Talk:Main Page/Archive 76

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 70 Archive 74 Archive 75 Archive 76 Archive 77 Archive 78 Archive 80

Bust picture of Augustus

Should not the bust picture of Augustus be placed along with the relevant news item? --Apnavana 03:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I thought those were Miss Puerto Rico's chiseled features.... Figma 04:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Obviously, Miss Puerto Rico would like to achieve world peace by defeating Mark Antony... But images on the Main Page must be free, as fair use is not permitted. --Dhartung | Talk 05:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Miss Puerto Rico needs more time in the sun.— BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-24 06:21

Same old complaints, no one seems to want to cure them... --Monotonehell 06:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[]

It's more like no one seems to know a simple way to cure them. -- 13:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[]
There's been attempts at solutions but they seem to always been objected to by folks claiming that there is no problem. XD --Monotonehell 15:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[]
So, no one knows any simple ways to cure the folks who can't see the problem. -- 05:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[]
lol --Monotonehell 19:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[]
The photos are already removed, because that don't belong to the main page. Please read the Miss puerto rico article and post your concerns on her there. Wikipedians dislike people's comments on the news when you are (and they mean it) supposed to discuss the main page only. They seem strict and bossy, but we can't resist a bit in current events sense of humor.--Mike D 26 23:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

New Image?

Image:Floyd-landis-toctt.jpg has had its licensing changed to be compatible with Wikipedia. Perhaps it could make its way back onto the Main Page? That bust has been there for awhile. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I already replied to Tariq at Template talk:In the news. Just for the record, I put the image back on the front page a few hours ago. --Oldak Quill 18:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[]

On This Day

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/July 24#Lost City of the Incas.

Red link

There is a red link in the Featured picture thing. That should be removed. It is standard policy to not have red links on the main page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 00:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC).[]

It was probably an unauthorized move, i.e. vandalism, since repaired. I couldn't see anything obvious in the histories of the wikilinks, though. --Dhartung | Talk 00:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[]
It was not vandalism - whover wrote the blurb screwed up and I had to fix it. [1] Raul654 04:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[]
surely someone should have looked at Main Page alternative (tomorrow) before it went up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 09:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC).[]
Surely someone like you, User:, should have looked at that and then reported it at WP:ERRORS yesterday. -- 13:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Huh, I was not aware of the policy of not having red links on the main page. howcheng {chat} 18:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I don't think it's policy as such, but rather common sense for style. —Daniel (‽) 12:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Alpha Phi Alpha image

Image:Alphafstconvent.jpg is almost certainly not public domain, at least not under the current pd tag. It was taken in 1908 and thus even if the photographer died the day the photo was taken, "term of life plus 100 years" could not expire until 2008 at the earliest. Is there a free equivalent that could be used? savidan(talk) (e@) 00:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Death of the author has nothing to do with it (older images). Images published before 1923, which this image almost certainly was, are in the public domain. Raul654 00:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I've replaced the {{PD-old}} tag with {{PD-old-50}}. —David Levy 01:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I just realized that {{PD-old-50}} indicates that that the image was published before 1923 and the author died 50 or more years ago. The latter might not be true, but I was unable to find a tag for images published before 1923 that doesn't also mention the author's death, nor could I locate a a special category. Therefore, I created {{PD-pre-1923}}. Feel free to correct the category or delete/redirect this template if it's redundant. I'm not a copyright expert, so if there's some legal reason why this template is inappropriate, I consent to its immediate deletion. —David Levy 01:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[]
The tag you were after is {{PD-US}}. I've redirected for now since I'm not an admin. If any fancy deleting the redirect, feel free. GeeJo (t)(c) • 02:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Thank you! Instead of deleting the redirect, I've categorized it for the benefit of users searching in vain for a template with "1923" in its name. —David Levy 02:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[]

The British Open news bit...

Perhaps "the 2006 Open Championship" should be changed to "the 2006 Open Championship". Seeing as, unlike the Tour de France, there isn't a separate article for each year's competition (as far as I know). The Glow Pt. 2 21:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[]

The Open championship is an annual sports event and you will find every year's event in its' article. To keep it relevant in discussing changes in today's main page, you can start a news bit on the Open championship and make sure you get the sources to describe it. Wikipedia main page is used for current events purposes, but must not perserverate on the news as it has featured subjects of the day and what's happening in Wikipedia. --Mike D 26 23:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

DYK Overstatement

One item says ...that Dorothy was the longest-running musical stage production ever until the 20th century, with an initial run of 931 performances?

Alright... the article says The revised Dorothy had an initial run of 931 performances, becoming the longest running musical production ever. Considering the revised Dorothy opened in late December 1896, just before 1897 and considering that the production that surpassed Dorothy, A Chinese Honeymoon, opened in 1902 (note the ~five year difference), that DYK item sounds a bit overstated. Additionally, the record probably was not broken in December 1896 (I'm guessing 1899, assuming a performance a day, but I don't have a source). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Well, DYK got updated and this item is no longer on MainPage. -- PFHLai 18:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[]

On this day... (July 26)

July 26 was the day that the Kargil War officially ended and is celebrated as Vijay Diwas in India. No mention of it has been made in the "On this day" section. Considering that the article is a FA some admin must try to include in atleast now. --Idleguy 08:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Try Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. -- 13:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[]
We cannot make sure that every constituency's event is listed, unless we list them all, and there isn't room for that. It's better, in fact, to choose a slightly random selection every year. --Dhartung | Talk 18:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[]
There was no mention for Puerto Rico Constitution day and it falls on July 26. Whoever administers the "on this day" event hasn't been able to keep up, then we don't always know everything. I hope the Puerto Rico article link will clear up some things. --Mike D 26 23:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Actually, Constitution Day in Puerto Rico was July 25, and it appeared on MainPage that day. -- PFHLai 14:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[]

formatting error with "chick" style

Hey, I'm new here (as a registered user) and so I just had to try out the different skin choices. I noticed that with the "chick" skin the search box and the "Go" and "Search" buttons do not align properly with the page. They block out some of the content. I'm not sure if this is the right page for bringing this up. My resolution is 1280 x 1024, but I doubt that has anything to do with it. Can/should this be fixed? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by F16fan12 (talkcontribs) 15:22, 2006 July 26 (UTC).

This talkpage is intended for discussion about the Main Page only. You may want to report the problem to Wikipedia:Village pump. Hope this helps. -- PFHLai 18:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I'm talking about a problem with the main page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 00:39, 2006 July 27 (UTC).

Hmmm... the search box and the "Go" and "Search" buttons can be found on every page in Wikipedia. And it sounds like a technical question for the pump, really. Hope this helps. --PFHLai 16:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Page size

There is an automatic complaint about the page being too long. Can someone decide where to archive to please. Jackiespeel 17:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[]

The archives are near the top, next to the table of contents. --PFHLai 18:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Today's Wikipedia main page is much shorter than a month ago and honestly I disagree with your statement. The main page continues to get renovated and checked for its' length, so we're working on it. Any complaints and concerns on the page size, please take that to the archives where it is appreciated. --Mike D 26 23:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I think Jackiespeel was referring to "Talk:Main Page", which was indeed very long on July 26th, and I archived some of the "stale" discussions that day. (Will do more after this edit.) Some older browsers can't handle the editing of long pages. Please see Wikipedia:Article size. --PFHLai 14:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Personalised Home Page?

This is probably the wrong place to mention this, but I don't know where else to put it, so here goes: has anyone thought about making a Wikipedia home page? i.e., something like most major portals have, but based on Wikipedia? There could be a Google search, and the news section would be personalised to one's location, but otherwise it would be just the normal home page. This would be my ideal home page -- Wikipedia is already my home page, but this would be way better. Another person I mentioned it to thought it was a great idea; any thoughts? CMcQueeny 12:22, 26 July 2006 (CST)

You can do (almost) anything you like on your user page. Happy editing. :-) --PFHLai 17:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[]
For tips see Wikipedia:WikiProject User Page Help. --Dhartung | Talk 18:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[]

As of July 2006

The United Nations is claiming that a UN observer post has been struck in the ongoing Middle East conflict, and Kofi Annan is thinking it was done on purpose. Surely, such a story deserves to be mentioned in the news.

Yes it is mentioned in the news. I've seen 3 mentions of it this morning before breakfast. But this is an encyclopedia not wikinews. Items get a mention in the "In the news" section on the main page if and when there is a coresponding encyclopedic article updated with current events and it gets nominated for inclusion on the pages mentioned at the top of this talk page. Don't feel put out, lots of people make the same assumption and complain that such-and-such a news item isn't mentioned. Some of us are petitioning for a change to better reflect this. --Monotonehell 22:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Today's featured article - A mosque

I was a bit jolted by seeing this on the main wiki page. I've been reading a book about Islam, from a historical interest, to learn a little more about these people, and clearly stated is one thing; The term mosque is offensive, as in very politcally incorrect.

I followed the link to the wiki article about the mosque and found the following:

"A mosque is a place of worship for followers of the Islamic faith. Muslims often refer to the mosque by its Arabic name, masjid"

In fact Muslims always refer to their place of worship as the masjid, and will nicely ask you not to use the term mosque.

