least" should be the SMALLEST number agreed upon (the actual body count was around 80+ during most of this time), not the largest. Current number of those killed is at around 180. If an airplane carrying 200 people goes missing and you find 4 bodies floating in the ocean, the death toll is "at least 4", NOT "at least 200" until you can confirm the plane's wreakage or more bodies. CFLeon (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Pls suggest alternative wording at WP:ERRORS (or WP:ITN/C.) Posting here doesn't always get you the attention of the right admins. -- (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Why is the Main Page in Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2007?

{{sudo}} -- Gurch (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Fixed.-gadfium 18:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[]


"A bombing in Peshawar, Pakistan, kills 17 people and injures at least 47." That should be changed to "kills 29" and "injures over 100" asap. That's what our article says at least. Death tolls have a way of rising. . . --S.dedalus (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Pls suggest re-phrasing at WP:ERRORS (or WP:ITN/C.) Posting here doesn't always get you the attention of the right admins. -- (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Adding Telugu to list of 20K+ languages

Telugu (te) Wikipedia has 40,000 articles, but it has not been listed on the homepage. Can one of the admins add it? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Each Wikipedia must also have a depth of at least 5 to be listed on the main page. Telugu's currently has only a depth of 4. See the FAQ linked at the top of this page for further info. --Siradia (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[]


How long is the donation bar going to stay up? I've been refreshing for a few minutes and no one has donated, I think Wikimedia has to bite the bullet here and realize that everyone who wanted to donate has donated, and that there isn't really a way they're going to get to 6 million dollars without some sort of corporate sponsorship before next years donations are needed. Just a thought, (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Get an account and in your preferences you can remove it. Count Blofeld 10:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[]

I don't see the point of these instructions. I mean creating an account or even logging in is a much bigger pain in the neck than clicking collapse or simply SCROLLING DOWN for God's sake.

One more thing: If the U.S. government can donate 700 billion $ to banks and car companies, surely they can contribute 3 million $ to keep a WORLD OF KNOWLEDGE up and running. Someone should tell them that!!!!!!! (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Well if you can't be bothered to join the community and log in which takes just seconds then don;t expect to have privelages Count Blofeld 12:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Funny. I'm an admin in reality. I just have a policy of not logging in when it isn't needed. Like now! Coz I'm not supposed to be writing this here as a responsible admin. Anyway the point is, being able to make the "Donate Now" box disappear is NOT a privilege!!! (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC) (anonymous)[]

You can always create another account for when you are not editing Nil Einne (talk) 08:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[]

You certainly have a point about the U.S government. $3 million is like 3 cents to every body else. Count Blofeld 13:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[]

If the U. S. government comes up with the $3,000,000, are we going to change all the varied English spellings to American English? --Blake the bookbinder (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[]
Nope. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Doesn't it usually run until the holidays? Besides, it's pretty inconspicuous once you've hit the "Collapse" button. You can do that even as an IP. APL (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Design Suggestion

How about we make the main page bulky and terrible-- stripe the links down the center as a floating table, add a flashing News Alert marquee on the bottom in javascript, articles read in the left frame but always a little too wide so you have to scroll from side to side each line, in your right frame you have your "status", "friends", and a small microsoft banner ad in the bottom corner, and, to finish 'er off, crowned top and center we'll place the new Wikipedia globe: an animated gif that tweaks a little each time it spins all the way around, forever hanging there in its infinite loop-- so that we'll be all jazzed when the after a month when they bring the old Wikipedia back. Any takers? -Bordello (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Go and have fun at Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal. -- (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Access to Wikipedia from UK being blocked

