Talk:Main Page/Archive 91

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 85 Archive 89 Archive 90 Archive 91 Archive 92 Archive 93 Archive 95

DYK links to a disambig page

The link specie in the main page "Did you know?" section links to a disambiguation page instead of the correct article.Shushruth \talk page \ contribs 02:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[]

I changed it to a link to wiktionary:specie, since there isn't really a "correct article" on that meaning here on Wikipedia. In future, notes of this sort are better placed at WP:ERRORS. Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 03:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[]

Federer Pic

The tournament is Aussie open, a hard-court tennis slam, and why whould we want to put a say, Wimbledon pic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.107.240.1 (talk)

The image currently used on the main page is there because it's a freely licensed image of Roger Federer. If there's a freely licensed image of him at the Australian Open, we can use that instead. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 03:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[]

A link to a policies list?

Would it be a good idea to have a page on Wikipedia which is like a Table of Contents of all Wikipedia policies, with links to those policy pages, and then include a link to that page from the Main Page? It might make navigation easier in some circumstances. Corvus cornix 19:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[]

The Community portal link in the navigation box takes you to a helpful list. Is that what you meant? --Monotonehell 20:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[]
Where does the Community portal have a link to policies? I see a link to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), but that's not the same thing. And anyway, what casual or newbie user is going to know that clicking on the Community portal would take you to where you want to go? Corvus cornix 20:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[]
The first link under CP's Policies and guidelines is to Wikipedia:List of policies. The section itself contains a brief list. WP:LOP is also central in the bottom navbox at Wikipedia:Five pillars, itself on nearly every new user's talk as part of {{welcome}}. It is thus at most two clicks from the Main Page, from the left sidebar, from Wikipedia:Introduction 2, and from Wikipedia:Introduction 3. As most of the people on the Main Page are readers and not editors, this seems to be adequate prominence for a project directory page. - BanyanTree 21:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[]
Assuming that the reader knows what "Community Portal" means. Corvus cornix 21:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[]
We assume that the reader has a basic understanding of english, or will take the WP:INTRO. ffm yes? 21:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[]

← The community portal is for editors, while the Main Page was designed with readers of Wikipedia in mind. No policies or guidelines refer to how one should read the encyclopedia, so it makes sense to me to not have this list on the Main Page. Accessibility is an issue that can be resolved with a bookmark toolbar or a site-specific search box (wherein one can enter, for example, WP:AGF, and be redirected to Wikipedia:Assume good faith), both available in Mozilla Firefox and Internet Explorer 7. GracenotesT § 22:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[]

OK, I understand your reasoning. I was just responding to someone's posting on the Village Pump about how hard it is to find policies, in comparison to finding content. Corvus cornix 23:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[]

Grey bar

For some reason, if I view the Main Page in Firefox, there is a weird grey bar which appears between the Navigation toolbar and this Edit box. The problem isn't the same in Internet Explorer, which is truly obscure, but I was wondering if this is just a problem I'm having or whether anyone else can see it too. Bobo. 03:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[]

I am using Firefox as well and I don't see it. Nor do I see it in Internet Explorer. Cbrown1023 talk 03:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[]
If it's in the browser window itself, then it's the bookmarks toolbar. If you right click the bar above it - the navigation toolbar - and uncheck the option which says "Bookmarks Toolbar," it should go away. If this doesn't work, you might ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. Picaroon 03:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[]
Thank you for youse guys' input, it appears the grey bar has now disappeared. Bobo. 12:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[]

Editting

How can I edit this page and other pages?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipediaguest (talkcontribs) 18:29, February 4, 2007

By clicking the "edit this page" tab that you'll find at the top. (Seeing as you were able to post this message, I think you already know this, but I'll indulge your question anyways.) See also Help:Editing. Picaroon 18:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[]
You can't edit the main page, because it has been protected, so only administrators can edit it. If you see "edit this page" at the top of any page, you can click on that. (Some pages have a little "edit" button at the top of each section as well.) If you see "view source", it means that (at the moment) you can't edit that page. ElinorD 18:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[]
Also, some pages are semi-protected, meaning you can edit them after your account has been here and active for four days. Also, after then you can move improperly titled pages to a new title. ffm yes? 18:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[]

Italian Wikipedia

Just a heads up, guys. The Italian Wikipedia now has more than 250k articles so it should probably be boosted a spot at the bottom of the page. JHMM13 (T | C) 21:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[]

Congratulations to the Italian Wikipedia! (And done.) —Cuiviénen 21:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[]

Missing an FA image?