Also in the wiki section of the mosque entry is the following:

"The modern-day English word "mosque", just like its equivalents in many other European languages, derives from the word masjid via Spanish mezquita"

The history of this is the word mezquita means mosquito, as in the annoying blood-sucking flying insect. The reference comes from the same king and queen of Spain who sponsored Christopher Columbus, the monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. They were out to conquer the Muslim stronholds in Spain, and referred to wiping out the temples of worship as in swatting away the mosquitos.

I kid you not, this is where the english term mosque comes from, and for reasons I do not yet understand about the followers of Islam, they don't stand up and nicely/legally/peacefully demand the politically correct word, masjid. The word masjid, to an Arab, simply means temple, and could be used for a Greek temple of Zeus as easily as a Jewish temple. If used in an english language reference, I think we could assume an Islam temple.

There are other things wrong with the article, showing a very decisive Western source, although it seems to really try hard to be objective and factual.

If Wiki could be the seed that changed how the english language refers to the temples of Islam, it would be a historical achievement of this web site, and promote peace where it is needed the most these days. I say God, they say Allah, and if in the West most don't even know it is the same thing, could we at least not officially insult their places of worship?

oops, forgot to sign it. Bptdude 02:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[]

It is my understanding that the most common term is used regardless of anything. Don't worry, stuff like this always happens. What comes to mind is the talk page of the Use of American article [2]. Either way I can't really help you... Tennis Dynamite 02:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[]

The Real Academia Española doesn't relate the origin of the word mezquita to "mosquito"; it rather suggests that it's derived directly from the word másgid.--Cloviz 02:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[]

  • Here's OED's entry:
    [< Middle French meseache, moseache (both end of the 14th cent. in the text translated in quot. ?a1425), mousquaie (1423), musquée (1457), Middle French, French mosquée (1550) and its probable etymon Italian moschea (a1470, cf. post-classical Latin muschea (13th cent. in an Italian source)), an alteration of moscheta (see MESQUITA n.). Cf. Dutch moskee (1669; 1542 as moskea, 1601 as musque), German Moschee (1598; 15th cent. as Muschea, 16th cent. as Moschea), Swedish moské (1771; mid 17th cent. as moschea, late 17th cent. as mosqué), Danish moské; in most of the Germanic languages borrowed from Italian and subsequently remodelled after French. Cf. MASJID n., MESQUITA n.]
  • For mesquita:
    [In early use < Middle French musquette (1351), mesquite (c1380), muscat (1395), mosquet (1506) or Italian (arch.) meschita (a1321), moscheta (14th cent.), or their etymons, Spanish mezquita (1207) and post-classical Latin meschita, mezquita, mesquita (1098, 1115, 1126 in Spanish sources), muscheta (a1099 in an Italian source), moscheta (?12th cent. in an Italian source), meskita (early 13th cent. in an Italian source), themselves (prob. borrowed at the time of the First Crusade, 1095-9) either < Armenian mzki{tdotbl} or < Byzantine Greek {mu}{alpha}{sigma}{gamma}{giacu}{delta}{iota}{omicron}{nu} (9th or 10th cent. in form {mu}{alpha}{gamma}{giacu}{sigma}{delta}{iota}{omicron}{nu}), both ult. < Arabic masjid (in colloquial Egyptian Arabic pronunciation masgid), noun of place < Arabic sajada (in colloquial Egyptian Arabic pronunciation sagada): see MASJID n. In later use prob. a reborrowing from Spanish. Forms in European languages with root vowel u or o perh. represent a reanalysis by folk etymology after words for ‘musk’ (see MUSK n.). Some of the {alpha} forms may come directly from Arabic. Cf. MASJID n., MOSQUE n.]
    BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-27 02:58

I'll try to find a verifiable reference to the quote from the Spanish monarchs. What I'm telling you is believed and taught in Islamic mosques. Bptdude 03:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Interesting adventure, this Wiki. I researched it a lot more, AFTER, I made the posts above, of course. I found lots of reference to the book I picked up, and many web references stating that the mosque/mosquito connection is not true. But I also found a number of sites that teach it as true, some are suppose to be authenticated Islam sites.

Here is the most amusing one refuting that the link is incorrrect:

  • smiles*

It is enough to state there certainly exists the belief it is true.

But for all the academic logic in the world, you won't convince the average Moslem that it is OK to call it a mosque. It is like trying to explain to an African-American in Harlem that the word Niger is really derived from the latin word for the color black as linked to the name of the nation of Nigeria, so if he calls himself a Black man, it should be OK for you to call him a Niger. If you are stupid enough to stand there and not understand why he might be upset, you should go back to your safe ivy covered tower. Politically correct, as I learned it, is what people prefer to call themselves and those things part of their culture, and to force otherwise is beyond ignorant, but blindly confrontational. Someday walk near a mosque, and ask somebody coming out what you should call it! So, if this is true, what do we do? This is important to some people, as you can imagine. Bptdude 05:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[]

As much as I'm of the opinion that we should, for example, call Germans - Deutches (sic?), call Munich - Munchen and so on. I think in this case the english word mosque is far too rooted in the vernacular to try to force a paradigm shift. Which btw is totally against WP's mission I believe. Interesting side story though --Monotonehell 06:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Why should we primarily use non-English terms in an English encyclopedia? —David Levy 06:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Sorry I wasn't very clear; by "we" I meant humans in general as a form of respect should refer to others how they wish to be refered to, not Wikipedia. And the second point was meant to refer to actual WP policy which is to use english terms pretty much exclusively unless some tangible offence is infered. --Monotonehell 12:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[]

It isn't clear from the above whether you meant to type "Niger" (as in the West African nation, the Nigerian state, the river for which they're named, or the political commentator Niger Innis) or "nigger" (a word commonly regarded as an ethnic slur), the latter of which of which is etymologically connected to "niger," the aforementioned Latin word for "black." Either way, this isn't particularly relevant, as neither term is currently used in the English language as a mainstream, academic word for "black person."
This is, after all, the English Wikipedia. For whatever reason, "mosque" is the English word for the article's subject.
If the Indiana article is featured on the main page, should we change the title to Native Americana (because the name "Indiana" falsely implies that the state is the "land of the Indians")? —David Levy 06:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[]
For what it's worth, I have several Muslim friends, and they freely refer to their place of worship as mosque. Perhaps there are a small number of Muslims who mistakenly interpret mosque as being derived from insulting terminology; if there is a reference to them, it would be interesting to mention in the article, but I see no need for any further change. — Knowledge Seeker 06:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I have seen many mosques referred to as masjids, and that was how I learnt about the word. Something of all the above should be in the mosque article, if it is not already. In any case, I think that masjid should be its own article, and not just a redirect to mosque. The differences between the terms should be explained in both articles. Carcharoth 09:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Good point, I didn't even consider my muslim friends... they all call it the mosque. Whether that's just because it's the local word or not I don't know. There's a lot of FUD out there coming from many quarters, it's hard to sift the urban legends from the actual. --Monotonehell 12:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Bptdude, it's sweet that after reading your first book on Islam to find out about "these people" you believe you know what "they" always say, but this is a type of hypercorrection. There are in fact Muslim editors of Wikipedia, some of whom worked on the article. I am curious what this book is that teaches you so much about Islam (and such easily refuted urban legends stated as fact). And please don't try to illustrate points with offensive ethnic slurs; it's a bit like peeing in public. --Dhartung | Talk 10:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[]
The best part is that it was The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam that he used to find out about "those people." Clearly, he went right to a scholorly source. --Descendall 14:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Disagree - 'mosque' is alright

This idea that Muslims dislike the word "mosque" is news to me. I come from the world's second-largest Muslim country, and I cannot in all my years recall anyone taking any kind of offence at the use of the word mosque.

However don't take my word for it. This is from our country's largest English language newspaper, the Daily Star. According to Google, the word "mosque" has appeared in its pages no less than 19,400 times.

--Peripatetic 09:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Hey, this is a learning process, dudes. I haven't changed the article on mosques at all, yet. But here are some references.

Some things are becoming clear.

1. The source of the grief appears to be the very book I came across. “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam” book wrote such a definition, which is described as being a hoax.

2. What may turn out to be an urban legend, has indeed taken off and gathered enough steam to be picked up in very authentic Islam teaching.

3. It is indeed good Islam teaching to use Arabic language for items related to the the faith, as such things as translations of the Quran are not considered good faith. This is the basis of their calling God by the Arabic word Allah.

4. To adjust Western language is not impossible, and to use the word masjid would certainly be more correct, not offensive to anybody, would cost nothing, and would be a nice gesture to unify the different faiths of the same God.

I think I will copy this discussion to the mosque entry discussion page, edit the article there, very carefully, and if some Iman or whatnot changes it back, so be it, I'll end it there.

Bptdude 12:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[]

If they want to be so stupid then fair enough, but it is the English word for it and will thus remain at Mosque. Some discussion of the controversy may be worthy of inclusion in the article, but best to plan it out on the talk page first. violet/riga (t) 12:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Mosque is an English word, whereas masjid quite clearly isnt. Not surprising then, that mosque is used on the English wikipedia.

