Talk:Main Page

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

Main page error reports

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 21:48 on 13 June 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed 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

... that Arthur Fulton, his father and his son all won the Sovereign's Prize for rifle shooting? There should be a comma before 'and'. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

do we enforce the oxford comma at DYK? not sure that's ever been a house style... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

There's no house style respecting the Oxford comma on Wikipedia, although it is commonly used. In this context, "his son" refers to Arthur Fulton's son. Perhaps the absence of the comma makes it easier to parse. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Never mind the punctuation, the hook fact doesn't appear clearly in the article and requires considerable effort to piece together. It was approved as AGF and seems inferior to the primary hook:

• ... that Arthur Fulton became the first person to win the Sovereign's Prize for rifle shooting three times?

I reckon we can do even better:

• ALT2 ... that Arthur Fulton was a deadly sniper in the First World War and described as "the most famous rifle shot the world has ever known".

Andrew🐉(talk) 12:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why it was an AGF verification since Oxford Biographies is available for free to all of us via WP:TWL, but FWIW I checked and the hook fact is verified by the Oxford Biographies article (TWL link). Levivich (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I like ALT2! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure that I like the word "deadly" in that hook. It seems sensationalist and superfluous; after all, it is a sniper's job to kill. Other than that, ALT2 is good. Schwede66 18:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

True ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Next-but-one DYK

• "... that although it was never built, Lynn Conway notes that IBM's ASC-1 would have been the premier supercomputer of the era?" _ I think it should read "ACS-1", the article itself appears confused about ACS vs ASC. I have asked on the article talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

It is ACS-1. I fixed the article. The hook will need to have it changed to ACS-1. SL93 (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(June 14, tomorrow)

Monday's FL

(June 17)

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

Hi, I'm Cam, and I'm a newbie

Hi Wikipedians, I'm Cam from Florida and I'm new. I was wondering if anyone could point me in the way of either the Wikiforums (if there are any) or a newbies guide to Wiki. Thanks very much.

                  NastalgicCam 17:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Britocentrism, again (Pronounced a-gayn)

So since when does a local British Association Football team (Sorry, I and 3 quarters of the native English speaking world will NEVER call that game simply "football") team get a link on the main article and the Superbowl, one of the world's most broadcasted events doesn't even get a mention on Superbowl Sunday?

Again, I call Britocentrism on Wikipedia. Or should I say, Wikipaedia.

ColdRedRain 13:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't and never has been one of the world's most broadcasted events. Compelte myth. 122.167.144.218 07:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talk about? Norwich City Football Club is a featured article and was chosen based on quality not content. If you work on some other article about some bizzare American Football club that most of the world doesn't care about (like the New York Jets) then it could very well be featured on the main page too. Similarly, if Super Bowl was a featured article, you or anyone else could put in a request for it to be featured on Super Bowl sunday, or Christmas Day, or your birthday, or whatever date of your choosing. Our featured article director will consider this request and especially if there were a good reason (e.g. Super Bowl sunday) he's probably grant it. But it's not even a good article... So instead of complaining about nothing, I suggest you get working on making Super Bowl a featured article. Also, I still don't get why only native speakers matter Nil Einne 14:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What's a superbowl - some kind of special supper-dish? :p --Alf ^melmac 14:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Because the figures work out conveniently if only native English speakers are counted? Besides, they're hardly a "local" team, when every football fan in the country (and many outside of it) has heard of the team. The Google hits are certainly comparable with some NFL teams. But as Nil Einne says, and as people keep stating each time the "this doesn't deserve to be on front page" argument is brought up, the decision is based on the quality of the article, not the subject of it. Certainly, I'd be willing to bet that more English (and even native English) speakers have heard of Norwich City than have heard of Kazi Nazrul Islam. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 15:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Even money says that the majority of the world's native English speakers in the world don't give a flying fuck about English Association Football (Not football, association football) nor have heard of Norwich FC nor even know where Norwich is.

What in the world is that graph supposed to represent? A graph with absolutely no description as to what is means is completely useless. If anything, you've weakened your position. 70.49.35.81 16:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The graph is the percentage of native English speakers. Which ignores all English speakers who don't speak English as a native tongue. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the New York Jets have a split fanbase. They have to share the market and the state and even their stadium with the New York Giants, so they won't have that many fans. Not to mention, in the New York-New Jersey area, there are way more Giants fans than Jets fans because the Giants have been established longer. And by the way, you know our entire country isn't in New York.

Focus, pommie, focus.

Anyways, if we're going to put a page from some some minor British city's local soccer team on the main page (Norfolk city is 150 K strong) we should start putting up a minor US city's minor league baseball team (Like the Norfolk, Virginia Tides.) Norfolk, Virginia is larger in population than Norfolk, UK.

And P.S. Ice hockey is way more international than you give it credit for. Just because your country can't field a team or even individual players in any other sport besides for soccer and rugby, (BTW, since when was the last time England, Scotland and Wales ever won a world cup in either of those sports?) doesn't mean the sport isn't international. Other countries play other sports besides for rugby, soccer and cricket too.

209.162.14.223 20:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

But why mention only native English speakers? Wikipedia isn't only for native English speakers, it's for English speakers, whether native or not.

Anyway, as people keep mentioning, things are chosen for the front page for the quality of the article, not the subject of it. Therefore, the reason why the Norfolk Tides aren't on the front page and Norwich City F.C. is, is not because we're saying that (soccer) is better than baseball, and not because we're saying that the population of Norwich (or Norfolk, UK) is higher than the population than the population of Norfolk, Virginia, it's because the article on Norwich City F.C. is higher quality than that on Norfolk Tides. There's absolutely no reason why even a genuinely small side, like Lancaster City F.C. couldn't be on the front page, apart from the article isn't good enough.

