Talk:Main Page/Archive 95

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 90 Archive 93 Archive 94 Archive 95 Archive 96 Archive 97 Archive 100


I looked at the Homeworld page. I played the game a while ago, i didn't know there were so many people who knew enough about the games and the back story to write such detailed articles, just for a game! There are also quite a few cross-references for it, there's a lot to cover and it's practically all covered. I don't know, i just think it's pretty nice. -- Schadenfreude red 03:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Schadenfreude red. I've copied your comments to Talk:Homeworld, where contributors to that article discuss how to enrich and improve it. People over there will appreciate it more than readers of this page. -- 17:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we add a todays date?

My only suggestion is to add the current date to the front page of wikipedia.

We could add the time in UTC, as we have done to this page, but since most people's local timezone is different to this, it would probably just cause confusion for readers who would think it was wrong. We already get the odd complaint that "Today's Featured Article" doesn't change at the end of the day, but rather at some 'random' time during the day (in fact it always changes at 00:00 UTC). I think it's considered OK on this page as editors are generally assumed to be accustomed to different timezones, working as they are on an international project – and while timezone can be set in user preferences to get such things as page histories correctly adjusted, it's still necessary to convert the timestamps that appear at the end of comments, such as this one: – Qxz 00:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
If we have on the Main Page the date and time like on this page with the link to UTC all people need to do is click that link and then they'll know about UTC. --WikiSlasher 03:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
But what is the purpose of adding the date in the first place? Unless people only want to know that it is approximately March 24 for their time zone, the date displayed is just going to be "wrong" for most people. —Centrxtalk • 05:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Come to think of it I agree, it's not really useful because of differing timezones and people can tell the time with their computer anyway. --WikiSlasher 08:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Today's date can be found on the first line in the On this day... section. -- 17:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Wesley Clark second time featured?

Not sure, but isn’t this the second time this article (Wesley Clark) is featured? At least I think I saw his image quite prominent before on the main page. --Van helsing 09:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It was only promoted in March this year so it was definitely not featured before Talk:Wesley Clark. Actually I don't know if we've ever featured an article on the main page twice. I can't see anything in his bio to suggest he would have been ITN worthy, at least not since 2005. Are you sure your not getting confused by some other general or whatever? We tend to have Americans as ITN pictures a lot because they usually have free images. And the photos of most American generals, presidents and the like tend to look similar as they nearly always have the flag behind them. Having looked at a few, quite a few of them have some eagle on the right but there are some with just stars like Wesley Nil Einne 12:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I’m confused with one of the other sections on the main page. I read his bio before, and I think that was triggered by something on the main page. In any case, thanks for your response. --Van helsing 14:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I must say im positive i saw him as FA on the front page not so long ago as well. siarach 14:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to look through the Today's Featured Article queue and try and find him, but I assure you he doesn't appear on any day other than March 24 – Qxz 15:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
You know, it's weird, I have the same feeling I've seen Wesley Clark here before.--Pharos 17:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually pretty sure that a picture of him came up in DYK, so that's probably why people recall seeing on the Main Page before. Kaushik twin 18:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Or it could have been shown "In The News". -- Zanimum 20:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Well as I mentioned, I don't see any reason from his bio why he would have been ITN, since 2005 at least, but I can't say for sure of course Nil Einne 00:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the featured article on the main page picked by a random generator or is it chosen by a moderator?

Raul654, the featured article director, takes care of it. See also Wikipedia:Today's featured article. Picaroon 21:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Wesley Clark Pic

Couldn't someone vandalise the commons image, I don't think it's protected.--User:Rock2e Talk - Contribs 10:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

They could have done. However, a local copy has now been uploaded, which is automatically protected by cascading protection, so it is no longer a problem. (In future, contact an administrator the moment you spot something like this, just so nobody gets any ideas from reading this page). Thanks – Qxz 11:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, where is a list of admins, i'm new?--User:Rock2e Talk - Contribs 18:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:List of administrators. Or you can click on 'Special pages' in the toolbox under the logo, then click on Users and select 'Administrators'. This may be more up-to-date. Next time, please try Wikipedia:Help desk instead of here. Service is usually better there. Don't forget to tip. -- 18:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I was actually replying to the above comment, will ψ5 be enough:)?--User:Rock2e Talk - Contribs 20:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


There should be something about the developing Iranian Marine hostage crisis on the Main Page. I don't think the elections in Finland could degenerate into World War. But that's just me. --Mb1000 21:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Please join the discussion on WP:ITN/C. -- 21:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

How are Featured Articles chosen?

I find it highly coincidental that an obscure page that I visited yesterday makes its way to the main page. Anyone have details on how the topics are chosen? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

For information on the requirements an article must have to be promoted to featured status, see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Nominations and discussions are posted on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. For information on how "Today's featured article" is selected (the featured article that appears on the main page, see Wikipedia:Today's featured article. Thanks for your interest. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
And chosen for the main page by Raul654. ffm t 01:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Uranium is obscure? Or maybe you meant Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. -- Zanimum 20:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Fourth International was TFA when posted his/her comment on 22 March 2007. -- 03:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent Changes

Why is the Recent Changes link gone from the navigation? Hiddenhearts Sign Here! My Talk 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh never mind, its in the interaction box. Hiddenhearts Sign Here! My Talk 01:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
People have been doing all kinds of fiddling with the sidebar recently. They'll make up their minds soon enough – Qxz 03:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Who can change it? --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 03:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Administrators, via MediaWiki:SidebarQxz 04:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


I'm surprised that today's Featured article does not have a picture. 19:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 25, 2007. -- 19:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

On this day

there is no mention of "1975: Saudi's King Faisal assassinated" why? User talk:Yousaf465 05:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the Faisal of Saudi Arabia article is currently tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. As per Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries#Criteria for listing items on this set of pages, "the selected article must not be a stub and preferably it should be a relatively complete and well-formatted article". Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm.... that guideline doesn't really make sense. Anniversaries are not featured content. They're a way to get more people interested in editing those articles, not a showcase. Zocky | picture popups 10:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess the intention is not so much to feature content but to provide sufficient context so that readers can know what the event is about etc. Obviously in this case, it's pretty self explainatory but there would be other examples when it is not the case. It also helps to reduce the demand for items of limited importance or notability I guess (again not applicable here but in general it's probably true) Nil Einne 11:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The Scottsboro Boys is a good example IMHO. Not being an American & read the entry in itself, I go WTF is that and why do I care? Having read the fairly good article, I get the context to know why it's important Nil Einne 11:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that guideline for "On this day/Selected anniversaries" is basically consistent with those of ITN and DYK: the bolded, selected articles linked on the main page must be relatively complete and well-formatted to give sufficient context. It is hard to do that when an article has a bunch of cleanup and/or dispute tags. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Today is the 200th anniversary of the abolition of slavery in the British Empire. Please swap that line about the Scottsboro boys or the line about Titan (on ITN for quite a while recently) with a line about the Slave Trade Act 1807. (See Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/March 25#Possiblity for a new inclusion. Thanks. -- 20:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect. 25 March 2007 was the 200th anniversary of the passing of the Slave Trade Act 1807, which outlawed the British trade in slaves. It did not outlaw slavery, which continued in the British Empire until the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 came into force on 1 August 1834. Even then, a form of partial slavery continued for another 4 years, until 1838. See, for example, the articles on the Acts, and Abolitionism. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The line User: suggested on Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/March 25#Possiblity for a new inclusion is correct, then. It was the abolition of the slave trade, not the abolition of slavery. But the 200th anniversary was yesterday. Too late to do anything now. -- 15:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed - it is a pity it did not get on. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Displaying the ToC first.

