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 Sir Lewk (talk | contribs) at 04:50, 18 May 2006 (→Wikipedia is registered trademark?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Wikipedia Main Page: please read the information below to find the best place for your comment or question. For error reports, go here. Thank you.

Today's featured picture

  • Today's featured picture is taken from the list of successful featured pictures, If you would like to nominate a picture to be featured see Picture of the Day.
  • To report an error with "Today's featured picture...", add a note at the Error Report.

Main Page and beyond

Otherwise; please read through this page to see if your comment has already been made by someone else before adding a new section by clicking the little + sign at the top of the page.

Main page discussion

  • This page is for the discussion of technical issues with the main page's operations. See the help boxes above for possible better places for your post.
  • Please add new topics to the bottom of this page. If you press the plus sign to the right of the edit this page button it will automatically add a new section for your post.
  • Please sign your post with --~~~~. It will add the time and your name automatically.

Main

In Eviction i dont see what i do with the tenant who have NOT lease.I need know about this. Rosangelaludvig

Contact a lawyer. --Nelson Ricardo 22:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this does not have anything to do with the main page. Please contact a lawyer. Thanks.FellowWikipedian 23:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Err, this might just be me, but no images are appearing. I'm using Mozilla Firefox, and when I click the link to an image, it brings me to a "Server not found" page. Crüsäder

Yes, I'm getting the same problem. Reloading doesn't help. --antifreez 20:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting the same thing. Perhaps the server that holds the pictures is down again. It seems to happen alot. dposse 20:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also use Mozilla FireFox and have had that problem happen to me in the past. The solution in just to simply empty your cache. --DChiuch 10:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The picture in the "In the News" section says it's Saddam Hussein, but it's clearly not. Smedley Hirkum 23:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Underlining

How do we get rid of the ugly underlining on links all over wikipedia! Its so ugly! Felixboy 19:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just reload the page, that happens sometimes. Prodego talk 20:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or you can go to your preferences, click on "Misc.", then in the "Underline Links" drop-down menu, click on "Never." Crüsäder

ok, Thanks Felixboy 20:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I did on my preferences when I started. It still does that ugly underlining sometimes. FellowWikipedian 23:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The opposite also occurs. (I have "Always" selected, but the underlines occasionally disappear for me.) Usually, changing the setting to "Never" and back to "Always" (which I imagine might work in reverse) eliminates the problem, Otherwise, it corrects itself after a short while. —David Levy 00:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need more images

Focus on Search Box When Main Page Loads

Is there any way someone can change the main page so that when it is first loaded, the insertion point is already blinking in the "Search" box (like, for example, when you go to Google). It would mean that the moment a person loaded the page, they could type what they're looking for. It's an encyclopedia, so the search box should have a little more priority, don't you think? The fact that it takes an extra click to get to the search box suggests that the main page is primarily a "click-thru" page to other content. I may be wrong, but for me the main page is primarily where I start searching (by using the very tiny search box that I have to first click in). Spmenic

Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why doesn't the cursor appear in the search box, like with Google? - BanyanTree 21:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is registered trademark?

Shouldn't the big Wikipedia at the top of the page also have a registered trademark symbol by it? Wikipedia® . Brad Patrick found it necessary to remind the listen in this talk http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/audio/podcast2?func=view&wid=12&pn=1 that it is a registered trademark. Should you not do this consistently? I expect that many of your users, if asked, would probably not know that Wikipedia is a registered trade mark. Unless you remind them with that extra single character at the of the page, I think that they are likely to to miss this important fact. You have it down in the "fine print" where it could be easily missed. -- 71.139.168.199 23:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That URL just changed. Brad's talk is now at the longer-range Berkman archive at Wikipedia, Wikimedia, and the Law

