Talk:Main Page

Sections of this page older than three days are automatically archived.

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 12:19 on 8 June 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed, determined not to be an error, or the item has rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(June 14)

Monday's FL

(June 10)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

Main page general discussion

Malvinas

Despite general opinions and point of views, the fact that the Falkland Island are claimed by Argentina can't be ignored in the featured picture text. Take into account that in Argentina, these islands are legally and officially considered part of the Argentine territory.--cloviz 01:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

And yet it has been ignored. The fact is, whilst Argentina recognizes them as their Islands, the rest of the world (more or less) recognizes them as British territory, including Britain. What other people think of the Island is largely wishful thinking. Tourskin 05:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Errr... yeah it can. Do we say, "Taiwan, a province of the People's Republic of China..."? —Verrai 05:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

.*Puts down 10 foot barge pole* --Monotonehell 06:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your arguments. We don't say Taiwan is part of China any more than we say Falklands is part of Argentina. Neither of these two is true. Tourskin 07:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

He was refering to the comment about how it can't be ignored by cloviz. Hence the "yeah it can" and his indenting at the same level as you. Atropos 11:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually we do say Taiwan is part of China. See Taiwan "territories administered by the Republic of China (ROC), which governs the island of Taiwan". We don't however say Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China so Verrai was quite... Nil Einne 11:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

He was obviously talking about the PRC too. Don't be a pedant. Atropos 18:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't resist given how worked up about things he tends to get and how he himself likes to nitpick. Plus the fact that he appears to be incapable of following a thread... Also I think it is important people unnderstand there is a big difference between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China. Both claim to be the true China which is what makes the whole thing so ridiculous. Failing to differentiate between the 2 can lead to silly statements (even when the meaning is clear) such as "Taiwan isn't a part of China" whereas as I've already said this simply isn't true since both the ROC and the PRC generally consider Taiwan to be a part of China. Nil Einne 12:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You should really know better than to say that. Its a bit uncivil. Atropos 22:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Atropos, thats what I meant. Taiwan is claimed by PRC but its not owned by PRC. Falklands is claimed by Argentina but its not. Its owned by the UK and governed by itself. Tourskin 18:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

But this is completely irrelevant which you would have know if you could follow a thread... Nil Einne 12:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I still don't know what u r on about Nil. My point is clear. Taiwan is de facto recognized by the world, even by the PRC as independent. The Falklands Island is recognized by the world, even by Argentina as de facto UK territory. I'm using a comparison here to show that there is no need to say what a minority believe in. Furthermoore, I would like to add that the link on the picture "Falkland Island" had a section about the War in the 80's so it can be known from there what Argentina's views on the Island are.Tourskin 01:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You're all agreeing with each other! Tourskin, you are just saying exactly what Verrai said right at the top. Everything else has been people agreeing with each other in an argumentative fashion :) Why not agree to agree and leave it at that? Skittle 13:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Never! I will immediately march back to my HQ and prepare a pre-pre-emptive defensive measure against any potential pre-emptive strike against the Falklands - HAIL RULE BRITANNIA!Tourskin 02:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Because Nil Einne is being unnecessarily rude towards Tourskin. Atropos 03:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Nil, I didn't see teh comment above , and good thing too because I would not have given the humorous reply that some users on this page have been asking me to give. I'll do my best not to let your comment get to me. Tourskin 21:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan does not consider itself a part of the PRC, if thats what you meant. When I say China, I mean the real China of the PRC, the one that is recognized by the vast majority of the world. The ROC is more commonly known as Taiwan, I know this from personal experience from personal experience in England. No one entertains any plans of Taiwan being annexed by the PRC. Thats why the US maintains a presence in the region, to stop China from getting a little to excited. Tourskin 21:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

*Puts down 20 foot barge pole*~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 16:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

!!! PLAGIARISM !!! LOL! --Monotonehell 10:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all! I badly needed a good laugh! In this case the legal truism still applies: Possession is nine-tenth's of the law! Shir-El too 22:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Not if ur assyrian, then it becomes 11/10ths of the law. Tourskin 02:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

2.000.000 articles

Any forecast for when this will happen? How many articles where added since yesterday?--88.82.47.45 01:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing a week. When we got to the one million mark a large amount of articles were created right at the end by people trying to create the one millionth article. --Banana 02:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The last thing we need is an army of unverified stubs ruining our day. Tourskin 02:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The only way to stop the deluge is to abolish DYK and replace it with FLs hahaha --Howard the Duck 06:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Where's that page with people betting on what will be the 2000000th article? Capuchin 08:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Two-millionth topic pool.-gadfium 10:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hijack this thread, I was planning to wait a while longer but since someone brought this up. Do we have an agreement yet on what, if anything we will post when we reach 2 million? It would be better to reach consensus now rather then have an edit war on that day. The last discussion fissled out without any real consensus Talk:Main Page/Archive 105#2 million article Nil Einne 11:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree - we need to decide on something a little while before the 2 million point's reached. Also, would it be put up as soon as 200000 is passed, or when there is a consistent count never falling below 2 million (the same policy which stands for moving Wikipedias around in the "Wikipedia languages" section). I'm totally up for sticking my proverbial oar of opinion in. Benedictwest 12:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been discussed at least 3 times in the past couple of weeks but nothing has come of it. It's not really that big a deal considering the actual stats regarding the quality and content of the vast majority of those articles. Wake me when we reach 1,000,000 FAs ;) - Oh I know, when we reach 2,000,000 articles, let's change the main page banner to read "Welcome to Wikipedia,

the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 1,555 quality articles and lots of stubs." ;)

But seriously the best idea so far has been the wording on User:Nil Einne/Wikipedia:Main Page test --Monotonehell 14:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree, but I clicked "existing articles" and got an album by Donny Osmond. If you can fix that then i'm all for it. :p Capuchin 14:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My guess it will happen in one or two days from now, so we need some message to display then. Is some news article prepared for wikinews? A press release? The wording of User:Nil Einne/Wikipedia:Main Page test seems ok, design also more or less. I find the link for existing articles confusing and the linking from contributions to the actual contribution page should be faster. If anyone wants to read more, there is lot of information available, if not, just let him/her contribute. --Ben ^T/_C 18:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