Wikipedia languages

why don't we put all the links of other language that remane , to the left side of the page ,like in the articles?It's empty now.-- 16:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I think the main problem is that that would take up most of the sidebar, and might cause problems at certain resolutions. There are rather alot of Wikipedias (229). Robmods 19:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[]

No ,i meant the 50,000 and 25,000 wikipedias, not ALL.Something like the french [[3]]-- 20:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[]

The problem is that if you followed the usual interwiki rule you;d have to link to every equivalent page, which would mean a long string of 228 links, with nothing to differentiate between editions with hundreds of thousands of articles, and editions that haven;t even started and have nothing but a placeholder main page. You could alternatively do what you suggest and have only the top few, but that would be inconsistent with the familiar function of interwiki links in the sidebar and would grate with me, for one. Much better is to have a detailed breakdown in a box on the main page, although it looks as if some idiots (I bet you anything they'll be Americans) have emasculated the other languages box and we now only list Wikipedia's with more than 25,000 articles. In any case, having such a section on the main page is greatly prefereable to an undifferentiated mass, or an incomplete selection, in the sidebar. 01:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

just a curious remark

I initially thought it said the 1200 year old prayer book had been "discovered in a blog in Ireland" and I scratched my head a little. John Riemann Soong 20:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[]

  • I was going to mod you +1 funny but realized this isn't slashdot. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-27 21:45
  • Because he mentioned a blog, you should mod him down -1. Isn't that the way /. works? --Dhartung | Talk 05:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I had an internal giggle on other grounds. My grandfather used to refer to the toilet as "the bog". --Monotonehell 08:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Don't start digging for artefacts there. :-) -- PFHLai 15:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[]


Today's featured article is a Pokémon. Cue the cries of outrage. Hyenaste (tell) 00:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Nope, no complaints.--Cloviz 00:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
If you don't like the FA selection, get involved with the FA selection process. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Hey, I like the selection: it shows the diversity of Wikipedia. I just knew everything below would happen. Hyenaste (tell) 22:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[]
It's about time to confirm the stereotypes! ;-) Now to add Inderpendance Day to the Selected Anniversaries ...--Eloquence* 00:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
But Inderpendence Day was three days ago. Hyenaste (tell) 00:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
You think that tiny problem cannot be easily remedied? ;-) --Eloquence* 00:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

We must ask ourselves: who's more immature, pokemon or pokemon haters/haters of any fictional article on Wikipedia? — Deckiller 01:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Just for the record - I was rather hesitant to feature this particular article. Before I scheduled it, I asked around and I got generally lukewarm responses - no one was particularly outraged, so I ran it today as an experiment - to 'stick my toes in the pool', so to speak. Raul654 03:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

To find out if it is okay for the frontpage to catch 'em all? One down, 402 to go. Dragons flight 04:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Raul, I don't see why not, Poke'mon is a pan-national phenonomon that has touched the childhoods of many english speaking societies as well as others. It's also refered to in a lot of main stream media. --Monotonehell 08:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
So it could be interesting to have a featured article on Pokemon (in general), but not on a particular pokemon. And I'm not a pokemon "hater", I just think an article on a particular pokemon as the article of the day does not give an image of a serious encyvlopedia.JeDi 09:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
But as Raul states, there isn't a featured article on that particular topic, only one on Bulbasaur. As TFAs go it's an interesting way to introduce a topic by talking about an obscure point rather than what "everyone" already knows. A 'serious' encylopedia would take on any topic of note and not make an objective call on its triviality. --Monotonehell 09:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Not "only" Bulbasaur, Torchic is featured too. Dragons flight 15:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

First some Croatian island with little or no interest when compared to thousands of other locations in Europe, and now a Pokemon on the Main Page???? What have you guys been drinking? I think everything on the planet and beyond deserves a place in Wikipedia, but not everything deserves being featured. It's ridiculous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

If you don't like the FA selection, get involved with the FA selection process. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Who's going to make that objective call? Where do you draw the line between items of interest and not? --Monotonehell 15:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
It's inappropriate to say that regardless of brilliance of writing, information, verifiability, and other FA musts, an article about a less well-known subject is inferior to an article about a more well-known one. Hyenaste (tell) 22:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[]

think again...

There is literally no legitimate reason whatsoever to let a Pokemon rear its ugly head on the Main Page. Regardless of how good the Bulbasaur article was, the very fact that it concerns a vile Pokemon means it is the cultural equivalent of manure.-- 00:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I can't wait 'til manure gets on the main page. I can just smell it now, ahhhh... --liquidGhoul 00:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Manure is important to many people in the world. Some of us work with it often. Why shouldn't it be a Featured Article? What an aroma. Shawnc 13:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Ugly!? As far as Pokémon go, Bulbasaur is cute. Hyenaste (tell) 00:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Uhmmm, what if it was Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny? I feel your comments are jaundiced, yet I can't tell why...--Cloviz 00:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

  • It's pop culture, a perfectly encyclopedic topic. Some people hate Pokémon, so what? Not featuring the page in TFA could be considered systemic bias, if you think of it. Titoxd(?!?) 00:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Eh,no. Bulbasaur is a darn pokemon,you can't compare it with Mickey Mouse or Bugs. If a "Pokeyman" is nominated again,I'll opose.--The jazz musician 21:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Bulbasaur is not as famous as Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny, but that's irrelevant. An article's featured status reflects nothing other than the quality of the article itself. Opposition based upon one's personal opinion of the subject is entirely invalid. —David Levy 22:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Is it considered a systematic bias to never walk through a cesspit? No, it is common sense. -- 00:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

No, but it is bias to call a featured article a cesspit based on its subject. Hyenaste (tell) 00:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Agreed. --Szabo 01:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Just like with every topic, there's those who like it, and those who don't. Now, why is it more objectionable than Hurricane Floyd or the Three Laws of Robotics? All three are relevant for particular groups. Titoxd(?!?) 01:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I agree that this Bulbasaur article is an insult. Charmander could totally kick Bulbasaur's ass. MarphyBlack 01:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

But if Charmander were up there, you'd say the same about Squirtle. And if Squirtle were up there, you'd shout for Bulbasaur. So thanks to intransitivity, you're getting what you want whether you know it or not! Hyenaste (tell) 01:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
(ec) Squirtle could kick Charmander's. Titoxd(?!?) 01:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
No way, dude. My charmander rocks. It's level 255, and all its stats are 999, and I taught it Flamethrower, Hydro Pump, Thunderwave, and Psychic. And I have a Pikablu, three level 100 Mewtwo's, and a backup Missingno so I can probably glitch the game and erase your save. Muahahahahaahahah. MarphyBlack 01:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Pokémon is regarded by many people today the same way comic books were in the 1940s and 1950s: idiotic or even dangerous rubbish. In fact, compared to the rhetoric of yesterday (which led to censorship and self-regulation), the reaction to Pokémon is almost disappointingly tame. 20 years from now an article like this will be regarded as an interesting historical contribution, and some other contemporary phenomenon will have taken its role. Wikipedia's NPOV policy dictates that we make no distinction and pass no judgment about the encyclopedic validity of a topic. Our mission is to describe all human knowledge and all human culture. Raul654, as featured article director, can make reasonable choices about when to feature which article, but it is not his role to judge a topic's merits. That is up to the reader.

The article should be judged on its merits as a Wikipedia article. It is richly referenced and well-structured, though it does suffer from the problem most of our fiction articles have: it focuses too much on fictional content, and too little on background, interpretations, production decisions, origins, motivations, and so on. These details are harder to research, especially for a single character, but I'd like to see their presence nevertheless as a criterion for featured fiction articles in the future. For instance, while the article has screenshots and an infobox, the article about the designer, Ken Sugimori, is only one paragraph long, and very little history and background information is included in the main article.

Still, the fact that Wikipedia has such a decent article about a pop cultural phenomenon that is well-sourced and not written either like a product brochure or like some fan website is quite impressive and, in my opinion, valuable. Someone has to document pop culture, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be us. It doesn't hurt anyone, and doesn't preclude people from working on more worthwhile topics, like humanity's great achievements in war and genocide.--Eloquence* 01:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Eloquently stated. </obvious> Tyir 01:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
If anything, we're doing humanity a favour by making it NPOV. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 01:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I think having that article on the front will really turn new users of Wikipedia off. Also Jigglypuff should be on the front if anything. Haha.