I realise that many American sports (ice hockey, baseball e.t.c) are popular outside of the US. Hell, I like many of them myself. I realise that there is more to the US than New York. I've visited the US many times, and none of those times have been to New York.

And as for the last time either England, Scotland or Wales won a world cup in either rugby or (soccer)? How about the most recent one for rugby?

But to sum up, the day's featured article is based on the quality of the article, not its subject. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 21:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Tell a Canadian, a Scandinavian or a Russian that Ice Hockey is an "American" sport. They'll beg to differ. Ok, I'll give you rugby, but.... when's the last time you guys won in soccer? ;) ColdRedRain 05:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You still seem to be missing the point entirely. If you want an article about the New York Giants or the New York Jets or the New York Idiots or whatever your favourite American football team is, then YOU write it. My whole point was that if you want an article about some random American football team, it is your resonable to get it up to FA. I don't care what team that is. The only reason I choose the New York Jets was because they're the first one I spotted on the American football page. Don't complain to me because you're too lazy to write an article about your favourite American football team. Personally, I couldn't give a flip about the New York Anything or Norwich FC but at least one other person did care enough about the Norwich FC to make a FA so it was featured. BTW, you really, really need to learn how to use your terms better. Pommie is a word for British which I am not. As such, calling me pommie other then being insulting makes no sense. I generally find when you're going to go on a rant it helps to actually know what you're talking about... Nil Einne 07:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually when it comes to non-native, it's far more difficult to make such a call. Since many Indians aren't particularly interested in football (let alone American football) and they make up a substanial proportion of the non native speaker list, there's a possibility more English speakers overall have heard of Kazi Nazrul Islam. Of course, it depends on who you count as a speaker. Robert Garran is probably a better example since I reckon fewer native and more non-native speakers have heard of him then Norwich FC Nil Einne 16:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I'm pretty sure we mentioned the Super Bowl on ITN after the results were out Nil Einne 14:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

On a similar note, since when do local American football teams ONLY get on the main page, not once but twice – while British football teams have been on there multiple times such as here, here, here... :p Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably because there's more (soccer) featured articles than there are American football ones. For (soccer), we've got: 1, 2, 3, 4 (I suppose), 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 articles about (soccer). Meanwhile, for American football, there are only 1, 2. There are actually more ice hockey featured articles than American football ones.

Of course, the only reason why there are so many (soccer) FAs and so few American football ones is because Wikipaedia is secretly controlled by FIFA. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 16:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on reflection, that means that EVERY American football FA has been on the front page! Why hasn't every (soccer) FA been on the front page? I call Americocentrism on Wikipedia! --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 16:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is a very clear football bias, you don't see as many cricket or ice hockey topics on there :p Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

When would Michael Jordan be displayed on the Main Page? This is more of outdoor sport bias if you ask me... --Howard the Duck 16:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd just finish doing the counting and was going to make the point Walrus made but was beaten to the punch. Still I guess it's our fault. We should be working on articles that the majority of native English speakers want to read about and not articles that interest us or non-native English speakers (especially if we're non native speakers). As for American football fans, well it's not their fault if they have to spend their time telling us how bad wikipedia is rather then working on writing FAs Nil Einne 16:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not done yet! I demand we move Shaolin Soccer to Shaolin Football (Soccer). The Americocentrism has to stop! --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 16:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, doing a recount, the real problem is the "Anything-else-but-food-and-drink"-centrism on Wikipedia. :p Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh heh . . . the strange, paranoid, ignorant comments have been ridiculed to insignificance. I love Wikipedia! We need more of this . . . :) --AdamSommerton 22:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear God, it's Hollaback Girl all over again. The TFA is about the quality of the article, not the subject of the article. ShadowHalo 17:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"Even money says that the majority of the world's native English speakers in the world don't give a flying fuck about English Association Football (Not football, association football) nor have heard of Norwich FC nor even know where Norwich is."

Money says that most native English speakers don't know where Norwich is? What does that even mean? This guy's clearly had a few. --AdamSommerton 22:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What does it mean? It means that he is willing to bet some undetermined amount of money at even odds that the majority of native English speakers could not locate Norwich. It's probably a safe bet, since the overwhelming majority of native English speakers are here in the U.S.A. Personally, I know exactly where Norwich is. It's right here in Connecticut.69.95.50.15 14:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I bet you pronounce it `Nor-witch' as well.--Rossheth | Talk to me 18:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is clearly biased against non-native English speakers, as can be seen from the discussion above. :p 89.120.193.125 09:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate to interrupt this moving discourse, but where is "again" pronounced "agayn." I pronounce it /ə.gɛn/ but that's just me. Atropos 04:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a native speaker of southern English English, and I pronounce 'again' as /ə.gɛn/ or as /ə.geɪn/ depending on whim and rhyme scheme. It's always a schwa at the start though, so I take issue with a-gayn as a phonetic rendering. Algebraist 13:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What is southern English English? :-o

English spoken by southern English people, perhaps? Bazza 15:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly "...I speak English with a southern English accent" is what was meant.