One of two days from now? One or two weeks more likely IMHO. Also what do you mean "linking from contributions to the actual contribution page should be faster"? Nil Einne 10:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to relaize that not all articles are destined to become the best FA's ever. Some of these articles are very specific or are short because there simply is no material. Therefore 2 million is a big deal, just not that big a deal. I suggest what others before have suggested, just leave a not at the top like " wikipedia thanks its contributors for over 2 million articles". Someon has laready suggested this, its not boasting but its nice to know.Tourskin 23:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat reluctant to respond but hopefully you won't take offense since none was intended. No one said we want all articles to be the best FA ever. However the vast majority of articles should be able to reach FA status. If not, they may need to be merged with other articles. Bear in mind there's nothing wrong with an FA being short provided it is well written, comprehensive & meets the other FA requirements. Also, I think the bigger issue is not that we expect every article to be an FA but that many people including me feel there is currently too much emphasis on quantity rather then quality and that if we are going to mention the 2 million articles (a quantity statistic), we should at least encourage editors to think about quality. Note that we currently have around 1600 FAs and 2800 GA. And it's not just the small number of FA and GA but that most articles don't even come close to being resonable quality. Also I originally copied the "wikiepdia thanks..." part in the test on my page but it was changed because some editors pointed out that wikipedia doesn't thank anyone, it can't it's not a sentient entity. Nil Einne 10:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just place it at the bottom to appease the quality over quantity hawks. --Howard the Duck 02:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I thought 1 million was significant, but 2 million isn't really. 5 might be, 10 certainly will be, but 2 million isn't even much of a round number Modest Genius ^talk 14:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Then I guess its just no big deal. We're just part of a culture who enjoy celebrating reaching such large and "round" or should I say "nice" numbers. I mean, how many of you huys felt a difference between 1999 Dec 31st and 1998 Dec 31st? It was all in the mind. Tourskin 19:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Nil, I aint offended anymore, I'm over it for now.Tourskin 19:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant before in my comment, the link named contributions in the box should directly go to a page, where you can contribute (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising), instead of a page telling you about contributing (Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia). If people want to contribute and click the link, don't give them all the fuss.

Then, wikipedia is growing, which is good – even though some say its big enough (though it's not paper?). Seemingly an endless discussion... To cut it short, most of us calculate in decimal systems, $2\times 10^{6}$ is a number that is round and nice and putting some notice on the main page won't hurt, I hope we can agree on this. --Ben ^T/_C 23:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say linking to Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia is better than a link to http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising. Contributing money is not the only way to contribute to Wikipedia. In fact contributing your time to improve articles is equally as important as providing funds to support the system. The page outlines all the ways one can contribute. --Monotonehell 13:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

How about this:

The English-language Wikipedia thanks its contributors for creating over 2,000,000 articles!

.

This was the template used for 1,500,000 articles, just stick it at the very top, like [[1]].--74.13.102.155 00:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok if we don't use the above template (which was what was in my mind) this should do certainly:

The English-language Wikipedia has created over 2,000,000 articles!

.

Its not thanking anyone, but has achieved the objective of making all know wikipedias army of unreferenced stubs lol.Tourskin 02:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

OK everybody, just 10,000 more articles to go. We can probably reach that in around a week. jj137^Talk 21:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I still think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nil_Einne/Wikipedia:Main_Page_test seems the best version. Phgao 03:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Its good but I think teh above template stands out more. In any case, the message is similar and "efficient".Tourskin 04:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the message should emphasize the personal contributions of the many people, i.e. instead of "wikipedia has now" or "wikipedia has created" the message should say, "[WP thanks] contributors for creating over 2,000,000 articles". It could add something like "Help now to improve existing articles or consider donating" (without wanting to be more obtrusive), example:

The English-language Wikipedia thanks its contributors for creating over 2,000,000 articles!
Help now to improve existing articles or consider donating

.

--Ben ^T/_C 13:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Either of the above three articles has my "vote".Tourskin 02:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

How about "Wikipedia now contains over 2,000,000 articles thanks to people like you." --Monotonehell 03:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I don't like the "people like you" thing. The words people like you seem very informal. And maybe its me but it sounds sarcastic, especially if a vandal was to read it. Lol that would be funny. Tourskin 03:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's supposed to sound informal. The point is that "anyone can edit". - Also I didn't use the sarcasm emoticon ^ so it wasn't sarcasm ;) (that's the I'm joking emoticon) LOL! --Monotonehell 05:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Change it back lol it was hilarious!!Tourskin 06:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

non-controversial Main Page change

Could we list the previous five FA's rather than just the previous three? (I would even go for previous 7 but the titles would run over too many lines I think.) This would be more helpful to people who only access the net on weekends, or editors who only occasionally check the Main Page. Can we please not get into too much discussion about this, its a fairly simple suggestion that doesn't need to wait for the next Main Page redesign. Please cross-post if there's somewhere more appropriate for this to go. Zunaid©® 08:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, discussion is going to be made of it. That is the way of Wikipedia. I think 5 is a fair idea, but 7, especially if the 7 happen to each be fairly long (or even if only a couple are fairly long), would clutter things up too much. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the balance between different screen resolutions. What is too cluttered for one person may be too spread out for another. The current arrangement is presumably a balance. Carcharoth 08:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the small benefit of doing this outweighs the introduction of it taking up two lines on most occasions for many readers. violet/riga (t) 09:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Zunaid has a very good point here. I also think three is a bit too few, but space is, obviously, an issue; however, we could discuss using the white space available on the following line prior to the Archive/E-mail/More links. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it will look strange or even ugly if we make it so the list of FA's continues onto the left of the Archive/Email/More line Nil Einne 11:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

