Talk:Main Page

Purge page cache

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

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 (~~~~)

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 16:40 on 21 October 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)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Next DYK

• In the 6th hook "that approximately 85 percent of Welsh children...", "percent" should probably be formatted as two words 'per cent' ie British English. (The % symbol is used in the article.) JennyOz (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

   Fixed Thanks, Jenny. Schwede66 14:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(October 25)

Monday's FL

(October 21, today)

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

Featured Lists on the Main Page

Hello. I believe this has been brought up sometime before, but I'm not sure where. I'll make this a poll. No IP voting please. --Birdman1 ^{talk/contribs} 21:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Question: Should featured lists appear on the Main Page? If so, how (List of the day/week/month...)?

(For an example of how Featured Lists could be displayed on the Main Page, see Wikipedia:Featured content Tompw (talk) (review) 15:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

Support

• Support. because giving the main portal more info should encourage users to actually use this feature. although i am worried about the lay out, the main page aready is a bit crowded, i think over time this will be resolved with some careful tweaking--Greg.loutsenko 22:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I don't think a little extra box on the Main Page would hurt anybody. Users work hard to get lists featured. Lists are an important organizational tool for Wikipedia. I think a "List of the week" would be nice, starting with newer lists. If the supply of new lists is exhausted, old lists can be used until new lists are created. --Birdman1 ^{talk/contribs} 21:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional support — perhaps "featured list of the week" and "featured topic of the month"? — Deckiller 23:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• But if a person doesn't read the list/topic in the first couple of days, I doubt tacking even more time will get them to look at it. ShadowHalo 00:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• The main reason I recommend week or month is so we don't run out of lists. — Deckiller 01:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• But leaving it for a week or month renders the section useless for readers, most of the time that is. ShadowHalo 01:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Mainly because I'm working on a list ;) Majorly (hot!) 23:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support A Featured list of the day would work fine. There are 243 FLs currently and if they were featured, that number would surely increase at a rate higher than now. This is due to an incentive now possible to list editors.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 00:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support for an FL once a week; to prevent staleness, on Monday would be the topmost part of the list, then on Tuesday the next part, up to Sunday when we reach the last part; if the list is very long it's OK if we don't reach the end of it. This is currently done on WP:FC with only the first part of the list displayed; if it can be displayed there I see absolutely no reason why we can't do it here. --Howard the Duck 03:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support - lists are just a type of article. Make the 'article of the day' a 'featured list' from time to time. Solves any problems of 'insufficient space' and 'not enough lists'. The fact that we have featured lists on the featured content page shows that they can be put into summary form. --CBD 11:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support I agree that would be a good idea, and it would help wikipedians contribute what they feel to wikipedia. --Katherine Kaiquser 00:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support But are there enough lists to rotate? Well, I guess people would be motivated to start working on them, so they would increase quickly. · AO ^Talk 17:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support The idea of a Featured List of the week is a good one, especially combined with the idea of breaking it into sections for each day to add variety. Having that will encourage the proliferation of high-quality lists. I think letting readers see some of our best lists is a service to them. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support: It we a going to put them on for a week how about put diffrent parts of the list on each day. Buc 09:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support "List of the Day". Given the current number of FLs (246) and the rate they are bein added (~10-15/month), it will be at least year before any have to repeat. (See detailed workings under "some real discussion") Tompw (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support I like ONUnicorn's idea above. i believe that an extra box wouldn't be horrible. however, it would have to be done correctly. themcman1 (help me with my sig) 13:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support Could be a good feature but it should be a list of the week since there are not enough features lists to support a daily feature.
• Support Good idea. --Umedard Talk 15:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support I believe that every now and then it should be included in the space where the current 'article of the day' is. Todd661 08:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Nothing wrong with the idea. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 08:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Why not, we have Featured-?-Of-The-Day everything else... --Valley2city^₪‽ 20:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Fatured lists don't get enough attention. ¿SFGiДnts! ☺ ☻ 13:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose From what I can tell, there aren't nearly enough featured lists for this to work. ShadowHalo 23:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

But would it work if we did a featured list of the week/month? --Birdman1 ^{talk/contribs} 00:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would we want to? If a person wants to ready the list/topic, they'll read it within the first couple of days. Leaving it up for an entire week or month isn't going to get people to read it. ShadowHalo 00:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Not everyone views Wikipedia everyday. Buc 09:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. There aren't nearly enough lists promoted each month to keep this up, unfortunately. —Cuiviénen 23:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

