Jump to content

Talk:Main Page

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by UstashkiDom (talk | contribs) at 20:07, 23 August 2007 (new rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Main Page discussion footer

05:08, Friday, August 23, 2024 (UTC)

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

Shortcuts

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

  • Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
  • Offer a correction if possible.
  • References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
  • Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 05:08 on 23 August 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
  • Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
  • Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
  • No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
  • Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
  • Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.
Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

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

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

'that a lyric in the song "Hands on Me" is about Meghan Trainor being unable to have sex due to pelvic floor damage?' How on earth did this get approved? This a gross BLP violation. I looked at the source and it appears to be a joke rather than a serious statement about the lyrics meaning, even if it isn't there is no good reason we should be publishing this information on the front page of Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 @IanTEB @MaranoFan pinging. BorgQueen (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A joke? No, as she followed up that statement with "I'm very open because it's very common and very normal and no one's talking about it..." Can't see where the "gross BLP violation" is personally. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a joke and Trainor talks about these types of things on her own podcast regularly. The podcast episode the fact comes from was done soon after the song's release and in the immediate promotion of it. Perfectly acceptable.--NØ 01:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Friday's FL

(August 23, today)

Monday's FL

(August 26)
Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD



Main page general discussion

Britain NOT England

The Duke of Marlborough did not command the forces of England, the Holy Roman Empire and the United Provinces at Blenheim:he commanded the forces of THE UNITED KINGDOM, the Holy Roman Empire and the United Provinces. I realise that using 'England' when the United Kingdom of Great Britain is actually meant is a common practice: but that does not make it any less wrong. Flonto 21:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The United Kingdom didn't come into existence until 1800. The Kingdom of Great Britain didn't even come into existence until 1707, so in 1704, "England" is the correct usage. Corvus cornix 21:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although it might be worth noting if he was also leading Scottish forces, the two being de facto the same country at the time. —Verrai 04:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flonto, you may want to post at #Main page error reports above the next time you want to suggest small changes and minor corrections on MainPage. Thanks. --PFHLai 00:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
de facto or not, its the de jure that counts. Besides, as previous discussions elsewhere have stated, England was used to refer to the whol Island. Which was, by the way, under Eglish control.Man of Bravery!! 04:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia should not perpetuate ignorance. The island is Great Britain. The forces the Duke of Marlborough was leading were English. Corvus cornix 23:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What previous discussions, where? I'm intrigued. Badgerpatrol 23:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Island at the time was called England for the most part, I mean for de facto reasons. Previous discussion, to the best of my memory is somewhere to do with the Battle of Trafalgar, where Nelson used the signal "England expects every man to do his duty" - although it is true he used england because it was easier than the words "Great Britain" it still made sense to the many non-English British sailors fighting the French. All your base are belong to us! 02:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the honour of pedants, led it be known that Nelson led the forces (de jure) not of Great Britain but of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Algebraist 02:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, he didn't; there was no Kingdom of Great Britain, let alone a Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1704, only the Kingdom of England, the Kingdom of Scotland, and the Kingdom of Ireland. The three happened to be de facto the same country, but de jure each was independent (to varying degrees; Scotland still had its own Parliament until the Acts of Union 1707, but Ireland's status as an independent kingdom was a complete political fabrication). —Verrai 02:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to continue this, but when I said 'Nelson', I meant Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson at the Battle of Trafalgar, as alluded to by All your base are belong to us! above. Algebraist 03:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And sorry to lengthen this but Nelsons battle is well after 1707 - its in the early 1800's. Not that I care, I've had my fill of discussions!All your base are belong to us! 07:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is clearly a great deal of confusion here. The Battle of Trafalgar was in 1805, well after both acts of union. Why he chose to signal "England" rather than something more accurate is not known to me, although clearly it would have been a considerable pain in the arse to signal "The United Kingdom Of Great Britain and Ireland Expects That Every Man Will Do His Duty" in semaphore. I'd still like Tourskin to point me to the discussions that provide reliable sources that the island of Great Britain (or the wider UK) was referred to habitually as "England" at the time - to the best of my knowledge, that just isn't true. One naval order on one day from Admiral Nelson does not a paradigm make. Badgerpatrol 14:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Dude, if I remembered every discussion, I would shoot myself, but fortunately for me I don't and unfortunatly for you. However, just to satisfy ur taste, look at the movie "Last of the Mohicans". This is not a reliable source (so dont bother nailing me about it not being one) but in it the British soldiers refer to a so called foreign policy of "Make the world England". Also, look at Master and Commander, where Russel Crowe as the