Today, when I came onto Wikipedia, there was no image for the FA. It just... wasn't there. I checked in three different browsers, it was missing. I figured it was just a minor problem that would be quickly fixed by a sysop. I come back four hours later and the image is still missing. Is anyone experienceing this also? --208.115.202.219 02:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[]

I'm not having any problems with it - Image:T-34 kal76,2mm RB.jpg is right there. Can you see the Federer image or the railway image? Picaroon 02:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[]
Yeah, I'm seeing every image but the tank. Do you want a screenshot? --208.115.202.219 02:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[]
No, that would be overkill for something that's most certainly just a temporary problem. Does it show up on its own image page? How about in the infobox of the article? If it doesn't, I'd just wait for tomorrow's image and if that doesn't show up, take it up with someone who is technically inclined (I'm not.) Picaroon 02:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[]
The image shows up on the image page, the T-34 page itself, but not in the infobox. This is happening in Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Opera. --208.115.202.219 02:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[]
I saw it. --Howard the Duck 02:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[]
Are you able to view the image here? Are you running any sort of ad-blocking software that might be returning a false positive for some reason? —David Levy 03:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[]

Today's FA

[1] Is it just me or has no one really vandalized Today's FA in the 2+ hours it has been up on the Main Page?? Nishkid64 02:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[]

It is cascade protected, from Main Page/Tomorrow. I am not exactly sure how yet, I am trying to fix it. Prodego talk 02:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[]
I fixed it. Someone vandalized tomorrow's POTD ([2]) and transcluded it there. —Mets501 (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[]
Yep, that is it. That was some smart vandalism. I think the cascade message should mention what the line of the cascade is (all the parent pages). Prodego talk 02:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[]
I knew it was too good to be true. The only time that we didn't have vandalism to the FA for a few hours was back on Christmas hehe. Nishkid64 02:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[]
I wonder where the vandals were... :-) | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 13:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[]
Getting ready for this? --Howard the Duck 14:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[]
Wow! 30 seconds of commercials are worth USD2.6 million! | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 21:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[]
  • Looks like it happened again: Somebody is vandalizing the unprotected POTD template, transcluding the TFA article, before it appears on Main Page/Tomorrow at 0:00 UTC. [3] Just by disabling cascade protection here will not solve the problem by itself, because the vandal will wait an extra day just before it goes on Main Page itself. The only way to solve this issue is to protect all TFA, SA, and POTD templates and images manually. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[]
Uh, no. The vandal won't be able to wait a day because the template will be protected while it is on Main Page/Tomorrow, and it will be protected while on the main page. No chance to vandalise in between those two times. The protection should be continuous, for two whole days. The key is to check the appearance and page history of the templates present on Main Page/Tomorrow, correct any vandalism, and then clear the content as "OK to go" for the Main Page the next day. I suggested setting up this system, but no-one ran with the idea. Carcharoth 18:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[]
Based on your comment Carcharoth, perhaps I did not make it clear the "larger vandalism issue", which caused Raul654 to make this comment while disabling the cascade protection on Main Page/Tomorrow. Here, the vandal trancludes an article onto one of the unprotected main page templates at 23:59 UTC, seconds before it falls under Main Page/Tomorrow. Once the clock strikes 0:00 UTC, not only does the main page template automatically goes under the cascade protection, but also the article that the vandal added as well. This is the problem that Raul654 is talking about.
But, maybe I should rephrase my previous suggestion in that the rotating TFA, SA, and POTD templates and images should be checked manually, not necessarily protected manually (although protecting manually with an expiry date would add an extra barrier). The basic solution that I was mostly thinking about is for someone to check at a random time, rather than solely rely on the automatic predetermined time of 0:00 UTC, where a vandal can have an opportunity to act seconds before. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[]
Oh, I get it now. The vandal got today's featured article cascade-protected by sticking it into a template about to appear on Main Page/Tomorrow. The potential for vandals to do this kind of thing was actually mentioned at the time all this was discussed, so it is not anything new. I assumed that vandalism to a template about to go onto Main Page/Tomorrow would not show on the Main Page until it went onto the Main Page. But still, undoing cascade protection doesn't avoid the problem. It just means that, unless manually protected and manually checked, the same thing happens just before a template goes on the Main Page. The problem is having cascade protection hit Main Page/Tomorrow at a predicatable time. If one person had the job of, at an unpredictable time, visually checking Main Page/Tomorrow, and checking the recent edits to all templates there, and then applying the cascading protection to Main Page/Tomorrow, that would be enough to get round this problem, I think. Rather than reverting to manual protection on all templates. Again, it goes back to what I said in the original discussion - human eyes are still needed to watch the pages. The cascading protection just makes blanket protections easier (one protection instead of several) and ensures nothing is missed, but it can't actually do the checking that a human needs to do. (1) Check; (2) Cascade-protect; (3) When the template leave the main page, cascade-protection automatically lifted (unless they were already protected).
For more on the human oversight still needed in systems like this, see here:
In particular, what I wrote here: "having a box ticked to confirm that someone had checked the page. If this is not done, you can end up with everyone or no-one checking the page. By sod's law, and as people get bored doing this check, the one time no-one checks will be when the page (through one of its templates) is in a vandalised state. Everyone is away at various times, so you can't rely on a single person to carry out this single check. The reason an admin is needed to check the box (or turn a big red light green), is that if anyone can 'tick the box', then a vandal will do it. I suggest the sequence should go: (1) ProtectionBot protects all templates etc. on 'Tomorrow' at the beginning of a day. (2) An admin makes a change to a protected page (call it the checkpage) that indicates that the 'Tomorrow' page has been checked by a human, and indicates to others that this change has been done. (3) ProtectionBot checks the checkpage and if the change hasn't been made that indicates a human has checked the page, e-mails the admins on its list. (4) At the end of the day, ProtectionBot changes the checkpage back to its "unchecked" status. Put this checkpage on a ProtectionBot subpage if need be, and then transclude as a little red/green light at the top right of Main Page/Tomorrow. Does this sound workable or too complicated?" - Carcharoth 16:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
So I ask again, can a system like this be installed, so a little red light appears somewhere (WP:AN for example), that can be turned green by admins who have carried out the check? It would still need an adminbot unfortunately as the checkpage itself needs protecting, and needs to be automatically reset at the switchover point, unless a .js workaround can be done again. Carcharoth 23:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[]

