Talk:Main Page/Archive 45

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 40 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 50


Under the Did You Know section: ...that the town of Moronvilliers was totally destroyed in WWI and was also a dite for French dry-nuclear testing?
Someone with the right privledges ought to change "dite" to "site." -- 22:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Fixed. Thanks. Shanes 22:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[]

align images

if you look at ITN/DYK on the de: Hauptseite, you'll note that they align images with the paragraph they actually refer to; why shouldn't en: imitate this, it would make for a much less confusing Main Page. 16:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Besides the obvious consequence that it'll make the layout look uneven, I think the basic idea behind this suggestion is a good one. And if the uneven layout is too big of a problem, maybe we could as a rule let the first item in ITN/DYK be the one matching the picture. --Codemonkey 00:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[]
DYK always has the image with the article it relates to on top, ITN is a pit more variable.--nixie 00:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[]
  • Yes, unless it has been changed, the first listed DYK item should be related to the image, or rather viceversa. - Mgm|(talk) 11:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Polish Names

Isn't the "that not all Polish names end in -ski?" rather ignorant or insulting ? Robmods 17:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[]

I thought it was too. It seems inappropriate for Wikipedia, especially on the main page. -- 20:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Since both the article and the DYK entry were written by a Pole - they didn't seem to think so.--nixie 00:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[]

I thought they meant it was insulting to non-Poles, because it implies we would be amazed to know that. I agree. 02:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[]
I was not insulted. I think that the intent was not to insult, but rather to sound inquisitvely enthusiastic. Call me naïve, but I believe that people do not set out to write insulting articles in Wikipedia. I try to give everyone the good ol' NPOV benefit of the doubt. I thought that it was a pretty cute lead in to morphology of Polish surnames. My $.02. CVS
In fairness, the anonymous editor didn't say the insult was intentional. — Pekinensis 19:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[]
DID YOU KNOW.... That not all black people are stupid? Descendall 01:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[]
I thought it was harmless :). Thue | talk 17:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[]
I thought it was harmless :). Thue | talk 17:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Rosh Hashanah

Why isn't Rosh Hashanah listed in the Selected Anniversaries? 20:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Because Rosh Hashanah (unlike, say, Christmas or New Years) is based on the lunar calendar instead of the Gregorian one (and thus does not stay the same from year to year) →Raul654 20:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[]
This is a technical obstacle, but not an insuperable one. Doops | talk 20:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Yeah, but it's not an anniversary, stricly speaking. --fvw* 03:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Actually, it's almost the prototypical anniversary, strictly speaking. There's just a funny year involved. Doops | talk 05:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Are you saying that the Lunar claendar as calculated by Judaism is not a year? Rosh HaShanah is on the 1 and 2 of Tishray every Hebrew year, just as New Years is on 1 January. It is an anniversary; just because the secular and jewish calendars don't operate relative to each other does not mean it is not a year.

Actually, Rosh Hashanah was not listed in the Selected Anniversaries template on October 4 because I had posted it on October 3 and indicated that it "begins at sunset". (See Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/October 3.) Is this a problem ? I thought the feast was on the evening of October 3. No ? ... Come to think of it, what I did won't work well on the US West Coast. It was already October 4 by UTC time before their sunset, and the MainPage gets changed at midnight UTC. It works for local time in Israel, though. -- PFHLai 06:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Days in Judaism begin at Sunset and end the next Sunset, except for holy days, which end when three stars shine. Therefore, Rosh HaShanah goes from 10/3 at sunset to 10/5 at night.

Nobel Prizes

Shouldn't the news headline focus on all the Nobel Prizes rather than just the physics one?

but the physics one was today Broken S 21:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Only the medicine and physics winners have been announced so far. Chemistry is October 5, Peace Prize is October 7, Economics is October 10 and Literature prize will be announced at a later date. Evil MonkeyHello 23:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[]


Under "Tu’i Tonga Empire", "influencial" should be "influential". AnonMoos 23:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Vandals right in your face.

You can fix the news image of Harriet Myers and Bush now, thank you very much. Kreachure 00:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[]

See below. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[]

F---ed Up Image

(Sorry, I had to tame the offensive language. The meaning won't be lost by using dashes. -- PFHLai 06:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC))[]

Some vandal has replaced the image of Miers with apparantly Teddy Roosevelt. --Boycottthecaf 00:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Yeah, it was a commons photo and someone uploaded that one to that location. Someone then uploaded it from commons and protected it. However no one purged the cache, which I promptly did, and it should be fixed now. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Ramadan: Featured tomorrow?

I would like to know if Ramadan will be featured tomorrow, since Rosh Hashanah was not featured today. (SeanMcG 02:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC))[]

What do you mean by "featured"? Neither Ramadan nor Rosh Hashanah are featured articles and thus cannot be the featured article on the main page. →Raul654 03:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Sorry, I meant to say if it will be in the "In the News" section (SeanMcG 04:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC))[]
Probably doesn't belong there way would be to make provision for including certain "movable feasts" in "featured anniversaries." Doops | talk 05:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Actually, Ramadan was on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/October 4, as the festivities were supposed to start at sunset on October 4. Where the heck is the new moon ? -- PFHLai 06:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[]

I thought about re-posting Ramadan on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/October 5, and changed my mind after searching for Ramadan on Google news. Apparently, many other countries in the world indeed started the festivities in the evening of October 4. I plan to handle Laylat al-Qadr and Eid ul-Fitr the same way -- go by the astronomical calculations, instead of checking the sky myself. -- PFHLai 06:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[]

King of England

On the newset articvle section, King of England is mentioned. There was no 'King of England 'at this time: George III was king of Great Britain, as the act of Union had united England and Scotland in 1707.

I just changed this in the article, an admin will have to change it on the template. Ziggur 11:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Fixed in the template as well. Thanks. Shanes 11:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Nobel Chemistry

Can a sysop update the front page with the Nobel Prize for Chemistry result. Batmanand 14:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[]


No, asthma is not a disease of the respiratory system, it is a whole-body genetic disorder manifested in the respiratory system. Asthma manifests as a hyperactivity of the muscles of the lungs causing difficulty in breathing. Other manifestations of the same disorder are hyperactivity in general; "Attention Deficit Disorder"; "Hyperactive Deficit Disorder", and other such symptoms.

The disorder is best treated not by drugs but by teaching affected children relaxation techniques; muscle control; stress and anger management; and by no means last that they are not affected by disease but an inherited genetic anomaly.

It is important for such an influential journal to get this right. Were the matter posted on a normal editable page I would have simply edited it. That it is posted on an uneditable main page is unfortunate.

Asthma and its related disorders caused great suffering. We might rather seek to alleviate that suffering.