 – See below. —Vanderdeckenξφ 20:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses, which surely deserves mention on the main page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Why would this deserve mention on the main page? Where on the main page do you want this? This is current event, so forget OTD. You obviously don't have a featured article yet, so forget TFA. If you don't have a brand new article or a recently expanded article about this, forget DYK. If you don't have an article substantially updated with news-related materials, forget ITN. Go take some pictures. Good Luck at TFP.  :-) -- (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[]
I agree this is worrying, but I don't think a note on the main page is actually necessary. In response to 74.14..., I think Andy was meaning a general notice at the top of the page, alerting users to the fact that major corporations are telling us what we can and can't view. For what it's worth, the pages have been blocked for me, but I believe you can get around the block by logging on to the secure server. J Milburn (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[]
Whilst I'm glad to have had this brought to my attention, I can't see why or how it should have anything to do with the main page Modest Genius talk 08:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[]
The suggestion was to put mention of it on the main page. The consensus is we shouldn't put it on the main page, but the discussion was on topic Nil Einne (talk) 09:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[]
I see no consensus. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[]
Here's one for you: We are not attention seekers. WP:BEANS. Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message! 20:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[]
Four people (at the time, now apparently six) who understand what the main page is about counts as a consensus when there is only one opposing who seemingly doesn't really understand what the main page is for and has made no solid policy based arguments to counteract the policy based arguments made by the other editors. Note also the discussion was likely seen by more people who didn't voice their opinion because they felt the existing discussion was sufficient to establish there is no reason to put a notice on the main page. Remember consensus is not a vote. Nil Einne (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[]
You appear to dismiss both my knowledge and understanding on the sole basis of disagreeing with them. Consensus is indeed not a vote, which makes your choice to state of numbers somewhat unfathomable. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[]
Not really, no. It has no particular importance when compared to other world news, and is not worth a section of its own. --Kizor 20:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[]
Oh and, WP:POINT. Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message! 21:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[]
This would hardly be the first time that groups have blocked access to part/all of Wikipedia (e.g. Chinese government, Arab governments) - this is just raising a fuss because it's the UK and the technical method caused us noticeable problems. the wub "?!" 21:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[]
Remind me again what percentage of edits come from UK IPs? Have you seen today's press coverage - including the single most popular news story on the BBC website? It links only to Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[]
Given that the media has picked this up and interest - at least in the UK - does indeed appear to be widespread, there seems to be a case for submitting this to WP:ITN/C, which I would encourage you to do. However, it wouldn't surprise me if the editors there reject it on the ground of being a) non unique and b) mostly of interest to UK readers. Good luck though. Modest Genius talk 12:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[]
Guys, WP:SELF. This event has to be notable on its own, not notable and interesting just because it's about WP. —Politizer talk/contribs 16:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[]

What's going on here? Are we delusional? The Wikipedia block is in the main news? Guys, get out of your wikiworld and get back to real-life! --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Pls see WP:ITN/C. -- (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[]
Paradise is Lost on Milton's 400th Birthday? Poor Brits.... -- (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[]
Ha! Cute. -- (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Now resolved - the IWF reversed their decision at 18:30 GMT. The block is now officially lifted, and most ISPs should restore access within 24hrs. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action for more info, current news as it happens and a complete history of the event. —Vanderdeckenξφ 20:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[]
So, Paradise is Regained on Milton's 400th Birthday, too! :-) -- (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Birthday ???

I remember a past posting on this page that stated that birthdays were not placed on the main page, any reason why there is now a birthday? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[]

I don't recall such a post, but according to the OTD guidelines, birthdays should only be listed on centennials; Milton's 400th, therefore, is appropriate. Nufy8 (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[]
Any good reason for having it noted on both OTD and DYK though? I would have thought one mention would be enough... (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[]
Perhaps, but then again the articles in the DYK blurb fit the "nominated article must be no more than five days old" criterion since they were started just a few days ago. I would bring the matter up at Template talk:Did you know if you feel that the Milton references should be scaled back. Nufy8 (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[]
Presumably, starting those articles was prompted by the 400th anniversary. I don't see any problem with using them. Modest Genius talk 22:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Systemic Bias

It is well known that Wikipedia has a systemic bias due to the majority of editors belonging to certain particular identities. There are some attempts to minimize this. At least main page should be devoid of such bias. Featured articles of Video Games is one such thing which keeps coming back on main page. Ahirwav (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[]