typo

the posting abot super bowl XLI says :stadiumin" instead of "stadium in"--TheNation 03:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[]

Was fixed. —Centrxtalk • 03:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[]
This post does not belong here. It belongs at WP:ERRORS. ffm yes? 16:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[]

What happened to the iranian scientist in the news?

He's gone for some reason. Why so? Zazaban 04:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[]

The item was unverifiable and not encyclopaedic. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. --Monotonehell 12:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[]

Werdnabot

Somebody broke the Werdnabot template for this page - someone who knows how to fix it, please do. —Vanderdeckenξφ 10:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[]

Fixed --Monotonehell 12:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[]

Link to Frisian Wikipedia

Why there isn't a link to the Frisian Wikipedia? Frisian is the closest related language with English. I think the Frisian Wikipedia should get a link on the English Wikipedia.86.83.58.168 12:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[]

There's many many other languages that are linked from en.wp. - too many to have all on the main page directly. The largest are linked directly from the bottom of the main page, less larger are linked from the left box and the complete list is avalable from two links at the bottom of both those lists. --Monotonehell 12:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[]

default cursor in search bar

Does anyone know how to make the search bar the default active box, so that when you go to the home page, you can just type and it goes straight into the search bar? it would save me and probably thousands of others a millisecond of time every time we search for something... that adds up quickly!137.222.14.109 14:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[]

Please see Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why doesn't the cursor appear in the search box, like with Google?. You wouldn't be able to get to the bottom of the page using the arrow keys. --Maxamegalon2000 14:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[]

Archive box

Can anyone confirm that the new archive box is working in IE? My copy is doing some very strange things that I don't believe are right. --Monotonehell 13:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[]

