Jump to content

Talk:Main Page

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.186.217.199 (talk) at 23:37, 14 April 2007 (→‎Wikiprojects). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purge page cache

Template:Main Page discussion footer

23:28, Monday, August 12, 2024 (UTC)

Main page error reports

To report an error you have noticed on the current main page or tomorrow's main page please add it to the appropriate section below. You can do this by pressing the [edit] button to the right of the appropriate below section's heading. Also, please sign your post using four tildes (~~~~)

Shortcuts

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 23:28 on 12 August 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 or determined not to be an error, or the item has been 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)[reply]

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

The restaurant founded with only 3,000 pesos was not the Ling Nam but was the Wa Yan restaurant which was founded five years earlier in a different place. That was a separate business with different partners and staff and it was sold off and so has a separate history. The only connection seems to be one of the partners. So, this is not a significant fact about the subject topic and so violates WP:DYKGRAT which states that we should "avoid hooks that are primarily about an incident the subject is only tangentially related to".

Note that this was pointed out when the hook first tried to claim that the fact was about the Ling Nam. When this falsehood was detected, the hook was fudged with the "predecessor" addition. The problem seemed to be that the nominator was not the author of the article and so didn't fully understand the topic. The actual author said that "This DYK is not true" and so is not culpable.

Note also that 3,000 pesos was worth over a thousand US$ back in 1945 and this seems a reasonable amount of capital for such a venture then. So, it's an unremarkable fact about a different restaurant and we shouldn't distract our readers with such trivia. I spent some time drilling down on this hook when I wondered what it meant by "predecessor" and feel that this is a wild goose chase contrary to the spirit of WP:EASTEREGG.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Friday's FL

(August 16)

Monday's FL

(August 12, today)
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.

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

Main page general discussion

Unprotect Main Page

Please unprotect the main page 62.14.150.8 15:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why? As we dont want vandalism on the Main Page so that is why it's protected. Theres not much to change anyway since its split into articles in a different area. AxG ۝۝۝҈ ►talk►guests 15:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the fact that it is automatically updated per transcluded pages and variables ({{Wikipedia:Featured Article/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}).  ~Steptrip 15:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shh! It's obviously a vandal trying to learn how to vandalise the Main Page. Feed them disinformation! Carcharoth 16:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yall some nerds up in dis piece —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.115.251.52 (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The page is cascadingly (if that's even a word) protected, so if he or she is a vandal, there is no way that he or she could vandalize pages transcluded onto the main page.  ~Steptrip 16:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have to type in the "super-password" into the searchbox, which Jimbo Wales gives to his most trusted users. Then, you get a big red button that says "Are you sure you want to edit the Main Page?". If you click it, you can edit it (but only you, because it reads the user's IP address). Once you make the edit, it takes effect (but it isn't recorded in history, and can only be seen in a special log, which is only accessable using the "super-password"). That's why they say things like {{CURRENTMONTH}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}, etc., to fool new users. MISDISINFORMATION COMPLETE · AO Talk 18:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pedantically, misinformation is different from disinformation... Carcharoth 00:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed; thank you. :-) · AO Talk 12:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't listen to AO. The correct way to edit the main page is simple. To edit the main page you need to follow these steps:
  • Take off all your clothes
  • Get a friend, parent or whatever to take a photo of you editing wikipedia naked. This photo must be at least 1500x1000 pixels. (Editing the page Naked will extend your editing capability by 1 minutes but any other page is fine)
  • Upload said found to the wikimedia commons under a license of you choice
  • Go to the sandboxmake a sandbox in your userpage and put your photo there
  • Repeat the above step 12 times whenif the photo gets changed or leave it there for 12 hours, whichever comes sooner
  • Once you've done this, come back and click on view source. You will see a message on your screen for about 1 second. It will give you the name of a page you must edit. If you productively edit this page within 5 seconds you will now be able to edit the main page! If you miss either of this you will have to start all over again from step one (including a new photo)
  • Be aware that if at any time you vandalise wikipedia or try to pass off a photo of someone else as you, you will be banned from editing the main page for life x 100
  • Good luck!
Nil Einne 13:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC) (I re-read the secret document Jimbo gave me and I made a few mistakes which I have correct Nil Einne 13:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Hmm... I know this discussion is cold, but wouldn't it be awesome if the Welcome to Wikipedia box said :"everyone can edit - even this very page!" or "Click here to edit this very page?" This would really reinforce the idea of Wikipedia's editability. Maybe: somehow protect the current content of the page, and add a box containing edits at the bottom? I realise no-one would ever agree to this - the chances of vandalism, profanity etc. being posted there are 100%. But it would be pretty cool, wouldn't it? Goldfritter 07:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest this discussion to be archived in WP:BJAODN. I was tempted to edit the Main Page by means of the procedure proposed by Nil Einne, but I cannot find an appropriate free license for my nudity ("free as in free speech, not as in free beer" [1]), and I am not fond of others' publishing derivative works from it. Rjgodoy 07:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you don't fully embrace the wiki way then you don't exactly deserve to be able to edit the main page do you? Personally I recommend you release your content into the public domain... Nil Einne 07:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I object the procedure, per WP:3RR. Since WP:Sandbox is not listed in the "exceptions" section there, then 3RR applies and if I repeat the step 12 times, it count as 12 reverts and I'll be blocked from editing "for up to 24 hours" or longer — because of "aggravated violations" (3x4=12). By the time my block expires, the "Today's featured article" will be "Yesterday's featured article". Rjgodoy 07:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can do this in your own sandbox, Rjgodoy, a subpage of your userpage. You can go 300RR and won't get blocked. :-) Happy editing. Hope this helps. --PFHLai 11:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apoligies I just re-checked the secret 'how to edit the main page document' that User:Jimbo Wales sent me and in fact you're supposed to do this on a seperate sandbox subpage of your user page as PFHLai suggested. In fact, it is not required that you do 12 reverts, simply leave it up for 12 hours or 12 reverts whichever is first... Nil Einne 13:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Immortalized on BJAODN, per Rjgodoy's suggestion. See "How to edit the main page". Share and enjoy!  :-) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 17:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These folks are just BS-ing for laughs. Take it easy, Grand Slam 7. --74.14.20.27 02:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there'd be more justification for admin protecting the mainpage if it was finally moved off the article space to a WP:page. Not that the WP:pages are more protected, but they really aren't part of the encyclopedia's content. falsedef 23:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of the main page will be justified no matter how it's named. And I don't think any namespace will prevent people who want to test out the main page from asking. ShadowHalo 13:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, as far as I can see, the Main Page is the only indefinite admin protected page on the article space. It's treated far differently from any other article, plus it's not even an article. Policy has allowed it to happen because the Main Page became an exception, but as it stands its against this fundamental rule set by Jimbo: "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred, which makes sense on the article space. falsedef 19:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe it should be in a different namespaces, that's fine. All I'm saying is that because of the nature of the page, WP:IAR applies and we really don't need to worry about trying to justify protecting the page. ShadowHalo 02:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on Page Load

