Talk:Main Page/Archive 131

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



When will the main page be redesigned?. —Mythdon (talkcontribs) 11:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

According to this, not very soon. §hep¡Talk to me! 11:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
When it needs to be? Modest Genius talk 12:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Which is never? –Howard the Duck 13:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Electoral College

Obama will be elected today (though not certified until January). No mention? (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Pls read the instructions at the top of this talkpage and then go to WP:ITN/C, if you really think this should be mentioned on ITN. -- (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sark Election

The election in Sark was not the first in nearly 450 years, it was the first ever. The blurb and the article imply that almost 450 years ago Sark had an election. Not true according to the referenced article. –Shoaler (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Pls read the instructions at the top of this talkpage, or go to WP:ERRORS directly. -- (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Rod Blagojevich

Where did the reference to Governor Rod Blagojevich go? It was on the front page and now it is gone...Illinois2011 (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is here.-Wafulz (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
President? (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
It was comment vandalism. I put it back. APL (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
what a horrible thing to happenn. (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC).
I agree with the anon. (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Me to. :) (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please put this on the Main Page in the current events section. Thank you. Jonathan321 (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for that should go to T:ITN/C. J.delanoygabsadds 23:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Pls see WP:ITN/C#ITN candidates for December 9. -- (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why elections on a little tiny island few have heard of are considered notable but the arrest of the Governor of Illinois is considered non notable. It's like the anti-American people are trying to invent news stories just because they don't want to see too many articles on America. (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Pls see discussions regarding individual ITN items at WP:ITN/C. -- (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Blagojevich is now featured on DYK! -- (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Article count

Currently, the Main Page says that we have 4,555,588 articles, meaning that we have 4,555,588 pages in the main namespace that are not redirects and contain at least one wikilink. Now that Template:dmbox has been deployed, we can reliably determine the number of disambiguation pages we have and subtract these from the article count. I made {{Number of actual articles}} to do this; it shows that we have 4,306,966 pages in the main namespace that contain at least one wikilink, are not redirects, are not disambiguation pages, and are not the main page. This page is not accurate. Do not believe it. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

So, which count would you prefer to use? —Remember the dot (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The main page reflects the count on Special:Statistics. I suggest you ask on WP:VPT to see if they're prepared to update the methodology. As an aside, how confident are you that Template:dmbox is transcluded in ALL disambig pages? Modest Genius talk 22:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
It's used on all disambiguation templates listed at MediaWiki:Disambiguationspage. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't mean all of the disambiguation pages use those templates. --Teggles (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
No, and not all pages in the mainspace with at least one wikilink could really be called "articles". With any count like this, there are going to be issues- the count without the dab pages is closer to accurate than the one we currently have. J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want a really accurate count, you'll also want to subtract anything in mainspace that uses {{softredirect}} as well - such pages will contain at least one wikilink but not transclude {{dmbox}}. Of course, even so, we will never be able to obtain some Platonic ideal of an accurate count, because new good and bad pages are being created and deleted constantly. Bear in mind, I support a more accurate count nonetheless; I just don't want us to spend effort trying to get it "perfect" when that isn't actually possible. Gavia immer (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinks in templates transcluded onto the page are not counted, so most soft redirects and pages that contain only {{wi}} are not counted. The exact definition is any article that contains the text [[ and is not a redirect -- Gurch (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

A minor issue

Recently I've noticed that whenever I go on to Wikipedia and the "New Messages" box pops up, all the links in the little orange box are completely unselectable. They just seem to act as ordinary text, meaning I have to actually go to different page to click it or click the tiny links at the top of the page. This doesn't occur on any other page, and I was wondering if there is some sort of code that's been implemented recently that's conflicting and causing this? It's not a huge deal, more of a nuisance really. Still, I am curious as to why this is suddenly happening. --.:Alex:. 18:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Happens to me too, in Internet Explorer. I suspect it's a symptom of the code that hides the title of the Main Page. - Mark 15:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I had a feeling it could be exactly that code. Yes, I have IE too. Interesting how it didn't do this before though. --.:Alex:. 15:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Use a better browser. :P —Vanderdeckenξφ 12:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Trivia Section?

I've noticed with a lot of articles there is no section about trivia. With my experiences on Wikia, trivia sections are filled with interesting facts that make the articles more interesting, just a thought, but maybe they could be added? (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Main Page is already packed, and has no space for a "Trivia Section" or anything like that. -- (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Did You Know is pretty much a trivia section, isn't it? --Maxamegalon2000 03:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the original poster was talking about trivia sections in Wikipedia articles, not the Main Page. For guidelines on trivia sections in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Trivia sections. Graham87 05:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
If this discussion has nothing to do with Main Page, it should not be here on Talk:Main Page. -- (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Trivia sections in articles are generally regarded as non-encyclopedic and they're tagged or removed by content editors, with useful content redistributed into the article body. You wouldn't expect an encyclopedia to include them, so we shouldn't. See WP:TRIVIA for more information. --Dweller (talk) 13:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Photo placement again

The ITN section today makes it look like there was some kind of riot or protests at the ASEAN meeting. Just saying...--Kubigula (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC) 100x100px|right|thumb|Flag of ASEAN

If you prefer Flag of ASEAN (pictured right) on ITN, say so at WP:ITN/C. -- (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Image is probably non-free, I certainly wouldn't support its use on the main page. J Milburn (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Also see Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why are the images on "In the news" and "On this day" not aligned next to each relevant entry? SpencerT♦C 21:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I've seen that FAQ, and I've raised this at ITN before. There are ways to structure ITN to avoid this issue, but there does not seem to be much concern that this is really a problem.--Kubigula (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Donation banner causing problem

The donation banner is causing a problem to the front page here, with the banner being off-centre making the screen stretch - (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Got a problem with the "Welcome to Wikipedia" banner. Is offset by, like, half my screen. (Firefox 3.0.4) (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, even i am also facing the same. Please fix it ASAP (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem only encountered with Firefox. Opera shows the page correctly. Add "display: block" to the Wikipedia banner style to correct. -- (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure this should be here, but I occasionally have problems with the date when it appears in the top right corner of the screen, it is mixing with the text in the donation box making it unreadable, can't remember if it messes with anything else at the moment though. Is there any way of fixing this? Is it just a screen size issue? Dark verdant (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I forgot my password

Moved to User talk: forgot your password. --01:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Description of Dick Whittington Story

Is there any reason to describe the story as 'folkloric' ? 'Folk' is an adjective and far more widely used to describe such stories. ahpook (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You may want to ask at Talk: Dick Whittington and His Cat, instead of here. -- (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

M44 generator cluster in "Did you know..."