It works fine for me in Internet Explorer. What "strange things" do you see? Nishkid64 15:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[]
That's good, thanks. All the fonts are twice as big, for no good reason! Stupid IE being stupid again I guess. --Monotonehell 16:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[]
This user recomends Mozilla Firefox. ffm yes? 20:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[]
This IP reccomends that Monotonehell created the design using Firefox and is merely testing it in the majority browser. 84.71.158.191 07:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[]
The IP wins! Firefoxman would receive a complementary beating for being incorrect, but since Firefox was mentioned the "escape without beating" clause is invoked! lol I use Firefox all the time but I'm forced to test *twitch* my web designs in IE *twitch* and then downgrade them so that they work in *twitch* IE before I publish them for clients. *twitch* I hate IE. --Monotonehell 08:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[]
Imagine having to design and update monobook. That should make you feel lucky. 84.71.158.191 09:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[]
There is a reason why I've kept right away from participating in that ;) --Monotonehell 11:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[]

Lisa Nowak

Newsworhty? Yes. One of the five or six most newsworthy items in the world at this moment no. I would say Ryan O'Neal's arrest was more notable. 84.64.231.230 19:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[]

That was me sorry forgot to log in Jimmmmmmmmm 19:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[]

I don't think its newsworthy either. Should be removed ASAP. Leotolstoy 19:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[]

This does not belong here! Go to WP:ERRORS instead. ffm yes? 20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[]
"Please only post error reports regarding what is currently on the main page here." This doesn't really seem like an error report. Picaroon 20:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[]
Quite true, although Template talk:In the news would probably be the best place.--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 05:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[]

bias?

how come some fa article, in the main page for long time, than some other fa article stay for short amount of time only? is there are discrimination on certain topic or what?, or theres some special criteria to stay longer on main page.--Tearfate 14:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[]

Nope, it is changed every day at 00:00 UTC. About 8 or 9pm EST. ffm yes? 14:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[]
  • All featured articles stay for exactly one day. —Dark•Shikari[T] 14:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[]

TOC

Is it just me, or did the table of contents disappear? It was, after all, useful. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[]

It's just you.. you've gone crazy! ;) - No, seriously it will return very soon, we're working on a neater header layout for this page. --Monotonehell 13:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[]
There you go. --Monotonehell 13:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[]
Thanks. What is neater in the header layout now? The archive box font is smaller and the previous one was in my opinion more elegant. Thanks for the table of contents, although it's kinda strange having to scroll through it the way it is now. I'm complaining, I know. --Ouro (blah blah) 16:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[]
I don't know about you, but I like it this way. Maybe we need to make Talk:Main Page Alternates to appease individual user's preferences like we have the main page. ffm yes? 16:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[]
It's okay, I mean, it serves its purpose. Maybe it's me, I'm somewhat grumpy and sleepy today, I had to endure an almost-all-night car ride from Germany. Anyhow, there are some main page alternatives around here and there, and forking a talk page is not really necessary, if I understood your intentions correctly. Cheers. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[]

Can we please, please, please get rid of the stupid extra scroll bar on the TOC, please? I realize that form-over-content types are going to say that it results in a more consistent appearance, but that's no excuse for making people use two separate scroll bars to see the end of the TOC, especially since the whole point of having one is to skip downward more easily than scrolling. More easily, not thrice as difficult. If the preceding is not clear: I hate that. Gavia immer (u|t) 17:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[]

I came up with the scrollbar idea (attack this →GracenotesT §← guy), due to concerns, which I will link to below. You can see my initial vision for the TOC at User:Gracenotes/Sandbox, and Monotonehell's comments to my talk page, and mine to his. It was deemed to be the best solution to the problem: namely, the ridiculously varying length of the Main Page TOC. I used CSS's "overflow" feature, and the extra scrollbar is far from the rule; it's the sad exception, which I've tried and failed to get rid of... I'll see if I can make a CSS hack, though, unpretty as they may be. GracenotesT § 00:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[]
Nah, it's ugly and prevents you from seeing the links to most recent discussion without scrolling the thing. I say nix it. Zocky | picture popups 02:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[]
Agree with Zocky that it is annoying since most of time I want to see what the latest discussion is. Evil Monkey - Hello 03:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[]

You're all heathens. HEATHENS! I tell's ya! LOL Okay if people hate it we can switch it back to a 3 page long TOC. I happen to think Gracenote's solution is very elegant. There's no extra scrolling. You scroll the TOC and then click. Instead of scrolling the main slider and click. ? --Monotonehell 08:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[]