Why doesn't the Search box have focus after the page loads? Could someone add the appropriate javascript to the page header? 

<script type="text/javascript">
    function focusSearchBox() {
        document.getElementById("searchInput").focus();
    }
    function addLoadEvent(fn) {
        if (window.addEventListener) window.addEventListener("load", fn, false);
        else if (window.attachEvent) window.attachEvent("onload", fn);
    }
    addLoadEvent(focusSearchBox)
</script>

++Arx Fortis 06:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the FAQ.-gadfium 06:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK...so how about putting focus on the item (or some other "placeholder") just prior to the Search box. This would allow the arrow keys to function as expected, and would only require a single 'TAB' to move it to the search box. (Indcidentally, if the focus were in the Search box, the same action would allow the arrow keys to work.) ++Arx Fortis 07:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Wikipedia has its own onload function, called addOnloadHook. Great job with the javascript, though :) GracenotesT § 16:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good question for WP:VP (technical). --74.14.22.20 18:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could set the tab index for the box to a custom value. However, most browsers recognize the first tab to point to the browser's address bar - do we want to mess with that behavior? Either way, it is doable server-side (which is faster), so the question now is whether it should be done... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would only enhance the experience of those who find out about it. So the question would be; since it only helps a few, would it harm any? --Monotonehell 04:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I for one think the search is too hard to find for someone who hasn't been on Wikipedia before. If the focus is in that box, people might not realize where the focus is at all. But then again, what difference does that make? I don't know: ignore my comments, except for my suggestion that the search box should be big and front and center on our main page. —METS501 (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is an alternative main page that is just a search box. See Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (Simple Search Box). Carcharoth 13:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the search box at www.wikipedia.org. Carcharoth 13:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I've found useful is to just highlight the search box in the skin I use. See User:EvilCat/monobook.css. Maybe something more subtle can be done for the entire site? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I love this idea. I always wanted the focus to go straight to the search box. Ostrolphant 04:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find this terrible. I'll gladly personally stay in control of what my browser does. Using the onLoad function to direct the user to a text box is annoying; just because it's possible doesn't mean it should be done. —msikma (user, talk) 20:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one is hurt by this. If you don't like being in the text both right away because you type to find the you just press tab, if it is because you like to be in the address bar, you have your hand on the mouse big deal. But if one wants to search there is no one button to get into the seach field as there is one to get out of it. I like to load the front page and begin a search. It hurts almost no one and helps those who enjoy this feature. It is in the end a positive improvement Ostrolphant 18:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Big Deal??? how about if you want to search you just get YOUR hand on YOUR mouse. What about people who have the main page as their home page? They will often want to go straight to the address bar - not the search box. This bugs the hell out of me about Google - I'd rather it DIDN'T focus. 203.97.51.149 21:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for the main page

Don't you think the wikipedia mainpage should have a "Quote of the Day" section. Maybe also a litle section where it gives the birthdate and deathdate on that day of a famous person. tripleAAAbattery