We last won the FOOTBALL world cup in 1966, but everyone seems to forget that football (soccer) is the most popular sport in the world. The only American sport to gain worldwide fame is basketball and I'd be the first to admit it's more popular than rugby and cricket by a mile. As for the language, who cares, it's all understandable. We used to speak German and French and the language has just evolved, but the thing I want to make clear is that England speaks Engliah and U.S.A speak U.S English Soopa hoops77 16:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone for an article on Australian Rules football? I think most Australians would just admit to being too lazy to write a feature article of a high standard... we'd rather just watch it on TV. I wonder if this trend indicates something about the social demographic of sporting fans? Is it possible that a fan of American football who reads wikipedia might find themself to be strangely more intellectual than the bulk of the fans? Here in Australia we don't get upset when the universe doesn't revolve around us. We know it doesn't. It frequently appears to revolve around the US. (Who seem to see themselves as the only "us" in the world.) Its abundantly clear to me, having never read any wiki discussions before, and not being entirely aware of what an FA is inteaded to be... that the initiator of this discussion should be writing an article not whining about the lack of one. I'm going to make an unscientific hypothesis that all american football fans are illiterate and incapable of writing a decent article. Until someone writes one worthy of the front page, my hypothesis stands. Let's hope someone has the good sense to prove me wrong, instead of whinging about the fact that I suggested it.

124.176.233.179 03:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Bears was on the main page March 2, 2007. New England Patriots was on the main page April 3, 2006 --71.98.247.247 16:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it supposed to be pronounced /ə-gyĕn/?--  PNiddy  Go!  0 17:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Have no fear. I hear that the upcoming July 4 version of the main page will have a strong American bias (Gee, I wonder why?)... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone once told me (with their tongue piercing through their cheek), that Independence Day is the only American holiday celebrated more strongly in the United Kingdom than it is in the US. I didn't believe him, however, as he didn't provide a pie-chart. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A wonderful neologism, Britocentricism, and one that I assume refers to anglocentricism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.147.53.123 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

OH WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE WELSH? Atropos 21:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sister project positions

I absolutely love the new position of the sister projects. Great thanks to Pharos for implementing it! I hope it's there to stay, this should give the sister projects a huge boost. (In both users, contributions, and vandalism). Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 03:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC) I came here to say that I really dislike the new position of the sister projects. It really adds a lot of clutter to the Main Page, and pushes the actual content of wikipedia so that it is less than half the page when the screen first loads. I appreciate the intent, but the sister projects are, from a design standpoint, way too big and way too prominent, right now. I hope we reconsider this move. Also, the "sister projects" table is a different style which I find jarring with the Featured Article and In the News tables. The whole thing looks unappealing and distracting to me, I hope we go back to the old version. --JayHenry 03:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Raul already reverted, but I want to agree with this. People come to Wikipedia looking for encyclopedic content, putting a large sister projects template up top detracts from that and displaces more relevant content. Dragons flight 03:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, he reverted while I was typing my thoughts. Thanks Raul! So that nobody is confused, I was objecting to the design of this version of the Main Page. --JayHenry 03:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing you all didn't peruse the discussion at Talk:Main Page#Radical proposal to help our Wikimedia sister projects. The new version takes up LESS room than the previous version. I really do think you should give it a little bit of time to see how it does. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 04:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. Why push my content further down, making it harder to get to? Very Microsoft & evil. --Knulclunk 04:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Elipongo, you are right, I don't regularly check Talk:Main Page to see if major changes are coming, but when changes do occur, I believe I have a right to state my opinion of them. My point isn't that the page is bigger. My point is that the actual content of Wikipedia was much lower. Thus, when a browser window first opened the main page of the new version, less than half of what was displayed on an actual computer monitor was wikipedia content. There's a difference between clutter at the top of a page and clutter at the bottom. (Consider a newspaper if you will, a well-designed newspaper has a masthead of perhaps two inches, below are the main stories, and then at the bottom it will have a number of keys and guides. Same thing here.) I think the intention was good, but I did not like the way it ultimately looked. I hope that makes sense. --JayHenry 04:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't ever think to stifle your right to state your opinion! I do, however, find it frustrating to watch the admins have a small scale content dispute over something that was discussed already. If I disagreed with a similar good faith edit on a regular article page, I would bring the topic up on the talk page rather than instantly revert as has been done. I agree with you pretty much in terms of the size of the new header, though. My suggestion in the original discussion was to dump the icons and just use text links. That would take up even less room and look less cluttered than the current page. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 05:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I was aware of the discussion, but didn't follow it very closely. Please don't take this personally, but I initially found the proposal so ridiculous that I assumed it would never be tried. Now that it has been tried, I am compelled to say that it is ridiculous. We are here to write and present an encyclopedia. If we can share a little free good will with other projects, then alright, but it shouldn't be pursued at the expense of the utility of the Main Page. The sister projects are a footnote to what Wikipedia is, not a feature. As such their placement at bottom of the page is reasonable, while placement at the top would be distracting and inappropriate. Dragons flight 06:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I briefly participated in the discussion, long enough I think to make it clear I thought it was a pointless idea but didn't follow up much since I presumed it would go no where. I also presumed that if such a major change was going to be tried, there would be a far greater attempt to tell people about it first then some discussion with limited participation. I think people need to realise that if your going to make a substanial edit to a common page/template/etc, there's likely to be significant opposition but many people either won't bother to participate or won't even be aware of the ongoing discussion. Before carrying out any proposal after initial discussion, you need to attract the attention of the silent majority first or you're liable to find your change reverted. Whatever the case tho, standard practice is bold, revert, discuss. As such, it was proper for the change to be reverted when a number of people clearly disagreed with it and the ongoing discussion suggests there is clearly no consensus at the current time. Nil Einne 17:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC) BTW, just to be clear I'm not trying to lay any blame or fault or diss anyone. Just pointing out what I see is the best way to do things Nil Einne 20:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, users don't need to see the sister projects up at the top like that. I think that the proposal was mainly aimed at new users, people without accounts. Is there some way that a cookie or something like that can be set, so that a section containing the sister projects can be hidden for people with accounts or for people with accounts more than X days old? I know I've seen similar things done with a [dismiss] button on the right; can something similar be done here? That way new users (who are not aware of the sister projects) will see them, but regulars (who know very much about them) won't. I do firmly believe though that moving things up helps (which is why I moved Error Reports above the Table of Contents), because people have the attention span of a gnat and aren't likely at all to think there's anything like WikiBooks or Wiktionary out there — Wikipedia is the most well-known out of any of them. Like I said, regular users don't need to see the clutter of the bar, but I'm sure there's some way to get new visitors aware of these projects. —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby (talk • contribs) 07:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd oppose that too. It's nice to help out sister projects, but it shouldn't pushing down our actual content. ShadowHalo 07:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Okay, stupid idea #3: What if we put something in Wikipedia:Introduction that links to sister projects? That way new users interested in editing can be introduced to the other projects at the same time, and it wouldn't impact the Main Page or the people that just want to read but not to get an account. —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby (talk • contribs) 07:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that moving the sister projects listing up is a bad idea, but we should think about using the smaller version of this section that User:Cadby Waydell Bainbrydge developed. Here's what we have now: Template:WikipediaSister Here's the compact version: Template:WikipediaSister-header Λυδαcιτγ 18:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've altered it again to make it more Main-Page-like:

<substed template removed - messed with page's wiki code> —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby (talk • contribs) 02:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm... you're going to want to un-subst that, and just link to it. It's created an entirely new editable section, and messed with a few other things on this page. I'll remove it for now, but there is a link to the version of the page (to the new section, actually), here

I'd say if there was any chance of this going at the top of the page, it would have to be much "less tall" than that. Say, the size it would be without the images, and maybe then some. And that's if it had any chance of going at the top at all. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 02:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I unprotected the template (Template:WikipediaSister-header) so you can edit it, and replaced it with your new version. Dreaded Walrus, I was asking about using this template in the same spot as the current list of sister projects, which is transcluded from Template:WikipediaSister. Λυδαcιτγ 04:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I like that new version at Template:WikipediaSister-header. Just put that where the old list of projects were (or move it above the "Other areas of Wikipedia" section, so it blends in with the other boxed parts of the main page). --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 04:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course it created an entirely new editable section; that's <h2> for you, just the same coding that's on the main page templates anyway. You'll notice even now, without substing it, it still creates a new editable section; it's just the way it works. But considering the template's been updated I suppose it doesn't make a difference, just wanted to extinguish any fears that it'll break the Main Page. :) I think... —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby (talk • contribs) 17:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

For someone with very bad eyesight, I can't read the descriptions. The icons all lined up at one row are cute though. --Howard the Duck 17:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

At higher resolutions, the text is too small. At lower resolutions, the entire layout looks terrible. Regardless of placement, it's disconcerting that Pharos decided to place an earlier version on the main page without proper community testing. It never is safe for anyone to assume that something looks good on everyone's screen simply because it looks good on his/her screen.

We spent months tweaking and testing every little thing, gradually building consensus that clearly doesn't exist for the proposed change (which, like others, I strongly oppose). —David Levy 09:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that everything that goes on the MainPage is liable to some special display issues on different monitor settings. My hope was that any such issues would be corrected relatively quickly, as they have been historically, and are being now in this case. I'm not sure it's always necessary or desirable that every change should really need a six-month lead time. WP:BOLD means something, no? Anyway, it appears we still await the arrival of the perfect template to convince everyone else of the desirability of this change :)--Pharos 01:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for your kind suggestions. I'll have to tweak it a little myself, when I have more time. If someone would be kind enough to help me out with this, I would be most appreciative. Again, thank you for your criticisms, as you know they help in the process of developing a new template. —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby (talk • contribs) 19:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What about really small, like this:

Wikimedia Sister Projects

--Knulclunk 21:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but I'm afraid an icon won't be enough for new users to understand. —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby (talk • contribs) 22:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The template's been changed again; any chance of feedback? —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby (talk • contribs) 23:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The icons aren't justified on my screen - i.e., they're all clustered in the center, with blank space to either side. That's at 1280x800. Λυδαcιτγ 04:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Same here, in both Firefox and IETab. 1280x1024. Also, there seems to be a white background behind the logos for some reason. It's barely noticeable in Firefox (it pretty much just covers the bottom line of text), but in IETab, it looks like, well, this (I recoloured the green bit to red using MSPaint, to make the contrast more visible). --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A smaller version I suggested earlier could be better, but it's missing a couple of wikis due to problems I had under 800x600 resolution. These could be added again, though. As somebody said before, it is small text, and therefore some people could find it hard to read. Also the images link to the image pages. (These might be fixed by the time you read this.) View it here: User:This, that and the other/mpbox This, that and the other _[talk] 07:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

edit break

The now-version takes up two rows on my srtup now. Unlike the previous-version that was all in one row. The problem we're seeing is because you're trying to fit exact pixel width icons into an adaptive space. Our fonts are set from the monobook CSS from our individual browser's x-small fontsize, then adjusted up by percentage. There's no way you'll be able to marry the pixel width of icons with the relative width of font sizes on everyone's browser the same way. --Monotonehell 11:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. What I'd really like to see, is a justified row of icons that can go onto a second row if needed at smaller resolutions, but I'm stuck as to how to go about it. —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby (talk • contribs) 20:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You could use JS, the window.width property gives you the width of the browser window and document.width ("Netscape only", which is a handy tip for modern-day browsers) for the doc itself's width. But MediaWiki isn't good at JS, and it probably won't do it. CSS's "auto-generated content" feature would be another option, but it can't work out that stuff. This, that and the other _[talk] 07:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm not adding anything new, but I'd just like to get in my two cents that I can't stand the way advertising and allegedly helpful links to new features always tend to, over a couple of years, creep into any website that starts off with a purity of purpose. I suppose it's an artifact of any design-by-committee approach. I'm not arguing against change, I'm just arguing that changes should be made with the user's intent in mind. A user visiting en.wikipedia.org wants and expects to see the English encyclopedia, not a collection of non-encyclopedia links that someone has decided that the user needs to be educated about. 69.95.50.15 15:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article - B-52 Crash

I find this image associated with this article to be emotionally distressing. I do not like to see something so awful, where those men are literally in the act of dying. It is not visually graphic in the classic sense of gore and violence, but it most certainly is graphic to me, because I cannot help but imagine what they were going through at that point.

