Talk:Main Page/Archive 77

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


link To Kidspedia On Main Page Recest

Kidspediais at the moment a mini wiki wich is going to be a kids vershon of wikipedia. The link is part of an atempt to stop it having 1000's of unfinesht pages. Plase reply on the kidspedia discoshen page. I cant get a link but just go to the scrchcard bit on wikia and you will find it on all mini wikis. JosephK19 17:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice: Kids' spellings, too!

Kids spelling - I thought you were dyslexic :-) --Radioactive turnip 11:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What discussion page? Can we get a link? And sign your posts, please. — ceejayoz talk 14:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that there's a link, it won't be happening. It's a non-Wikipedia Foundation site with only 9 articles, and none of those have any content. — ceejayoz talk 20:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Probally shouldnt be using the wikipedia logo on it, even if you have changed the colours. Its copyrighted and your use of it could cause confusion as the site's affiliation with wikipedia. Rafy 01:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Dosen't the simple english 'pedia fill that purpose? Pacific Coast Highway (blahI'm a hot toe picker) 02:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Simple is also meant for those not proficient in the English language, including adults who may not be interested in articles on toys or other things kids care about. The content's emphasis is different. BTW, this section has nothing to do with the Main Page and should be remove from Talk: Main Page. -- 12:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article - Ubuntu

I'm generally a massive fan of the featured article, but I thought this one was far below the usual high standards. It reads very much like an advert or some sought of promotional blurb. Regards, Smiffy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oismiffy (talkcontribs) .

You want "some soft of", not "some sought of". YRTE. Also, if you don't like the writing, participate to make it better. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
In a similar manner to the way in which you want "some sort of", not "some soft of". 19:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Eek - I thought that about the correction but didn't like to say it. Just proves anyone can make a mistake in the excitement of the moment!! Anyway, thanks for the pointers - I don't really have a problem with how its written, just the content. I take your point about getting involved - I know the featured articles are strongly scrutinised and discussed, hence my dissapointment that this made it through. Maybe I will put my money where my mouth is. Regards. Oismiffy 20:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it's comprehensive, concise, and clear, even if it doesn't "sizzle". Is that enough for featured? I dunno. --Dhartung | Talk 23:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
First people complain that it sounds like a marketing blurb, then they complain it doesn't "sizzle". Yeah, like, let's have it both ways or something. The cool thing about Wikipedia is, you just tell people what you want and they make it for you. Must feel like paradise. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 17:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In the news pictures

I have noted this plenty in the past, but this one is just too easy to have a light-hearted go at. Is it not possible for the pictures to be formatted to be inline with the news bullet that it is exemplifying? We currently have the top headline of:

"Spanish cyclist Oscar Pereiro Sio claims he is the true 2006 Tour de France winner"

Across from that we have a picture of an ageing man with a beard, who, on closer inspection, is a notorious president/dictator (delete as appropriate). I am not sure if Castro could win the tour de France - but I doubt it!

Is it difficult to align the picture with the bullet? I know the (pictured) text is used, but to the casual viewer it just looks wrong (and in some cases, such as this one) makes WP look a bit embarrassing/daft. Apologies if this was covered before during the redraft discussions at the start of the year, but I can't see any technical reason why the pic could not move up and down as appropriate (thus I am guessing this is a stylistic choice). SFC9394 00:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This has come up several times. There was an attempt at a solution a few months back that gained support but was never implemented and more recently there was an a period where an attempt was made to at least have a flag or some logo related to the top item. But people kept complaining that a flag was boring... Perhaps we should just keep the pictured item on top? --Monotonehell 02:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
It has never bothered me. Newspapers often have strange juxtapositions of photographs and news stories, too. --Dhartung | Talk 21:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't newspapers normally have a caption under each picture though? Also, you should never hold a newspaper up as an example of good page layout. ;) --Monotonehell 01:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the picture should carry a caption below and prevents confusion to the reader. Let's not make Wikipedia's main page a sloppy one, because an encyclopedia is well organized and most newspapers are that way. The Libyan flag isn't the issue, this is the country's official flag and to remove it is illogical like for one to remove the Sri Lankan flag in recent main page news articles. --Mike D 26 12:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Mel Gibson

I realise this is too late—but why didn’t Mel Gibson make it onto the Main Page?! Its dominated the news far more than some of the other things listed. But ah, well… it’s in the past... the incident that is and not the ramifications.--Greasysteve13 03:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It maybe newsworthy but this is an encyclopedia. Try Wikinews. --Monotonehell 03:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I know, I was just surprised Mel Gibson didn't make it in the in the news section of Wikipedia's main page. Who does he have to kill?--Greasysteve13 05:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
lol how'd you find out about that? I thought Mel's people had that all hushed up? ;) I was a bit terse above, sorry, what I mean is items featured in ITN need to be of encyclopedic value, have an article that has been substantially updated with the new information and (finally) be nominated for inclusion. --Monotonehell 08:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay.--Greasysteve13 11:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, the in the news section isn't just for US news, but worldwide. Entertainment gossip isn't exactly high profile news world wide. --lightdarkness (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that the in the news section was just for US news but this Mel news in general has been heavy in a lot of Western news, thats not to say Eastern news insn't just as Important. And it may surprise you all but I am not American.--Greasysteve13 05:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Say, isn't Britney pregnant again? --Dhartung | Talk 21:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Who cares?! If she was it never garnered signifigant media atenttion--Greasysteve13 04:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

go go Azeri peeps!

Big ups on today's selection which put the FA in phat! w00t?! -- 07:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

40th birthday of Jimbo Wales

Should the 40th birthday of Jimbo Wales be mentioned in the Main Page tomorrow? Hardee67 18:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Shanes 18:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. Maybe when he is 100 we will :-) --HappyCamper 18:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess this means that his birthday should not be mentioned on the main page. Hardee67 18:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the birthday needs to be intrinsically notable for it on the main page. For example, if we go by our article on Preident Bush, last July 6th would have been his 60th birthday, but this was not announced on the main page as we can see here. --HappyCamper 19:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
President Bush is not the founder of Wikipedia however. The birthday of Jimbo Wales is different, in that he's the found of the Wikipedia project which is this encyclopedia. Hardee67 01:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
He's made it clear in the past that he should recieve no more or less attention than any other subject with regards to items about him. --Monotonehell 01:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Oooohhh!!! Wikipedians - look at this! Well, you gotta admit, spontaneous birthday wishes are pretty sweet. --HappyCamper 19:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales may not prefer not have his birthday on the main page, this is his decision...and Wikipedia rules forbids birthday announcements. I may want to greet him anyway, but doesn't mean I place it on an article. Check out the link Happy Camper placed above and feel free to greet him. --Mike D 26 12:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

stereotypical progressive bias in Israeli-Hezbollah news

Every time I see the main page in the last month, I've learned about a new airstrike by the Isreali military and how many "people" it killed, with no distinction between civilians, soldiers, terrorists (ok, sorry, militants). I've never seen one bit about any attacks by Hezbollah, which many people can assure you are on-going and more often targetted at civilians. Why is it we only need to hear about the casualties caused by the democracy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by B. Phillips (talkcontribs) 22:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC).

To help us, please identify (or write up) a decent article on a recent attack by Hezbollah and post a suggested headline on Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Thanks. -- 00:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


You should give a contact link. I recently edited my entry - SHANE BRIANT - recently. You took me out of the main encyclopaedia for doing so. BUT EVERYTHING WAS VERIFIABLE - all you had to do was check with the IMDb (Internet Movie Data Base). I did it only because your entries showed my worst work (hooro films) and omitted my best work (the other 30 films). I thought it would be of interest - if you are an encyclopaedia - to have on record that I am a prolific novelist too. Also easily verifiable.

I did it only because my friends in America pressed me to do it - not because I have a big egos. My Google links are currently over 74,000. But I do not appear right now in your Encyclopaedia.

Kind regards

Shane Briant

I think you should write this at the talk page or the one who moved the page (User_talk:RHaworth). While it might be bad practice to edit an article about oneslef you didn't create the article, so I think that your complaint is valid. But the best course of action is to contact RHworth before doing anything else. 23:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC) – Sorry I was not logged in whil writing this Jeltz talk 23:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I would suggest asking RHaworth to move the article back. Moving an article to userspace in this way is effectively speedy deletion, and as the biography asserted notability, it doesn't seem to have been eligible. If you don't get any joy from him, try deletion review to get the decision reviewed. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
(Actually looking at Shane's talk page he may be ahead of me.) --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved back to Shane Briant. There was no call for 1 user to invoke his 1 opinion like that, especially when he was claiming unverifiability despite the prominence on IMDB and Google. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-07 00:37


The main pages doesn't seem to have a category. Maybe it should have one?- 02:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How about CatAgory:Main Page or CatAgory:Pages people complain about ;) *snigger* If you're serious I think a category on the main page would be a bit redundent and clutter it somewhat. --Monotonehell 06:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


Israeli is misspelled Isareli. Please correct, TewfikTalk 03:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Copied to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. If you notice errors or ommisions in the future please post them there. Thanks :) --Monotonehell 06:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Kfar Giladi