One thing to take into consideration is that the left hand side of the page is longer then the right, a good 99.9% of the time. Do we really need to make it longer?
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 11:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If listing five items threatens the left/right balance, just make the FA write-up shorter by two lines. That is the most (on a low-res screen) that the extra two links will take up so at worst we are in exactly the same place. BTW violetriga, I use a large font setting so the list is almost always over two lines for me. It does not look ugly. Can we not just trial this over a week, say, and take it from there based on how complaints do/don't come in? Zunaid©® 12:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this kind of the whole point of having archives? Capuchin 12:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's my thought also. There's a link to every previous TFA, as well as a link to all FAs. Even on my 22" screen there's only a little room left on that line, I'd hate to see it at lower resolutions. Perhaps move the archive link onto the same line and rename it "Previous featured articles" Would that help? --Monotonehell 14:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What if there were five (seven) previous listed, but in smaller type? I agree with the general thought, just pondering on how to lose a potential problem. For stats sake - I have a 17 inch CRT @ 1024x768. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 15:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just click "Archive", and you'll get all the FAs in the month. I don't see a need to clutter the Main Page in order to make articles just one click away slightly more accessible (unless you don't know about the Archive, but that's why the link is there, right?). · AndonicO ^Talk 14:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

So I've struck-through the "non-controversial" part of the title, seeing as it is controversial.~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 01:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

New design for page

I think we need an all-new main page design. This design has been here so long that a variant is required. Your input is requested. Laleena 13:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree its a bit boring now but it is effect and simple, dont think many would agree with a change. I'd personally like to see a bit more style, a modern and slick layout --Childzy ¤ Talk 13:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure that change for change's sake is reason for change, look at Google's main page. If you can think of some material problems with the main page design and pose solutions for their cure that would be a different story. Bear in mind that a simple layout is required for accessibility reasons (people with disabilities, people in areas without broadband and so on) --Monotonehell 14:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What would improve the look is if we figured out how to make the titles of DYK and OTD be exactly opposite each other, balance always improves a webpages look. Maybe use 4 divisions instead of 2?
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 14:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The current design was implemented in March 2006 after several months of discussion and input from the community (see the final vote). A new redesign would have to go through a similar process. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

the current design is excellent. Don't fix it if it isn't broken. --dab (𒁳) 14:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

How about this? —METS501 (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats more or less what I was thinking yeah. And I think that the fact that the editable version of the pages is identicle bar the one change I suggested should say something pretty obvious.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 15:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The page wasn't like that until I made it like that to show your change :-) —METS501 (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok, lol. But irrelevent, what do people thing of this potential edit?
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 15:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ain't broken - don't fix it. Nothing wrong with keeping what is functional and usable. People get used to things. Okay, I'm kind of conservative. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 15:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

METS501's idea is great, very simple but it looks better. Couldnt an admin just change it like that without consensus or a vote because it makes perfect sense to have the headers lined up --Childzy ¤ Talk 17:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

They could, as part of the WP:BRD cycle, but speaking for myself only, I'm happy enough with how it appears at the moment. Having three dynamic boxes allows for easy adjustments to get both halves of the page to match anyway. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It's nice to have only two halves (not four quarters) to worry about, and it actually looks much worse to have a large amount of blank space in the middle of the page than it does to have it at the bottom. (I remember this from the redesign process.) We also would lose the stylistic advantage of having two thematically-related sections in each of two columns. —David Levy 23:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes but those adjustments never happen; the main page is always out of balance, always. Now I'll admit from the offset that I find order to be the first step to perfection, but ever since I first started using Wikipedia my eyes are drawn to the misalignment between the two headers. I'm pro METS501's example as well, could we arrange for one of those Support/Oppose/Neutral votes to see what the general opinion of this is? Or better yet, just make this change and see how people react on the talk page.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 23:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, such adjustments frequently are made. The proposed setup would make that far more difficult, and something similar already was discussed and rejected during the aforementioned redesign. —David Levy 23:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Then why is the main page constantly out of balance? And the tweek to the design would help, not make it more difficult, if there’s space in the box, add another item/sentence, it’s as simple as that. This is Wikipedia’s main page, its only edited by admins, a.k.a experienced editors. I'm fairly sure they can overcome any minor issues I'm not seeing, to make the first page English users will see look ordered, and hence better.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 23:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The main page isn't "constantly out of balance" for most users, but it's impossible to balance it for everyone. (You seem to be under the impression that it looks the same to all users, but that isn't the case.) We do our best to make it look as good as possible, and the proposed change would make that more difficult. Right now, we can try to roughly balance the page under the average user's settings, but there always ends up being some blank space at the bottom of one column for some users. Under the proposed setup, we'd have twice as many boxes to worry about, we'd no longer be able to compensate for a long/short section by editing the one diagonally opposite (and chance anomalies of this nature no longer would cancel each other out), and some users would end up with blank space in two boxes (often in the middle of the page). —David Levy 00:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes blank space would still exist, that is called physics, but having a grid of boxes would mean that there would be a small amount of space in one or two boxes, instead of a chunk of space on one side, like the current page provides an example. The proposed look would mean that everyone, in any browser, on any system, on any platform, would have balance on the main page, where under the current system, almost no one has a perfect grid, I’m perfectly aware that websites look different on different systems as I move around a lot during the day in my line of work, but in my spare time at any of those locations, I read and edit Wikipedia, on the available system, and I never see it as a perfect grid.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 00:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, there would be much more blank space with 5 seperate sections then with two... Also keep in mind that font size, screen size, window size, and many other factors determine how much blank space there is to individual users. Move your settings out of 600 x 800 and you'll see that it's not that bad... As for redoing the main page, that just happened 6 months ago, and it really doesn't need to happen yet again. I would be happy to see the focus go to the search box, but any further tweaks are really un needed --T-rex 01:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the current design was introduced in March 2006.  :-) —David Levy 02:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

1. You seem to be missing the point that under the current setup, a long/short On this day... section can cancel out the imbalance caused by a long/short Today's featured article section. Likewise, a long/short In the news section can cancel out the imbalance caused by a long/short Did you know... section. (And this sometimes occurs by chance.) Instead of worrying about the lengths of four separate boxes, we need only deal with two. All of that would be lost under the proposed setup. As a result, a user who currently sees approximate balance might instead see two boxes containing empty space (including one at top).