See above. --Birdman1 ^{talk/contribs} 00:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Definitely not. —Cuiviénen 14:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not sure why this is being done as a poll, but I see one major problem with this idea. Articles can be summarized, pictures can be resized. How does one summarize a list? By putting it in list form, its about as summarized as it gets. Even if we use tiny font, lists like List of California birds and most other FLs will be extremely long. Mr.Z-mantalk¢
  • Sinces it already done on the Featured content page I don't think this would be a problem. Buc 09:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    Also, in response to "reusing lists" there are currently 243 FLs, with one being nominated about every 2 days. If everyone of them passes, we would run out in less than 2 years (486 days). If only half pass, we would run out in less than a year (324 days). Doing it weekly would work, but that may start to seem stale after a while. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

We could just adapt the introduction from the featured lists, similar to what we do with featured articles. --Tntnnbltn 16:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I really don't think that a featured list of the day/week would be all that interesting to the non-Wikipedians who frequent the Main Page. We already seem to do this at Wikipedia:Featured content, which is linked on the sidebar. Also, wouldn't adding something to the Main Page require a more substantial ordeal than a poll on this page? --Maxamegalon2000 02:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. They all come in a different size and shape. Some are rather long. Some are tabulated and hard to squeeze onto MainPage. Where on MainPage do we put these FLs, anyway? I worry about layout problems on MainPage. --PFHLai 03:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC), 14:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I appreciate the work that often goes into lists, but I still think that lists aren't content the same was images and prose are. They're just tools to make the user's life easier. No one would suggest a "featured template of the day", or some such. It seems like that putting things on the main page simply as a "reward" to the editors is something to be avoided. Also, why is this a poll, and why is it here? 69.95.50.15 14:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, no IP voting. Someone could vote twice. Please make an account. (If anyone opposes this comment, please reply.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Birdman1 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 2007 April 17 (UTC).

The IP is entitled to his/her opinion. And we should be discussing instead of voting. --PFHLai 15:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not strikeout another use's comment. That should be used for self-retraction only. El_C 18:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I disgree. I think it's a great way to honor user(s) work. Buc 09:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per 69.95.50.15 ~ Giggy! _Talk 06:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Instead of opposing or voting in this poll, please do the discussion at #some real discussion, below. Thanks. --Howard the Duck 06:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose As much as a lot of hard work goes into lists, I don't think that the main page is the best place to feature it. Firstly I already think there are too many boxes on the main page and secondly I agree with 69.95.50.15 above, lists aren't quite the same as pictures and prose. LukeSurl 19:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose It would make the main page far too cluttered, and lists have no real substance. --Oreo Priest 02:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You are welcome to remove the lists on the FIFA World Cup page since they have no real substance, LOL. --Howard the Duck 06:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Howard the Duck for the condescending LOL. The list on that page is in support of an article. A list on its own has no substance.--Oreo Priest 03:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • You'll be surprised that FLs aren't just lists, LOL. --Howard the Duck 06:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Right, and you can often count the number of prosaic sentences on a hand or two. ShadowHalo 23:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Really? These FLs have leads the same length as FAs. Of course lists can have that much prose, try doing that on FPs, LOL. --Howard the Duck 08:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Just looking at two random FL's, List of Australian Twenty20 International cricketers and List of Governors of Delaware both have very short leads compared to FAs. They're only one paragraph, where a decent FA has two, three, sometimes four paragraph long leads. Luckily with featured pictures, not as much text is necessary since the picture is the object of attention. ShadowHalo 14:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
              • Substance shouldn't be judged by the amount of prose but by the informational content. See the List of New Jersey birds - that's content. That's information. That's substance.
• [outdent] I'm not saying that featured lists don't have substance. I'm saying many don't have enough prose to be suitable for the main page. ShadowHalo 22:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • They at least have enough prose to have a little tiny box on the MP. Does that count? lol--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 23:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It would be silly to apply FA standards to FL, since they're structurally different, it's like asking for a 40kb worth of text caption in an FP, or a reference section in an FPOR. --Howard the Duck 08:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I didn't say there needed to be 40kb of text. But there needs to be some amount of useful text, or there's no purpose in exhibiting the list. And List of Australian Twenty20 International cricketers has only a five-sentence lead, two of which are about how the list is organized. That's not nearly enough to produce a section on the Main Page. ShadowHalo 17:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
        • That's why we'd need a "Today's featured list" page to weed out questionable and controversial pages. However, most of the time, lists are subpages of an article, which means it would be written in a summary style, and not to mention Twenty20 cricket is a relatively new development which would explain why it is that short (which leads me to using text found at its parent article). BTW, I'm looking for that hurricane-related FA that's so short, it could be a featured stub. --Howard the Duck 12:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
          • If you mean Hurricane Irene (2005), that's hardly a featured stub. Even that has suitable prose for a Main Page box, unlike a large number of featured lists. ShadowHalo 15:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
            • You really don't get it, do you? Prose isn't what FLs supposed to be good at but the display of lists, like FPs featuring pics rather than captions, FSs lets you hear sounds, rather than read the explanation. If you'd want prose, go to FAs, if you'd want lists, go to FLs. Prose isn't the only thing that's important in this encyclopedia. Its like saying Kristen Dunst should act well to be nominated for an acting award for Spiderman 3 when the reason why people will watch the film is either due to the special effects or the kiss they'd perform. --Howard the Duck 03:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• [outdent] That's exactly what I'm saying. We want our featured lists to be quality lists. However, quality lists generally don't have any substantial prose. Including part of the list on the main page is a silly thing to do since it takes up so much space, and there often isn't enough usable prose to yield a separate box. ShadowHalo 23:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Our FP today doesn't have enough prose but it does get featured in the main page anyway. --Howard the Duck 10:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