I've written an atticle on Kfar Giladi. Could someone please link it? --PiMaster3 talk 14:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry could you be more clear with regards to what you want? "link it"? --Monotonehell 15:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I assume he's talking about the second news item, which refers to Kfar Giladi. I've turned it into a wikilink. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm not an admin so I couldn't change it myself. --PiMaster3 talk 22:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Worst flag ever

Most users will just think there's a problem with the image for the Libya FA. Are there no free images of the countryside or Tripoli or something? --Nelson Ricardo 00:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the simplicity of Libya's flag should prevent it from appearing on the Main Page. Perhaps those readers unfamiliar with the Libyan flag will click on it or open the article and learn something they didn't know before. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't mock other cultures, but: "The top right corner of the flag represents peace, the top left represents life, the bottom right represents faithfulness to the country and the bottom left represents unity" (Flag of Libya). Say what you want about that there green rectangle, but it sure is pulling its weight. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
If they think there's a problem with the image for the flag, I guess they'll be pleasantly surprised when they learn something --taking another step away from ignorance and into the insatiable beast that is knowledge (or some other gobbledygook) --Bobak 00:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
We could use a map of Libya though; that represents Libya just as wlel as its flag. —Cuiviénen 00:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm actually skeptical about the 4 corners thing. It sounds like a joke. Not that the flag doesn't look like a joke, of course... --Kinst 01:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
IIRC, the green on the flag is mainly for the Green revolution, but I will check out my flag books later and get back to yall. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to use national flags when (and only when) an article about a country is run. Maps make TERRIBLE main page images (at 100px wide it's basically an incomprehensible blob of color) and should never, ever be used under any circumstances. Raul654 01:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I sent an email to the Libya Embassy in the US, should expect an answer by the end of the week. My flag books debunk the four corners theory for now, and even my boys (FOTW) are scratching our heads, since not much flag info comes from Libya. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

How about using the coat of arms? Ziggur 02:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I just swapped out the PNG image for the arms, but as Raul said before, let's stick with the flag. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Honestly, I've always thought it was kind of a dumb idea for a flag, but you have to admit, it sure is attention-grabbing in its simplicity. People are used to seeing photos and diagrams on the main page, and seeing a big green box is sure to make the Libya page a popular destination for casual readers and hardcore editors alike. Lovelac7 03:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • By the way, I know this isn't a vote page, I just wanted to make my thoughts clear. Lovelac7 03:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Leave it there of course. I never knew there was a country flag with just one color. Brilliant idea. Way better than all those boring red-white-blue flags. Piet 07:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Leave it, though I don't think we should be nominating it as a featured image any time soon. In other news I think the four corners thing is a joke (no mention here and they seem to have most details about other flags and I can't find it anywhere else.) Jellypuzzle | Talk 10:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiality strikes again! Frankly I'm filing that under 'if it isn't true, it should be'. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
***GASP!*** ...did you dare use a Colbert reference in the rest of Wikipedia? Be careful, the "anti-colberrorists" may burn you for spreading the "virus". --Bobak 19:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please mention the all-green flag in the TFA text. -- 12:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The phrase about what the corners refer to appears to have been added by an anon IP that belongs to the American University of Beirut. The nonsense stuck around for almost a year. Wow. -- Plutor 13:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Green is my least favorite colour; but I still prefer that original flag over some gaudy ones with stars and stripes ;).--Cloviz 15:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Odd Phrasing

"Libya is slightly larger in area than Alaska, the fourth largest nation in Africa, and the 17th largest in the world" makes it sound like Alaska is in Africa. Can it be changed? -- 09:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Adam

See the next section. Graham talk 09:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comparison of Lybia's area with Alaska

I'd put this up on WP:ERRORS, but it might deserve some discussion, so here goes. I have a problem with the following sentence:

"With an area of 1.8 million square kilometres, 90% of which is desert, Libya is slightly larger in area than Alaska, the fourth largest nation in Africa, and the 17th largest in the world."

Firstly, it's badly worded and it could be interpreted to say that Alaska is the fourth-largest nation in Africa. Secondly, as an Australian, I don't find comparisons with the area of Alaska helpful, and they probably wouldn't be helpful for people outside North America. The sentence should be changed the way it was in the actual article to:

With an area of 1.8 million square kilometres, 90% of which is desert, Libya is the fourth largest nation-state in Africa by area, and the 17th largest in the world.

Hmmm, I see someone was also confused at WP:ERRORS, so I'm not the only one. I'll redirect any discussion here, because this is a more suitable place for discussion. Graham talk 09:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to match the article. You may need to purge your cache in order to see the update on the Main page. Raven4x4x 10:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks; that clears things up a bit. Graham talk 11:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
In addition, the usual comparison in cases like this is actually the size of Wales (Yeah, I know it's not really outside of the British media, but when else am I going to be able to link that article in a context that makes sense?) :) GeeJo (t)(c) • 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Placements of images on the main page ...

Hi guys, in the past I noticed several times that images are misplaced on the main page. Today, however, it’s the worst misplacement I’ve seen for quite some time. The picture of the "Warsaw radio mast" is placed on the very top of the "On this day" section, but the corresponding text is the last bullet point at the very end of that section. – Can't the layout of the main page (!) be checked that the images are always beside the corresponding text items? – Thanks. MikeZ 12:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The image is not misplaced. It's always in that same spot no matter which of the bulleted item contains the corresponding text. -- 12:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Well then, shouldn't this practice be changed than? I find that kind of placement disturbing. MikeZ 12:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
If it's moved down to the 5th item, it sticks out at the bottom. More so if it's a 'portrait' instead of a 'landscape' or 'square'. That's bad layout, too. -- 12:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Surely we can find a picture for one of the first four items? This issue keeps coming up. — ceejayoz talk 13:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes it's one of the few recuring issues on the MP that people suggest solutions but nothing ever sticks. I think the best solution is to have the top item always the one with the picture. When a new pictured item is selected it can join its place in the queue. --Monotonehell 14:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes people keep mentioning this, and it contiunes to baffle me people think the image needs to correspond to the text right next to it. Most people can easily figure out what the picture relates to. 15:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The On this day... entries are listed chronologically. Should we only include images pertaining to the earliest event highlighted on each date? If we have no suitable image for that entry, should we exclude it? —David Levy 16:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It's often hard to get an image to go with an item about something that took place centuries ago, which is often the first item. What we need is a brief image caption for each image (as per Wikipedia:Captions) but many people have previously said that this would take up too much space on the already crowded MainPage. For now, move the mouse over the image and read the ALT text. -- PFHLai 16:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
This may not have come across, but my questions were rhetorical. The answers, in my opinion, are "no" and "no."  :-) —David Levy 16:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Both your rhetorical questions are strawman. The On this day... entries are currently listed chronologically, as are the In the News items. My suggestion was to leave that item on top until another decently illustrated item replaces it. If a newer item has no picture it goes to the second place. Would it really hurt the formatting that much to do so? The pictured item is already receiving more attention, as the others have no picture. --Monotonehell 09:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
My questions may have been inapplicable, but they weren't straw man arguments. I based them upon my honest interpretation of what you wrote.
The In the news entries are not listed chronologically. They're listed reverse-chronologically (typically with respect to when they're added, not to when the events occurred), with no uniform update schedule or expiration. Conversely, On this day... is a chronological (with respect to the historical timeline) list of events that's replaced on a daily basis. (Entries aren't bumped down the list according to when they were added.) If I understand correctly, you're proposing the following:

August 9: National Day for Singapore (1965), Raksha Bandhan in Hinduism (2006), National Women's Day in South Africa.

Mushroom cloud from the nuclear explosion over Nagasaki rising 18 km (60,000 feet) into the air on the morning of August 9th, 1945

Recent days: August 8August 7August 6

More anniversaries: July 31 August 1 August 2

It is now July 10, 2014 (UTC) – Reload this page

I strongly prefer the current format. —David Levy 12:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
David, your opinion means nothing! (lol jokeing) - I don't feel strongly either way, all I see is the constant (albeit occasional) posts on this page "pointing out our mistake". Where I see enough people being confused I tend to like to repair things. --Monotonehell 09:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, on the German wikipedia pictures are located next to the corresponding bullet point. I still don't understand why this isn't possible in the English-language wikipedia... ;-) MikeZ 18:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


- Libya article: - - "Libya is led by revolutionary Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, whose foreign policy has often brought him into conflict with the West." - - Main page: - - "Libya is led by revolutionary Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi, one of the most infamous political figures of the 20th century." - - Clever vandalism, but vandalism all the same. Can this be fixed? - - 12:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Try WP:ERRORS. -- 12:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism? That was the original wording of the summary, as can be seen here. The word vandalism shouldn't be thrown around so lightly. In fact, if you look at the history of what happened, you will find that Raul summarised from the article that he saw at the time, and that the article later got changed. Raul saved that summary at 15:37 on 31 July, and looking at the Libya article, the phrase "infamous" was indeed in the article at the time (Raul's minor edit on that day did, however, introduce the implication that Alaska is a nation in Africa, something that has been discussed elsewhere on this page). The phrase infamous was removed as POV with this edit on 8 August by Gazpacho, which claims the reference did not support the assertion of "infamous", but no reference was provided to support the "conflict with the West" assertion. Anyway, I hope this little bit of detective work helps clear up any confusion. Carcharoth 14:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. The "infamous" remark has been removed from MainPage. -- PFHLai 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


I think there should be a different picture for today's Article of the Day. It surprised me with a square of green until I realized it was actually the country's flag. Maybe a map of the country would be more suitable. schyler 16:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see above #Worst flag ever. --PFHLai 16:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Numbered items

Is it my impression, or did the numbers before the items Today's featured article, Did you know..., In the news, On this day..., Today's featured picture, Other areas of Wikipedia, Wikipedia's sister projects, etc. Wikipedia languages disappear and re-appear (possibly a few times) over the past months?