If that is the case; it is the maturity level of the people visiting's fault, not ours. If anything, this displays how diverse Wikipedia is. It should be an asset in the eyes of most (if not all) truly mature people. — Deckiller 02:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Why at least didn't we choose Pikachu the most famous Pokemon of all... Minfo 05:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Because it is not a featured article. Raul654 05:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

There's a difference between featuring Pokémon, which is obviously a uniquely popular phenomenon, and featuring Bulbasaur, which is one of 401 repetitive articles about trivial different combinations of the basic formula for creating a Pokemon character that producers use. Zocky | picture popups 14:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

If you don't like the FA selection, get involved with the FA selection process. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
If you don't like reading criticism for people who are not involved with the process, why read other talk pages? Zocky | picture popups 15:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I'm not exactly outraged by the featured article choice, but it does seem this kind of thing diminishes Wikipedia's credibility; it suggests Wikipedians can't distinguish fact from fiction. For the record, even if it were of "featured article quality", I wouldn't even want to see Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov on the front page, as he is also fictional. Crime and Punishment, yes; Fyodor Dostoevsky yes, Pokémon, yes.--Theodore Kloba 14:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Why can't people understand that Wikipedia is different because it is inclusive? Why even bother making an online encyclopedia if we aren't going to use the advantage of not being limited by paper? I've heard dozens of reasons why articles about "fictional" items shouldn't be included. Almost all are invalid; the people supporting these arguments are in fact just alienated by articles they don't perceive as "serious" (as in "would appear in britannica"). Many objects studied in modern (and not so modern) mathematics have are no less "fictional" and indeed have much less to do with reality than Bulbasaur. Yet I doubt anyone would dare complain if Klein bottle was featured on the Main page. People complain about articles like "Bulbasaur" being featured on the Main Page because they have a narrow, POV vision of what subjects are "noble" or "encyclopedic", and what subjects are not. We need to free ourselves from such prejudices once and for all. That being said, I'll gladly grant that the Pokémon anime is a rotten piece of crap. :) Phils 17:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Encyclopedias are not indiscriminate collections of information. Some things are more encyclopedic than others because there's more relevant stuff to be written about them. We don't need to retell the story of every book or movie, and we certainly don't need to retell stories of every individual character in every book or movie. Almost all of them are completely irrelevant for anything outside the book or the movie, or the anime. Zocky | picture popups 18:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
You are simply restating your bias. What I am saying is that the intuitive "rules" most people who oppose FAs like Pokémon characters use are based on an arbitrary sense of what is classically seen as "encyclopedic" or "serious" material. To give a new example using your wording, Steve Jobs is completely irrelevant outside of the computing/business world. There are thousands of successful CEOs, hundreds in the computer business, and many have made successful comebacks. Different people have completely different priorities and views: only by being generous in including material can we do them all justice. As long as the quality and content is there, the subject shouldn't matter. To me, mathematics are immensely important, but I realize they are irrelevant to most people, no matter how revered or celebrated mathematicians have been in the past. Conversely, the modern painting of people like Pollock does nothing to me. No matter how you view it, there is no rational basis to putting Bulbasaur in a different qualitative category as Victor Hugo (my respects to the great writer). Both are prominent representatives of their category. Phils 19:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Well, not exactly. Pokemon is a prominent representative of its category. Bulbasaur is not. There are literally thousands if not millions of more prominent fictional characters. The only Pokemon that approaches the "prominent representative" status for its category is Pikachu. Zocky | picture popups 19:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I will not start a sterile debate about abstract "degrees of prominence". I would wager that the number of people who know Hugo (not his works, Hugo himself) is roughly equal the number of people who know Bulbasaur. In any case, that point is irrelevant. Notability is only important in determining whether pop culture items deserve an article or not; Bulbasaur is certainly notable enough - I think we agree on this. The point of this discussion is that I think any article about a subject deserving to be included in Wikipedia can be a featured article, and featured on the main page (barring some exceptional cases, like the self-referential Wikipedia). My opinion derives from the fact that I believe there is no universally correct metric as to what subjects are "encyclopedic" or "important", due to wild variations in interests among both WIkipedians and the larger public. Classical literature has been praised and read by millions, similarly, millions of children have cheered at Bulbasaur's... "Grass-type attacks". Who are we to say the former's taste is superior to that of the children. Intellectualism is a bias too. Phils 20:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
This has nothing to do with intellectuallism or popularity of the subject. It has to do with the triviallity of producing a new Pokémon, which is why there are over 400 by now. An individual Pokemon is no more special than an individual issue of e.g. the Time, and we surely don't have articles for that. Zocky | picture popups 21:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
You are apparently not making an effort to understand what I am writing: you are again restating your bias. What you consider "trivial" isn't for others, what you see as "not special" means their life to others. It is precisely because the differing views of people like you and Pokémon fans will never be put in agreement that I am suggesting the only non-POV metric: if it has it's own article, it's important enough to be featured, and shown on the main page. I have repeated it twice now, and I will not do so again. "Triviality of production" seems a ridiculous argument: indeed, to take the example of modern art again, modern artists have been tremendously successful and influential with works that every child could produce. The original 233 iMac was an underpowered machine you could probably have assembled in your basement. Complexity is not synonymous for value, "value" being again subjective, and thus not a proper criterion for inclusion. Phils 21:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
You are again misreading what I'm saying. No bias is involved. The same holds true for trivial matters in all disciplines - individual computer or car models, most individual variations of a drug like peniciline, individual prints of stamps and money etc. etc. Categories which are trivially extendable may be encyclopedic, but the vast majority of there members aren't. Zocky | picture popups 23:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I am not sure I fully understand your last sentence, but in any case it seems clear that you determine what is "trivial" or not based strictly on your impressions. Thus, there is a bias involved. You are unable to give a reason why Bulbasaur should not be a featured article, except that it is, according to you "trivial". You have confirmed the suspicion expressed in my first comment: your opposition to the article being featured is based on a personal notion of what constitutes a trivial subject and what doesn't. Clearly we cannot agree; I consider this discussion closed. The day has passed, Bulbasaur has been on the main page all day without greater scandal (except for the usual puerile vandalism); Wikipedia moves on. Phils 23:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Let me try to illustrate the last sentence and be done with it. In the context of Wikipedia, we can all agree that Pokémon, Yugo, and Apple Imac are encyclopedic subjects that need to be covered in their own articles. That's because all three of them are, as you say, important representatives of their categories, i.e. anime, cars, and computers. However according to some people, Bulbasaur, Beedrill, Ursaring, 1986 Yugo 45A, 1988 Yugo 55GT, 1989 Yugo 55GTLX, Imac M9290LL/A, Imac M6709LL/B and Imac M7389LL/A are also encyclopedic articles which each need their own article. Well, I think these are trivially different from the basic model - there is nothing special to tell about the individual models, they differ only in statistics.
Now, we don't really lack URLs, and there are some advantages to having articles about things at their names, so I don't necessarily think they should be deleted or merged. But no, there is simply not enough encyclopedic material about them to write a separate featured article. If "the sum of human knowledge" included everything that ever happened to any fictional characters, we would simply copy the books. Zocky | picture popups 01:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Oh, BTW, I'm not "restating my bias". I'm clarifying (and somewhat reiterating) my opinion. Zocky | picture popups 01:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Can we have smegma on the main page then please? ;-) Neilius 22:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Sure, some time after it becomes a featured article. Hyenaste (tell) 01:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[]

I demand that Pikachu gets put on the main page as a featured article! dposse 18:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[]

Delicious coincidence

The choice of the Pokemon character is just too funny: Anyone read The Onion's cover story on Wikipedia this week? "Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence", specifically the quote: "[Wikipedia] site now boasts over 4,300,000 articles in multiple languages, over one-quarter of which are in English, including 11,000 concerning popular toys of the 1980s alone." Well, sure this is from the 1990s, but I'm sure we're working on getting those numbers up to snuff!  ;-) --Bobak 15:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

If you look at the massive section of Wikipedia devoted to Warhammer then it really should come as no surprise that Wiki has decided to promote the pointless Pokemon series.--Edchilvers 17:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Obscene images

Somone decided to revert this page to obscene and offensive pictures. I then erased it (not having edited wiki before I just cleared the offensive stuff. Whomever accused me of vandalism this is why I did what I did —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I think the problem was that this edit by User:Joelr31 cleared out the vandalism just moments before you began your edit, which effectively erased the page. Just as anyone can contribute to an article (with some exceptions), anyone is encouraged to remove vandalism as in your April edit (at least it's the same IP address). But stuff on the main page gets reverted quickly, so just be careful. Blanking a page is an extreme last-resort form of protection. --Dhartung | Talk 02:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
But thanks for your efforts. violet/riga (t) 08:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Fujimori and Robespierre

The picture of Fujimori should be instead of Robespierre's one because as it says July 28th is the date of his accession to power and July 28th 2006 is the date of government shift in Peru. Fujimori representing Peru is more important than Robespierre. 02:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

OTD is not ordered by importance. If anything, it should vary what it features on the same day each year, to highlight more and different articles. --Dhartung | Talk 02:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
But the importance of Fujimori in current events in Peru should qualify for his picture instead of robespierre's one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
You misunderstand the purpose of the section, but thanks for giving your opinion. If you would like to help make sure that On This Day does not overlook the connection between upcoming days' items of note and current events, you could start a Wikiproject to review On This Day in advance from a variety of national perspectives. --Dhartung | Talk 05:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
That's the worthy idea, but let's not give illusions that any such a project would think that Fujimori is more important globally and historically than Robespierre. Zocky | picture popups 03:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Odd choice for On This Day

While it's true that Alberto Fujimori became the president of Peru on July 28, so did Alejandro Toledo, Alan García, Fernando Belaúnde Terry (twice), Manuel A. Odría, and José Bustamante y Rivero. --Descendall 02:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[] 02:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

In other words, it's the constitutional inauguration day for Peru, just as January 20 is in the U.S. It probably isn't the most important or interesting date of Fujimori's rule. --Dhartung | Talk 02:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]


In the "On this Day" section, it states that Alberto Fujimore was "the first person of East Asian descent to become executive head of state of a non-Asian nation." Yet the article states that "he was the first person of East Asian descent to become head of state of a Latin American nation, and (after Arthur Chung in the ceremonial presidency of Guyana and Henk Chin A Sen, president of Suriname), the third person of East Asian descent to become head of a South American state." I am missing something, or is the main page incorrect? Trojan traveler 03:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