If an article is an FA it would've been at the main page no matter what its subject is. Just write articles on "more scholarly" articles so off-set it. Even objecting at WP:FAC on grounds that "it is a video game" won't count either. –Howard the Duck 06:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[]
People edit what they know. Just appears that people work more on building knowledge of video games, as opposed to this. No one's stopping you from adding valuable information to the areas you know most about, and possibly getting them to featured status.  LATICS  talk  06:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[]
Are featured articles selected randomly from the FA list? What is the probability that a video game article should come back so often? Although, I dont have the actual statistics. Ahirwav (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[]
Featured articles aren't chosen randomly. They are chosen by the FA director. However perhaps rather then making random complaints you may want to look at the statistics? Whenever I have I've found we tend to have at most 2 FAs/month on video games, often less. While I'm not saying this isn't still somewhat of a systemic bias we aren't having FAs on video games all the time as you seem to be infering. And I would say we definitely have video game FAs less often then their numbers would imply (in other words theres a bias against video game FAs) Nil Einne (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[]
There are currently 2,327 FAs, of which 104 are classified under 'Video gaming'. If these were chosen from randomly, that would be roughly one gaming TFA every 22 days. I don't think there are significantly more happening than that; there are of course the added complications that the TFAs aren't chosen randomly and the longer an FA has been listed the more likely it is to have been used already. Systemic bias exists, we acknowledge that. The best way to counter it is to write more featured articles in fields such as Linguistics, Chemistry or Philosophy, not doctor the choice of TFA. Modest Genius talk 09:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[]
The last time a video game was featured was November 21. Since then, there have been many TFA's related to famous people. I think famous historical and present-day personages are being unfairly represented. Clearly, we need... dare I say it... moar catz. (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Albert speer selected article

Second time this month this has been a selected article, are they randomly selected or is it manual. Lrodilg (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]

It's a nazi conspiracyJanderVK (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]
Please specify when this month besides today this has been a selected article. Don't lie. -- (talk) 07:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]
See this month's archive, or last month's. Not been selected in either month. The article was only promoted to featured status in late October...  LATICS  talk  07:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]
FAs only get to be on the main page for a day... unless you're Barack Obama. –Howard the Duck 14:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Human Rights violation in main page.


There is a picture in your main page that violates human rights [3]. It is a cropped copy of a picture [4] that has been replaced in commons. I'm not aware if there is another copy. Please replace it.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]

In what way does the image violate human rights? Nufy8 (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]

I'm informing you on the matter with a discussion that took place in the original source of the uploading, in Commons at Please_delete_older_pic_-_human_rights--Dimorsitanos (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]

It seems that the original complaint (which has now popped up lots of places) is that because the guys who covered most of their faces in public didn't cover all of their faces in public, this might violate German personality rights laws (yes, German !?). So far as enwiki goes, that means nothing - there are no restrictions on public photography that apply here. I also don't think anybody's usefully identifiable in the quality image regardless, so there's no real ethical issue in my opinion. Given that this is a useful free image of an actual event that's on the Main Page, it ought to stay. Gavia immer (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]

I agree on the legal issue, but not on the practical or moral ones, I think that some figures are identifiable. So if there is a law on public assembly during riots, or if say, the figure at the back is shown in another picture throwing a stone, then this picture might provide evidence against them Or they might simply not want their family to know that they were there.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]
Would it be inappropriate to say "If you don't want your family to know you took part in a riot, don't take part in a riot?" or "If you don't want pictures of you firebombing police cars all over the Internet, refrain from firebombing police cars?" Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]
This matter is not about distinguishing whether the action and critisism is appropriate or not. I think I highlighted the legal part of the participation (of anyone on the planet) in a possible action of filing in Greece (or elsewhere). --Dimorsitanos (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]
I see no firebombs in the picture. I see four people there only one of which is carrying out a violent act.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]
That's like saying, "If you don't want the police to shoot and kill you, don't throw bombs at them." Which apparantly is a radical idea in Greece. -- (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Notice that I never talked about personality rights or german law. I think I was clear at the original place the file was uploaded in Commons.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]

