04:17, Wednesday, August 14, 2024 (UTC)

Most issues relating to national variations of the English language have already been discussed here at length:

Wikipedia does not prefer any national variety of English.
Although Wikipedia strives for writing common to all varieties of English, some spelling, grammar or terminology it uses may be different or otherwise absent in yours.

See the relevant style guide and a comparison of American and British English.

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

Main Page toolbox

Yesterday August 13	Today August 14, 2024	Tomorrow August 15
TFA	TFA	TFA
SA/OTD	SA/OTD	SA/OTD
POTD Main Page v.	POTD Main Page v.	POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v.	POTD regular v.	POTD regular v.
Today's featured list: submissions

Main Page queue

In the news: candidates; discussion; admin instructions

Did you know: nominations; discussion; queue; BotErrors

Protected pages: Commons media protection; Associated

It is currently 04:17 UTC.
Purge the Main Page
Purge this page

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 04:17 on 14 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]

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Per WP:OVERLINKING, please delink Pakistan (at the top). Abductive (reasoning) 02:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

General discussion

I LOVE WIKIPEDIA

I got lot of information from Wikipedia and it is my best Encyclopedia webpage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayani007 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Nice to know we can help someone. :-) Καροτ Μαν 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also have found a lot of valuable information from Wikipedia in just my first time of using this sight. It gave me some much needed information on just one issue. Thanks Wikipedia for being here for the one's that get what they are looking for. This is the best sight I've been introduced to and i'll use it for as long as it's here. Thank You!! (user CCradick) October 26, 2007.CCradick 02:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, nice to know we helped someone. Dreamy ^§ 02:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure not to use Wikipedia as a reference for academic work. The academic community does not consider Wikipedia a reliable source for anything, ever. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point, the woefully biased article on plug-in hybrids being championed on the main page as a beacon of hope for all mankind alongside a marxist world government. Don't you dare think for yourself or disagree, you will be called a neocon! --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What backwards university accepts any encyclopedia as a reliable source? IvoShandor 14:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trolling. • Lawrence Cohen 16:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Wikipedia is a large part of research of various subjects both for school and work. Of course I don't cite Wikipedia itself, but I do site some of the citation that Wikipedia uses. It's a great project and can only be a positive contribution in someones life. 68.143.88.2 13:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I worked as an editor, this is what I always told my reporters, and in my opinion, what all academics should say about all encyclopedias. They are simply good starting points. IvoShandor 15:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture at the donate page

I am speaking way out of turn here, and of course I realise who the person in the picture is, but at least three of us (two non-wikipedia users and I) thought the picture thought the picture currently being displayed, with the play icon on it, was an indication that WP had been compormised for the potential purpose of political propoganda. (Trying not to say terrorism, and Arab). Could someone consider a more appropriate photograph?! Ade1982 00:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we should change the picture because Jimbo reminds you of an Arab terrorist (you tried not saying it but you blatantly said it)? 01:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)128.227.209.44

That's got to be one of the strangest criticisms of Jimbo I've ever heard... :/ Terraxos 01:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking the same thing but was too embarrassed to be The first to say it. It has to do with The way the "play" icon overlays the photo. It looks fine when I'm looking right at it but at a glance it reminds me a lot of a poor quality video of a man with a beard and turban addressing the camera, of the sort Bin Laden has become known for.

I don't think it needs to be changed or anything. I'm Just glad I'm not the only one who sees it! I thought I was crazy.--APL 21:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the exact same way, no offense. Play button gives a turban effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luddz (talk • contribs) 08:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, how silly of us. A man appears to be wearing a turban and looks to be of Arabian descent... it must be a terrorist or some kind of hacker spreading their propaganda through the Wikimedia Foundation donate page! Won't someone think of the children/domo-kun? Please, pick up a book... better still start here and read, read, read! Fakelvis 09:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes. Very clever. But seriously, the reason it's worth mentioning is because Mr Wales does not actually look like that. 69.95.50.15 18:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that? Bazza 13:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because what's being described here is an optical illusion caused by the overlay of the play icon. It's a silly thing, and probably not worth even this discussion, but the accusations of racism (founded or not) are pretty pointless. 69.95.50.15 14:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm staring at it pretty hard right now, and while it looks a bit like Jimbo could have a longer beard than he does, I cannot make out anything that looks like a turban. The idea that that could be confused with a video by Osama bin Laden seems a bit silly to me. Atropos 14:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've gotta be freaking kidding me. Even if it was a turban and not a white circle play icon, how the hell does that make the wearer an Arab terrorist? Might they be a peaceful Sikh or one of the hundreds of millions (billions?) of non-terrorist turban wearers? (Trying not to say racist, and ignorant) — ceejayoz ^talk 22:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...I actually thought, when the donate icon was first added, that it was some kind of breaking news of another terrorist attack. God that sounds stupid! But I can't help it! Every time I see it, it remind me of an Arab addressing a camera. :( sorry if I'm dumb. 68.143.88.2 13:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't think "Arab terrorist", but I did think, "Oh, Wikimedia is doing some kind of outreach in the Middle East or Central Asia." If that makes me ignorant and racist, so be it. — Brian (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A hypothetical question

Just wondering: What would we do if, for some reason, we ever wanted to create an encyclopaedia article named 'Main page'?? Not very likely, I know, but it's theoretically possible! (i.e. if something called 'Main page' became notable in its own right.) Let's just hope it never happens. :) Terraxos 01:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation, I assume. -Killian

No, as the Main Page is not an article, it would be in the article namespace. Or if it was a book called "Main Page", the title would be Main Page (Book), and so on... Dreamy ^§ 03:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone asks this question again I'm gonna get a dirty 18th century flintlock and stick it to my mouth... I know this has been asked a brazillian times in the last few months. Tourskin 05:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What will we do if someone writes a book called Main Page about a guy called Flintlock who lives in 18th century Brazil? Nil Einne 09:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note this doesn't actually says what we would do. Disambiguation or redirects here/see also would be exceptionally ugly solutions which is why many people believe it's a mistake for things to continue as they are now. Simply calling it Main Page (book) without disambiguation or 'redirects here'/'see also' would be bad, particularly if the item is very noteable. If we changes things soon then very likely by the time it occurs (if it occurs), most people will have updated bookmarks etc so it won't matter so much. However all this has been discussed before Nil Einne 09:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn I'm out of gunpowder... Tourskin 19:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It actually happened that an anon asked a Help Desk question asking if we had an article about Main Pages... I pointed them to homepage (which is, alas, only a stub), but the location of the Main Page does make it quite hard to help this particular search using a redirect. I've advocated moving this page to Portal:Main Page (or Portal:Main for quite a while); that request failed to reach consensus last time, but perhaps the time would be ripe to try again in the near future. --ais523 17:51, 30 October 2007 (U T C)

How about moving to Portal:Wikipedia (currently redirects to Wikipedia:Community Portal)? feydey 02:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Wikipedia should be about Wikipedia. As for the Main Page, tell your favorite author/singer/movie director to create a book/song/movie called "Main Page" then we'll see what happens... --Howard the Duck 17:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Powderfinger

How many times have powderfinger figured on the front page in the last few weeks? WHo are they?--Kitchen Knife 11:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article. --74.13.128.59 17:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an cannot see why they should be on the front page so often. The seem like a rather no mark band.--Kitchen Knife 10:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the article then. They are a very well known band. DPCU 15:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main page appearances aren't dictated by the topic of the article -anything that meets Wikipedia's notability requirements can be featured on the main page. -Elmer Clark 00:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are back again after 5 days. Sounds like PR to me.--Kitchen Knife 16:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or a WikiProject doing what it's supposed to do... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"supposed to do" according to their own lights or those of Wikipedia?--Kitchen Knife 11:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curious question about Donation

What determines how full the green donation bar is? Is it the number of people or the amount of money? Tourskin 19:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People. Well numbers of donations technically, since a person could be counted multiple times if they made multiple donations. Dragons flight 21:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanksTourskin 23:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Money is an intresting thing. Some people have alot of it, others don't. Some people use to much of it, while others clean up the mess they make. Money is actually important as more and more things are being given prices. Things like getting braces, some may argue that it should be free for your child to have braces and i happen to be one of those people. Teeth are very important and with be with you for the rest of your life so the National Health people should pay for children to have braces no matter what. Some children havent been brought up with loads of money and have appauling teeth which need braces, but as they can not afford it, they have to live there lives with teeth that may cause alot of problems in the future. Others argue that the National Health is being sensible by not paying for everyone to have braces if needed, because if the children looked after there teeth, less of these issues would happen! User [PoppyH] Parent of two girls] If you argree with what i have said then please comment below! (PoppyHitchen 15:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I really don't want to make you feel unwelcome, but it might be a good idea to review WP:SOAP. Thanks! Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 20:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be feeding the trolls and we shouldn't be commenting. Oh wait that includes me huhTourskin 07:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI: but if you really cared that much, and you knew that either you, or your significant other had a family history that displayed genetic tendencies of developing bad teeth, wouldn't it be better to just not have children since that is, indeed, still free? 68.143.88.2 18:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny. (funny as in laughing funny) ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 03:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alot is not a word, and "there" is used when you're talking about a place, "their" refers to something belonging to something. Aaadddaaammm 03:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To is also used incorrectly. BTW, my parents both have great teeth, as do I and one of my sisters, yet my other one has a 2 centimeter overbite, which is costing us $10,000 and 2 years to fix, though there has been no "genetic tendencies" of developing bad teeth. And also, you're saying that people shouldn't have kids, the joy of many people's lives and the hope of the human race, because they can't pay for braces? Sickening and pathetic, dude...Ben 01:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Active cursor in search box

A WP donor earlier today suggested the implementation of an active cursor in the search box on main page. Seems like a good idea, doesn't it? --Camptown 09:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giving focus to the search box prevents the user from using the arrow keys or other shortcut keys to navigate. We long ago decided that being able to scroll down at the push of a button was the more important function. Dragons flight 09:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the FAQ btw Nil Einne 13:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, the good old argument of 'but we've always done it like this...'. Can I ask how long ago this was decided? In this era of scroll wheeled mice as pretty much standard, I would have thought that most people navigate a page using that, or if not by dragging the scrollbar. Not being able to type directly into the search box I feel is more important. Whilst frequent visitors to WP, may spend time browsing the main page, most casual folk just want to use WP as an encyclopedia - by searching it. Is it possible that this can be looked at again? Thoughts? My two cents courtesy of Dutpar 08:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience, most non-editors go straight to the search box. Only the contributors themselves (these are generalisations) browse through the main page. Gizza^Discuss ^© 09:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, search box focus doesn't really prevent arrow key scrolling. All the user has to do is TAB out of it first. The result is scrolling at the touch of two buttons. --Siradia 18:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use a laptop, with a touchpad, and I have always found scrolling with the arrow key more comfortable than dragging the scrollbar. However, maybe it is time to revisit this topic, and confirm consensus. Puchiko (Talk-email) 23:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use a laptop with touchpad too, but I have scrolling enabled on the touchpad (as well as back/forward) so I just have to run my finger along the edge to scroll. It's very nice. And this is coming from a person who does a lot of shortcut keys to get around. I understand not killing functionality for keyboarding types, but I don't think it's really that disruptive to focus. Especially if keyboarders want to type in the search box. That's a lot of tabbing. --Siradia 01:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would hate it if when i typed it went straight to the search box because i have a heavy hand and it tends to press the odd key on my laptop. the way it is perfect. Philbuck222 11:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-news In The News

yes Does the front page really need to mention where a sporting event will be held seven years from now? Let's try to make sure in the news is actually, you know, newsworthy. Looking at Portal:Current events, just about everything on it is more newsworthy than the location of a future sports event, and most of it is more relevant than the score of some recent sports event, also on in the news... Bushytails 17:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually ITN despite the name is not primarily intended to be about the news. However the selection of Brazil, even if it was more or less a done deal, is an extremely significant event. 12 stadiums or something are going to be built. The government of Brazil was also heavilg involved in the process. This is going to have a significant effect on the economy of Brazil. Indeed in many ways the selection of the host is more significant then who actually wins the world cup. Nil Einne 18:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the selection of items for ITN at WP:ITN/C, if possible before they appear on the main page. Discussion of ITN here rarely affects anything very much. Algebraist 18:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So when the NFL announces where a Super Bowl will be played, will that be on the main page? SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 20:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. It'll depend on whether it's suggested at WP:ITN/C, and consensus is reached there that it meets the criteria and ought to be included. Algebraist 21:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the soccer announcement was only listed there for an hour before being added, and not much of a discussion resulted. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 00:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When is an announcement of the Super Bowl venue news? I haven't seen it on news channels; at least the men's soccer world cup is "news" right now. --Howard the Duck 03:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My problem isn't really with it being posted, just the speed at which it was posted. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 05:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been enqueued already several days at ITN/C so that explains it. --Howard the Duck 09:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps but from what I can tell nothing is expected for a while. Also based on a look at a few of the bid articles, I'm doubtful they will qualify. As I mentioned, successful world cup (and olympics) bids tend to have massive implications for the host country (and usually involve multiple countries). The government of most bidding countries are usually heavily involved often up to the very top (i.e. Prime Minister or President). For Super Bowl bids, it appears only the city government is involved not even the state government (for example in this case Super Bowl XLIV the state government killed the cities successful bid). Also as SuperBowl happens every year, it's likely a successful bid is much less of a major thing. And remember, the Super Bowl is one event and one game, the world cup and olympics are multiple games and/or multiple events requiring multiple stadia (as I mentioned). Indeed, there doesn't seem to be any article for the 2012 Super Bowl but the 2014 World Cup article existed since 2005 with verified information. You might also want to compare the detail in the 2014 FIFA World Cup bid from the bids for the Super Bowl XLV. Perhaps if a city outside the US is selected then there may be cause because of it being the first time but a normal US city bid seems a fairly minor thing to me Nil Einne 11:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the Super Bowl is almost always played at Miami LOL. --Howard the Duck 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The FIFA World Cup is the most widely watched sporting event in the world, with over 715m watching the 2006 final. The decision for it to be held in one country is notable because the event is so huge, and the huge amount of preparation involved (several stadiums are usually built or renovated, the event brings in a silly number of spectators). Over 10x as many people watch the World Cup than the Super Bowl, and it only happens once every 4 years. It is /extremely/ notable just due to the sheer size and popularity of the event. -Halo 18:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, but the announcement wasn't as big of a news as I expected it to be. Perhaps because everyone knows which country will win the "bid." --Howard the Duck 11:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, the current events portal for the US is vastly underrepresented... a while ago I stuck {{watt}} (now deprecated) on the talk page (as an anon, FYI, because it was a school computer) because I had to get someone else there to try to improve it. Now, there are just 4 October stories, and before that only a few September stories... ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 03:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC) edit 03:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween II Featured Article

I'm guessing that the timing was not coincidentual :). The only problem is that there is no picture? Must be the stupid fair-use / copyright people at it again :(. Seriously, why not just put a free pictures of a jack-o-lantern or something there to represent the FA since the cover art for the movie is pretty much a jackolantern??

Generally the image is a free picture of something relevant to the article that is used in the article. Films and other topics that don't have freely licensed images available (e.g. video games), and if an article has nothing but fair use images in it, then I guess not much can be done but omit an image. ~ Sebi 06:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Kong recently lasted its entire front page tenure with an image of a Game & Watch console in use. Picture in question: Media:Gw_donkeykong.PNG. Somehow, the guy who took it can magically release a picture of a copyrighted design / game on the screen into the public domain, so I'll be sure to try it when my VG articles come up. Zeality 17:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So by your logic, we should ban all car images because the car companies aren't profiting from the sales of some models that they stopped production on since whenever. And all images of new cars is also forbidden because they prevent the carmakers from making a profit. --293.xx.xxx.xx 09:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should use a fair use image from the movie. It is legally permissible, and it furthers our primary mission, which is to build a high quality, informative, encyclopedia. When we keep informative, legally-permissible images off the main page, we are allowing the free-use-culture tail to wag the dog. Johntex\^talk 19:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might be a good idea. In my personal opinion, we should use free images whenever possible, but if it's impossible, it's impossible. We are using it to illustrate the subject, so it should be fine, as far a copyright law is concerned. We will have to change policy if we want this implemented though. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Jimbo has spoken from on high on this issue. No fair use on the main page. -Elmer Clark 00:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo does not and should not have the authority to make that decision, especially since he hasn't provided any reason why he feels that way. Atropos 00:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Actually he does, as the ?creator? of Wikipedia, his word is generally based on the MediaWiki Organization. Dreamy ^§ 00:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he doesn't. Please read this essay. Also, I believe you are refering to the Wikimedia Foundation, which rarely involves itself in the day to day function of the English Wikipedia, and which Jimbo is not always acting for. Atropos 00:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo has provided reasoning, and, as it happens, it is reasoning I agree with. Jimbo has authority, certainly, and I think it is important for him to do what he can to keep Wikipedia true to the principles on which it was founded. Would it be right for Jimbo to close a vote on whether publicity shots should become 'allowed' on Wikipedia, even though the majority of people taking part said that they should be? I saw this, a while ago (so maybe I am actually not saying what happened- don't quote me) and I agree completely. Yes, we work on a principle of consensus, but the consensus should never be to stop text be freely usable, to take up a specific point view, or to turn our back on any of our founding principles. This is a case whereby we should stand by our founding principles, and eschew the non-free media. Is Wikipedia's 'best work' really fair use? I think not. J Milburn 22:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of these principles, a lion's share of topics covered by this encyclopedia are copyrighted by someone or some organization. Removing this incentive disheartens the editors of these topics and appears essentially unfair since fair-use is allowed everywhere else but the main page. TFA blurbs look better with pictures. As one who has promoted four or five featured articles on copyrighted subjects, it is discouraging that my work will appear a peg below others' because of copyright paranoia. 75.25.69.216 20:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

shocking

As one person mentioned; "Children read this page" Well, in my opinion, children should read pages such as this in the presence of an adult. Perhaps when the child asks the adult why this is, the adult will be moved to do something to prevent it, instead of being shocked by it. Images in the real world are shocking. And they are also real. How shocked would you say a child in Bagdad would be on a daily basis? Or perhaps one in Mogadishu, or any number of places were war is the daily fare? They would be happy to see images on this page. Just so long as they were spared the sent of death, the tightness of dried blood on their skin, and the anguish of loss at the hands of people who would be "shocked" at seeing this on a web page. Life is hell, made so by people who are "Shocked" at the reality of it. Teach your children, don't shelter them from the world, or the pain of reality will be far more "Shocking" for them. NAeuroMUT 06:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very interesting argument, and to some extent I agree. However, before you make any further edits, I should warn you of WP:SOAP and WP:POINT. That said, welcome to Wikipedia! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 11:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next time someone gets all icky on the talk page, be there!!Tourskin 18:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NAeuroMUT, it looks like you support WP:CENSOR. Nothing more to say here! Gizza^Discuss ^© 09:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out for the reaction to tomorrow's featured pic... Carcharoth 13:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A dead soldier. Tomorrow will be interesting... I wanted to study, but I think I might stick around. Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument doesn't hold water. Using a photo as old as 55 years for reality education? We certainly have better alternatives, don't we? I call for the person who posted this photo to be suspended as a main page administrator, and I reiterate my remmendation for him to be more aware of the dark side of his inner being (see heading "Featured picture too contraversial" below). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hai Huang (talk • contribs) 07:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High hopes we have here. Whats next, we get to see penis or vagina on the main page? I know, let's have Strippers!!--293.xx.xxx.xx 12:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that you have a particularly good picture and feel it is pertinent enough, you're free to list it on featured picture candidates. However, with regard to the current picture, the overwhelming consensus was to support featured picture status. You are always free to nominate it for delisting. --slakr^\ talk / 12:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Dark side of [my] inner being" ... yes, I'm definitely feeling the Darth Vader in me. howcheng {chat} 17:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[/me whacks everyone with a wet noodle] ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 03:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Merkin POTD

A somewhat controversial image, Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg, was promoted to Featured Picture status some time ago, and now it's time for its day in the sun as POTD. User:Pharos suggested that we might talk up the benefits of this being a professional quality free-license image, even if such discussion were a bit self-referential. I've made an initial stab at it at User:Howcheng/MerkinPOTD. Comments are welcome at User talk:Howcheng/MerkinPOTD. Thanks. (cross-posted to WP:AN). howcheng {chat} 01:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC 1936 was not HDTV

Please fix this. BBC 1936 may have benn the first puplic Television service. It was not the first HDTV service. HDTV was invented a half-century later. -Arch dude 03:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please click high-definition television and read, and see if you agree. It's not the same as HDTV. (maybe the word 'video' should be included?) If you insist, please re-post at WP:ERRORS. Thanks. --199.71.174.100 03:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the link and wording on the Main Page is misleading. IvoShandor 20:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I laughed MAO when I saw that...very misleading it was, my young padawan. Ben 01:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on main page

Is it normal that my TFA has only been vandalised 2-3 times in four hours... has vandalism dropped off lately or something? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too tired after Halloween parties? Too busy cleaning up after Halloween parties? Mid-terms coming up in North America? Who knows... --74.13.128.77 06:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a request for more vandalism? Raul654 06:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry I was slacking... Tourskin 06:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured picture too controversial

Please remove the picture of a dead Chinese soldier from the main page. It's common decency not to display a dead body in such a ghastly manner. Featuring this picture so prominently on the main page of Wikipedia offends the Chinese people and every fair-minded individual of any nationality. Being able to edit the main page of Wikipedia is a great responsibility, and I highly recommend anyone who has been entrusted with it to examine himself for any trace of vulgarity, insensitivity and prejudice as often as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hai Huang (talk • contribs) 07:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See heading "Shocking" above. 128.227.55.145 07:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the content disclaimer. MER-C 07:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the Frequently Asked Question about whether Wikipedia is safe for young people. --slakr^\ talk / 07:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both, but as long as a selected few are allowed to editorialize on the main page, I don't think I need to bother too much about the technicalities when lodging my protest. No offense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hai Huang (talk • contribs) 08:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the Main Page is selected on the quality of the articles and images themselves. If you do not feel that a particular article or image is of high quality, please voice your concerns at featured picture nominations for delisting and featured article review. I assure you there is no main page cabal, and if there is, I wasn't invited into it :(. Hopefully this helps. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 09:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, this guy really doesn't like this pic [1] 128.227.55.145 08:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who likes to see the dead body of a fellow man?

Yea its so much better to pretend people don't die in wars. 128.227.55.145 08:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reality argument again? See heading "Shocking" above, or just go on with this type of reality education for your children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.153.21 (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored, and that includes for children. That's one of the main policies policies of Wikipedia. If parents wish to censor their children's access to internet content, they are free to do so, but Wikipedia does not do that job for them. --slakr^\ talk / 08:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Certainly a very admirable policy. What I am concerned about is if Wikipedia has an effective enough policy to ensure the selected few are not to editorialize in one way or another on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hai Huang (talk • contribs) 09:12, 2 November 2007

You might have a point. Check out our project for countering systemic bias. Though, please be sure to refer to my post directly above about how to nominate articles and pictures for delisting. Keep in mind, featuring pictures, articles, and other content is based on consensus that can change, so it's totally within your power to raise your concerns. --slakr^\ talk / 09:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree - this featured picture does not belong on the front page. Someone is showing exceptionally poor taste and insensitivity by using this gruesome image here. 08:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates2008 (talk • contribs)

Why can't we get nudes of chicks on the main page?! WHY?! --Howard the Duck 09:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already have. See Image:Orlando Furioso 20.jpg. --slakr^\ talk / 09:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we more for the future? --Howard the Duck 09:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's the more saucy one: Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg. Of course, it's quite possible people would get more worked up over censoring someone living than someone dead. :) --slakr^\ talk / 09:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should be more of these! :p --Howard the Duck 09:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe that some ?? put such a picture as a "featured one" It is a shame to the so called free encyclopedia became a such racist place!! To be a balanced report why don't you also put a picture with a dead US white soldier? For that war, both sides lost a lot of young ones. none can be proud of it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.164.81 (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2007

Again, images are selected for Main Page inclusion based on quality and relation to good content. I assure you we also have pictures of other dead people from monumental wars that are in the rotation, as well, so that we avoid being racist. Check out featured historical pictures for more examples. --slakr^\ talk / 11:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Errr - this is not about racism for everybody, so rotating a picture of a different corpse tomorrow will not fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates2008 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of you could have participated in the community discussion Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Korean War causality which decided whether the picture was suitable. Wikipedia does not exclude images based on controversiality, or "common decency". The sum of all human knowledge (which is our goal), includes such images. Puchiko (Talk-email) 12:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just came here to make sure this thread was here. ;) IvoShandor 12:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen worse on Law and Order at 3:30 in the afternoon on a Thursday, on the news, and in textbooks. These complaints, as usual, are pointless and without any real validity. IvoShandor 12:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Except for the sytemic bias stuff, which I am pretty sure everyone affiliated with the Main Page does their best to combat.IvoShandor 12:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I remember that after the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake some newspapers had images of dead bodies (even of children) on their front pages'. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today's All Souls' Day. It makes perfect sense. --Howard the Duck 15:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what shall we say in about a month or so? I'm sure that picture will generate a lot of discussion. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, there have been lots of war-related FPics lately. Now I'm not sure how they're selected to appear for each day, but if they're by basis of promotion time - perhaps they're batched nominated - then that'll explain it.

Also, if we want WP to be shocking, why can't we get photos of naked women (as I've said earlier) on the Main Page? That'll be nicer. Young people must know the reality that is sex. --Howard the Duck 16:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I can't believe people are really this shocked by an image of a dead body. Puchiko: I think they are front paged in the order they are promoted, except when they are mixed up a bit to avoid topic stacking. I think Howcheng is the de facto FP director. As for the November 27 FP, that's racist against white people of European descent, and in poor taste, as all of reality is. ;)IvoShandor 16:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, IvoShandor has it exactly in regards to scheduling. howcheng {chat} 17:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion on this topic recently. I raised the question on Featured picture criteria, and the consensus was that the pictures have been through a lengthy selection process and have been chosen for their merits. I am not unhappy with the images, though I am concerned that people are sometimes disturbed by strong images and there is no acceptance of this in the guidelines - indeed the criteria includes the phrase "it might be shocking" without a qualifying phrase to encourage awareness of the impact of the image. The BBC has a policy on the use of images: here and here for example - and, as we know, the BBC is not censored, and is widely respected for its strong, factual reporting. I understand the point of view of the picture editors involved in creating the featured picture criteria, and I do not wish to hinder the use of stunning images. However, I would like some sensible, non-censoring guidelines along the lines of the BBC, though less severe: "Images should not normally feature the following:

* Graphic violence, torture, or any extreme violent behaviour.

* Gratuitous nudity or graphic/extreme sexual acts.

* Images depicting children (under the age of sixteen) in a sexual context.

* Explicit drug use.

* Self-harm, suicide, or attempted suicide.

* Hangings or other forms of execution."

SilkTork *SilkyTalk 16:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It is a form of censorship. However, to calm your worries, "Images depicting children (under the age of sixteen) in a sexual context" are illegal, and are therefore not in the encyclopedia at all. However I feel that no picture should be excluded from being featured based solely on the controversy of what it depicts. That would be a form of censorship, which is something I strongly oppose. Furthermore, doing this would decrease the encyclopedic value of the main page, and I see no reason to do that. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Puchiko here. What you call "non-censoring" guidelines, I call censorship. Semantics won't change an apple into an orange. IvoShandor 17:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with censorship is to who's ideals it should be met. If it's my ideals, we oughta see more naked women and more naked women on the Main Page. --Howard the Duck 17:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why censorship should not be engaged in. Who gets to play Thought police on Wikipedia? Who decides what is offensive, shocking or vulgar? The community has expressed its will that Wikipedia not be censored for anyone. If folks feel differently I would suggest bringing it up at WT:NOT, but would suggest so with the caveat: don't expect it to go anywhere. IvoShandor 17:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not censorship as no-one is asking for the page to be removed from the Encyclopedia. Those people wishing to find out about acts of war, should fully expect to see pictures of this nature in the context of articles on that topic. However to pull one of these pictures out of that context, without the story, and without sensitivity to the broader audience of the Encyclopedia, and put it on the front page where people do not expect to see gore of this nature, is wrong. What some folks are missing is that everyone's reaction to a photo of this nature is subjective. Someone who has just returned from a tour of Iraq might not blink at a high resolution image or video of a decapitation, because they've been desensitized to it; however others might have trouble keeping their meal down. So please stop viewing this from your own subjective points of view, and consider what other people may or may not have seen. In this light, the BBC guidelines described above are perfectly reasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates2008 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is a form of censorship. This isn't intrinsicly wrong but the problem is, how do you know what people don't expect to see? Indeed, the problem is the whole thing is subjective. For example, a fundamentalist Christian is probably going to be offended by FP October 18th. Other people may be offended by one or more of September 3rd, 8th and 10th. Note that even if we were to adopt the BBC criteria as worded, there is likely to be a very large variance in interpretation between editors Nil Einne 12:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, we've had dead white people, dead Jews, and dead Filipinos in recent months, so I think we can say that Wikipedia is racially/ethnically blind when it comes to showing pictures of corpses. howcheng {chat} 17:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To IvoShandor's comment, I think you are right in your stance of who is to decide who plays Thought Police, and I feel it should be the community as a consensus. Therefore, I have expressed my opinion on WT:NOT, given it seems the consensus is to put nude female pictures (preferably attractive ones) on the main page! Justice for all! 68.143.88.2 17:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. I am sincerely laughing, now that is justice. IvoShandor 17:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally my naked women crusade is bearing fruit! Justice to all!!! --Howard the Duck 18:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this all mean that if I had created an article for this movie now instead of eighteen months ago, it could make it into Did You Know? Back then I was told that while "...Wikipedia is not censored, it also should not intentionally try to offend." Cigarette 20:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[/me whacks everyone with a wet noodle (again)] ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 03:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to why people think the image is racist against the Chinese soldier. Whenever I personaly see a war photograph that includes a corpse my first emotional response to to think negatively of whoever killed them. Why would anyone think negatively of the corpse? There's no shame in having died in a war. I would have expected far more accusations of racism if the photograph was of a white man killed by a Chinese solder. APL 18:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The photo should not have been posted. The argument of those defending it is rubish. I don't think this has to do with censorship. You wouldn't want photos taken from shocksites, even if they were free and of high quality´, would you now? Or what about photos of tortured people, raped women, slaughtered babies? They address an important topic in our society and if they are of high quality, you will accept them, right? I say bull. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on the encyclopedic value (and that is often very little for images from shock sites). However, I disagree with your statement "I don't think this has to do with censorship". If we look at the censorship article the first sentence is
Censorship is defined as the removal and/or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body. ^{[citation needed]}.
In a way, refusing to put the picture in a prominent place based, solely on the fact that it depicts a controversial topic, is "withholding information". Of course, the sentence has a citation needed tag, and so should be treated with caution. In my opinion, we should feature photos of tortured people, raped women, and slaughtered babies, should they be high encyclopedic quality, high quality, free, legal (and this might not be the case, identifiable images of rape or torture victims might be illegal due to privacy issues), and satisfy other criteria.
In my opinion, refusing to feature images because they display corpses is moral censorship. I have once again decided to quote the censorship article:
Moral censorship is the means by which any material that contains what the censor deems to be of questionable morality is removed. The censoring body disapproves of what it deems to be the values behind the material and limits access to it. Pornography, for example, is often censored under this rationale.
In conclusion, I will include a brief passage from Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria
A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all. See these examples for a basic guide.
I would encourage all who participate in this discussion to carefully read through Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, as well as Wikipedia is not censored. Thank you. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it doesn't have to do with censorship, just limiting the use of content that offends you and others like you? --APL 19:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

news

International Tennis player Martina Hingis failed a cocaine drugs test, and Wikipedia talks about The Red Sox winning a trophy. Americanipedia, great...... 217.65.158.13 13:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had you nominated non-US news at In the news candidates this wouldn't have happened. Go ahead, go there and nominate a non-US news item. As long as it meets the criteria, it will be featured. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the Martina Higgins case is already there. There is currently a discussion whether this is a notable enough topic. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't understand that an American baseball tournament is big enough to be internationally known. Most countries around the world don't even play baseball and not even heard of the Red Sox. 217.65.158.13 14:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell to that the Japanese. And maybe the Taiwanese too... --Howard the Duck 15:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Czech and I have heard of the Red Sox, while I haven't heard of Martina Hingis. Of course, "I've heard of it" and "I haven't heard of it" are not very good arguments. All are welcome to take part in the discussion whether Hingis is to be on the main page. Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm detecting a theme

On this day: All Souls' Day commemorates the faithful departed; Day of the Dead in Mexico.
Today's featured article: Arrest and assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem
Today's featured picture: Dead Chinese soldier

I think it's a good idea to tie the sections of the main page together like this. — Zaui (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking of creating an account just so I can add my two cents to the main page. I think, along with what you listed, it might be a good idea to add a section about Satan, massacres, and the French. 68.143.88.2 16:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to the other choices, but Diem was picked because it's the 44th anniversary and that was the date requested. Raul654 16:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image was totally coincidental. I don't check what the featured article is or what's in "on this day" when I schedule the POTD. howcheng {chat} 17:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, hmm. Maybe this might be something we want to consider in the future, a little bit of coordination might be cool. I certainly think that the coincidental set up today was pretty neat. Maybe this is something we want to aim for occasionally? IvoShandor 17:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then heads up for Nov 11...Tourskin 18:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah what the... bobcat!Tourskin 18:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Racist

moved from WP:ERRORS

I cannot believe that some ?? put such a picture as a "featured one" It is a shame to the so called free encyclopedia became a such racist place!! To be a balanced report why don't you also put a picture with a dead US white soldier? For that war, both sides lost a lot of young ones. none can be proud of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.164.81 (talk) 07:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Racist? No. We feature a picture if:

- It is high quality (this is sometimes not required for historical images)
- It has high encyclopedic value
- It is a free image

If you can find a picture of a dead US soldier that fulfills the above criteria, nominate it for featured picture, and it will become featured. Also it was not "some ?? put such a picture as a featured one". This was selected through a community discussion, that you could have participated in. There were twelve votes supporting, but only two votes opposing. I would also recommend reading Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored. Puchiko (Talk-email) 12:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find it racist, but it IS in poor taste, as have been several other Featured Pictures lately. We've had flagelated slaves, a child soldier, even pits of Holocaust victims. C'mon, folks, is it that hard to see how bad this makes Wikipedia look? It's one thing to find such images if you look for them, another to log in the site and have them trusted in our faces. - Wilfredo Martinez 15:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion on this topic recently. I raised the question on Featured picture criteria, and the consensus was that the pictures have been through a lengthy selection process and have been chosen for their merits. I am not unhappy with the images, though I am concerned that people are sometimes disturbed by strong images and there is no acceptance of this in the guidelines - indeed the criteria includes the phrase "it might be shocking" without a qualifying phrase to encourage awareness of the impact of the image. The BBC has a policy on the use of images: here and here for example - and, as we know, the BBC is not censored, and is widely respected for its strong, factual reporting. I understand the point of view of the picture editors involved in creating the featured picture criteria, and I do not wish to hinder the use of stunning images. However, I would like some sensible, non-censoring guidelines along the lines of the BBC, though less severe: "Images should not normally feature the following:

* Graphic violence, torture, or any extreme violent behaviour.

* Gratuitous nudity or graphic/extreme sexual acts.

* Images depicting children (under the age of sixteen) in a sexual context.

* Explicit drug use.

* Self-harm, suicide, or attempted suicide.

* Hangings or other forms of execution."

SilkTork *SilkyTalk 15:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. However, we should not be having this discussion in Errors. Good places to speak about this would be The Village Pump, Main Page General Discussion, FA criteria where you had already raised this, and Picture of the day. However, in my opinion we should keep this on one page. Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to the above comment and wasn't aware of the procedures for this particular page. My bad - I thought I had come upon the talk page for the Main Page because I had clicked on the discussion tag on the main page and saw the comment on the featured picture. Ah, I see the problem - the top of the page is for reporting errors, while the lower part is for more general discusion of the main page. Should this entire section be moved down to the discussion section? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 16:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded here too, earlier. My mistake as well. However, this is getting lengthy, so we probably shouldn't continue here. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. --199.71.174.100 19:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So a picture of a nude 15-year-old drug user hanging themselves is out of the question? – Gurch 06:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol I thought the featured pictured of an Iraqi man was racist, cos I am Iraqi by birth and blood and I don't look anything like that guy. lolTourskin 06:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion to follow the BBC guidelines is a good one, and should be raised at a variety of locations. This would not prevent pictures on such topics being featured - it would merely keep them off the front page. Before people get upset about that, they need to consider that most of Wikipedia's featured content will never appear on the main page. We long ago passed the point where featured content is being produced faster than it can be featured on the main page. Rather, we have to trust that readers will find their way from the main page to the various featured content locations. Carcharoth 08:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to see any picture on the main page that you would not see either on cable news, a Discovery Networks channel, or a History Channel documentary. Mr.Z-man 23:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see the uproar from having Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg as today's FP.-Wafulz 15:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:::Well, it will picture of the day eventually. I can imagine it quite well, it will clog up half of the main page discussion, several "concerned parents" will threaten to sue Wikipedia for not protecting "my babies" from pornography, others will demand the banning of howcheng. But honestly, let them whine, and pretend they know best. We don't have to come here, and defend our policies if we don't want to (while it is fun to read some of the comments). Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC) ::::I don't think this attitude is acceptable (finding readers' anger over the main page content funny, and describing them as whining). I've taken this to your talk page. Carcharoth 16:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. My comment was unclear, and I wrote it when I was quite angry and frustrated. I apoligise to all I have offended. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've removed my comment as well, so that should bring this to a close. Carcharoth 21:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, does anyone agree with the BBC guidelines? Carcharoth 21:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan

Shouldn't there be something about Musharraf declaring emergency rule in Pakistan? It's breaking news, and the BBC and CNN are currently showing it as the main news story on their web sites. Nanten 13:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go to WP:ITN/C to suggest and reat criteria for ITN items. --Howard the Duck 14:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donation banner

The banner at the top has changed!!!!! The Placebo Effect 04:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Hiding the fundraiser box how to hide it. --NE2 04:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the new design is having problems on IE. See the bottom discussions on Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't have that 'Wiki feel' to it. The previous one was better, I'd say. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... I'd forgotten just how well-hidden I had it. To see what had changed, I had to disable my custom stylesheet, NoScript and Adblock :) – Gurch 13:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This makes me want to donate less.

--Henry W. Schmitt 04:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have to agree-- the previous donation banner was much more appealing... :( Lusanaherandraton 05:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is almost as bad as an ad, and one step away from an animated GIF banner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.1.125 (talk) 06:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the last one was bad, until this one showed up. No offense to whoever created this banner, but the people in a line showing how many people have donated doesn't do it for me. A graph is much more helpful compared to a bunch of people in a row. I understand it is trying to convey the message of a world-wide effort, but it sounds preachy. The red button helps in the long run, I think, but the whole left portion of the banner does not. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 19:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see whats the problem here

Scroll down if u don't want to contribute, or just scroll down enough to have it out of your way. Its not like its jumping out of the screen. Tourskin 07:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This banner really looks much like an aggressive ad... the previous one was much better. 11:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.218.178.220 (talk)

Huh? What banner? I can see it on other computers but not this one. In fact, logged on or off, it is invisible on this computer. How is this possible? Can someone tell me what it looks like? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 17:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You probably have JavaScript turned off. I recommend you leave it that way – Gurch 20:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also thought the new banner was an improvement on the first one. Although, I'm using firefox, and the text and some lines look a little squished compared to the old one. Perhaps that can be fixed, but otherwise the new design is nice. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 21:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I hate both banners, the second one is better. Having the banner on the top seems a bit "pushy". I am not a fan of asking people for donations. If they want to donate, they will donate. Also, this could have a counter-effect and make people not want to donate.--SJP 22:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<sarcasm>Yeah, because not reminding people to donate will make them more likely to donate.</sarcasm> Seriously, they're both fine, and there's a nice little button there that says "hide this message". Use it. Grand master ka 00:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the second one is better, the first one drove me nuts because I have a serious pet peeve with animations on web pages, movement on the screen is distracting especially if trying to read an encylopedia. The current one is far less distracting then the previous one. The hide button works well on both and the little meter that is left when hidden isnt too bad (though I think by default something this size would be better). I do support the foundations effort to solicit donations, running this stuff isnt free and many people wont donate if they dont realize there is a current need. As an american I liken it to PBS and NPR fund drives, which while they annoyed the hell out of me, I saw as a unfortunate nessesity to allow me to get commercial free unbaised and quality programming the rest of the year(and I did donate every year). Think about this reguarding wikipedia, suffer the banners for a breif period, the alternative is something like google ads all day everyday, personally, I will take the banner. Russeasby 00:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see what you mean:) Will they be pernament, or are they temporary? I hope they are the second!--SJP 00:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're aware that the "people bar" is currently squished; hopefully this issue will get sorted out tomorrow.

I think no matter what we put at the top of the page, we'll probably get 20 comments telling us that it's horrible, unprofessional, too professional, too preachy, not preachy enough, too irritating, not irritating enough, too colorful, too gray, too banner-like, not sufficiently banner-like, too familiar, too unfamiliar, ... I'll stop now.

Since we put up the new banner, the number of donations per day has more than doubled. [2] Whether this is due to its newness or the new design -- it's clear that we have to make modifications like this to meet our fundraising goals. We need $4.6M for the FY 2007-2008, and so far we've raised $368K. We expect that we'll need another fundraiser in 2008 and we also have some major donors interested in contributing for this fundraiser; this one will run into late December. During that time we'll experiment further with the notice, the landing page, etc. Helpful comments are appreciated at Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign. ---Eloquence * 01:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is great that we have gotten that much money! It is excellent. I am happy with that. I hope that it will be taken down when the goal is met though.--SJP 01:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you've got a lot of corporate donors in reserve, we might miss that $4.6M by >70% in this drive, which could easily put us in the position of needing 2 more long fundraisers just to pay for 2008. At which point, much of the year is a "fundraiser". This leads me to wonder about the origin of that $4.6M number. Traffic only grew ~40% in the last year, but if I understand correctly the projected budget is ~3 times larger than this year's budget. Any chance you guys are grossly overestimating the costs for the coming year? A number more like $2.5M would seem much more obtainable and in line with growth in Wikimedia's core activity. Dragons flight 02:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two paths the Foundation could take in its organizational development: 1) Focus, 100%, on hosting Wikipedia and generating enough funding to do so -- rely almost exclusively on ad hoc volunteerism for everything beyond hosting. 2) Build WMF into a mission-driven non-profit that is not merely hosting a website, but distributing knowledge to people world-wide, and reaching out to the global community for participation and content creation. These paths are extremely different. For example, in scenario 1), it would not be necessary to relocate the Foundation from St. Petersburg, Florida to San Francisco, as we've decided to do -- we would surely be able to support basic server hosting without it. On the other hand, becoming a successful and global charity requires access to a different talent pool, the ability to execute program directives, etc.

As Jimmy's video should make clear, the Foundation (through its majority-elected Board of Trustees) has chosen path 2) -- we're not merely a webhost; we want to be a new kind of charity: a charity of free knowledge. And this necessitates that we prepare & plan our growth accordingly.--Eloquence * 06:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page Portal

I was wondering if anyone can point me to the discussion that was had on whether the Main Page should be moved to Portal namespace. 60.229.9.172 09:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the archive links from Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why is Main Page in the main namespace? - Banyan Tree 11:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gamefaqs?

No wonder no one takes wikipedia seriously. I know only FA status is needed to be Potd, but there should be some bias to offset the systemic bias wikipedia has. How many video games have been page of a day now, and now video game sites?--58.111.134.238 11:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe no one wants to write about boring articles. --Howard the Duck 11:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty video games have been featured article of the day in the three and a half years this feature has existed (from WP:FA and WP:FFA. Algebraist 11:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured articles not protected?

How come featured articles are usually not protected, in this case, GameFAQS? There have been a lot of vandalism in that article and yet it's not protected. How come? Kashakak 13:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes/Refrences Thought

Has anyone ever given any thought to making a separate tab (to go along with Discussion, edit this page, +, History and watch) for the Notes and References? I've noticed that they can take up a large chunk of an article at the bottom. Just my two cents. Txredcoat 13:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]