2. You must have a different definition of "balance on the main page" than I do. That's the only explanation for your statement that "everyone, in any browser, on any system, on any platform, would have" it. I assume you're referring to alignment of the heading bars, which isn't what most of us mean. (We're referring to a lack of empty space.) No one is attempting to create "a perfect grid," as the consensus (when the page was redesigned) was that a lack of wasted space is preferable (and that the current layout is more aesthetically pleasing). —David Levy 02:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I just restored two items to the In the news section to compensate for the long Did you know... section (which probably was lengthened to compensate for the short Today's featured article section). Under the proposed setup, none of that would be possible. —David Levy 02:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, I don't use 800x600, I use 1680x1050 on two seperate screens, so I can see the page under greater resolutions that 99% of users, so could you please stop making assumptions about me, if you need to know something to make your point, ask, because your assumptions really dont seem to be on target much. Secondly, of course thats my definition of balance, why would I argue for the layout I'm trying to get corrected? And thirdly, if its impossible to balance the page under both definitions then way is the example of whats being proposed (linked above by METS501) balanced under both definitions, wheres the actualy main pages is still unbalanced on the left side?
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 09:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

1. It would be helpful if you'd type individual replies (or at least note the names of the users to whom you're responding). T-rex implied that you were using the 800x600 display resolution, but someone reading the above might assume that you were addressing one person.

2. I wasn't criticising your definition of "balance." I was noting that it apparently differed from others' definition (to explain why there appeared to be some confusion).

3. Who said that it was "impossible to balance the page under both definitions"? Again, what you (or I) see is not what everyone sees.

For me, the actual main page's columns currently are fairly balanced (by my definition), with just a small amount of excess space at the bottom of the On this day... section [screen capture]. In the proposed layout, the heading bars line up, but a large amount of excess space is present at the bottom of both the On this day... section and the Today's featured article section [screen capture]. —David Levy 13:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so in others words both layouts would be more or less the same in pro's and con's, couldnt we set up one of those Support/Oppose/Neutral votes to see what a general opinion on this is, because so far only a handful of people have talked about it. With you, David Levy, and I presenting most of the arguments.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 14:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You want more opinions? OK. I read websites in column format like this, which frequently fail to have the headers lining up. I don't find this a problem at all, and would support keeping the two column format rather than switching to a four quarters format. Because the main section of the Wikipedia main page is a compact set of 4 roughly equal units in two columns, it sometimes appears that the aim is to have the headers balanced, but as David points out, it isn't. The aim is to minimise wasted space at the bottom of the columns. PS. Who is the "you" you are responding to? Carcharoth 16:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Several cons have been cited. Are there pros other than the aligned headings?

2. Please see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion.

3. I am David Levy, so I share Carcharoth's confusion as to the identity of "you." —David Levy 16:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Trying to get things neat & tidy on the main page is good, but don't complain too much when the two sides on the main page are off by just a little bit on one computer monitor. It's probably fine on another. It depends on font size, resolution, screen width.... etc. As long as the two sides are not grossly unbalanced, giving Wikipedia a sloppy appearance, it's fine. Don't fix things when things ain't broke. --74.14.17.10 18:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Polling may not be a substitute for discussion, but it is an easy method for people to give their opinion without flying off on tangents, such as people’s apparent inability to recognise the use of a comma, as a short pause in a sentence, instead of just a mechanic to list elements, which I’m afraid, is not its only use, and yes, I’m well aware that a semicolon can serve the same purpose. The other pros are that the apparently unavoidable space that exists is split amongst the sections instead of one side having a large space, irrelevant of what side it is to each user, because as I've said already I view Wikipedia on several different monitors throughout my day and am perfectly aware that it appears differently from user to user . Pro number three is that the page would be guaranteed some geometric conformity and hence would be more aesthetically pleasing. Now, before anyone decides to introduce another irrelevant tangent, I referred to my second mentioned pro as number three, because David Levy already mentioned one above.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 20:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

1. The only "tangents" are yours. You could have resolved the honest misunderstanding by politely explaining that "you, David Levy" was a single entity. (Better yet, you could have avoided the ambiguity by instead placing "David Levy" in parentheses. Actually, given the fact that you correctly indented and addressed only one person, there was no need to specify my name at all.)

2. The excess space is not unavoidable. We usually are able to reasonably minimize it for most users, and the proposed change would render this considerably more difficult. Additionally, under the current layout, it's impossible for more than one section to contain excess space, and said space always appears at the bottom of a column. The proposed layout would enable two sections (one of which always would be on top) to contain excess space.

3. You say that you're "perfectly aware that it appears differently from user to user," but you claimed that the proposed layout was "balanced under both definitions, wheres the actualy main pages is still unbalanced on the left side" (as though this applied to everyone).

4. As I noted, previous discussion resulted in the consensus that the current design is more aesthetically pleasing (because it reduces the likelihood of wasted space and pairs two thematically-related sections in each column). —David Levy 21:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Im afraid that tangent would be yours, not mine, I had no part to play in you "honest misunderstanding" other then that I wrote the source material.

2. Ive already admitted that space would still exist, but under the proposed layout, that space would be cut in half by the division, so the "minimised amount" would appear even smaller.

3. I've also already said that I view Wikipedia under different aspects everday, so any opinions I give on its current appearance is based on a common element between these viewings, not a single viewing. The monitor I mentioned above is the one I use to respond to these messages.

4. The new layout would help minimise wasted space for the reason mentioned in point 2. Here is an example: [[2]] and [[3]]
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 11:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Misunderstanding what someone wrote and inquiring as to its meaning isn't a "flying off on a tangent." Berating the misunderstander for failing to understand is.

2. At best, some of the excess space would be shifted upward (resulting in additional scrolling for some users). At worst, the amount of excess space would be greatly increased.