• Neutral - It's a really good idea. People work very hard on them, I why call them featured if you aren't going to recognize them for it. As of now, I don't think it'd work, because there isn't enough Featured list, however, maybe in the future, when more are featured class, we could have them on the main page.--theblueflamingo^Squawk 00:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. I don't oppose them completely, but we have two serious issues in my opinion — lack of numbers of FLs and lack of space on the MainPage for a new section. I was thinking, though, maybe we could sneak in some "Bonus featured list"s when they're directly related to the FA of the day. This could just be one line: "Bonus featured list: List of Xes", at the bottom of the FA. These would only be featured on an occasional basis.--Pharos 03:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. As Pharos, I concur it's an excellent idea, but so far I see two issues; (1) lack of FL's. Long before there were as many features pictures, we used to show one picture per week, but I believe doing so today won't be a good idea due to traffic Wikipedia receives daily, and (2) inconstancy with the rest of the main page and others lists. We aren't able to show the entire list except only a fraction of it, which is neither encyclopedic nor attractive — not to mention some lists are built through tables. Perhaps someday. Michaelas¹⁰ 16:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

some real discussion

we shouldn't be voting, for goodness sakes, it's a matter of consensus

The oppose votes say that there are too few FLs and they are differently structured, but the remedy is to have an FL per week, and for every day, a new section displayed so that it'll not be that stale. Which brings me, lets cut the voting and do some real discussion so we can get over this. --Howard the Duck 16:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to begin a collaboration for FLs, such as starting a WikiProject. For now, I think that a weekly FL would be nice, and then we rotate a section everyday for seven days (as noted above). I'm going to propose the project to WP:COUNCIL (like WP:WPGA), but the "Today's featured list" should be discussed somewhere else.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You can see the proposal here--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 21:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Several people have commented that there aren't enough lists for "list of the day" to work. There are currently 246 featured lists. Going by the Featured list log, new FLs are being added at rate of 10-15 month. Taking the lower figure (say 3 per day), plus the current total of 246 lists, it would take us 368 days to get through them all, before we had to repeat. (Over 368 days, 122 new FLs can be expected, plus the 246 exsisting: 122+246=368). So, it is not true to say we'd repeat ourselves in just 246 days - the actual figure is over a year.
Now, those are the facts. If you feel Main Page content should *never* be repeated, then that would be a reason to oppose. On the other hand, you may be happy with repeating less than once a year. Tompw (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If we get a steady stream of 31 FLs a month, we can probably manage a TFL. That's why I'm proposing a WikiProject to WP:COUNCIL/P, so that we can have constant contributions to all existing lists.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 16:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I've just discovered (which I'm surprised I hadn't noticed before) that one day a week the FP is a repeat. Perhaps if we were to do one FL a week, it could just replace the one day when the FP would have been a repeat.--Pharos 05:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

All lists should be categories anyway... *runs from torch and pitchfork wielding mob* ;) --Monotonehell 07:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

*grabs torch and pitchfork* But how can we display them in a suitable format if there are more than two variables involved? (Which brings me, do you people have ever seen a featured list? hehehe) --Howard the Duck 07:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