For what it's worth: I like the home page so much better without the numbers. – Adhemar 20:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen numbers. Perhaps a browser setting? --Dhartung | Talk 07:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This is controlled via a setting from Special:Preferences. Under the Misc tab is the option to "auto-number headings." —David Levy 08:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Confirmed – Logged out, I don’t see any numbering, neither on the home page and in the articles. Logged in, I do see the numbers. In the main articles, having the headings numbered makes sense. It gives a structured impression. But on the Main Page (and some other special pages) I hate it thoroughly. So I am going to switch them off completely, no matter how much sense they make in the articles. Thanks, David Levy, for pointing me where this can be controlled. – Adhemar 19:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Article count in the header

Don't know if anyone has pointed this out already, but - there's a spelling mistake/omission in the main header. Where it lists the number of articles, it stops short at 'artic' instead of 'articles'. I had noticed this before but thought it may have been fixed, but it doesn't seem to have been :) Will2710 21:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it. It spells articles for me. Perhaps its a problem with your browser settings? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I also see the full phrase ("4,552,657 articles in English"). I don't know how widespread the problem is, but I think that we've waited more than enough time for readers to adjust to the article count's presence at the bottom of the page. (It was awkwardly shoehorned into to the header bar—thereby compromising its appearance—as a stopgap.) How does everyone feel about finally pulling the plug on this redundant element? —David Levy 22:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm ok with it being removed, with a caveat - it must be allowed to return around at milestones. Specifically when we approach 2M, 2.5M etc articles. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Emphatically no. The article count isn't something technical, it's one of the first things that we get to say to new visitors. I've been an editor going on 21 months and it still catches my eye, so it's a morale thing even for old fogies. --Dhartung | Talk 07:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This was heavily discussed during the main page redesign process, and more users than not seemed to agree on the following:
  • Once we hit one million articles (which many people were watching for), the article count would no longer be of nearly as much interest as it once was.
  • When it comes to articles, quality is far more important than quantity is. (Jimbo has made statements of this nature, and few have disagreed.) Placing the article count at the top of the page conveys the opposite to new visitors. ("We have 4,552,657 articles, so we must be good!") Many of these articles are sources of pride, but others are...not. This really is more a technical statistic than anything else.
  • The desire to keep the article count at the top of the page is based primarily upon tradition and nostalgia (as evidenced by your response). Morale should be boosted by seeing articles elevated to featured status, not by seeing another 10,000 stubs created.
  • Moving the article count to the Wikipedia languages section (where it's contextually relevant) is a reasonable solution. It's still there for those who want to see it on the main page, but it isn't screamed at newbies and emphasized above all else.
We actually established a rough consensus for proceeding with such a setup, but we tacked the upper article count back on at the last minute (to avoid creating the appearance that the entire redesign was tied to this change). We retained the lower article count in anticipation of eventually revisiting the issue (as we're doing now). —David Levy 08:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

How about changing one or both of the "article count" links to still link to the Special:Statistics page (as they do at the moment), but not having the actual number there. Call it something like "Article count" or "Article statistics" instead. That de-emphasises the actual number, but leaves the information accessible. That way, any long-time editor who wants to see the number can click to see the number, and any new readers who click through will end up reading more than just a single, unexplained figure. Really though, the "special:statistics" page should say more than it does. It should at least list the number of stubs (though this is complicated by many articles being more than stubs, but still having a stub label). Carcharoth 08:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. At least 4,552,657 articles in English conveys some information. Article count without a number next to it, is just an extra cluttering link on the home page. It would also confuse visitors. Moving the count to the bottom of the page is fine, probably even an improvement. But the words Article count without a number next to it, is just plain silly. Far worse than not mentioning the count alltogether. – Adhemar 20:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps substitute the WP:FA or WP:GA count there to focus attention on improving existing articles. Those counts are somewhere above 1000, that's nothing to be proud of. (Quantity v Quality again)--Monotonehell 09:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


Perhaps we could get a few more items for In the News to balance out the extra-long Featured Article of the Day excerpt. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC) [1]

Done. —David Levy 00:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Underline links

I think it was better to keep the links like they were. I don't like them underlined like Spanish wikipedia. What do you think? --Neo139 02:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Go to "My Preferences" and click the "Misc" tab. Fredil Yupigo 02:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I've had a bug - probably in Firefox - where suddenly all links were underlined. Mysteriously it toggled every time I added or removed an article from my watchlist. Whenever it happened, I just added another article to my watchlist and the underlined links were gone. One of the funnier bugs I ever saw. Hasn't happened lately though. Piet 10:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
That's a common bug. You can fix it by simply pressing CTRL+F5 to force refresh the site whenever the bug occurs. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-09 15:05
Not in my case I think. I'm sure I would have found that out a lot sooner than finding that it toggles when adding/removing an item from the watchlist. Piet 18:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The bug in Firefox goes away when you CTRL+F5. I can't speak for your ability to find things out. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-10 07:40
I'm glad there is someone who knows all the bugs in Firefox. Piet 12:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC) there's a way to fix that - brilliant. - THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 18:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
It's such a well-known bug, and you're relatively new, so I could safely say that it is most likely the same bug you encountered, and you simply didn't realize that CTRL+F5 fixed it. I didn't realize it either. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-11 03:56


Someone needs to write a news item on the connecticut senate primary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 04:09, 9 August 2006.

Please see Connecticut United States Senate election, 2006. And please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service like Wikinews. -- 04:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Unclear meaning in the featured article

In todays fetured article it reads "Shotguns, though initially popular with the middle class as much as the poor, became a symbol of poverty in the mid-20th century, but opinion is now more mixed, with some the targets of bulldozing due to urban renewal".

It wasn't until it spoke about bulldozing I realised it still meant the houses. I think the word 'houses' needs to be added after shotguns. -- 10:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)adam

Dude, the blurb starts with "The shotgun house is a type of house". I don;t see how much clearly it can be put in context. --Nelson Ricardo 10:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Simply by adding "houses" it is 100% more clear. --Monotonehell 12:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
In addition, the sentence immediately follows one talking about shotguns (the guns), so in order to switch back to talking about shotguns (the houses), it is necessary to re-introduce the phrase "shotgun houses". This is manifestly a clear and necessary change. Anyone arguing against it needs to stop and reconsider. Carcharoth 12:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This issue has already been posted in the correct place and is now corrected. --Monotonehell 12:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

American bias

I would like to protest against the American bias in the Wikipedia news.

  • In the Dutch news, it became apparent that the Mexican elections were probably fraudulent. A description as 'Alleged electoral irregularities' when one million people are occupying the city centre of Mexico City seems unappropriate to me.
  • The Israelis are inflicting far more casualties in Lebanon then vice versa, so it would be more appropriate to mention the Israeli atrocities first.
  • The Tour de France has proclaimed Pereiro Sio as winner of the Tour, so instead of 'claims he is the true', it should be 'has become the true'.--Daanschr 14:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • How is any of that "American bias"??? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-09 15:04

That is my opinion.--Daanschr 15:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • How is any of that "American bias"??? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-09 15:25

Most of the atention in the Dutch media concerning the Mexican elections was directed at militant reaction of the opposition against possible fraud. During the news items, it became apparent that the American news hardly mentioned the reaction of the opposition and that the Americans didn't understand the dominance of socialism in Latin America. I was annoyed about the lack of prominence about the portrayal of the Mexican opposition in the english Wikipedia article on this subject. Now, the Wikipedia news mentions 'alleged electoral irregularities'.

America is one of the most prominent supporters of Israel. Russia, China, Latin America, the Arab world, many European countries have a neutral view at best. Main attention in other parts of the world is the destruction of Lebanon. The missiles hitting Israel are far less damaging in comparison.