It would be better, and simpler, to say "the first person of East Asian descent to govern a non-Asian nation". Avoids messy local definitions of head of state vs. head of government. Both Chung and (Chin A?) Sen were in ceremonial positions. Also, use Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors for this sort of thing. --Dhartung | Talk 05:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Then shouldn't it be "the first person of East Asian decent to govern a non-Asian nation in South America?" The whole thing is absurd. Just say "the third East Asian president of a South American country" or "the only East Asian to govern a South American country from 1990 to 2000." Or better yet, drop the whole thing. It's incredibly trival. You really might as well say "The second East Asian to govern a Latin American country whose first name starts with an A." --Descendall 05:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
For what it's worth, I thought it was pretty darn interesting. -Elmer Clark 06:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
You're talking about a man who held a coup d'etat against his own government and ultimately faxed in his resignation from the presidency from a hotel in Tokyo. There are more interesting things about Fujimori than his status as the third guy of East Asian decent to become a president in South America. --Descendall 19:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Since Guyana and Suriname are frequently considered to be Caribbean nations rather than Latin American ones, why not simply say 'the first person of East Asian descent elected as a head of state of a Latin American nation'? --MooseMan1342 12:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I don't think either Ching or Sen took office after a general election. Anyway, I've rewritten the line to say that Fujimori is "the first Japanese ....". This should be clear enough, I hope. -- PFHLai 16:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Weren't Incas ultimately of East Asian descent? Zocky | picture popups 15:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

According some legends, yeah. ..... so I've heard.... --PFHLai 16:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
According to current science, all American natives are ultimately of Asian descent. Zocky | picture popups 18:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
And every race originates from East Africa. I know, I know .... --PFHLai 18:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Yes, but East Africa used to be a part of Pangaea. So clearly, we can say that American natives came from Pangaea, whereas East Asians came from East Africa, while the Incas came from East Asia, and the Europeans are from Earth. If we include the origins of the Earth, then we can clearly deduce that Australian aborigines have their origins in the solar nebula. It's all making perfect sense! — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-28 18:53

This is making me so mad!!!!1

What the hell is this. this is why ppl critize wiki!!!!! i went on the bulbasaur page and there TWO BIG PICTURES OF PENISES!!! it made me so mad cuz my family is behind me!!!! can an admin do sumthin and make it so ppl cant edit the page!!!!!

The featured articles should be protected from editing, since they were chosen to be featured as they are.--Cloviz 17:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
This also happens in the Sandslash page. 17:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
No, they should not. Raul654 17:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
That's the ultimate truth?--Cloviz 18:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Yep, always has been. BrokenSegue 18:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I checked the history and no one put pictures of penises onto that page or the page about Sandslash. Fredil Yupigo 18:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Actually, here it is in the edit history (beware nudity, obviously).--Bobak 18:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Here's the problem - someone's been putting penis images in the Pokemon template. So these pictures appeared on hundreds of pages at once... - 19:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Wow, that's a lotta dick. --Bobak 19:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
It sure can see how people are reacting to it on various pages[4][5][6][7]. The vandal had a lot of fun today. - 19:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Just out of curiousity, has there been any record of which Mainpage FAs have been vandalized the most in their, uh, "reign"? Glancing at the edit history of this artlce, it looks like we have a contender. --Bobak 18:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Usually ones about Nazis or Jews are vandalized a lot, because people are looking for the greatest shock value. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-28 18:48
THen why the hell can I see 4 pictures of penises when I open the Sandslah page!!!! 18:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Try a hard referesh or F5. Could be the image is in your cache. BrokenSegue 19:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

wow, I think this is the first time I've seen an "!!!!1" string in its unironic-use natural habitat... dab () 19:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Uhh, this is sort of a big deal right now. People who view wikipedia at work are most likely unamused, and it's suprising that no admin has done anything about, at the very least, the bulbasaur article. Sanjayhari 19:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

To the contrary, the admins are working furiously to revert the vandalism and block the vandals. The vandals (apparently an international group) are working furiously to bypass the admins. It's a cycle they "win" just by staying in the game, to quote some recent politics. --Dhartung | Talk 21:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
What the hell? I guess this is what happens when we make a Pokemon a featured article. But seriously in the words of Samuel Jackson: "Get these mother--cking penises of my mother--cking Wikipedia!" Pacific Coast Highway (blahI'm a hot toe picker) 20:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
  • confused* --Sergio Á. 20:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I can no longer see the images :) 21:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Bulbasaur's image

I don't think fair use images should be on the Main Page, so please remove the Bulbasaur image. TZMT (de:T) 17:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I agree. If this is an abuse of fair use in normal circumstancs, what makes Bulbasaur different? Pacific Coast Highway (blahI'm a hot toe picker) 22:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

wow, just shut up...

The policy is that if any free image exists, it goes on the front, no matter the quality. However, with Cheers, it was decided fair use images are okay in moderation. -- Zanimum 17:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
The Pokemon game and animated series have an article in Wikipedia and one can move the bulbasaur image into the article. Fair use articles relate to educational value are allowed and the pokemon hobby is a well-renowned one familiar to most people in pop culture. I have no opposition to the bulbasaur image, but doesn't constitute a major subject of research in encyclopedias. Tomorrow, that image will be replaced with a new subject and at least I'm glad Wikipedia knows what's cool in the world. --Mike D 26 23:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Penis images

what's with the penis..... Sergio Á. 20:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Yeah, what the heck was that? --Fang Aili talk 20:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

it keeps penises everywhere!! gah!!Sergio Á. 20:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Whoever is responsible, please stop. This page really must remain work-friendly. --Fang Aili talk 20:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Who ever is abusing the main page of Wikipedia needs to be stopped and indentified and punished rightly so Bernie in Cuyahoga County in Cleveland Ohio in the 44109-4665 20:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]


I see a picture of someone masterbating. I am sure this is not supposed to be on there. An administrator should clean that up quick. Mr. C.C. 20:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Nevermind, it's gone now. Was I the only one who saw it? Mr. C.C. 20:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

nope, a few of us did--Sergio Á. 20:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I saw that one and also one of an erect and flaccid penis before that. How is that possible? --Kevs 20:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I'm wondering the same thing...--Sergio Á. 20:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Maybe we have a rogue admin? I'll check the history. --Draicone (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[]

The great penis controversy of 2006

What's going on? There are penises everywhere! No offense, but I don't want this to degenerate into a whole or tubgirl thing. Pacific Coast Highway (blahI'm a hot toe picker) 20:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Flying hell. I can't do anything about it right now because I'm at work and can't risk it. The main page is protected; what's going on? --Fang Aili talk 20:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I don't mind seeing penises...i look for them...but not on the front i can't risk being on the main page--Sergio Á. 20:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Somebody found a loophole in the protection of the featured article. Anyone who adds a featured article to the main page needs to check that any templates it contains are also protected. This time, someone forgot to check. --Heron 20:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the answer. At least we know how it happened now. --Fang Aili talk 20:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Same here --Sergio Á. 20:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Oh yes, I forgot to say: the relevant page has now been protected. The loophole still exists, though. --Heron 21:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
the 'loophole' is also known as "anyone can edit". The problem with this is that "anyone" also includes a lot of puerile jerks, but that's hardly news. dab () 21:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Maybe Sysadmin day should have been a lead story.

The worst form of Wikipedia vandalism is not tolerated and the penis scenes are not appropriate for younger users who may use wikipedia for school study or research. I'm glad administrators eradicated the penis scenes and let's make sure no other repeated incidents occur, because whoever is caught doing this in Wikipedia will pay the price. I never saw the scenes nor need to and the bulbasaur image would attract children to read the article. Keep out obscene and graphic images out of Wikipedia. --Mike D 26 22:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

No vandalism is tolerated, of course, and vandalism of this sort is dealt with swiftly. But short of completely protecting articles while on the main page, or otherwise abandoning Wikipedia's mission of being open to editing by anyone, it will never be possible to guarantee against a repeat. The best we can hope is that effective patrolling reduces the incentive vandals have, becuase their handiwork is not displayed for very long. --Dhartung | Talk 23:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]
What about subst:ing all templates in featured article blurbs? — ceejayoz talk 02:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I don't really think that's a good idea because if you subst all the templates then when a non-vandal newbie tries to edit it all he gets is a pile of incoherent junk with no meaning whatsoever. And I think I would know how it feels when your parents are right behind you and a picture of a penis pops up on the screen. I'm 12. Some of you older editors might have forgotten, but I know. Fredil Yupigo 02:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Non-vandal newbies can't edit the featured article blurbs. I'm not talking about subst:ing in the article itself, just the excerpt that's going on the Main Page in a separate template. — ceejayoz talk 15:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[]

If penis is ever put on the front page as Today's Featured Article, will it be vandalised with pictures of Bulbasaur? --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Sam! Don't encourage them! Fredil Yupigo 16:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Nooooooo, it will be vandalised with pictures of IVRYSAUR.Anyway...I don't even know why I was trying to look up Ivysaur anyway, I haven't been into pokemon since I was 6 (5 years ago)--Centurion Ry 11:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Yes Sam never heard of Heinz? Thanks for a great laugh though ;) --Alf melmac 11:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Loch Ard Gorge