Is it possible for us to get the ToC first thing on this page, above the error reports? It'd make navigation much easier. DoomsDay349 20:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Why not? Done. -- 20:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Awesomeness. DoomsDay349 02:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


I noticed the navigation bar on the left has changd a few times recently and now says 'interaction'. I don't really like that. Where is this discussion? Reywas92Talk 21:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesignMETS501 (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That was fast!! Reywas92Talk 21:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Hacked?

Was wikipedia hacked today, I looked at the site at work and the main page was blank and had red text. Anyone else see this? or know what the heck happened??--History Fan 01:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a look four sections up. (In short, a new admin made an accident.) ShadowHalo 01:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Error in the news section

In the news section for March 26, 2007, it says that Bob Woolmer is being pictured when what is actually being pictured is the symbol of the Quebec Liberal Party. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Spanish proposal thing?

There is a link on the top of the main page to some kind of proposal involving the Wikimedia foundation. It is all in Spanish, so I can't read a word of it. Is it something I should be concerned about?--Danaman5 05:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, not there anymore...--Danaman5 05:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
It is fixed now (log).--Commander Keane 05:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Or even better, the diff. It translates to "Learn about the new licensing resolution by the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, valid since March 23, 2007." Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Choice of ITN

Hi. Can anyone tell me why a provincial election makes ITN? --Oreo Priest 14:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess because it's not just any ordinary provincial election but "resulting in a minority government for the first time in 129 years.". Nil Einne 14:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
BTW, this is best discussed at Template talk:In the news where there has already been some discussion Nil Einne 15:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
It was a very unusual election; a first-past-the-post election that gave near-proportional results, a minority government for the first time (the "minority" government 129 years ago wasn't really a minority, but it was a strange situation), a very close three-way election. I would not have nominated for ITN, and I wouldn't be upset if it were removed, but it's fine for now. —Cuiviénen 22:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Pls see Template talk:In the news#Quebec newsworthy. -- 23:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Choosing the Featured Article

I don't know why the featured article isn't picked by a random generator.

While I have nothing against Raul, it is a stain on wikipedia's transparency. A list of featured articles that have not been featured can be made, and numbered serially. A random number generator can then be used to pick out the correct one.

This has many benefits:

  1. Total transparency
  2. No more "wikipedia is communism" complaints - which may be dumb, but peoples faith in wikipedia is important.
  3. The added transparency and fairness will further motivate people to create featured articles
  4. Saves time
  5. Saves effort

It wouldn't even need to be a random number generator, there could be a very simple system for picking out a random number that would be completely transparent. Some simple geometric system could be used with the last 4 digits used only. This would be random enough since:

  1. As soon as an article is picked, it is removed from the list, so all the articles below get shifted up; and
  2. The list would be in alphabetical, so the new featured articles added every day would shuffle the list randomly making it impossible to predict in advance.

Practically, the last four digits would be used - since there are now only 1,200 or so FAs on average you would need to pick 8 numbers to get a good one - however this is still completely random, and would take about ten seconds. Indeed, the digits of pie could be used!, every day, you take the next four and so on. For practical reasons the articles would be set 24 hours in advance (IE the number picked and the position decide the article not for taday but tomorrow. this would give time to sort out any problems with the FA