Landis is an American and he has lost his title. The Tour de France declared Pereiro Sio winner, so he acknowledged his title. The words 'claims he is the true' are unapropriate and biased.--Daanschr 15:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Are you sure the Tour de France declared him the winner? Others have said that that won't happen until all the appeals have been exhausted, which has yet to occur. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-09 16:03
  • He hasn't officially been declared the winner, so technically it is correct. However, I also thought the wording was not very good because it is not just himself who claims this: everyone now sees Perreiro Sio as the true winner. Piet 18:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • While I agree that Perreiro Sio is the true winner, I've taken this bit off MainPage as this is not an official result. And because this Tour de France bit has been on ITN for so long. It's getting stale. I've replaced it with a blurb about a controversial dam in Turkey taken from the ITN candidates' page. -- PFHLai 18:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • And you're positive that everyone that recommends a news story is an american? dposse 16:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Since when is Israel inflicting more civilian casualties? The current ratio is about 500 Hezbollah kills to about 500 civilian kills, which is incredibly good compared to the American "war on terror." On the other hand, Hezbollah has killed nearly all civilians and no troops (and intends to do so). They sit inside UN ambulances and on UN posts, hoping that Israel will accidentally shoot the UN in the process. They base out of apartments on the tops of buildings, so that Israel knocks down the whole building trying to get them. They parade a single dead baby around to hundreds of reporters to inflate casualty reports. And you want more reporting on Israeli atrocities? I mean, its not as if Israel is completely justified in everything they are doing at the moment, but there are reasons why the majority of the world considers Hezbollah to be terrorists and not Israel. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 17:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't the first two items on your list be considered Mexican PAN party bias, and Israeli bias, if anything? Seems like you're the one being biased against the US here. Sweden holds diplomatic ties with North Korea, I guess news that North Korea launching the Taepodong 2 missle must've been Swedish bias. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 18:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Daanschr, you are welcome to suggest revisions of poorly worded ITN items at WP:ERRORS. "Protesting" like this is not helpful. And please try not to read too much into things. Remember WP:FAITH. --PFHLai 19:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • "WP:FAITH"? is it just me or does that abbreviation seem to imply that Wikipedia is "faith-based"? :op dab () 19:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It's just you. WP:FAITH is just a acronym. It is a official policy that says that wikipedians should assume good faith while editing wikipedia. dposse 19:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I should've typed in WP:AGF..... --PFHLai 19:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I hope you realize I was joking? dab () 20:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, dab. I saw your emoticon. ^_^ --PFHLai 20:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I had no problems with the intention of the editors, but with the visible result. To my opinion it was American biased.--Daanschr 20:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In The News, Now with American Bias!

   * The Apocolypse has begun.
   * Mexican Anti-American Communist cries foul after free and fair election elects Conservative nominee for President of Mexico.
   * 30,000 non-Americans die somewhere not in America.
   * Muslim exteremists continue to attack Israel in a move long sense predicted by the Bible.
   * Dam construction begins in Islamistan.

Comparing that to the current ITN box, I fail to see a real American bias. Preston 21:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to include Connecticut United States Senate election, 2006. It's the biggest news item ever in some circles. -- PFHLai 22:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Shotgun houses? I am offended! Bias puts the camera in America! --Bobak 21:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I know that Americans like to be as extreme as possible and it is very popular to ridiculise everybody who is non-American or non-patriotic. I just wanted to point out that the news was not according the the majority worldwide point of view. Nice to know that there are still some volunteers who want to live up to the worldwide felt prejudices towards America.--Daanschr 08:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Daanschr, you're stereotyping Americans, that's anti-American bias. Wikipedia is about keeping a WP:NPOV, not any person, or groups point of view(be it American, Russian, the EU's, the UK's, the UN's, NATO's, OPEC's, the World's, etc.). --ᎠᏢ462090 10:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am angry about the events of the last years and i blame America, just like many other people in the world. The NPOV policy has changed recently, i see. It clearly states to be against a national or geographical bias. An article should represent the opinion of different nations, if there is a certain difference in the debate. I just read in the newspaper that Obrador has threatened with a revolution in Mexico. The police is occupying many buildings. It could be a civil war.--Daanschr 11:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • No matter how many they are or what they do, the fraud goes no further than alleged unless they have good proves. About the Israel-Lebanon conflict, until some days ago it was centered in Hezbollah attacks; someone complained, and it seems (s)he was pleased. Maybe we all expect too much of the ITN section. And about the American-bias, we'll see what to do about it...perhaps we should all write all kind of trivia about our own countries and include research and statistic about our countries only in any global subject. Maybe one of these centuries we'll have a balanced encyclopedia.--Cloviz 12:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please use the full width of the screen

I am an avid reader of the wikipedia. I use it regularly to get more knowledge. One of the main problems that I face with it is that it is not using the full screen width to display the article.

A left navigation bar which is mostly less than one tenth of any article's height uses atleast one third of the screen thus making users scroll almost twice more than necessary to read the full article. This will result in more repetitive stress injury to the wrists due to the increased scrolling necessary.

Could you not put the left nav bar links at the top so that the article, which is what we concentrate most on can take up the full width of the window?

Shankar. 22:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please create an account / sign in and select another skin under "my preferences". Try Nostalgia or MySkin if you prefer not to have a left nav bar. Hope this helps. --PFHLai 22:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Once you log in, you can click this link: link, and add this to the page that the link takes you to:
/* Wider content */
.portlet { display:none; }
#column-content, #content { margin: 0 0 0 0 }


GeorgeMoney (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • You must be at a very, very low resolution if the nav bar takes up 1/3 of the screen: it takes up about 1/8 of the screen for me and I'm at 1280x960. If you were on 640x480 that would explain it, but as far as I know Windows XP doesn't even support that anymore. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 10:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. The nostalgia skin is perfect. Though I could not do the code thing its ok. Perhaps nostalgia should be made default, because many users may not even bother to ask? I have been using wikipedia for years before it occurred to me to ask. I am using 800x600 and also I have specified Ignore Colors/Fonts/Sizes/Styles on webpages and set my text size to medium and set color to white text on blue. This reduces eyestrain, but also made the nav bar take up 1/3rd of the screen. -- Shankargiri 20:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. --PFHLai 20:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sidebar redesign discussion

A discussion is underway concerning the redesign of the sidebar which is displayed on every page of Wikipedia. See you at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign --Nexus Seven 00:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images on main page?

Are fair use images allowed on the main page? I have seen discussions about this before, but not sure what was reached, and can't find a final statement now. This pertaining to the FA pic.

Fair use images may be used on the main page when no (salvagable) free alternative is available. Raul654 14:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
We used the CUPS logo, when Common Unix Printing System was used, and there were valid GFDL images. However, that's the only valid exception I can ever think of. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
What is considered "valid" may be questionable. The other images in that article aren't really readable as thumbnails, and definitely wouldn't look good on the main page. But that's just my opinion. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-10 17:56
And, in fact (and somewhat tangential to this discussion since the image was tagged as being fair use when it appeared on the main page,) the CUPS logo is in fact Free (GPLed) since it is included in the CUPS distribution, which is licensed under the GPL. I have edited the image description page to reflect this. -- AJR | Talk 00:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


There should be a link on the Main Page to make Wikipedia your homepage, if there isn't already. I don't see one. --Macarion 00:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That varies from browser to browser. It's simpler to allow the end user (you) to select it from their menu. --Monotonehell 04:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia should also join a webring, and if Wikipedia will put my home page on the front page, I will put Wikipedia on mine. --Dhartung | Talk 01:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Larf. Behave you. (Wikipedia is in my top ten friends) --Monotonehell 09:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Yes! 000! Yes!

Manchester City's on the front page of Wikipedia! Yes! Take that United, we finally won something big! --Taoistlumberjak 01:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As a Manchester United fan, I am disappointed that the article in question is not even a featured article to begin with. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, you know what to do ;) —Cuiviénen 06:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
However, shouldn't it be Manchester City Football Club is an English Premier League football club based in Manchester? --Surukai 06:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, It was my english that was lacking ( Singular and plural for nouns) --Surukai 07:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Blatant UK bias

Three of the four features on the main page (Enric Miralles, Manchester FC, and the London terrorist plot) are UK topics. Why must Wikipedia be so Anglo-centric? Raul654 01:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

oh lord, it's even worse than I thought - tomorrow's FA is another UK topic! Raul654 01:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd talk with that idiot who schedules the FAs... --Monotonehell 04:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Positively anti-Djibouti-is<nowiki>[Insert non-formatted text][] here</nowiki>t. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
In defence, the majority of the entire site and almost every English wiki has a US bias, so please pack your trumpet away. --Dom0803 01:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
WOOOOSH! (the sound of a joke going way, way over your head) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-11 01:49
But that "bias" is due to America being more important. 01:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree. 02:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Being more important than what? Truth?
Who are "Manchester FC"? It's Manchester City FC. Dancarney 07:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Can someone with the ability to edit this page please change the "are" to "is" in the first sentence of the featured article? It's driving me mad. It's been corrected on the MCFC topic page. As for the UK bias, well, I see the point but I would say it would be fairer to describe it as a temporary glut of UK articles. The fact that the foiled terrorist plot is the big news story at the minute is just a fact. Tomorrow's FA (Augustan drama) may refer to a style that had its origins in Britain, but has had a worldwide impact. If you have a big problem with a number of main page articles focussing on UK topics, get involved with the planning side of things and actually make a difference to the process rather than simply moaning about it here! Bedesboy 10:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Raul654, get involved with the planning side instead of simply moaning :-) This is getting funnier by the minute... Piet 10:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
C'mon now. Even a Brit can admit that this refers to the organization and not each member thereof. This Yankee thinks is is correct here. Nelson Ricardo 10:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The usage is the same on both sides of the Atlantic. Like Nelson says, it's an organisation and needs "is". I'm about to thrombose on this one. Bedesboy 11:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see Singular and plural for nouns. It's not the same on both sides of the Atlantic. GeeJo (t)(c) • 12:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Ooops - fair play to you, sir. Interestingly, The Times Styleguide has organisations as sing and sports teams as plural -,,2941-576,00.html Bedesboy 14:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

