Talk:Main Page/Archive 82

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 75 Archive 80 Archive 81 Archive 82 Archive 83 Archive 84 Archive 85

Google purchases YouTube

 there are smelly poo's on your kitchen floor and if you read on you wil get aids so i really reccomend reading on
Conscious just fixed it. That would be a deal, wouldn't it? -- Zanimum 19:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[]
I'd have paid $1.65 for YouTube. $1.65 billion, not so much. —Cuiviénen 19:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[]
LOL out of those two prices I'd say its actual worth would be closer to the $1.65 mark. Itelectual Property accounting has gone wild again. Wasn't that what caused the 1999 dot-com crash? --Monotonehell 06:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[]
What's the current buzzword again? Internet V2.0 or something. At least now we know how the next crash will be named....--SidiLemine 10:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[]
It's called Web 2.0 --Mini-Geek 20:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Google clearly just extrapolated this Google Trends chart.. looks like wikipedia's in trouble! Mlm42 17:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[]
If YouTube takes vandals away from Wikipedia, it's not a bad thing. -- 17:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[]
here here!!!Jmlk17 19:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[]
I'm sorry, but I don't think that people are going to use YouTube for encyclopedic material. I don't think we have to worry just yet. Valley2city 22:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC) runescape sux00rrrrr[]

I'm not whether or not this is an error (in which case move to WP:ERRORS), but shouldn't "Google purchases YouTube" just be "Google purchases YouTube", since there is no article specifically about the takeover? Laïka 06:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Apparently it's been fixed. 1.65 billions? I thought that was millions, and I was already thinking it was weird for a non-material object. --SidiLemine 11:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Non-materialness doesn't mean something is worthless. Wikimedia is probably worth a good few hundred million by now – Gurch 11:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Actually, if the contract stipulated no advertising (as we have now), Wikimedia would be worth zilch. That's how most online corporations, like Google, make their money (with a few exceptions, e.g. —Cuiviénen 13:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Wikimedia is a non-profit organisation and I don't think they could be sold. For that matter, it's questionable why anyone would want to buy them. Would someone buy the Red Cross? Nil Einne 13:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[]
I suspect some folks might have an interest in purchasing that particular organization.Such as The principal of Ludlow High School's Mr. Smith. He has been suspected of being a nosferatu. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-10-13 15:14Z
I never implied that only material has value, but.... 1.65 billion? Come on! I bet it's more than the empire state building. An about byuing the Red Cross, or Wiki for that matter, there are certainly many people who could find a use to it... Say, as trivial examples, arms dealers, and lobby/propaganda professionnals... Or, in both cases, global advertisment agencies!! But still, 1.65... Does anyone have an idea of the quantity of video (in Go, To, or whatever) stocked in there?--SidiLemine 15:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[]
It's not so much the material on YouTube (most of which, frankly, is either copyrighted or fairly rubbish) as the audience and the name of YouTube that Google is buying. That's what's worth the 1.65 billion. CJHung 11:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Sure, but empty it out an see if the audience keeps coming, or if the name stands. Basically the principle is great, etc; but that's not what can make me assert YouTuba as a global phenomenon. Same goes for all these sites: clear wikipedia and see how many editors are willing to start again from scratch. It's basically a gravity/mass thing. You say they buy the gravitation field and the asteroid belt, I say they buy the planet/star/black hole to be. Same thing.--SidiLemine 11:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[]
The thing is, if an arms dealer or a propaganda professional purchases wikipedia or the red cross, they likely still couldn't actually use the organisation for anything as 'owning' a non-profit with a specific charter etc is meaningless AFAIK. It doesn't actually give you any control. Furthermore, if such an organisation purchases wikipedia or the red cross, it is unlikely they will continue to have much value anyway since people will abandon them in droves. It's not a goodwill that's transferable to arms dealers or propaganda professionals. Unless of course you're talking about some sort of backroom secret deal. Anyway as I've stated as far as I know you CAN'T purchase a non-profit. Nil Einne 23:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Exactly. Besides, if it's non-profit, what's there to purchase? Nevertheless, with the rise of "Google Video", I can see the reasoning behind people assuming that the purchase actually happened. YouTube definitley has the leg up on Google in the video department, and getting them out of the way would help, though personally, I'm not even sure if YouTube qualifies as a "non-profit" organization. --HN-73r 22:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[]

Google needs to work with (buy?) wikipedia for the ultimate in online interactive encyclopedia experience! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 23:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC).[]

FA League article misses the points.

I think the front page summary of the FA Premier League article concerntrates on small details while ignoring far more important ones. A big deal is made over the specifics of who has won it, when and how many times, yet no mention is even made of the fact that it "is the world's most watched sporting league and most lucrative football league, followed by over a billion people". Canderra 00:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[]

  • The front page summary is always primarily based on the lead intro section of the article. The "followed by over a billion people" fact was not included on the lead intro section until several hours after the summary was already posted on the front page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[]

I agree with the above! Randfan 17:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Where are the interwiki links?

Where are the interwiki links? -- 16:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[]

For what? - UtherSRG (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[]
for the mainpage? -- 16:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[]
You need to scroll down to the bottom of the page to the section called "Wikipedia languages". This is where all the links to Wikipedia in other languages are located.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Yes, and in case you were wondering why - there are 250 different language 'pedias. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[]
There should be a link to the bottom of the the page at the usual interwiki place. I think, I am not the only one, who misses them. -- 10:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Interwikis revisted

People often ask why there are no language links on the main page (such as the post a few sections up). The stock answer to this is that the language links have been placed at the bottom of the page because there are too many. However, that's not entirely true. First off, there are only ~50 links shown there, followed by a link to the complete list of ~250. So our section is only a partial list to begin with (> 10000 articles being the requirement).

This got me thinking. Would it be reasonable to add language links to the main page to cover the 2 dozen largest wikis (or something similar)? Sticking the language links at the bottom does make them less likely to be found and used, and I don't see any strong reason why we can't have some links appear in both places. A cursory inspection of several of the other largest language Wikipedias found that they all had some language links on their main page (with varying degrees of completeness).

If we do add language links, I think the extent should be based on some firm criteria for inclusion (either the X largest wikis, or all wikis with > Y articles, etc.) so that it doesn't grow so large as to be hard to use. Looking at the current list of large wikis suggests to me that a reasonable size list would be between 10 and 30 links.

So what do people think? Dragons flight 20:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[]

I agree, we should put them in both places. I am not very fond of the blank space running down the left side of the screen if you scroll down too far. Andrew Levine 20:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Support The redundancy is not a problem. The questions about the whereabouts of the interwikis are getting tiresome and becoming a bigger waste of space on this talkpage than the interwikis would become on Main Page. -- 13:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[]
I agree with re-adding the inter-wiki links of at least those listed down at the bottom. Though they're listed at the bottom already, it's natural for them to be placed in the "traditional" spot, and not having them there can be confusing to some. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[]
I've readded the 30 that have > 20,000 articles. This is included through Template:Wikipedialang. Dragons flight 02:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Scratch that Wikipedialang is transcluded into pages that aren't the main page, so the interwikis can't be added there. Dragons flight 02:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Okay, I created Template:MainPageInterwikis and transcluded that onto the main page. As above it only includes wikis with at least 20,000 articles. Dragons flight 03:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Thank you, this was a very good idea :o) -- 18:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Links to other languages?

Why aren't there links to other languages on the main page of the English version of Wikipedia? Putting them on would make it much easier to use Wikipedia for people speaking different languages... ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 13:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC).[]

Scroll down on Main Page, and you'll see the links.
If you like, scroll up on this talkpage to #Where are the interwiki links?, read and discuss further. -- 14:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[]
No need scroll up now. All the relevant talks are now one big section together all some tidying up by Monotonehell. Thanks! -- 14:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Now we have SOME languages in the lefthand banner, SOME in the 50,000+ and 20,000+ bottom banner, and a not-likely-to-be-seen link to a list of all. Ridiculous. Leave the bottom banners, but please put ALL the languages in the lefthand banner which is where people are used to seeing the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 20:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC).[]

If we were to do that, the list would extend far beyond the rest of the main page content. —David Levy 20:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]
The list is nowhere close to filling up the lefthand banner now, and leaving out everything under 20,000 (including Arabic) is still ridiculous. What are we trying to communicate to readers? Because what we're telling them is that these Wikipedias don't exist, and they do. What's so magical about +20,000? Or are there certain languages 'not wanted'? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 20:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC).[]
I was responding to your suggestion that we include "ALL the languages in the lefthand banner." Short of that, what threshold do you propose? —David Levy 21:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Search box on front page

After considerable discussions [1], Swedish Wikipedia added a search box on the front page, in addition to the one already existing in the margin. This, in my opinion, dramatically increases usability of the page, as the search box is where you would expect it to be. (Compare,,,, plus whatever online encyklopedia or search engine you can think of) The Swedish design doesn't take up much space, and it draws attention to Wikipedia's main tool, the search tool. I think a change would help unexperienced Wiki users to find their way. What do you think? ????Axelve 21:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[]

This idea was heavily discussed earlier this year, resulting in no consensus. Some people believe that a redundant search box would be helpful to new users, while others believe that it would confuse and distract them. Complaints also arose regarding the aesthetics, with notations of the fact that the "Classic" skin already features the search box at the top. —David Levy 22:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[]
True, but if it works, it's not broken. How many more do we need?? 13:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Chess Champion

I have seen some pretty significant events pulled off the "In The News" section, why is a chess champion mentioned??