Asthma "is not a disease of the respiratory system"? I disagree. Gil, your claim that "asthma manifests as a hyperactivity of the muscles of the lungs" is too simplistic. Your comparison with attention deficit disorder is inappropriate. You think that asthma is best treated by teaching relaxation technique? There is no randomized controlled evidence to support your claim. On the other hand, there are many such studies that show beneficial outcomes with drug treatment. Asthma does indeed cause great suffering. Too many people die because of inadequately treated asthma. If only those people received appropriate drug treatment in good time, their deaths could be avoided. Axl 15:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Gil, "hyperactivity" can mean so many things. Don't equate them when you see the same word. .... sigh .... It's not "unfortunate" that "it is posted on an uneditable main page". "Whole-body genetic disorder manifest in the respiratory system" ? Excuse my ignorance. What is that ? -- PFHLai 16:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[]
What is a genetic disorder also called? Oh, right - a disease. As Axl says, your attempt to conflate ADHD with the actions of involuntary muscles in the respiratory tract is silly. I also encourage you to attempt to teach a six year old child relaxation techniques before so blithely advocating them here. — ceejayoz 17:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[]

asthma= chronic REACTIVE airway DISORDER, it's exacerbated by many means ex: dust, chemicals in the air, excitability, smoke and etc. The bronchioles spasm out of control not allowing proper air exchange and they fill up with mucous causing edema (swelling) to the inner lining of the lung (thus treatment is necessary to relieve the spasm and dry the mucous to allow air passage)and can possibly cause suffocation and aventually death if not relieved. Yes it's concidered a disease. just my 0.02cnts and some experience.--Charle301 16:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Asthma is a lung disease. When was the last time you saw a patient with severe asthmatic attack to the point of respiratory arrest and ask him/her to do "relaxation therapy"? You'd kill the patient. (preceding unsigned comment by Chongvictor (talk · contribs) 04:20, 2005 October 13)

Minor language use.

In the "Did you know..." section it says:
...that the British Army used the Gatling gun in the combat for the first time at the Battle of Ulundi during the Anglo-Zulu War?

it should be this:
...that the British Army used the Gatling gun in ((the)) combat for the first time at the Battle of Ulundi during the Anglo-Zulu War?

or, maybe, this:
...that the British Army used the Gatling gun for the first time in the combat at the Battle of Ulundi during the Anglo-Zulu War?

(preceding unsigned comment by (talk · contribs) 21:38, 2005 October 5)

I just took out the extra 'the'. Thanks for pointing this out. -- PFHLai 21:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Temporar faulty

According to the main page 67 people have died in Mexico, according to Current Events and it's source 66 people have died in Mexico. (But I can't find where to correct this.)

(preceding unsigned comment by (talk · contribs) 09:33, 2005 October 6)

ITN on the MainPage reflects Wikipedia contents. Current events reflects content of newspapers. Both can be outdated. What is the death toll now ? By the way, it's not Mexico. -- PFHLai 09:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[]

The Mandinka link is to a disambiguation page

The Mandinka link in today's Did you know is actually to a disambiguation page. It should actually be to Mandinka people.

Fixed. Thanks! -- grm_wnr Esc 12:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[]

What happened?

I'm assuming it was either a mistake or vandalism, but there isn't anything around the outside of the main page anymore, just the main content. Does anyone know what happened? --Madison Gray 01:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[]

It was cleaned up, so a lot of stuff that was just clutter was taken out. Zach (Sound Off) 03:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[]
What was missing ? The navigation, search and tool boxes ? I think that thing are just loading on screen more slowly these days. -- PFHLai 05:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[]

# of Articles

The main page uses the exact # of articles without apparently being updated all the time. Is there a way I can use the # in an article?

{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} puts this in. Please do NOT use it in an article, however (if you want to put it on your user page, that's fine. But it is NEVER relevant in an article (not even the article on Wikipedia uses it). Ral315 WS 21:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[]


Hammer and sickle.png

OMG, Wikipedia's clear communist bias is apparent from today's main page, with with Che Gueverra, Sun Yat Sen, and Sochi, Russia all being highlghted on the main page! →Raul654 09:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Emmm..., I thought Dr. Sun, co-founder of the Kuomintang, would be on the Nationalists' side, with the Communists on the other side. No ?..... I think the commies are at the bottom only. Maybe Wikipedia is suppressing them ... :-) -- PFHLai 13:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Not quite - Sun is unique in that *BOTH* the communists AND the nationalists consider him one of theirs. →Raul654 16:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[]
This makes him, at the most, a semi-commie ! -- PFHLai 18:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Pffft...details... →Raul654 20:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Duh! Remember, the GPL and its derivatives are commie plots, and guess what license Wikipedia uses?! — ceejayoz 01:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Arbcom is communism. Larry Sanger is Marx. RickK is Che. Raul654 is Castro. And word has it that I'm Stalin. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Can I be Trotskij? If so, please don't kill me. gkhan 10:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Raul654 I really thought you were WiC. These pranks are immature and frankly not funny and I think you'll lose your arbcom bid because of them ;-) before you call that an attack see [1]. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[]

hello? I am used to anon losers shouting Commiepedia!! here, but seasoned Heroes of Wikilabour with 25370 edits? I must say... 10:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[]

I must say that frankly, I'm quite comforted to know that being in the higher echelons of Wikipedia does not take away your sense of humour. ;) --Codemonkey 12:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[]
(Reply to the Anon) As Codemonkey says, the above comments were made with tongue planted firmly in cheek (heck, I'm the one who scheduled Sun Yat Sen for the main page!). →Raul654 13:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Naw, if this were commie, it would be This is .org. Wadsworth 19:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[]

You do realize that aliases to , right? →Raul654 19:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[]

best 5 out of 8?

"5 games to 3"? --JWSchmidt 11:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[]

One would have to assume that they played a best-of-nine wins game, so when one of the teams got 5 games, they had won. (infact, I just checked the article 1919 World Series, and it appears to be just so) gkhan 11:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Odd, eh ? That's why it was posted on the MainPage, hoping people would click and read. :-) -- PFHLai 18:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Mac IE

On Macintosh Internet Explorer, the "In the news" section is stretched waaaay off the edge of the screen, with a big empty space in the bbox, with the "Featured article" squeezed over in the left side. It didn't use to look like that. 17:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Try Safari, it's free from Apple and is more up-to-date than IE which has not been supported by MS for some time now. Another option would be Firefox, another free browser that is more advanced than IE for Mac. --hydnjo talk 03:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[]
I'm probably asking a stupid question, but are we sure there's no practical way to fix this problem? I hate IE for Mac as much as anybody, but "get a real browser" seems like an awkward sort of fix for people who like IE (for some reason). Lord Bob 03:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[]
OK, I went and fired up IE (geesh it's even slower than I remembered) and indeed there is a serious problem with rendering the Mainpage. Other pages render properly so it is a problem with the Mainpage code somehow. This would seem to be the right place to bring it up but if there is no response here then where else should it be posted? --hydnjo talk 19:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Or is this subject too old to even be noticed in the Mainpage talk? THIS IS A TEST I quess. --hydnjo talk 03:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Quit true, quite true i had it checked out.

I have system 9, and can't get Safari or Firefox, and Netscape is slooooow (same person as above) 12:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[]

WTF is Leif Erikson day

and why does it deserve a mention on the main page? -- 21:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[]

So people like you will learn about Leif Erikson? (SEWilco 21:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC))[]
I know about Leif Erikson, I meant since when does he have a holiday? I've certainly never heard of it. -- 23:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[]
If the article doesn't say he has a holiday, it might just mean that someone such as the Governor of Minnesota issued a proclamation to honor him. But the Anniversaries on the Main Page should have proper links. (SEWilco 20:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC))[]
MainPage linked to Leif Erikson Day on that day. Is there a more proper link ? (for next year) -- PFHLai 02:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[]
  • Probably because you're not Scandinavian. But since it's an important historical figure, I think any holiday in his name would deserve mentioning on the main page even if some don't know him. All the better to learn about him and the holiday. - 11:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[]
  • gosh, imagine an encyclopedia with 750k articles telling you something that you didn't know, how neat is that!
    • Happy Leif Erikson day! Yahinga, dinga, durgen! Ral315 WS 04:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[]


post info on cerebral palsy

Er... Cerebral Palsy--Sean Jelly Baby? 16:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[]


had to work for a while to get to this page, but Is anyone else getting this message on any random page? Fatal error: Call to undefined function: linkprefix() in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/Parser.php on line 1232 Wikipedia's slow, and there must be some error...-- WB 00:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Yup, me too. It happens all the time (i.e., refreshing gives the same error) on some pages (e.g. WP:VPT), and not at all on most. ~~ N (t/c) 00:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Admins.. please fix a grammatical error on dyk.