In return to "America being more important" - the only reason your country is where it is at today, is because Britain held you like the crybabies you are for so long. Without us you would be nothing and we would still be the number one, instead we must settle for number two. Stop being so pompous, that's the job of the British. Apparently. (But let's face facts, everyone prefers the British to the American's forceful ways.) --Dom0803 13:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree (although I am from America), the US sees itself as the best and that all other countries must bow down. This is the wrong way to look at, especially if the country in question does have so much power and money. ("with great power comes great responsibility"--Spiderman (the movie) BUT I don't agree with the part about America being a bunch of crybabies. We wanted freedom. Are you saying that if I caged someone up and told them what to do (it's called a slave...) then they would be a CRYBABY?? I think not. Here is some extra reading for everyone, to learn about the nessisity of freedom. But enough about world politics. Back to the main page.--Superman 16:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
My goodness, this is all so interesting! Piet 13:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Jeez - can we all just grow up a bit please? Wikipedia is supposed to be a contribution to civilised society. Not a slanging match. Bedesboy 14:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Number two? What exactly is the U.K. number two at? The number two best country in the world at countrolling the English language version of Wikipedia, whoop-di-doo? --Kinst 01:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Never as opportune to say "Have a nice cup of tea"; hehehe.--Cloviz 15:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I would love to see American English become a feature article before English English. Any fans of linguistics want to go take a stab? "Color", w00t!? --Bobak 22:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It won't happen. Ever. Might as well stop fighting and add vowels to everything. Pacific Coast Highway (blahI'm a hot toe picker) 03:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
lol it's colour, flavour and etceterour ;) so why does "US english" spell hour, "h o u r"? If you people anounciated we wouldn't have this problem. I say. By George. What? Crumpet. ;) --Monotonehell 06:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
By Jingo, the yanks are so stupid. i mean blackadder is FAR FAR FAR better than the simpsons.--Greg.loutsenko 12:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I love when people spell things wrong in these sort of arguments. 14:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


Moved to Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/August 11. -- 20:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


There was a typo in the article, which is now featured on the main page. Sulphurous acid, not sulphuric.

This has already been fixed. (Not by me.) Next time, please report errors on MainPage to WP:ERRORS. Thanks. -- PFHLai 23:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The Article of the Day should be changed at midnight

Why is the Article of the Day changed at around 4:00PM? Shouldn't it be changed at midnight? I sometimes click out of the internet for a while at around 3:00PM, and at 4:00PM, it is changed.

  • Hi!! The article is changed at midnight according to UTC time, which is the official Wikipedia time. Sfrrrose (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Phh... see the section on "Blatant UK bias" above; why don't they just make HRH the Queen our ceremonial figurehead?! Actually, I initially assumed Jimbo was English because of that. Of course, how many people out of the American South are named "Jimbo"? --Bobak 22:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
This is the "Englsih encyclopeadia" i dont see it anywhere saying the "American.." hehe. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 08:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought Jimbo came from Wales, so we use Wales time in Wikipedia. No ? (Hahaha.) -- PFHLai 23:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't be silly. If we were on Cardiff Mean Time we would be using UTC - 12mins 44secs, not UTC. :-P -- AJR | Talk 02:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

actually UTC time is not UP time because we add an hour onto our time during the summer, so the featured article changes at 1pm uk time during the summer. i dont really want BUSH as our head of wikipedia.--Greg.loutsenko 12:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be the joke going WAY over your head. —Cuiviénen 14:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
or 1am. violet/riga (t) 15:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the discussion page isn't a chatroom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 20:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC).

What the heck is UTC time? I read Wikipedia's article on it, but it doesn't make sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 20:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC).
You might know UTC better by its former name, Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), (which was renamed in the 70s). Raul654 23:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that this subject needs to be discussed here. Obviously the coding of the Wikipedia system would have to be changed on the whims of a Wikipedian wanting new articles at his midnight time. Just live with the current timing. Also (as an american) I think the UK bias is not that previlent, and that UTC time is a standard used for many websites and organizations. Besides let the brits have there time zones, we americans will be policing the world with our wealth and power... hahaha --superman 21:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but it was 2:00PM here and they changed it. It wasn't midnight! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 23:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC).

so what your basically saying bobak is that its ok to use american time, but not ok to use GMT, the time from which all other times are measured, demands like that perpetuate the sterotype of arrogant americans.Zepher25 13:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Languages section

I don't think it's been discussed here but obviously the languages on the bottom of the main page have been trimmed recently. The English names for the languages were also unfortunately trimmed. Having the English names next to each language wasn't too pretty but it was very functional. I'd like to see them return. Ziggur 07:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You "don't thinked" wrong. ;) It's been discussed recently at length including here, here and here and possibly one more place that I can't find. The resu,ting consensus (which was a bit contested) was to remove the translations as they are redundant for people who speak/read a particular language anyway, if someone wants to see the complete list they can go here. The reason for the reformation was to make it look less like a jumble of text. There were those against the change entirely and those who wanted the list removed completely, either with a link to the homepage only or with the list moved to the sidebar as per some other language versions. --Monotonehell 07:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
That was a dreadful misjudgement. This is the English language Wikipedia. There is a great arrogance and snobbery in not talking to people in their own language: "If you are too ignorant to understand, you don't matter anyway". As the list is now intimidating and largely useless to most English speakers it would be better to remove it altogether unless it is restored. Merchbow 20:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Unneeded Romaji Redirects has made some redirects to articles in Romaji form. I doubt someone would search "Burajiru" or whatever it was to get to Brazil articles. --FlareNUKE 08:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really to do with the main page, I don't see the harm in these redirects if they help people who can't remember the "english name" of something. WP is not paper and these redirects don't cost much. No harm? Any other opinions? --Monotonehell 09:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought they were harmless as well. Titoxd(?!?) 09:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

100,000 article sites

While I do agree with the 25k and 50k article sites, could there still be the 100k list still including the 25k and 50k lists? Pronoun 14:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There isn't much reason for one; most of the Wikipedias with more than 50k articles also have more than 100k (only Russian, Finnish, Swedish and Chinese do not, and all are rapidly approaching 100k). —Cuiviénen 19:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

On this Day entry for Berlin wall construction

Just a suggestion that maybe the boldfaced words in the blub shouldn't be West Berlin but rather Berlin Wall, as it's the anniversary of the Berlin Wall construction after all! --Canuckguy 00:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. And if West Berlin is gonna be bolded, oughtn't East Berlin be bolded as well? -Elmer Clark 01:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Done. Evil Monkey - Hello 02:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
On MainPage, the boldfaced links indicate featured wikicontent. On TFA, the link to the FA is bolded. On ITN, the link to the wikiarticle updated with the news materials is bolded. On DYK, the link to the new article is bolded. For Selected Anniversaries, the bolded link must refer to an article with the date in the text (one of several rules in editing this section on MainPage). Berlin Wall, West Berlin & East Berlin fit the bill here. However, the Berlin Wall page is slated to be featured on the anniversary of the destruction of the wall. To avoid double-featuring the same article within the same year (another rule), "West Berlin" was bolded on today's template on the anniversary of the construction. "East Berlin" could have been bolded, too, but one is enough for each line. Perhaps we can alternate each year till one of them becomes a markedly better article. This year, there are only 4 events on the template (a mistake on my part), so I've bent the rules and bolded both East & West Berlin. -- PFHLai 21:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Eight-Nation Alliance on Aug 14

Can we add the Eight-Nation Alliance occupation of Beijing in 1900 for "On this Day" of Aug 14? I guess I don't have the authority to do it. Thanks. Pseudotriton 04:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The main article for the topic is Boxer Rebellion, which is pretty solid (though not FA ready). --Dhartung | Talk 07:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. This is not on MainPage because I couldn't confirm the date. In the first paragraph, the Boxer Rebellion article says "The brutal uprising crumbled on August 4, 1900 when 20,000 foreign troops entered the Chinese capital, Peking (Beijing)". Scroll down a bit, it says "The International force reached and occupied Beijing on August 14." I question both dates. The equivalent article in Chinese Wikipedia has August 14th as the date the Eight-Nation Alliance (minus the Germans) reaching the outskirts of Peking, taking the city gates on the 15th, and occupying most of the city on the 16th. So, was it August 4th, August 14th or August 16th ? We need references. A "safer" anniversary to feature the whole Boxer Rebellion would be the anniversary of the signing of the Boxer Protocol. (The date is on the document, available in Chinese Wikisource.) -- PFHLai 12:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Zhejiang Death Toll

The death toll has risen to 114 in Zhejiang, according to CTV Newsnet. JodoYodo 05:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Actually, the article on the typhoon says 214 (+2 more in the Philippines). I've changed the text on MainPage to "more than 200". Hopefully, we don't need to update the number anymore. BTW, please use Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors next time you propose similar minor tweaks of MainPage contents. You may get a quicker response there. --PFHLai 12:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

AIDS Conference

I think that the XVI International AIDS Conference, 2006 that started last night in Toronto, Canada, warrents inclusion in the "In The News" section. It's the largest conference on HIV/AIDS ever and this is an event that affects the whole world. Jeff 11:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Please make use of Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates if you really think this is major international news that should be on ITN. (I ain't so sure, unless they announce a new treatment and we have a wikiarticle on it.) -- PFHLai 12:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

To Pluto or not to be, that is the planet

The planet Pluto should be featured on the wikipedia or wikinews front page, because this may be the last time you can do so. Right now there is an astronomical congress in Prague going on, with 3.000 top nerds, who get to decide whether or not Pluto should be demoted to a space pebble and cease to belong to full-glory planets.