Why is this not being done already? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 14:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I like that! If an article is featured, it should be of equal status to those others that are featured, so there should be no reason for choosing the best article to put on the MP. (And P.S., your signature is huge!) Jaredtalk  14:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
But often times, the FA relates to something going on in the world. For instance, the world cup article from the previous year is usually on the main page the day that the current year's competition starts... things of that nature. I don't think it should be COMPLETELY transparent. --lightdarkness (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
As if the reviewers actually try to get it to match real-world events! I've tried at least twice to get them to do that and all they said was that other people in the world may not celebrate/recognize that event/holiday. If the only reason not to automate it is to be able to choose articles that are current events and that's not being done, then we might as well just automate it. Jaredtalk  14:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I'm not quite sure what you mean here. People reviewing articles shouldn't support an article to FA just because a real world event is coming up. However Raul does sometime select FAs to match real world event when users request it (I believe the FA page says he may choose it to match a specific date if requested). Like the Cricket World Cup article (or some cricket article anyway) on the day of the opening ceremony and I believe we had some football article on the day of the opening of the world cup. Indeed projects coordinate to get article to FA in time for events, I believe this occured with cricket. Of course, there has to be some balance. I don't think anyone would support the idea of having a cricket article for every day of the world cup even if we manage to get that many FAs. Nil Einne 15:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Why not? As it stands it is completely opaque anyway, I mean whatever is picked by one guy is what it is and that's it. There is no significant input from anyone that makes any difference. It is very unusual to have a relevant featured article, and anyway that is for "in the news" and so on. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 15:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, I would respectfully suggest that those who suggest this will do away with all those bias claims are missing the point. One of the key reasons why we get so many 'bias' claims is because wikipedia does have a systematic bias. There are several reasons for this. But one of the net effects is that if we just choose article randomly, this systematic bias would be clearly present in the FAs on the main page. However as we are IMHO always likely to have a growing backlog of articles that have not been featured, we have the luxury of being more selective with the articles that are featured on the main page. We can therefore reduce (not eliminate) the visibility and effect of the systematic bias in the articles that are featured on the main page by being more likely to feature on the main page articles on more obscure topics. While this does have the net effect of penalising articles on more popular topics which may seem unfair to editors of said article, many would argue it's better if it helps us reduce our systematic bias. I have no idea for sure if Raul does this, but I expect he does try to achieve a balance and therefore probably does do this Nil Einne 15:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
You cannot have a purely random selection process simply because there are topics that have so many featured articles (compare the number of hurricane articles on Wikipedia:Featured articles#Geology, geophysics, and meteorology versus the number of articles about states of the United States on Wikipedia:Featured articles#Geography and places). Having a truly random selection function would just make Wikipedia's internal systemic biases become more apparent. Raul overall has done a good job in trying to balance out geographica distribution of articles (you don't have two consecutive articles about similar regions), topical distribution of articles, and current relevance. Besides, I don't think that the process is actually broken, so why fix it? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 16:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
If Raul is choosing articles for this kind of reason then that is a disaster. There is no transparency here, no colloboration and this oges agianst everything wikipedia stands for. The current situation is not good. Having a daily vote would also not work. Random is the only way to go. How can I get a list of all the featured articles? If I had that I could formulate a formal proposal. That objectiion could be easily remedied by filtering some subjects that are far too prominent before they go into the list. This should be viewed as a good thing because much like the "random article" feature it is a good way to get a sence of the actual quality of wikipedia and will only spur people on to greater efforts. There are many simpe ways that the geographic bias could be solved by a simple rule - eg: if the randomly selscted article is on the same topic as one picked within the past month, you "roll the dice" again. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you have seen the existing structures to request articles at WP:TFA, but there is a significant degree of collaboration. Not everything in Wikipedia can be done by everyone at the same time, as you point out above, and I do not believe having a random featured article (such as occurs on Wikipedia:Featured content) is either appropriate or smart. Choosing which article goes on the Main Page is minor, when you consider that he also decides which articles receive FA status, and was ratified to do so. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 17:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I have seen that, but in the end this wikipedia process is entirely within the mind of one user. HE is a very good user, but that is not the point. Chosing what aritlce goes on the main page in the FA box is the most significant deicision that occurs here eacch day considering how this page gets 5% of all wikiepdia's traffic, and needs to be transparent. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 17:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Also having a look at your link, I am not convinced that there is any systematic bias in the content of FAs - there are more on history, but how many should there be? That is a value juegement - and not one that we can trust to one user out of a pool of millions, who dosent provide us with any rationale or justification. Again, I think he does fine fine work, but it is the principle at stake here. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I just can't agree that anything is so wrong as things are. The system works. I'm not convinced that we should change just because "it isn't right". If problems exist, fix them, but if in ain't broke, don't fix it.--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 17:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't take this the wrong way but if you don't believe there is a systematic bias in our crop of FA (as there is a systematic bias in our crop of articles), you haven't been looking hard enough. The Indian bias thing came up recently. But India does have 1 billion people. But what about China? China has a larger population than India. How many FA's are there on China? What about the continent of Africa with it's 900 million people? Heck take a look at the warfare and politics categories. How many things there do you see that aren't something that involves/d the 'west'? Then of course if you compare the number of FAs on computers and pop culture with our science related stuff (especially if you don't consider the hurricane and the like articles) surely you see a systematic bias there as well (although I admit biology and medicine is higher then I had expected). As I've already mentioned, systematic bias is prevalent in wikipedia. This isn't surprising or a disaster in itself but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to redress it. One key thing to remember is that TFA is not just about motivating editors. This should only be a secondary concern. TFA's primary goal should be to make wikipedia an inviting and informative place for all readers and highligting our collective work. By reducing the systematic bias, we can help to achieve this. Also, this just occured to me after reading what Raul said but remember one key thing. For more obscure topics, it's more likely that only a few or maybe even only one editor has done most of the work. For more common topics, it's more likely to be a larger colloboration. What this means is these editors are more likely to see an article they've worked on appear TFA. If we give equal opportunity to the obscure topic, this means the editor who worked on this is in fact far less likely to see an article he or she worked on appear as TFA. It seems to me this is much more likely to demotivate an editor. P.S. By obscure I don't mean the topic isn't interesting itself. I mean the topic isn't something which attracts a lot of editors. Nil Einne 12:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I too am not saying that anything is awful, just that it could be improved, for all the reasons set out above. It would be more transparent, more motivational, simpler and less time consuming. Setting up the system would take someone about an hour and last for ever. We just need (a) an irrational number (b) a list of all FAs, updated (c) a short set of rules. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 17:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
And what of the specific date requests? Running an article about a person on their birthday, for example. That's a loss that this change would cause, and it should be acknowledged. Honestly, I just don't see a compelling reason to change a functional system.--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 17:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. One of few rules could be that people could call for an "override", perhaps a maximum of one a week, (which is far far more than we have now) and if a lot of people (say 20) supported the idea then it could go ahead. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 17:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Raul is just a volunteer scheduler. He has been doing a fine job. Leave him alone. That "wikipedia is communism" bit was an inside joke. If you don't get it, never mind. -- 19:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that he is doing a fine job. I get the inside joke, but the point is sereious. Look, if he is just a volunteer - I tell you what, I will voluteer and do it the random way. That one person makese the most important decision on wikipedia each day - every day - undermines the principle that wikipedia is founded on. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 00:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Why is this "the most important decision on wikipedia each day - every day"? Please explain. It's just a schedule of FAs that survive FAR. Are we making an issue out of nothing? Does David simply want Raul's job/volunteer position? -- 14:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been keeping up, but do you have a proposal ready, or are we still in the "convincing others that this is actually a good thing" phase? Contact me if/when you actually decide to carry this through. Jaredtalk  02:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Since its clear this is a serious proposal, I'd suggest it be taken to Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article, since its really only about that element in particular, than the main page in general.--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 03:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Holy smokes - we just finished rejecting one half-baked proposal to radically change how the FA selection process works and before the ink is even dry on the reject tag another one comes along. This is a non-starter for the same reason the last one was, and the one before that, 'etc. Thanks for your thoughts, but we'll keep the system the way it is. Raul654 03:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I've just read that rejected proposal, and I think the thing people were not realising was that the pool of FAs available for the Main Page is kept in check by FAR. I'm not entirely clear, but I think FAR does sometimes demote an FA before it has been on the main page. Kind of like a check-and-balance system and overturning the initial promotion. Or does FAR only review "older" FAs or those that have already been on the Main Page? Carcharoth 11:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I too have read through that proposal, and it has nothing to do with this. Raul, you think this is a half-baked proposal - but I don't see why. This proposal is simply to chose the article from the pool of avaliable articles. We simply need to create a list of all FAs that have not been featured, and maintain that list. Which you do do anyway, presumably. Then we take a irrational number and move along it every day to get the FA for the day 24 hours in advance to allow any needed clean-up. There is the possiblity for an occasional override if there is strong support and the possiblity of skiping an article if by chance it is very similar to a recent one. How is that half-baked? Is it worse that the current situtaion where one person acts as the effective "editor in cheif" (picking the main story every day)? Do you think that the way it is not is really good enough? Or that this would not be much fairer and more transparent? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 13:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok I know I'm as guilty of this as you but since you are clearly serious about wanting to continue this proposal, why don't you take it to TFA as suggested? Nil Einne 13:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Or Wikipedia:Today's featured article/amendment proposal. -- 15:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
"Thanks for your thoughts, but we'll keep the system the way it is." That's easy for you to say when you're the one in charge, Raul. I don't understand why you don't see the need for randomization. You think that one person with all the power is the right course for Wikipedia's main page articles? Jaredtalk  01:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the nature of randomness and the systemic bias of Wikipedia, I predict that any random system for picking FAs would last until a cluster appeared. Once there are several days in a row of anime or American military-related articles, there would be an demand for some sort of director to organize the TFAs. Besides, having Rosa Parks up on the anniversary of her stand (or sitting) was a Good Thing. The human touch is also apparent in having "I Want to Hold Your Hand" for Valentine's Day 2006 and Night of the Living Dead on Halloween 2006. One could say that we could have a random process, but with some sort of organizer or organizing committee for trying to match the available FAs to related special dates. But let's just skip the whole "get rid of the Featured Article director until we realize we need a FA director" step and keep the FA director that we've got. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BanyanTree (talkcontribs) 21:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Spiffy new way of choosing the TFA