Anything of significance around the world, in any subject whatsoever is put into the In the News section. We're just used to normal news that focuses mostly on politics, the economy, and world events. Also, remember to sign your Talk edits with four tildes (~~~~). —Captain538[talk] 01:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Also note that In the News is not Wikinews. In the News exists to point out when articles have been created or significantly altered due to current events. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 02:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Ironically, trivial events with articles significantly updated have often been pulled out of ITN (such as sports events, though I understand this isn't the case anymore), while significant events have been added to ITN even though their articles only have one or two new sentences.—Abraham Lure 18:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Note that this is not just any chess championship, but is the world championship. And the article was created and updated recently. Once a low bar of notablity and significance has been met, the main requirement is an updated article, not how newsworthy something is. If only one chess-related event ever made it on to ITN, this would be it. Carcharoth 10:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[]

"a low bar of notablity and significance"? Huh? -- 13:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[]
The Australian national croquet championship, if it exists, would never make the Main Page in ITN, for example. (Barring some freak event, of course.) —Cuiviénen 15:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[]
However, apparently the South African rugby union championship is more important than the Nobel Prize for Literature, in case you didn't know. Bruxism 08:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[]
My "a low bar of notablity and significance" comment, which the IP address above is questioning, was meant to refer to the fact that a story being newsworthy across the world is not the primary consideration, though it is one of the considerations. The primary consideration is whether there is a reasonably good article about the topic, and whether the article has been updated with the latest news. It is also meant to point out that there is a bar, as the comments about the Australian national croquet championship illustrates. For what it is worth, I think the chess bit is OK (though I would say that, as I proposed it), because it is the biggest event for that sport. The South African rugby thing is not the biggest thing in rugby. That would properly be the Rugby World Cup. Carcharoth 09:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[]
I was agreeing with you about that "low bar." Although, I think the fact that the Blue Bulls have a more extensive article than Orhan Pamuk (let alone Sinclair Lewis) is a pretty worthless criterion for deciding whether it's more of a headline-worthy entry. I have nothing against the importance of sports, but sports aficionados can devote serious attention to their articles. In a way Wikipedia's function as an almanac in that sense is one of its strengths, because it's so hard to find accurate reference material on this elsewhere. But to confuse that with newsworthiness or broader implications is another matter. Why not separate out "In the News" from a new section on "the World of Sports," say? Bruxism 22:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Because it would seem kind of ridiculous to have a separate section devoted entirely to a particular form of diversion, while not having separate sections for any other diversion or subject. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-10-16 11:35Z
Also, Portal:Current events/Sports exists. - BanyanTree 02:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[]
The bar of notablity and significance should be reasonably high, but admins at ITN should also be flexible when ITN is unchanged for days and full of old news. At least, this is my expectation as a wikireader. -- 15:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Title page gap

Hi I have noticed a gap between the main title Welcome and Wikipedia today and I think it looks better. However I strongly suggest that whilst the content of the main page is 95% always very good, I suggest you seriously tart up the design of the main page. I suggest a bolder title. Look at the logo, Wikipedia is capitalized. Also weak colours are used which do not make the page stand out. As the main page of the biggest website in the world I think it needs work on by a computer graphics designer- what can be done is amazing. I feel that a stronger colour, bolder page will attract people. mean the title of the project is barely larger than the writing. I would like to see Wikipedia in a MUCH larger bolder font. Whilst you should never judge a book by its cover people are responsive to visual stimuli. Please let me know your thoughts Ernst Stavro Blofeld 07:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[]

See Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Is there some way to make the Main Page look better? -- 13:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[]
I guess that what color is the best color for wikipedia to use is all a personal preference, as I greatly prefer a soothing blue and gray to a bold and brilliant red or yellow, or even a neutral green. But bolding would probably be okay. The Disorganized Perfectionist 15:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[]


In the German language WP, there are 3 pages, where the users can name their favorite books, songs or movies (as subpages of user pages):

Is there an equivalent in the English language WP? --Abe Lincoln 15:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Try WP:VP. -- 15:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[]
I think that is suggesting that you to pose your question at the Village Pump. --hydnjo talk 20:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[]
OK, I already got it, ;-) Thanks... --Abe Lincoln 21:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[]
These pages can be found at User:Phaedriel/Soundtrack_of_Wikipedians and the many pages that link from there. Cheers, EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 22:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Well ...The page sucks and I think it should be more user friendly and information should be easy to locate...the page is filled up with so many links to discussion that you can hardly focus on one topic..this should be changed...... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 12:40, 2006 November 5 (UTC).

You may want to complain at the talkpage of the article in question. --PFHLai 16:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[]

What is the Point???

What I want to know is...what is the point of having the editing symbol as in option??? I mean anyone could just delete the page and decided to type 'blah blah blah' across the entire page!!! Why don't the people who made this website have an email address that people can email information or mistakes to so that the founders of this website can change it??? I mean I could just delete the entire knowledge of Wikipedia and it won't be "The Free Encyclopedia" anymore!!! 19:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Anonymous[]

It's very easy to revert your blanking (or other acts of vandalism) while allowing other people to improve the content. -- 20:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[]
I think that is pulling our leg (which is better I suppose than pulling our finger). --hydnjo talk 21:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[]
I was assuming that it wasn't trolling. -- 22:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[]
You're going to blank 1.5 million articles before one of the thousand plus admins can block you? -- 23:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Ok, here's how it works. You spread around a worm or virus or something that nobody notices because it does nothing harmful to their computer -- it just spreads itself. However, the virus is actually a web browser on a timer that would automatically go straight to wikipedia, go to random page, go to edit, then blank it, and that's it, and have it so that each copy does it at exactly the same time, and have the date set for a year or so in the future, so that a zillion people all have it. That's how!.... oh... wait... every single bit would still be reverted after... an hour or so. Also it'd probably ddos the server, forgot about that...--Anaraug 23:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Yeah, the main defence is that all history is preserved. So if somebody deletes Wikipedia it can be restored. Jeltz talk 00:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[]

But if you delete Wikipedia, all the history will be deleted with Wikipedia, and there won't be a Wikipedia to restore, unless Wikipedia restores itself which is impossible because if the history is deleted, Wikipdia can't restore itself, because there wasn't a Wikipedia to restore in the first place! LSmile.gifL Tennis Dynamite 02:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Even so, it's mirrored on so many other pages to make deleting only Wikipedia itself not enough to get rid of all the contributions. You'd have to target and all the others as well. Still, The "Biggest Blog In History" thing yesterday did make me wonder how much of the current stuff on the internet will survive the next 50 years or so. Anything can happen really I suppose, the whole of MySpace may be deleted(!), everyone's webmail cleared, Wikipedia could go. It's not like anyone's going to break the internet in one swoop but individual sites could quite easily go. Let's just hope there are enough back ups and whatnot to stop this from happening. Jellypuzzle | Talk 08:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[]
If I read well the first post, we should be more worried about someone writing "blah blah blah" all over wkipedia (and all the mirrors, etc.) than of someone just deleting it. That would be awful. Is the NSA aware of that?--SidiLemine 11:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[]

No image (well, you can say "duh")

Today's featured article has no image appropriate for the main page. What if we added a smaal image, about two lines tall of the featured article star, just for the appearence? --Alexignatiou 13:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[]

I don't think it's such tragedy; it's a court case after all, not a children's book hehe.--cloviz 13:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[]
We could use the Australian coat of arms, much like coats of arms and flags are often used for ITN when no image is available. —Cuiviénen 13:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[]


I'd like to reinforce to US contributers and editors, that this is not just an American Encyclopedia, but an English language Encycopedia. If you are discussing such things as procedures, customs, laws, please remember to mention what country these facts are applicable to. Too often a link to a relavant piece of legislation or point of interest is USA information only, and should specify itself as such. or else the reader has no idea until the link is visited and has no bearing on the issue being researched for those people outside the US. Same for geographical locations. just writing 'Florida' is not enough, as mnay people may not know where Florida is. Yes its true, many Americans dont know where provinces/regions in other countrys are, dont presume the opposite is not true. you should say "Florida - United States etc" .

You forget, some Americans (I'm one too, so don't think i'm being Anti-America or that like) don't even know where some of the US States are... only 50% of students polled could find New York state on a map of the US, that's pathetic.