Reading the text in the "Did you know..." section and not knowning what BZ is, I was very confused. It sounded like this was about a cluster of generators (i.e. generating power), in which case I would have thought the fact that it produces a lot of smoke would be the problem, not that the smoke could easily be defeated. The blurb only made any sense after I actually read the article on the M44 generator cluster. Maybe the word "bomb" should be added after the word "cluster" in the blurb to make it clear that it is a weapon. (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

iPhone compatibility

I didn't really know where to raise this question, but I have a proposal for an addition to the Main Page code for better compatibility with iPhones. Though Wikipedia on iPhones is a small market, the code doesn't hinder any accessibility with other platforms, so there's no harm done to anything else - only benefits for iPhone users. When viewing the Main Page (and others) on an iPhone, the left column's text(TFA, DYK) is much larger than the right column's text(ITN, OTD); this causes massive whitespace under OTD that looks ugly; also, the bottom section (licensing) is mis-sized, and the text in the tabs ("edit this page," "watch," etc.) and user links ("Username," "my watchlist," etc.) at the top are too big as well. Apple proposes a fix for this by modifying the "-webkit-text-size-adjust" parameter in the body tag's CSS of the page. Apple suggests "-webkit-text-size-adjust:none", which works for the iPhone but prohibits zooming in and out on Safari (and Google Chrome, I expect, since it uses webkit too). After experimentation on User:Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox2, I've found that changing "none" to "100%" ("-webkit-text-size-adjust:100%") fixes the problem. Zooming in and out in Safari works, and the iPhone displays the page correctly (except for the text at the bottom and top because I have no control over it; CSS is needed for it. I propose adding "-webkit-text-size-adjust:100%" to the body tag's CSS of Wikipedia. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen Wikipedia:Mobile access? Algebraist 22:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Yea I know there are iPhone-only versions out there, but you can also view just the regular Wikipedia site on an iPhone too. In this screenshot (though small.. sorry), you can see the difference in text size. The text in the left column is much bigger than the right. In this screenshot, the patch is applied, although to a different page, you can still see the result of the patch. The text in both columns is the same size. Like I said, the patch wouldn't interfere with any other platform, but it would make things better for people accessing the full version of Wikipedia from their iPhones. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be up to iPhone to sort their browser out, rather than every website on the internet to modify their CSS? Modest Genius talk 04:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I mean I agree with you, but the reason Apple uses this parameter is to increase text size to increase readability of pages without having to constantly zoom in and out, etc. It helps on most pages, but on some pages (such as Wikipedia - which is actually the only site I've come across so far with this problem), something about like fixed-width fonts or something to do with something above my head makes the parameter apply to some text but not others.. The error actually doesn't even appear on article text on Wikipedia; it handles it fine.. it's only the main page and the 2 sections I mentioned that are affected. Adding the code to this minimal number of sites corrects the problem, so I don't see much of a hassel. It's only one line of code. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Personally I have no problem with the change (we do for better or worse do this stuff resonably often) provided it doesn't make our CSS invalid or break compability on other platforms. You say "doesn't hinder any accessibility with other platforms" so I presume you've tested this on Safari for Windows and Mac OS X, Google Chrome, Epiphany & Web Browser for S60 (normally I wouldn't suggest the later two but since this is for Webkit based browsers in particular it should be tested on several particularly other mobile ones). Also although this should in theory only affect webkit based browsers that's no guarantee other browsers won't do something odd so I presume you've either tested it on the obvious candidates i.e. Firefox 1, 2 and 3 as well as IE 6, 7 and 8 and Opera (perhaps including mobile versions) 8.5, 9 (perhaps multiple versions) and 10 or confirmed from one or more extremely reliable source that the tags don't affect these browsers at all. If you haven't done such a minimum level of testing (which still doesn't guarantee it won't break accessibility on other platforms) I don't see how you can make the bold claim "doesn't hinder any accessibility with other platforms". (Perhaps it would be better to say, I don't think it will cause problems on other platforms but I haven't looked into it or tested enough to say for sure. Nil Einne (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The parameter starts with "-webkit", it is ignored by any non-webkit browsers -- (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I've tested it firsthand on FF3 (Mac OS X/Win XP), Safari 3.2 (Mac OS X/Win XP), and on IE 7 (Win XP). Using I've tested it on the following platforms:
  • Windows
    • Chrome 1.0
    • Firefox 2.0
    • MSIE 6.0
    • MSIE 7.0
    • MSIE 8.0
    • Opera 8.53
    • Opera 9.25
    • Opera 9.27
    • Opera 9.51
    • Opera 9.60
    • Opera 9.62
  • Mac OS X
    • Camino 1.6
    • Firefox 2.0
    • Opera 9.24
  • Linux
    • Epiphany 2.22
    • Firefox 2.0
    • Firefox 3.0
    • Opera 9.27
    • Opera 9.62
  • BSD
    • Epiphany 2.22
    • Firefox 2.0
    • Firefox 3.0
    • Opera 9.52
This website allows you to see what the page will look like in the browsers, and none of them looked unlike they were supposed to, so I know at least on the visual end that no CSS or code breakage occurs; The only possible thing that could be wrong would be with zooming in and out on the pages, and I'm only partly able to test that.. I can test everything on Mac and Windows (which I plan to do shortly), but BSD and Linux I don't have access to. Also, I haven't tested on any other mobile browsers (I only have one phone haha.. and I actually didn't know that any other mobile browsers delivered the full site. I thought all others redirected Wikipedia to the mobile site), so I'm not exactly sure about them, but I don't think anything should be wrong. We probably need to get someone that has access to them to test it out on the page on which this is implemented. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I just downloaded and tested the zoom functions of all the browsers in the Mac and Windows columns, and they all work perfectly fine. The only ones I don't know about now are the Linux, BSD, and mobile browsers. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Though I lack the technological savvy some may have in regards to coding CSS and testing different browsers, I have no philosophical objection to the changes you have suggested. As long as the modifications do not hinder browsing for any other users, I would support the changes. Random89 10:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
You appear to have properly test the change so I would support this addition. I'm a bit confused whether your change needs to occur to the main page only or the whole of wikipedia but regardless you may want to take your change to the [[WP:VPT}] since even if it's for the main page only I don't think this page would necessarily have the sort of admins confident enough to make the change. If your change needs to be made to the whole of wikipedia, you should also try in the appropriate place (the monobook skin?) Nil Einne (talk) 10:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
But is this the correct place for this discussion? Shouldn't it be at Village Pump? (talk) 06:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a suitable place to discuss Main Page alternatives. Discussions on accessing Wikipedia in general using an iPhone would probably be better held elsewhere, such as the Village Pump. -- (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I highly recommend Wikipanion, a free app available in the iPhone app store which will allow you to browse wikipedia text and images in an iphone-friendly manner in a native app. -VJ (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Mobile access