I have designed a new policy for choosing the TFA in a way that will make everyone happy and solve a lot of problems. Please add to the debate at Wikipedia:SweeTFA proposition! David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 22:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I still fail to see why we need to change the way it is chosen. Has Raul654 done anything wrong? PS: your sig takes up almost 8 lines of text!. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. ffm talk 15:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:SweeTFA proposition. -- 15:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

ITN picture

Sometime the images in the News section don't line up with the headlines they are related to. For instance, right now the photo of Bob Woolmer is right next to the headline about Armenian Prime Minister Andranik Margaryan. Quite confusing. I'm wondering if others have the same issue. If it matters, I'm using Firefox Gobonobo 01:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed previously, in that the image always appears at the top. The problem is that the WP:ITN template also appears on Portal:Current events, Main Page alternative (PDA version) and a number of other pages. If we try to line up the image to the related item, it might screw up the formatting on the other pages. For now, the relevant entry is indicated by the words "(pictured)" or similar. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
This question is asked so often. Should the answer be added to Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ? -- 15:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
A link to Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ should also be placed at the top of this page. Make it big, please. -- 23:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: a "recently featured" for POTD

I'm hoping this is the right place to put it, I couldn't find anything telling me where suggestions go. The last three featured articles are listed, what about having the same for pictures? I'm thinking a simple "Recently Featured:" with small (80 or so pixels) thumbnails of the last three pictures below the description paragraph of the current picture. A Boojum Snark 03:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, though I don't think thumbnails should be used as most pictures would lose all meaning at 80x80. You could suggest it at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
That's kind of what the archive is for. howcheng {chat} 06:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
That would apply to TFA too. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Boxed links on T:MP

Could someone make a box that would provide links to the errors section and the discussion section, so that users not familiar with WP's ToC system can still know where to post errors, now that the ToC is the first (and only, on many screens) thing that they see when they go to this page. Thanks in advance! ffm talk 22:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean we cannot revert back to using Template:Main Page discussion header again? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Or at least a modified version of it? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
There would just be two or three links, and their target would already be places on this page. ffm talk 11:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Lol this is going to go full circle soon isn't it? --Monotonehell 01:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
A link to Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ at the top of this page would be useful. Please make it big. -- 00:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
And it begins... --Monotonehell 02:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Whoops. I just noticed this section due to your above remark showing up in the page history. I'm not sure if you're referring to my recent addition of {{metatalk}} to the top of this page, or just the comment above. In any event, to respond in general with my intent: The "metatalk" message box was created independently of any of this. It was actually born on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. I thought it might be useful on a few other pages, so I templatized it, and then added it here. It is definitely not specific to Main page, so it's not going to get feature creep in that direction. By the same token, if something is desired which is specific to the main page, it would have to either supplement or displace {{metatalk}} here. FYI, FWIW, etc.  :) —DragonHawk (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
My remark was a bit snide, all I'm saying is that the header of this page started with one of those templates a while back and slowly things were added until it was a pageful of helpful links, recently it was removed as several people didn't like it. It's constantly evolving but seems to have come full circle. My snide remark was just a prediction that we will see it all again. (history never repeats ;) ) I'm not complaining about the situation, just observing it with morbid detached fascination. --Monotonehell 00:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Change of policy/guidelines to dissallow fair use images on the main page

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Fair use exemptions#Removing exception in policy for .22Main Page.22 about dissallowing fair use images in the "Today's featured article" section. For example, if Superman were featured, an image of Superman would not be allowed. - Peregrine Fisher 05:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly why it's a ridiculous idea. 13:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
If you'd like to discuss the issue, please discuss it there. ShadowHalo 14:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
i agree Radarnovel 16:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
i agree 17:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Piped link

Why is the word "livable" piped linked to "quality of life"? "Livable" already redirects there, so it should just be a regular link. See Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. --JianLi 07:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I have to say we need more links to that section or something; nearly every TFA ends up having that same issue. ShadowHalo 11:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Are we really supposed to 'fix' needlessly piped redirects? My reading of the policy is that you aren't supposed to fix unpiped redirects not that you are supposed to fix needlessly piped redirects Nil Einne 13:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
If we're presenting the blurb as representative of our best work, then it shouldn't go against guidelines in any way. That's a good point, though, and I'll bring it up at the talk page. ShadowHalo 13:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Why are you assuming that it's been "fixed"? The author may just as easily have piped the link originally. The injunction against fixing redirects is to avoid wasting time and server resources. There's no injunction against bypassing the redirect in the first place. howcheng {chat} 06:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Cleveland is off the main page now, so this discussion is irrelevant. If you'd like to discuss the issue of correcting redirects, please do so at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. ShadowHalo 09:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

PEPCON disaster

I think you should feature an article about the PEPCON plant Which was one of two in the united states in 1988 in the Southeast Las Vegas Valley, Which was reported by that it Exploded Killing two People, The Facility was making a Rocket Fuel Oxidizer Called Ammonium Perchlorate her is Wikipedias Page if you would like to learn more PEPCON disaster-Wikipedia --Marchmadness 22:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to get the PEPCON disaster to featured article status, please first edit the article according to our featured article criteria. You might want to also get creative feedback by posting on Wikipedia:Peer review. Afterwards, apply for featured article status at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No featured article has been chosen for tomorrow

A featured article needs to be chosen, quickly. None has been selected for April 1, 2007.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahadland1234 (talkcontribs)

No worries, Raul knows and has addressed the issue on his talk page.--YbborT SURVEY! 15:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Things are now "back to normal" at [[Main Page/Tomorrow]]. :-) -- 17:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Ahahahaha. It's good to know people around here still have a sense of humor. ShadowHalo 19:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

FA picture, 2 April 2007

What happened to the gremlins 2 pic? -- 01:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

there's a nosferatu pic up instead lol. --AlexOvShaolin 02:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
You may want to read Wikipedia talk:Fair use exemptions#Removing exception in policy for .22Main_Page.22. --Maxamegalon2000 02:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Given that consensus has not yet been reached yet on that proposal (and particularly because the image chosen to replace the Gremlins picture is exceptionally misleading), I've restored the old image. —Cuiviénen 02:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. There's nothing worse than roving bands of fair-use paranoids. Certain topics are of such a nature that images of any form concerning them are fair use. What are we supposed to do for Chrono Trigger? Use a picture of a potato with Chrono Trigger carved into the side? Get a courtroom sketch artist to draw an "alleged cartridge"? Zeality 04:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


I DON'T BELIEVE IT! The one day Wikipedia gets properly joked upon, and I'm stuck in the Karoo! Can someone please help me? Like a cached version of the page or something? Something someone saved? A link? Anything? PleaseohPleaseohPleaseohPleaseohPleaseohPleaseohPlease? Goldfritter 14:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

These links will do in the absence of Main Page/Yesterday... (though I thought someone showing yesterday's main page did exists for those in different timezones - ah, here we are Main Page alternative (yesterday) - but that doesn't help for the ITN and DYK stuff, which is updated in a single template). Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2007; the DYK entries for 1 April, Template:POTD/2007-04-01 (picture of the day), the ITN entries for 1 April and finally, Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 1. Hope that helps. Remember, if you are looking for the hilarious jokes there aren't any. This is all real! Every single bit of it. Carcharoth 14:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
...Still ROFL'ing. Wow. Amazing. I hope next year's is just as good. THANK YOU VERY MUCH CARCHAROTH! And Wikipedia. Lol. Goldfritter 14:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Goldfritter 14:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How do people have their signature in parts and colors?