I think it'd be best if it had no scrollbar, and was also floated to the right and upwards to slot into the free space there (looks odd where it is now). 84.71.158.191 09:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[]

Forethought tells us that the slot with the free space under the archives wont be free in the future as the archive list continues to grow, as it has in the past. Unless we want to reorganise that some how? --Monotonehell 11:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[]
I do not know how often the talk archive is accessed, but I think I have an idea. The last 20, 30 or so pages of the archive would be directly accessible from this box, and the older achives would be accessible from another separate page dedicated to harbouring the older pages. So basically there'd be a 'older talk' link and links to 30 or whatever latest pages of the archive the way it is now, what do you say Monotonehell? --Ouro (blah blah) 15:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[]
Yes that's the kind of thing I had in mind. It's just that I'm scared of the archive box now that it's all automated. ;) --Monotonehell 17:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[]
Hmm... *scratches head of self* I kinda understand this. Dreadful things, automations. But I will support you spiritually, however know very, very little about changing the code of archive boxes. --Ouro (blah blah) 18:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[]

Image with no source on the main page

The image Image:Dolphinsmiamistadm.png is on the main page, and has been for over 24 hours. It has no real source. It lists the French Wikipedia as a source, and the French Wikipedia lists NASA, but does not provide a link. It is extremely unlikely that this image comes from NASA; it is much more likely that the image comes from Google Earth or a similar source. I don't believe this is a free image, and see no evidence that it is. It shouldn't stay on Wikipedia at all, and it certainly shouldn't be on the main page. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[]

Chances are it's from NASA World Wind. I'll redownload the software and check myself in a few minutes. GeeJo (t)(c) • 13:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[]
In fact, I don't need to. Look at the description line on the Commons page: 3 août 2006 à 22:24 . . Betp . . 1024×722 (1 119 631 octets) (nasa world wind 1.3.5). It clearly states that it's from the World Wind project, and Dolphin Stadium gives sufficient details to locate it yourself. Updating the licence tag to be more specific, though. GeeJo (t)(c) • 13:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[]
  • I'll be glad when it's gone, too, since it keeps tricking me into thinking it's a microchip. :) --TotoBaggins 04:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[]
    • I hear that. This image is really unsuitable for the main page. Very poor quality and practically zero encyclopedic value with regard to the Super Bowl. Whoops...sig JHMM13  08:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[]

Well, I'll be. I guess it is free then. Glad to hear it. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[]

Integration with Answers.com

How exactly does Answers.com get articles from the Wikipedia? Is it manually or ...? 70.69.180.112 03:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[]

I would think they download the database dumps, and reformat the articles automatically. Andrew Levine 04:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[]
The database dumps of all Wikimedia Foundation wikis are available at http://download.wikimedia.org. --Slowking Man 06:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[]

In the News

You might want to take off the bit about Italian football being canceled seeing that they will start playing again this weekend according to the bbc. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/6340537.stm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.226.1.253 (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC). []

Anna Nicole Smith dead

Can someone add this to the news section? Wikipedia was one of the first sites to break news of her death (at her article, so the main page should reflect Wikipedia's quick reflexes.— OLP1999 22:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[]

It's being discussed at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. --Aude (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[]
Please note that Wikipedia is NOT a news service. See Wikinews if you want to "break news". Unfortunately her death does not meet the criteria for inclusion in ITN. (See the candidates' page as above) --Monotonehell 23:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[]

Super Bowl XLI

Since this is one of the largest sporting events around the world (at least TV wise), shouldn't it be mentioned on the front page today? I think it should. --RobNS 20:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[]

It will, once it happens. ffm yes? 20:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[]
And this appearance will be controversial. I wonder, RobNS, by what criteria you deem the Super Bowl to be "one of the largest sporting events around the world (at least TV wise)". --Maxamegalon2000 20:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[]
Well, I'm no expert, but I read/heard in the media that close to 200 countries are braodcasting the event, including Russia and the PRC (see our own wiki site on this here Super Bowl XLI). I suspect the vast majority of viewers are not really (Amercian) football fans, but this is a total show, with celebrities, etc. It's an event. At any rate it's not that big a deal to me, but it really should at least be mentioned.--RobNS 20:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[]
Anyway, this does not belong on here anyway. This request belongs on WP:ITNMP. ffm yes? 20:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[]
It's been added, well done people!--RobNS 01:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[]

This news is not relevent for half of the world (non US part of the world), why it is on Main page!!

spacejuncky 09:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[]

Hahaha, just as what I've expected. I expect a deluge of U.S. bias accusantions on this page shortly, lol. --Howard the Duck 12:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[]

To Howard : I never meant the bias u are accusing me for, I just wanted to say that news should target most of the audience, worldwide. You have US Portal for that or there should be some portal which lists sports news.