A good example of main page features, Loch Ard Gorge is written properly and the scenic photograph of the site relates well. The article's basic information doesn't ramble and describes the place in full detail. What can we learn from the feature? I think an award for "best Wikipedia feature" is considerate, and if the poster is a "newbie" he/she has enough experience on artistic design on the internet. Keep up the good work. --Mike D 26 23:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[]

There's a lot of work to be done to bring it up to the featured article criteria. In the future, though, nominations for featured status go on Featured article candidates. — ceejayoz talk 02:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[]
How about a Good Article nomination ? --PFHLai 15:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[]
It's an okay little article, but it's not that good. The picture is what makes it, but the article shouldn't be structured as a picture caption. --Dhartung | Talk 22:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[]

"The earliest bank to employ women"

That sounds like an outrageous claim - both banks and female employment existed for long before the 19th century. Since the claim is unreferenced on the page, we should probably remove it from the main page. Zocky | picture popups 03:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I tend to agree. Since none of the statements in the article are referenced, I change the DYK to be more generic and vague. If one can demonstrate a cited claim, feel free to reword it. — Knowledge Seeker 04:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[]


Both today's featured article and the top news item (the rediscovery of German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin) are clear evidence of Wikipedia's inherent pro-Nazi bias. JusticeGuy 08:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[]

(PS - that was a joke) JusticeGuy 08:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC) []
That's why I like Wikipedia—it's in tune with my Nazi lifestyle. Hyenaste (tell) 08:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[]
You might want to consider that in some parts of the world, making light of Nazism is considered poor taste. Zocky | picture popups 16:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[]
well, Wikipedia talkpages have never been censored for good taste, in my experience. Except on April Fool's Day, of course, when any attempt at being funny is relentlessly repressed :) dab () 17:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Interesting. 21:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Did you know...Chindonya

The last item in the 'Did you know...' section has a typo - double 'are':

Did you know...

"that Chindonya are are elaborately costumed Japanese street musicians that advertise for shops and other establishments?"

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 15:13, 2006 July 29 (UTC).

Someone fixed this already. Thanks for pointing this out. Next time, please report errors like that at WP:ERRORS. Thanks. -- PFHLai 16:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Language template

I don't understand why a handful of users have such antipathy for the presence of a substantial language template on the front page--especially when a significant number of people find those links very useful. Numerous and repeated debates have determined that people feel that the English Wikipedia has a unique responsibility to promote other language Wikipedias and that a high cutoff is arbitrary and discriminatory. Please return the template to its earlier design until there is visible consensus for change. The larger template survived the Main Page redesign, and I don't see any reason for change now. Also look at the debate from last year that succeeded in reestablishing the template after a similar change: Talk:Main_Page/Archive_44 Tfine80 17:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[]

  • "Significant number"? How many? Previous debates do not prevent a page from being changed in the present or future. A high cutoff is simply to make the section readable--nobody is going to skim through a huge unformatted block of links (on 800x600 monitors, this block of links takes up the entire screen), whereas including only the largest Wikipedias makes the section short and readable. Anyone who wants to see 10,000+ Wikipedias can simply click on Complete List and go to "10,000+". There was visible consensus for change--that's why the new change occurred. See the huge discussion above for the reasons why the changes were made (besides the reasons I have just stated). A debate from last year doesn't prevent new changes from being made. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-29 17:51
  • Numerous and repeated debates have determined that people feel that the English Wikipedia has a unique responsibility to promote other language Wikipedias and that a high cutoff is arbitrary and discriminatory. - and where was this determined? A handful of people have made that claim, but that's all it is - an unsubstantiated claim. Raul654 18:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[]
There are many ways it is arbitrary. 1,000, and certainly 10,000, articles is a fairly large amount when you consider the amount of work involved. Also, some "small article" Wikipedias like the Vietnamese Wikipedia actually have many more edits and users than other Wikipedias above them on this list. The newly reduced list also excludes important new and growing Wikipedias. For example, the new change now removes the substantial and growing Arabic and Persian Wikipedias which we very much want to promote. Because of the unique visibility of the English Wikipedia, there will inevitably be resentment by users of the Wikipedias cut-off, and this has been demonstrated through complaints by users of other Wikipedias during the previous failed attempts to shrink the template. Tfine80 15:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[]
    • I'm more concerned with the size of the page in bytes than screens. Bottom screens are cheap - there's nothing wrong with a full screen of links to other wikipedias, as long as it's structured so that things can be found. Unless they bring a significant change in page size in bytes (as transferred to clients, not the source), they should be on the main page. Zocky | picture popups 22:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[]
  • There was a consensus for change. It is visible above, at length. An arbitrary cutoff is in its definition non-discriminatory, any subjective decision on who is in and who is out would be (again as discussed at length above). The previous design was a monolith of blue text, assalting the eyes and was near useless at communicating anything but volume. I don't think it falls on en.wp to link to every other wp on the main page there's plenty of opportunity for people to find their own language at the WP gateway [8] for first time users. Those who come here via internal links can find the language boxes on many articles or via the main page to here [9]. --Monotonehell 04:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[]
    • Length may be an issue here. J-A-V-A 15:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[]
There was certainly no consensus for change; once again this has been done with very little visibility. Raul has been trying to change the template for a long, long time and has repeatedly been stifled by other users who frequently use these links and have ties to the new and growing foreign language Wikipedias. The Meta list of other Wikipedias is not user-friendly at all (for example, the first link does not lead to the Wikipedia itself), and it was not established for this purpose. I think a lot of users who use these links are tired of having to have these debates every few months. The template is not that unattractive (I actually find its global thrust makes a bold and strong statement), and if someone is looking for a foreign language Wikipedia, it is not hard to navigate.
Other users like SJ, Node ue, and Eloquence have all challenged these changes in the past. Especially because the template survived the Main Page redesign process, I think we need a larger community discussion. The views of the people who actually use the links and are tied to the Wikipedias newly cut-off should receive due attention. Tfine80 15:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Please explain how this was user-friendly, especially at lower resolutions. Why should we include small Wikipedias on the main page? General encyclopedias usually contain about 30,000-60,000 articles. If people want to find the small Wikipedias, they should go to , which makes sense as a page for listing large and small. It doesn't make sense to require that list to be on any one of those languages' sites. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-30 17:17
Yes, it is bold and large. And so is Wikipedia.... It looks fine to me, and I use it frequently and do not find it unwieldy at all. But I fail to understand why the proponents of the template have the burden of proof. It has looked like that for months and months, surviving the page redesign; it is convenient; and it is popular among many en users and the admins of other Wikipedias. English Wikipedia has a unique responsibility to promote other and smaller Wikipedias (especially because of its sometimes arrogant image), and I don't see why your personal aethestic objections should result in the substantial reduction of an important gateway that has long existed. Tfine80 17:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Many negative aspects of the main page survived the redesign, simply because people fear change. Precedent doesn't prevent a change from being made. You'll have to provide evidence for your claim that "it is popular among many en users and the admins of other Wikipedias". It makes more sense to have promote smaller Wikipedias (which it does, right on its front page). That is the important gateway--the bottom of a specific language's main page is not the appropriate gateway. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-30 18:03
There are many places all over Wikipedia because this issue has come up time after time. Yet the longer list has always been preferred and has remained year after year. Here is one example from when the conclusion to keep 1000+ was reached during the page redesign. Also, when Raul last removed the template, a number of users and admins of other Wikipedias wrote on this very page to complain -- see the previous discussion linked from above. Tfine80 18:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Again, past discussions do not prevent future changes. In any case, far more people were involved in the latest discussion (which led to the change being kept) than in the discussion you linked to, and at least one of the people in that discussion who was supportive then is no longer supportive, and is at most neutral. It seems wrong to try to maintain a version based on a brief "vote" on a page that readers would never find. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-30 19:40
Why don't we just remove all of inter-language links at the bottom for each and every wikipedia? After all, this is the English wikipedia, while the others are the German, French, bengali, etc. Then place all of the links of each language, whether it has 1 million or 1 articles at --Howard the Duck 02:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Because other Wikipedias are not other projects, they are a part of the same project as the English Wikipedia. It is in the interest of the project to promote other Wikipedias. Zocky | picture popups 02:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Here's an idea: Why don't we put the interlanguage links on the panel on the left, like where they are for every other page? zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Somebody else suggested that above, but was shot down, I've noticed that a few 'other language' WPs do it, the Dutch one (I think it was) had the most with 3 page fulls (at 1024x768) of interwiks down the left column. I'm not sure if it's a good or bad thing. If it's longer than the actual page possibly bad. --Monotonehell 05:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I think there are a couple of issues here, both with the utility of the template and the design. First, we should remember there is likely quite a siginificant group of casual English Wikipedia readers who have no idea that a Wikipedia exists in their native language, say Farsi. So I think this really does deserve a high priority. As to design, I think the template has some redundancy issues. There is no point in listing every language twice (twice); we're trying to reach people who actually use the language, so the English name is not helpful (and we don't use them in the interwiki sidebar either). This alone would almost halve the size of the template. It's also rather cluttering to divide the Wikipedias into two or three ranks. So, yes, I think we can have our cake and eat it too, or at least set a cut-off considerably below 25,000.--Pharos 06:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[]