Thanks for your ideas. Quotes are outside of Wikipedia's mandate, Our sister project Wikiquote serves that purpose. So probably no on the quote of the day. The On this day section occasionally includes similar birthdates of notable persons when they reach arbitrary milestones like "100 years ago Bob Famousguy was born". So both your suggestions are sort of covered already, sorry. :) But please do keep suggesting stuff you think would be a good idea. --Monotonehell 08:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of special birthdays of very famous people, does anyone want to see Leonhard Euler's 300th birthday on April 15th on MainPage ? Or Carolus Linnaeus's 300th on May 23rd ? --PFHLai 10:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But surely they would be there anyway? In OTD? Goldfritter
It's not, I'm afraid that I'm editing inebriated tonight after at least two bottles of very good red and although I was tempted to replace the entry on Samuel Johnson better judgement took hold and I repented. I dunno if a "phamous physicist" and mathematician managing to leave the birth canal stacks up to a dictionary being published for the first time. Maybe on the day where he discovered something profound. I also think that my PC should have a Breathalyzer attached as only Firefox's spell checking add-on is saving me from major gaffes. Whee! --Monotonehell 13:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't you seen the ads? Don't drink and edit wikipedia! (although if it's a choice between driving and editing wikipedia, please edit wikipedia) Nil Einne 20:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There have been birthdays on OTD before, either the 100th or 300th I think. In the past, it was placed in the same part that lists holidays. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-05 23:45Z
Perhaps I should re-phrase my question: Would Leonhard Euler's 300th birthday qualify ? Or Carolus Linnaeus's 300th ? I hope these two scientists are famous enough for MainPage. Anymore suggestions ? --PFHLai (the guy who usually put special birthdays on MainPage) 19:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Previously I think I suggested "significant events commemorating anniversary" as a standard. See Linnaeus 2007 and Euler 2007. I would like to see these two get their deserved place on the MainPage this year.--Pharos 19:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about Euler's 300th birthday and so I would about any birthday of him (see Euler's identity), with , obviously. He is notable enough, and the article about him is very complete. Readers would be benefied if putting his birthday is put on OTD.. Rjgodoy 08:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FA would be better, but I don't know where discuss about it. Rjgodoy 08:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One can request for an article to be featured on a specific date here. The article 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · is scheduled for April 15th, this has to do with Euler already. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 08:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Euler's article was already the daily featured article on November 11 of last year, so I'm afraid it's too late for that.--Pharos 18:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not too late to work on Carolus Linnaeus, eh? --74.13.130.186 07:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've got a few more centennials for you, PFHLai. Garibaldi's 400th July 4 (Garibaldi 2007), Buffon's 300th September 7 (Buffon 2007), and Rumi's 800th September 30 (Rumi 2007, actually there are better ones, search "Rumi" and "800th").--Pharos 09:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great, Pharos! Thank you very much. And thanks to Brian for adding Euler to the April 15th SA/OTD template. --PFHLai 11:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have three outstanding articles that must be put as the featured article

1. Triple H

2. Stephen Colbert

3. CM Punk

PLEASE! consider my articles to be put as the featured article Cowboy Rocco22:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured articles are promoted based on quality, as outlined in Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. If you want to have these articles or another appear on the main page, they'll need to be worked to that standard of quality and then approved through the featured article candidacy process. — TKD::Talk 22:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Triple H in particular seems suspect quality wise. It's rated B class and has a 'lacks source' tag. The talk page also mentions editors often add week by week details. All in all sounds like it has a long way to go to become FA Nil Einne 22:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree those are good articles --Susan Walton 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suzie, it's amazing how similar your sig. is to Rocco's. Fascinating, really. 70.23.169.146 00:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really that amazing since they both got it from User talk:The Hybrid and have been talking about it amongst themselves. However I've still yet to see any explaination of how a B class article with a need's references tag can be a good article (which is somewhat irrelevant anyway since we're talking about featured articles) Nil Einne 06:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's sweet with the sigs, as if there was some more WikiLove 'tween the two. Anyhoo, maybe the first thing to do is to run those articles through peer review? Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 07:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen Colbert is sprotected because of the repeated vandalism. Hardly FA-worthy. And there aren't a lot of reliable sources at CM Punk, mostly forums, WWE pages and user pages. Corvus cornix 17:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh why did you criticize my credentials, 70.23.169.146, because of one misspelled word? And no-one's called me Suzie for years. Cowboy Rocco may be my neighbour but that's not why I back him up, also we're not dating or married, I think those are good articles. --Susan Walton 00:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, that was only on your talk page so please don't bring that here. Also, I think 70. was assuming your a sockpuppet of Rocco. It appears you're not, just a close friend. Nil Einne 15:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I suppose it would look like I was one of his account, after knowing each other since second grade, we think similarly. But just to clarify, Cowboy Rocco wouldn't extensively talk about wrestling, and then switch accounts, and do a little science work. Plus I should, but don't, write things in the edit summary box. --Susan Walton 19:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I didn't think you were a sockpuppet because it would be an incredibly stupid sockpuppet (or one that wants to get caught) to use the same sig. Mind you, we do get stupid sockpuppets... Nil Einne 19:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, add br:Degemer on Main Page. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.1.194.115 (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Because there are so many different Wikipedias and in order to avoid clutter, we limit the number of Wikipedias that appear on the Main Page. In order to appear on the English Wikipedia Main Page, a Wikipedia must have at least 50,000 articles (recently raised from 25,000 articles). Breton does not have 50,000 articles, so it would be giving undue attention to include it. —Cuiviénen 16:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly we should have a section for the newest of the new Wikipedia languages - the Wikipedia Main Page is, I think, one way for them to get exposure. There are other ways, but Main Page links could be important. Anyone up for working out how to have links to the 3 or 4 newest and fastest growing language Wikipedias? Carcharoth 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea but we'd need VERY objective rules for inclusion otherwise it would be a bun fight. --Monotonehell 11:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ITN

There should be something new in the ITN section; it's been about the shipwreck for about 5 days.  ~Steptrip 22:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop to WP:ITN/C and suggest something. Splash - tk 22:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No news is good news. --PFHLai 23:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On an unrelated issue, did I forget to tell you I crashed your car? ;) --Monotonehell 10:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's nothing. I crashed your luxury yacht. Carcharoth 11:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I don't care about my car or my yacht. Just don't touch my cottage. BTW, please feel free to update articles about my current guests there. It might be good enough for ITN. Cheers! :-) --PFHLai 12:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[[Image:Mir_reentry_photo.jpg|thumb|right|Is it a car? Is it a yacht? No, it's ''SuperLai'' and his cottage!]] Oops. I think the steering went a bit wrong... Carcharoth 12:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! More BJAODN materials! Excellent! --74.13.125.54 16:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So much for admins having to have at least half of a brain :P  ~Steptrip 23:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you don't need a brain to become an admin, Steptrip. ;-P
Seriously, please get more wikiarticles updated with news materials, or ITN will go stale. (Items that don't involve violence and natural disasters are somewhat preferred.) When you are done, please let us know at WP:ITN/C. Thanks. --PFHLai 00:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kurt Vonnegut has died, and it's not listed in the ITN section.. talk about stale news and lame policies.. Candymoan 15:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the ITN section should be renamed to "In the Olds". What's the point of it if it lists events from three weeks ago as current? 89.172.155.225 01:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wot? No complaints yet?