On a seperate, but related note, WikiProject Lists was just created. The Placebo Effect 23:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The rate that featured lists are produced will go up, so, on top of the "over a year" already mentioned, we will have further lists, so much so that we would very rarely need to repeat, if ever. Having one a week gives more 'glory' to a featured list than a featured article, which isn't fair at all. Personally, my only objection to the whole thing is that then, what about featured topics, featured sounds and (when we get it, which we will) featured videos? J Milburn 19:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Look at WP:FC, how the different featured content appears there, roughly that's how they should look like at the Main page. A featured sounds box would show a little icon, with a short description to the sounds, etc. We might as well add a link to a Featured portal, at the upper right hand corner, too. --Howard the Duck 04:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(I am not a mathematician) Averaging the last six months, featured lists are being added at a rate of 15 per month. Assuming no change in this rate (though it seems logical that the rate will actually rise with time), the total number of featured lists increase at a rate of $f(x)=15x+252$ per month. The average number of days per month is (averaged up by about .083) 30.5, which would mean that the total number of featured lists increases at a rate of $f(x)={\frac {15}{30.5}}x+252$ Days increase at a rate of $g(x)=x$ of course, so with no change in the rate of increase, there would be no repeat in featured lists for almost 500 days. The logical increase in the number of lists featured per day means that the time would probably be greater, likely even infinite, as the increase in featured articles has become (I think). In any case, 500 days gives us an ample amount of time before we would have to deal with a repeat situation, even if that rate did not increase. In other words, there are indeed enough featured lists to exhibit a new one every day, though I personally wouldn't be against one per week either. Atropos 23:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

One per day, then one per week once we get low. Remember that the number of lists will proabably increase exponetially because there would be a purpose to improving them (getting them on the front page). A lot of the lists are extremely interesting and you would only find them through very obsurce linking.--Dacium 01:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As the author of two FLs myself, I would strongly support this. Concerns that there are too few FLs have been addressed above. Besides, what's the point of it being featured if it's tucked away into a dark corner at WP:FL with no strong link from the Main Page. Sure, it's exemplary work, but nobody's going to see it. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 12:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If the above poll is to be of any use, it needs to be refactored. On April 24, an anon decided to rearrange some comments, turning opposes into supports, giving a false sense of the community opinion. A user reverted some of it, but missed some and the anon did even more afterward. If anyone wants to put the poll back together, that would be much appreciated. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The poll doesn't matter anyway now. All of the things should be discussed at this section. --Howard the Duck 03:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The poll was never binding, it matters as much as it ever did. Anyway, matter or not, isn't it misleading to have a tampered poll sitting around? It's natural for people to guage prevailing opinion by what they can take in at a glance before fully thinking about an issue. The majority of "oppose" comments were either removed outright, edited so that their supporting comments were stupid(!) or mysteriously changed to 'support' comments. Personally, I think that alone should say something about the consensus for this proposal. 24.2.176.64 05:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC) (P.S., I'm the IP that made an 'oppose' comment above. At least the editor who tampered with my comment had the decency to sign his name.)

Now that you've said it, I was going to restore it by reverting but it might remove newer discussions. --Howard the Duck 06:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured lists and portals (and sounds and topics) are most effectively promoted at Wikipedia:Featured content (3rd link in sidebar, and top-right of Main page). Lists get a large sample displayed, but using article-based <onlyinclude>s, so not adaptable for use here.

We used to have different Main page content in one of the sections on weekends. I'd endorse a proposal along those lines, for featured lists (displaying instead of DYK or FPic, on weekends or Sundays; so it would need to be a very condensed sample). But I feel that permanently adding something as large as the samples at Featured content would make the page too long, and make things like our sister projects even less likely to be seen (as attested by Ed in the bottom thread concerning wikinews). I object to anything that significantly enlarges the Main page design. --Quiddity 01:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather have FLs replace the DYKs since the DYKs are encouraged to inflate the article count without really improving other articles. For example, all of those Eurovision-related DYKs won't have a chance of expansion since most of them are rather forgotten after a few months; FLs on the other hand are superior in many ways over DYKs.

Also, if there should be a place to feature Wikipedia's very best work, it's not WP:FC but the Main Page itself. --Howard the Duck 08:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think lists scale well in terms of a summary. For articles you have the lead, for pictures you have a smaller version of the picture, but for lists there's little option other than to have the first few items in the list and then cut it off, which is jarring in comparison. Oldelpaso 17:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Portals on the mainpage

Portals seem to be highly underused in my experience. Of all the people I know that uses Wikipedia casually, I haven't found one that even know what a portal is. Their only advertisement really is a tiny box on articles with a related portal and some completely unexplained links at the top of the main page. This is a huge pity, because portals should be a highly useful tool for anyone who wants to know about any broad topic. (Wikipedia:Portal introduces the portal concept.)