It would be nice to know. I know how to do that in one place but it would be too hard to put it in each edit.--Rita Welsh 00:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to create a custom signature? If so, you can go to your preferences, check the box with the label "Raw signature", and type some wikitext into said box. If you need help will getting colors, or text in superscript or subscript, people at the help desk will be able to give you some code. Or you can take a look at WP:EDIT. GracenotesT § 01:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Additionally if there's a particular signature you like you can view the source of that sig and copy the elements you like into your own (changing the userpage obviously). --YbborTalkSurvey! 02:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
For more information, please read Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that many editors find huge, psychedelic signatures highly obnoxious. If you have to do it, keep it sane. mstroeck 17:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That's why I keep my signature nice and discrete. Even the time has been modified in this way. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-05 04:32Z

US-bias in "On this day"

The only things that have happened in history today are in the US. The rest of the world must be too bored. Nothing on Stalin (1922), Oscar Wilde (1895), Masahura Homma (1946) or the Jeju massacre (1948). At least Truman signing the Marshall Plan (1948) is slightly less-US centric. Come on. Learn to live outside your little box country. -- 08:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

For the "On this day" section, the criteria on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries states that "the selected article (bolded item) must not be a stub and preferably it should be a relatively complete and well-formatted article. In other words, it should be a good example of Wikipedia content." Although there might have been a number of historically significant events that happened today, the articles on these subjects do not meet this basic standard. Helping to improve these articles is always appreciated. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Among the articles you cited, Joseph Stalin and Jeju massacre currently have POV problems. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
No worries, folks ! Kamen Rider the tokusatsu superhero from Japan doesn't only beat up Gel-Shocker and their mutants on TV. He is now on Wikipedia's MainPage to help counter the wiki's systemic bias. Yeah !!! :-) --PFHLai 13:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

BIAS BIAS BIAS 14:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} Corvus cornix 23:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Kewl Picture

I know this is off the topic, and i know that this is not the place to discuss this, and i know this is the point of "picture of the day," but I would just like to say that today's picture looks REALLY BLEEDIN COOL! Goldfritter 17:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completly that today's POTD is very cool (Link added so this makes sense in the archives.) ffm talk 19:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The image in question.
Agreed. But you just try the craters all those underground tests have caused (where the hole underground vaporised by the blast has collapsed in), the preparation for a new test, some more craters a little on the big side or the fact that they used to detonate these things within six miles of humans, on the surface, as recently as 1951! The entire Nevada Test Site article makes very interesting reading. While you're there, check out the Chernobyl disaster (just like the top blowing off Mt St Helens, and the striking image of the nuclear fuel that turned into lava) and Three Mile Island accident. List of civilian nuclear accidents makes pretty interesting reading, too. —Vanderdeckenξφ 20:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok I know this is un related to science, but don't you think there are more than one cool pictures on Main Page today?:)--Scheibenzahl 20:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)'re not falling in love with that Pashtun girl, are you? You think she's hot, don't you??? ;) Ed ¿Cómo estás? 21:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
but... but... she is beautiful!!! awww... luck at picture..--Scheibenzahl 18:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I never thought my comment would cause a reaction like this. Thank you, Vanderdecken, for reminding us just how scary atom/nuclear/hydrogen bombs, their testing, use and capabilities are. What gives people the right to destroy... everything in such a useless, dangerous show of violence? There is no way to justify Hiroshima. It's... more than disgusting. No words can actually describe it. A coffee table book, 100 Suns by Michael Light, captures the horror of these blasts, as well as their eerie beauty (look out for it - ISBN 0-224-064517). Did you know they used to put soldiers within a few hundred meters of the blast to test the effect on the human body? Ugh. It makes me depressed. I need some pie... Goldfritter 09:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
PS: I agree with Scheibenzahl. :-)

Yeah. Worst picture on WP in my opinion. A victim of Hiroshima, a young boy. AtomicEffects-Hiroshima.jpgVanderdeckenξφ 11:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Bloik! {throws up} --Das654 16:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

daunting message at the top

Great, another daunting message at the top. I'm getting tired... 14:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please kill it with fire 16:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
At least it's not a javascript alert. I have to say, browsing as an anon on my school computers is annoying. You could register an account, if you really wanted, but then there's the trouble of logging in and out. My only suggestion would be to try to override the message using a browser CSS style sheet. GracenotesT § 17:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I thought you were talking about the orange new message boxes. The main page talk header looked so pretty before, and then I integrated the table of contents into the top, and it looked perfect! And it went downhill from there rather quickly. GracenotesT § 05:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
You can remove it, if you like — "anyone can edit". Alternatively, you could attempt improvement. I've seen countless misplaced questions go unanswered, be removed without comment, etc. I know I'm not alone in thinking some kind of signpost is appropriate on some pages. We put big yellow signs on the side of the road to warn of dangerous curves for a reason — it turns out that most people don't like it when their cars go flying off the road into a tree. Perhaps such signs have a place here, too? —DragonHawk (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not talking about the "new message" boxes. I'm talking about the red piece of crap at the top. There was a time when we had 400 of those messages on this page. Then I suggested we should remove them, since it scares everybody. The messages were removed, but WP:ERRORS was somehow merged into this one. That made it uglier than ever. But hey, at least the daunting messages were gone. Now they are back, and with a hand indicating STOP to make them even scarier. If it would look like a big yellow roadsign it would be much better. And I'm not going to remove it so it will start a whole edit war and so I'll get banned for vandalism. And I do have a registered account, but I am far too lazy to log in. Cheers! 16:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Um. • WRT "was a time when we had 400 of those messages": I am not responsible for what was done by others in the past. Further, we don't have 400 (or even two) of those messages right now. Let's stick to talking about what we have right now.  :) • You seem to be asserting that there is a serious problem with people being "scared" by {{metatalk}} and/or similar templates. Do you have any objective evidence to that effect? • WRT appearance: If the {{metatalk}} box had a yellow background, and used, say, the black-bang-in-a-yellow-triangle warning symbol for the icon, would that be more to your liking? Seriously. I'm trying to work with you here.  :) • If you are concerned with edit wars and the like, you might try being a bit more civil, and refraining from comments like "red piece of crap". I'm cool with disagreement, dislike, even detest of my efforts, but engaging in inflammatory rhetoric like that does not help your case. • Thanks. —DragonHawk (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
User: will be civil when he remembers to log in. -- 18:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
As I've said above, I am too lazy to log in. Plus, don't you have a life? You researched my whole history on Wikipedia? And who the fuck gives you the right to change my header? "better header" is what you wrote in your edit summary. Better for whom? For you? AND you changed headers on a lot of discussions. AND all your edits are related to Talk:Main Page. 20:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems some other user likes your header and reverts mine. Fine. But I still think users shouldn't be messing with other users' headers. It makes it hard for me to find shit. 20:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I would ask that you please act in a more civil manner. I am sorry if you do not feel like being civil, but you are still expected to be. If you are unable to act in a civil manner right now, you may want to consider taking a break from Wikipedia. Thanks. —DragonHawk (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Take it easy, Please don't give us anons a bad name.... -- 02:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
"Please don't give us anons a bad name....". Heh. Irony.  :-) —DragonHawk (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