Generally it is bad form to continually define terms in article after article when a link can simply be used. If we had to define every state of the US and every province of Canada and every city in India, articles would be a mess. In a Wiki where you can simply click on something (or with Popups, mouseover!) to learn what it is, there is little need to define every last thing seen on the Wiki. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 21:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[]
This is just wrong. According to Wikipedia:The_perfect_article, the perfect article "is nearly self-contained; it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles". If you were reading an article about a subject that you were not familiar with, would you want to have to click on every single link to understand what the author was talking about? In fact, the general rule is to clearly give context the first time you mention something, and then use the shorter phrases in the rest of the article. For example: "Dilbert was born in 1935 in Randomville, New Mexico, USA. He went to school in Randomville, and later went to university in Smallville, Arizona, USA. At the age of 52, he moved to Paris, France, and became a French citizen in 1989." Or "Lee Harvey Oswald is said to have assassinated John F. Kennedy, the 35th President of the USA". Would you just link to JFK and not bother mentioning that he was President of the USA? Context is everything in good writing. Explain what is needed, and no more, but do not expect others to click on the link. They should be able to read the whole article and understand it without clicking on the links. Carcharoth 00:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[]
True, I guess, but it has to be simple and short. Long explanations are almost never needed, simply a short definition. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 16:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[]
But the location of Asmara is cleared in ITN; that of Manhattan in DYK is not, hehehe.--cloviz 23:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[]
It is also strange that people complain about not knowing where US cities are located, but have no concerns about South American (São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro in DYK) or Asian (Jerusalem in OTD). -- 23:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Yes, all this sounds like a joke indeed; but he was talking about minor cities I guess. There's some truth: some Americans believe that you are supposed to know where they are from by just reading two letters; while they would need you to tell them your continent to grasp where you are from. But, after all, I happen to know the states' postal abreviations...--cloviz 02:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Actually, if you really wanted to treat everyone the same, you'd have to say "Paris, Ile-de-France, France", or "Randomville, USA". Mind it, I think that any city above 2 millions inhabitants should be known by everyone, and that a link is enough for those that don't know. For minor cities, include what's relevant. Does it matter that Dilbert was born in New Mexico? Probably not. It might be interesting that he went to Arizona, for various reasons. I guess it depends on context, as almost everything does.--SidiLemine 17:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[]
The point about place names is if I say Paris I by default mean Paris, France and not Paris, Texas, USA or one of the other places called Paris around the world, for a more minor place I would always specify where I mean the first time. Jaster 15:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[]
"Mind it, I think that any city above 2 millions inhabitants should be known by everyone".
No They are not known by everyone. This is why this in an encyclopedia, and not a guessing game. Please dont be so arrogant to think that the rest of the world knows all the major cities of the United States that have + 2 Million inhabitants. Ask many Americans where the likes of Manchester / Mumbai / Alexandria / Cape Town / Shanghai are and you will get an unknowing stare (Unless they are well read in the Wiki of course)
I suppose we can only blame it on US news broadcasters failing to see that news happens in other places other than the US Mainland —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 19:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC).[]
If you don't know that Florida is part of the US, you deserve to be confused.. -- 01:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Do you know that Canterbury is a part of New Zealand??, or did you think of the one in England. the US is not the center of the world you know, and in fact by Wiki's account there are 8 Florida's outside the US. Why should you presume that everybody knows all the states of the US, hell even some of your own population dont know where or what things are.
Maybe in the next Colins atlas of the world, we should just leave out the States. After all, if you dont know Florida is in the US, then you deserve to be confused.
I love it when people play into the argument they were trying to discount in the first place :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 20:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC).[]
I'm not supporting or refuting the argument you're making about Wikipedia being "US-centric". If true, this should not be terribly surprising given the vast majority of primary English speakers with access to the Internet live in the United States. If you view the Florida article, it does have the Florida (disambiguation) link to find other Floridas. There is also a map of the US (with Florida shaded in) and a description of its location in the Florida article. What is the search engine supposed to do instead of taking one to a specific Florida article (could even be Florida Islands)? Should every article with ambiguities automatically go to a list of choices, or should it be assumed that an article that would be viewed substantially more than the others should be the default?

Wikipedia languages section

I think we need a link at the bottom of the page for the over +100,000 articles in a language. Octopus-Hands 09:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[]

The idea is that each section is about equal in length. It makes little difference otherwise where the divides are. —Cuiviénen 16:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Admin, Please add this

Hey there, Can you please add this reference to the arabic wikipedia main page? ar:الصفحة الرئيسية..

Thanks --Lord Anubis 20:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[]

The discussion above (Talk:Main Page#Interwikis revisted) reached the conclusion that only Wikipedias with more than 20,000 articles would be included. You can comment on it there. —Cuiviénen 01:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Al-Quds Day

I find this entry on "On This Day" select anniversaries to be inappropriate. "Al-Quds Day" is not a religious or historical event, but a political one. Although a unique fact, I don't think it is fitting for a purpotedly unbiased Wikipedia to display this as it may violate WP:NPOV in several ways. Its like neo-Nazis parties calling for an "Adolf Hitler Day" and Wikipedia recognizing it as a legitimate anniversary. The specifically propaganda-based celebrations of ideological regimes are not legitimate anniversaries worthy of the mainpage. Rama's arrow 00:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Columbus Day is also considered politically controversial because it celebrates the massacre of Native Americans by Europeans. We still acknowledge it to be a holiday, as it is celebrated in most of North America. Like it or not, the holiday is celebrated in Iran (and the event it commemorates is historical, though the attitude is not positive). "Adolf Hitler Day" would make it onto the Main Page if there was a country that celebrated it. We report the facts, including the unpleasant ones. —Cuiviénen 01:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[]
What would be a POV is to judge the validity of anniversaries by the regime that suggested them. People in the world have different concepts of what is good and what is evil; here we just present facts. We don't even say that nazis are bad, that's an opinion. Perhaps you thought that having the anniversaries there was a way to celebrate it ourselves?--cloviz 01:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[]
You'll find this day is international(International Day of Quds), if you look at google news. So why do you write "Al-Quds Day in Iran".--Sa.vakilian 05:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Also I should say it isn't be limited to Muslims , it includes non-Muslims like Anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews. I guess only zionists oppose it.--Sa.vakilian 05:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Why? Because the Main Page used to link to the Al-Quds Day page. You should know this, Sa.vakilian, you merged that page into the International Day of Quds page. How 'international' is this observance? Not everyone is antisemitic like that. Not everyone listens to Ayatollah Khomeini, who created this 'political holiday'. If you really think "International Day of Quds" is a better term to use, try WP:ERRORS. -- 12:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Jerusalem Day was at the same spot on the Main Page on that day. Why not Al-Quds Day today? -- 13:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[]
To me the problem is that such mentions in the other sections may be pushing a POV with symbolism and subtlety - stuff like Columbus Day is about a particular moment in history when Columbus discovered the American continent. But "Al-Quds Day" is for those who believe in the view of "Israeli occupation." Its a political order of Khomeini, as opposed to a cultural observance of Muslims. Another key question is - does Wikipedia "equally" project the opposing POV, in order to balance it out? The article may do so, but what about just the mainpage? I don't know - I do feel its inappropriate to give such events "main page" prominence. Rama's arrow 15:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[]
And trust me, I'm no fan of mild censorship. If the article on F*** becomes an FA, it can have its day on the mainpage. My sole point of concern is WP:NPOV. Rama's arrow 15:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[]
You see, we're not endorsing the celebration. That does not stop the fact that it exists, and the article does indicate, with sources, that it is a day of some significance in Iran, even if government-enforced. Is there an Israeli "Return" day, or something similar? I would not be surprised that, if there is, we have that at OTD when it occurs. —Cuiviénen 00:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[]
I'm not sure what's your concept of NPOV, Arrow. As far as I know, considering anti-Semitism bad is a point of view. You suggest that we judge the holidays by the person that created them and her intentions? "This one was proposed by a guy we consider evil, therefore it's not valid"; that doesn't sound NPOV to me. In my opinion if a celebration is suggested by the devil himself and many people follow it, then it deserves mention.--cloviz 01:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[]
What the clovized-hoofed one said. ;) The idea that if you recognise something you support it, is just as problematic as not recognising it. At Wikipedia we have to try to present the readers with just the facts so they can make up their own minds, no matter what our personal opinions are. --Monotonehell 04:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Israeli occupation is a view, and, as much as I'd prefer to be able to say otherwise, a valid view. If someone wanted to say that this or any other holiday was inappropriate because it's about anger, violence, and hate, that I could support. --Badger151 06:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Israeli occupation is not a view, that's a fact, you can verify that Israelies do indeed occupy that area. The view is whether said occupation is right or wrong. If certain peoples observe a partcular day, that's a fact, the view is whether that observence is inappropriate or not. Just the facts please. --Monotonehell 10:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[]
I think the key word was 'occupation'. Another POV is that west bank and gaza strip are Israeli territories occupied by arabs. Another POV is that there are no Israelis, that Israel doesn't exist and cannot occupy anything. TRWBW 12:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Hrmz, true, but "occupation" can have two different meanings in this context. Occupation as in currently possesing a place, or a military occupation of invasion and control. Perhaps we need a more specific word that can't be interpreted as POV? --Monotonehell 12:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Despite what my earlier post might have implied, I have no problem with using the terms Israel or Occupied Territories or whatever. There are no terms that are going to make everyone happy, and the the point of wikipedia isn't to decide who is right or wrong, but to explain the conflict. The best way to do that is to not worry about this name or that but express, in whatever language, what's going on. Unfortunately, in my experience, on controversial subjects the wikipedia model breaks down. People with agenda eventually exhaust people who want the articles to be NPOV. But props to those out there fighting the good fight. TRWBW 13:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[]
I beg your pardon - I should have been clearer. Yes, Israel occupies land in that it exists on that land. I took that as given. The validity of Israel itself is debated, as is the validity and nature of its occupying the land that it now occupies; this is what I meant to refer to. I hope that this has not distracted people form my main point, which was that I have a problem with basing the appropriateness of a holiday on who celebrates it, but have no problem in finding holidays which are based on anger, hate, and/or violence to be inappropriate.--Badger151 07:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[]
I don't think we should try to decide if a holiday is appropriate or inappropriate. Hitler's Birthday is celebrated around the world, by people I don't like and for reasons that offend me. But I think the fact that it is celebrated is enough to justify mentioning it, and to stick to a balanced approach that both expresses the beliefs of those who celebrate it and those who are disgusted by it. TRWBW 00:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Simple English Wikipedia

I think we should mention the simple english version of wikipedia at the top of the main page, why?