In today's entry, the phrase "which is currently spoken by less than 100 people," should read "which is currently spoken by fewer than 100 people." Please fix this problem; I would if I could. --Zantastik talk 09:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[]

This is one of the tiredest pedantic contentions in English usage. Less means fewer. Languages evolve. Get over it. CalJW 10:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[]
It doesn't hurt if we change it to "fewer". So changed it. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 10:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Nobel Economics

I know it always seems to be me, but can a sysop put up the Nobel Economics result 2005 ( Thanks! Batmanand 12:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Sysop help needed

Someone please update the news section with Merkel becoming new Chancellor:

It has been waiting for hours now. Someone need to frequent that page on a regular basis if the news template has to be protected.

I've updated the template with this now. Shanes 13:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[]
The headline is misleading. She's now the leading candidate for chancellor, but she has yet to be confirmed by the Bundestag. Schroeder will remain chancellor through October 22. Ephemeral life 14:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Chenged it to "will become" to fix this. That she actually will become chancelor seems pretty certain, I've seen news reports on it all day, and CNN just aired a confirmation. Shanes 14:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[]
I'm not convinced that she is Chancellor yet. The latest news reports state that she is 'poised to become' Chancellor, but hasn't actually got the job yet. --Heron 14:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[]
I don't think there's any doubt that she will become Chancellor, but Wikipedia shouldn't really be written in the future, and things could change at the last minute (if SPD members rebel, maybe, or meteors start falling on Berlin - anything can happen in the next 12 days).

There is an error in the news. A coalition of SPD and CDU/CSU is not a "Jamaica Coalition" (this name applies to a coalition of CDU/CSU, FDP and Green Party, due to the three parties' colours black, yellow and green). A coalition of CDU/CSU and SPD is called a "Grand Coalition". -- 21:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[]

terrorist communication?

I've heard that wikipedia is being used by radical islamists to communicate, that they post from public computers onto the talk pages... is that true?

-- 20:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Unlikely. An awful communication method it would be, with everything being edited to have different meanings or simply vanishing. There are plenty of less visible and more secure means of communication. (SEWilco 20:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC))[]
This is untrue. Any discussion not relevant to the article (note that's the article itself, not its subject) is removed immediately, and as SEWilco points out, it's a stupid way to carry on a private conversation. — Dan | Talk 20:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Well, to be fair, it's not just talk pages; I understand that they've made some very useful contributions to the recent proposed move of Independent school (UK). And I'm hoping for their input on Hunt the Wumpus. Doops | talk 20:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Doops, I do not understand? On hunt the Wumpus or indepentent school there is nothing about terror?

terror is very scary, no jokes should be made.

everyone, apart from Doops: thank you for the answer, very much.

-- 20:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Actually, from what I understand, Hunt the Wumpus is a terrorist training tool, and BASIC is widely regarded as the "Terrorist's choice of defunct progamming language." Just so you know :).--Sean Jelly Baby? 01:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Terrorist are using computers to communicate. We need to get these machines banned before people are harmed.--Clawed 09:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[]

OMG how could we not see this! The Pokemon articles are CIPHER used by EVIL TERRORISTS to communicate !!

Did you know that if you listen to the Spoken Wikipedia articles backwards they are all recipes for explosives? Batmanand 13:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Jamaica coalition.

Angela Merkel will become Germany's new Chancellor, leading a "Jamaica coalition" between SPD and CDU/CSU.

this is wrong, surely? it should be a grand coalition. jamaica coalition would have to involve the FPD and the Greens.

YES, it is wrong! Jamaican coalition would be if the FDP (yellow) took part and the CDU (black) and the Greens (green), now it is only a black/red-coalition between CDU (black) and SPD (red).

  • I confirm, it is wrong; it is a "grosse koalition", or "grand coalition" in English. --Angelo 21:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[]

wouldnt it be nice if people checked what they posted :rollseyes:

This is correct, a coalition of CDU/CSU and SPD is a grand coalition. Also, please note that Angela Merkel will not certainly become Germany's next chancellor, as the parties have only agreed to START coalition talks --- nothing more.

erm. as i said it would be nice if people checked....

This is not a Jamaica coalition.... Serious problem. Tfine80 21:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Fixed. ~~ N (t/c) 21:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Selected anniversaries

Why 1954 anniversary is below 1962 anniversary on the current Main Page version? Cmapm 01:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. -- PFHLai 02:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Incorrect Czech-language Wikipedia link title

The link to the Czech language Wikipedia should say "Česky", not "Česká". -- Hexagon1 12:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

according to the german website spiegel, it's more then 40,000 pouple.

I'm sorry, but what does a German news portal have to do with the correct spelling of the name of the Czech language in Czech? Please clarify. -- Hexagon1 04:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't. I imagine that "Česká" was copy-pasted from "Česká Wikipedie" by somebody who didn't know what he was doing. I believe that this is the feminine adjective, meaning "something that is both Czech and feminine"; "Česky" would mean "in the Czech language", which would be better, but note that the 'native' article for the Czech language is entitled Čeština, so it may be better to use that. 08:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

that said, I notice that even the Slovak Wikipedia gives "Česká (čeština)", so it cannot be that wrong after all :confused:. 08:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Čeština is the shortened noun form of the Czech language (the full being "Český Jazyk"), but "Česky" means "in Czech", so I think using that would be preferable. As for the Slovak wikipedia link, I presume it was taken from the main page, and no-one bothered to change it. -- Hexagon1 10:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


are photons present in all forms of light?

No. Photons are part of an outdated theory by Issac Newton. It has been known since the 19th century that light is a wave that travels through the luminiferous aether, a medium permeating the universe. I'm glad I could clear up this matter for you. AngryParsley 18:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[]
After doing more research on the subject, it turns out both Newton's theory and my original explanation were wrong. Light is neither a particle nor a wave, but a combination of the two known as a warticle. AngryParsley 19:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[]
OK, I'm going to be honest. Yes, all forms of light are made of photons. In fact all forms of EM radiation are particles called photons. But if you study quantum mechanics it gets hairier. Photon explains the whole thing better than I can. Ahh dan, why did you ruin my fun? I was going to explain the real answer eventually. AngryParsley 19:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[]
In fact, a "particle of light" is called a photon; it appears to follow that all light does contain photons. I'm no physicist, of course, but I'm quite sure Mr. Parsley is pulling your leg, so to speak. :-)Dan | Talk 19:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[]

IPs hate Wario.