I disagree spacejuncky, I live in India, where most people haven't even heard of American football, let alone played it; yet the Super Bowl XLI was reported here, and lots of people saw it. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[]
Haaa! Spacejunky is an Indian too. And being an Indian myself I can easily say that not a single news source gave it any coverage. Aniket ray 13:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[]
I think there's a tendency among Americans (myself included) to think that the Super Bowl is watched by pretty much the entire world with the same intensity as in the United States. Sometimes we get fed statistics that it's watched by X billion people, which I recall reading somewhere isn't really accurate. Regardless, few Americans come here and complain when sporting events they've never heard of are mentioned on the front page. --Maxamegalon2000 14:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[]
At least we're balancing it out with something on the Italian Football Association. --216.110.205.5 16:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[]
I wouldn't call that balancing. The violence resulting in the death of a police officer has caused the indefinite suspension of all football in Italy & high level government meetings. This isn't just about football anymore and was fairly major news (not just in sports). 203.109.240.93 11:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[]
So when was the last time an American policeman was killed due to football, hockey, baseball or basketball? I don't remember any, just some city center breaking of glasses and looting, lol. --Howard the Duck 15:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[]
I'm not sure if you understood my point. My point was that this was a rare event, and had significantly moved beyond just sport. This clearly deserved a mention regardless of whether or whether not the SuperBowl did. Including it was not balancing but including a noteable event, likely to be of interest to people all over the world, with an updated article. If there had been such an occurance because of the superbowl or because of football or whatever in the US, then it would definitely deserve a mention and we wouldn't be debating. (especially football since I don't think many Americans care about football or soccer as they call it, they mostly care about American football, and hockey, and baseball and basketball). Of course this is no the place to do the debating anyway and I'm not intending to debate whether the SuperBowl deserved a mention, just pointing out it was silly to suggest including the Italian thing was 'balancing'. 203.109.240.93 12:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[]

Why is this mentioned? It's hardly relevant outside the US and at most gets 200 million viewers. The World Cup Final has over a billion if I recall correctly. I'm American btw (odd, but I hate American football and call what most here call soccer, football)--Metallurgist 02:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[]

The NFL Network said on its Super Bowl broadcast that 1 billion people tuned in (yeah right...). And I'm guessing more people cared bout the Super Bowl than the Guinea news blurb that appeared a few days ago. --Howard the Duck 06:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[]

I think the fact that it's the single most watched televised event nearly always every year (I think MASH beat it out once...) kinda makes it important. Somehow, I don't get the impression we'd have complaints if it weren't American... DoomsDay349 02:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[]

Not true - we get complaints either way. Cast your mind back to the World Cup and the International Cricket. --Monotonehell 17:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[]
I highly doubt it is the single most watched television event nearly every year. There is no way it comes close to the World Cup and that's every four years. Nil Einne 10:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[]

OK, it was half a week ago. Can we at least move it down the list from the top? I mean, really, isn't the IPCC report still more significant than the fact that the Colts won? Hello? - BeardedPhysicist 23:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[]

On top of the Wikipedia's "Talk:Main_Page": "In the news" items are listed as they are added – there is no subjective order. --J. Nguyen 01:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[]

Wouldn't it be better English to use "Indianapolis won 29-17" rather than "29 to 17" mentioned on the main page at the moment. Just think the lexis is better this way rather than sounding like John Madden. (UTC)

No. Better English includes writing words, not using abbreviated syntax. --Monotonehell 12:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[]

No new news

Is there no new news in world.after super bowl?User talk:Yousaf465

Wikipedia is not a news service. There's not been any suitable suggestions for ITN since... WP:ITN/C If you have any suggestions, read the criteria and make some. --Monotonehell 17:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[]