So I'm proposing that they be added to the main page. At the mo' there are not nearly enough for them to be added every day, so I would suggest This week's featured portal instead. Another idea I had was that portals featured for a week on the main page should change their content every day during that week, rather than once a month or week or however often they currently update.

Here is my proposed way to fit them into the main page. This would of course replace the current Welcome to Wikpedia box on the top of the page:

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 6,899,111 articles in English

This week's featured portal Featured portals included here </noinclude> California

Other portals: Arts Biography Geography History Mathematics Science Society Technology All portals What is a portal?

|} The biggest problem with this design is that the Welcome to Wikipedia box now has a lot of white space. I tried including the Overview...A–Z index inside that box, but it didn't end up looking very good. I am more than open (read: asking) for suggestions about how to remedy this problem. I expect my wikicode is also a bit messy.

So? Atropos 00:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a simple link like the one at the bottom would be sufficient:

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 6,899,111 articles in English

Arts Biography Geography History

Mathematics Science Society Technology

Featured: Australia All portals

--Howard the Duck 04:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea, and the Howard the Duck's implementation of it. Gracenotes^T § 04:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What I like about the first is that the one that'll show up would be random while mine would be fixed. If anyone can do a random FPOR on the second option it'll be great. --Howard the Duck 05:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Eugh. That's exactly the opposite of what I'm looking for. Just another little line of text which attracts no attention. Further, mine is only random because I pulled from the Featured content page. Atropos 17:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this one?

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 6,899,111 articles in English	Arts Biography Geography	History Mathematics Science	Society Technology All portals
Featured: Australia

If someone can only enclose the featured portal link within the portal box and use a scandalous color. --Howard the Duck 10:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You might be better off promoting Wikipedia:Featured portals, and making that page more visible. Have a look at "what links here", for that, and see how widely linked it is. Carcharoth 00:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Could someone fix the indent here, please ? --PFHLai 05:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. howcheng {chat} 06:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing this, Howcheng. --PFHLai 08:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

section edit break

That's not bad, but there's a rather annoying blank space underneath the header, occupied only by the featured portal's name, on the right. I think that we should have a specific portal featured. We don't merely have a link to WP:FA on the front page; we have a featured article. Why? For recognition, and to show off some of our best content people would not otherwise see. Gracenotes^T § 17:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone can come up with a good layout, I'd support this. I'd even be prepared to see one of the main portals dropped (are they all featured?). And can someone fix the annoying location of the edit link for this section? Carcharoth 00:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Only 3 of the 8 portals listed are featured. --Quiddity 01:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How about a drop-down list of FPors? --Howard the Duck 13:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a drop-down selection box would look ugly (in different ways in different browser/OSs) and inconsistent with the rest of the design.

As the only bolded link in the entire header, I think Portal:List of portals is more than sufficient.

There is also a large stability problem with many portals, where they get created, raised to good/featured status, and then left unmaintained for months on end.

I believe those 5 other portals on the Main page need to be raised to Featured status, before any other changes are seriously discussed. --Quiddity 17:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

About the Portals and Tables

I've got to put on one of DeBono's Six Thinking Hats (black) and say that the tables shown here are extremely hard to use and could use with some default templates that put some of the div, font, etc boilerplate code out of the way. Other than that how about pushing the portal list to the centre and putting the featured portal on the far right. That would rid of the whitespace problem... Merosonox 04:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's what it might look like

There are 6 proposed templates used here:

• Template:Welcome to Wikipedia Box - Wikipedia + Stats
• Template:Wikipedia Portal Box - list of regular/main portals
• Template:Merosonox/Featured Portal Small Test - Smaller portal images (not complete)
• Template:Wikipedia Mainpage Strapline - Overview, Editing, ...
• Template:Main Page banner - ???
• Template:Merosonox/Wikipedia Mainpage Banner Test - the whole shebang

Merosonox 05:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That breaks the page width at 800x600. --Quiddity 08:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that the picture is unneeded. It does not add much, really. Gracenotes^T § 20:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture of the day : Willet

I've noticed a small defect on the POTD. A dust spot IMO. I removed it as the POTD is locked I uploaded the edited picture at Media:Catoptrophorus semipalmatus edit-cleaned.jpg. Ericd 22:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any difference between that and Image:Catoptrophorus semipalmatus edit.jpg. Maybe it got uploaded over the old pic by now? Carcharoth 00:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No ! Compar both pictures at full res. You will notice a small spot on the neck. Ericd 00:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Yes! Well-spotted. This is not really the right place to get the correct image uploaded though. Maybe ask over at Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures? Carcharoth 00:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thread started here. Carcharoth 00:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No mention of the mass immigrant demonstration currently going on in the U.S?