3. And yet, you're continually citing characteristics that don't apply to everyone. You even claimed that "the left hand side of the page is longer then the right, a good 99.9% of the time."

4. Again, the new design would not help to minimize wasted space. It would hinder the effort.

In your examples (in which your red box significantly overshoots the actual excess space on the current main page), some of the excess space has been shifted upward (thereby pushing down the Did you know... section). To eliminate said space, we would need to edit two sections (instead of one). We'd have to remove text from In the news or add text to Today's featured article (most likely the former) and remove text from On this day.. or add text to Did you know... (neither of which is something that we like to do). Under the current layout, we could simply remove text from In the news (as I just did). For the reverse situation (in which the right-hand column contains excess space), we can simply add text to In the news. This is the usual course of action (because it's very easy to add/remove ITN items without interfering with the main page's overall format).

In my examples (current layout/proposed layout), the suggested change creates a large amount of excess space (because the diagonal offset has been eliminated). Instead of having a fairly balanced main page (under typical settings), we have two sections that need to be addressed. Instead of doing nothing, we have to edit two sections (including one that we prefer not to substantially modify between replacements).

And as I explained, the consensus was that the current design is more aesthetically pleasing. Even setting aside the issue of excess space, it features two color-coded columns, each of which contains two thematically-related sections. Under the proposed layout, that would be lost. —David Levy 17:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The current version is efficient. It's informative, easy to read, and organized; I see no reason to change it. · AndonicO ^Talk 14:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Abdullah Gül

can we get his ugly mug off the main page? please? --24.252.52.108 16:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

First, it is not up to you whether his picture is "ugly" or not. Second, please request a feasible replacement if you are really dissatisfied with the picture. —METS501 (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What you need to do is get some supermodels involved in an international incident, preferably in bikinis... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Simply because you feel that the picture is "ugly" is not good a good enough reason to remove his picture. The news still happened, and he was still involved, and we still need an image in the section. Suggest an alternative if you want a change. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget we need a photographer there to take a free photo. And let's throw in some hunks as well for all the straight chicks and gay guys Nil Einne 08:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This talk page seems to unfailingly get a complaint whenever a picture (invariably an ugly one, of course) is on the main page for "too long" :) Gracenotes^T § 00:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could have Alberto R. Gonzales? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Why don't we have a contest: which image, when displayed on the Main Page, will bring protests here the quickest? (Besides fair use, advertising, or tubgirl.) Gracenotes^T § 01:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No porn pics, please. --74.14.16.66 04:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That wouldn't be very weird. I've suggested a DYK which illustrated the DYK section with the a page (with pictures) of a book of erotic fiction, and History of erotic depictions was featured on the main page last year. Atropos 05:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

How about grotesque porn photos that happen to be copyvios as well ? --74.14.16.66 05:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. International models in an international incident. Sounds like Miss World gone ugly!!!Tourskin 07:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

All I can say about such a contest is "THINK OF THE DOMIKUN!!!" Nil Einne 09:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought people were complaining about the person being ugly? How is replacing the image with an even uglier one going to help? Nil Einne 08:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder (beer holder). --Monotonehell 13:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, Miss world gone wrong will still have models fighting, so it wnt be that ugly.Tourskin 21:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it might start World War III, and that would be ugly. ;-) · AndonicO ^Talk 14:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

At least switch it to that Hurricane Felix...Crazy 17:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

ditch abdulah. He's been on the front page for like 5 days and its annoying and ugly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.30.68.49 (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You say he is ugly. But there are some Turks out that would die for him. Its there job, like his bodyguard. Some would even love him, and certainly some out there would not find him ugly (lets see, his wife? if hes married). Not me though - I can't stand him, no offence to him. So you see, wikipedia is not a one man show so we can't remove it cos someone says its ugly. What if the ugliest person in the world was involved in a big international incident - do we not post a pic?Tourskin 02:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Its really just the length of time hes been there; nearly a whole week! We should switch it as soon as more news occurs...Crazy 07:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Gül's election is by now old news. Let's also see what else is new and fit to print. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.196.108 (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You're just keeping him up there out of spite, aren't you? Marshall Stax 20:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol I say he should stay there until people get so fed up that this discussion gets ugly.Tourskin 21:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Who cares if some stupid turks would die for him? How many turks use Wikipedia? Stuff all! What's wrong with Hurricane Felix? What's so imprtant about this guy? --Simpsons fan 66 23:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's now a full week. People have stopped taking newspapers because news on the Net is supposed to be more up to date. He's not ugly; it's a decent enough pic. Turkey right now is a vital place in European and Middle-Eastern affairs; and any shift away from the historic secularism is a big deal. But it's a week! How about Steve Fosset being missing? How about Rafsanjani heading the Ass'y of Experts? Hasn't anything of note (and with a pic) happened in the world in the past week?

Well when you get turks saying "OMFG THIS ARTICLEIS ANTI TURKISH CURSE WIKIPEDIA!!" on an article you make, u try not to aggrevate them. Anyways the puc has changed - yeah!Tourskin 01:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Halaluyah, so long abdullah. That almost rhymes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.51.103.64 (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sayonara, Abdullah. This rhymes better... --74.13.124.222 06:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the first rhyme. Pronounced like "Ah-leh-loo-yah! so long ab-du-lah!" lolTourskin 07:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

To maintain consistent quality in all our featured article, I propose that every featured article automatically be re-reviewed every year to make sure that it maintains signicantly high enough standards to keep its position —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