Sad truth. ;< - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Typo 2

Under Did You Know section: "that Abelisaurus had a lighter skull that other dinosaurs due to large fenestrations behind its eyes?" "that" should be "than." - 21:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Taprogge GmbH DYK

The Taprogge GmbH should not be linked from the main page: it's extremely one sided POV stuff. Interesting, but not up to featured article status by a long chalk. I've added a POV plate pending improvements. See the contibutor list and discussion page on that page. Mat-C 21:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[]

I don't understand the relevance of not being a featured article; the vast majority of articles the Main Page links to are not featured articles. — Knowledge Seeker 22:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[]
I don't think it should be on the main page either. Wikipedia doesn't want to be filled with commercial tat, and linking to it from the main page is only rewarding the company. Common sense should have prevented this from happening. -- 01:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[]

The article is well written and informative, POV issues have been addressed. There are few criteria for dyk- and I see no reason why a company or person that does something unique should be barred from inclusion.--nixie 02:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Well, mentioning a company on MainPage has the appearance of a subtle advertisement on the front page. Other than that, it's okay. -- PFHLai 15:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Better that than being systematic bias against commercial entities in the project. We see enough of that on AfD thanks very much! Pcb21| Pete 15:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Link to disambiguation page on Did you know

Please link to the correct condenser on the Did you know box. -- Marco 08:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Hispanic Day

Why in the selected anniversaries, oct 12th stand only in spain as Hispanidad Day? as far as i know october 12th is a holiday throught latinamerica, although can change offical denomination from country to country and from time to time, as Venezuela´s last change of denomination, but basically remains the same, the anniversary of Columbus arrival to America... (preceding unsigned comment by (talk · contribs) 17:58, 2005 October 12 (UTC))

Ooops... Wish I had seen this yesterday. It should read "Hispanic Day in Spain and many Latin American countries ....". Just fixed the template, good for next year.... -- PFHLai 22:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[]


Regarding Columbus, plesase: DO SOMETHING!!!!!!Argentino 19:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[]

What's wrong with Columbus ? -- 00:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Francisco Pradilla Ortiz

"..produced over a 1,000 paintings.." should be "..produced over 1,000 paintings.." Ekem 00:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Fixed. ~~ N (t/c) 00:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[]

typo at DYK

...that Operation Gibraltar was the name given to the failed plan by the Pakistan to infiltrate Jammu and Kashmir, India and start a rebellion and that it eventually sparked the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965?

I don't think the highlighted 'the' should be there. Can someone with sysop powers fix that, please ? -- 01:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Fixed. Shanes 01:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Thank you for the speedy fixing. -- 01:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Featured article - protected source?

I thought that FAs on the main page were protected. For some reason, they (and their images?) are not right now. Is it possible to do so? Ancheta Wis 02:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[]

The blurb that appears on the main page is protected (Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 13, 2005). The article itself is not - see user:Raul654/protection →Raul654 02:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Small changes

Place the categories like the Swedish Wikipedia's Main Page (in the middle). I'm using a Windows 98 computer right now and I can't see the dots used to separate "Wikipedia FAQs · Browse · A–Z · Portals · Ask a Question" (all i can see is an empty rectangle). I therefore suggest that you change the dot to "-".

Changed. I hate the "·" too. Too small for my eyes. -- PFHLai 09:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[]
There is still one "-" missing between Portals and Ask a Question. Samohyl Jan 10:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Ooops ... sorry. Thanks, DavidLevinson, for fixing it. -- PFHLai 17:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Flags vs. Photographs

It seems to me that when selecting images for the main page there should be a bias in favor of photographs and against flags and coats-of-arms, unless the news story, DYK article, or anniversary is specifically about the flag or coat of arms (e.g. "Somewhereville votes to adopt a new and controversial flag" or "DYK that the Coat of Arms of the Principality of Wales is based on the arms borne by the famous mediaeval Welsh prince Llywelyn the Great?" or "12th of Never: the flag of somewhereopolis (right) is officially banned in neighboring somewhereville"). All those cases are OK; what's silly, in my view, is illustrating an article about something or somebody or some news story with a flag. Today, for instance, there was an attack on Nalchik. Now the news event is the attack; so to illustrate it there should really be a photograph of the fighting. Failing that, we should give serious thought to illustrating the second or third story instead, with a picture of Pinter or the Chinese spacecraft.

Sometimes, when a news story involves an obscure location, a map could be a useful illustration as long as it actually shows the site involved; but by and large, I think preference should go to actual photographs. Same thing goes for DYK or Selected Anniversaries: maybe a national holiday merits a flag; but it's ridiculous to illustrate Canadian Thanksgiving with a flag of Canada or St. Lucia's day with a flag of Sweden. A nwe article on a Jamacian cricketer is illustrated with a photo of him or no picture at all; the Jamacian flag would be pointless. Doops | talk 21:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Of course. The problem is that we don't always have suitable, free images to choose from. If a flag or an insignia of some space mission is shown on Selected Anniversaries, it means the Wikieditor responsible (usually me) has given up looking. However, I have to say that it has been easier this year, thanks to Wikimedia Commons. -- PFHLai 21:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Yeah, of course there isn't always a good image. But that should play a factor when deciding which news story/anniversary/new article to illustrate. Today's "In the News" is a good example. Doops | talk 22:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[]
I don't like the current image, either. But I can't find a good replacement. Is there a better choice than Image:Harold Pinter.jpg ? I'd like to avoid fairuse pics. -- PFHLai 23:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[]
  • I don't think that whether there's an image should play a major role in selecting items for the main page. Otherwise, we'd never be able to include recent news items on say the Asian earthquake. - 08:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[]
    • I didn't mean that we'd use the availability of images as a determining factor when deciding what to include, just when deciding which of the things we've included get illustrated. Doops | talk 18:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[]
  • still, a map would be easy to produce, and more informative than a coat of arms. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 18:15, 14 October 2005.
    • go ahead and draw the map. no one is stopping you -- 20:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[]
      • look, I realize someone has to sit down and do it, and I don't blame you personally for not drawing one. I was just pointing out that in this discussion between "flags" and "photographs", there is a third option. 14:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

"In the news" change needed

Kashmir Earthquake 2005 briefing in the "in the news" section should say Pakistan before India, just because of the larger majority of the disaster/casualties being on the Pakistani side. Thanks. a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[]


im korean, and im getting my firend who can speak enlish to write this for me. is there any way you can get korean as a language to read?

Yes, go to ko:대문. --cesarb 01:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[]


im korean, and im getting my firend who can speak enlish to write this for me. is there any way you can get korean as a language to read? (Kyung ho Park)

Try the Korean wikipedia on: It's not as complete as the english wikipedia, but maybe you can help it improve? Shanes 01:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[]
I think that it would help if someone added in the inter-language links to the main pages for the other projects. That would have helped to keep this question from being asked. --EMS | Talk 04:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[]
P.S. It looks like you can easily get a good interwiki list from another main page (such as de: or ko:). Just remember to replace its [[en:]] entry with the one for the project the list was taken from. It may also be a good idea to verify that the list is currently complete while you are at it. (Maybe a robot could help with this?) --EMS | Talk 04:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[]
I think the question may be about encoding issue, and he wants to know how to install hangul fonts?
I'm sure if he's Korean, can't speak English, and uses the Internet, he has Hangul fonts. ~~ N (t/c) 13:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[]

the line under links

I wasn't sure where to ask this, but, what's up with all the lines being removed from under the links? The Wookieepedian 21:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Yes I noticed that too; I don't know why it is happening. I preferred it the other way. --Kilo-Lima 18:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Print on Firefox 1.0.7

Is it just me, or try "Print Preview" on Firefox 1.0.7 with the Main Page. It gives an error. Anyone else? -- WB 23:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[]

v1.0.4 works fine in Print Preview. Thanks for the heads-up; I will not attempt to use 1.0.7. Ancheta Wis 00:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC) But I have to admit that 1.0.4 "we are currently working on 772,372 articles." is overlapping the "on 772,372" text. That is not a catastrophic problem to me.[]
It works fine for me (using Firefox 1.0.7) though I still have the same problem as Ancheta with the on 772,372 text overlapping. --AMorris (talk)(contribs) 05:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Guitar figure?