commander of the ship says to his British crew (theres lots of scottish accents there so its not only english crew lol) "this ship is england". England, England, ENGLAND!!!! Tourskin 20:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK- I feel I should point you towards this page, one which I feel should be an essential reference for any Wikipedian. You in particular may gain considerable benefit from a thorough analysis of its contents. Badgerpatrol 21:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are a sad little man. I don't give a damn what you feel, it seems that you yourself are well-acquainted with that Bullocks page. You wanna get personal than thats ur problem, I told you that England was used to refer to the whole of Britain at the time. I don't have specific references because such information is common sense. Just like how people use to call the Soviet Union "Russia". The reason being is like Russia, England is the dominant political entity, backed up by the fact that English is spoken is the de facto official language and the capital is in England etc. I did not mean to insult you so next time present an argument, do not present ur Bullocks stuff. Tourskin 23:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, from your immature response it seems that you have not taken that in the light-hearted way in which it was intended. Never mind. With the best will in the world...you don't know what you're talking about. There is a vague element of truth to what you're saying, but you do not present a very credible argument unfortunately. Badgerpatrol 01:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like to take what people meant so I will take back what I said against you. However, you should have known that your above response was offensive. You can't just tell people "look at the page about bullocks and you will be much better" or something along those lines. I haven't been able to make my argument here without many sources. Well, the thing is, soruces of the olden times don't generally comment about informalities so much as formalities. For example, a historian of Nelson's time would not likely say "England won" but "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland has triumphed" to sound all heroic and official. Tourskin 22:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a lot of clear light between bullocks and bollocks, although I suppose the former does tend to connote the latter. In short, if the sources don't say it, then it isn't true (or at least it isn't verifiable, which is far more important that subjective "truth" for our purposes). (Ironically enough, in this case the original entry was actually accurate - it was your subsequent line of argument that was flawed.) Anyway, that's the end of it. Badgerpatrol 00:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on end of what? what statement was wrong? I think that you need to seriously change the way to present your thoughts since I have no idea what your are on about - soruces verify what? What was correct? What first statement? R u saying that Marlborough commanded British forces? Wasn't Blenheim before those Union acts? Listen buddy, you don't direct someone to a page that says "Bullocks or Bollocks" or whatever the hell - don't be so foolish to think that everyone knows the difference, if there is one (im not disputing it so hold ur horses). That is beside the point anyway. I only said that alot of people use to refer the whole of Britain as England and indeed some people still do. As stupid as it sounds, you can't seriously expect me to quote or obtain sources suggesting this. What the everyday man says like saying "England" instead of UK or "Bullocks" instead of "Bollocks" is not exactly a science that is recorded for future reference.Tourskin 02:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermoore, don't make me laugh - don't point me to an article that isn't Wikipedia policy - is says so at the top with a template its just an author's opinion. Tourskin 02:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem very stressed, Tourskin, perhaps you should take a breather? You're really overreacting in these two threads. Atropos 02:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gees, will u guys lay of my back? U think I need a breather, make room for one then!Tourskin 03:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. You seem for some reason to have been deeply offended that I pointed you towards WP:CB, which is a light-hearted page. I meant that as a joke - sorry if it offended you. From your user page I assumed you were British and would understand that link in linguistic and cultural context, although from your use of language it seems you may be an American who has only studied in the UK - if so, please understand that the phrase and concept is almost always used in a light-hearted and jocular fashion. I never said it was Wikipedia policy - it's a joke. Hopefully there is still room for humour here on Wikipedia. I do agree with Atropos that you have overeacted a little bit - sometimes these things happen to the best of us. Do try and keep a sense of proportion though; not sure how long you've been editing here, but you might want to develop a bit of a thicker skin. Badgerpatrol 12:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tourskin, your comments are extremely offensive to many people in the UK only the English refer to the UK as England but here in Scotland it would likeley get you a severe beating. It, is like saying that the US is England since the official language is English. Just for reference it was a Scottish king who formed the UK and it will be the the Scottish people who may decide to break up the UK in a few years. I would have thought such an esteemed hisorian as you would have known that. For Info most of the ships of the Royal navy during Georgian times would leave port in Plymouth, Portsmouth and Chatham and sail north with minimal crew to pressgang experienced sailors from Fife, east Scotland and the Northern Isles of Orkney and Shetland as they were considered the greatest sailors of the age, these were not particularly loyal areas for the crown and there for it is unlikley that any Naval comander of the time (Russel Crowe included) would refer to the ship as England as it would more likeley cause mutiny than spurr the men to war. As for the Nelson Signal, well that was how it was reported to the Admiralty (all English Aristocracy) but he might not have sent that as for the high pecentage of Scots and Irish men in the battle who would have been rather pissed off at being there instead of in the chosen and profitable career in the Merchant Navy. Of course I speak only as an Officer in the UK Merchant Navy and former Royal Navy Reservist who has studdied UK Naval History, But Hollywood could be right. C RyanLouiseryan 19:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Louiseryan (talk • contribs).[reply]