New box at the top

I like the new colour of the box. It looks less "daunting" without the palm. Nicely done. Thank you. -- 02:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the new box is indeed much, much better. And I apologize for my actions over the last couple of days. 09:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I actually like the look of that box better, too. And thanks for deciding to be constructive instead of combative.  :-) —DragonHawk (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

April fools.

reads like a child's essay

In contrast to the usual quality of main page prose, the current state of the George Washington FA clip reads like it was written by a child. Someone with authority really needs to upgrade the prose. Sdedeo (tips) 00:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} ;-) -- 08:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, It Appears To Be a Spoof of Some Sort

The prose given in the clip does not appear in the article. "Woodland creatures?" "Psychoactive." Someone is playing an April Fool's Day Joke Isentropiclift 00:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Isentropiclift

It looks like it's there to me. The article discusses his love of animals, and discusses the advantages of caffeine for soldiers. Also, of course it's an April Fool's joke. --Maxamegalon2000 02:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
But everything is completely true; we made sure of that. · AO Talk 08:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

April Fools Day content

To any admin: there is a lot of content at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page that has not been implemented on the main page yet (like the joke in the title bar, the DKY stuff, etc.). Could someone take care of this. There was a lot of discussion on the April Fools day talk page, and that is what we've (they've) come up with. Thanks. Jaredtalk  00:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There is zero consensus for changes to the main page proper. —David Levy 01:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
There was plenty of discussion on Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page. Had you wanted to have a say, the page was open and advertised numerous times for your input. I believe there was consensus. I request that you, or anyone else, change the main page to reflect this. Thank you. Jaredtalk  03:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't see consensus to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. Maybe next year. Picaroon 03:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Huh?! I was one of the most active participants. It isn't my fault that a handful of editors decided not to read most of the discussion. —David Levy 03:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
More or less the same thing happened last year too. A lot of people worked on the project, but didn't actually tell anyone about it, and then were disappointed when the changes were not implemented. --Maxamegalon2000 03:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
This time, the consensus-backed elements have been implemented. Jared ignored most of the discussion and continued working on a rejected/abandoned concept. —David Levy 03:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Can we please get rid of this obnoxious April Fools Day "tradition"? It just encourages the vandals and creates work that we spend the next 2 months cleaning up. Rossami (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
One in favor of compromising the integrity of the encyclopedia, and promoting the obnoxious April FOols Day Tradition. Mathiastck 17:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


"George Washington was an early inventor of instant coffee ..." :o) JaHn 00:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Best approach to April Fool's ever. Perfectly factual information, presented in the most ludicrous fashion possible. --tjstrf talk 00:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting how the country that he's from isn't mentioned at all but the first sentence refers to the front of a war which isn't actually referred to by name either. April Fool's on Wikipedia apparently means vague and ambiguous!  :-) Dismas|(talk) 00:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Well done, everyone who's organized this! :). Canderson7 (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
That was a surprise to me too (I knew it was going to happen, but I forgot it was April Fools!). · AO Talk 08:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
How ever: It reminds me on "instant Karma is gonna get You" ... as they say in Germany, where I come from: Umrühren und fertig. JaHn 17:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Good to know ...

Good to know that the powers-that-be at Wikipedia don't take themselves too seriously (for at least one day a year) Wikipedia brown 00:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I love the Featured picture [1]!!!! Wikipedia brown 00:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia brown: "For at least one day in a year. Anyway anything starts to begin: One time is always the first time. JaHn 17:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Great job!

Great job on the April Fool's day main page. I didn't help, but kudos on everyone who did. Doppelganger 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I loaded up Wikipedia and thought it was vandalism or a joke! Turns out it was a joke. Great job. 01:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm uncertain what's a joke and what's real - there's some article about a high-ranking penguin that's true. Rfwoolf 02:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It is all true. The featured article lead is slightly misleading/obfuscated, but it is true. —Centrxtalk • 02:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, everything on the Main Page at the moment is true. It's just (aside from ITN and some of the Anniversaries) completely ridiculous truth. —Cuiviénen 02:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Excellent main page! 03:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Excellent work! Great job at keeping it humorous, yet factual! Mearnhardtfan 04:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to echo the comments of others (ME TOO!!!). Good writing is a skill. Enjoyable good writing is a skill squared. Well done! —DragonHawk (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page