Perhaps it could be a good idea to provide a link on the main page to Wikipedia:Mobile_access which could inform browsers of Wikipedia's mobile availability --ljm091(talk) 07:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I support this. PretzelsTalk! 15:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced header bar

The "Welcome to Wikipedia..." header bar on the main page appears displaced to the right, when not logged in. When logged in it displays fine, whether I'm suppressing the donation notice through user preferences or not. This could be due to a problem with the banner, or because I just updated to FF 3.0.5. Anyone else see this? Random89 02:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There was some talk of a similar problem above but I wasn't and I'm still capable of reproducing the problem when logged out or when logged in on either FF 3.0.5 or IE7. I can only guess there is some weird caching problem. Have you tried purging? Also could you provide screenshots Nil Einne (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Alternatively it could have something to do with a weird broken plugin or add-on. Have you tried disabling all? Nil Einne (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I've the same problem. -- (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Er nevermind I worked out how to reproduce the problem. It only occurs if you collapse the banner (when logged out on FF not IE). Since I've never found the banner as distracting as some seem to find it, I've never really bothered. There is a suggestion above how to resolve the problem. Whether it would work or not I don't know Nil Einne (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I can't seem to reproduce the problem myself with FF 2 though. (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I have made a css style adjustment that should fix this. --Aude (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Please do NOT make site wide changes to the CSS files before discussing it on the relevant talk page. — Dispenser 18:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

a Suggestion for Consideration

Aimed toward an Admin: So sorry to take time out of a person's day, but I felt like it couldn't hurt. May I suggest adding a new heading on the Main Page? Would you consider adding a Quote of the Day/Week/Month section? Perhaps a Featured User ot something along that line would be interesting (although I'm not sure that would be feasible or how it would fair). Also, a type of "easter egg" system that maybe linked to hidden content not otherwise accesible would make the page a tad more adventurous. If you chose to do hidden content, however, it may just be fascinating facts or something of the sort. How does this sound? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howdychicken (talkcontribs) 21:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

We have Wikiquote for that. See q:.-gadfium 02:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Donation Notice

The translation for the one from Ferdinando from Italy should say "The world would not be the same without Wikipedia" instead of "The world is not the same ..." (without the boldface, of course). The latter implies that Wikipedia no longer exists. (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm presuming the foundation is aiming for a more literal translation even if it might be gramatically incorrect. Regardless, this has nothing to do with the main page as the banner appears thoroughout wikipedia and is controlled by the foundation not us Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Missing Bullet

Overview · Editing · Questions · Help Contents · Categories · Featured content · A–Z index

The bullet is missing between Help and Contents. Please repair.

Thank you. ~ All Is One ~ (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. On my comp (wide screen using firefox) its fine. Parler Vous (edits) 05:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
You probably have a smaller resolution; there is not supposed to be a bullet between Help and Contents because they are separated by a page width. It will display correctly on a larger resolution. (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
In future can we make it clear when we are referring to "bullet points"? "missing bullet" sounded far more exciting than it actually turned out to be. (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
True, but comments, including heading titles, shouldn't be changed on talk pages per the talk page guidelines. Graham87 08:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Donation statistics

I want donation statistics, please! (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

See Foundation:Special:FundraiserStatistics. howcheng {chat} 18:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Roman not Byzantine if you mention the dispute

Calling the Roman emperor of the time "Byzantine" is NPOV as it allready implies that he wasn't a Roman Emperor. This biases the debate right away. Yes I know that this is the most common phrase in the West (and Greece, and Greece I know), however since there is mention of the dispute regarding who had the right to bear the title Roman it should be made clear thet the Byzantines were Romans. The so called Byzantine Empire was in fact the Eastern part of the Roman Empire that survived for another thousand year after the fall of the Western half.

  • "Byzantine Empire -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia". Retrieved 2008-12-25. "the eastern half of the Roman Empire, which survived for a thousand years after the western half had crumbled into various feudal kingdoms and which finally fell to Ottoman Turkish onslaughts in 1453" 

Thanks and Merry Christmas--Xenovatis (talk) 15:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

"Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne (bust pictured) Roman Emperor"

Roman Emperor linked to Holy_Roman_Emperor which disputes the above statement. Suggest removal of Holy Roman Emperor link.

Bah, humbug! (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It still says Roman Emperor Ebenizer!--Xenovatis (talk) 17:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

And the instructions are still at the top of this talkpage. Pls report errors at WP:ERRORS. -- (talk) 04:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


For some reason advertisements like this are turning up replacing images in some articles. Has Wikipedia gone commercial? It's really annoying. -- (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Most likely just vandalism. Have a look at the page history and you will see it being added. There is no adverts on wikipedia. (Except really annoying ones asking for money for Jimbo) Kennedy (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this is due to vandalism; I think that you may have spyware or a virus. I would recommend you run your anti-virus and spyware removal software or, if you don't have any, that you install some. A decent tutorial is here (on Valdosta State University's website). --Iamunknown 18:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


Someone added a delete tag to Image:Thylacinus.jpg, saying "no source". I can't edit the image page because of some sort of annoying super-lock that says the picture is transcluded. If anyone can edit the page, a source for this image is [1]. Tempshill (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That is by no means the original source. They could easily have got it off us. Where was it originally published? Who took it? That's what is being asked. J Milburn (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Transcluded images unprotected - from ANI, please review

Can we please have people keep an eye on this with sysop here and just do local images? Please see this thread. rootology (C)(T) 19:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Where have all the admins gone? -- (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

pictures not properly aligned

Can't the pictures for "in the news" or "on this day" please be next to the paragraph they illustrate? It is a permanent annoyance. For example, today the picture of the Belgian president looks like he is the resigned Somalian president. I'm sure this must have been brought up before. It makes wikipedia look really stupid. (And I use that formulation not to annoy, but because I'm such an ardent fan of wikipedia.)-- (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This comes up every so often. You're more likely to be heard at Template talk:In the news. §hep¡Talk to me! 22:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Pls see Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why are the images on "In the news" and "On this day" not aligned next to each relevant entry?. - (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