I agree. The news is never updated. It will show the same thing for about a week. Randomfrenchie 22:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[]

It doesn't get updated by magic. ITN relies on people making suggestions at WP:ITN/C. Quit complaining and help. --Monotonehell 23:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[]
True. Go kill some president, and make sure you can create an article about it and suggest it before you get caught. Kidding.--cloviz 01:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[]
Killing just one President would not be notable enough. In the interest of internationalism you would need to knock off at least 2 heads of state on different continents. ;) --Monotonehell 21:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[]
I think ITN is clear that the assasination of a single current world leader would qualify. I was thinking of suggesting a candidate but I heard the people in charge of security for this person are paranoid and even if it's obviously a joke they don't care. Nil Einne 13:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[]

Search Cursor

Would it be helpful to anyone else besides me to have a cursor automatically appear in the search bar on the left side of the main screen upon pulling up the main page? I have it saved as a favorite and don’t like opening the page and then having to click in the typing space to begin a search. I know signing into Yahoo mail does this and it is quick and convenient. S. Randall 08:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by S. Randall (talkcontribs) 08:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[]

This is frequently proposed, but the problem is that having the cursor appear in the search bar prevents one from using the arrow keys to scroll up and down in the main window. -Elmer Clark 09:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[]
Proposed frequently enough that it's actually discussed on the Main Page FAQ. GeeJo (t)(c) • 11:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[]
It's proposed frequently enough that perhaps it might be something to consider as an option users can turn on in their preferences? Or only at Special:Search? Just a thought, personally I'd have it turned off. --Monotonehell 12:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[]
Use Firefox 2, Internet Explorer 7, Opera 9 or any other browser that gives you a customizable search box next to the address bar. Then you can set Wikipedia up as one of the search engines and save having to load a bookmark at all – Qxz 19:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[]
Using Firefox 2, press the [Tab] button on your keyboard to jump to the search box/place cursor inside. --Quiddity 02:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[]

Wikiweather.

I have an idea for a Wikipedia sister project: WikiWeather. Will it work? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.245.145.122 (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[]

That's an interesting idea, but how will it be different from the various weather sites on the internet? Xiner (talk, email) 17:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[]
Presumably it will differ in that anyone can edit it, and hence every so often when you go to look up the three-day forecast for your area, it will say there will be snow, ice and 300mph winds, but temperatures will nevertheless be up around 150 degrees. Anyway, Meta-Wiki is the place to propose new sister projects – Qxz 18:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[]
It wouldn't work; it'd have to be staffed by trained meteorologists, and it would just be inaccurate and vandalism rife...no, don't even bother with it. DoomsDay349 02:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[]
Maybe we could try and make an encyclopedia using a wiki. No, it'd have to be staffed by experts, and it would just be inaccurate and vandalism rife... If done properly (ie. using a decent referencing system) it would work and could be a good history of global weather. But I think people would prefer to use their favourite weather sites, especially with Vista able to dynamically link to them on the sidebar. violet/riga (t) 08:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[]
Of course, provided they spend a decent sum of money on a system capable of running vista in the first place. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[]
There is such a big difference between writing an encylopaedia and being a meterologist, I just don't know where to start. Besides that, the earlier example isn't particularly good. I know it was supposed to be a joke but 150 degrees is above the boiling of water (unless you're using some strange units like Fahrenheit or some other outdate and silly units :-P) Nil Einne 13:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[]

Links for "In the News" section on the Main Page

I enjoy the "In the News" section of Wikipedia, but I want a direct link to the news article itself. I believe the entire sentence or headline, should be a direct link to the news article, not a sentence that contains links to portions of the news article. For example, in today's news it states...Following two months of negotiations a coalition agreement is reached in the Netherlands that will keep Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende (pictured) in office. You can click a few different options, "two months of negotiations", "Netherlands", "Prime Minister" etc. But all I want to do is to read the article, but inorder for me to do this, I have to click wikinews first, then find the relavent article. I think the "In the News" section should simply contain the full link to the article itself. If we want to do further investigation, we can on our own. It would simply be way more convenient.Thoughtbox 17:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[]

But Wikipedia isn't Wikinews, and In the News isn't a news source. In the News highlights recent significantly updated articles. If all you want to do is read the article, then I recommend you go to Wikinews before you come here. --Maxamegalon2000 18:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[]