Well, not only does it need ALOT of work, but i think it should be for children or people who find wikipedia, to difficult to read. what do you think?

I think it should say something like: "Wikipedia too difficult to read? Then go to the Simple English wikipedia".

Pece Kocovski 07:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[]

I agree that insulting our users is good. "Wikipedia too difficult to read" indeed. 09:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[]
I can not countenance any belief that Wikipedia's verbosity in lexicon excels the comprehension of the proletariat. --Monotonehell 10:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[]
I request that you utilize preciseness of language. I do not comprehend what is meant by your mentioning of others' ability or lack thereof being "excelled" by the lexicon that is ubiquitous in Wikipedia. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Sorry I forgot to use the sarcasm mark^ ;) --Monotonehell 04:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[]
That's okay. It should be obvious. But shouldn't "can not" be "cannot"? -- 18:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[]
I agree with Pece in principle, but not the part about making it so prominent on Main Page. Most articles in English Wikipedia do not have a counterpart in Simple English Wikipedia. Making the interwiki to Simple English Wikipedia more prominent in the individual articles in English Wikipedia may be a simpler way to do this. Right now, the interwiki in the regular English Wikipedia to the Simple English Wikipedia appears as "Simple English" along with the rest of the interwikis. Maybe we can replace this by an italicised line at the top of the article in the regular English Wikipedia, with a link to the article in Simple English Wikipedia, in a format similar to the line used for disambiguation. -- 13:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[]
No. Not even if the Simple English Wikipedia were more than what it is currently: a hopeless collection of vandalized stubs. It's truly one of the absolute worst editions of Wikipedia. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 14:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[]

I would rather see the Simple English edition of Wikipedia closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 02:08, 22 October 2006

There's some merit in that, possibly instead the lead paragraphs of all en.wp articles should be in "simple" english, covering the material in the article breifly. --Monotonehell 04:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Now there's a sensible idea. Bazza 11:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Personally, I think that's brilliant, particulalry since the lead paragraph is supposed to be an encapsulation of the article, boiling it down to its essence. It may turn out to be labour intensive in the short run, as we'd have to review the header paragraph of each article, but I don't think that's something to hold against it. --Badger151 17:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Me? Sensible? What? ;) --Monotonehell 12:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Simple will hopefully explode in usage with the arrival of single-login. -Quiddity 01:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[]
I'd prefer to put my money on the arrival of non-condescending articles that don't sound like they were written for children. -Elmer Clark 02:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[]


This is galling! Remove restricted access to Special:Statistics for all link on that page. Especially this one Detailed tables and charts of Wikipedia statistics. Thank you. -- 08:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Don't be fooled, the server error doesn't mean what it sounds like. As far as I can tell the entire stats server is offline. Must be some maintainence or a large problem with the Kennisnet Cluster, but I don't have anything to do with it so I can't shed any light on the problem. Either way exclaiing on thispage won't help. This is a issue. I guess we must simply wait until the tech guys sort it out. --Monotonehell 11:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[]

About the Content.

The kind of 'Todays Article' we see on the page on a daily basis can actually have a category and by choosing our preferences (i.e. for the users ) if can choose which kind of article they should be choosing..It will be gud

You can do this by choosing to enter Wikipedia through one of the Portals, which choose their own selected articles. Some update these choices more often than others, though. Alternatively, you can keep Wikipedia:Featured articles bookmarked and simply read through one featured article of your own choosing every day. GeeJo (t)(c) • 20:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Template:Main Page discussion footer

The CSS absolute positioning doesn't seem to be working as expected - it's overlapping other parts of the header on Safari. Any bright ideas?

I'm not in front of an apple right now so I can only guess but how about now? ;) --Monotonehell 03:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[]
No change. I just checked while logged out, though, and it actually showed up correctly - it looks as though this depends on some property of Monobook which isn't present in Cologne Blue, not something browser-specific. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[]
I get the same problem when I look at it in Cologne Blue in Firefox. The template positions at the bottom of the first visible screen (round about the top of the archive box on my monitor) rather than at the bottom of the page. --Cherry blossom tree 12:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Column widths

I agree with Mets501. That did look unbalanced, and the text in the right-hand column wrapped too much.

Furthermore, Blnguyen's rationale ("ITN and on this day are always short these days") simply isn't true. On this day... contains a uniform number of entries, and the length of In the news is frequently adjusted to accommodate the varying lengths of the left-hand features. —David Levy 01:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Look unbalanced? View the codes. The left column is indeed percentage points wider than the right, giving TFA and DYK more space. BTW, what did Mets501 and Blnguyen say? ITN is never short. Old news gets trimmed when a TFA is short. If the following day's FA is long, it makes ITN look short. -- 12:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Look unbalanced? View the codes. The left column is indeed percentage points wider than the right, giving TFA and DYK more space.
Blnguyen changed the ratio to make the difference greater. Mets501 reverted.
BTW, what did Mets501 and Blnguyen say?
Please see the revision history.
ITN is never short. Old news gets trimmed when a TFA is short. If the following day's FA is long, it makes ITN look short.
Yes, I know. As I said, Blnguyen's rationale was incorrect. —David Levy 14:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[]
All in edit summaries? I see. And I thought some sophisticated vandals had removed some earlier messages from this talkpage. Okay. Thanks. -- 13:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Sorry, I should have been more specific in the first place. —David Levy 21:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[]
It's alright. Come to think of it, I should be able to figure that out on my own eventually. -- 16:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Proposal: add one or more of these links to the main page

Are any of these pages ready to be linked from the Main Page?

Besides portals and categories that is, 'cuz they are already there. The Contents page seems especially appropriate. The Transhumanist 21:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


Hey Gfi good to see that you're still here. Thought that we might have lost you but you're still here and being your bold self I see.
I'm not sure where the best place is to gather comments about your proposal to add the Template:Contents pages (header bar) but I gues this is as good a place as any. I do like your partitions but I'm not sure about how to fit it in on the MP. I guess that's why you're here. BTW - that's quite a personality shift with your username, I'm sure there's a long and good rationale for it and we want to wish you well. --hydnjo talk 02:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[]
I don't think he intends that the bar be added to the main page, just one/some of the links.
That's where it gets complicated. The "featured contents" link is going to be part of the sidebar in place of the "featured articles" link (as part of the Sidebar redesign, whenever that's completed). We could remove it's link from the Main Page, and add a link to Wikipedia:Contents instead (perhaps before the categories link).
But we still don't really know what the final link selection of the sidebar will be. I've suggested that perhaps instead of linking the Portals and Categories in the sidebar (as in the redesign draft linked above), we could just use a link to the Wikipedia:Contents page, like this: User:Quiddity/sandbox2. (Whereas Transhumanist was advocating adding all the links, more like this: Version 19.)
Oh, and Transhumanist's name rationale is answered at User talk:The Transhumanist#Adminship aspirations. ;) --Quiddity 22:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Thanks, Quiddity. As a further note, I'm going to look into getting my accounts consolidated, to see if it's possible. Back to the issue of links, as David Levy has pointed out previously, the inclusion of links on the Main Page is independent of their inclusion on the sidebar. But any links added now can be removed later if it is felt that duplication with the sidebar is undesirable. And since the sidebar upgrade may be a long ways away (the programming tasks required have been delayed indefinitely), in the meantime it makes sense to add to the Main Page whichever links are deemed worthy of being placed there. The Transhumanist 01:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[]