Apparently, since no one has done anything about this yet, we need to gain some consensus about actually putting the content of that page onto the main page. What is the stance of people on this. I would suggest doing this fast (as AFD is about -3 hours away in UTC...) but I don't want to rush consensus. If nothing else, I love the little joke blurb in the top bar, because it suits the encyclopedia well, and for those who have no clue what AFD is, there's a link to it in the joke. Anyway, as soon as we get adequate consensus, we can put this up (unless people think there already is enought, given the talk page). Jaredtalk  03:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia, not a joke site. —METS501 (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Everything has to be real to be on the main page. And actually everything on it now is real (got me). Prodego talk 03:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The idea of changing the page's interface was rejected, Jared. You evidently didn't bother to read all of the discussion and continued working on this anyway. —David Levy 03:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, transwiki to Uncyclopedia. Picaroon 03:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, and Google's a highly regarded corporation, but that doesn't mean they can't have fun on AFD. From a standpoint of not being involved in any of the AFD discussions, I would respectfully say that a lot of work was put into making a semi-good page this year. I hope that we can do better than put a (quite good, actually) FA on the main page and actually have some funny content. What good is something that's serious all the time? We really have to lighten up, but not to the extent where we look like Uncyclopedia.
Regarding the "real" bit, everything on the proposal page is real, so I don't see your point. Jaredtalk  03:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Not everything is real. Take a look at the proposed ITN section. And how about the Whopper bit under anniversaries? -- tariqabjotu 03:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, all I'm asking is that we put up the "top bar" thing, that's sort of a joke. That's it. I forgot the other stuff was just place holder stuff from last year. Jaredtalk  03:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, the idea of changing the page's interface was rejected. You should have read all of the discussion.David Levy 03:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
But from what you said it was only a few editors who contributed, so there might me a consensus lack somewhere. Regardless, let's start over because I think we're not being calm about this (me especially).
What do we think about including a "joke" in the top bar which would look like this:
Welcome to Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia that anyone but you can edit.
6,418,923 articles in English
Jaredtalk  03:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
No. Belittling readers is unacceptable. —David Levy 03:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
No. —METS501 (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not. ^demon[omg plz] 03:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
No. —Centrxtalk • 03:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
No. Naconkantari 03:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
No Prodego talk 03:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
No -- tariqabjotu 03:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
THE GREAT "NO" BARRIER! Ok, I see your point. :) I give in. Jaredtalk  03:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
No. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
No. · AO Talk 08:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC) --Tewy 19:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Nyo 18:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Never 19:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Never on the main page (although you could post it on your userpage).  ~Steptrip 16:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I accept all of your opinions. I just fail to see why do dislike it so much. I don't see how it's "belittling" because it'd AFD, for one, and second, the explanation of the joke is right below it! If you have a better suggestion, please put it forward, but it seems that I'm working with people who are against the idea entirely, so I'm in a lose-lose situation. Jaredtalk  03:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was funny, but whether or not we can have it on the main page? We can't - the mob has spoken! --WikiSlasher 04:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't care for that little gag too much either. Has there been any discussion on changing the list of portals on the top of the page? The ones on WP:AFMP are all real portals. One or 2 are featured I think. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 04:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't notice that gag but thought the DYK section was really amusing and the FA was great! Dismas|(talk) 04:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Not yet. The portals are also a viable option. The page was "deleted" though because a few editors deemed that the whole thing has passed. I'm not going to revert it (because frankly, my counter is up) but if someone else wants to assert themselves by saying that this discussion is very much alive go ahead. Jaredtalk  04:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
No real need to revert. The portals listed were Anarchism, Beer, Cats, Disasters, Nintendo, Oz, Rugby, and Sharks. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 04:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm OK with it. It's a good way to jokify the page, truthfully! Jaredtalk  04:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
1. The page was not deleted.
2. Again, we established consensus against the idea of altering the page's interface. The portals that are listed are there for a reason, and replacing them with different portals would reduce the site's navigability. —David Levy 04:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I know you didn't delete it, first of all, and second, no one uses those portal templates anyway. They're there for show. That's why I think it's alright, for NOT EVEN A FULL DAY, now, to do this. Jaredtalk  04:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
How do you know what other people do? —David Levy 04:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Magic. Jaredtalk  04:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, April Fools is a holiday celebrating Hoaxes and Pranks. "Jokes" aren't really part of the whole April Fools thing. I love today's meta-hoax mainpage articles. But, who would be "fooled" by a joke tagline? APL 20:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • A real shame Wiki went without an April Fool's page. I'm surprised by the blatantly negative reaction. Kudos to Jared for making such an amusing page, though! I think it would have been a great success had it not been aborted. Part of being a good Wiki editor is knowing when to relax, and Jared's demonstrated clear mastery of that skill. GarryKosmos 08:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed it did go up (my browser cache must have made it lag). Common sense (and a sense of humor) win again! Good job. GarryKosmos 08:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. I actually wasn't the one who created that page (nor did I really help at all) but I thought that was what everyone wanted, so I pushed for that. Unfortunately, we got so much negativism, I had to back off (though I would still support something...). By the way, what was on the main page that you saw? I don't think anything went up. Jaredtalk  12:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jared. I was the one who created that template above, which brought significant discussion in and clarification to the April Fools Main Page project. The April Fools Main Page 2007 project was advertised in the community bulletin board for an extended period and all were invited to participate. The consensuses we reached in that project are valid for that project. For the April Fools Main Page 2007 project, consensus specifically rejected such a Main Page modification, and we agreed in late January 2007 that, "Text external to the mainpage boarder cannot be modified as part of the AFMP project, even if that modification would be a truthful, whimsical modification." The project went forward with that consensus as part of the project scope. Consensus of that project also agreed that, to make the modification that you proposed first would require the approval of the April Fools Main Page project. The second step would bring that issue to this page for consensus approval. We determined that the first step was a very important step to maintain the goodwill of the project and to avoid disrupting the Main Page talk page. Even if this Main Page talk page approved such a change, a third step would require something akin to the Main Page Redesign Project, which involved the opinions of 943 participants over an 18-day poll/discussion. The project also spent a considerable amount of time revising its description to make all of this clear to anyone interested. The April Fools Main Page project did not approve modifying the text external to the mainpage boarder so I am unsure why you took my rejected request from that project page and posted on this Main Page talk page. I also noticed that you listed yourself for editor review on March 31st. Listing yourself for editor review and then bypassing the consensus approved steps of a project the next day to disrupt the Main Page talk page and reduce the goodwill of that project seems inconsistent. -- Jreferee 16:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You and I both know very well that the last thing I wanted to do was disrupt the main page. I'm not a vandal, nor a moron! I was only acting on what I thought was a proposal that never took the next step. I'm sorry that you have to feel that way, but I tried to do the best I could from where the editors at that page left off. The discussion at that page never gave me the hint that there was drastic opposition to the idea, which is why I didn't just force a change to the main page, but proposed it here. When I saw that there was, in fact, drastic opposition here, I gave in and that's that. I don't see what I did wrong there. And thank you for describing some of the steps of your deliberations at the AFD2007 page. Jaredtalk  16:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
As I've noted several times, what you "did wrong" was to ignore much of the discussion that occurred and assume that there was "consensus" for an idea that was explicitly rejected. When I attempted to explain this to you, you told me that "had [I] wanted to have a say, the page was open and advertised numerous times for [my] input." Had you bothered to read the very discussion that you cited, you would have realized that I was one of the most active participants. —David Levy 16:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I think Jared should take the comments of the naysayers as an April Fool's joke. It seems the only way such blatant "missing the point" (as well as the hostile rules lawyering attitudes) could go on for so long. Anyway, the main page has been altered, so Jared was clearly in the right since the main page wouldn't have been altered unless the higher ups approved it, which means it had consent all along. GarryKosmos 18:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, the content appearing on the main page is not what Jared was referring to. Secondly, it wasn't determined by "higher ups." That isn't how Wikipedia works. —David Levy 19:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
There were problems in April Fools Main Page 2005 and April Fools Main Page 2006 that were being repeated in April Fools Main Page (AFMP) 2007. The main suggestion received in 2005, 2006, and 2007 was to alter the fixed parts of the Main Page (the Main Page design) as a joke. Few realized the seriousness with which the Main Page design is taken. In view of the fact that 943 editors participated in the Main Page Redesign Project, even suggesting alter the fixed parts of the Main Page as a joke brings strong oppose reactions by many, which is the opposite goal of the AFMP project. An eventual main goal of our discussion was to reduce the number of futile suggestions to alter the Main Page design. After significant discussion in April Fools Main Page 2007, we realized that a main problem was the lack of understanding in the AFMP project of how the Main Page comes to be the Main Page. Six different projects/groups independently provide content to the Main Page and each decides for themselves how/whether they want to participate in the April Fools Main Page. They each have their own rules/procedures on how they do things. After enough discussion, we tried to spell out everything in April Fools Main Page 2007, but were in the process of trying to figure it all out, so it may have left some confusion for which I apologize. We primarily wanted a way to create the parameters for April Fools Main Page 2008 before opening April Fools Main Page 2008 for participation in January 2008. I think we succeeded in that there is enough information disbursed in April Fools Main Page 2007 to prepare the structure to April Fools Main Page 2008. -- Jreferee 18:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Even wikinews put up a joke of some sort. Why shouldn't we at least link to it? I just noticed, AFD is the same short form as AFD. Is that what you were talking about? Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 17:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that too. I usually write "Articles for deletion" as AfD, with lowercase f, so that's how I'm keeping them straight. As far as putting something up, I'm with you 100% but no one else is, so we're at a loss here. Jaredtalk  17:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Things less important than comic strips and spagetti trees