How come, when you search 'Azala' (a Babylonian landowner credited with owning the oldest map ever discovered) you are shown the main page? Try going to and you'll see what I mean. (User: Joe Bobs @ 17:29 GMT 30/12/2008). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your question (I have asked if anyone knows on the Wikimedia Tech IRC channel) but it seems all we have on the cartographer is to be found here. I do know some pages have to redirect to the main page for technical reasons (for instance, #) but I have no idea why Azala would have to. J Milburn (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Per the redirect log (Redirect: this is the name of the main page in another language) Q T C 18:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
To help clarify for the OP since I suspect he doesn't know this. Redirects to the main page are done transparently, therefore you may not realise you were redirected. To visit a page without being redirected you can use e.g. Normally you are offered the option but because of the aforementioned transparency you're not Nil Einne (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Specifically, "Azala" is the name of the main page in the Basque language. If you go to a page for that wikipedia, such as , you'll see that in the navigation bar on the left side the first link is for Azala and goes to the main page. Newsboy85 (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and changed Azala to point to the material J Milburn has pointed out. In general, we should prefer encyclopedic content over convenience links, especially when the convenience links can cause behavior baffling to casual readers. Note that the redirect wasn't protected at all; it was just difficult to navigate to it owing to the way the Main Page suppresses the redirection text. Gavia immer (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


Hey, does Wikipedia have a podcast? Pirakafreak24 ( Leave a Message ) I can sing! Ha!. 02:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see the note at the top, this is not related to the Main Page and doesn't really belong here. To answer your question yes, see Wikipedia:Community portal for the Wikipedia Weekly and WikiVoices. §hep¡Talk to me! 03:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I thought it since it was related to wikipedia... well, since we're on the subject, is it on iTunes? Pirakafreak24 ( Leave a Message ) I can sing! Ha!. 18:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Telugu wikipedia entry in statistics is missing

Telugu is not listed though it has over 40000 entries in wikipedia statistics Arjunaraoc (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As explained in the FAQ, only Wikipedias of depth at least 5 are listed. Telugu has depth 4. Algebraist 17:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
ThanksArjunaraoc (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Main page designers

I'm looking for someone who knows how to design and create main pages like this one. We need someone like this very badly at the Anglo-Saxon Wiki. If you could make yourself known here or volunteer others, that would be great. We'd love to work with you to make a great main page. Wrad (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I could help you, if you would make Touch the Clouds a featured article. (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
A lot of people who fancy themselves as main page designers have offered alternatives over at Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal. I suspect you would be able to find some people to help you out there. J Milburn (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest putting some photos about what's happening in Gaza Palestine in the News is almost a genocyde out there and the international community still silent..I think some people fear antisemitic attacks by Jews:shame on me if i'm one of them! for the photos just google gaza in image search, if this is not helpfull here is a meaningfull one: src gaza--Benhamadi.adel (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

As the above notice says, this is NOT the place to propose additions to T:ITN. Try WP:ITN/C instead. Also we need free content images for wikipedia. It is unlikely those you find are Nil Einne (talk) 04:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

$6 000 000 Investment

By having this large amount of donations, what could we expect as new features here in Wikipedia? Any new additions or improvements? --Boky (talk) 11:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a number of changes and improvements. See the donations page at the Foundation website for frequently asked questions. There may be a local page somewhere but I've not found it. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the main page. Be that as it may, bear in mind the WMF obviously needs a certain amount to maintain wikipedia as it is now, particularly with its ever increasing popularity. Also the dontation bar itself links to [2] Nil Einne (talk) 08:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

grammar at the top of DYK seems less than perfect

"that Prosecco, an Italian sparkling wine increasingly popular internationally, is believed to have been already made in Ancient Roman times?"- I don't think we say 'been already made.' I suggest "is believed to have also been produced in Ancient Roman times?" or something. Sticky Parkin 13:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

See #Main Page error reports above. -- (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Date of News Headlines

When I read the headlines in In the news, I often wonder when the events occurred. Does the headline represent old news or new news? I suggest that each headline have a date after it, something like this:

  • Slovakia adopts the euro, replacing the koruna, and becomes the 16th member of the eurozone. –Jan. 1, 2009

--Christopher King (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue of adding dates has been made a few times. The most recent discussion is archived on Template talk:In the news/Archive 24#Dates on news items. The argument for not including dates is basically the original main purpose of that section: It mentions and links to entries of timely interest — that is, encyclopedia articles that have been updated to reflect ongoing important current events — rather than conventional news items or a conventional news service or ticker. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
That is a good point. (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC).

Congrats Wikipedia!