We have over 1,500 featured articles, roughly 5 a day every day, with that number increasing all the time. Reviewing them all regularly seems a tad Sisyphean to me. Would you care to volunteer for the task? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah and im sure other people'd do it too, to maintain the quality and integrity of this establishment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 11:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Currently, users may post a request on Wikipedia:Featured article review, but no, there is no current system in place yet where all 1,500+ featured articles are posted there automatically each year. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hence why its a suggestion. I believe that all featured articles, instead of those that have been noticed should be reviewed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Right now, there is about 1 FAR started each day. As of this post, there are 1570 Featured articles, so far this year, there have been an average of 63 articles promoted each month. With 4 more months left, there may be 252 more articles promoted this year. if we start this process next year, we will review about 1800 articles which corresponds to 5 article reviews beginning every day. If each FAR lasts 5 days (and they can often take much longer), there may be 25 reviews going on at any given time. If the average number of FAs added every month stays constant (and it actually seems to be increasing), the year after next we will need to start 7 reviews every day, the year after that, 9 reviews (which would correspond to 45 in progress at any given time). Yearly reviews would quickly become backlogged. Mr.Z-man 22:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well its not like there aren't enough of us —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are too few. Look at Peer Review: more people are desperately needed. But of the 5,500,000 users, only a handful are active, and only a select few have the time/patience/skill to review articles frequently. · AndonicO ^Talk 14:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

But featured articles are kept in a balance because as many are demoted as are promoted, so it seems alright to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What gave you that idea? While some FAs are demoted, more are promoted than demoted. Believe me, a full review every year would not be practical. One thing you could do, though, is look over every FA just to see if you think it needs a full review. You could probably get a group of people together. Atropos 19:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol if it aint broken don't fix it! Sorry but someone just said that cliche to me. Besides, The Gas company does not go around every home to check if everything is fine. It waits for a call from the customers if they need it. Just like with FA's. No need to review 'em unless they are needed to be reviewed.Tourskin 18:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• But the system is flawed, a featured article was shown recently was not upto standard, and if you go onto the featured content page and have lots of random selections there are dozens of articles that arent quite upto speed and thats puttin it mildly. That sort of quality was acceptable when the project was first inaugurated, but now that we're six years in, i think we can expect significantly higher standards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well then I guess we should be more careful with what goes up as TFA - ??Tourskin 02:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Or, as is the point im trying to make be more rigorous in selecting featured articles and be even more rigorous in ensuring they maintain their featured status —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadseys (talk • contribs) 02:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If there is a sustainable method for doing so, then great but checking every FA after a time period is not going to work as stated above. I have suggestion. We could just check the oldest FAs of wikipedia. Ignoring previous FA reviews, the oldest FAs were created when wikipedia was new and requirements for passing an FA review were less strict. But this is only a short term plan. As more FAs are made, it will become more difficult for us to make them good.Tourskin 20:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivial suggestion

To make it more clear whats being pictured, can we have the word pictured in bold text like this: pictured on the Main Page. I think it would catch a readers eye and so quickly inform them as to what is pictured rather than just having to read thru all the text. Tourskin 22:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

We've had this discussion twice before that I can remember. Here's how it went both times.

• Bold the text?
• Move the picture?
• Put the pictured item at the top?
• Put the pictured item at the top / bottom in a background highlighted div, and do the same with the picture.
• Several demonstrations followed
• "If it ain't broke", wins the argument.

I gave up. --Monotonehell 09:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Just bold the word picture so that people know from what sentence its from. It aint broken but that doesn't mean it can't use an upgrade. Tourskin 18:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I happen to think that it is broken, since enough people regularly complain about it. --Monotonehell 21:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well so did I initially but i thought that the "it aint broke" argument wins. You are right, it is broke, hence my argument. Making it bold will make it more apparent, will quickly allow a reader who his reading the main page to see what fact or event links with the displayed image. Tourskin 22:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

So can any admins please tell me if making the words "pictured" in bold not be any good?Tourskin 06:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd support bolding the word "pictured". Having seen an interesting picture it currently takes too long (ok, it's a second or two, but it feels awkward) to find the item that refers to it. I think the current concept is fine (keep the layout, and annotate the relevant entry) but the annotation could be made to draw the eye a little more. PeteVerdon 18:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I support always having the blurb that matches the picture at the top, since that's what people are expecting to annotate the picture. Failing that, I support this proposal to highlight the blurb that matches the picture. Right now it looks like Hurricane Felix is a mustachioed man who will lead Turkey. --Sean 00:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This IMO is the most sensible way of handling it. But we've failed to gain consensus on this in the past. --Monotonehell 03:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What does IMO stand for? Lol.Tourskin 04:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In My Opinion.. What does Lol stand for? ;) --Monotonehell 12:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Lots of laughs. A very vital word in the world of text messaging and / or instant chatting online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tourskin (talk • contribs) 20:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure I've always heard/used it as lots of laughs (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/LOL) though I took the question to be in jest anyway. 172.209.158.180 23:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I was joking (note the emoticon). Besides, LOL stands for Laughs Out Loud. Which ironically hardly anyone actually does when they type it. --Monotonehell 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No it can mean also lots of laughs. Thats what my friends told me when I use to chat with the online. Besides, its not official. By the way, does this :) mean emotion? This may sound stupid but I had no idea why people did it. Anyways back to the main point. Bolding is good and its not like its such a controversial decision. Tourskin 23:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your friends are misinformed and no editing the articles to reflect your POV ;). Back in the dark ages of dial up internet before the Web and BBS chat before that these shortcuts were developed to save on fingers. --Monotonehell 05:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hah! and lol. U can't quote from wikipedia thats cheating! Besides, its a matter of perspective, U didnt make it up and the person who did didn't actually specify now did they? I am having lots of laughs. Besides, laughs out loud is not in the first person form so doesn't make sense to tell someone " oh loughs out loud". Tourskin 06:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well when it was first introduced it was widely know that it stood exclusively for Laughs Out Loud. It's only relatively recently when emoticons and abbreviations moved from BBS chat and IRC to Instant Messaging systems that these backronyms have emerged. I'd add a call for citations but I AM an authority on this ;)

Meanwhile, back on topic... --Monotonehell 10:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Position of search box and searches