See the BBC:

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 12:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for the suggestion. When such a decision has been made, please update relevent wikiarticles and then propose a headline for In The News at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Don't forget to update Current events. Thanks. -- PFHLai 12:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I feel like crying :( Ok, enough of the chatroomesque talk page...)--Howard the Duck 13:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Somehow, I get the feeling that even after Pluto is properly classified as a Kuiper belt object, we'll be able to put the article on the front page. --Dhartung | Talk 16:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I know it's not the right place to propose such a thing, but wouldn't it make sense to have Definition of planet as Today's Featured Article soon? It's already Featured. I think someone should go and request it if they agree. Jellypuzzle | Talk 17:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You may want to contact the Featured Article Director for this. -- PFHLai 19:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Prrrrffffff. They think they can tell me what to call things now? Sod that!! It screws up the mnemonics, millions of textbooks will have to be changed for the sake of one pathetic little pedantic moan. To me Pluto will always, until the end of my days, be a *planet*. Thankyou, and tune in next week for another rant on the anally-retentive and methods of bowel-washing. Lady BlahDeBlah 19:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

VJ Day Not On "On this Day..."

Why in the world is VJ Day not mentioned on the main page in any way? It's quite significant for August 14th. What's the deal? AJFederation 20:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hang in there. Victory over Japan Day will be on MainPage tomorrow, i.e. in about 3 hours. --PFHLai 20:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
In case any one is confused, V-J Day from the point of view of North America is the 14th, but from the point of view of people in the Pacific was the 15th. Dragons flight 20:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The International Date Line has a well-known POV bias. --Dhartung | Talk 04:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


I tried to click the metawiki icon but my IE browser couldn't open it: it suggested a download of an "unknown" filetype. Maybe an admin oughta have a look n fix it.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 21:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem was. I clicked on the icon and meta's MainPage showed up on screen as expected. Perhaps someone has fixed it already. -- PFHLai 21:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Rampant Australian Bias

An article on a South Australian bus system followed by one on Queensland's biggest pest as articles of the day? Clearly examples of Wikipedia's pro-Australian bias. Lisiate 03:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's just because we're more literate than other countries (including New Zealand) and so end up writing better articles. ;) - Mark 03:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know convicts were literate. :-) NZL
Crazy Australians, with their July winters and backwards flowing toilets... Raul654 03:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
That's nothing. In Rand McNally, they wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people! —David Levy 03:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
There's an old British folk song called The World Turned Upside Down ("If buttercups buzz'd after the bee // If boats were on land, churches on sea // If ponies rode men and if grass ate the cows // And cats should be chased into holes by the mouse"). According to legend, the British troops at the Siege of Yorktown (the final battle of the American revolution) played it as they surrenered. Raul654 04:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey Raul, if you were better read you'd realise that the Coriolis effect only works on the scale of weather systems and the direction that water flows in sinks and toilets is purely to do with the shape of the vessel. I was going to complain yesterday about the bias displayed regarding busways that go past my house... ;) --Monotonehell 04:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily - "If one takes great care to create a flat circular pool of water with a small, smooth drain; to wait for eddies caused by filling it to die down; and to remove the drain from below (or otherwise remove it without introducing new eddies into the water) – then it is possible to observe the influence of the Coriolis effect in the direction of the resulting vortex." - Coriolis effect Raul654 04:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Narf! Touche' - Besides 'our' proper Australian Cyclones move clockwise whilst anti-cyclones move anticlockwise. You Northern Hemispherians should stop it with the anti-anti-bias and adopt proper and civilised Southern Hemispherian weather systems. --Monotonehell 04:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Please report any bias errors to Talk:Main Page/Bias--Clawed 03:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's not forget Cynna Kydd coming up in one week. It's obvious our FA director's brain has been inflatrated by the evil Aussies and their mind-control ways. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 04:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Put your hypnotic skull koala back on and conform! --Monotonehell 04:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
NEVER!!! That thing made me eat way too much Vegemite. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 04:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
To be fair - I scheduled Cynna Kydd due to Ambi's superliminal powers of persuasion. Raul654 04:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
That made me wanna join the Navy. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 05:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, not one comment has been related to the initial question, excluding Clawed - this is probably BJAODN-worthy now :P.
Anyways, I count 6 articles (August 4, August 9, August 16, August 18, August 19, August 20) which are directly related to America (or, at least, as related to the US as cane toads is to Australia), as opposed to Australia's three (August 14, August 15, August 22) that will be featured on the front page up until August 25th. Daniel.Bryant 08:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Just part of the Australia Cabal's evil plot. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 20:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Considering the U.S. has fourteen times as many people in it as Australia, and that we have a longer recorded history, having three TFAs this month to our six ain't too bad for you guys. Andrew Levine 19:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
What about Europe? What about china!?? How many FA on china last month? It should had like... 24 or something like this... JeDi
Maybe we need to find another Pokemon... Pacific Coast Highway (blahI'm a hot toe picker) 12:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

How can this page be vandalised

I saw a I.P. edit the main page.How can this page be edited by non-users when it's fully protected? --Scott3 03:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As a joke, Drini unprotected it on APril 1 2006 (it was reprotected 15 minutes later). Guanaco did the same thing later in the day, and it was reprotected 4 minutes later. Raul654 03:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't always protected, either. Back in 2001 there wasn't frequent vandalism so it wasn't protected. - Mark 03:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree to this too... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 10:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC).

Time of main article change

Could the main article also be changed just at midnight EST? Just want to know. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by K09 (talkcontribs) 20:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC).

Wikipedia goes by Coordinated Universal Time, not EST. Please see above #The Article of the Day should be changed at midnight. --PFHLai 20:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is the eastern United States more important than the western United States, let alone the rest of the world? — ceejayoz talk 02:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It's server time? (Which isn't a good reason to change, of course; but merely an explanation of why EST might be regarded differently from another arbitrary timezone.) Kirill Lokshin 15:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

On this day...

Why doesn't the OTD section have a link to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries? It took me a while to find it. Piet 14:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You may want to ask the creator of Template:SelAnnivFooter. -- PFHLai 16:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The link in OTD sends you to List of historical anniversaries which is a content space article, there's a link at the top of this talk page that sends you to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries since this is a 'housekeeping side' article. Same with all the other sections on the main page - they have their housekeeping links on this talk page. --Monotonehell 17:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
First, that's a lot of clicks. Second, I think you're wrong, at the top of Talk:List of historical anniversaries is a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year.
Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries is what I was looking for, I found it after some searching. The thing is, when someone complains about the OTD section, there's always someone else ready to shout "get involved in the selection process", so it should be a bit easier to actually get there. Piet 07:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This is what I mean

I'm not supporting or denouncing how it currently is, just pointing out where it is. It could be better, but I'm not sure if mainspace is the place for contribute liks... --Monotonehell 08:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I misunderstood, when you said "this talk page" I thought you meant the talk page of the page you mentioned just before. Sorry. Very clear picture, even I couldn't miss it now :-)
That's a useful box, I have to admit I never really noticed it. You're right main page is not the good place, but maybe the box could receive a slightly more prominent place at the top of this page, next to the big announcements rather than underneath them. Wouldn't that steer more people away from this talk page to the right place? Piet 09:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If you click the 'Archive' link on the OTD section of the main page, you get taken to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/August which is pretty close to where you wanted, and there's also a link there to go up one level to the Selected anniversaries page you wanted. The problem is that it's called Archive, like the way the Archive link on the featured article box takes you to this month's lineup which isn't completely what you expect. -- 18:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia (

As of today, the Russian version of Wikipedia has 100,000+ articles. That should be observed at the main Wikipedia portal. Camptown 17:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't have a 100,000+ section on our MainPage. is not part of English Wikipedia. You may want to bring this up with 'Meta-Wiki'. --PFHLai 17:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion for this is at template. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-16 19:18

It also may be worth mentioning that the language editions around the logo on are the top eight in number of articles, not a list of Wikipedias with 100,000+ articles. To get there, the Russian Wikipedia would need to knock the lowest-count off (Spanish, at 142,000 articles). GeeJo (t)(c) • 19:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Top 10 actually. :-) Prodego talk 20:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