Nice job getting $6 million dollars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks are due to the donating public, but thanks! :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 02:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Weren't there a people claiming it was never going to happen a few weeks ago? Edit: Thought so Talk:Main Page/Archive 130#donations. Happens every year (along with the barrage of complaints when it first goes up). I myself thought they're never going to make it a few years back but they did. Still this has nothing to do with the main page... Nil Einne (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Can't we have the thing removed from the main page (and every other page) now that they raised the $6M? I think what you have to remember (in regards to the money coming so quickly) is that a very small number of individuals contribute a vast majority of the cash. Last year 18 donors gave over $3 million dollars, or about half the total operating cost of all wikifoundation. The top 6 donors must have given about $2.5 million dollars. It is kind of scary that wikifoundation depends on so few people (they have already budgeted to spend $7 million), and its possible that in coming years the amount donated will fluctuate wildly depending on if these high level donators come or go etc. Personally its a bit of a joke that only about 40% of the money donated is spent on the hardware/software/internet and tech staff. The other 60% is spent on 'Finanace and Admin','Office of the executive','Legal costs' and various other things that aren't really required. It some ways its good because it shows that wikipedia could probably be funded for as little as $2 million if times did actually get tough. Infact wikipedia (or a spin off) could probably exist in the same capacity with a budget of less than $800k if volenteers are used instead of paid technical staff/sysadmins and the executive/admin beucracy was eliminated in favour of the the non-paid board of directors having more direct control. In other words wikifoundation is in fine shape to survive for a long time.-- (talk) 09:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Finance and admin (bookkeeping) is very important for transparency and to keep our charitable status in shape. Legal costs are also very important, to maintain our licensing and trademarks, and ensure we don't get sued by some nut who has seen his content here but hasn't even got a clue what the website is about and goes into litigation mode. Agreed, those departments would probably be able to cut down on funding a bit, but they can't be eliminated. It is already explained in the donation FAQ that if not enough money is raised, the first things to go will be travel expenses, international meetings, and the more extravagant bits of Wikimania. —Vanderdeckenξφ 10:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess this is going to come as a total shock to you, but likely one of the reasons the WMF gets so much money is because they spend all that money. Yes advertising wikipedia, protecting us from violating copyrights, overall making us less seedy (yes what people think of us does matter contrary to popular opinion), asking people with a lot of money to donate etc actually helps to make people want to support us. Another shock to you I guess, randomly handing out money to someone to go buy a server, bandwidth isn't actually a good idea most of the time. It's actually a good idea to plan such things and shop around for the best price etc even if it cost money doing so. One final shock, 45% of 6 million is 2.7 million. I understand that percentages and maths can be very difficult even with availability of calculators in most OSes and online but fortunately you don't need one since there is also [3]. BTW more detail about precisely what is covered in each department is available here [4]. You may consider auditing, office rent and bank fees superflorous but I'm not so sure others do. Nil Einne (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, if you look at the report for 2007-2008 [5] you'd see $2,239,524 of spending was spent on projects, $1,076,371 on general and administrative and $224,829 on fundraising. In other words 63% was spent on the WMFs projects. While this is an estimate, it's an estimate audited by a professional accounting firm so is likely to be resonably accurate. Since the WMF is a not-for-profit bound by US law, if you have evidence that this figure is substanially incorrect you could likely file a complaint with some US law agency (the FBI? IRS?). Nil Einne (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Contrary to the apparent suggestion above, it appears the primary reason for the surge was due to smaller contributions not sudden large contributions [6]. While I know we do have large contributions I haven't heard of any recently and note when the message was posted about us not meeting the target we had IIRC $3 million which I presume already include many large contributions Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
So now you've got 6 million $, how is wikipedia going to spend this money? Is mister Wales going to get a new car or do all editors with more then two FA articles get a bonus? Great Gall (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The budget for next year is here. Editors are volunteers. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, Jimbo. Now please get rid of the damned banner. I love Wikipedia, and I donated, but I swear if that banner stays up more than a day or two longer they're just trying to piss us off! I've forgotten what Wikipedia looks like without it... PS: Yes I know I can get rid of the banner with custom settings. But I use Wikipedia from 5 different computers and doubt I'll ever get into the habit of logging in... (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The "Thank You" notice is currently scheduled to stay up until January 9, 4PM PST. You can pretty much zap the whole thing with the exception of some relatively small text by clicking "collapse". That should at least be persistent within a browser.--Eloquence* 03:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgot my password but...

Moved to User talk: forgot your password.--19:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Simple Wikipedia over 50,000 articles

Hi there all. Could someone please update the links to other languages at the bottom of the main page to move Simple English Wikipedia from more than 20,000 articles to the heading called more than 50,000 articles please? Thanks, Razorflame 01:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Request moved to Template talk:Wikipedialang. ChrisDHDR 14:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Text & pic

As a recovering journalist, I feel compelled by my inner editor to reiterate an observation made a year or so ago: The immovability of the 'In the News' photo, but the changing stack of text shorts, leads to faulty juxtapositing and unintended humor. In today's case, John Atta Mills looks like he's mightily pleased by the Israeli incursion into Gaza.

Sca (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see the main page FAQ. Thanks, Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Understood, but the policy is the problem. It ought to be possible to link the relevant text and the image. Sca (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
For a brief period the phrase "(Pictured)" was bolded. That helped a good deal, but it was deemed too distracting and they stopped doing that after a day or two. APL (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it really impossible to caption the ITN image? I don't know about every picture, but there's an area of white space below the current image where you could easily fit "New President of Ghana" or similar in Wikipedia's smallest standard font. -- (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The space is there, but alignment of the caption is a problem - unless we have the image |thumb|ed, which doesn't fit with the visual style of the whole page and looks sloppy. —Vanderdeckenξφ 19:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
At least John Atta Mills is easy to please. Today he's happy about Gazprom cutting off supplies to Ukraine. Sca (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
When the story listed first is one that would tend to draw a frown, we should recast the headline to focus on the Ghana's VP-elect, who is decidedly dourer ("dour" feels like it should be an exception to the principles of constructions of comparatives, but a check of my dictionary suggests it is not). (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
As I read it it should be pronounced much like Dürer and roughly rhyme with "lurer" (as dour rhymes - less closely - with "lure"), so I don't see why it should.
But this is Talk:Main Page, so I better get back to the main page before somewhat bites me for posting in the wrong place. What does John Atta Mills think about this? -- (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
John Atta Mills just loves the way Scottish words roll off the tongue!
It does seem that John Mahama customarily exhibits a bit more gravitas, but then we don't know; on occasion he may be just as jovial as President Mills.
Instead, how about doing away with the daily mugshot and substituting either a big smiley face or a frowny one, as the lead short warrants?
Sca (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
How sadistic must Mills be; he now delights in an earthquake. Adding to the smiley face/frowny face schema, if something really good happens, we might append the celebratory File:2007SOU Bush Cheney Pelosi.jpg; as discussions here have borne out again and again, we can never have too much Nancy Pelosi on the main page. (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
...or Fernando Lugo. Lovelac7 04:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Hahaha. I was just thinking about the Lugo / Mills analogy when I found this discussion. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous - what is so wrong with putting an image next to its text (and to avoid doing so for the last couple /oldest items for formatting reasons)? This is already suggested practice for images in articles. Why is the Main Page, our most public page, an exception? This is really making Wikipedia look stupid - Now the guy looks like he is happy that 15 people died in an earthquake. --mav (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Bring back Lugo! Lugnuts (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we could find a picture of someone, anyone, scowling and/or looking sad. Yeah, Lugo would be fine. BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 18:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Will somebody freaking change the pic? He's been up there for like 6 weeks already.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gplpark92 (talkcontribs) 01:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
If you don't like the picture, suggest a replacement at WP:ITN/C. If you don't have a replacement in mind, go look for one. Stop the tiresome complaining. -- (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Now we don't know whether he's happy because 8 people have died in Fiji or because he's won a Golden Globe. -- (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Atta Mills reminds of Demi Lovato's toothy grins. –Howard the Duck 06:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

How long is that picture of the Ghanaian president going to be up?