Ok let me make some things straight here:
  • I am not American, wish I was but oh well.
  • Live in England 14 of my 18 years. 4 in Iraq and almost a year in USA (19th birthday soon!!!)
  • Yes I know English History. Maybe if u knew me u would know i got an A star in GCSE History (see my user page if u will).
  • It does not matter if it offends scotsman. Its true still. A lot of Assyrians are called Infidel, like myself. Its offensive, but nonetheless, I am an infidel to the Muslims of my country, Iraq.
  • Overreacting? What do u want me to do? Theres like 3/4 users on this page all against my point!!

A stressed out, overreacting, yet A* GCSE Historian, wannabe American19:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, inaccurately conflating "England" with the "United Kingdom" would not be likely to gain you a severe beating in Scotland, because Scottish people are not mindless thugs. It is safe to say that most people would not take it altogether well however. Secondly, it is sometimes done, particularly by unwitting foreigners or the ignorant, but the way you constructed your argument (particularly calling upon "previous discussions" that are so far unforthcoming and may or may not exist) was unhelpful. I don't think you've made your point too well, but if you're saying that it's acceptable in this encyclopaedia to describe the island of Great Britain or the the post-1707/1800 United Kingdom successor states as "England" then you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Just because some ignorant people do it, does not mean we all should - the purpose of this project is surely to dispel ignorance, not perpetuate it. If the result of this "previous discussion" was to establish that this is somehow acceptable, then I would like you to point me to it so that I can go there and potentially have input. Thirdly, the original item re the Duke of Marlborough was (I think, it was a while ago now) accurate in that it referred to the pre-union (i.e. 1704) English military. Fourthly, if 3/4 of the users are against your point, then the way to win them over is through rational argument and marshalling of evidence, not by bizarrely quoting Hollywood movie dialogue and spitting the dummy when people try and engage you in constructive/light-hearted debate. Fifthly, congratulations on your A grade in your history O-Level and good luck in becoming an American. Badgerpatrol 21:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You see ur response? It looks "stressful" and "overreacting". Well I did not say we should call the UK England - please look carefully at what I wrote. I of all people should know this considering my British Nationality. I never once said it in this discussion. I already said that could not present a good argument because its diffifult to cite these so called ignorant people. Oh and thanks for the good luck, but I don't need it. Oh and I wholeheartedly accept your earlier apology.


By the way, beg your pardon but I did not achieve and A but an A*. (Oh hope you realize that this over-reacting line is a joke). Now that all seems to have been accounted for... Tourskin 22:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does it come across as stressful and overreacting? Sorry if it does, I'm not at all stressed and I certainly didn't mean to overreact. I did look carefully at what you wrote, which does seem to be somewhat contradictory. But thank you for clarifying. I assure you by the way - everyone needs a bit of luck from time to time - take good wishes when and where you can get them! Badgerpatrol 23:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not contradictory. From the beginning I said that at the time (1704) most people referred to the UK as England. And then I added that today some people still do, regardless if its offensive (lol here comes the severe beating). Thanks for ending it on a nice tone tho! And that was not sarcasm, just for the record! A relaxed Tourskin (for now) 00:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 million article