Maybe people can't see the gory details, or maybe they don't scroll down often enough? Anyway, here we go:

Sorry if anyone was eating. Carcharoth 13:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was, but I was eating raw fieldmouse, so it's OK. Er... you wanted a complaint? WAAA! The Main Page is bad! – Gurch 13:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So this is a complaint about the lack of complaints? Ugh... -Harmil 13:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poor vole... 89.120.193.125 13:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you provided a good oppurtunity for complaints... IT'S A VOLE NOT A FIELDMOUSE :-P Nil Einne 15:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wot? Do they taste any different? --74.13.125.54 16:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. Ask Gurch or the eagle perhaps Nil Einne 18:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No complaints because it's just a bit of 'harmless gore'. If it were two eagles or micevoles going at it tho (let alone a vole-eagle affair)... Nil Einne 15:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could be a lot worse. The hawk could be performing eye surgery on the fieldmouse. 69.95.50.15
Initially, the hawk was... --74.13.125.54 16:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I found the head of a mink in a flowerbed in my garden when I was 8. We never found the body. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was rather shocked the other day to find a headless rat lying on a suburban pavement. Now I think of it, I should carry my camera with me and take a photo next time! Carcharoth 16:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, I often have to bury headless or half eaten mice (with entrails sticking out) the cat doesn't finish. Of course, cleaning up the remains is better then trying to catch it when the cat loses it (these are all brought from the outside to inside). At least with birds usually only feathers are left. I don't have a digicam tho Nil Einne 18:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least the disgusting things outside of your houses are natural. If I were to take my camera outside and take pictures, Wikipedia would end up with Image:VomitFilledPizzaBoxOnStreetCorner.jpg and Image:ShufflesThePantslessHomelessMan.jpg. 130.49.16.58 18:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, hadn't logged in. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 18:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if that wasn't clear, that isn't outside my house but inside Nil Einne 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Hostages

The current "in the news" item on the British hostages reads poorly. It states: The 15 Royal Navy personnel accused of trespassing into Iranian waters return to the United Kingdom after a two-week detention. They were seized, not just accused. If the result was that they were released, then the cause should be that they were seized. If they just had been accused, then they would have have had charges dismissed. Barney Gumble 13:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What charges? They were simply detained for two week while the two governments yapped at each other. --74.13.126.99 14:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The part "The 15 Royal Navy personnel accused of trespassing into Iranian waters..." is the subject of the sentence and why they were in "a two-week detention". "[They]...return to the United Kingdom after a two-week detention." is what has occurred. One or the other would be half the story. --Monotonehell 14:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that they weren't accused, they were seized. Barney Gumble 23:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they weren't accused of trespassing, why were they seized ? I suppose we can say "seized for allegedly trespassing..." Is there a simpler way of saying the same thing ? --PFHLai 01:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Seized by Iran and and accused of...." ? "Seized on suspicion of..." "Seized by Iran who have accused them..." ??

Editing language

Hi, I had a question which I would greatly appreciate if someone could answer. Recently I made an edit to the Game Theory page, correcting what seemed to me as a typo; the word "Modelling", to the Amrican "Modeling". A little later the word was changed back, along with a couple of other words, with the summary that these changes are restorations back to the UK english used in the article.

I am totally fine with either the US or UK english to be used. However, I wanted to make sure that this is a valid case, since i intitally thought that the US-english was the standard here, given that wikipedia is held over US Servers.

I appreciate your prompt response.

Regards,

-- 17:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (also referred to as WP:MOS), and in particular the section of national varieties of English: WP:MOS#National varieties of English. For other questions of this nature, please ask at WP:HD (Wikipedia:Help Desk). Carcharoth 17:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the article. Usually people will keep the english that the article started out with and changing it is usually seen as an insult to the writers of the article. Certain articles should remain in their respective English such as articles about America or Britain or India. Other articles should keep whatever kind of English they started out with as long as its consistent throughout the page. When in doubt, just don't change it. More info at WP:ENGVAR 128.227.51.100 17:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: A general note to mostly the Americans out there: English and Indian writers will feel insulted if you call their style of English spelling a "typo" or "spelling error." 128.227.51.100 17:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This goes both ways. We ought to excuse each other's ignorance. --74.13.125.54 17:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think however, for a variety of reasons a commonwealth english speaker is less likely to think an American spelling, especially those like color which are frequently encountered is a typo Nil Einne 18:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Common words like 'color' and 'center'? yes.
Singular/plural as applied to sports teams and military units, etc. on ITN? probably no. --74.13.125.54 19:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its probably because commenwealthers have heard American English on TV or seen it in print and know some of its nuances, so they know and tolerate its eccentricities. In addition, they are intimidated by the fact that Wikipedia is mostly American. Americans on the other hand are the majority on this site and have likely heard moderate to little British English, little to no Indian English, and likely never heard any of the other varieties of English. If you've never seen an alternate spelling for a word, you are going to assume that it is wrong and that your spelling is the only way to write it. If they've never seen a word used in a certain matter or even used at all, they will think that it does not exist. Just look at a current example on the featured page. 128.227.51.100 19:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um wasn't that exactly what I was saying? Nil Einne 12:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for all who pitched in. I have looked at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style article's section on languages referenced above, and other sections as well, and indeed it seems I have a long homework of reading policies here, so it's only a start for me :D Thanks again, and sorry to bother you all with my questions.-- 21:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Death of Kurt Vonnegut