Seems a little long, don't you think? Are we just celebrating extra hard because someone in Africa was elected peacefully without the deaths of thousands or without giving their people the choice of voting for them or death? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a good FREE image of the 2009 Fiji floods or the 66th Golden Globe Awards, feel free to link it here and I'm sure an admin will do their best to update the page with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
If you don't like the picture, suggest a replacement at WP:ITN/C. If you don't have a replacement in mind, go look for one. Be constructive without the sarcasm. -- (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Now Danny Boyle is happy that 200 people were killed in a ship capsize. It helps that his story is in his line of sight, lol. (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Give it two days, he'll be celebrating "1 million people in Bahrain die from Hydrogen Bomb Syndrome, a sexually transmitted disease that turns people into unstable nuclear weapons" or something equally appropriate soon enough. -- (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Animation on DYK

Am I the only person who finds the animation very distracting? It's not even particularly clear what is happening. J Milburn (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There's animation? Yes, I'd find it annoying if I didn't have such things disabled in my browser. Eeekster (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
You're so cool. How can I be more like you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"Coming-of-Age Day" in Japan.

Copied to Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/January 12. --00:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking on the main page

There are a lot of unnecessary wikilinks on the main page - Europe, Africa, World War I, France, Paris, writer. They distract attention from the important links and they violate WP:OVERLINK. ("It is generally not appropriate to link ... terms whose meaning ... would be understood by almost all readers; items that would be familiar to most readers, such as the names of major geographic features and locations." Colonies Chris (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe this has been discussed before. But historically, there has been liberal use of linking on the Main Page. After all, it is the very first page most people first visit when the use Wikipedia, especially new users, and it kind of like advertises to them all these great articles we have for them to read and edit. Also, the important links on those Main Page sections are always in bold. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The Main Page and portals contain more links, as their role is to present the content of Wikipedia to readers. WP:OVERLINK applies to articles only. However, even in the TFA, the link to World War I is appropriate. Cenarium (Talk) 14:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

On this day image

I concur. Not an error, so not posting there. The current flag is slightly misleading, as it appears to be Hungary's (the item it refers to is now bottom of the pile). Can it usefully be replaced by File:Alex K Kingdom of Hungary.svg? --Dweller (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done howcheng {chat} 17:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Commons:File:III Andras Thuroczy.jpg would be a more interesting image to use on OTD. -- (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

theory of freuds psychoanalytic

i want to know more about freuds theoy and what is his contribution here on earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Try the Reference Desk. Or start from our articles on Sigmund Freud and psychoanalytic theory and go from there. (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct this please

DYK about 1977 Moscow bombings must be corrected or removed ASAP, as the claim is based on a single Russian language unreliable source - please see my comment at this article talk page. Thanks.Biophys (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Biophys has removed sourced information from a source which is registered with the Russian mass media agency. He seems to be claiming it is unreliable because he has never heard of it...not a valid reason for removal, and most certainly not a reason for it to be pulled from DYK. --Russavia Dialogue 01:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I placed this message for administrators. If they think that placing a poorly sourced claim at Main Page is fine, I do not care. Of course they can only judge if they know Russian and know what "Волжская Коммуна" is. An approximate translation: newspaper "Commune (socialism) at Volga". No one knows about such newspaper, even though it may exist.Biophys (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
ru:Волжская коммуна is one of the largest newspapers in Samara Oblast, I'm sure someone knows about it.  LATICS  talk  03:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
This is not the place for this discussion, keep it at the article talk page. When consensus is reached about whether the source is reliable or not and the article is appropriately updated, please make an error report if necessary Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


of the First World War Bat sold

War Bats! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I see I've got this in the wrong spot. Won't happen again.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Linking to discussion about the main page...

Was throwing around an idea here and wanted to get some feedback from mainpage-ers Fritzpoll (talk) 11:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


What's with the grey rectangle at the top of the wikiscreen, above the title and below the editing tabs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be an error in the announcement for logged out users. (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC) §hep logged out
When I log in it goes away, but I told the banner to hide when logged in. §hepTalk 03:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Same problem on Commons, so this probably doesn't belong here (wherever they keep global banners...meta?). If IPs are curious it reads "Candidates for the 2009 steward elections are asked to submit their nominations by January 25." and includes a link to "Nominate yourself". (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait a min. Why don't we have a featured article of Obama on the front page?

Pretty sure we had a mccain/obama on day...Why can't we have an Obama thing for once he takes office?? Neverfades (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd have preferred Obama too, but I suppose its too soon since his last appearance. Parler Vous (edits) 07:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In general, articles can only be the featured article of the day once. Barack Obama has already been the featured article of the day on two occasions (once shared with John McCain), the only article to do so. Barring some serious shortage of future featured articles, that one won't be the featured article of the day again. Gavia immer (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

God FORBID we take away the chance to give the Thimble SPOTLIGHT!!!!

pathetic. Neverfades (talk) 08:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Algebraist 09:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
No idea, thimble isn't even close to being FA so is unlikely to be TFA anytime soon Nil Einne (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

move to Wikipedia:Main Page

shouldn't this page moved out of the article Space? this is only one of some Wikipedia-related things, so please put it into the Wikipedia: namespace, thanks. -- (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a very, very common suggestion. For better or worse, It hasn't been done because of the sheer amount of traffic this page gets.
If it bugs you there is a [[7]] url that you can use. APL (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
German Wikipedia already got it. Prepare it(other pages had to move too, like archives etc.) and then do it live(via a bot or similiar). -- (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
This has been the subject of more discussions than almost anything else on this project. In the end, the page always remains where it is, despite what the German Wikipedia might do (horror!). - auburnpilot talk 16:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Eichmann picture

At the Eichmann article, there was some discussion on using "captured" or "apprehended" over "kidnapped". I'm thinking that the main page should reflect this. freshacconci talktalk 03:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The article currently uses apprehended, captured, kidnapped and abducted, looking in the archives, it doesn't look line consensus was ever reached. I suggest you seek consensus in the article then bring it to the error report section above Nil Einne (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Tmizaha Jones

tmizaha jones would like to know the symptoms of hiv/aids. thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Tmizaha Jones should read the big header which says that this is not the place to ask such a question and should try searching themselves since we do have an article on HIV & AIDS. Tmizaha Jones should also make a seperate section since this has nothing to do with the Eichmann picture Nil Einne (talk) 09:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What's with all the U.S. material?