I doubt, if the featured article was for example suicide, there would be chosen an image of someone actually killing themselves; it would be considered obviously offensive.

Being on the main page, however, I have been *presented* with this emotional experience, without any choice; which I reject. Certainly articles themselves can contain graphic imagery, as necessary to their subject; but travelling to an article requires reading the article title which I have always found sufficient to give me choice over my decision.

However, I must be able to go to the main page without the risk of such unpleasentness, because it is impossible to reconnaitre the main page before viewing!

AS SUCH, I have removed the image from the main page.

Toby Douglass 05:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And so I discover the main page cannot be edited, nor it is immediately apparent how one goes about making the request. Toby Douglass 05:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Corvus cornix 05:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And just so you know, Toby, the Main Page (along with a few other things) are permanently protected in order to prevent constant, highly-visible vandalism. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 05:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You should also see our content disclaimer. Specifically, "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers." ShadowHalo 06:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia is censored to some degree. We don't want to have gratuitously offensive imagery on the Main Page. For example we wouldn't have Goatse as the featured picture. The problem is drawing the line. In this instance I would say that the image is acceptable, especially as it is so small as it appears on the main page. violet/riga (t) 09:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Comapared to what ends up on the news, this is not even all that bad. On the news and cable channels, one can regularly see car accidents, plane crashes, shootouts, crime scenes, etc. There are TV advertisemnts that include videos of the 9/11 tragedy or the Kennedy assassination. The main page is about as censored as cable news networks. While we may have somethings like I mentioned, we would not have anything like pornography or anything unnecessarily obscene on the main page. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 16:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone commenting here on the appropriateness of the picture should be aware of the discussion above (from WP:ERRORS#Errors in the Main Page summary of Today's featured article) as to whether the image has appropriate licensing in the first place. As far as the actual content goes, I have no problem with it; It illustrates the subject of the article, and it's not deliberately shocking or gory, either of which would be inappropriate for the main page. -- Gavia immer (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You could use one of the alternative main pages that don't have pictures. If you found that image distressing, there are many, many more featured articles that might similarly disturb you. --TotoBaggins 00:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Toby, I know exactly that feeling. Each and every times this happens to me, I use a simple trick that works just about every time. Whenever I feel some emotional distress due to a picture on the Wikipedia Main Page, I simply click on the back button of my browser, and the source of my distress instantly disappears from my computer screen. The great thing about that trick is that I can use it as many times as I wish without affecting the other people who may have different reactions or perceptions as mine, as I know I am not the only one visiting this website every day. Let us know how this nifty trick works out for you. Sincerely. Numero4 12:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony Blair

Do you think this is too much or do you think that in the in the news it should mention that Tony Blair is stepping down from being prime minister today? (Not a typo above). 147.197.215.15 12:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I am British. I'll look into the matter now. J Milburn 12:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, it's listed now. -- Gavia immer (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

He did not step down. He had converted to catholicism in secret while visiting the Pope and the MI5 had him sacked because of that. Catholics have limited right in the islands. 82.131.210.162 08:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

82.131.210.162, this is not the place for such discussion. ffm ✎talk 18:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Iranian Petrol Rationing Riots

Shouldn't something about the Petrol Rationing riots in Iran be included in the 'In the News" section? I've created an article about the riots which I edited into the reference to the riots on the Current Events page. Life, Liberty, Property 18:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, the news is often a bit scattered in relation to events; we can't post a blurb about everything happening in the world right now :). Jmlk17 01:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

ITN works on suggestions, the reason something is not included is either because no one has suggested it yet or because the Wikipedia article on the subject does not meet the inclusion criteria. Most importantly there needs to be an existing article on Wikipedia that has been recently updated with a substantial amount of information on the subject. The place to suggest a candidate would be here. However I'd suggest that the above story would possibly not meet the criteria (I could be wrong). --Monotonehell 01:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion! Jmlk17 01:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Given how often queries of this kind comes up, I'm surprised no-one's made a {{sofixit}}-style template to standardise responses. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

CHANGE WIKIPEDIA BACKGROUND TO BLACK

brian0918's black monobook.css

I've searched the site for about an hour trying to figure out where to say this, but I couldn't find any so I am saying it here. I believe it would be a very good idea to change the Wikipedia background to black, the colour white is horrible on the eyes and some people are on this site for hours at a time, like myself. It would be a lot more convenient if the background colour was black, or another dark colour. I hope the Wikipedia administrators say this so they can talk to the head people about it. I think it is a very good idea and I would think many people agree with me on this. After a while on this site my eyes feel painful and I'm sure many other people have experienced this as well. This is a suggestion to change the entire Wikipedia website, so I won't be surprised if nothing changes. I just think it would be a lot more convenient.

There should also be a "Suggestions" page or something similar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.20.192.185 (talk • contribs).