Seems appropriate for main page. Billbrock 03:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There a bunch of cleanup tags on there, and currently details about his death is only covered in one simple sentence. And most importantly, it does not really qualify under rule #5 of WP:ITN/C#ITN Criteria. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rule 5 was made to be broken. Vonnegut was perhaps the most popular of US novelists circa 1970; one might have to be over 40 to appreciate his pervasive influence on American culture. Compare the NY Times homepage. Agree that the article needs cleanup. Billbrock 04:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC) link added Billbrock 04:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also featured article on Chicago Tribune Billbrock 04:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC) From a U.S. perspective, Vonnegut's death is arguably the most notable year-to-date (tabloid characters excluded). Billbrock 05:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, you can suggest it at WP:ITN/C. I still think the article needs some more cleanup. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Agree on need for cleanup: it's a poor article as it stands. Billbrock 05:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Erwin but not Kurt Vonnegut? Give me a break. --76.188.161.254 09:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the news section of the main page is a let down when it comes to reporting deaths. not mentioning vonnegut's passing is disrespectful of the highly significant author. it should have been breaking news within our community, the ny times homepage, the chicago tribune homepage confirms the importance. Candymoan 10:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So a tiny insignificant island nation holding an election is worthy of the front page, but the passing of one of the most important authors in the past 100 years is not? The pedantry of this group never ceases to amaze me. --24.86.214.71 10:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Insignificant island nation" is a bit rude. The results of any head of state style election for any Nation are valid entries on ITN. Generally ITN does not list obituaries, except for those who are notable experts in their field. Vonnegut's death would qualify for that and will probably be listed. Certain events like obituaries, elections and sports results are limited for the reason of volume of potential candidates. If they weren't ITN would just be a constant sports/news ticker. That is not its purpose. Wikinews was forked from Wikipedia and serves that purpose. --Monotonehell 11:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Firstly, this whole discussion should be in ITN. Secondly it's Irwin not Erwin. Finally, it's generally said that just because we screwed up once doesn't mean we should continue to screw up. In other words, if we shouldn't have ITNed Irwin (I'm not saying we shouldn't have) then there is no reason to ITN someone else just becaused we ITNed Irwin Nil Einne 13:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
okay, ITN does not list obituaries.. except for those who are notable experts in their field.. i agree, but if vonnegut doesn't qualify, who does? if it had been norman mailer or noam chomsky, i'm pretty sure the elite intellectuals running wikipedia would spend no time to turn the entire main page into a shrine.. the "free encyclopedia anyone can edit"?? i have been around for a long time, but i've never been nauseated until today by the policies and bureaucracy.. what a shame.. so it goes.. Candymoan 15:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"i agree, but if vonnegut doesn't qualify, who does?" - Couldn't have been said better. I won't say that he deserves it - WE, Wikipedians deserve it. SalvNaut 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vonnegut's passing was removed from ITN not because he doesn't qualify, but because his article doesn't qualify. Only articles well updated with current news materials qualify for ITN. See WP:ITN/C. --74.13.130.186 18:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No image for the FA?