I think the search box sahould be moved to a more accessible position near the top right hand corner of the page or at least have the cursor already placed in the box just like google. also the search function is crappy and definetly needs to be upgraded so that it recommends pages and suggests alternative spellings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.232.118 (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to your google comment, this was discussed about a week ago and is also discussed in the FAQ, see Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why doesn't the cursor appear in the search box, like with Google? Nil Einne 03:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the recommended pages thing. As for moving the search box, thats a new idea but to an old and seemingly perpetual argument regarding what the main page should look like. Personally I think its position is fine but its ability to find recommended pages is something that I think should be looked at. Tourskin 08:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article - Hamlet Chicken Fire

I'd love to know how this article made it on the Featured list. I found it confusing and poorly written in places, with some hints of POV thrown in. There are much better "fire disaster" articles around, like Our Lady of the Angels School Fire. --Jquarry 02:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If you think it should be de-listed, there's WP:FAR. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted to featured article status on March 20, 2007 (see the nomination discussion). However, the article may have significantly changed in the past seven months – especially now that it is on the main page, which tends to attract a number of both new users and vandals. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Ok, thanks. I didn't realise there could be such a time differential between promotion and listing. But I don't think the article should be de-listed :P --Jquarry 03:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles are listed when they are promoted, because the two words mean the same thing (they appear on this list). They just aren't put on the main page the day they are promoted. Atropos 03:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) You may be slightly confused about what 'listing' means. A FA is listed as an FA from the moment it is promoted. Becoming the TFA however is a different matter and some FAs have a year or more without being the TFA, it depends on many factors as ultimately determined by Raul. Given that the rate of growth of FAs is AFAIK greater then one a day this isn't likely to change anytime soon. TFA is really somewhat seperate from the FA process, the only connection is that TFAs must be FAs of course. Being a TFA should be thought of as a bonus for an FA more then anything else. And there's nothing intrinsicly different between an FA which has been TFA and one that hasn't; they're all FAs and if they don't meet the criteria they should be put up for FAR. BTW, the Our Lady article is not an FA, if you feel it meets the FA criteria then you should consider nominating it Nil Einne 04:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded an adjusted jpeg version of the cooker image here: Image:Imperial Foods Cooker 1 JPG.jpg if anyone wants to use it. Ian Dunster 07:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol I have never seen so many shortened words. My brain is going to FAxplode!Tourskin 08:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

PCMCIA: People Can't Manage Computer Industry Abreviations --Monotonehell 08:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Your head is going to featured article explode? Nil Einne 15:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a case of THEGS! Ian Dunster 21:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats right Nil. My head will explode and the content of the blown up brain will be Featured Article content, of the highest quality.Tourskin 02:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Just like an exploding whale! :) — TKD::Talk 02:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Close. It will have more stink but less grime. Tourskin 06:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Links that link to redirects

I noticed several links on the main page that lead to redirects... hurricane goes to tropical cyclone, MWe goes to watt, Swedes goes to Swedish people, and western classical music goes to classical music. Scepia 08:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken. 17Drew 08:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a silly guideline. I wholeheartedly disagree. --Nricardo 02:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually (and its documented in a linked page), its a very good guideline. A redirect link would have to be clicked 10,000 times to cost as much bandwidth as the edit made to fix it. Its simply rather wasteful. Atropos 03:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I was unable to follow the rationalization on that page. I just don't like to see "redirected from" at the top of the page and the "wrong" URL in the address bar. I have self-diagnosed OCD, so it's a reasonable accommodation for people like me. --Nricardo 10:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:General disclaimer and Wikipedia:Disturbing or upsetting content. 17Drew 16:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

:-) --Nricardo 16:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that the primary point of the guideline is not to fix links that aren't broken. There's nothing wrong with piping links in the first place and from memory of the last discussion policy in this area is somewhat unclear. Nil Einne 17:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a discussion on whether or not it is appropriate to change [[direct|redirect]] to [[redirect]], but it didn't generate consensus either way. On one hand, some like to be linked directly to the page, but others find easily reading the code more important than linking directly. 17Drew 22:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What? The main reason for not fixing some redirects is that one day the redirect might be turned into its own article. Wrong spellings need changing, obviously. There is also the issue of preserving original usage. Changing [[direct|redirect]] to [[direct]] can be misleading when the source (eg. a historic list of medal winners) used the form A. W. Person, instead of Anonymous W. Person. Carcharoth 14:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that MWe doesn't link solely to Watt but to a heading in Watt Nil Einne 10:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Byron Plant

Can someone change the "did you know?" about the Byron Nuclear Plant to mak eit clearer that it produces 2300MWe average power. I have done this in the article but I dont know how to on the main page (probably I cant). I think it makes it clear that were talking about the average power produced rather than the total energy. If you disagree then please say!

John CaptinJohn 10:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

More admins watch the Errors section at the top of this page. You might do better moving this there. --Monotonehell 13:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

ro.wiki

Please add the Romanian Wikipedia in the section "Wikipedias with more than 75,000 articles" on the Main Page. Thanks. --Mocu 20:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting very close 74,467 according to Meta. --Monotonehell 21:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No. We have 75.000+. See ro:Special:Statistics --Mocu 22:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah okay, Meta's a bit behind. --Monotonehell 23:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Done by RockMFR. - BanyanTree 23:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Greatest achievement in what war?

Also not exactly an error. But the statement about three Australians' "....greatest military achievement of the war" should make clear, I think, it is referring to WW1. In the article itself this is clear. Pukkie 05:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

But the word war was linked to world war 1 was it not?Tourskin 23:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

Could someone help me on the subject of templates and their function in Wikipedia articles? Just a general question about their purpose. Even a link would be fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.79.27 (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Bot 75.70.79.27 06:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A template is a page who's content can be "transcluded" into another page. So if the template said "I am Sam," including the template in a page would produce "I am Sam." This is usually used to create navigational and informational boxes that need to be relatively consistent across a large number of pages. Rather than copy the long code over and over, you just type a certain word and you're done. Atropos 07:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Template namespace. In the future, general questions about Wikipedia should be posted at the help desk. -Elmer Clark 08:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a pain, but are these questions suppose to be asked here?Tourskin 02:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hispanic as a noun

In the "Did You Know?" section, the following is one of the bullets:

...that Olga D. González-Sanabria, a Puerto Rican scientist and inventor, is the highest ranking Hispanic at NASA Glenn Research Center?