hi sory my english not that good. will there be main page notice about 2,000,000 articles when we hit mark? i know there was celebration for 1,000,000, but what about 2 milion? 69.115.13.5 01:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Party. My place. BYOB. Antimatter--talk-- 02:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been brought up several times recently. General consensus is that it isn't a big deal. After we reached one million the focus is more on quality than quantity. Out of those two million articles it's said that the vast majority are unreferenced stubs. Big round numbers aren't particularly notable except for those of us with ten fingers. --Monotonehell 04:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to contradict that, but I decided to hit "random article" ten times... 8/10 were stubs, 9/10 were unreferenced(!!) Still, it might be worth a small mention. Grandmasterka 05:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2,000,000 articles might be worth a "small mention?" Tim Q. Wells 06:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Explain why.... ;) --Monotonehell 06:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We will have created one million articles since March 1, 2006. Tim Q. Wells 07:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Today we've created one million articles since 15 February 2006 (or something) Nil Einne 08:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where should this go then? --Monotonehell 09:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep it simple: when the counter hits 2,000,000 make the text on it BOLD. Otherwise, the main page should be unaltered. Antimatter--talk-- 14:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually tink it be mention on main page somewhere and it be in bold. 69.115.13.5 15:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about placing it on DYK for like 2 days... --Howard the Duck 16:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you going to delete the wikipedia article and start again? Nil Einne 18:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, since it's "special," we'd highlight a different fact on every DYK update. --Howard the Duck 03:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(un-indent)It will be an event which promotes considerable press-coverage, so I think we should certainly show it in some way... I've created a test page to highlight one possible solution (a small banner; nondescript but still clearly noticable); feel free to edit it. Laïka 17:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine we'll use the built-in banner like last time. Cheers. --MZMcBride 17:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is what we did for 1,000,000; it's a bit bright, which is why I've used TFA green for the proposed banner. Laïka 17:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like that. Maybe a tad smaller though Antimatter--talk-- 17:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I love it. --Boricuaeddie 17:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that that banner was taken down rather quickly after the event generated no press coverage. I expect the press will care equally little about two million as they did about one million. Atropos 17:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who said it's only for the press? --Boricuaeddie 17:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally this is what I think we should do User:Nil Einne/Wikipedia:Main Page test Nil Einne 18:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I care about having 2,000,000 articles. How many encyclopedias have done that? I know we have to improve existing ones, but creating new ones is just as important, IMO. --Boricuaeddie 18:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Boricuaeddie. Tim Q. Wells 18:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nil Einne, do you mind if I fiddle the wording on that a bit, to try and find a compromise? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's not a very good approach. We don't need to downplay it, 2 million is an achievement and we can be proud of it and enjoy it. Sure, improving articles is important, but there's no need to go the "2 million? yeah, ok, so what?" approach.... -Elmer Clark 19:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't intend to downplay it; I want to try and work something out that shows off the achievement, while still pointing out that we want quality, too. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blech. Please just don't do anything. The only people who care are editors; the main page is not written for editors. Post it at the community portal or something if you have to. Atropos 20:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I tink you wrong Atropos. It not just for editors we should be proud of acomplishment and how we work together. We should do the banner. It not to big but not to small. 69.115.13.5 21:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who has an accomplishment to be proud of is an editor. Readers are the consumer, they did not contribute to the encyclopedia. Atropos 23:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is defiantly true, but I don't think readers would mind a small announcement stating that we have now 2 million articles. The important thing is to keep it small and humble. If reaching X million articles was common I would agree with you. Jeltz talk 22:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As a reminder, this is whaqt we did when we got 1.5 million articles for 2 minutes: [1]. If we celebrated our 1.5 m article, we should celebrate our 2 m article. Also, I clocked random article 20 times, and I found 14 stubs (70%), 5 pages with no references or links whatsoever (25%), 2 articles with a tag at the top (10%), 4 articles without talkpages (20%), 10 biographies (50%), 1 created within the past month (5%), 2 with any edits within the past week (10%), 1 with a talkpage with more edits than the article (5%), 13 with no images (65%), 1 with potentially offensive words or images (5%), and 4 articles that do not require scrolling on my computer to reach the bottom of the actual article (20%). What do you think about these stats? I think we should do a little something for the main page this labour-day-ish event. The wikipedians might want to be all technical about the insignificance of nice round numbers, but the general public likely won't. Wikipedia is generally among the top ten most visited sites in the world, and it would be nice if we did something to commemorate and notify. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 23:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the one that was removed two minutes later with the edit summary "This is not how we do this"? I think that makes my case for me. Atropos 23:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was removed with the edit summary "This is not how we do this" because the banner was put in the wrong place. Those types of banners belong on Template:Main Page banner. It was subsequently put there and resided there for three days (although that might be a bit on the long side). -- tariqabjotu 03:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm sure you did something to help improve those articles (or at least tagged them) while you were performing a survey of a far too small sample size (one 100,000th, that's a centimeter's part of a kilometer). Atropos 23:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So because the readers won't mind it it should be included? Anything included on the main page should either be encyclopedic content (which, as metadata, this is not) or assist the reader in navigating the sea of encyclopedic content we have accumulated, 2,000,000 articles I hear (which this does not do). Atropos 04:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) As stated above by Nil Einne, albeit possibly tongue in cheek, two million articles isn't such a big deal when, as suggested by AstroHurricane001's random survey, a vast majority of those two million are sub standard. 25% of 2,000,000 is 500,000. Not as great an achievement when you look at it objectively and focus on the reality not the statistic. Perhaps something like Nil Einne suggested but with the wording tweaked. --Monotonehell 23:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking his permsision to fiddle it higher up, but he doesn't seem to be on right now. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Well, do you really think I have that much time? That would give me a horrible headache (no offense)! I'm also pretty sure I don't want to have a case of Severe Acute Addictional Wikipedian's Sudden Penatrative Traumatic Migranative Radiational Electromagnetic Meningitial Abfunctional Brain Tumour Syndrome (I like to eat eat eat eepples and beeneenees...). I don't normally edit random articles, and if I did, there are thousands more I could edit, and I just don't have that kind of time. Also, surveying each article took about 3 minutes, so I can't possible examine, like, 10 000 edits a day! Besides, I'm not that wikiholic, even my my highest score was actually under 10000, and I have less than 2000 edits, although I haven't taken it in a long time. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 23:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to complain to Wikipedia readers that many of our articles are poor in quality. All we need is a short message taking little space, and to the point: "Wikipedia thanks its contributors for over 2,000,000 articles." Tim Q. Wells 02:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic we don't need to put it in "reader space" at all. --Monotonehell 05:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like Laïka's suggestion. Succint, measured, perfect. Recurring dreams 09:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay my suggestion was more tongue-in-cheek then serious but it did occur to me that we should have something a bit like that if we're going to mention the 2 million articles thing. Since I'm thankfully not the only one, I've modified it to a more serious suggestion User:Nil Einne/Wikipedia:Main Page test. Feel free to change it as you see fit. I've included a few comments in the talk page there too. Nil Einne 13:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite get the idea of Wikipedia thanking its contributors. If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it has no feelings and no means to express them. If Wikipedia is its contributors, it would be saying thanks to itself. Thus, any sentence like that sounds formulaic and fake to me and perhaps to other people too. --cloviz 13:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree, how about my edit to Nil Einne's test? --Monotonehell 13:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's not festive enough? I thought about: "The English language Wikipedia now has articles on over 2,000,000 subjects. An abstract being (i.e. people that make comments on the Main Page discussion page) congratulates all contributors who use the decimal numeral system and are fond of round numbers." But it happened to be a bad joke.--cloviz 14:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you know whats a good cause for celebration? My birthday which is today. TaylorLTD 03:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does your birthday have to do with the main page? But, whatever....
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, TaylorLTD! --11:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Censorship on the main page?