I don't want people to think that wiki is just brushing this under the carpet... God forbid.

-G

Jeez, man. Before you accuse people of having political motives behind everything they do, stop and think for a moment. It could be an accident. It could be an oversight. Or it could just be that the world doesn't revolve around the USA, and that Wikipedia is trying to represent a more global, cosmopolitan, multi-cultural attitude. Seriously, it's an inappropriate way to express your political views, by setting yourself up on some pedestal and accusing others of evils without assuming good faith. Chill, dude. LordAmeth 23:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which works by contributions from anyone. Your pet story hasn't appeared firstly because Wikipedia is an enyclopedia, not a news service. If you're interested in breaking news why not report it at wikinews which is our sister project for just that. Secondly, if this news turns into something that an encyclopedia should have an article on, as was the case last year volunteers will create an article. There's no centralised control at Wikipedia that is responsible for brushing anything under the carpet. If an article is written about a subject it's firstly because someone cares enough to contribute it and secondly because it's a topic worth documenting by an encyclopedia (not a news service). --Monotonehell 23:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is most people don't even know about Wikinews. I never knew about any of WP's sister projects until I actually became an established editor. Even then, I still don't edit a lot anywhere else except for here. Therefore, one should take this into consideration when dealing with inexperienced people. Please try not to bite the anons.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 23:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if people are not aware of wikinews (which is linked to on the main page in ITN), they should be aware that this is an encyclopaedia not a news site. Besides that, I would suggest anyone who has visited the wikipedia main page more then say 5 times in several weeks and is aware of world events should know that we don't always mention undoutedly important events for a variety of reasons Nil Einne 07:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a wiki. Go to Portal:Current events and start typing, G. --74.13.124.59 00:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Today, LAPD fired into pro immigration rally during the day of mass peaceful immigration reform marches.

-G

G, you are probably looking for Portal:Current events or Wikinews. Please go there to post news headlines. Not every news story gets mentioned on the main page. Please see Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page. --74.13.124.59 07:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

wrong diagram

moved to Foucault Pendulum vector diagrams Nil Einne 20:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A possible error on the main page today

I see it still says "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", despite the increasing use of semi-protection and protection on assorted article pages not just acutely in response to an immediate problem, but chronically. I know of several article pages that have not been in an "anyone can edit" state for months without remit.

To top it off, today I came across a talk page that was semiprotected. It is absolutely incorrect to ever protect a talk page!

I submit, therefore, that the "anyone can edit" phrase should be removed, since it isn't true any more. Alternatively, this tendency towards chronic protection can be stopped, and no more protection of talk pages occur.

Vandalism is of course a problem. But chronically protecting anything but the main page and stable templates isn't the answer; blocking vandals by IP is, and possibly adding a probationary status of some kind that kicks in before being blocked does (and is temporary if the bad behavior stops and remains absent long enough). Probationary status could block the editing of major, stable articles (the ones commonly chronically semiprotected now). It might also attach to newbies, but be removed by a history of good edits, only coming back if malicious edits are made. More good edits could remove it, with more being required the poorer your history. Blocking would still result from too many, malicious enough edits in too short a time period.

However, the use of protection in a chronic manner, save on the main page and templates, is not the answer, and makes this no longer "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.104.131.76 (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

"Probationary status could block the editing of major, stable articles (the ones commonly chronically semiprotected now). It might also attach to newbies, but be removed by a history of good edits, only coming back if malicious edits are made." How is that an improvement, or indeed different to, the current setup, whereby newbies are blocked from editing semi-protected articles? IPs are also blocked, but, given the movable nature of IPs, how would you know who was a newbie if they weren't logged in? Anyone can edit semi-protected articles if they take 2 minutes to create an account and wait 4 days without vandalising anything enough to get blocked. 217.43.138.193 15:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The "anyone can edit" phrase is indeed correct. Anyone can become an admin, too. All you have to do is earn the trust of fellow wikipedians and go thru' an RfA. Anyone capable of editing but choose to vandalize will lose the privilege to edit. --74.14.17.57 16:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Do have some idle software developers that you haven't mentioned? We're still waiting for a universal wikimedia project login that I think was announced over a year ago. Not to speak of some type of stable versioning.