How about a reasonably large font link with "Wikipedians are written in many languages. To see the full list click here". Maybe over two lines at the bottom. Still clear that they exist, and provides links to all of them. -- 08:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[]
That's what I suggested above so I concur. But what Pharos says also makes sence if there's enough support for it. --Monotonehell 08:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I agree with Pharos's suggestion to remove the English link for the language, in order to make the section shorter. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-31 13:18
I concur with Pharos and Brian - anything that makes that section shorter. Raul654 15:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I've implemented this latest suggestion. Maybe now others would have a better case for adding some of the smaller Wikipedias, either 10,000+ (16 Wikipedias) or 15,000+ (5 Wikipedias), or somewhere in between. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-31 15:27

I don't much like the current single list approach of mixing a Wikipedia with >400,000 articles with one with 10,000. The point of a layered structure was that it highlights the potential usefulness of the different languages. I would prefer having at least one additional cut-off point, e.g. 50,000. It was always nice to see when a Wikipedia crossed the threshold to be moved from one list to another.--Eloquence* 20:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[]

  • The thing is, I think it's sort of an artificial distinction, and rather pride-based. Few people are so multilingual that they will have to go through more than a couple of these looking for something more "useful" to read for them, and the fact is that languages like Farsi really need editors more than languages like French. Maybe when the smaller 'pedias cross the 50K point we can send them flowers, raise a pint to them, and set off firecrackers, but I don't know if our heart-felt congratulations should be the operative factor in Main Page design.--Pharos 21:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[]
    • Please, folks, have a look at this version, which David Levy reverted as being overly radical. I think it deals with some of the fundamental sprawlingness of the ranked set-up, and assimilates this section in better with the other parts of the Main Page. Thanks.--Pharos 23:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[]
      • The assimilation is part of the problem. When the main page was redesigned, there was strong consensus for leaving the three bottom sections box-free (to differentiate between featured content and primarily static project information). The article count is included in the hope that it will eventually be removed from the top of the page. —David Levy 23:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[]
      • My main problem from the beginning was the unreadability of a large block o' links, which is essentially what yours is as well. Splitting it up may take up a bit more space, and may be a bit arbitrary, but it definitely makes the list readable and navigable. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-01 01:19

"The point of a layered structure was that it highlights the potential usefulness of the different languages." Taking this into account I would suggest the following structure: 1,000,000+, 500,000+ (currently no WP), 200,000+ (5 WPs), 100,000+ (4 WPs), 50,000+ (5 WPs), 20,000+ (16 WPs), 10,000+ (15 WPs). It would hardly take up any additional space on the page. (Underlying concept: factor 2 or 2.5 between cutoffs; round numbers beginning with 1, 2 and 5, immediately followed by zeros.) -- 12:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[]

Main Page images

It's been brought to my attention that excluding the featured picture, an image width significantly greater than 100px causes the accompanying text to wrap too much at the 800x600px resolution. Assigning a fixed 100px width, however, results in vertically-oriented ("portrait") images that are much larger than their horizontally-oriented ("landscape") counterparts. For example, here are two images with exactly the same aspect ratio (but different orientations), each displayed with a width of 100px:

Kitten-massage.jpg Kitten-feeding.jpg

The first is 100x75px, while the second is 100x133px (77% larger). This issue gives the main page an unbalanced appearance.

Therefore, instead of using an arbitrary width for all images, I propose that we establish an arbitrary standard (perhaps 100px) for whichever dimension is greater (the width or the height):

Kitten-massage.jpg Kitten-feeding.jpg

The first image remains 100x75px, while the second becomes 75x100px (exactly the same size as the first). As always, exceptions can be made for images with unusual aspect ratios.

Any thoughts? —David Levy 21:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Mediawiki has a feature for this: [[Image:Kitten-massage.jpg|100x100px]] :[[Image:Kitten-feeding.jpg|100x100px]] produces:
Kitten-massage.jpg Kitten-feeding.jpg
All we need to do is to always use 100x100px. Zocky | picture popups 21:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Thank you! I knew that there was MediaWiki markup for this purpose, but I couldn't recall the exact format. —David Levy 21:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Hard disk is 50 years old

The 50th anniversary of hard disk technology is coming. See: RAMAC There should be some mention, like a daily featured article or an "On this day item". BTW, how many hard disks does wikipedia use? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 09:21, 2006 July 31 (UTC).

Thanks for the suggestion. The first commercial computer that used magnetic disk storage will appear on MainPage on September 4th. I've just added that to the Selected Anniversaries template. -- PFHLai 15:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Compressed, all of the English Wikipedia is about 120 GB (or was some months ago). So in principle the encyclopedia only needs one, though I am sure every server has a hard drive, and we now have 240 servers. Dragons flight 09:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I don't understand, how does all the infomation on wikipedia fit on one hard disk?

  • Its actually a lot smaller than you'd think. The text itself could fit compressed on a single DVD. What takes up a lot of extra room are:
1. The edit histories (going back 10s of thousands of times for some articles).
2. The images.
3. The talk pages and all appropriate archives.
For example, a reasonably oft-cited "limit" on the size of an article is 30 kilobytes. This means that even if every article on Wikipedia was up to that length (not going to happen any time soon!), Wikipedia would be a mere 30 gigabytes before compression. On the other hand, the single image in that article might be 100 kilobytes, quite a bit larger than the whole article itself. Thus, while the full text of Wikipedia could fit twice on a DVD when compressed, including all the media, edit histories, and talk pages makes it a lot larger. Dark Shikari 14:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Greg Maddux

Shouldn't we put the fact that a future hall of famer & 300 game winner was traded to the Los Angeles Dodgers? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 20:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC).[]

If we did Maddux, we'd also have to do Bobby Abreu being traded, Andruw Jones almost being traded, and Alfonso Soriano not being traded. And if we do that, we may as well put in the end of Reggie Bush's holdout, and the continuation of Matt Leinart's. And if we have baseball and football, we'd probably also have to throw in any major trades in basketball, hockey, and even soccer. And if we allow something as unimportant as Soccer on the main page, we may as well have important news from the (non-existant) Transsexual Senior Softball League or something. So I think it's a reeeeaaaally bad precedent. Preston 21:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Please see Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page to find out what the 'In the news' section on MainPage is about. We strongly prefer major news items with international relevance there. If you insist, please post your suggestion at the ITN Candidates' page, not here on Talk:Main Page. But I doubt this would get posted on MainPage. -- PFHLai 22:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[]

% of edits non-logged?

what % of wikipedia's edits are by non-logged users? I'm guessingn a massive majority —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 23:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC).

I think you guess wrong. Check the history of any article; you will see a majority of logged users' edits.--Cloviz 00:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[]
OTOH, there are many articles, especially those with short edit histories, which were mostly written by non-logged in users. Zocky | picture popups 02:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[]

Well its not quite the answer you were looking for, but an old statistic quoted on the now defunct Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, is that;

As of February 2005, the English Wikipedia received more than 15,000 edits a day, 35% of which were made by people who were not on the list of the 1000 highest contributors.

So a year and a half ago, anon editors were probably contributing less that 35% of edits. On the other hand it is difficult to be sure how well that statistic was measured (its possible it actually excludes all anonymous edits). There are however, several surprisingly prolific anonymous editors. -- Solipsist 17:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[]

Just refound one of those prolific good anonymous editors. Check the talk page for -- Solipsist 23:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[]
check pages with, Special:Cite or here there is a 50 or so day lag but u get the idea Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 17:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[]

Our Main Page

Having had a look around at all the others, I think that our Main Page is... well... the best! hydnjo talk 00:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[]

  • Agreed. For some reason, the other Wikipedias got this crazy idea to write in a language that I don't understand, making the pages nearly useless. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-01 01:15
That too. --hydnjo talk 14:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Always a moving project though, could still be better. Like the portals. They could do with some work. -- 07:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[]

Castro temporarily hands power over

[10] this may warrant inclusion as news when it develops. TewfikTalk 01:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[]

You must first create a good article for it and then post your suggestion at ITN Candidates' page--Cloviz 03:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[]

Message at top of page

I don't like that two line thing appearing at the top of every single page on Wikipedia - it's quite ugly and distracts from the primary purpose of Wikipedia which is to be an encyclopedia for the general public, not a message board for Wikipedians! — SteveRwanda 09:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[]

Agree 110.1415% -- 10:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[]
I completely agree with this. There are more than enough places where anyone who is interested will find the information. It should NOT be on top of every page, in fact nothing should *ever* be at the top of every page. So much effort has gone into designing the main page and then suddenly it's ruined because someone wants to announce something very loudly. Piet 10:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[]
I suggest putting this message only on the Community Portal page. Maybe make it larger, because the people who visit that page are usually the ones interested in getting involved in things like elections, promotional events, etc... Phils 10:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[]
Or on watchlists, as was done for the arb com elections (IIRC). --Spangineeres (háblame) 15:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[]

Simple English

Who added that lonely-looking interwiki-link to the Simple English WP to the main page? Simple has more than 10000 articles, so it should be in the languages box. --Rain74 12:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[]

but, simple english is not a language. BrokenSegue 17:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[]
That was the reason behind Brian0918's idea to move it from the Wikipedia languages section. (More precisely, it was to eliminate the lengthy text that I had added to accommodate it.) Unfortunately, it was automatically labeled "in other languages, and I was unsuccessful in my attempts to change that. The link has been moved back to the Wikipedia languages section, and the explanatory text has been reworded to avoid referring to the various Wikipedias as "other languages." —David Levy 17:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[]