Today's Today's featured article says the track Layla features an "unmistakable guitar figure, played by Eric Clapton and Duane Allman". What is a guitar figure? Moriori 00:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[]

A guitar figure is the same as a guitar release. A guitar solo response between verses that contains the unmistakable signature (playing style) of the lead guitarist. ---hydnjo talk 01:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Hmm. Let me see. A guitar figure is a solo response between verses, containing the style of the lead guitarist, but it is played by two guitarists on Layla (Clapton and Allman]]. Just jivin'. I'll take your word for it. ):- Moriori 02:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Hmmm. I see what you mean. I guess in this context the article was referring to figures (make everything I said plural) although I never thought about it that way. Maybe soloists or Clapton and Allman just blend into each other as one. I dunno, I just thought that figure was another name for release. Sorry for any confusion that I caused. (:-( --hydnjo talk 02:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[]
I guess Figure (music) is what it really means. Go figure! --hydnjo talk 21:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Hippopotamus 's

Under Today's featured picture, "hippopotamus 's" should be "hippopotamus's". Art LaPella 02:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Fixed, thanks. --fvw* 02:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Can my rank articles be made a featured article? Molotov (talk) File:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif
04:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[]
The featured articles are chosen (by me) from Wikipedia:Featured articles. But you can't just add articles there - there's a nomination/peer review process at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates →Raul654 04:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[]

What's the policy on use of copyrighted material on the Main Page?

Is the use of copyrighted material (e.g. Image:LaylaCover.jpg) on the Main Page permitted by the Fair Use provisions? Fg2 06:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[]

We generally try to avoid it, but for stuff like this it's near unaviodable. If the fair use is ok in the article it should also be ok in on the front page, as long as there's proper context. --fvw* 06:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Thanks. I appreciate the clarification. Fg2 06:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[]

2005 Kashmir earthquake - updated casualties

Just updated the 2005 Kashmir earthquake page with current official death toll.

"Local authorities reported the official death toll as 38,000 in Pakistan and 1,300 in India [2]"

Other sources now claim 40,000 have died (and rising)[3]

Main page should reflect this...Kamayoq 08:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[]

  • Seconded. Sigorni 22:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[]
  • This really should be raised in priority. It's something like forty times worse than Katrina, isn't it? Noisy | Talk 07:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Updated. -- PFHLai 18:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[]

  • Thanks PFHLai for updating Main Page.

The numbers continue to rise... Maj. Gen. Farooq Ahmed Khan, said on Pakistan's Geo television "Some people fear that the death toll could be 100,000 and they may be right." (16 Oct)

Kamayoq 22:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[]

  • You are welcome, Kamayoq. Glad that I could help, but sad that the number is so large and still rising. -- PFHLai 05:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]


Dreyfuss was not arrested "in error" but as the result of a criminal conspiracy by elements of the French Army. Their motivation has been in dispute ever since. They were certainly anti-Semimitic, but some have argued that the entire affaire was an intelligence misdirection aimed at convincing the Germans that the new French "Famous 75" artillery piece was less effective and revolutionary than it actually was (Drefuss was an artillery officer).

Whatever the case, the term "error" is highly inappropriate. 10:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[]


Under Selected Anniversaries, "the Warsaw Ghetto, the largest Jewish ghettos..." should be "...ghetto..." because the Warsaw Ghetto is also singular . Art LaPella 00:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[]

fixed Broken S 01:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Not really, although I read somewhere that edits aren't always immediately visible. Art LaPella 01:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Now it's fixed. Thanks Art LaPella 01:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Edits aren't immediately visible because of caching. To clear the server side caches for the main page, go to the top of this talk page and click "Purge caches". →Raul654 02:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[]
OK. I don't see any "Purge caches" link up there, but perhaps it only shows when you need it. Art LaPella 02:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Does it appear to be out of date? If so, try purging the cache, or find out about browser caching. →Raul654 02:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[]

when was wikipedia made and by who

  • This may help. Also, this question should have been asked at the help desk.--hydnjo talk 18:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[]
  • anon: good answer :-) the wub "?!" 19:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Whether or not

The line "Amid heavy security, the people of Iraq vote in a referendum on whether or not to ratify the proposed Iraqi constitution." should read "Amid heavy security, the people of Iraq vote in a referendum on whether to ratify the proposed Iraqi constitution." salt3d 04:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Fixed. --PFHLai 05:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Out of curiosity, why? Doops | talk 07:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]
because it's correct English? 08:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
To elaborate; the term 'whether or not' is a tautology. It's like 'the reason why' or 'ATM machine'.salt3d 05:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[]

How did that happen?

We have a DYK item that mentions strap-on dildos and no over-protective parents and/or general prudes have run in here and shouted at us about how heathenistic and damned we are?

That doesn't make sense! There was a DYK item a month or so ago about the Human Menstral Cycle that created at least one amusing holier-than-thou thread! I'm let down.

hehe  :) Bushytails 00:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[]
We do not need such items on the front page. They are of no value and bring Wikipedia into disrepute, thus reducing its usage and value. It is quite likely they were intended to provoke as a pitiable puerile joke. Why did you choose not to sign your comments? CalJW 14:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Um, no, the article wasn't a joke. I wouldn't have spent two weeks writing, taking over 450 photos under hot floodlights, editing images, etc, for a joke. The article may not be of value to you, but please don't assume this means it's not a value to anyone. Thanks, Bushytails 00:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC).[]
Rather than resort to name-calling, can we have a word from the editors as to whether dildos are really part of the body of educational knowledge that Wikipedia wants to present to the public? I appreciate a policy of non-censorship that allows such pages to exist, but I think it is highly inappropriate to be highlighting such vulgar items on the front page. --BlueMoonlet 15:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]
It's not neccessarily vulgar to everyone; only certain groups of people consider factual, accurate, neutral articles to be vulgar. Thanks, Bushytails 00:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC).[]

I have to agree with CalJW 15:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC) I also agree--please remove the item from DYK. "Menstrual Cycle" is of a different ilk than this item. -- 15:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]

I'm with the above. I hate censoring, hate the idea of trolling around for decency, but thats just useless obvious info that no-one would really give a hoot about and will offend some. Did you know....the sky is blue?--Narson 15:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Would you care to justify why the article is useless? I've gotten a number of comments from people saying they've learned a lot and are glad it was on the front page, otherwise they might not have found it. Useless to you and useless to everyone are not always the same thing. Thanks, Bushytails 00:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC).[]

Oh, get a grip all of you. It's not as if many of the DYK items are supremely useful to anyone; otherwise they'd be Featured Articles Senji 15:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]

It's not a matter of usefulness, but of being inappropriate for civilized discourse. Again, can we get a statement from an editor, either taking responsibility for this item and defending it, or else removing it? --BlueMoonlet 15:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]'re an editor. We're all editors. Doops | talk 20:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]
I felt I did an adaquate job defending this article on the section a few sections down; no need to defend it here as well. Please see the other discussion at #Dildo discussions do not belong on the main page and add any new arguments there. Thanks, Bushytails 00:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC).[]

If people want to read about this sort of stuff, I'm sure they can find articles about it here and eleswhere. What I object to is such information being thrust upon them Cdyson37 | (Talk) 15:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]