You're also about five years late in sounding the alarm. Page protection has existed for at least that long. If your complaint is about indefinitely semi-pro'ed articles, you can always request unprotection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but many of those articles have depressing protection logs. From what I can tell, there are less than 1500 articles that are currently under some form of protection. Some of these are certainly overdue for unprotection, but before asking around about technical feasiblity, and drafting a policy proposal for consideration at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), you may want to consider if less than a tenth of one percent is a crisis level. The percentage of articles one can't edit falls to almost nothing if one can get through four days without a gross policy violation. - BanyanTree 16:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. You have to do more than get through four days without a gross policy violation. You also have to register. It is being forced to register and memorize yet another login/password pair that I find objectionable, not having to wait four days. In other words, the problem is that non-logged-in users are treated as on permanent probation. Instead, a dynamic IP range should be treated as on probation only if it has (fairly recently) originated some vandalism, and a stable (non-dynamic) IP should be treated as "registered" with the IP as the username. This applies to semi-protection, as well as to starting new articles and uploading media. It should be possible to do these things without YAWLI (yet another website login) or this is really "the encyclopedia only registered members can edit". :P There's also currently no provision now (so far as I am aware) to slap a registered user with fresh probation for anything; only leave them alone, nag them on their user talk page, or block them.

If getting new accounts is easy, requiring registration for certain actions does not offer a significant barrier to misbehavior, and seems pointless. If on the other hand getting new accounts is difficult, tedious, slow, annoying, or requires divulging personal information, giving money, showing proof of identification, or presents some other serious hurdle to jump through, then requiring it for certain actions is an onerous burden that makes a mockery of Wikipedia's slogan. Either way, the current state of affairs has a problem.

You also failed to address the issue of talk pages now sometimes being protected, which simply shouldn't occur. By definition, only articles can be vandalized; anything added to talk pages is generally fair game. (Talk page blanking or deletion or gross editing of other peoples' contributions is another matter.) Furthermore, the problem of many templates (infoboxes particularly) being prime targets for vandalism but not being protected seems to keep going unacknowledged. Templates that are not expected to ever need to be changed in the future should be fully protected. Nothing else, save the main page stuff, should be, and semiprotection should be used sparingly and temporarily. If a page is frequently being vandalized, block the vandals, rather than stopping anonymous users from editing the page; the vandals will simply register, and anonymous users who can't be arsed to memorize YAWLI will say "screw it" and not FIX the vandalism that they encounter. I've already personally encountered vandalism a few times. I've fixed it when I could, but sometimes the page was semiprotected! (Most recent devandalization was at Prostate cancer staging) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.104.131.76 (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Please move this discussion to somewhere more appropriate, such as Wikipedia talk:Protection policy or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Thanks. --Quiddity 20:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, take a look at this. Slow load. Prodego ^talk 20:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what talk page you're referring to but semi protection or protection of talk pages may be necessary to deal with copyright violations & BLP issues. Also it is possible to vandalise talk pages. Check out Wikipedia:Vandalism or Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Contrary to what you seem to think, talk pages are not somewhere where anything goes. In any case, talk page protection is very, very rare. Also, one of the problems with your suggestion is a lot of vandals of 'popular' pages like GWB are likely to be one hit wonders. They're never going to come back (at least with the same IP) so blocking/probation won't actually reduce the amount of vandalism significantly. It will also increase the amount of admin work exponentially which is perhaps the biggest flaw by far in your probation suggestion. The better suggestion would be to request that people are able to request their IP be given 'special status' so they are the equivalent of registered users. But only if they can demonstrate sufficient history without major vandalism. Or let me put this a different way. People who we don't knwo by definition have to be on permanent probation because we don't know whether we can trust them. People who we know we can't trust are blocked... Finally, by definition "anyone can edit" includes limitations. For example, people without access to internet connections (or computers) can't edit. There are a lot of reasons why people don't have access to internet connections (and computers). However there is little reason why people can't register. The fact that people don't want to register for whatever reason is different from the inability to register. The fact that the vast majority of people who want to edit wikipedia can register means that these people can still edit. Indeed I would argue the fact that people need an internet connection to edit wikipedia is a far, far greater problem even if insolvable then the fact that people have to register. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for requiring registration simply that the limitation imposed by requiring registration doesn't actually affected the 'anyone can edit' bit as much as you seem to think). Finally I don't personally see why you need to use a different login and password for every single account you have on the internet. Obviously there is greater risks when you reuse login and passwords but in reality, most people would use one login and one password for most unimportant internet stuff. If it's compromised well then tough. Obviously admins have different considerations but for you bog standard editor, there is no real harm in re-using logins and passwords. Nil Einne 20:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, semiprotection is used because it works. It greatly reduces the amount of vandalism. Although it's true it's trivial to create an account, as I've already mentioned, many vandals are one hit wonders and don't come back. They're either to lazy to create an account or intimidated by it. So it's kind of pointless to suggest registration serves no purpose because it's so easy when in reality it works. Of course, we almost definitely also lose editors who don't want to register for whatever reason which is unfortunate but can't be helped. Ultimately, it's a balance and I don't see any evidence we've got the balance wrong. We still don't protect the featured article most of the time Nil Einne 20:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~avatar/protected.php?wiki=en -- it appears that of all the major Wikipædias, only the Japanese has more protected articles than the English (the Spanish has more semi protected). 70.17.248.96 16:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Many of our "protected articles" aren't actually articles at all but empty pages that have been protected to stop people repeatedly creating an article there – Gurch 19:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Main Page link in sidebar