I'm not seeing an image of Scooby Doo with the Featured Article blurb. Don't tell me the ultra-paranoid copyright doomsayers have won!? Zeality 03:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you should really complain about this edit summary made by Jimbo Wales himself. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Policy is not made on the spot by Jimbo Wales. I wasn't aware that no copyrighted images on the main page is now policy, considering we had one on just days ago. --Zeality 03:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been scouring the Wikimedia Commons and Flickr for a free image related to Scooby-Doo. Aside from some Flickr images with CC licenses that appear to be invalid (because the primary subjects are depictions of a copyrighted character), the best that I've been able to come up with is a mediocre photograph of Casey Kasem (the original voice of "Shaggy"). Frankly, I think that we're better off with no image at all. —David Levy 03:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just curious when this became policy, and why. Fair use provisions exist exactly for this sort of thing. I just hope one of those whacked-out "copyrighted images aren't our very best content :(" reasons isn't what tipped the scales in favor of this. A grand total of 0 of my 5 featured articles will have images here (if they ever make the main page). Zeality 03:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was a recent large debate at Wikipedia talk:Fair use exemptions#Removing exception in policy for "Main Page" starting in mid-March. But with Jimbo's edit, and this message from the Wikipedia foundation board clarifying the licencing policies, it seems that the powers that be want the main page to be free of fair use images. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"want the main page to be free of fair use images" is inaccurate. "Want the main page free of content which is not freely licensed" would probably be more accurate. --Gmaxwell 04:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. How about something more positive, modeled after Commons:COM:PS: "want every single content, including any text or images, on the main page be available under some free license, meaning that anything on there may be used by anyone for any purpose." iirc, one of the reasons mentioned had to deal with screenshots of the main page, and how other publications use these screenshots when describing Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia statement tells us that, "Because of our commitment to free content, this non-free media should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace with free media that would serve the same educational purpose." That strikes me as not barring fair use images when there is no acceptable alternative (as in this case). The question becomes whether we are first free or first an encyclopedia; leaving vital information off of the Main Page is surely an uninformative and unencyclopedic way of doing things, but it is free. —Cuiviénen 05:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having a picture of a cartoon dog on the MainPage is hardly a "vital" mission of the encyclopedia. The image belongs in the article, sure, but on the front door of the free encyclopedia we need only hang free pictures. Our function as an information resource is not reduced one iota by avoiding copyrighted cartoon dogs on the MainPage.--Pharos 06:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a portrayal of information, it is. As an encyclopedia, it is our duty to impart as much information as possible. The image imparts more information about the series -- its artistic style, its characters, its audience -- than all of the blurb provided on the Main Page. We are expected to showcase our status as an encyclopedia on the Main Page as much as our status of being free. if we are an encyclopedia, we should not reduce the amount of information available one iota. —Cuiviénen 16:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the information is available in the article. —Centrx→talk • 19:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet there is no compelling reason why the image, which is a better summation of the information than the entire blurb could hope to be, should not be there. It is not as if using the image is illegal or a copyright violation in any way. —Cuiviénen 22:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image draws people's attention to the article and makes then want to read it. Just because the picture is of a cartoon dog doesn't make it any less encyclopedic. --Candy-Panda 07:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think featured articles, proudly "hanged" in places of prominence, would be committed to this inflexible free-content-only ideology. Or any article. Evidently only one page is. Punctured Bicycle 08:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the reasoning for not having a photo that's got IP issues --at the same time, I also agree that a photo makes people want to check out the FA. To bridge both, I propose using a picture of me. People will wonder what I have to do with Scooby Doo (myself included) and would then go check out the article to find why the photo was used --quite possibly reading every nook and cranny. Of course I'm not serious. --Bobak 14:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just make sure this never happens again. OK? I'm a proponent of fair use, but if we have to follow policy, it shouldn't be too much of a problem. What bothers me more than anything is how naked the main page looks without a picture for the FA.Antimatter---talk--- 18:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: Awful! Plain awful! If the "no-free-image-on-Main_Page" was the policy, one could have tried to contact Hanna-Barbara to get an exemption or a low res image! I am pretty sure they would have accepted it, every one knows about Wikipedia these days and there is nothing bad in free publicity. If the policy was made before today, why wasn't the image removed earlier? And why was the article chosen for Main Page? It could have waited a few days or a week! Right now I suggest to chose "Hanna-Barbara" logo or something, if we can. In any case, a picture accompanying title is a must, and is part of the culture. I agree to User:Ryulong that we can add an image of dog for now.--Scheibenzahl 19:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself." Scooby Doo is a significant modern artwork that we cannot realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that is hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. The cartoon has a distinctive animation style that cannot be conveyed by random pictures of real dogs. Including a sample of the cartoon in the FA description and the article itself helps readers learn and identify its distinctive animation style. The statement by the Foundation makes it very clear that unfree content is acceptable under certain circumstances; we clearly are in such circumstances at the moment. Punctured Bicycle 21:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Policy, Wikipedia:Fair use exemptions, does allow fair use images on the main page. There's further discussion going on here at at the exemptions' talk page where I encourage everyone to make their voice heard so we can put and end to this. The Scooby-Doo article has been listed for display on the main page for at least 2 weeks and it's unprofessional to repeatedly take it down, put it back, and replace it with actual or cartoon Great Dane photos on the day it's featured.[2] [3] [4] Doctor Sunshine talk 21:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"... is discovered to contain water " (???) ....uh, yeah, right.

Give me a break; where's the frickin' proof. And the article itself condradicts the headline!!! READ: "Using a combination of the previously published Hubble Space Telescope measurements and new theoretical models, Barman found strong evidence for water absorption in the atmosphere of the planet."

New theoretical models??? HELL-frickin'-O!!!!!

And "strong evidence" does not constitute a discovery, unless you're dealing with super sloppy standards, and a low bar for proof. Maybe the operative word "strong" should have read "kinda strong" or maybe "deeply-felt" or "smacking". But is it really, "unmistakeable," "decisive," or "persistent."

Hey, maybe somebody needs funding, give it to them; but don't say things are true unless they absolutely are beyond a reasonable doubt. PLEASE!!!!

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" [Carl Sagan] --Charlesrkiss 03:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the discussion at Talk:HD 209458 b #Water vapor discovery question. If the line on ITN needs to be re-phrased, please post a new line at WP:ERRORS or WP:ITN/C. Thanks. --199.71.174.100 04:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it was changed, you also seem to have missed part of the headline - it reads "...water vapor in its atmosphere", not "water". —AySz88\^-^ 04:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And it should actually be rather surprising that we've never detected water vapor in the atmosphere of extrasolar planets, not the other way around; every planet in our system that has an atmosphere has at least some water vapor in it. Saturn, IIRC, has a higher percentage than Earth. —Cuiviénen 05:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about the above discussion, however I think someone should point out Charlesrkiss's less than civil comments. There's no need to use less than savoury language to get a view point across & doing so only shows that you can't find a better word & must resort to swearing. Anyway, just my 2 cents. Spawn Man 05:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What swearing? "Frickin" is to "fucking" as "darned" is to "damned". "Hell" may be considered verboten by some Christian groups, but is perfectly acceptable among Catholics and probably most non-Christians. 70.23.169.146 10:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a theory. In about 100 years, everyone will be speaking English, and in about 101 years, everyone will be speaking German. At least the Übermensch! :)--Scheibenzahl 19:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! The IP speaks. ;) Thansk for the reply, but the second part of my comment was hypothetical whilst the first was directly relating to the above comments. So no, he/she did not swear, but in my hypothetical explaination I was giving that person did. Thanks, :) Spawn Man 11:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The detection itself is notable; however, what's so exciting about H2O? It's what hydrogen & oxygen do naturally. Unstated premise is possibility of life on other planets; it would really be surprising if planets in other systems were uniformly barren of water. Billbrock 05:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You all seem to be missing the point. The story isn't that there may be water there. The story is that this is the first time scientists have been able to detect it on a planet not in our solar system. --Monotonehell 12:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The story is that they now (hopefully) have a better idea of how to detect water on other planets. Detecting stuff like this is not easy, you know. It's difficult enough detecting the planets themselves! Carcharoth 02:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Union Jack