From the main page:

Old Dan Tucker" is a popular American song. Its origins remain obscure; the tune may have come from the oral tradition, and the words may have been written by songwriter and performer Dan Emmett. The blackface troupe the Virginia Minstrels popularized "Old Dan Tucker" in 1843, and it quickly became a minstrel hit, behind only "Miss Lucy Long" and "Mary Blane" in popularity during the antebellum period. "Old Dan Tucker" entered the folk vernacular around the same time.

From the article itself:

"Old Dan Tucker", also known as "Ole Dan Tucker", "Dan Tucker", and other variants, was a denigrating American popular song of the antebellum period, conventionalizing the then-common blackface comic travesty of Black people. Its origins remain obscure; the tune may have come from the oral tradition, and the words may have been written by songwriter and performer Dan Emmett. The blackface troupe the Virginia Minstrels popularized "Old Dan Tucker" in 1843, and it quickly became a minstrel hit, behind only "Miss Lucy Long" and "Mary Blane" in popularity during the antebellum period. "Old Dan Tucker" entered the folk vernacular around the same time. Today it is a bluegrass and country music standard.

So why the rewrite? I thought Wikipedia wasn't censored? --293.xx.xxx.xx 02:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When an article attains featured status, it gets archived, and that edition of the article can go onto the main page as TFA, what your looking at is that archived version, and subsiquent edits are living strong on the actual article. --Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 03:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the version from which the main page blurb was culled. Raul654 03:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object

It is a thing of great disrespect and moral degeneration,if the event of 21th August 1968,the invasion of Czchoslovakia by the armies of the Warsaw pact and the subsequent ocupation are not mentioned to have ocured on this day.If it remains so,It will be yet another disapointment,out of many,with Wikipedia.Is a stolen Mona lisa,witch was uncovered two years later more important,then an invasion of a 15 milion country by five armies and a subsequent ocupation,leading to a restored dictature,lasting over 21 years?My grandfather was not allowed to teach anymore,because he openly opossed the ocupation, thousands of people lost their jobs or were sent to prison-ive seen people who were banned from their workplace,just because a russian soldiers opened fire on them and another man,who was forced to pay a fine (for "purposely damaging soviet property") ,when a rusian tank hit his car and injured him.Many people were left with lifelong consequences and the head of government was,prior to this,kidnapped into Moscow for "negotiation".Also note that this was presented as a "allied asistance",against the "creeping contra-revolution" and it was thereafter praised as an act of salvation of our "socialist nation" from "falling into the hands of western fascists and imperialist".Please respect this.

New Babylon 2 13:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the past couple of years, the Prague Spring article has been posted on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/August 20, yesterday's "On this day" page [2] because, I assume, Prague Spring#Occupation currently says, "On the night of August 20' - August 21, 1968, Eastern Bloc armies from five Warsaw Pact countries invaded the ČSSR." (emphasis added) [3] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you click on the More events on this day... link at the bottom of the "On this day..." section and scroll down to 1968, you'll see that the event you refer to is mentioned to have occured on this day. Of course you might want it to be more prominently displayed...I personally have no idea how it's decided which events are displayed on the main page proper, but I doubt it's decided by "importance" and am sure no slight was intended. 24.22.163.169 13:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Things are not placed on the main page because of their significance. Atropos 23:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something? I was under the impression that only events "of moderate to great historical significance" were chosen. But if we're not going by significance, can someone add my birthday then? 17Drew 23:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, only be sarcastic when you aren't obviously missing the point. While there is a minimum requirement for inclusion, things are not included on the main page because they're the most "important." As cute as I'm sure you think you're being, the hyperbolism is just annoying. Atropos 00:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind explaining the point then? The main are that chosen items must be "of moderate to great historical significance" and that the article isn't a stub. Items most certainly are chosen because of their importance, and in this case, the event was included in Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/August 20 because it is an important, non-stub article. 17Drew 00:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that while items must be "of moderate to great historical significance" that They were chosen from within that set arbitrarily for variety and interest? --24.2.176.64 00:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about that, Atropos? Articles with maintenance tags and other deficiencies tend to be excluded from the selected anniversary section, but as far as I know items are placed because of their significance. (Yes, yes, variety of topic and/or location is nice, but significance is still a major factor.) -- tariqabjotu 03:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is both those factors: international significance and whether the bolded article is well-written. You probably would not never see "Franklin Pierce was elected as the 14th President of the United States." But if September 11, 2001 attacks is under a heavy POV edit war, like it currently is now, it will not be on there (unless someone finds another way to rewrite the blurb so another article is featured and bolded). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, no one definitively knows who chooses which of the selected anniversary events are displayed on the main page, or what the selection criteria is supposed to be? Just looking at today, there are 30+ events to choose from and culling that down to 5 on the basis of "significance", international or otherwise, would seem to have to be a fairly arbitrary procedure in my opinion; even discounting articles currently involved in edit wars, heavily tagged, or crappily written. 38.112.225.84 05:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is one admin who is very active in updating these pages for the past few months, but more in a maintenance capacity than a primary source of new suggestions. I have spoken to this admin a number of times. This person uses the On this day criteria as a guide. But most of the time the choices made are more based on what articles and events were on those pages previously before this admin became active on SA/OTD (keep in mind that selected anniversary pages were created around late 2003-early 2004). If there are articles on there from last year that are now involved in edit wars, heavily tagged, etc., or the date has recently been cited and verified as wrong, only then will this person remove and replace them. Most of these replacements are chosen with the help of cross-referencing what events and well-written articles are listed on the Wikipedia's List of historical anniversaries pages with various credible "On this day" web sites such as BBC and The New York Times Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But yes, it does seem arbitrary because it is trying to balance what topics are internationally significant, what articles are well-written, and maintaining a varied array of topics that span across different topics and centuries on each day. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you for clarifying. I was just curious. Keep up the good work; I hereby absolve you of "great disrespect and moral degeneration."  :) 38.112.225.84 09:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think what atropos may have been trying to say is that significance is not really the deciding factor in what items go on and what don't. It's true that items should generally be of moderate to great significance to go on OTD. And generally speaking if there is a very clear difference between significance and both are well written we would choose the one of far greater significance. On the other hand there is a very large grey area of relative significance where we avoid treading and if an item is of sufficient signifance for OTD, relative significance is probably the last area we will tread anyway. We will usual look at things like balance etc first. If there are two or 3 items from the UK or US or China for example we will probably only choose one if there are lots of other stuff from other countries even if the UK or US items are arguably of more significance then the other items. Nil Einne 13:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou. Even if the occupation wasn't included in otd, it wouldn't mean we think the Mona Lisa was more important than Czechoslovakia. Atropos 19:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

replacing old news on ITN

Should Typhoon Sepat (2007), Crandall Canyon Mine, Kazakhstani legislative election, 2007, Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting investigation or China Airlines Flight 120 get on ITN to displace some of the old news on ITN (2007 Qahtaniya bombings, 2007 Peru earthquake)? Please discuss at WP:ITN/C. --11:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks to all those who went to ITN/C for the discussions. --11:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.14.16.71 (talk)

Photo credit for picture of the day

I notice that today's Picture of the Day includes a photo credit. I am not sure when this practice started, but I think it should cease. Our normal practice is that authors are not credited on articles, on portals, or on the main page. This practice should apply to pictures also. Choosing a picture of the day is a collaborative process, just as writing an article is. In some cases, the photo will even be directly edited (cropping, color) by multiple people. Singling out a photographer for credit on the main page is unfair to all the uncredited people who contribute greatly to the site. Johntex\talk 17:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas articles are almost 100% of the time a collaboration among many editors, photos are almost always the work of one person. In a dictionary, the authors are not credited on the cover or in a prominent place, because they all collaborated together. For photos however, the photographer is almost always credited in a prominent place, and you wouldn't expect to see the name of the person who brightened, darkened, or cropped the image. I think that photo credits are a good idea and should stay. —METS501 (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of articles that have been edited mainly by a single person. If you click "random page" 10 times you will find that more than half of the articles were written primarily by a single author. That does not mean that we should start singling these people out for credit.Johntex\talk 17:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to photos, even the selection of the photo is a community task. The people who are involved in that decision, including the work of posting the picture to the Main Page, are just as deserving of credit as the person who pushed the shutter button. Johntex\talk 17:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This last point is absurd. In the case of the current POTD of a wasp, the photographer got a decent camera, set up a shot of living animal on a flattering background with appropriate lighting and then uploaded it with appropriate detail on type and size. To state that an editor who writes "Support. Very encyclopedic" in a FP nom subpage has equivalent importance towards getting the image to the front page of Wikipedia is an insult both to the photographer and to the intelligence of people who have the misfortune to read this argument. - BanyanTree 21:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And people who took half a dozen trips to the library and spend dozens of hours writing a well referenced and informative article don't deserve the same amount of credit as people who worked hard to take a nice picture? The thing is, they shouldn't receive any credit at all, or expect to. Wikipedia has no byline. Atropos 23:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to the line of argument made by Johntex, which is not the line of argument you have made. I don't care enough about the outcome of this discussion to take a position, unless one considers pointing out offensively bad reasoning by a person in the discussion to be a position. - BanyanTree 00:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is your attitude that is offensive. I am simply stating that different people contribute in different ways. The person who queues up and maintains the picture of the day is doing important work. The person who comments on 100 potential photos of the day is doing important work. The person who takes a photo of the day is doing important work. The last is no more deserving of recognition than any of the former. Johntex\talk 00:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crediting the photographer also violates our guideline on photo captions which states "Generally, [the photographer] is only included in the caption if the photographer is notable." This means that the photographer should be uncredited unless they are a famous photographer. Johntex\talk 17:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Ignore all rules states that "If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it." When an image has been digitally modified, that person is credited with the original photographer (a recent example). Wikipedia:Captions is a guideline primarily intended to describe how captions should be used in articles. The purpose of the POTD is different from that of an article. It exists to encourage people to create and upload high quality, free images. Including a small caption with the user's (user)name contributes to that goal. 17Drew 20:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no proof that ignoring this rule is to the betterment of the project. To the contrary, it treats one type of contributor (photographer) differently than another (editors), which can only cause discontent. DYK also encourages people to add new content, yet we do not credit the authors on DYK. Johntex\talk 21:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alrighty, two specific examples. One: The credit byline allows the use of the <imagemap> function without violating the terms of the various permitted Attribution licenses, which allows for more encyclopedic POTD templates for labelled diagrams such as in Template:POTD protected/2007-07-12. Two: it allows crops to be used without disturbing Attribution, as in Template:POTD protected/2007-08-16 or Template:POTD protected/2007-08-08. I can rattle off a bunch of other reasons, but the short of it is this: The credit byline allows us to make use of a fair number of additional tools, with little to no downside. I can't say that prior to this section, I'd noticed vast hordes of disgruntled editors muttering about those dang photographers and their "special treatment". GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 22:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Apparently, I originally wrote my response in the plural, but when I wrote it only GeeJo's first example was included in his message. However, I feel that what I said still applies to his other examples. It'd be nice if he didn't edit his posts after someone had responded to them in the future. Atropos 02:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, GeeJo's claim that this has not been challenged before is not relevant to whether the practice should be changed now. Violating our policies and giving special attribution to one type of user is wrong. Whether we have been doing it for a week or a year does not matter, it is time to stop the practice. Johntex\talk 00:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Putting a username on the front page is also a self reference to Wikipedia, which violates WP:SELF. Johntex\talk 21:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Encouraging people to upload high-quality free images clearly betters this project. And clearly taking a picture is a different way of contributing than editing an article. As pointed out above, it's very uncommon to have multiple people contribute to an image, but many of our articles have been edited by more than one person. WP:SELF says that there should not be references to Wikipedia, not that we should not attribute users that require attribution to their Wikipedia usernames. 17Drew 21:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Johntex. If only one person had contributed at all significantly to an article, we wouldn't be having this discussion, it would be unacceptable to give it a byline. The same should go for other media. Atropos 21:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've written dozens of DYK entries that have appeared on the Main Page without anyone else having touch the article - can I get my name next to them in future? Clearly not. To say that a photograph is more deserving (as seems to have been implied) is rude to those that contribute in other ways. I have to agree with Johntex on this one - I don't think the credit should appear. violet/riga (t) 22:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With articles though it would imply (WP:OWN) ownership of the article, and even for DYK's it might give the unexperienced newcomer the impression articles are written by a single person and then largely left as they are. This is usually what happens for pictures, however. In some cases taking a picture is certainly a lot less work than writing an article, but it would almost certainly give the wrong impression if we started crediting authors. Richard001 00:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is suggesting that we credit writers, everyone knows that that would be stupid. We are saying that photographers and artists should be held to the same standard. Atropos 02:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The argument for including the credit is not because editors and photographers are different but because our use of text and images is different. An article can, and should, be edited by many people. However, images are not edited frequently and nearly all are still fundamentally connected to a photographer or illustrator. 17Drew 05:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of your argument, and multiple people have already countered it. Can you explain why I shouldn't have had a byline for Nicolas Chorier, even though absolutely no one had edited the article before it appeared at DYK? While FAs rarely have only one contributor, they frequently, even generally, have one person (or a small group functioning in tandem) who contributed nearly all of the content. Why don't they deserve a byline?
Or, how about this: why is a link to the image history not satisfactory for TFPs when a link to the article, which then links to its history is satisfactory for TFAs? Also consider why image credits are only included on the main page, and not anywhere the image is used. Atropos 05:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in complete agreement with Johntex here. The practice of crediting photos should cease. Borisblue 01:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not crediting the photographer is pretty indefensible morally. zoney ♣ talk 14:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do credit the creator of every image on wikipedia. It's on the image's history page- same as the way we credit our article writers. So you're saying that "Not crediting the photographer is pretty indefensible morally." but not crediting people who research for and write articles is perfectly OK? 138.237.165.140 15:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zoney : Explain why. 69.95.50.15 17:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this the wrong article to link to? What does the moral philsophy topic have to do with architecture? Richard001 00:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right that it should not be linked, though it would be better if you had posted it in the errors section above. Atropos 02:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Requests for minor changes in the text on the mainpage can be made at WP:ERRORS. --02:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Jake Gyllenhaal

How can you put Jake on your main page when Heath Ledger was every bit his equal in Brokeback Mountain and is much hotter? 68.248.235.36 05:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Heath's article is under {{cleanup}} and Anne Hathaway made Brokeback Mountain more tolerable for me? --Howard the Duck 06:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No way, Jake Gyllenhaal is way hotter. Atropos 06:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about this guy? BTW personally I think you all are gay (or female)! :-P Really if want 'hot' stars in Brokeback Mountain we should be asking why Anne Hathaway (actress) and Michelle Williams aren't there... Aren't most wikipedia readers heterosexual males? Shouldn't we cater to them more then others (reusing the ole' American make up most of wikipedia readers argument) Nil Einne 10:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.122.12.245 (talk) 09:10, August 23, 2007 (UTC)


There is an error in the piece about Rhinebeck Post Office in the claim it was opened by the Crown Prince and Princess of Denmark and Iceland. Iceland is a republic and thus does not have a Crown Prince or Princess. It should be Greenland. The article has the same error. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.9.52.174 (talk) 13:21, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Please use WP:ERRORS (at the top of this page). --Howard the Duck 13:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in any case, read the article and you'll see that Iceland was not a republic at the time. Bazza 16:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make focus on search text field upon loading

I would like to suggest that upon loading the main page, cursor focus is set to the search field to allow users to start typing their query without having to click in the field first. As of today focus is not set there with either Firefox or IE. I don't know how to do this, but know it can be done since there are pages that do it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.46.78.177 (talk) 17:48, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why doesn't the cursor appear in the search box, like with Google?. 17Drew 19:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey everyone come and help, I'm working User:UstashkiDom/Wikipedia:NO CHETNIKS policy. Everyone shud hop in and help!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=153210726"