I think the place you would want to make proposals to change things such as that, would be this section of the Village pump. I would be surprised to see the changes you propose actually happen, though. I would say the vast majority of people would prefer a white background over a black one. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If you create an account you can edit the style Wikipedia appears in however you would like. Prodego ^talk 00:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean like this? Just copy my monobook.css to yours. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-28 01:22Z

Hey that's cool, where would I add that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrezb123 (talk • contribs).

Here. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oooooo that's funky, I like it! I've gotten tired of the white background. It's like a war room. Perfect for hunting vandals. :-) Grandmasterka 05:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone with the time could make ten or so more themes to suit what mood I'm in :) Gizza^{Discuss ©} 05:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment from fellow black background user

You are right about black providing best possible background.

However, as a cause, I gave up on it long ago.

Instead, I solve the problem for myself. I use Opera as my browser with my own style sheet with a black background and light yellow text and Georgia Ref font, a really good screen font.

You get used to reading text on all sites with a nice, large, uniform, distinct, print quality non-pixilated font.

Overriding page style sheets does change pages and create various problems, especially on pages that you are looking at for the first time. If necessary I just turn the page style sheet back on.

76.80.92.186 05:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've never understood people who use black backgrounds. Have you ever tried turning on the lights in your room? 213.48.15.234 14:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Glare on screens is bad for the eyes, as is dark text on light backgrounds. Light text on dark backgrounds, with no glare, is the best for your eyes if you're planning on staring at a computer screen 24/7. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-28 17:12Z

(Shameless plug for FF) The ability to make custom stylesheets is available in Firefox with Stylish installed. ffm ✎talk 18:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Dark text on white is way better on the eyes than bright text on black. It's my experience that bright text on black tends to play tricks on your eyes and in general makes everything look weird after a while. Try turning the brightness down on your screen. Although I must admit that adding a black background interface to the user preferences would be a welcome addition; the default scheme is pretty much the only one worth using IMO. Safuman 19:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It might be a little hard to get used to at first, but it definitely puts less strain on the eyes (light text on dark bg). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-28 20:32Z

Firstly, you can change the background yourself, if you create an account... Secondly, black backgrounds are absolutely horrible. If we were forced to use such an atrocity, I and probably many other people would never use wikipedia again. Bushytails 20:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Those of you that, like me, use Macs (there must be at least one ot there somewhere :), you can hit ctrl-option-command-8 to invert your colors on the screen. Vbdrummer0 04:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on ....

--74.13.126.81 03:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless you could maybe out a link in the Toolbox saying Invert "Colours" or soso, but the Default should still be white, JoWal 11:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I love this monobook.ccs the white hurts after a few hours.

Terrific Wonderbra Ad

My compliments on the fine advertisement for Wonderbra. I suppose we shall soon be seeing an article on Victoria's Secret PINK (TM). Writtenright 03:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

We can only hope! ;) Jmlk17 03:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we won't be doing any product placement in the near future. If you're interested though, you can ask Raul654 about getting your product on the Main Page; if you'd just like to troll though, I'd recommend Wikipedia:Sandbox. ShadowHalo 03:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

We should've gotten a better pic. --Howard the Duck 03:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

So find some Wikipedians (preferably female) who would be models. Dragons flight 05:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Models with big front bumpers. --Howard the Duck 06:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Theresa Knott surely has a nice pair of tits. (Then again, they're rather Britocentric...) Joe 21:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If you'd have Brits on the Main Page, can't we just get Keeley Hazell? --Howard the Duck 02:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I remember hearing the same complaints when that pregnancy test appeared on the Main Page, or some coffee brand (Afghanistan?) also appeared on the Main Page. Good times. hbdragon88 04:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget Frank Klepacki. The talk page is one giant flame. ShadowHalo 05:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, found it. It was Maraba Coffee. hbdragon88 05:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the April Fools article George Washington. --293.xx.xxx.xx 12:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow... wonderbra... just when I thought wiki couldn't sink any lower :|

-G

I'm waiting for the day that Jenna Jameson graces the Main Page, if that day ever comes. ShadowHalo 05:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a featured article so I hope so. Kind of interesting that people complain of adverstisement when articles like wonderbra appear but don't see any problems with Excel Saga or Final Fantasy VI. Garion96 (talk) 06:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Those are old vidoe games – hell, FF6 never even came stateside, ever. They are also very niche products. On the other hand, these articles are of commerical products that are still being sold, with a fairly wide audience, which is why people raise a ruckus when they appear on the front page. hbdragon88 06:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to nitpick, but FF6 never came stateside? Sure it did. The article says it was released in North America on (SNES)Oct '94, (PS) Sep '99, and (GBA)Feb '07. You may be confused because it wasn't called FF6 when it first came out.(I'm pretty sure the GBA one that came out this year is correctly titled, though.) 69.95.50.15 12:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then I'll go for Slayer. You can still buy all their albums, also in the States. Garion96 (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

But they're boys. And nerdy boys. So they use those products, which means they're not advertisements. Get it? Atropos 07:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

They are also very niche products. On the other hand, these articles are of commerical products that are still being sold, with a fairly wide audience, which is why people raise a ruckus when they appear on the front page. hbdragon88 06:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC). Well that strikes me as more than sufficient reason for making it a featured article, obviously something many people have a connection to and interest in. Yorkshiresky 17:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well you shouldnt have had the picture fullsize on your screen and your hands in your pants then. 213.48.15.234 12:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it may be time for you to start working then. Numero4 13:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Meh. These complaints came up when Avatar: The Last Airbender was the TFA, too. I'm all for keeping adverts out, but overcompensating is just as bad.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

From memory the most recent comparison is probably with Baby Gender Mentor. Although in that case as I pointed out, the company who makes it would be particularly silly to want that article featured since it basically revealed their product is likely a load of crock (indeed even the main page blurb suggested it from memory). Also the current availability of the product is unclear Nil Einne 19:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Small error on page

On the line at the top:

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

there should be a little dot between help and contents, like between all the other entries on the line.