It is not "thrust" upon you; surely simply seeing a link on the main page doesn't harm you in any fashion? If you don't wish to learn more about how many people express their sexuality, it is your option not to click the link. However, other people might indeed want to learn more, and having a link probably introduced the subject to many people who have never heard of it. Thanks, Bushytails 00:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC).[]
With respect, who determines what qualifies as being appropriate information to "thrust" (funny choice of words on your part) on people? Where is the guideline for DYK that forbids this? As a community reference device, you're welcome to participate in drafting policy changes that could 'fix' this instead of complaining here. Before harnessing WP, participate in a policy discussion that encourages consensus gathering. There's no good reason to bypass the community to try and short-circuit the main page because you don't like it, but there exist tools that you can use to help WP realize its full potential if you think the current guidelines don't have enough depth to them. In the end, the data in WP doesn't mean anything unless there's good plumbing, and community driven policies are going to serve the WP information mandates better than reactionary censorship. - CHAIRBOY () 20:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Such a "fix" would break every NPOV guideline ever laid down, and is unlikely to be welcomed. I, for one, would do as much as I could to prevent a specific society's point of view from being made wikipedia policy, and hope most other people would do the same. Thanks for the comments, Bushytails 00:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC).[]
I agree, and if that 'fix' came up for discussion, I would oppose it. I guess I was just trying to find a politic way to say 'quit yer bitchin'. - CHAIRBOY () 15:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[]

There's a nice flamewar brewing in the talk page for the Strap-on dildo article, if you like that sort of thing. --DragonHawk 00:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Didn't I already say I was sick of it and wasn't planning on commenting more? Sending more people there isn't going to help.  :) Bushytails 00:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Hmmmm. For someone who isn't planning on commenting more, you're sure doing a lot of commenting.  :) As far as sending more people, I find one-on-one flamewars sometimes fall apart if the back-and-forth is broken up by other people. If not, well, at least people are aware of it. I'm a fan of transparency. --DragonHawk 02:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Did you Know - King Gebra Maskal Lalibela

Not sure that 'tradition' is the right word to be using there. Folklore, legend, its not really a custom for him to do it, as I don't imagine its something he does every year etc. --Narson 15:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Tradition is appropriate, under definition #2. --BlueMoonlet 15:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Did You Know?

I am flabbergasted at the inclusion of you-know-what in the DYK section. o_O

I DID know that, but that's beside the point. KingTT 15:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Dildo discussions do not belong on the main page

Controversial and purient topics like this should not be displayed so prominently on a main page.

I'm not sure that it's exactly controversial, but I agree that it's not necessarily the best way for new users to discover the 'pedia -- it's been archived. BCorr|Брайен 16:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]

I disagree. You're expressing a very specific cultural POV. If we can't keep a NPOV on the main page, what hope for wikipedia at all? --Khendon 17:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Hrmm, I can't find any reason for the article to not be on the main page. You state it "should not." Any reason not? Sure, I may be slightly biased into thinking it's excellently written, etc, but still... Thanks, Bushytails 17:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC).[]

I enjoy the occasional pegging myself, but I also think it's inappropriate for the front page. A paper encyclopedia might have an article on anal sex, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to put Astroglide and butt-plugs on the cover. I think it should go. TotoBaggins

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Furthermore, if you're an adult and you can't handle seeing a link to a sexual device on the main page, perhaps you should fork Wikipedia for your own point of view. Good luck with that. 18:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Unlike a paper encyclopedia, the content of wikipedia (including the main page) is constantly in flux... On a printed encyclopedia, having the front cover be images of sex toys would state the book was mostly about sex toys. however, on wikipedia, the links on the front page change constantly, and only the average percentage of time a link about any given subject is on the main page indicates how much wikipedia is about that topic. I have seen very few sex-related topics on the main page (the last one I remember was a BDSM photo with a bit on collaring), and if anything, sex is rather under-represented from what one could gather from the main page. As Khendon pointed out, the main page, like other articles (if not especially more so) needs to maintain NPOV. Thanks, Bushytails 18:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC).[]

Forget those WikiPolicies. Use Common Sense ! Children visit, you know ?! Take it off the MainPage, please ! -- A concerned parent 18:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]

I am sorry if you believe the article will somehow damage your children, but I believe that is a cultural-specific POV. I have tried to make the article as factually accurate as possible, and I do not believe it contains any information that would be harmful if anyone read it. It does not present a racist, sexist, or other hateful point of view, and as such, I do not believe anyone could be harmed from reading it. Thanks for your comments, Bushytails 18:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC).[]
Thats utterly irrelevant, to be honest. --Kiand 18:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]

I'm not sure NPOV should apply that rigorously to the main page... seeing as how we have to have some standards for selecting DYKs, non-offensiveness should be one of them. Don't get me wrong, I think people offended by sexual topics are silly, but there are a hell of a lot of them, and Wikipedia has a reputation to protect. BTW, I'm pretty sure the "concerned parent" is a troll who has done this before and should not be fed. ~~ N (t/c) 18:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]

There's a "hell of a lot" of people on both sides of the Israel/Palestine debate, Linux/Windows debate, Evolution/Creationism debate, (My Religion)/(Your Religion) debate, and just about every other topic imaginable... If we removed everything from the main page that any group of people objected to and/or found offensive, it'd be a pretty useless page. Much better to project wikipedia's reputation for unbiased content not dictated by a specific group of people. Thanks, Bushytails 18:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC).[]
Yes, but mentioning Israel will offend many, many fewer people than dildo. Just look at the reactions here! 19:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia does have a reputation to protect - the reputation of being neutral and unbiased. --Khendon 18:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Which we are as long as we have the article - "not featured" is different from "censored". ~~ N (t/c) 19:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Not so, see WP:NPOV#Undue Weight, for example. That's like saying TV isn't censored because people can still go to the video store and get adult videos. An intentional lack of coverage of something is a strong POV bias. Thanks, Bushytails 19:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC).[]

I can't believe some of you actually support explicit discussion of sex on Wikipedia's very front page. The reason Wikipedia is not censored is because you have to know to look for objectionable material to get to it. When you put the objectionable material right on the front page, which people access from work and school, and grade school teachers refer their young students to, that kind of short circuits the whole process. I take it the defenders of the sexual material on the front page would not object on principle to the g**tse image being featured? Why don't we do that? It's a culturally significant image! What possible objection could you levy against it? Don't be culturally POV now! 18:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]

No, I wouldn't object on principles. It's a bit late to submit it to DYK, but you can try for photo-of-the-day or featured article if you want. You use terms such as "objectionable" rather often, however despite your sarcasm about POV, you seem to not realize it's only objectionable to a certain group of people. Many people don't find it objectionable at all, and others might find it interesting or educational. You also imply it would be a bad thing if a grade school student saw it, but you don't say why this is. As always, thanks for the comments, Bushytails 19:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC).[]
Sarcasm? Sarcasm? You think this is a joke? I'm asking serious questions, and you're trying to trivialize what I have to say? Regarding your (sparse) substantive comments, sure, some people don't find it objectionable. Some people don't find the g**tse pic objectionable. Are you seriously saying there would be nothing wrong with introducing people to the English language Wikipedia project with a great big picture of it? That wouldn't in any way interfere with the goals of Wikipedia? Try to take this topic seriously. 20:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]
This is a good point too. If we want to be taken seriously, we should be more or less child-friendly. (This obviously doesn't mean censoring the whole 'pedia; it does mean not sticking stuff about dildos on the front page.) ~~ N (t/c) 19:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]
I think I said this before, but the article should be child-friendly, as I don't believe it promotes sexism, racism, or any other hateful topics. I'd love to see an argument as to why that article harms children... In any case, how does unbiased, accurate coverage prevent us from being "taken seriously"? Thanks again for the comments, Bushytails 19:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC).[]
I don't believe it's inappropriate for children, but the fact that a large majority of people will think that it does is worthy of consideration. ~~ N (t/c) 23:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]