Hispanic is an adjective, and in my experience the use of racial or ethnic adjectives as nouns is derogatory.—Kbolino 08:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster, dictionary.com, and Wiktionary all list it as a noun as well as an adjective. None indicate that its use as a noun is any more offensive than its use as an adjective. Also, your statement "in my experience the use of racial or ethnic adjectives as nouns is derogatory" confuses me...I can't think of any example of this, although there are examples of the opposite, such as "Jew" as an adjective being offensive. What exactly were you referring to? (As an aside, "Hispanic," whether offensive or not, is certainly in common use and in fact is the official term used by the US Census Bureau, and therefore perfectly appropriate for use on Wikipedia.) -Elmer Clark 08:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hispanic is as about as neutral as we can get. We don't need political incorrectness leaving us without any descriptive and yet neutral words.Tourskin 23:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I was mistaken. I honestly had no idea that the use of "Hispanic" as a noun was not derogatory. In my experience--and this may be a regional thing, or simply some gross misinterpretation on my part--all ethnic names used as nouns are derogatory, including Black, Hispanic, and Jew. It has always been (or seemed) appropriate to use them as adjectives (with nouns like person or individual) instead.—Kbolino 05:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is flawed in oh so many ways:

• Jew is a religion, not a people. There are Israelites, and most of them are Jews. However, not all Jews are Israelites (e.g. the Khazars) and not all Israelites are Jews (some are Christian and perhaps Muslim too).

• Black is seen as a derogatory term because Black people are not ethnically related. Black people are classed not because they are ethnically related but because they came from the same huge continent of Africa (its like comparing all people from Asia) and have dark skin. Its in the same class as white people. You don't say that "Einstein is the smartest white guy to have lived". You do however, say that he was the smartest German guy to have lived.

• In my personal experience, Hispanic is a word very commonly used to associate the peoples whose culture and language originate from Spainm or Hispania. These people are consequently known as Hispanics. I have asked people if they were hispanic and they smile and say yes. An equadorian friend of mine didn't mind using the word Hispanic.

So you see, unlike Black people, or Jewish people or even say Christian people, Hispanic people have a lot more in common with themselves than Black people - Most Hispanics speak Spanish, practice Christianity (RC) and have a mediterranean culture. Black people can be Muslim or Christian (besides others), Ethiopian or South African (relatively speaking unrelated) or have any kind of culture.

Furthermoore, there is no "nicer" and "efficient" alternative to describe the people who share a common language, religion and culture and even background.

Respectfully,

Tourskin 06:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

100 most viewed articles

When I click on the number of articles made (the number now is 1,991,000 approxiamatley) the page which comes up exclaims MySQL error...I had tried to view it yesterday and now today; same thing happened. Do you know if this is my problem or yours? If it IS mine just give me a shout on how to fix it... LOTRrules 19:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The toolserver is broken. Again. Unlike the main site, keeping it running appears not to be a high priority at the moment, which is a shame -- 86.139.86.174 20:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that a disk broke, and the toolserver has only three servers to run a lot on. They cannot easily switch to another DB server. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

CIA Edits?

Why have the CIA been changing things on wikipedia and censoring a lot? Just type it in the BBC website and look what comes up! LOTRrules 19:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the main page. Besides that from what I can see the changes made were inconsequential or vandalism and were almost definitely made by some low level hack. If the CIA really has a campaign to edit wikipedia we won't be able to find out about it simply by looking at IPs. Nil Einne 19:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This is pump material, and should not be posted on this talkpage. --74.13.124.222 06:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Today's featured picture" for September 6, 2007

Today's featured picture is Image:Male Lion and Cub Chitwa South Africa Luca Galuzzi 2004.JPG. I feel that this is a gruesome picture. Is it really necessary to have such a gruesome picture on the Main_Page? Should the main page not be for family viewing? JRSpriggs 00:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. --Boricuæddie 00:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And you could see images just as bad (video actually, in high-defintion) on the Discovery channel. Mr.Z-man 00:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Gruesome? If ur a vegetarian, or a vegan, then fine, but if u like me, love a good juicy steak at Fridays, then u have nothing to complain about. Besides, its educational. Tourskin 02:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Gruesome is subjective, but either way, Wikipedia is not censored or in anyway tailored for families or for children. Useight 03:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I speak for all vegetarians, but I have absolutely no problem with images of animals eating each other in the wild. I think there might be reason to complain if TGI Friday's started serving Cape Buffalo though... Hammer Raccoon 12:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Children can see such images in BBC's wild cats diary that use to come on Sunday afternoon till evenings. Or any random David Attenborough documentary. So I don't see the image as unfriendly to families or children. In fact, wildlife documentaries are excellent programs for the family to watch. Obviously I've gone of a tangent again. That, and wikipedia is not censored. But then again, we don't excactly put up pornographic images on the main page do we?Tourskin 03:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If some good pornographic image reaches the featured picture level, I see no problem in putting it in the main page. But, it's hard to imagine some porn that can qualify for that... wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 13:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia passes 200,000

Another milestone for WP: 200,000 articles --Camptown 08:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

поздравления русский Wikipedia! Another 50,000 and you'll move up a rung on the Main Page ladder. How's the stub to GA ratio? --Monotonehell 10:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Obituaries

Recently, the death of Ingmar Bergman was ignored on the main page. The item was certainly nominated for ITN, but was considered ineligible according to the ITN criteria. The same thing is about to happen today, when Luciano Pavarotti probably fails to meet the same criteria. However, the main page basically consists of two columns. How about letting the section "Today's featured picture" (in the bottom of the page) share the page's full width with a new section called "Recent deaths", featuring, say, two or three items? The nomination process could be administered like ITN in order to guarantee a minimum standard of quality. --Camptown 11:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that wikipedia should be concerned with the deaths of notable people that they put every one on the front page. This isn't wikideath. Capuchin 11:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)