There's no dot because the first four are left-aligned and the last four are right-aligned. ShadowHalo 05:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The omission of the dot creates confusion because without the dot between help and contents it is not clear that there are two entries, "help" and "contents" as opposed to one, "help contents"

76.80.92.186 05:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That's only an issue when running at really low resolution, or viewing the Main Page from a very small window. Pretty much anything above 640x480, and you have the first four on the left of the page, and the other four on the right. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 05:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Then we need some fixed blankspace added there to separate 'Help' from 'Contents' for people with small screens. --74.13.124.157 09:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Immoral Liberals!

Don't you liberal Wikipedians know that putting a picture of a women in a bra on the main page will scare any child for life! Wikipedia is obviously run by liberals, trying to destroy children's innocencr and Jimbo Wales probly gives all his money to Hillary Clinton!--208.19.13.102 06:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If you know anyone who's hotter than that woman, take a pic of her wearing a wonderbra then upload it here. That pic is too wholesome to shock even newborns who breastfeed all day. --Howard the Duck 06:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You forgot the mandatory "SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN" line. Borisblue 06:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You just killed two dozen of them Raul654 14:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU WHOEVER CHOSE THIS PICTURE, YOU JUST MADE A YOUNG MAN VERY HAPPY 213.48.15.234 06:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

GLAD I COULD BE OF SERVICE. Raul654 14:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday, it was rock 'n' roll, today it's sex . . . Do we get the drugs tomorrow? — Brian (talk) 07:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, worse. It's a space station. The Flat Earth Society is gonna be pissed. ShadowHalo 08:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Not just any space station. A commie pinko space station. Further proof that Wikipedia is communism. --- RockMFR 16:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Then the next day is the New Jersey Devils OMG!!!! DEVILS on the main page! Go to conservapedia if you don't like it :) PlatypusToby 20:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Picture of the Day

My best regards for feature the exquisite "Starry Night" as POTD. Kudos to everyone! --ŴôôḌẼĿF 06:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The real Picture of the Day is the risque one in today's featured article. It surprised me to see Wikipedia display pornography on its front page. Christopher Connor 21:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Rule of thumb - if you can see it in the sears catalogue, it's probably not porn. Raul654 21:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is porn. This definitely isn't. ffm ✎talk 21:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Depends on intent I guess. If this photo were part of a series leading up to the model removing the garment in question, I supppose it'd be categorised as pornography. Since it's not, it's not :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 23:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

One person's porn is not necessarily another's, have a look at the attempts to define pornography in the law over the past few decades. It's fun to watch legislators squirm while constructing legislation. --Monotonehell 10:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are we acting so immaturely? It's as if no one's ever seen a bra before. And if you haven't, that only shows how uncool you are—go out and gape at some RIGHT NOW!!!! --ŴôôḌẼĿF 17:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia on Daily Show

Just thought you might be interested to know that Wikipedia was featured on the June 27, 2007 Daily Show, during Lewis Black's segment. He was humorously commenting on conservatives either buying perceived left wing organizations or starting alternatives, and used Wikipedia's contrast with Conservapedia as an example, citing each site's article on homosexuality. There also was a picture of the main page. DoomsDay349 14:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw Slayer, so you know they taped it yesterday :) Raul654 14:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

July 27? That's impressive. Why not add it to Wikipedia:Wikipedia on TV and radio? 193.82.16.42 18:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the typo on the month :) I'll look into adding it there. DoomsDay349 19:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

More interesting than, that, this is the first time I've edited from an internet cafe. It seems that a few weeks ago, there was a sock puppet in this room! See the IP address when I sign. I'll have to remember to add this IP address to my user page and claim these three edits or so that I've made! 193.82.16.42 20:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

It's virtually certain that as soon as this is published, spoilers will be stuck onto every "Today's featured article" and probably everywhere else on Wikipedia. It might be a good idea to put a warning on the Main Page saying that any article could have spoliers put in by vandals. EamonnPKeane 20:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

See our content disclaimer. There's no way that there's going to be a warning about Harry Potter spoilers on the Main Page. ShadowHalo 21:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I trust that we can revert such spoiler warnings as soon as possible. Or not. We might be ditracted by trying to read the book ourselves first before getting it spoiled. hbdragon88 21:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

While I agree spoiler warnings should be reverted, it seems to me the more important thing to revert is the spoilers which IMHO is far worse vandalism then the spoiler warnings Nil Einne 12:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Today's London Bomb Scare

I've been following CNN for a few hours and was wonderring if we should consider adding the 29th's London Bomb Scare to the 7/7 incident? I know they aren't in any known relation, but being so close, people are thinking that they are in relation, much like Virginia Tech Massacre's possible relation to Columbine (according to the date's anyways). I only suggest this for space saving.

NastalgicCam 7:18am, 29 June 2007

Wikipedia's for facts, not speculation. There is currently no published evidence linking the two events. Bazza 12:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you are correct. I guess we may need to wait for them to find the perpetrator before making any connections, eh?