My understanding of what you were asking at Commons is based on my reading of what you wrote at Commons. Decide for yourself if that makes the original "clear" or not. Gavia immer (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]
I have no clue what human rights were violated. But anyway, a 1/5-reduced version has been uploaded. Faces were already unidentifiable before and should be more unidentifiable now. Hope this helps. --PFHLai (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]
Also note we don't care about German law. Prodego talk 21:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]
No, Dimorsitanos, you are not being clear - at least not clear enough for a situation where someone might disagree with you. You keep repeating that our posting of the photo is a violation of human rights, but you never specify which codification of human rights you refer to (the UN version, the EU version, the USA version? Not everyone agrees what constitutes human rights, let alone how they should be protected.). Nor do you ever clearly articulate which particular principle you believe is being violated. Even if you have, you haven't clarified how the codex and principle you have in mind is specifically applicable to this particular photo, or how the Wikimedia foundation (specifically the English Wikipedia), being headquartered in the USA, is bound (either legally or morally) to follow these particular principles. In this and other things, you are more likely to get the desired effect by fully explaining yourself, rather than making strident demands (which is how your first message above comes off). Accusing someone of a human rights violations is a serious accusation - you should be prepared to back up such an accusation with evidence. -- (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]
First of all, I should be prepared to do so if I had made an accusation against a spesific person or entity and one reading the discussion would probably find it difficult to prove so. There are spesific articles in the greek constitution I am prepared to explain if called to do so within a legal context (and not a discussion and first warning context) for a possible moral firing (even not consciously) of the intense conditions right now in Greece, after a possible case of filing people (or participating in the act by keeping copies of filed people) in a small town. --Dimorsitanos (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Also notice that I do not practice law myself but may hire a professional for a possible legal case and explain the case in detail if called to do so.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]

It's strange but although resolution is low, when i click on the image it opens in full resolution. I don't know if it is my computer or your system. Also, in commons, an original file of the uncropped image is kept at the bottom. I asked for the deletion of the history files that could be retrieved by someone too. Keeping these files may considered an act of filing itself. (in US law too)--Dimorsitanos (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Clicking the image opens the low res image. That image has a link to the high resolution version. The reason we use low res is only to save bandwith, so that everyone visiting the main page doesn't have to download huge files. Prodego talk 21:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]
Dimorsitanos, if you want things done at WCommons, please ask at WCommons. The only version of the image in question we still have in English Wikipedia is a cropped, reduced copy used as a thumbnail. It's a temporary image file meant to be used on MainPage briefly, and will be deleted soon after. There is NO clear violation of any human rights, and German laws don't apply. Can we get back to building this encyclopedia? No legal threats, please! --PFHLai (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]
When did I ever talk about german laws? When did I ever say that if not taken away, legal action on my behalf will take place? When did I say that I am their representative? (I think I cannot communicate in here' I feel like talking to martians).--Dimorsitanos (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]
Just because Wikipedia has some certain policies (like the one you mention) or procedure rules, doesn't mean that anyone (user of visitor) making an ethical precautionary warning is bound by them and obliged to be aware and follow all of them before making a statement. Wikipedia policies are not god's word, neither legislated by UN legislators.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]
When you edit in Wikipedia, you are expected to observe the rules in Wikipedia. Who wrote up the rules is not relevant. Just don't bring in lawyers, please. That's not cool. --PFHLai (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]
You didn't talk about German laws. But since you never mentioned which laws you were talking about, User:abf at Wikimedia Commons tried to be helpful and pointed to a German page which he thought may have been applicable. You never corrected him, or provided an alternate page describing what you actually were talking about. You made legal threats when you said that you "may hire a professional for a possible legal case". The implication that I (and probably PFHLai) took away was that the legal case would be against the Wikimedia foundation and/or the uploader for posting the picture. I admit that in retrospect your phrasing is unclear, but that's why you feel like you're talking to martians: you never clearly explain yourself, so the rest of us are left trying to read your mind. In fact, you seem opposed to clear communication, as when I point-blanked asked you to specify what particular human rights are being violated, you refused to. At this point I want to assume good faith, but I have a sneaking suspicion that we are being trolled. (BTW, if you are not their representatives, you may want to read up on Legal standing before you hire that lawyer.) -- (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Well anyways the action captured doesn't qualify as riot. Some kids are standing right outside Komitini university campus. Presumably they are on protest or something. The police is standing by, and has just thrown a tear gas canister at them (visible is the smoke and also their irritated expression). Three of them obviously decided they have the right to stand on their grounds, one of them that he has the right to throw back o rock, while the girl at the back is kind of thinking about it.--Vanakaris (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]