It really doesn't belong there at all; but if it stays it is incredibly necessary that the wording be changed to something like "a s-o d is a sex toy used for such sexual practices as...." The whole point of DYK is to entice people into reading articles on new subjects, to tickle their curiosity. And, hard as it may be for some people to believe, not everybody knows what a dildo is. (If someone burns with a desire to educate them on the subject, then I'm afraid he/she's lost sight of NPOV.) Readers should not be tricked into doing something they don't want to do; the blurb should make it transparently clear what sort of article they'll get to by clicking. So please fix the wording now. Thanks. Doops | talk 19:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]

If someone doesn't know what a dildo is, I expect that would be remedied rather quickly when they click on the article, as dildo is the first link on the page, in the first sentance on the page, in the first few words after the bolded title. This is an example of something that can't be done with a paper encyclopedia; any word can link to another article the reader can persue for more information. This article does indeed "entice people into reading articles on new subjects, to tickle their curiosity," as many people may not know much about strap-on dildos, their use in hetereosexual relationships, etc., and certainly many people have their curiosity tickled by a sexual topic they haven't heard of before. As to "Readers should not be tricked into doing something they don't want to do," even if someone doesn't know what a dildo is, how will they be harmed by clicking it? They can always click their browser's "back" button or any of the left-hand nagivational links to return to a different area of wikipedia. More likely, if they don't know what a dildo is, they'll instead spend some time reading and learn more about the world they live in... However, thanks for the comments, Bushytails 19:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC).[]
All we need is some admin to refresh DYK. The current items are more than 6 hours old and getting stale. Time for a change, according to the DYK policies. -- 19:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. It clearly says "sexual practice." If someone is afraid they may be offended by reading about a sexual practice, they can simply not click on the link. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]
It didn't say that before; that was added in response to my suggestion. Doops | talk 19:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Actually, the current suggestions list is looking pretty short, and frequent updates will run out of articles way too soon... Not many good new articles have been written lately; from browsing the new articles list, they're mostly stubs and copyvios, aside from the usual nonsense and spam. Consider writing more articles! Thanks, Bushytails 19:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC).[]

Bushytails, you keep on referring to "harm." Of course reading the article is not going to harm anybody. That's not the point; I don't think anybody sensible claims that. The point is that some people are ostriches who don't want to read about some things; and it's their right not to. You can't force somebody to be open-minded. The traditional point made in defense of non-censorship of explicit articles is "you don't have to read it if you're offended by it"; and it's (in my view) a persuasive one; that's why I'm against censorship. Moving something like this onto the main page threatens this finely-balanced distinction. Doops | talk 19:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]

The DYK blurb surely makes it clear this is a sexually explicit article and should be enough of a warning. Frankly, I applaud Bushytails for doing it! - UtherSRG (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]
The original blurb was less clear; "sexual practice" was added at my suggestion. Doops | talk 20:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]
How so? They can continue not clicking on it when it's on the main page; it's not like the main page is a redirect to the article with some javascript to make sure they can't click "back". On one side, the "ostriches"' wishes may be worth respecting, but on the other side, a few people becoming "offended" when exposed to reality shouldn't dictate wikipedia. One may not be able to force them to be open-minded, but that shouldn't mean hiding information from the rest of the population as well. Thanks for the discussion, Bushytails 20:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC).[]
You're against censorship but you want the article censored from the main page? You would rather it have been censored from the main page in the first place? Just as you said, people don't have to click on that link if they don't want to. Are you arguing that people absolutely must visit Wikipedia and click on every link on the front page, regardless of what it is? It's still up to the user to read what he/she wants to. Allow me to copy and paste the text on the main page to remind you of how tame it really is anyway: "...that a strap-on dildo may be used by heterosexual couples for the sexual practice of pegging?" 20:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]

I think it's great that pro-sex material shows up on wiki. We shouldn't be ashamed of our bodies! If you have to specifically look for sex-related topics, what does that say about sex, that it needs to be hidden from view? Sex isn't some secret society, we all participate in it, so why is it taboo? Points to you, Bushytails. 20:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]

By the way, as far as NPOV is concerned, it's a double standard to call the decision to remove something from the main page POV and not to so stigmatize the original decision to put it there. DYK articles aren't randomly chosen by the software; somebody decides to put them on the main page. Doops | talk 20:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Are you familiar with the criteria for the DYK section? It's not a generic fact box or platform for one's point of view. It is provided on the main page to link to new and fleshed out pages. New articles can be submitted for consideration on the DYK template, and a maintainer in charge of that template will read the article, find an interesting fact, and put that in the template along with the article link and relevant links. The maintainer did not select the article because it supported his/her own pro-sex toy point of view, but because it was a new and fleshed out article, thus meeting the criteria. 21:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Yes, of course. And we should assume good faith on the part of whoever chose this line. But he/she knew that its inclusion, right or wrong, would be controversial and did so anyway; all that I'm saying is that that decision, whether one calls it "brave" "mischevous" "principled" "soapboxing" "experimental" or whatever is as open to the nuclear-option "POV" charge as the suggestions of those who want it removed. You can make arguments in favor of keeping the blurb, but stigmatizing those opposed to it as POV or censors is unjustified escalation. Doops | talk 21:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Or, perhaps, he/she was properly following the NPOV policy, and didn't feel that what certain groups may think about a neutrally-worded article should affect its inclusion? While you may consider neutrality a POV, pushing neutrality as a POV is then one of the goals of wikipedia. Thanks again, Bushytails 22:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC).[]
Again, I'm not arguing that whoever included it was POVing; I'm just saying that it's possible to oppose its inclusion without POVing. A good argument can be made for inclusion on the grounds of "it's a matter of principle" (you just made it); an argument can be made for exclusion on the matters of practicality (e.g. "why include something in DYK which is an obvious 'the grass is green' statement to some people, offensive to others, and actually a useful DYK only to those not fitting into the first two categories?"). I totally see the attraction of the argument from principle; but I think there's a danger of overcorrection in that direction (like a teacher so afraid of playing favorites that he/she grades the well-behaved students more harshly than the goof-offs). Doops | talk 22:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Well, it's not a "the grass is green" type statement to many people, let's use pegging for an example. Pegging is largely unknown to people who don't practice it... But even among people who already know about pegging or practice it, a new, interesting article on it is always a good read. The people offended are, well, I won't say irrelevant, but... not the most important concern, since they're just trying to push a random POV, and a (hopefully well-written, neutral) article on the subject might help inform some of them. (although others will still try to push their POV onto the article or wikipedia). The last group, people who are neither of those groups, is also important. People who have never heard of it might realize they want to try it, or at a minimum, might learn more about it or understand other people better. In any case, 2 of the 3 groups it helps, and it doesn't hurt the people in the last group that decide not to learn about it. As to overcorrection, I've noticed sexuality seems rather underrepresented on the main page, if anything... Thanks again, Bushytails 22:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC).[]
Yes, of course it is. Our society sees sex as a taboo subject; that's just a fact, neutrally stated; our society thinks that sexual material should be hidden to some degree, especially from children. You may think these cultural assumptions to be closed-minded, hypocritical, bigoted, illogical, paranoid, unsupported by science, and/or silly; but as long as they remain in place, it's difficult to see inclusion of sexual material on the main page as "neutral." Now of course if you see something wrong with society you have a right, nay, a duty to fix it; but not via the Wikipedia since it's not a soapbox. That's what I meant by "overcorrecting": in our zeal not to censor anything we might in effect be mounting a soapbox. But of course I realize that systemic bias is a legitimate concern too. I don't deny that it's a thorny issue. Bottom line: the wikipedia, like life, involves lots of tough judgement calls. Absolute principled purity is really an unavailable luxury. Doops | talk 23:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]
(hey, that was a lot of :'s to type!) Not all societies agree with your society; wikipedia shouldn't base decisions on what your society happens to think... Other societies think women shouldn't be allowed to show their faces; should we edit them out of every article? Some societies think certain animals are not valid foodstuffs, should we remove all the cooking articles except the vegetarian ones? Some societies think sex is offensive, should we hide everything to do with sex? You see my point.  :)
Wikipedia can not function if the argument "Society X finds Y offensive, let's remove it" is allowed to stand. There's probably a society somewhere that will find any given article on wikipedia offensive in some fashion. Just as X's claims aren't valid about whatever Y happens to be that day, no more are claims that sex is offensive valid. (unless we want to start judging which societies matter and which don't, which is hardly neutral).
In any case, this discussion is getting rather long and not too related to the main page anymore; have a better place to move it?  :) Thanks, Bushytails 00:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC).[]
I rember been shown sexual material at school by our teachers so we could learn about sex. I don't see how anyone could possibly think an informative article would be taboo or in any way harm people.--Clawed 01:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[]
There are different times and places for different things. The issues are whether such a DYK line should appear on the Main Page, and if so, how it should be phrased. -- 03:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[]
how many times did we have this discussion, and why is it always about sex? I have campaigned against gratuitous porn hosted on WP before (AutofellatioN.jpg), but while specific wording, and specific images may be deliberately obscene, any topic is fair game on the Main Page, as long as it is treated with encyclopedicity. If something on the Main Page has shoddy English or misleading wording, by all means complain. Never complain about a topic per se, since anything can be treated as part of the body of human knowledge. If 'concerned parents' want to shield their offspring from selected topic, they have no option but to never let them go online unsupervised. dab () 08:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Bird Flu