I see a featured article on Washington D.C., and the image File:Obama_Portrait_2006.jpg on the Main Page. This is absolutely ridiculous -- the U.S. is not the only country in the world, and filling the Main Page just because of the upcoming inauguration is obviously a violation of NPOV.

It is taking away useful links and interesting pictures from viewers from the rest of the world (which, believe it or not, as a whole, is more significant than the U.S.), while biasing the Main Page in favour of U.S. viewers.

Get rid of this trash. -- (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV only applies to articles, or you'd be banned for your post. Parler Vous (edits) 07:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Both the article and the image will be gone tomorrow. Relax! ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Heh. That's an oh-so-convenient way to work around the problem. — Jeremy 23:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
This is the same Encyclopedia that featured 4chan. What did you expect? This is a US-based encyclopedia hosted by a US-based Wikimedia Foundation. Encarta and Britannica are also US based by the way. But I'm British so I'm used to it. (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
What's wrong with 4chan? No honestly, you're the one who's biased. Wikipedia just follows the world hype. Sure, the US isn't the only one with events today but the world will be focussing mostly on the inauguration so it'd be artificial to focus on something irrelevant to the day here. (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
There's a bit of an important event today for the United States, if I recall correctly. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe wikipedia should follow the lead of the BBC and go with the story they have dominating their website: (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
LOL well, If not the UK how about the English speaking Caribbean?, (Barbados), (Trinidad and Tobago), well wow would you look at that-- the Obama Inauguration was to be broadcast on big screens at various outdoor parties/venues in the Caribbean. Obama on the 'big' screen. CaribDigita (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that there is a single news source covering world events which would is not placing the inauguration at the top of their coverage today. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 17:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
If you can get an article and image relevant to the election of the Norwegian Prime Minister (as an example) up to Featured standard, feel free to propose that they all be shown on the first day of his/her premiership. (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC).
Come on! If there is a day you can justify a the MP being a little US-heavy - it's today. And I'm not from the US. (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but only if we do the same for the UK elections. Dendodge TalkContribs 22:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Sure! So long as the next UK prime minister is the first ever (insert feature here) prime minister and that he/she represents a dramatic shift in the thinking of the constituency. And that it generates the same amount of world-wide coverage. (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Not entirely related, but when Kevin Rudd was inaugurated, the news item was there at the top of the box for over a week. — Jeremy 23:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I would love it if I could learn about British people tied to current events on the main page, you just have to get the article featured first! Reywas92Talk 20:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This site is funded by Americans. This site is hosted in America. This site is mostly contributed to by Americans. I'm surprised you have an issue - its just the way things are. Deal with it. Matty (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Only the last one of those three should influence the selection. —Vanderdeckenξφ 15:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

We usually point people asking this question to the excellent answer here --Dweller (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's funny how a question as unintelligent as this actually gets acknowledged. Andrew Nutter  Talk | Contribs  06:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


Image of Obama should be on the news item, since it's like more important than the Israeli Prime Minister. -- Fishyghost (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

One picture of Obama on the main page at a time is probably enough. Algebraist 17:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, didn't see that down there...! When that goes tommorow then presumably the image on the other section should change. Fishyghost (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This might be a subtle image to be used if it is going to be added on the Main Page's news section.--megamanfan3 (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
This mis-juxtapositioning of photo and text continues to make Wiki look stupid. Sca (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Only to people who don't know what the (pictured) signifies in the blurb. (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't blame the reader for the page's poor layout. (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

How about an image like File:Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration.jpg, which is more relevant than the official portrait? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 21:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Have we not got any decent public domain photos taken today by White House employees? They may be better still. J Milburn (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
No, the new administration has taken down all things that existed before today from the White House website, and there is likely no such thing on the site yet. Doesn't really make much sense though that a picture of Obama can't be used in the In the News template simply because there is already a picture of him in the Featured Picture section. Jason (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
It won't hurt to have a picture of Olmert on ITN for a couple of hours (maybe 2) until midnight UTC, when the POTD will be changed. SpencerT♦C 22:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I think there should be a picture of Obama in the "in the news" section, regardless of the picture at the bottom of the page. People are going to see some other guy there and wonder what the heck is wrong with the site, just as I was. If it wasn't for going to the talk page to bring it up (which I see it already has been), I wouldn't have realized Obama already had a picture near the bottom of the main page. Obama's inauguration is the big news of the week, so it makes no sense for him not to be the one in the news section. Also, the photo currently on the main page is from 2006. There needs to be an image from today's proceedings, preferably after he was sworn in. --From Andoria with Love (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
RE: Spencer: In two hours? Meh, that'll be fine, I guess. It's still a ridiculous reason not to have his image there. --From Andoria with Love (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, it's ridicilous to have two picture of the same thing on the main page. Also, big news doesn't matter much since ITN isn't about the news Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion: We could always use this picture of Obama? --Dweller (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The pic should be of obama! of the year 2009 (on current events) (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please go to WT:ITN. J.delanoygabsadds 22:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
RE: Nil Einne - Actually, it's not ridiculous to have two pictures of the same person on the main page. Not sure where you got that idea. Now, having the same picture posted twice - that I can understand. But not having a picture of Obama on ITN (since his inauguration is the biggest news in the world this week) because another picture of him is already on the bottom of the page (requiring people to scroll down to see it) is, well, just stupid. They see two sections when they come to Wikipedia: the "featured article" and the "in the news" sections. People will see the "in the news" section, knowing that Obama's inauguration is the top story this week, and will wonder why the heck his picture isn't there. You have to think about questions which common readers will ask (namely, why isn't Obama pictured?) rather than some ridiculous "policy" about not having two pictures of the same person. --From Andoria with Love (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, ThylekShran/From Andoria with Love, it's not ridiculous to avoid having two photos of the same person on Main Page at the same time, either. This is Wikipedia, not Obama's fansite, nor his online photo album. And be careful when you use the word "stupid". A good photo specifically of Obama's inauguration wasn't available till later. Now, it's there. Chill it! -- (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Far more likely people will aski why the heck wikipedia suddenly became a Obama fansite or photoalbum as 74 suggest above. Indeed anyone who has been on the main page for so long knows this is very likely precisely what would happen. It's not surprising too because it IS ridiculous to have two photos of the same guy on the main page. Also whether or not people have to scroll down to it depends on the size of their screen and a variety of other factors. Some people may like to see TFP so they may always scroll down and not even see the ITN pic. All in all, your argumennts are unconvincing particularly since you don't seem to understand that ITN is not about the news and doesn't really give a damn what the top story of the week is. Or to put it simply, it's not stupid to keep wikipedia's main page balanced and avoid having it dominated by one event or person. It's far more stupid to suggest we should ignore common sense because some people don't understand the purpose of ITN, or wikipedia (which is an encylopaedia not a news site). BTW, were it not for the fact that the US government releases their images under the public domain we might not even have a free photo of Obama's inaguration so fast if at all in which case we wouldn't be having this whole silly discussion presuming that people actually understand wikipedia needs free photos (which they should if they want to discuss image selection). As it stands, it looks to me like the image we have wasn't available until after the TFP was taken down, so I'm not even sure what we're discussing here. With due respect to the photographer the image presented above is not really suitable for the main page. Edit: Okay it seems like we did have this image File:Barack Obama after inaugural address 1-20-09 hires 090120-N-0696M-327a.jpg which sorta worked if cropped about 1h and 10 minutes before the end of the TFP. It's still a far cry from being clearly identifable as being part of the inaguration though so doesn't provide a great clue to the reader about why we're showing it. P.S. There is no specific policy that says we shouldn't have two pictures of the same guy on the main page. There are policys which could be construed to apply, but the primary reason we don't is simple common sense and based on our understanding of what the reader wants which is not an Obama fansite/photo album. There are plenty of those available but it's not our goal to become one Nil Einne (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I love how probably one of the most important inaugurations in U.S. history was buried on the front page news within 4 days. Especially when I've seen severely less important/impacting news items stray on the news items for far longer (such as a week or two). Now I understand and agree that we shouldn't be so U.S.-centric with English Wiki news, but that also doesn't mean we should be so extreme as to shove them aside. I hardly ever see someone protesting for keeping a middle ground. Though, honestly, I think in reality it was probably something as shallow as political bias.JanderVK (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sister Projects Logo Update