The Swedish-Norwegian Union Jack of 1844 was called Sillesalaten, not Sillsalaten ;) Alexanderkg 13:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 14:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The author of the article disagrees. Pls revert. See WP:ERRORS. --74.14.18.181 14:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And reverted. Hash it out here before any other changes to the item. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 15:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Sillesalaten possibly might be Norwegian, and Sillsalaten Swedish. Many nearly similar variants between the languages. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 15:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you certain the Swedish-Norwegian flag is ever referred to as Union Jack? The Jack strikes me as particularly British. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 15:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A jack is a specific type of flag used by the navy. —Cuiviénen 15:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Kurt Vonnegut

Someone should add the death of Kurt Vonnegut to current events.

I agree, Kurt Vonnegut is a world-renown author

We do not typicly cover deaths and births on ITN. However, you may add it to 2007, or April 2007. ffm ✎talk 19:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vonnegut's passing was removed from ITN because his article doesn't qualify. Only articles well updated with current news materials qualify for ITN. See WP:ITN/C for more discussion. --74.13.130.186 18:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK and "newest articles"

Template talk:Did you know clearly explains that rewrites and major article expansion are eligible for the "Did You Know" section while most templates say "Did you know mentions and links to new articles" and "From Wikipedia's newest articles:" which make no mention of rewrites or article expansion. 128.227.51.234 15:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article which has undergone such an expansion that it's beyond recognition is, in essence, a "new article". --kingboyk 15:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

seperate error report carelessly moved down here obstructing my own subheading above

Why is this article a DYN and the featured picture of the DYN section? It is not new (it's been around since 2002) and the link name refers to only a small section of the article. If that small section were its own article, it would solve the weird piping that is happening now:[[Flag of Sweden|Union Jack of 1844]]. Are we doing DYNs for article subheadings now? 128.227.51.234 13:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Flag of Sweden is eligible for DYK since it was greatly expanded and totally rewritten since April 8. Camptown 14:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yea I just read that on Template talk:Did you know which clearly explains it while other pages clearly say "Did you know mentions and links to new articles" and "From Wikipedia's newest articles:" which make no mention of rewrites or article expansion. Other than that I still do not agree with the abnormal piping to the article. 128.227.51.234 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article used to be crap a week ago, And we are talking about a major makeover [[5] Camptown 14:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh you didn't answer anything from my reply. 128.227.51.234 14:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"From Wikipedia's newest articles" may need to be 'updated' and re-worded. This is beyond the scope of WP:ERRORS. Please consider starting a new section on Talk:Main Page regarding this issue. --74.14.18.181 14:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stub expansion and link piping are both common practice; not an error. Savidan 14:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that the intro "from wikipedia's newest articles" is perhaps not true when talking about stub expansion (although the alternative view is that expanded stubs are new articles). Whatever the case, this is probably best discussed in DYK not here as it's a DYK specific issue Nil Einne 22:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to leave a comment to this effect about the Berne clock tower until I saw this section. We really do need to make it more explicit that these aren't all newly-created articles. Nyttend 07:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought this issue up in Wikipedia talk:Did you know#"Newest" articles. I would again encourage editors to continue the discussion there Nil Einne 07:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add caption to Today's Featured Article

I would like to propose that a caption be added to the Today's Featured Article box, of the type used in the lead section at Animation. It has recently been suggested that images of anything but the direct subject of the article are "misleading", but of course it can be very difficult to find direct images of certain subjects, and free images from the article may need some context. Fortunately, Today's Featured Article happens to be the only section of the MainPage that is formatted so that a caption would be possible, as it's just a large block of test rather than a bulleted list.--Pharos 19:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally the images will have alt text. Is there anything that would go into a caption that wouldn't work there? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 04:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm aware of that. But the alt text isn't terribly obvious if you're not looking for it. I'm afraid next time we have an FA without a free image of the direct subject, we will get more complaints about a "misleading" image. My point is that the image could not be seen as misleading if there were a readily visible caption, or at least a use of (pictured), like in the other sections. Possibly we would only employ such a visible caption in such relatively unusual circumstances.--Pharos 05:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TFA picture problems