I just noticed Template:HelpTOC had Portals, Categories, Featured content and A-Z index in the "Navigation" section, so I added Contents. I would do the same for the Main Page. Add Contents as the first item on the top right side "navigation" row below the portals group. I wouldn't add or remove anything else. Multiple entry points down the "navigation tree" is fine. Down the road, I would add Contents to the sidebar as well, without removing it from the Main Page. They reinforce each other, especially for new readers. Rfrisbietalk 15:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Ok, that all sounds good to me. I'd agree with adding Contents to the Main Page, just before the Categories link.
I've proposed at MediaWiki talk:Sidebar that we update to the featured content link. Perhaps leave it at that for a few days... -Quiddity 03:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]
We've used up the available space at the 800x600 resolution (with default display settings). To add a new link, we need to remove an existing link. Searching (which I just added to the search result page) seems like the most obvious candidate. Any thoughts? —David Levy 04:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Works for me. Rfrisbietalk 04:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Removing a newbie link doesn't sound good. Why not replace "categories" with "content"? Categories is one of the contents pages, and is accessible at the top of the contents page in the contents pages header bar, along with the rest of the major contents pages. The Transhumanist 18:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Wikipedia:Searching is not a newbie-friendly link. (I've been quietly poking at getting it swapped/merged/overhauled with Wikipedia:Look it up, but no fruits yet). So removing it would be fine with me (and much thanks for adding a link to it on the results page :)
However, are you (David) sure it doesn't fit at 800x600? It looks OK to me: User:Quiddity/sandbox3. Still 1cm separating "help" from "contents" at default font size. --Quiddity 18:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]
It depends upon the browser. Opera, for example, leaves an uncomfortably small amount of space. —David Levy 19:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Hmm, which Opera though? It looks great in Opera9, but terrible in Opera6 (all I have installed to test with). -Quiddity 20:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]
I viewed it in version 8.01 (the version that I have installed). —David Levy 21:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]
1. By the same token, Wikipedia:Searching is linked from Help:Contents (which appears on the main page as the Help link).
2. As noted above, such a link now appears whenever someone performs an internal search (which is the standard MediaWiki/Wikipedia setup).
3. The categorical index is a fundamental means of accessing articles (unlike the various indexes that you've attempted to place on equal footing). Some would even argue that it's more useful than our portals (which receive far more prominent main page exposure). If anything, it would make more sense to remove the A–Z index link (though I don't advocate that). —David Levy 19:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Well, removing Wikipedia:Searching works for me. :) --Quiddity 23:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Okay, pull the trigger! :-) Rfrisbietalk 19:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Squares on Main Page

Recently, I've seen more and more square images on the Main Page. Is this a new standard? I like this. The page looks more neat and tidy. How come DYK is exempt? Let's be consistent throughout the Main Page. -- 16:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[]

We've long restricted most images to a width of 100px (in part to prevent excessive wrapping at lower resolutions and higher text sizes). With some exceptions (particularly for Today's featured article, which presents the fewest image options), we recently began restricting the height to 100px as well (to display portrait images at approximately the same size as landscape images).
When images need to be cropped to display clearly as thumbnails, we often match the height and width. This enables the images to be displayed at 100x100px (the maximum size). Image from Did you know... are cropped less frequently than images from the other section, so they're less likely to appear in the square shape. —David Levy 16:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Perhaps DYK should do more cropping. Often it's very difficult to see what is in the picture when the image is displayed at 100px, especially when old paintings of battle scenes are used, e.g. Battle polotsk.jpg from yesterday. A square thumbnail showing the commander riding his horse and giving out directions to his soldiers would be a better illustration to use on DYK than this 100px patchy brown rectangle. -- 20:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Indeed, more cropping would help. The images from Did you know tend to receive less attention because they're changed frequently and on relatively short notice. The images from Today's featured article and On this day... are selected far in advance, and the images from In the news often remain in place for extended periods (due to the unavailability of free images pertaining to emerging news). —David Levy 01:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[]
There's a template, {{M-cropped}}, for images cropped specifically for use on the Main Page. The image of the Panama Canal that was up on ITN for a couple days was cropped by PFHLai, which I think was a vast improvement on the original. - BanyanTree 04:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Thank you, BT. I'm glad you liked it. --PFHLai 17:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[]
Just keeping all four pictures on the Main Page (POTD not included) as squares with the same dimensions makes the Main Page appear more neat and tidy. That's good, too! -- 13:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[]
But then, there are always exceptions, and there are 2 on the Main Page right now. It would be difficult to crop the rocket picture on OTD now, and it works well at 70x210px. The background-less image of the cassette tape, allowing the tape to appear at its actual shape, works well, too. Such exceptions aside, please consider making all 4 images on the Main Page 100x100px squares. The Main Page will appear more neat and tidy. Thanks. -- 14:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[]

I can't see what's on the DYK pic again. Can we have Nicholas Roerich, Guests from Overseas (corrected colour).jpg (at 100px, will clearly show a ship if the right side is cropped off, making a square) from the same article, instead of S. V. Ivanov. Trade negotiations in the country of Eastern Slavs. Pictures of Russian history. (1909).jpg, please? -- 14:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[]

If you upload such a cropped picture, tagged with {{M-cropped}}, and tell someone at WP:ERRORS, I'm sure someone would be happy to add it. - BanyanTree 15:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the suggestion, but anons like me cannot upload images. I'm posting here to encourage the use of cropped square images. I can only say I like what I saw in the past few days and would like to see that more often. I can't do the cropping nor the uploading myself. -- 21:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[]
The suggested image appears not to depict the DYN blurb's subject. —David Levy 16:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Sorry, I meant Nicholas Roerich, Guests from Overseas.jpg. (different copies of the same picture) After reading the article again, I wonder if they are the same people who used that trade route.... Never mind, then. -- 21:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[]


"Pages about Wikipedia" as one of the types of pages excluded from the article count is ambiguous. Of course, the average reader would probably interpret it as meaning any article in the Wikipedia namespace, but Wikipedia contains encyclopedic information while being about Wikipedia! I realise, of course, that special pages cannot be edited; just pointing this out. Littleghostboo[ talk ] 08:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Sorry, where on the Main Page is this? I can't find it. -- 21:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Click on the "X articles in English" link. Littleghostboo[ talk ] 10:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[]
Does this look better? Titoxd(?!?) 01:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[]
I suggest changing it to "all articles in the Wikipedia namespace" or something similar, as not all pages in the Wikipedia namespace refer to Wikipedia administration (many fall under other categories, e.g. humour, essays) Littleghostboo[ talk ] 10:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[]
I don't like the word "namespace". I won't mean a lot to most people. enochlau (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[]

In the News

The Afghan army logo is floating up to a story unrelated to it; but since it could be a corporate logo, this is not obvious. Time to find a new logo: doesn't the bank (now the lead story) have one? JCScaliger 12:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[]

The bank's logo has copyright; we can't put it in the main page.--cloviz 12:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[]
The Flag of Nicaragua would work, too. That headline about abortions and elections in Nicaragua is just beneath the image. -- 12:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Could we either move the news bullet about the Afghan Army to the top of the list or have the picture lower in the list where the relevent bullet is? Koweja 13:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Instead of moving things around, i suggest using smaller fonts for "(pictured)" to make this slightly more eye-catching. -- 14:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[]

The link to Arabic wikipedia ... and other wikipedias with 10k+ articles

Where is the link to Arabic wikipedia in the main page at the bottom under the title more than 10 000 articles?

-- 20:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[]

The entire 10k+ line is gone, not just the link to Arabic Wikipedia. -- 20:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Relevancy of world series

Who cares about the "world series" baseball competition? That's not even close to being important enough for the main page. It's not really a global competition anyway because all the teams are from USA. It's really only a national competition. Even if it were a genuine "world" series, that's still not important enough to be on the main page. Maybe you stupid Americans don't realise it, but baseball is actually unpopular. A minority enjoys watching baseball in Japan and South Korea, but apart from that, baseball's support is limited to USA. An encyclopaedia should be too intellectual to tell people the latest sporting results unless it's the Olympic Games or the World Cup Soccer, which most people really do care about. I'm sure many people who read that news on the main page have never heard about whatever team won and will never care. You arrogant Americans should stop falsely assuming that the rest of the people in the world are like you.

Huey45 08:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]