I think the Wikibooks logo needs updating. Globbet (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks updated over here. §hepTalk 02:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I see this superseded logo: Wikibooks-logo-35px.png but I think I should be seeing the current one: Wikibooks-logo.svg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globbet (talkcontribs) 22:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Oops. Globbet (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, that's better. Globbet (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't the picture on the top right corner, have its article next to it?

There is a picture of the President of Ireland, but her news story isn't next to it, but instead forth. Shouldn't the picture have the article it represents next to it? I know she isn't a Japanese satellite, nor a knife wielding lunatic, nor a Rwandan rebel leader, but still, there are times when people might be confused. Please make certain the picture chosen up top, has its article at the top spot as well. They aren't in alphabetical order, nor order of importance it seems. I'm surprised President Barack Obama wasn't at the top, with a picture of him, that something shown around the world. They even had a story about the Obama masks being the bestselling mask in Japan. Dream Focus (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why are the images on "In the news" and "On this day" not aligned next to each relevant entry? §hepTalk 02:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, the items are arranged by date, not importance or alphabetical order. SpencerT♦C 02:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
What would happen if you had a story about a notorious child molester, next to the picture of a famed writer or something? Would you get sued for that? Or I wonder what would've happened if the Obama story had a picture of our new president up top, and the bit about the African terrorist/rebel next to it. I'm sure with all the people involved in the wikipedia, someone could find a way to check up on that. Dream Focus (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, we put (pictured) next to the person that's pictured, so hopefully people understand who is being pictured. The issue is that we don't have free images we can put on the Main Page for all of the articles on In the news. (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
We'd really either have to put the item with the pic on top always or highlight the item with the pic. There can be a workaround for other pages using the ITN. –Howard the Duck 16:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Yesterday, it didn't say (pictured), but today it does, and the picture matches the article up top. I click on History, but find the main page does not list history. That is odd. The FAQ probably explains why, so I'll check there later. Dream Focus (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
You can find the histories of the main page components at their own pages. For ITN, it is Template:In the news. –Howard the Duck 16:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
It did say pictured: Diff. SpencerT♦C 16:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is this on ITN?

Three killed in knife attack is world news?

I think I saw worse driving to work this morning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You may want to complain at WT:ITN#Knife attack, instead of here. -- (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
If you saw driving that killed two innocent young children and an adult, left three people in the ICU, and seven others injured seriously then please create an article and follow the instructions on WP:ITN/C. Maybe you don't realise a mass murder when you see one. Matty (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
'scuse me for being petty, but shouldn't it be recognise? In all other respects I agree with Matty, if you saw something, report it to your local authorities and to Wikipedia (Wikinews) too. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think he was serious, guys. Garden. 15:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How is the 2009 Buachaille Etive Mòr avalanche more notable to be included on the main page

...than the storms that hit France and Spain recently, which have actually resulted in more deaths?--Emerald Continent (talk) 12:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If there's an article on said storms, it may be worth nominating it at WP:ITN/C. J Milburn (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not so much about notability in this case. It was more to do with me pinpointing it quickly, creating and updating the article and providing the first non-Papal, non-Presidential image all week. Quite frankly I didn't expect it to make it, given the controversy that erupted when not enough children were murdered in Belgium to satisfy some people. Anyway the storms are now up from what I can see. --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 15:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
@ Emerald - articles are showcased on the main page, not news stories. For news stories, see Wikinews. Garden. 15:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
How is this any less notable than an incident in Belgium where three people also die though? What standard are we setting? How can we have an ITN section which has to wait for a period to determine how notable an item is? It will no longer be In the News... --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 16:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
People are killed all the time in avalanches in Canada and its never mentioned on here. This Scotland one is totally non-notable. Thankyoubaby (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Then create an article and suggest at WP:ITN/C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think the point is that that wouldn't be notable either. I agree, anyways. I'm from Alaska, and we've got plenty of avalanche deaths there. (And they might not even get above the fold in our local newspapers.) I don't think that an avalanche killing three people is anywhere near notable enough to be on the main page, no matter where it happens. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No mention of Robert Burns 250th?

Today is the 250th birthday of Robert Burns, the "Bard of Ayreshire" and national poet of Scotland. Surely that ranks SOME mention ont the front page, no? Art Smith (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact it is Burns' Night is mentioned on OTD, so a mention of his birthday would be a little redundant. It's a shame we didn't have something relating to Burns to have as today's featured article or picture. J Milburn (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
As J Milburn was saying, Burns night is already essentially a holiday observing Robert Burns' birthday, so that's why his 250th is not explicitly mentioned. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)