Huh? The overthrow of the Shah, the first House Speaker, then end of the Spanish Civil War?? These are less important than comic strips and spaghetti trees? You'll need to explain... AmiDaniel (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that is being sarcastic. —David Levy 05:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Aha! I see; in that case, I'd say he makes a good point. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It's hopeless fighting against the mob of April Fools jokes advocates. I tried, and got a number of messages on my talk pages about it. I'll wait till tomorrow before deleting everything. —METS501 (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You should spend your time fighting the vandalism, false articles, and joke AfDs, i.e. the things that actually impair the encyclopedia, rather than trying to fight the anodyne, true listings on the Main page. —Centrxtalk • 05:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, they're leaving "lighten up"/"it's all in good fun" messages on my talk page too. But I decided last year to support the "strange but true" main page content in the hope that it would satisfy people's desire to do something special for April Fools' Day. —David Levy 05:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
In seeking consensus for the April Fools Main Page 2008 project next year, I think its important that we now judge the reaction of the April Fools Main Page 2007 project as to whether it satisfy people's desire to do something special for April Fools' Day or merely opened the door even wider to unapproved April Fools jokes elsewhere on Wikipedia. -- Jreferee 16:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. You give people an inch... —David Levy 17:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Strongly agreed. --Quiddity 19:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It was only overthrown with 98% of the vote? Perhaps there is hope for Iran after all. Hbdragon88 05:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC), to be serious, according to the guidelines, the following items cannot qualify anyway:
So please feel free to get to work on those articles :-) Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What ? No one is complaining that OTD today is too UK/US-centric yet ? -- 08:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Waah!!! The OTD's too UK/US Centric and the main page is self-referential, not NPOV, vanity, an advert and uncited and no-one can put these tags on the page!!--User:Rock2e Talk - Contribs 11:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
What do you expect when Americans have U.S. Presidents like "madman" Richard "Dick" Nixon, and crazy cartoonists? And when the British have "very SERIOUS law enforcement agencies" that grow spaghetti trees? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Can we please slip 'This just in: Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead' on the front page somewhere? —Vanderdeckenξφ 13:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean, "Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead"? —Cuiviénen 18:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


Wikipedia, you got me there with the "new messages" thing. Stop it :D 14:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Misleading "do you know?" headline:Rush limbaugh.

It says "do you know...that Rush Limbaugh was the US ambassador to india?" but when you click it,its for an entirely different Rush Limbaugh. 17:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Ashmole

Dude, it's April, Fool's day. The headlines today are real, but made to sound like jokes. mrholybrain's talk 17:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
This is not in any offense to anyone, but I think that people fear putting jokes on the main page because they don't want to feel stupid themselves. It's a sad realization, because hey, who wants to feel stupid?, but it's the truth and it makes no sense. April Fools' Day is supposed to be a day of fun and jokes, not a day to block all jokes out of Wikipedia because they might be hurtful to someone or make them feel stupid or it might confuse people who are actually trying to be serious. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but I feel that people aren't understanding the true nature of the holiday. Sure there's a limit to what we should do, but we've never even gotten close to that limit; we're too worried that we'll reach the limit before we even get there, which totally sucks all the fun out of the experience. Anyway, I just thought I'd put that out there. Jaredtalk  17:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Jared, only smart humor gets onto the Main Page, please. Otherwise, BJAODN. -- 17:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
We've never even gotten close to the limit? Really?David Levy 17:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
An "entirely different Rush Limbaugh" from whom? Rush Limbaugh is the guy's name. It's perfectly fine. 17:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The radio host in America by the same name. dposse 19:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
And what makes him the "real" Rush Limbaugh? --YbborTSurvey! 20:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Because when you say "Rush Limbaugh" you don't mean some obscure ambassador to India. I suppose if there was a person with the name, George W.Bush they'd instantly think of the President,right? 19:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Ashmole

You guys realize that they are the same family, right? Grandfather/Grandson. --Elliskev 19:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Things you learn from the Main Page

So, George Washington is the father of instant coffee and the Sheriff of Essex wanted to attack London with swarms of burning penises, probably with monkey testicle tissue grafted to them. Now I think I'l write an article about Google's new free broadband service.

Happy April 1st.--Ron Ritzman 17:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

All true, except the burning penises (it's the other definition of cock, rooster). —Cuiviénen 18:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually you're wrong... Sorry to disappoint you but Google isn't really going to offer a free broadband service Nil Einne 19:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I meant the facts from the Main Page, and he was making a joke. —Cuiviénen 19:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, you meant that. Sure. That's why you didn't say it... Don't worry, we all get fooled sometimes, no one thinks the lesser of you :-P Nil Einne 20:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm 100% serious. I honestly didn't even notice the Google part of the comment (though I had seen somewhere else earlier today, and I'm perfectly aware of Google's annual fake releases). —Cuiviénen 21:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Gmail was announced on Apr 1st and everybody first thought that was a hoax --Ron Ritzman 01:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure Nil was just joking. I find it very difficult to believe that you (or anyone) could look at the Google Tisp page and believe that. -- tariqabjotu 21:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Y'know, its pretty funny, I just today watched a documentary on the history channel about the history of cofee, and George Washington was nominated, not the one from USA independence but another--Windymager 22:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

We're not fooling anyone

I hope it's now de-facto policy for Wikipedia to use April Fools as an opportunity to present articles that look like hoaxes but aren't. This is much more stylish than actual hoaxes. 21:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 will be good for next year.--User:Rock2e Talk - Contribs 10:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It would if it had more content. But it's barely more than a stub. -- Zanimum 13:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's get back to the Encyclopedia thing now, okay?

-- 00:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, ignoring the timestamp in our sigs, my clock still sez Apr 1st :) --Ron Ritzman 00:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)