English Wikipedia is meant for English speakers, the majority (native, plurality total) of which are American. There are many references to other countries in newsfeed, often which have little interest to me. Yet, I've never thought to complain about their "importance", including other sports like cricket. Falsedef 12:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]
I don't know why we're only including native speakers... BTW, the ITN section makes it clear that ITN should be things that are of interest to the world. Generally speaking, we only mention events in other countries when they are significant and therefore likely to be of interest to the world (and also are likely to get highly updated articles). E.g. elections, coups. I'm not saying we should remove the World Series, simply that I think it is flawed to say we should include it because there are a lot of Americans (there are also a lot of Indians) or because you and other Americans are not interested in what goes on in the world. I don't think anyone objects when ITN has the results of the upcoming US elections or if Bush declares himself the supreme life-time leader of the US. Nil Einne 16:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Firstly, the criterion in question is that a story must be of international importance or interest, not worldwide importance or interest.
Secondly, Falsedef's point was that he/she doesn't deem a sport unimportant and unfit for ITN inclusion simply because it isn't popular in the United States. Likewise, Huey45 shouldn't criticize the baseball blurb simply because baseball isn't popular wherever he resides.
Thirdly, no sport is popular in every country. I don't know why you refer to Americans' apathy toward the sport of cricket as being "not interested in what goes on in the world." Would you write something similar about your nation's presumed disinterest in the sport of baseball? —David Levy 17:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]
I wasn't only including native speakers. I said "plurality total", meaning that out of all English speakers (including nonnative), Americans still make up the plurality. Just because it isn't important for everyone, doesn't mean it's not important enough for the front page, especially if many people are interested. Falsedef 22:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Huey45, if you are ignorant about something on the Main Page, click and read about it. Don't accuse people as "you stupid Americans", "You arrogant Americans", as you, Huey45, just became an arrogant anti-American. To exclude the news on the World Series baseball would be an anti-American bias. And, don't forget Latin America. Many Latin Americans follow baseball. -- 14:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]
The World Series is the still the most important event for that sport. Anyways, not all the teams are from the U.S. Besides, you forget countries such as Venezuela and Puerto Rico where it is extremely popular. Tennis Dynamite 14:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]
You forgot Poland? Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]
I'm sorry, but I only mentioned those two because I knew I wouldn't have enough space to list all the rest. Smile.pngTennis Dynamite 14:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]
I would like some evidence that the World Series is the most important event for that sport. I appreciate it is for Americans but I'm not so sure whether those outside America especially in Japan, South Korea, Cuba etc people care more about the World Series or perhaps more about the World Baseball Classic or even the World Cup of Baseball... Or for that matter the Japan Series for the Japanese (and whatever the Cubans, South Koreans etc have) Nil Einne 17:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Few would dispute that Major League Baseball is the world's top professional baseball organization (with many players from nations other than the U.S. and Canada), and its championship therefore is widely regarded as more prestigious than any other. It could be argued that the World Baseball Classic is the sport's highest championship, but it lacks the history and popularity. (If Australia were to begin competing in the Australian Football International Cup, it wouldn't suddenly become more important than the AFL Grand Final.) —David Levy 17:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]
If we include drivel like the South African rugby championships, we have to include drivel like the World Series, too. That should give you a pretty good impression of my opinion of sporting events on the Main Page. —Cuiviénen 15:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Drivel? Some teams have a fan base greater than the population of some small countries. Yet elections from some of these countries show up on ITN even though their elections page in Wikipedia is a stubby page with a table of vote counts, and nothing more. I'd rather see good sports-related Wikiarticles on ITN than election-related drivel. -- 17:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Who said I approve of Tuvalu's elections making it onto the Main Page? Neither they nor any sporting event bar the Olympics and maybe the World Cup have international relevance. —Cuiviénen 18:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]
You believe that the Olympics and the World Cup are the only sporting events with relevance to more than one country?! —David Levy 19:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Okay, if the Tampa Bay Devil Rays won the World Series, maybe it should be removed, but this is a classic rivalry between the St. Louis Cardinals, who were est. in 1882 and the Detroit Tigers, who were est. in 1894. The Cards are 10 time champions and the Tigers are 4 time champions, and the Cards and Tigers have won their league 17 and 10 times, respectivly. Although, you could make the argument that if the Devil Rays won the WS, it would be a miracle, I'm just trying to say these are two great teams with long rivalries and long traditions. Rhelmerichs 15:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]
I would argue if the TBDR won it would be more likely that we should mention it. Someone unusual winning something is more significant then someone who's always winning it... It doesn't really matter whether they have long rivalries and traditions what matters is whether the event is likely to be noteable outside the US. Another important issue is that the article is likely to get much more work if someone not expected to win it, wins it because there will be a lot more to cover. If someone expected to win, wins all there is to say really is that team A won again. End of story. On the other hand, if someone unexpected wins, there's usually all sorts of other stuff that happens Nil Einne 16:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]
As others have noted, not all of the Major League Baseball teams are from the United States, many of the players are from other countries, and the competition is popular in other parts of the world.
As Tennis Dynamite alluded to, it's been agreed upon that the highest championship in any major professional sport is important enough to be mentioned in ITN. The World Series championship arguably is the top championship in professional baseball. (The World Baseball Classic is another candidate, but it lacks the history and popularity.)
The other criterion is that a new article must have been written or an existing article significantly updated. 2006 World Series easily qualifies.
If you were more familiar with the section, Huey45, you would realize that it frequently contains blurbs regarding competitions with which most Americans are unfamiliar. Some actually follow the links and learn about other cultures. Perhaps you could act in kind (instead of deeming them "stupid" and "arrogant"). —David Levy 17:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Exactly. And to above, any team that wins the World Series (or any notable championship, for that matter) should be mentioned as long as they folow all that David Levy mentions above. Tennis Dynamite 18:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Well that's enough; I think Huey45 is already K.O. Maybe he was just trolling anyway; or perhaps he was unaware of the usual content of ITN.--cloviz 19:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]

I agree with the OP actually. The World Series is hardly front page news to anyone outside the U.S. It's not as if it's the World Cup is it? Snowbound 22:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]

USA is big; like quite many small countries. Besides that, many people follow this event in some other places. Another issue is that the ITN sections features Wikipedia's coverage of current events; it would work better if these events were updated constantly, not periodically like now. In order to be like that, the section would have to be much more inclusive; and users would have to stop thinking of it as a news service.--cloviz 22:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]
FYI, the world series blurb appeared on the front page of wikipedia Japan. Falsedef 22:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]
No, the World Series is not the World Cup. Nor, for that matter, are the cricket and rugby championships that have been mentioned in the section.
Have any of the users alleging American bias taken notice of the fact that none of the other current ITN entries directly pertain to the United States? —David Levy 23:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[]
What is really hard to see is an "On this day..." section without one USA-related event.--cloviz 00:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[]
We just had one a few days ago. Maybe we should celebrate, eh? :-) -- 05:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[]
The World Series is a national event, not a global one despite it's name. Having foreigners playing in it does not make it "International". The English Premiership is full of foreigners, it's still a regional competition. The Cricket and Rugby competitions ARE played by several countries and thus are of interest to more than one nation of people. The World Series is akin to the FA Cup. It's a minor regional competition...certainly not big news.Snowbound 02:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[]
The World Series is followed in Asian, North American and South American countries. It is certainly as international as Cricket and Rugby chamionships with different countries participating. For reference, see the Tour de France. It only occurs in France yet it is international. BTW the World Series was covered by the BBC on their main sports page. Tbeatty 02:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[]
You will struggle to maintain the argument that the World Series is as international as cricket tournaments, such as the Cricket World Cup that involves 16 nations and has more on the fringes. You will also struggle to maintain the argument that the Tour de France is analogous to the World Series (the Tour is not in any way geographically limited in terms of contestants). That said, there's no reason why the World Series shouldn't remain on the front page. I'd prefer to open the scope up more to allow more frequent updates. Sam Korn (smoddy) 13:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[]
1. Again, the United States is not the only nation with teams that compete in the World Series.
2. If the World Series is not of interest to people outside the United States, why is it televised in numerous countries? Why was the outcome reported on the Japanese Wikipedia main page?
3. Please name one baseball competition of greater significance than the World Series. —David Levy 02:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[]
If the South African domestic rugby championship is on ITN, then so should be the World Series- provided the other ITN inclusion criteria are being followed. After the unfortunate debacle that surrounded the (unreasonable) exclusion of e.g. the World Cup football scores, I think ITN has gotten it just about right with sports stories in the last few months. Badgerpatrol 03:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Why was it unreasonable to omit the World Cup scores? It's customary to report a sports tournament's final outcome (as we've done for the World Series), not the outcome of each individual match. Of course, my main objection was that few meaningful article updates (one of the aforementioned inclusion criteria) appeared.
If you mean that it was unreasonable to handle the World Cup differently than we handled the Olympics and the Commonwealth Games, I agree; those events were handled improperly, which hopefully won't happen again. —David Levy 03:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[]
That is indeed basically what I meant, but it's all water under the bridge and I think everyone had a fair say at the time. As you say, now that the existing precedent (re major global events) has been overturned, so long as any new policy is fairly enforced I don't think anyone will have a big problem. The real test will come in a couple of years' time when you know there will be an enormous clamour for a medals' table etc. However, that can be dealt with as, when and if it happens. As for the baseball- I obviously support putting it on the main page, under the current understanding that domestic sporting competitions are fair game for ITN, ceteris paribus. Congratulations to whomever won! Badgerpatrol 04:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[]
David. Are you seriously going to make an argument for the Canadians making it worldlier? They are Americans without the plane fare FFS.
Sure it's of interest to the Japanese. But as someone pointed out, this is the English version of Wikipedia, and the only English speaking baseball fans will be Americans. Thus it's only really of interest to one nation of people. Thus it's inclusion on here is dubious.
I'm not arguing the fact it's the numero uno baseball competition. Still doesn’t mean it's relevant as front page news. To the rest of the ENGLISH speaking world, it's a minor event.
Wikipedia's content is not based on "whoever has the biggest country get's the biggest say". That's why we have a mutual tolerance for American and British English spelling in place.Snowbound 03:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[]
1. Your reference to Canadians is downright offensive.
2. No, Americans are not the only English-speaking baseball fans. If that were true, the sport wouldn't be televised in several other English-speaking countries.
3. Worldwide interest is not an inclusion criterion. International interest is.
4. Despite the fact that this Wikipedia is written in English, the section is not designed to report stories of interest primarily to English-speaking people. Currently, it includes entries pertaining to China, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Argentina, Iran, Lebanon and Panama. —David Levy 03:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Snowbound, you should try to travel to Canada some day. We are not Americans without the plane fare FFS (whatever that means). Actually, we have many Scots around here, and we have lots of snow in the winter. You, Snowbound, will fit in nicely, say, in Nova Scotia. -- 14:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[]
In Internet jargon, "FFS" means "for [profanity]'s sake." —David Levy 16:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Thanks, David Levy. I found out what FFS means in the UK from the FFS article. (Isn't Wikipedia great?) I'm puzzled by the reference to "plane fare". -- 19:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Snowbound meant that Canadians are nothing more than Americans who can't afford to leave Canada for the United States (by airplane). This was an extraordinarily nasty remark. —David Levy 19:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Thank you for your clarification, David Levy.
I have to say that most of us just drive across the border. You really have to come to Canada and find out more about us, Snowbound. Then you can get your facts straight to insult us properly. (Check the exchange rates before you come. We can afford many things.) By the way, "plane fare" to the States are rather cheap, often cheaper than flying across Canada. -- 19:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[]
I wonder when the 2006 Currie Cup, a competition I've never heard of (despite watching Rugby), got to the Main Page, the complaint wasn't as long as this one. For the record, I'm not American, Canadian or any other Westerner. The World Series is big news. I even saw it on our local news. --Howard the Duck 06:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[]
This one is so long (partially) because Huey45's initial complaint was needlessly rude and offensive. -- 14:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Maybe huey is a Mets and/or Yankees fan, lol. --Howard the Duck 10:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[]
True, and also because a lot of people also complained about the World Series entry at T:ITNT. Anyway, I was the one who originally started the "complaint" about the addition of Currie Cup, as I believed it was only of regional or national significance. Apparently, some other people made arguments that it was also watched in Asia, so I let the the news headline stay. However, it was removed a few days later by someone who wasn't really paying attention to our discussion. Like David Levy simply said, the qualifications in ITN just say it has to be of international importance, not worldwide importance. You guys keep saying that the World Series is not international just because there are international players. This may be true, but look at why those people came to play baseball in the first place! Why are there so many international players in the MLB? There are enough in Latin American baseball, Japanese or other baseball leagues around the world. Why did they have to specifically come to the MLB? Not just because MLB is highly important in the United States, but it has international and worldly appeal. Nishkid64 20:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Baseball and the World Series are a major part of American culture. Not including it, would simply be an anti-American bias. I've seen English Premier League news and horse racing news on the main page. Major League Baseball set attendance records this year, with several parks recording more than 2 million fans in there goes your little theory about baseball being unpopular. I think that this discussion is less based on the relevance of baseball, than it is a cheap passive aggresive attack on America. You got a problem with the US then you should say so, not take it out on our national pasttime.--MonkBirdDuke 22:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[]
My thoughts exactly, but I just didn't want to be outright and blurt it out. Even at T:ITN, I stated that there weren't any US-centered headlines, and that the World Series was the first one here in a week or so. I just think it's American-bashing. Nishkid64 23:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[]
I personally think baseball is a slow, boring sport. Being angry at baseball for being on the front page is pretty entertaining to me. Decisions of what articles make the front page are subjective (with some rare exceptions where the issue is huge), just like the decisions to print news stories at ANY media outlet. To think that there is a righteous path for selection of articles or news stories in almost every case is ludicrous. I don't see how it can be assumed that one sport deserves more merit than another, given each game and its support. How is not subjective, elitist, and arrogant to think you know what sport deserves coverage in a specific environment?
It seems to me that a lot of the USA-centrism disputes about ITN arise around american sports events. Is there a debate open somewhere about having a sports section on the Main Page? That way it could have clearer guidelines for inclusion, and ITN might have a break.--SidiLemine 13:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[]