Could we possibly have a "Did you know" segment without a Eurovision contest factoid? They seem to be getting obscure and uninteresting, and frankly it's getting old. --Jquarry 22:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The DYKs will be more irrelevant each day! We can't expect interesting facts in new articles everyday; after all we have 1,322,000 articles already! I don't mean there's nothing else interesting to write about, but it gets harder to find it for every day.--Cloviz 23:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
So fix it. Read some new articles and make some suggestions.--Peta 23:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok here's one: "DYK the Eurovision song contest has featured in more DYK segments than any other Wikipedia article?".... sorry couldn't resist! :P --Jquarry 00:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I admit, for a moment seeing the image on the mainpage, I thought today's article was going to be about Klingons... Speaking of which, I am offended by the lack of Star Trek bias! The 40th Grand High Wizard of Nerdom convention is this weekend in Vegas --coinciding with the premiere of Snakes on a Plane. In this kind of perfect storm the average geek will nerdgasm so hard they'll bust a tribble. --Bobak 00:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Dood, I think you need to lay off the Red Bull :) --Jquarry 00:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I was just coming here to say the same thing! We need to lay off the Eurovision, circus animals, and medal of honor winners for a while. In part its because very few editors know how to get an article trhough the DYK process before the five day timeline expires, and they seem to have very focused interests. savidan(talk) (e@) 02:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
What would you suggest we put in their place? GeeJo (t)(c) • 04:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
You know, it's hard to say, being as these articles haven't been created yet. Generally speaking, though, I'd like a little more variety. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Some people actually enjoy Eurovision. *hugs all 4 EV albums*--Lady BlahDeBlah 14:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Sofixit by adding more new articles to Suggestions" isn't a solution as long as we adhere to the notion that every eligible (i.e. non-stub, well-referenced, etc.) candidate on the Suggestions page should make it into DYK. If we keep doing that, then no matter what, we get repitition of subjects; if someone starts 20 articles on (let's say) notable medieval court jesters over the course of a few weeks, we'll end up with a famous jester in DYK once a day for three weeks. A couple court jester DYKs in a short period might be fun, but after a while people might understandably get bored of them. A better solution would be to update the DYK a little less frequently (say only once a day, sometimes twice). That way the admins can be a little more selective and showcase a broader range of DYKs, though perhaps at the expense of leaving some behind. Andrew Levine 19:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful pic of the day

I just want to say to the FPC people, beautiful selection. Too bad we couldn't have run it on US Memorial Day. Daniel Case 00:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

And then we would "run" allusive pictures in every country's Memorial Day or similar anniversary? Hehe.--Cloviz 01:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
If you did not know, the picture of day is basically selected in the order that the images were promoted to featured status. This is unlike the featured article of the day where users can make suggestions. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
That's mostly true. Sometimes I put them on specific days upon request. For example, the Malé image was put on Maldivian independence day and the Map of India was put on Indian independence day, but those were only a few days different than what they would have been. howcheng {chat} 15:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, today's featured picture is a bit of a let-down. It's of poor quality, and certainly wouldn't pass WP:FPC today. It's too blurry, and it doesn't portray the subject well. —Cuiviénen 13:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It was promoted less than three months ago. The detail is not that great in full res but keep in mind that that res is twice the minimum requirement. Redquark 13:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Main page footer

Brian, your footer doesn't work when people click on (+) at the top of the page to start a new section. -- 16:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Why can't I edit?

Why is the front page only editable by administrators? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ali'i (talkcontribs) 20:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC).

Please see Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why am I not able edit to the Main Page?. Hope this helps. -- PFHLai 20:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Please sign your posts using ~~~~. Eleven minutes after you asked this, someone replaced this whole page with the message "HACKED". To avoid this happening on the main page, it is only editable by administrators. Piet 20:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that would not be a good thing for wikipedia. --tyler nelson 17:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, duh. Next time i'll pay closer attention to details. --Ali'i 21:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
People would vandalize it a lot, unfortunately. 'FLaRN' (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use Image on Main Page

I hate to be copyright paranoid, but perhaps Image:Queensbridge.jpg would work for Featured Article of the Day on the Main Page. Even though it's not as representative of the subject as the current image, it's not fair use. -- tariqabjotu 00:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

i have also this problem and i dont no i will doing to cominucat iam a new wekipedian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 12:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC).

Front Page Content ? / Featured Article of the Day is a Joke

I don't believe that Wikipedia is putting its best foot forward by showcasing a thug's first album as the featured article of the day. It's low culture, and makes Wikipedia look like even more of a joke than it's already managed to accomplish. - MSTCrow 15:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I happen to agree with MST Crow concerning showcasing a rap album on the front page 15:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, we might say no to pop albums in general, but it would be silly to say no to rap albums specifically. Wikipedia is not attempting to define taste and it is not censored. Marskell 15:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I totally concur. More proper culture on the front page please. Obviously rap does not qualify because, err, wait... why is that again? Soo 15:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm willing to bet you didn't mind when the band Marilyn Manson appeared on Wikipedia front page because you "loved" them according to your userboxes. Marilyn Manson has a squeaky clean image and doesn't have any controversy? I had to laugh at that. All because you don't like a certain type of music or culture doesn't mean it is "joke." -- 15:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
You don't get it. TFA is about the quality of the article NOT about the value of the topic it covers. Get over it. --mav 15:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Low culture? How racist... dposse 16:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
You assuming race issues? How racist...The General 22:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I initially had the same impression, but the article is really well done. I say keep it.
Articles are chosen for the quality of the article, not the quality of the subject (which is far too subjective to accurately evaluate). —Cuiviénen 18:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I personally dislike rap, but agree that the TFA is an honor given to a "good" article, with good, in this case, meaning well written, not interesting or any of it's synonymns. AndonicO 16:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)AndonicO

I third the motion that Rap is rubbish, anything that promotes derogatory treatment of women, taking of illicit drugs, or general acts of civil disobedience has a negative effect on society, especially the youth who seeing this way of life being 'cool' aspire to becoming 'gangsta' themselves. Since we can't kill rappers to stop them sprouting rubbish (tub pac) a contingency plan needs to be drafted by the governments of the world, but on the balance of guit America needs to front most the blame, they after all being the super power that is Consumerism should house up the 'gangsta's in blocks (ghettos if you will) blocking the transferal of rap from the rappers to the general public putting to an end pants so low theres no need for them, telling people doing drugs IS NOT COOL , shooting people doesn't get you anything but JAIL and through hard work and dedication you can become a core part of a functioning society in a positive aspect, not a negative one. Faultless 20:57, 25 August 2006

I choose to assume that you are joking because if you're not, it's even funnier. Soo 20:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm.. You denounce rap because of the moral implications? That's irnoic coming from a person who says we should kill rappers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lordmenace (talkcontribs) 21:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC).

I personally think rap is a negative influence on society, and I don't think it should be the featured article, but if you want to have an influence on what is the article of the day nominate an article, or just boycott wikipedia, but unless you are going to do something of real impact don't compalin

New header

I' popped a new header on this page. (Edit second try worked better lol). It's a little longer than the old one, but intergrates the archive box and leaves more room for more archive links. The concept is to be more welcoming to new visitors. Under the WP:BRD concept; comments? Love hate? --Monotonehell 16:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Very nice. dposse 16:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Can the "If you want to suggest a Wikipedia article that has been recently updated with current affairs information go to the In the news page." bit be changed so it links to Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates please? Batmanand | Talk 20:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
It could, but I purposely linked to the instructional pages rather than the actual suggestion pages. I think it better to send new users to instructions first. The second paragraph on Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates says "Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page will not be put into the live template.". Which is where I've linked to first. The philosophy behind the header is to give new users a helpful path to what they want. If we really wanted to I supose we could also add the direct to suggestion page links. --Monotonehell 20:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe its just me, but having the link to the candidates page was enormously helpful on the "old style" talk:Main Page page. But if others disagree, fair enough. I like the rest of the redesign a lot, if that counts for anything. Batmanand | Talk 20:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the new header on this page. Nice work! Carcharoth 21:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I like it, too. Good job. I've added a {{TOCright}} to avoid having too much blank space, as the TOC tends to get quite long here. Take it off if it's a problem. -- PFHLai 21:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes good. I was thinking about that, but then the server went south for the winter last night. --Monotonehell 07:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
It looks great. (so, are we usurping the wiktionary logo proposal #6? ;) (I like it here, and for there. Did anyone tell happydog?) --Quiddity·(talk) 21:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes! The logo, Happydog's talky logo is a placeholder I was going to ask if anyone had a better idea for what to put there. --Monotonehell 07:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It was fine yesterday, now the box for TFA is too big, breaking the nice symmetry in the header and overloading the box with too much information. With such a overkill, people would just scroll down and not read it. 'Too helpful' may become 'not helpful'. -- 18:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to the "requests" subpage, now someone has shortened it but maybe it is still a bit long. Maybe we could drop the line "Do you think today's featured article is awful? See what you can do about it." Although I like it, it doesn't add much since "see what you can do" basically means follow one of the other links. Piet 19:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The "see what you can do" wikilink goes to the faq that basically tells people to stop complaining about the subject of an FA, which is good if they follow it and might stop some of the posts (there's a least two currently on this page) that basically say "I don't like subject X, therefore it shouldn't be TFAd". "Might". :/ But if they do read it they may understand the process better. Which is a good thing.
I've tried to link to informational pages only here, so new users first learn about the process and guidlines before spouting their 'original idea'. What I hope happens next is that those informational pages are improved so that the whole pathway for new users is formalised and generally improved a great deal. Wikipedia can be very daunting at first due to the processes and tools that have organically grown out of the concensus ooze. --Monotonehell 10:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What happend to Wikipedia for the last four hours?

It was completely unaccessable. Anyone know what happened? 20:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The rumor is the people who supply the IP addresses put them back into circulation... --Monotonehell 20:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to know what happened. Mathiastck 20:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I heard on the IRC channel that the IP address was removed. dposse 20:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I was going to merely ask this:

Did the wikiwebservers crash & burn f/ several hours today??