I can't see any reason presented as to why that image should be removed. The only thing presented is a vague suggestion that there might be some possible legal action in Greece by persons unidentified under some unspecified law. If there's some particular legal or moral reason why the pic shouldn't be used, please state it (you're not the only one who feels like they're talking to Martians). Better yet, nominate the picture for deletion and cogently explain your reasons there. And bear in mind WP:LEGAL, including WP:NPLT. Modest Genius talk 22:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Dimorsitanos, the image you have a problem with is Commons:File:Dec2008-riot-komotini-2.jpg. Please post your complaints at WCommons, not here. That image is not on our MainPage. The image on MainPage is File:Dec2008-riot-komotini-2 M-cropped - ITN.jpg, a temporary thumbnail on ITN. Please clearly explain what human rights have been violated in this image. I don't see any. I can't even see those faces that clearly. --PFHLai (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]

Thanks PFHLai. I brought the subject here because there was a cropped picture of the same file in the main page of the english wikipedia. But since the file was modified, there isn't much to talk about in here. Notice though that I didn't ask for the file to be reduced in size but just having the faces blurred in order for the picture not to lose its encyclopeadic value.

As for 128.... you can't assume good faith and accuse someone of trolling at the same time, so I turn the accusations back. I specified that a professional lawyer may be hired in order to offer legal advise on how to justify in legal words what I have in mind as a moral firing of negative events in an eruptive atmosphear in Greece, after rumours circulating that there may be cases of secret filing of educators that take part in protests, in order for them to face the consequencies. I did not state that I would hire the lawyer to take legal actions against wikipedia or spesific users. I made that statement because you warned me that I have to be prepared to justify an accusation of human rights violation and I responded that I might hire a professional If called to do so. So instead of misinterpretating my words, you could focus on more productive things. Just because US citizens may be safe from getting charged with accusations from a law that applies in Germany of Greece, doesn't mean they should not consider the moral duty of thinking of the harm that may be caused to another person or organization in another country.

As for Modest, yes this is what that's all about... a vague suggestion before turning irrevocably into a real problem for the people taking part in the protests and making things more eruptive right now in Greece. I do not think that the file should be deleted. I just said that the people indicated should be protected.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]

 – The image on MainPage has been modified and does not pose a problem. This issue is considered resolved. --PFHLai (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[]
I apologize for the accusation of trolling. Voicing my suspicions served no useful purpose, and only served to make me look like an ass now that it has become clear that you weren't. Regarding making accusations of human rights violations, you already did so in your initial post: "There is a picture in your main page that violates human rights" - it was this statement which I was asking you to justify. The productive goal to which I applied (and with this comment still apply) myself to was to encourage you clarify and strengthen your position, so that we could resolve the situation to the satisfaction of all. In the future, when asking for someone to do something, I would strongly encourage you to be more forthcoming in why you think that that something should be done. By my reading, a number of the respondents of this discussion were not convinced that even the original picture violated human rights. I will agree with you - if the picture can be shown to violate human rights in the relevant jurisdiction, it should be removed. However, I haven't seen that evidence, and encourage you to provide it in the relevant locations (which, now that the discussion here is marked as resolved, would be here) -- (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[]
Apology accepted. I should probably say "Fears of possible human rights violation", but after posting the same message at many relevant pages, it was a mistake out of momentum. My wish is to avert a problem before it happens, even though greek wikipedians think that I am overreacting since such content has been circulating around the net for a long time. I believe that means with such publicity as wikipedia should be more cautious in order to prevent a negative reaction. I did take the matter up to the commons administrators, after my wish was reverted at the village pump.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[]