Castro is relinquishing duties - not power - as per the Cuban constitution. Please change asap.--Zleitzen 15:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[]

Try WP:ERRORS. -- 16:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[]
I'm not sure I truly see the distinction between powers and duties, myself. But it seemed to matter to some people. --Dhartung | Talk 08:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[]

main page / article

How come the Main Page shows "main page" and "discussion" tabs, while this page shows "article" and "discussion" tabs? Not sure if it always has, but I've just noticed it. Could be a little confusing to some. violet/riga (t) 15:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[]

  • Good point, i'll make a mental note to be confused next time :) Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 18:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[]

Casualty amount in Qana airstrike

Please update the casualty count as noted in the main article and talk page. --aishel 17:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[]

Try WP:ERRORS. -- 20:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[]


Meh, who the funk cares aboot Canada? Boring bias! I call shenanigans, eh?! --Bobak 00:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[]

  • I accidentally read the notice at the top as "Canadians for the Election for the Board of Trustees", and your comment about bias suddenly made perfect sense. :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-02 00:24
I know, eh, what's this all aboot? --Kinst 03:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[]
What's up with the anti-Canadianism? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[]
Wow, they make articles about anything now, eh? --Bobak 15:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[]
Anti-Canadianism? More like jealousy, but someone will call it an unfavourable systemic bias. :) -- 19:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[]
I Am Canadian and I have never met a Canadian who says "eh". It is the stupidest of all the stereotypes. By the way, I am Canadian, and I DO NOT LIKE HOCKEY. And Who the funk cares aboot Canada? Besides the 32,547,200 people that live in Canada, and any relatives or friends they have in other countries, lots of people do. Rihanna said on MuchMusic (Canada's MTV), that when people asked her where her favourite country was (besides her own), out of all the countries she's been to, she said Canada. And The Veejay (Devon Soltendieck)
asked, "But you've been to places like Italy, and France, and Japan". Rihanna replied "Yes, But, Canada".

Canada Here's a link, use it.


There's a typo in today's featured article, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. "Remedies" has only one 'i'. Could someone fix this? --dm (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[]

Try WP:ERRORS. -- 15:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[]

Image Sizes

The images currently seem very small (except for the featured picture). Can they perhaps be made a bit bigger? Thanks in advance. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 05:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia as advertisement

Practically all of your contemporary biographies read like advertisements. How can I trust you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 18:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC).[]

Please add {{Advert}} on articles that read like advertisements. Someone will clean them up shortly. Actually, you can start cleaning them up right away. -- 19:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[]
Read like adverts in what language? But seriously, I think it's a result of articles being created (usually) by people who like that individual and think they should have an article, or have their article expanded. It you want to see a mess, watch some of the "company" edits of for-profit colleges that turn them into brochures. As the person above stated, feel free to take a knife (edit) to it immediately if you wish --Bobak 19:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[]
Or the people trying to quietly slip a URI for their business into an article claiming it as further reading. We're watching (most of the time). --Monotonehell 20:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[]
The IP editor has been adding nonsense to Alan Hart (writer), and has received four warnings in little over 24 hours. --Dhartung | Talk 08:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[]
Wikipedia is not a commercial service for advertisers. Why not take it to Campus Life magazine for college admission endorsements? Articles should stay away from endorsing products or anything of the sort. You never will find an ad inside Encyclopedia Britannica or the World Book, would you? The thing is free enterprise doesn't really exist in academic research sources, so whoever placed the advertising-like articles should adhere to this rule. --Mike D 26 12:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[]

Finnish Sauna

This is my first attempt to initiate a discussion: in the Northern Michigan area saunas used by American-Finns, bundles of cedar branches (instead of birch leaves) are provided to beat the skin to a rosy red and, as grandfather said, "to open the pores."

Also, I see no mention of "Tar Candles" as a folk medicine. In Finland, there is a saying: "If tar and the Sauna don't work, you're going to die." Commodore678 03:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[]

okay... you may want to find the appropriate article for that... like Sauna. -- 07:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[]

Tisha B'Av

Today is Tisha B'Av in the Hebrew Calendar, commemorating the day that both Temples were destroyed and several other tragedies befell the Jews throughout history.

Is this important holiday of one of the World's major religions not qualified for inclusion on the main page? Elipongo 09:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[]

I'm sorry, but no. Lots of love, - Mel Gibson 09:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)—The preceding comment purported to be made by Mel Gibson was added by (talkcontribs) 09:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC).[]
rude ;)
You may like to read the guidelines for suggesting entries to on this day and then suggest it if it fits --Monotonehell 10:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[]
Good joke <g> Thanks for the link. However, although that page does state what the *criteria* for inclusion are, it does not state what *procedure* to use to request for events to be included! I just got done surfing around for fifteen minutes and could not find a page to *make* a suggestion. Maybe I'm just being dumb, but its rather user unfriendly, in my not so humble opinion! Elipongo 15:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Over a million guidelines and counting. Once you've been here a few months, you'll sometimes be lucky enough to find the procedure you're looking for. Often the best thing to do is post something here and hope someone notices and gives you a link or points you to the right person (the Wikimaster of Selected Anniversaries). Piet 17:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[]

That was a hearty laugh this morning --thanks, I needed it! --Bobak 15:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[]

Please scroll up to the top of this talkpage to see what to do when there is an omission on the Main Page. -- 20:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[]

Elipongo, it is not that the holiday failed to meet criteria, but that it simply wasn't one of the 4 or 5 anniversaries chosen. There are many more anniversaries eveyr day than may feasibly be featured on the front page. --Dhartung | Talk 08:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[]

News items

Huh? Isn't the North Korean flood more important than anything Floyd Landis will ever do? Call me crazy... -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[]

In The News is not Wikinews. In the News covers how articles have been updated to reflect new events. Create a good article on the North Korean flood, and it can be added to the ITN template. Dark Shikari talk/contribs 18:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[]
You can start with posting a headline about the flood along with a few newslinks on Portal:Current events. Thanks. -- 20:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[]

Featured Article

Lindsay Lohan, "Music of the US" the featured article had gone down. Are we really short of anything substantial? Defining? Obscure? Needing exploration? May an article on "Everyday Life" next or "Pubic Hairs?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArthurianLegend (talkcontribs) .

Music of the United States is an article you might find in any encyclopedia. And you missed the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Nevertheless, if the article on pubic hair is improved to featured standards, I see no reason (other than taste) why it should not be, well, featured. Better we encourage even quotidian articles on popular culture to be of high quality than concentrate only on the quality of the "proper" articles, true? --Dhartung | Talk 08:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[]

Israel-Lebanon Conflict

Is it correct to call it a strife? Can someone explain the difference between a conflict and a strife?--Patchouli 18:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[]

Strife is basically headlinese because it's short. It isn't much used in formal writing, though, and it's become a bit of a cliché with regard to the Middle East. Where do we use it, or is your issue with the word "conflict" that we do use? --Dhartung | Talk 20:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[]
I have no issue with conflict. I think conflict should be used here unless Lebanon declares war; then, there is a war between two nations. Now it is a military engagement involving guerrillas. I just wanted to learn about strife.--Patchouli 20:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[]
Am I suppose to use quotation marks or italicize here for the two words I used?--Patchouli 20:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[]
You can do it either way you choose, this is only a Talk page and there isn't any requirement of style, only of being understood. I still do not understand your question. Strife is an English word very similar to conflict, but it is not used nearly as much in formal writing. Conflict is used in this case more often because the conflict is not always violent, whereas strife usually implies active violence. --Dhartung | Talk 22:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[]
Patchouli, you may want to check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style. But on talkpages, anything goes. -- 22:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[]
"[C]onflict is not always violent, whereas strife usually implies active violence," is the explanation I was seeking.--Patchouli 08:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[]

Isn't it about time that somebody with the proper clearance to edit the news box refreshed the news piece about the Israel-Lebanon conflict? The text has been the same since 6 August. --Thomas Blomberg 15:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[]

I think I just found out how it's done, so please forget what I just wrote. --Thomas Blomberg 15:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[]

The "duties" of "President" Fidel Castro

surely you meant to say "Cuban Italic textdictator, Fidel Castro, handed over Italic textpower to his brother...yada yada yada... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madmax5 (talkcontribs) 01:53, 5 August 2006

Officially, Castro is the President. That is the proper way to address him. -- Psy guy Talk 01:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[]
No, we didnt. The still-President of Cuba handed over his duties. Is this in any way inaccurate? Preston 02:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[]
Not quite, Castro never took an oath to cease presidential duties, and his brother Raul is placed in duty (temporarily) until Fidel is fully recovered. Interestingly, Fidel's 80th birthday is due around the corner and the world watches to see Fidel will remain president, the longest-running dictator at this time for 47 years may continue to hold that title. --Mike D 26 12:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[]

Shouldn't "Debian" be hyperlinked in the Ubuntu article?

Shouldn't "Debian" be hyperlinked in the Ubuntu article? --Irrevenant 03:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[]

Don't worry, they're probably writing a script to do it as we speak. --Tess Tickle 03:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[]

It's there now. If it was there already and I missed it: sorry. If it wasn't: thanks. --Irrevenant 04:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[]