I'm surprised that there has been no mention of H5N1, the highly pathogenic strain of avian influenza (bird flu) 'in the news'. The severity of this pandemic has increased rapidly. Lethal strains have in three European Countries in the last three days as well as 60 dead throughout Asia. I might also stress that the H5N1 page has a clean up notice on it.--Alan Frize 19:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]

There was recently a story on "dog flu" at Wikinews (see), but as far as I can tell, there is no wikipedia page for canine influenza. Maybe we sould have the next science collaboration of the week be a tune-up of all influenza-related wikipedia articles. --JWSchmidt 21:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]
It's mentioned on the Oseltamivir (Tamiflu) page. - BanyanTree 14:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[]
I think a front-page link about the continuing millennia-old worldwide pandemic of lightning strikes would be more useful, frankly - so far it kills more people worldwide than bird flu. Perhaps the lack of it on the front page is simply because there are more important things than bird flu (which isn't difficult), but if the powers that be have made a conscious decision to ignore this year's SARS 'epidemic', thumbs up to them. --Last Malthusian 22:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Regardless of actual danger (which, BTW, the CDC, WHO, etc. say is quite large), the media frenzy makes bird flu very much worth covering. ~~ N (t/c) 23:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]
yes, whatever its merit, bird flu is very much ITN, and it would be nice if someone found the time to update the article. dab () 08:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[]
I've been editing in this area for a couple days after I realized that the Wikipedia pages were either contradictory or just plain wrong as a clear and consistent distinction between H5N1, avian influenza, and Influenza Type A was not made. I think I've clarified this and streamlined avian influenza. I may wander over and try to tackle a higher level article such as influenza or influenza pandemic, but if someone wants to take a wiki-chainsaw to H5N1, it really needs it. Too much detail in not enough structure. - BanyanTree 14:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Granted, but the question is whether the section is for "Stuff in the news" or "Important encyclopaedic topics in the news". I haven't seen celebrity scandalds ever go on the front page, even though they generate as much coverage as the Nobel Prizes, if not more - this implies to me that the ITN section is selective about what exactly it includes. Admittedly I might not have been watching closely enough or for long enough.
Still, at this point in time I would be disappointed if bird flu was deemed more important/relevant than any of the articles currently on the front page (the Pakistan earthquake, the Iraq referendum, China's second manned spaceflight, the carnage in Russia, the Malawi food crisis and the Somaliland election). Obviously, if it did start killing humans at any sort of notable rate, I would change my mind :-) --Last Malthusian 12:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Last Malthusian: in support of your position, I suggest the creation of a policy proposal for wikipedia. The proposal can be that wikipedia adopt the "methods" of conventional news media by which nothing is "news" until enough dead bodies or boobs can be shown. Further, any rational attempt to prevent deaths is not news because it probably involves thought and planning and is just not sensational enough to meet our standards of what constitutes "news". Any situation that exists where simple preventive actions today could prevent millions of deaths in the future just does constitute "news". --JWSchmidt 13:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[]
We've had Eurovision and the Michael Jackson trial on ITN this past year, though the last may have been an excuse to have his mugshot on the front page. ;)
Seriously though, I put up a bird flu item on ITN last month or so and was promptly reverted with a snarky edit summary regarding items speculating about future events. I think that the "no future stuff"-norm on ITN is great for reverting the "Japan may call snap elections next month"-type of items that pop up, but some people don't see any distinction between that and "WHO official warns that imminent pandemic will kill millions". In any case, the relevant article isn't up to snuff, so the point is moot. - BanyanTree 14:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[]

It's more than just a science / health news item. The bird flu is doing big damages to the agricultural industry and the related businesses, too. It's newsworthy for ITN. -- 13:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Main Page Source

The header for the main page source says the page has been protected to prevent editing. Surely it has been protected not to prevent editing but to prevent vandalism. Can this be changed and if so should it? -orizon 23:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]

You need certain priveleges (e.g. adminship) in order to edit the protected pages. Is there an error you want them to correct? -- WB 23:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]
I think Orizon was asking about changing the wording of the header. If the "to" clause is a result clause ("this book has been updated to reflect recent events") then there's no doubt it's been protected to prevent editing; but if it's a purpose clause ("I'm revising my book to respond to criticisms.") then it's arguably been protected to prevent vandalism. Doops | talk 23:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]
I get it now. It's not only for vandalism though. If it was open for edit (assuming it's a perfect world without vandals), the main page would change so much that it might even be confusing for the first time visitors. -- WB 00:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Sorry, forgot I had made this comment. I hadn't considered other reasons for protection. I guess I just felt that the header seemed to contradict Wikipedia's open access philosophy but in retrospect it does seem the most effective formulation. -orizon 00:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[]


Favicon doesn't seem to be appearing on articles. Pages are random, but it has been disappearing pretty regularly in last few hours... -- WB 23:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Sister project logos

The logo images of the Mediawiki sister projects link to hi-res images of the logos. They should link to the projects' home pages. The logos shouldn't be linked for the benefit of people interested in the logo itself: they should be linked for the people who want a nice big target to click on to go to the project's home page. ktheory 01:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[]

This has been suggested before, but the consensus has been that we must provide obvious copyright information for images. See also Wikipedia:Copyrights#Image_guidelines. - BanyanTree 02:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[]

October 18th


Bob Beamon's World Long Jump record was the longest unbroken track and field record in history. He did it on October 18th 1968. His world record stood for 23 years, and was named by Sports Illustrated magazine as one of the five greatest sporting moments of the 20th century. This record surely deserves mention in the selected anniversaries. (Come on, it's my birthday today!)

October_18 is editable; go ahead and add your anniversary to that page. Then maybe it'll appear on the main page next year. Doops | talk 02:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[]
I suppose Doops meant the long jump record, not the birthday. :-) -- 02:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[]
Done. Proto t c 11:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[]