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that within the past few weeks, there have been increasing problems with getting a picture in the TFA to be free use/non-licensed. There are at least 4 instances that I can think of recently, but I'm sure there are more. Is this a someone's problem, or is it just a coincidence, because it seems like someone is not properly handling this whole TFA thing. These things should be sorted out well in advance, and if an article doesn't have a good picture, it shouldn't be chosen, so I think there is a problem here and I'm wondering how we can resolve it. └Jared┘┌talk┐  20:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised by suggestions that articles without free images be barred from appearing as TFA. What's the big deal about not having a thumbnail? —David Levy 20:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well in reality, I'm not suggesting we bar them, but I think it is aesthetically pleasing to have a picture, and it's like there's an ugly gap if there is not one. It's always been a tradition to put an image there, and lately it seems to be a lesser priority. It's not the end of the world, but I just thought I'd bring it up. └Jared┘┌talk┐  20:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very often it's difficult to have a picture that is both free and suitable enough, and I don't really think people's hard work to bring an article to FA shouldn't be rewarded with a Main Page display just because there isn't a proper picture for the Main Page. I mean, it's a minor thing really. Todor→Bozhinov 21:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not simply allow for a non-free thumbnail when the TFA has no alternative? I'm having a hard time rationalizing this. There's just as much (or little) fair use justification for it being on the front page, illustrating the article, as there is for it being in the article.... -Harmil 21:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's an issue best discussed in the fair use page, when it has been discussed extensively already. Not here... BTW, your argument is definitely flawed. Fair use images may be justified to show a specific portion of an article e.g. in Ian Thorpe but there is definitely no justification to use a fair use image to illustrate Ian Thorpe as a whole. This argument may not necessarily hold true for some stuff like Scooby-Doo but that's best left for discussion elsewhere Nil Einne 21:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you people had agreed to the Main Page move when it was proposed, then we wouldn't have this whole mess since it would clearly be in the portal space and there is clearly no justification for having fair use images in portal space. Don't want to say it, but "we told you so..." Nil Einne 22:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I move not to open that can o' worms again. The previous comment is hereby virtually struck from the record! Haha. └Jared┘┌talk┐  22:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The location of the main page has nothing to do with this. Why would a decision be made based on a technicality? --- RockMFR 00:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. We have WP:IAR for a reason. The name of the Main Page should be based on what makes most sense, not because a rule is ill-equipped to deal with an exception. ShadowHalo 01:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is that Main Page is flawed name, and always real be. Regardless of the name, the Main Page is clearly not article space and should not have fair use images. Despite this, some people are trying to argue it is article space, simply because it is the wrong name. While this is obviously a flawed argument, the fact remains if it were not wrongly named then this sort of confusion would not arise. This was one of the key reasons why having the Main Page wrongly named is a big flaw as was pointed out when the debate arose. The fact that the argument of those who say the Main Page is an article is flawed and not supported by policy doesn't mean that there is not legitimate confusion. There obviously is confusion... This is not a mere technicality since there is a very good reason why only articles can use fair use images. The Main Page is clearly not an article so it should not use fair use images. There might be other reasons why the Main Page should not have fair use images, but this is the most convincing. Calling this a technicality, is frankly a little silly. Also, there appears to be a bit of a midunderstanding of IAR. IAR doesn't mean we should always ignore all rules unless we can be convinced there is a reason to follow them. Rather it means we should follow all rules unless there is a good reason to ignore them. 10:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The current guideline states (and stated at the time of the last major discussion) that fair use images are indeed allowed on the Main Page. Moving the Main Page so that fair use images all of the sudden won't be included is pretty silly; the debate about the issue will rage on no matter what namespace the Main Page is in. ShadowHalo 12:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the featured picture box should show recently featured pictures, like the featured article box. Possibly, we can show a name for a picture or show thumbnails. Doppelganger 01:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea! For both continuity & for days when you miss out on the main page picture so you can add it to your desk top screensaver (Erm, yes... I don't do that.... ;)... :) Spawn Man 03:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. howcheng {chat} 06:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone change "England" to "England and Ireland" because the same thing happened over here. EamonnPKeane 13:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for this! There is a section at the top of the page specifically for this. Please post there. ffm ✎talk 16:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cute

In today's OTD: "1943 - World War II: Germany announced the discovery of a mass grave of Polish prisoners-of-war executed by Soviet forces in the Katyn Forest Massacre."

Cute. A bigger case of the pot calling the kettle black I ain't never heard of. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.104.131.76 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Poles don't have the same history of being despised as the Jews. Vranak

why is there bad stuff here some kids look here

I mean what about when your doing a project and a section pops up that you don't want to see? That's just wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.7.112.220 (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. See also our content disclaimer. ShadowHalo 15:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, the bad stuffs are added by vandals. Please help remove them when you see them. Thanks. --74.13.130.186 18:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In at least one instance a teacher got his/her kids to use wikipedia for some reason and then complained about the 'bad stuff'. But ironically, it turned out the vandalism 'bad stuff' originated from his/her kids. Nil Einne 18:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may be wrong, but it's life. Life comes at your at you fast; Nationwide is on your side. 71.62.10.130 03:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


???

Kk, quick question. Why does User:Wikipedia redirect to the main page? 71.154.153.209 07:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikipedia is wikipedia, whose's page is the main page. Or something. Maybe... Nil Einne 07:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Schobeiri would be the one to ask. (S)he was the one who redirected it. ShadowHalo 08:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There actually was someone who registered that username and made a few edits before being blocked (obviously). [6] After that time, the page was created and deleted several times [7] before Schobeiri decided it would be best to have a redirect there. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic

My opinion, but I think that today's featured article should be the RMS Titanic. As you may know, tonight is the 95th anniversary of the sinking. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.68.132.121 (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

First, today's featured article is usually selected a few weeks in advance. Secondly, the article was the June 29, 2005 featured article, and because of the rate that more and more articles are being promoted to featured status, it is almost guaranteed that it will never ever be put on the main page again. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, did you notice that RMS Titanic is in a way currently already posted on the main page? It is today's featured picture. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Thanks for pointing out the pic. Well, at least couldn't she be on the 'On This Day'? -M

The pic was originally spose'd to be on the main page for May 2, but I asked for it to be put on today, for historical significance. Hadz

All of other sites use Wikipedia's content

A lot of sites, particularly reference.com and answers.com duplicate wikipedia's articles exactly. Isn't this some sort of copyright infringement? --HadzTalk 17:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not if they meet some requierments. See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks for details.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It frustrates me when I'm doing research and looking for a site other than Wikipedia for information and find all these other sites copying. /rant. shijeru 20:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiprojects

Could anyone please tell me how to join the science wikiproject? It would be appreciated thanks. --Susan Walton 17:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Science and add your signature to the list. ShadowHalo 18:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you --70.186.217.199 23:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=122862449"