Hopiakuta 20:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, it does seem that they had, in fact.

Thank You.

Hopiakuta 20:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, they did. See this email for details. Titoxd(?!?) 20:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
What - only people with AOL IPs were allowed to edit? Um, hello, weird? Natgoo 21:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Although I don't know what that says: Thank You. -- Hopiakuta 20:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know why wikipedia was completely unaccessable for the last four hours?--Taida 22:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you are too lazy to click a link, here it is:

Somewhere around 17:20-17:30 UTC, Cogent readvertised routing to our primary IP address block in Tampa, blocking access to the site for most people.

Partway through the period, wikis were placed into read-only lock so the few people who could access it (mostly from AOL ;) were unable to edit without review from the public.

The route was temporarily restored around 19:55, and read-write was restored to the wikis at 19:59.

The old IP range will no longer be available to us as of Monday.

PowerMedium has assigned us a new IP space which is under their control (unlike the old IPs which were leased from Cogent under an older contract), and we will be transitioning to them over the weekend.

We have heard several conflicting things about exactly why and how our IP space got dropped; more will be said when we have firmer knowledge.

-- brion vibber (brion @ dposse 22:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Paper encyclopedias rarely flicker in and out of existence.

True, but they also seldom update and correct themselves after publication. ;) -- Vary | Talk 01:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Bahhh- the nerve of that ISP to issue an IP re-numbering on Wikipedia (If that's in fact what happend.)  ;-) My ISP has had the nerve to stymed a few of my contributions by renumbering me in the middle of an edit. :-o CaribDigita 02:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia going down is notable

Wikipedia is sufficiently notable that it going down is notable. Failures in it's service should have their own page, and that page should be linked to from the main page after it goes down. My 2 cents :) Mathiastck 23:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Wikipedia goes down alot. dposse 00:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I haven't seen many articles about other - more important - services going down. Piet 09:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I haven't seen articles devoted to it, but I have seen plenty of articles mention major times a website went down. If wikipedia goes down a lot that then that fact needs mention in an article. Mathiastck 22:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought so too, so I made Wikipedia:Downtime for it. Noone seemed interested though. *shrugs*

it is nice that you made Wikipedia:Downtimei was in terested.


what the hell is wrong with wikipedia? why is it all white and messed up?? dposse 03:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Guys, all the skins except for the default one is screwed up. Someone needs to fix this. dposse 04:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Yup, the Wikipedia servers were all messed up. See Wikimedia servers unreachable for 3 hours due to network outage for more information. FellowWikipedian 14:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Does this have anything to do with some links (nomraly ones with small words) giving you a small download instead of a page? At first I thought it was a virus, but it only happens here. One of the pages is the login for me, so I can't sign my stuff. -OAM
We need an easily reachable article that talks about what's wrong with wikipedia when it goes down. We also need a page external to wipkipedia, that does so, each providing a link to the other. Mathiastck 16:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Look up... In this page's header it saus, "Wikipedia running slowly? Check the server status." --Monotonehell 16:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

WHAT!!! you gotta problem with crackas!!!!!!!!!!!! huh? Well at least it's fixed now, it happens


THat comma doesnt look right does it?--Light current 07:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Any comma in particular? GeeJo (t)(c) • 08:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

THe one after Welcome to Wikipedia Sorry I thought it would be obvious--Light current 09:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It's right. If you read the whole sentence (over the two lines), it will read "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.". Daniel.Bryant 11:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes Iknow its grammatically correct. It just doesnt look good!--Light current 14:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks fantastic. Imagine how the sentence would look without a comma there! --Oldak Quill 17:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm convulsing just thinking about it! - 20:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Image Upload Help

I recently uploaded quite a few photos and put them on their respective pages. Soon after, they were taken down because I did not provide the URL for them, etc. I would like to upload the pics again, but the right what do I do? At the upload page, do I simply just put the URL of the photo? And another thing...I don't understand this: "Images found on websites or on an image search engine should not be uploaded to Wikipedia." How's that make ANY sense? Where else would you find photographs ON THE INTERNET to put ON A WEBSITE?

--RattleandHum 19 August 2006

You either produce them yourself or ensure that their licence is compatible with Wikipedia. 99% of images you came across on a website or found in an image search are not. --Cherry blossom tree 16:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia: Image use policy. Hope this helps.--PFHLai 17:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up on Talk:Main Page/Archive 76#Main Page images

Landscapes are fine, but 100x100px often makes portraits too narrow. Can we change it to something like 100x125px instead of 100x100px ? As long as it's not wider than 100px, it's okay for those 800x600 screens, right ? --PFHLai 17:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I support that. The 100px width is the issue on 800x600 screens, but I do notice that height does become a problem on 1024x768 screens. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The goal is to display most pictures (landscapes and portraits) at approximately the same size. Short of calculating the cubic size of each individual image, maintaining a standard maximum measurement (100px or another number) for both the length and width is the best means of accomplishing this. Aspect ratios vary slightly, but the fact that all images are either 100px wide or 100px tall (or both) creates a pleasant sense of uniformity.
Of course, we can make exceptions for images with unusual aspect ratios. We also give some leeway (especially regarding height) to the pictures from the Today's featured article section (where our selection is relatively limited).
Perhaps we could go slightly higher than 100px as our standard maximum measurement. —David Levy 23:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, many images are not meant to be displayed as 100px thumbnails. One example would be Image:Popss.jpg currently on DYK. Can anyone make out what is being displayed ? Things are so small, I can't see a thing there. Such images such not be used on Main Page. -- 13:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support a slightly larger 'standard maximum measurement'. 100 is just too small.
Also, I'd suggest that layouts don't really have to look good at 800x600, they just have to fail gracefully. --Quiddity·(talk) 08:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Village Pump Link

I believe that the link to the Village Pump should be more conspicuous. This page is always filled with off-topics suggestions and complaints because novices that enter Wikipedia through the Main Page see the big "Discussion" link in the top rather than the list of "Other areas of Wikipedia" in the bottom. The new header is very convenient, but it would be even better if people didn't have to click on the wrong link, realize their mistake and then start searching the right place to post their ideas.--Cloviz 01:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought long and hard about putting a direct link to the pump in the header. I eventually decided against it linking to here instead. The concept is to allow new users to filter through a series of levels until they find the 'correct' place to post. If we put a direct link to the pump I thought it would steer people who would be better off posting at the ref desk in the wrong direction.
We could easily put a link to the pump in the header, if that's what people want. --Monotonehell 09:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe better for the nav bar. -- 18:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It's already linked to from Help:Contents, Community Portal, and Questions (all linked in the sidebar). 2-click access from everywhere, seems good enough to me. --Quiddity·(talk) 10:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
But it seems it has to be obvious. Look at that huge header up there; can you believe people keep posting anything here anyway? In theory this works, but in practice you realize that you are trusting people's intelligence too much! Well, I believe their common sense is right: you enter in a website for the first time, you are in the home page, you want to say something and you see a link that reads "discussion" in the top of the page; obviously, if you don't know how Wikipedia works, you won't expect that discussion to concern the main page only! OK, with that header up there they should realize "their" mistake; but what if we rather attack the problem to its root?--(clovis) 17:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you're overestimating people ;) They're even worse than that! A significant minority aren't going to read or pay attention to any help/instructions we try to give them, no matter what. They just want to chat, and are going to use the most obvious page there is, to do just that. --Quiddity·(talk) 02:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Cloviz, the people who wont read anything and just post aren't going to get past this page at all. So they're a 'lost cause'. I've tried to keep the header on this page uncluttered, simple and logical. It should be a kind of flowchart where people who have their eyes glazed over and are looking for a particular subject should be able to see it fairly quickly. That's why it's separated into the six sections like that and "errors" is repeated in each box. The link to Questions comes after they have filtered the five sections first as the pump is for more general proposals and etc. So I think that I have attacked the problem at its root". --Monotonehell 10:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

a lot of new zeeland

we are all about new zeeland right now. that's cool, though.

it is fantastic (and it is spelt New Zealand). Although, get ready for another when (in a few days time I would think) we get: "The King of Tonga, Taufa'ahau Tupou IV dies in Auckland, New Zealand ending his 41 year reign." -- 07:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, New Zealand is still outshone by Australia, which has a featured article and a featured picture! :P --liquidGhoul 07:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
All to the good, I say: English WP can seem Brit- and US-centric Bedesboy 08:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Both NZ and Aussie both have a current DYK entry as well. Australasia finally gets its spotlight! --Midnighttonight Remind me to do my uni work rather than procrastinate on the internet 09:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
get ready for tomorrow's featured picture as well. oh, and in the current DYK is another (although most people wouldn't know Featherston is in NZ) --Midnighttonight Remind me to do my uni work rather than procrastinate on the internet 21:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Missing "·"

Missing a · between "Help" and "Categories"? Or is there a reason for that? Dunno if this has been asked..thanks. Aranherunar 07:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

At most resolutions and font sizes, a large gap exists between the two links in question. ("Overview · Searching · Editing · Questions · Help" appears on the left side of the screen, while "Categories · Featured content · A–Z index" appears on the right side.) At a relatively low resolution (such as 800x600) or large font size, this is less obvious. —David Levy 07:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm so that's why - I used the largest font size. Thanks. Aranherunar 08:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)