I havn't read everything but it seems that Huey45's main complaint is that theres American bias since its an American league and an American sport. So the Super Bowl shouldn't be on the main page? Are the olympics and world cup the only sporting events that should be on the main page? Theres been alot of non-american sporting events such as the 2006 Currie Cup that ended up on the main page. But its only when American sports show up the arguing starts. Isn't the final game of the highest level of play in professional baseball in world notable enough to make the main page.....Coasttocoast 04:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Muffin the Mule

It's mentioned on that Muffin, the first British children's TV hit character, turns 60 today. Is it worth mentioning this milestone under today's events? [2]- NP Chilla 11:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Thanks for the suggestion, but no stubs, please. How about October 30#Events instead? -- 14:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Just done it. Thanks for the suggestion. - NP Chilla 22:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Missing Interwikis

  • ar:الصفحة الرئيسية
  • yo:Main Page

-- Qasamaan 12:21; 30 October, 2006 (UTC)

Only Wikipedias with at least 20,000 articles are included. See #Where are the interwiki links? and #The link to Arabic wikipedia ... and other wikipedias with 10k+ articles above.
ar is close, at 19586 according to m:List of Wikipedias. Has it just passed the 20k mark? Congratulations! -- 14:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Arabic is currently over 19,500 and appears likely to pass 20,000 soon. Yoruba's current total of 55 articles falls well short of the mark and barring very rapid growth is unlikely to be listed on the English language Main Page anytime soon. --Allen3 talk 15:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Language template

I am disappointed that once again Raul has cut the Language template at Template:Wikipedialang which had been lengthened to the satisfaction of a number of other language Wiki users. I cannot understand his constant vendetta. The template has already been massively reduced from what it was last year. Why do key up and coming non-Western languages like Arabic and Farsi, for example, have to be excluded? Tfine80 19:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[]

The template's size is being kept in line with the template for sister projects (Wiktionary, Wikiquote etc). The divisions have been chosen on that basis. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[]
What seems to be missing is some explanation of why that is a good goal? Dragons flight 20:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[]
It seems obvious to me that it was an pruning for a better layout and appearance of the Main Page. -- 14:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[]
Yes, I got that the intent was to improve the look of the main page. I am however unconvinced that dropping the 10k line actually contributes in any significant way to that goal. Dragons flight 15:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[]
I agree. It looks somewhat better now, but the difference is small. I rarely scroll that far down, so a big blob at the bottom end is okay with me. -- 15:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[]
It doesn't matter what lines you pick, they are all abitary. I think the current numbers give a good "standard deviation" and aproximately the same number of languages in each division. It's currently a far better layout than the amorphous blob we used to have.
That's for the bottom of the page. The side bar however, I don't see why we can't list a lot more in there. On my screen there's another pageful of space down there. How is it on other resolutions/renderings? --Monotonehell 02:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[]
According to m:List of Wikipedias, ar now has 19,639 articles. At this rate, the 20k mark will be reach by next week or shortly after, qualifying Arabic Wikipedia for a link from the Main Page of this Wikipedia. Why are Arabic Wikipedians (and their friends) so impatient? -- 14:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[]
On my screen, the links could be more than doubled, no problem. I love to see long lists of nationalities/countries/languages, and I think it goes well with the wikiculture. I say put the 10k+ on the MP!--SidiLemine 15:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[]

According to m:List of Wikipedias, Arabic Wikipedia now has 19,706 articles. It's getting closer and closer to the 20k threshold. Exciting..... :-) -- 13:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[]

The article count is now at 19,815. The 20k threshold should be reached this week. :-) -- 17:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[]

New Font

Why did the font for Wikipedia get really smaal. Please change it back o normal. And can someone explain what happened?

Maybe it was your browswer? Sometimes if you hold Ctrl and scroll, the font size of the page changes. You can fix it back though by scrolling back. Nishkid64 01:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[]


So I was noticing that the left side of the Main Page seemed peculiarly macabre today, and then I gave it a moment's thought. Nice job by everyone involved. - BanyanTree 14:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Yes. Good job, people. Those who made the Main Page a crazy mess on April Fools' Day should take notes and learn. Happy Reformation Day, everyone. :-) (Happy Halloween, too!) -- 14:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Pro-halloween bias rant anyone? ;) --Monotonehell 15:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Hmmm... No Saints today? Good. We all support the pro-Halloween / anti-Saints bias. No ranting is necessary. :-) -- 14:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[]
The set of nominations at Template talk:Did you know does play an important part in the effort. Halloween benefited from the availability of article nominations appropriate to the holiday theme while no articles regarding Saints are currently nominated. If you are aware of any articles meeting the rules for inclusion, including articles you have written yourself, please nominate them so the administrators performing updates will be aware of them. --Allen3 talk 14:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the suggestion, but it's probably too late now for the Saints. All the notable saints should have a page a long time ago.
I hope no one is churning out new pages about non-notable U.S. politicians for DYK on Election Day next week. People would be ranting here all day. LOL. (I hope I am not violating WP:BEANS.) :-) -- 15:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[]

addition of a category..