Someone redirected this to Mainpage-url and it's been vandalised, it's fixed now but can sum1 protect it.--User:Rock2e ^{Talk - Contribs} 20:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The link to the page unredirected is here and is still unprotected.--User:Rock2e ^{Talk - Contribs} 20:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

some admin decided to break it, I guess they were bored or something – Gurch 20:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Turkey's news read a bit uninformed

This is not as simple as about a protest against a government. This is popular opinion on one hand, but also a powerful military threatening - in public - a government. This is about a country that after a 1960 military coup (one of many), passed in 1961 into their constitution that the military have political power through a security council. i.e. a more descriptive heading would have all three heads involved, public opinion, the military threatening the government, and the government. --Leladax 23:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please draft a new headline and post your suggestion at WP:ITN/C. --74.14.17.57 03:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Daily pick wording

moved to #Main page error reports above.

Registered Users

Is there a forum where all the users of wikipedia can chat generally (not rude things!)or just "hang out" if not i think there should be a link on the main page discussing general things on wikipedia and other user privilages. This might then encourage more users to join wikipedia and other projects. Wiki.user 20:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Try WP:CHAT or WP:VP. --74.13.126.166 21:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Offensive "Separatist" in Scottish news summary

"Following a first-ever election victory, the separatist Scottish National Party surpasses Labour to become the largest political party in the Scottish Parliament (pictured). Labour also suffers losses in elections to the Welsh Assembly and to local councils across Britain. "

Can we please change "separatist" to "pro-independence" please? "Separatist" is unbelievably POV, and downright offensive. It's not a suitable term. --MacRusgail 23:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed please change it ASAP. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 00:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I hope more people will agree. If I used "annexationist" to describe supporters of the Union in Scotland, people wouldn't be happy, but this is more or less the same thing. --MacRusgail 00:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would the word "separatist" be "POV" or "offensive"? It links to Scottish independence. --74.13.126.166 01:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, how on earth is "separatist" unbelievable POV? The SNP wants a Scottish state that is governed, erm, separately from the rest of the UK. Changing to "pro-independence" is akin to getting using pro-choice/pro-life distinctions when providing encyclopedic coverage of the abortion debate... a cuddlier-sounding word, what with the "pro" in there and all, maybe, but certainly no more accurate and far more politically tourqued. The Tom 01:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

How on earth can "seperatist" be considered downright offensive? The SNP believes Scotland should be seperate from the UK. That is seperatism. Keep the news summary as it is. Matt7895 03:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I also find it odd that anyone would find the word "separatist" offensive. I've removed it from ITN, along with a few other words, because the line seems too long to me, not because it's "unbelievable POV" or anything. --PFHLai 06:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, "surpasses" should be "passes." Doops | talk 05:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking of changing that to "supplants". Would this work ? --PFHLai 06:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

moved to #Main page error reports above.

Delete my own account

I was looking at the main page and it made me wonder, how do I delete my account? -- 05:25, 2007 May 5 (UTC)

JohnOw, it's odd that looking at MainPage would give you such an idea..... Too much wikistress ?

I'm afraid Wikipedia accounts cannot be deleted, as edits you've made will always be attributed to you / your account. (See m:Right to vanish.) Maybe it would be easier to just take a wikibreak and come back whenever.

Hope this helps. --PFHLai 06:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Coat of Arms in Australia article.

I know this is not the right place, but it is a simple and easy favour to ask from a long-time Wikipedia editor (my account is only new thus I can't edit this page).

I have edited the original image of the Australian Coat of Arms to simply make it translucent and beautiful. I was able to replace the old image on all pages where it was used with mine; except for the Australia page. It is used in the infobox. So please, somebody replace the existing image with my one: Australian_Coat_of_Arms.png . Simply erase the name of the existing jpg, and enter my png. Thank you.

And just in case anybody wants to know what it looks like: .

Old image: .

Created with the GIMP.

Thanks — Owned Souls 07:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC).