Talk:Main Page

General discussion

EU v Microsoft

Why does the news report of a fine for breach of European law use the American legal term "antitrust"? 11:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Competition commissioner, Neelie Kroes, said in a statement: "Microsoft was the first company in 50 years of EU competition policy that the Commission has had to fine for failure to comply with an antitrust decision." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.11.85 (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Did he/she say that in English, or is that an American translation of what was actually said? 12:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.164.119 (talk)

The European Commission uses the expression 'antitrust', as in this sentence from one of its official English language press releases: "The Commission will continue to conduct antitrust investigations in the energy sector." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.11.85 (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, 82.20.11.85. Please be encouraged to get an account and contribute your knowledge to Wikipedia. --PFHLai (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. What does it tell us about the way the world works that they use American terminology rather than that of their own English-speaking members. 11:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.164.119 (talk)

That cultures and languages borrow words from each other on occasion? Tempshill (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Admins editing main page

Since when has the community supported making admins into super-editors? The general view is that admins are janitors. Here we see admins being given a priviledged editing position. What community discussion took place to make this so? Wjhonson (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see FAQ Numero Uno ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 03:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I should probably point out that it takes a serious amount of discussion to get any non-bug-fixing edit to the main page approved. If an admin were to make an edit based on his/her personal taste it would be quickly reported and reverted. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 03:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response but it does not address my issue. Semi-protect would accomplish the same thing, that is to stop vandalism. By Full-protect, we create super-editors out of admins. The community never created a super-editor position, and never authorized admins to wield it, full-protect does that inherently. Full was not initially created for this purpose, semi was. Semi-protect is the appropriate protect level. Wjhonson (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My God, no it isn't. Sleeper accounts would vandalise. Well meaning editors would accidentially vandalise. Annoyed editors would vandalise. Well meaning editors would add their own content when it was not appropriate. Well meaning editors would add their own or someone elses content but format it incorrectly. Spammers would spam, constantly. It would be an absolute mess. This does not make super-editors out of admins; quite the opposite, we do not add our own material to the main page due to COI concerns- instead, we add what the community agrees should be added from various places- WP:ITN/C and the like. J Milburn (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As a non-admin, I have to agree with J Milburn. The Main Page would be an horrific mess if it were only semi-protected...--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 19:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Plus, you can't cascading protect when it is semi-protected. The Placebo Effect (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I gonna throw in that thats basically what I said :) ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 19:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The community never agreed to create permanent full-protection for this sort of thing. In my opinion, it's a significant violation of our standard of trust to state that vandalism is an appropriate rationale for this. That same vandalism argument could be applied to all of Wikipedia, or all significant pages, or all pages with rampant vandalism. Wjhonson (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been like this for as long as I remember. What advantage to you believe unprotecting the main page would have? From the minutes where the main page has been unprotected after accidental/rogue admin actions, we can see that it is instantly vandalised, over and over. J Milburn (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the community overwhelmingly agrees that it should be full protected, indeed you're the first person I've ever seen make a serious objection to it. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As the Protection policy states, the Main Page is highly visable, and therefore has indefinite full protection. There isn't any content on the main page anyway, so I'm not sure what you're objecting to, Wjhonson. Everything that appears on the Main Page actually comes from templates, all of which receive their content from admins and non-admins alike. The only "admin editing" that occurs, is when an admin moves the prepared content from an unprotected source (such as Template:Did you know/Next update) to a protected template (such as Template:Did you know). This is very much in keeping with the janitorial/maintenance/housekeeping role admins play. - auburnpilot talk 23:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with the permanent protection, but discussion has occurred in regard to specific templates, such as ITN. For more info on that, see the appropriate section at Template talk:In the news. But as a rule, full protection here = good idea :) Random89 (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick Question

How many times can one article be featured as the featured article?---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 21:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick answer: 1. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 23:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!!! I think they should be allowed more than once.---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 02:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

But there are so many which have not yet been there... Geuiwogbil (Talk) 02:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok...---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 04:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And apparently the rate of FA passes is greater than one per day so I last heard when this issue was raised, so it is in fact impossible. Tourskin (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In January 2008 82 articles were promoted to FA status and 9 were demoted. So the number of FAs increased by 73 articles. That's 2.355 articles promoted a day. In February 2008, 69 articles were promoted to featured status and 10 were demoted. So the number of articles increased by 59, that's 2.034 articles a day. Source: Wikipedia:Featured article statistics. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo

I've noticed this for some time: Is there any technical reason the "in the news" photo can't move in tandem with the brief it illustrates? As a former newspaper editor, I find it very odd that, for example, a mug of Medvedev is displayed next to a brief about McCain. This seems a fairly glaring fault, as readers will look at the pic & wonder why it's not McCain & who the heck it is.

Sca (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Kinda. The template is used on more pages, and in some of them it's in a horizontal format (example). If we aligned the photo with the hook, it would look great on the Main Page, but really really horrible on others.
I myself don't find this valid. If worst came to worst, we could duplicate efforts and have admins update two templates (a vertical one where the image would be aligned, and a horizontal one). This could even be done by a bot (provided the community is willing to give adminship to a bot-kinda controversial). But I'm sure there's a solution-the current situation is kinda ugly.
The hooks always have "(pictured)" to help you identify the person, and if you hover over the image, it will display the caption. This helps reduce the confusion, but not eliminate it completely. Puchiko (Talk-email) 18:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sca is right, it should be done, it makes us look stupid half of the days of the week, and the above whining (about unnamed pages that are one-one-billionth as important as the Main Page) is all you ever get by complaining about it. The French wikipedia does it. Tempshill (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my comment came across as whining. I myself disagree with not aligning the photo, and I had tried to make that clear in my above post. I was trying to provide the reason it is not done-I wasn't agreeing with that reason. Again, I apologise. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

FA photo

Would http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/49/Corpse_of_Lucien_Lachance._Oblivion_2007-07-11.png/180px-Corpse_of_Lucien_Lachance._Oblivion_2007-07-11.png work for the FA (sorry if this is late). Tesfan (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that's a fair use image. The general consensus is that we don't use fair use images on the main page. Thanks for the suggestion. J Milburn (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Colorado river released into Grand Canyon

Hey ppl where do i find info about this??

Probably worthy of putting a link on "In the News" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.197.41 (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't the Colorado River carved the Grand Canyon??? --Howard the Duck 03:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe they recently have/will soon be intentionally flooding the canyon, I'm guessing that's what the question was about. timrem (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the question is about whether we have an article on the high-flow experiment being conducted right now at Glen Canyon Dam. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Computer game article yesterday

Is a link to Hot coffee on the front page featured articled combined with a wikipedia 1.0 promotion to schools a bit bold? Maybe it wouldnt be censored as an article, but is it worthy of the front page? New release hardcore sex movies dont get the six o clock news in the Netherlands or the Dutch lands, do they? Would you give Debby does Dallas a pulitzer prize? No, but you would give it to Freddy does Dallas and provide special links to Debby does Hot coffee. I could see that topics involving both children and sex are monitored so that "no bias" may be implied in one manner or another. Should sex and violence not be banned from the main page? Would such graphic sex and violence fiction be notable enough for the front page of an encyclopedia?
ThisMunkey (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem - the hot coffee article is an article about lots of relevant social issues. --Fredrick day (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Rubbish, Frederick. The article was 99 per cent description of hot coffee. If it was about the social issue, the pictures and description would be of the "controversy".ThisMunkey (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR. I don't think sex and violence should be banned from the Main Page. That would mean we couldn't feature military related stuff. Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Is that what excluding sex and violence fiction from the front page would mean to you, Puchy? Censorship? You have no opinion on anything that is not suitable for the front page?ThisMunkey (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well hang on. War is not as corrupting to a person as is sex. People can commit sexual acts, but how many ordinary people (so not state leaders) who read wikipedia have the ability to wage war? Few, if any. Tourskin (talk) 08:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• War is an informative topic. Graphic sex and violence fiction is an eyesore or a questionable passtime. It is not informative. Fiction that gets a prize for peace or something is notable. Fiction that gets banned for being disgusting is hardly notable for the front page. A good article on blow job might get a few laughs, but its hardly fair to put it on the front page and then advertise it to little kids as Wikipedia 1.0 is to be. For instance- "Blow jobs were banned from public places. Here is a detailed description of them and a load of pictures." - Hardly suitable for the front page. How are the computer game articles any different to this? Anyone wants to see porn and violence fiction on the front page of the encyclopedia is a wind up.ThisMunkey (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• What? Whoever said we want kids to be visiting the wikipedia website without supervision anyway? We don't... WP:DISCLAIMER Nil Einne (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My God, I am sick and tired of people saying 'Wikipedia is not censored, but we mustn't let people see anything that might offend them.' We cover all topics; if people want to pretend that things they don't like don't exist, then they can go elsewhere. People may be interested in these topics, and the featured article is to offer people something they may wish to learn about. Seeing as everyone else is throwing their opinions around as fact, I will too- a controversial book is of far more interest than a Booker prize winner. Booker prize winners suck. If given the choice between Lolita and The Sea, I know damn well which one I would read or read about... J Milburn (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Look Mildew I said ON THE FRONT PAGE SPECIFICALLY WHAT IS ON THE FRONT PAGE and I can see exactly what you said which is a child molestor not only perverted but corrupted by accepting other perverts. You are the casual acceptance, fickface, that I had in mind when displaying this idea. The local nutcase is easy because when he does something wrong he makes a lot of noise but the casual fickface keeps quiet and promotes it on the internet. You are the fickface that makes a nice bloke slit throats. Wow, I can really see this idea getting somewhere. And your page says you are an administrator. With that comment an administrator should be cancelled. What kind of thing is that to administrate the encyclopedia? ThisMunkey (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't censored, but nothing is said about the main page. RJRocket53 (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• this is exactly what I could see when reading the two computer game articles yesterday but with perverts like Mildew in charge of administrating there is little point discussing it. Where can you report this J Milburn for promoting paedophilia? ThisMunkey (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

ThisMunkey has been blocked for 48 hours because of incivility. I don't feel it's necessary to refute his comment. RJRocket, since the Main Page is a part of Wikipedia, I'd expect it not to be censored either. Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My oh my, what would we do if we didn't have people like ThisMunkey to tell us what we can and can't watch, see, hear, or otherwise experience. We might have nudity on actual public broadcasting or in our video games like the British or the rest of Europe, and look how awful they turned out (sarcastic). Knowledge is for everybody, but please use it responsibly. -KriticKill (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And what does it mean to use responsibly? Lets take that advice and be responsible ON THE MAIN PAGE. Tourskin (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Team Origin

In en.wikipedia there are two page about the english sailing team Team origin: TEAMORIGIN and Team Origin. Team Origin must be merged into TEAMORIGIN. --Noname-en (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing in TEAMORIGIN that wasn't already in Team Origin, so I've redirected the first to the second. - auburnpilot talk 20:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And this really doesn't belong here. Next time, WP:AIV/I. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 22:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Though I'll agree it doesn't belong here, it doesn't belong on the place you linked either. It's a page where you edit the instructions for filing a report about a vandal.
The best place to have raised this would probably have been Talk: Team Origin, but that doesn't matter now. Puchiko (Talk-email) 22:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I assumed that one of them was the result of a page move or some such, no matter now though. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 20:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)