While it may seem silly to place a category on the Main Page it does seem logical to me, I propose adding Category:Wikipedia community as in essence the Main Page is a community page :) -- opinions? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[]

The Main Page defies categorization – Gurch 16:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[]
Category:Main Page makes more sense to me. -- 14:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[]

New Rule: No politicking

A New Rule for Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not to be used to either promote or slander a candidate in a political campaign. Das Baz 16:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[]

Sounds entirely reasonable to me. Seeing as people asserting their own views in debatable topics (*cough*Evolution*cough*), the last thing we need here is some retard spewing political propoganda. --HN-73r 23:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[]
A new rule isn't really needed since politicking would be covered by WP:BLP, Wikipedia:Libel, and WP:SOAP (among others). Koweja 23:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[]
If a new rule is really what you want, please propose it at the wiki-village pump. Good luck over there. --PFHLai 17:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[]
I'd like to propose a new rule here at the village well: let's call it the credibility rule. Only people who are credibly related to a subject can write an article about it. Who's going to enforce it? Well nobody of course. This is wiki country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 23:11, 10 November 2006 {UTC).

This rule would be an excellent one if it was passed. But remember this rule would apply to the lefties as well so no George Bush Bashing or ill informed anti Iraq War crap. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sniper 2 (talkcontribs) 02:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC).[]
Way to duck under that point, Sniper.--Agent Aquamarine 07:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[]

look you guys it not a big deal but i am pissed at people lying about the war but its not hard to make bushh look like an idiot and just to let you know imn totaly against him

That rule would defeat the purpose of Wikipedia. If only experts can write an article, the why even have wiki formatting? Also, how would you enforce this rule? I could claim to be Bill Clinton, and you would have no way to prove that I was lying. Then I would just shove WP:AGF down your throat and move on to writing the article. See my point? -- THL 09:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[]

Why does the name Citizendium spring to mind?Blackjack4124 10:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[]

If this rule was actually enforced, Wikipedia would have to be shut down completely for slandering those that aren't uber-socialist. Haizum 22:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[]

white stripes

i can't find this anywhere, and i just need to know -- what's with the white stripes being the main page image? i mean, the image always sitting in the top left that links to the main page. it's been like this for a few days and i don't get it. --dan 20:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[]

okay it's gone back to the normal picture now, so crisis averted. i'm still curious what that was all about though. --dan 21:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[]

Why keep the bad history as well?

Have any of use wondered, why does wikipedia keep the whole history of articles, even the bits that contain vandalism, i mean isn't that a waste of space. why not just keep the good history, not the bad history. To me, its seems like a stupid idea to include bad history.

Pece Kocovski 09:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[]

Partly to maintain the transparency of the system and the accountability of individual editors -- once we allow people to easily remove edits from page history, we lose transparency, which means it's more difficult to hold people accountable for their edits. Edits which do need removal should see requests for oversight. Luna Santin 09:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[]
Its not really a waste of space either. Text uses very, very little disk space on Wikipedia, at least compared to the images and other media. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 11:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[]
And who judges what's good, and what's bad? Bazza 11:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[]
The Decider, of course! — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 11:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[]
Actually, he doesn't decide over good and bad. Only what's best.--SidiLemine 11:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[]
It's also useful to keep track what "bad users" do. Repeat offenders can be more easily identified. And sometimes, things get removed by mistake. Keeping the 'complete' history makes it easy for anyone to restore old stuffs afterwards. -- 13:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[]

Sometimes it's also just fun to read the vandalism that happens to pages....or am I the only one that does that ;/ Worlock93 15:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[]


Sorry for the most recent edit, a friend of mine was over and I (foolishly) left my account logged on. Andre (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[]

Yikes. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[]
Ouch. Not a big deal though, got reverted by an admin in under a minute. Gotta be careful as an admin :). — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 01:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[]
Reverted by me, actually :) Andre (talk) 02:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[]
It's not the first time that's happened. Don't worry about it too much. Canderson7 (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[]
Might I suggest new friends? I'm not an administrator but if my friends ever come over I don't have to worry about wikipedia's main page being changed even if I were become I avoid that sort of company. Nil Einne 07:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[]
Yeah this is for Nil Einne, uh Wikipedia is not your life man, come on. It was meant to be edited all your people do is just sit in your dark houses and cry awfoul whenever someone makes a joke on this site, please do not get rid of the only friends you have because they disrupted wikipedia, that is just dumb. User:Bowstaffer
If my friends use my account to edit wikipedia, then they were never my friends. Thankfully (as I stated above) my friends are not those kind of people. If people wish to keep these sort of friends, that it up to them but it is not something I would do. BTW, wikipedia was meant to be edited by all people constructively. Vandalism which from a brief look through your edit history is all you've ever done is not constructive. You might want to consider the amount of other people's time you've wasted via your vandalism. Indeed, it is usually vandals that have no friends and no life (this is not a personal attack, I have no idea what your life is like but it is my believe that many vandals do so because they have no friends and no life). N.B. Other editors: the above user vandalised my talk page which is why I know s/he has a history of vandalism and indeed the reason I came back here Nil Einne 17:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia clone site

The following site uses wikipedia's layout without permission: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 06:06, 2006 November 4 (UTC).

This is allowed and common, so long as they don't use Wikipedia logos. They are using the free (as in liberty) MediaWiki software that powers Wikipedia and numerous other wiki websites. —Centrxtalk • 07:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[]
For more information on this, please see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. --PFHLai 17:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[]
Not really - the linked site is neither a mirror nor a fork. It is simply one of many sites running on the Mediawiki code and using the Monobook theme, both of which are released for use under the GPL license. — ceejayoz talk 23:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[]
Ooops. None of our content is used. My mistake there. Thanks, ceejayoz. --PFHLai 03:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[]


What, no mention of the blatant inexcusable Malaysian bias on the main page? Borisblue 21:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[]

good point, I've even heard that combution engines, such as the one pictured, are used in Malaysia as well...
Not only that but the Malaysian Trades Union Congress is part of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and now therefore the International Trade Union Confederation. They're also part of the United Nations and so must have voted in the 2006 United Nations Security Council election. Oh and they're also a neighbour of the Philippines Nil Einne 07:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[]

Add a purge link

Can you consider adding a purge link like this after the number of articles? Sometimes the count isn't accurate.

6,396,219 articles in English (refresh) -- 01:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[]

FYI, I think <shift>-F5 will accomplish the same thing - on IE and Firefox anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[]
Is it really necessary to have an up-to-the-second count? I don't like the idea of having a "wipe the cache on the most viewed page on the entire website (with all its templates, too)" button readily available. — ceejayoz talk 02:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[]
On average, several articles are created every few seconds, with a somewhat slower rate of deletion as the new page patrol and deletion debates sort through new pages. It would thus be quite odd if the number at Special:Statistics was exactly the same as this number (6,396,219) by the time you clicked on it, simply due to the constant flux. - BanyanTree 02:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[]
User:, may I suggest getting an account and putting the purge link on your own user page ? You can bookmark your userpage and use it as "your customized MainPage". -- PFHLai 06:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[]

Add Persian to other languages

Can someone ADD Persian fa: to the In other languages bar, in the main page. --Kaaveh 04:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[]

Please see Talk:Main Page/Archive 82#Where are the interwiki links? and Talk:Main Page/Archive 82#Language template. Comments at #The 10k's above are encouraged. Thanks. --PFHLai 05:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[]
Same request but for arabic language. Is there a boycot for some languages?
Presently only languages with 20,000 articles are added. Whether or not this is the best approach is one of the things discussed at the links above. Dragons flight 09:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[]
Arabic only needs a few more articles to pass the 20k mark at this point, anyway. It should be up there in a month or two. —Cuiviénen 16:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[]

US election

So, since this is obviously is going to come up tomorrow, what do we do about it? Do we wait until results begin to come in, report on "important" races, or provide a link to the relevant article, a la World Cup? Titoxd(?!?) 18:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[]

See on-going discussion at Template talk:In the news#U.S. Congressional elections. -- 20:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[]
Hell no we shouldn't mention it. It's taking place in the United States. Don't you think the conch shell collectors union strike in Karibati is more important? If not, you must be biased. --Descendall 01:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[]
Biased? The bias is shown in not including Nicaraguan general election, 2006 on ITN. Daniel Ortega is President again, which was also yesterday's news. How come Tajikistan is chosen over Nicaragua? -- 14:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[]
If you think the Nicaraguan general election, 2006 article is updated well enough, please draft a headline and submit it at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Thanks. --PFHLai 17:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[]
How long is Wikipedia going to celebrate the Democrat takeover of Congress? Haizum 22:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[]

Creative Commons images

I hope this is the right place to ask, but I have a quick question. I am a regular contributer to the articles such as Holden Commodore, Holden VN Commodore, etc. I originally had promotional images on each of these articles but they have since been removed. These images were only there temporarily until free images could be found. But then I came across the website, who releases his work under the Creative Commons. The images I want to use are under the page Would it be O.K. to use these? I have E-mailed the site owner, but am unsure if this will be enough. Regards OSX 06:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[]

The copyright on most of the images on that page are not owned by the owner of the web page. I am pretty sure that the creative commons license used "Non-Commercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes." is not free engoug to be used on wikipedia and can only be used as fair use.--Clawed 07:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[]
Creative Commons images under an NC or ND license are not allowed, at least not without an accompanying fair use rationale. GeeJo (t)(c) • 08:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[]
Any further questions? Try Wikipedia:Help desk. -- 15:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[]