NastalgicCam 7:18am, 29 June 2007

Unexploded bomb

Anyone else find it odd that real bombs go off daily and kill dozens, but an unexploded one makes all the news? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-29 12:51Z

Not really. It's a question of location - real bombs do not go off daily and kill dozens in London, but because the IRA used to conduct London bombings, there's enough sensitivity there to cause a big kerfluffle about it. Also, there's always going to be a media bias toward cities large and important enough to have large, important media organizations headquartered in them. More to the point, something that happens (semi-)routinely isn't going to be added to ITN because it won't have an article or update associated with it. -- Gavia immer (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia endorse the "kerfuffle" and the "media bias"? ITN requires more than an updated article.--cloviz 13:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a news service. Please visit Wikinews if you want news on a wiki model. The purpose of the ITN section is to highlight current events articles that have recently been updated. Borisblue 16:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Criterion number 3: "It should be a story of an international importance, or at least interest." And I believe that the original post was a comment on the weird selectivity of media and the society rather than a complaint about the inclusion of this story.--cloviz 16:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to your comment, not Brian's. I'm sorry if the indentation wasn't sufficient to make that clear. Borisblue 17:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Simplify code

{{editprotected}}

Between "Sections at bottom of page" and "Interwiki strapline" there seems a lot of unnecessary code:

-----------------------------Sections at bottom of page------------------------------>
== Other areas of Wikipedia ==

{{WikipediaOther}}
== Wikipedia's sister projects ==

{{WikipediaSister}}
== Wikipedia languages ==

{{Wikipedialang}}<!--

<!--which divs to these close?:--></div></div><!--
-->__NOTOC__  __NOEDITSECTION__<!--

<!----------Interwiki strapline---------->

I suggest most of the two empty divs, and the hidden messages to which they refer be removed for a quicker loading time. If it breaks it, you can always revert - 82.16.7.63 17:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As well as the two empty <!-- - 82.16.7.63 17:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

N Not done Those aren't empty divs, but the closing of a div higher up the page (an empty div would be <div/>). (It's not entirely clear to me, or presumably to whoever added the comment before them, exactly which div it is that they close, though.) The empty comments are used to comment out line breaks so that the edit screen can be made more readable without changing the appearance of the Main Page itself. The comments have no effect at all on the rendered result of the Main Page; the 'quicker loading time' effect you want wouldn't be achieved by removing it (it would give the page a microscopically quicker parsing time, but the main page is only reparsed at midnight UTC (for the change in the day's FA, etc.), when someone edits a template transcluded on it, or when someone purges the page; these events happen much less often than views of the Main Page. --ais523 17:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Or untill the cache is purged, which can be done as many times as desired, if I understand how the WM cache system works. ffm ✎talk 18:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

ITN img

plz put hatshepsut back in. i dont wanna see some ugly britain.--Studytheearths 19:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Nasty joke aside, I really can't see why the image was changed. This diff claims its a "freer image", but being that Image:Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahri.jpg is under GFDL and CC, I'm not sure why it was deemed invalid.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it. Borisblue 19:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Technically a public domain image is IMHO freer from a copyright sense of view (although I'm sure some GPL/GFDL fans may beg to differ) however I agree the change was inappropriate and unnecessary (and also against policy). Any free image is suitable and when the image is clearly free there is no need to consider which one is 'freer'. In terms of ITN and probably all of the main page, there should never be the need to replace one image with a 'freer' one since an unfree image should never be on the main page Nil Einne 20:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

12:56 PST The photo is Hatshepsut, but the text still claims that it is Gordon Brown who is pictured.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 19:57, 29 June 2007 (talk • contribs) 75.165.9.239.

Should've reported this at #Main page error reports above. --74.13.124.157 09:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Bomb news summary

Maybe it should be changed slightly? It reads "Two attempted car bomb attacks in central London are foiled by the Metropolitan Police." - is 'foiled' really correct? In my mind, that would mean that their intelligence lead them to intercept both cars before anyone else reported anything...as it was, one was an eyewitness account (of a smoking car? I'm not quite sure), and the other was towed away before the company realized there was a bomb inside.

It doesn't really sound like the bombs were directly stopped by the police at all. --Joewithajay 10:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What's up with the templates? E.G. "CEST" is broken as well as the templates main page... --88.134.83.112 10:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images on main page

I do not know if this was discussed before (god I hope it was). Aren't fair use images disallowed on the main page? So why has one used in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 23, 2007? Is it allowed or was it an innocent accident? -- Cat ^chi? 12:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not allowed. Pilotguy 13:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

From memory, the discussion about disallowing fair use images on the main page hadn't quite reached consensus at that stage which may have been why the image was allowed at that time. Nil Einne 13:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

March 23? That was about the time when the discussions about disallowing fair use images on the Today's featured article templates began. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Which means that there will still be a number of fair use images on the FA templates dating before March 2007 because nobody has yet bothered to go through each one in the archive and remove them. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah ok. They are protected so only admins can fix them.
I made this inquiry as a sanity check. Thank you. (I feel sane yes :P) -- Cat ^chi? 17:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

2007 Glasgow International Airport incident

Perhaps this should be included in the news now? CNN is reporting that it is very likely a deliberate attack. What do people think?--Analogue Kid 16:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be discussed in the proper place, i.e. WP:ITN/C. Nil Einne 17:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This should definitely be on the main page. This is much worse than the London incident yesterday.
GMc^talk 19:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely its on BBC, Sky and other news channels are reporting live. It should be added and linked in with the london attempted car bombs yesterday. Thenthornthing 20:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I concure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.183.70 (talk • contribs)

Bias/propaghanda in wikipedia?

It is troubling to see that wikipedia is running a featured article about islam, and this article contains almost no mention of terrorism. This is very clearly bias. While I am not suggesting that the article should say that all muslims are terrorists, the fact of the matter is the majority of terrorists in the world today are followers of this religion. Wikipedia should be in the business of reporting facts and unbiased knowledge, it should not be an arena for propaghanda.