You might want to add it to the Globe logo you have in the upper-left corner there also. -- 71.139.168.199 23:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most large corporations don't do it so why should Wikipedia? I don't even know if Wikipedia is a registred trademakr either. Jeltz talk 23:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looked it up and the trademark seemed to be registred in the USA at least, but this doesn't mean that anyone should put silly ®s everywhere. I don't think that you have to mention that it is trademarked to keep the rights. Jeltz talk 00:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point exactly. It is right there at the bottom of the Main Page, but most users in your demographic do not habittually read the fine print. They need additional assistance. If you just put it up on that big "Wikipedia" at the top of the page, then they would "get it". Even on the logo, it does not have to be a big one, just big enough to be able to tell it is not an asterisk. Then you would be set. If it is good enough for the Academy Awards®, it should be good enough for Wikipedia®. There should be no social stigma associated with it. -- 71.6.14.71 00:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that such an addition would be ugly and unnecessary. Anybody who wanted to know for legal reasons would surely do more research than just looking at the logo, and anybody else who wanted to know would probably see it handily at the bottom of the page. Lord Bob 00:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come off it. If you do it superscript and small on the big one, it will not intrude. It is 30 seconds of work. The Academy Awards® went through this whole "uncomfortable" thing and then everybody got used to it and now, that is the way they do it consistently. Show that you are grown-up about this. -- 71.6.14.71 00:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why does such a symbol (of any size) "have to" be there at all? Why do you believe that it's important for all of our readers far and wide to know (and constantly be reminded) that "Wikipedia" is a registered trademark? —David Levy 00:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This idea is inane - the trademark symbol already appears at the bottom of every page on the site. Raul654 00:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that it has to be done everywhere, just perhaps at the big front door. Jeltz has amply shown that there is a perception problem. I have never seen any off-site web page remember to remember the mark when referring to Wikipedia®. And Bradford suggests that the registration itself is fairly new. Think of it as a "service to the reader". Just ask yourself: how many Wikipedia editors would know this fact? I suggest that most of them would not know this fact because you minimize it to a fault. -- 71.6.14.2 01:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But why would we want to advertise that Wikipedia is trademarked? That seems silly, and the constant inclusion of ® is disruptive to text. I would absolutely hate to see ® everywhere, and I think using it at all except in notes as at the bottom of the page is both cluttering and an excess of legal-speak. As far as its relevance as encylopedic content, it should be described at Wikipedia but not on the Main Page (which is not, strictly speaking, about Wikipedia). —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Thursday, 11 May 2006 @ 01:53 UTC
You still haven't explained why it's imperative that our readers/editors be made aware of this fact. And why on Earth would you expect outside sites to include the mark in its references to Wikipedia? Isn't that just a bit absurd? Please check some random Wikipedia articles about companies with trademarked names, and tell me how many include TM or ®. —David Levy 02:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look at other places that people go onto the Internet for free information. http://www.google.com/ , http://www.yahoo.com/ , etc. They do not seem to make a big deal of it. Just a small, legible mark. Not intrusive at all. I am very impressed that Bradford felt the need to mention it in his talk in March. Perhaps it was because it was somewhat new (it was granted this past January). Brad seems to still have the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. I think that he would have no problem with implementing the idea, just in that single prominent place on the Main Page, as small as you like as long as it is still legible. Trademarks mean something. If you do not like what they mean, then you can ignore them, I guess. -- 71.6.14.2 03:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong. The talk was the end of January, so it was very new then. -- 71.6.14.2 06:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, why is it important to convey this information to readers? —David Levy 03:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe to remind them that there is a successful American corporation behind the name? That is often useful to know. -- 71.6.14.2 03:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A trademark symbol provides no indication of success, location or incorporation. —David Levy 03:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping to avoid using the word "business" and all of the arguments that that word would lead to and instead simply refer to the concrete reality in this case. -- 71.6.14.2 04:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only place you used the word "business" was just now, so I have no idea what you're on about. --Calton | Talk 06:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In repsonse to Calton, but resetting indentation: Opening line of trademark: "A trademark or trade mark[1] is a distinctive sign of some kind which is used by a business to..." . Mr. Levy was trying to get me to use the word "business". It has many definitions, so I thought I would use "successful American corporation" since that is much more specifically what we are talking about here. -- 71.6.14.2 07:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read minds, and neither can you. I wasn't "trying to get" you to write anything other than an explanation of why you believe this to be beneficial, nor was I aware that you had used the phrase "successful American corporation" to mean "business." An unsuccessful Canadian unincorporated sole proprietorship can use a trademark symbol, so your argument (which I didn't realize consisted of secret code) was illogical. —David Levy 16:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the matter at hand: What is the real cost of putting a little "®" at the end of that big "Wikipedia" at the top of the page? Would there be some loss of beauty or community? Would people have the mis-impression that they are working for a for-profit entity or something like that? It seems to be an emotional or aesthetic issue, but all we have got so far is the label "inane". My point is that all of the other big Internet players do it, at the top of the page. They do not seem to feel any shame in doing it. Why the reluctance here? -- 71.6.14.2 07:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this for the HTML:

Welcome to Wikipedia®,

(I replaced the h1 HTML tags with just big tags because the h1 mess up this talk page's TOC) Now, that is not so bad, is it? It has a professional, business-like appearance to it. -- 71.6.14.2 08:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Loss of beauty? Yes. Perception that this is a for-profit entity? Probably. Entirely pointless and unnecessary? Absolutely. —David Levy 16:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lord Bob (and others). Ugly and unnecessary. It also appears that there is only one user actually supporting this idea and a lot of users opposing, so it's not much use going on about it. Piet 09:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree that it is not necessary. "Ugly" is a subjective thing and I doubt that Bradford would agree with your characterization. Do give his talk a listen-to, if you have the time; he is very supportive of your goals. I expect that it is just a matter of time before it is added anyway, as a service to the reader and to conform with the general style of other web sites of this nature. It is just part of the process of inspiring confidence in the article content of Wikipedia®. -- 71.6.14.2 09:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will find that, outside of the legal and business community, everyone would prefer to not have a "registered" mark. "Ugly" may be subjective, but when that ugliness is almost universally acknowledged, it is good to avoid ugly things. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Thursday, 11 May 2006 @ 15:35 UTC
What would Jimbo Wales think about this idea. Mabie you should ask him. I don't like this idea. FellowWikipedian 16:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subjective assessments of what is/isn't ugly shaped the current main page design over a period of several months. If the consensus is that your proposed modification would be ugly (which certainly is my opinion), why should we introduce it?
If you agree that it isn't necessary, why are you arguing in its favor? What benefit would we gain? How would this be "a service to the reader"? Your arguments that "other web sites" do it and that it isn't "a big deal" simply aren't good enough. Please explain what we stand to gain (other than the ability to prominently convey information that people don't need to know). —David Levy 16:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the missteps Jimbo has made with regards to Bomis Babes and Larry Sanger, I bet that Jimmy would do whatever it is that Bradford thought "most appropriate" to enhance Wikipedia®'s ongoing reputation. Bradford asks interesting questions, like the "bus question" in his Harvard talk. True, he is a little less sexy than Jimmy, but not by much. He even sounds a little like Jimmy when he talks, or maybe it is the other way around. They are both swell guys. Personally, I think the mark up there would have a calming, maturing effect on all who saw it while still maintaining the current sense of mission and zeal. Who knows? It might cause some of the irksome trolls to reconsider their current course of behavior. It might cause some administrators and beauracrats, etc. to be less arbitrary and proprietary in their words and actions. It is a small thing, but it is clearly "more informative" and the psychological effect might be complex, interesting and ultimately, beneficial. -- 71.139.168.199 16:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely a bad idea. It is ugly, it looks commercial and the companies that are keenest to show off their trademarks tend to be those that treat the public worst. Bhoeble 18:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. This is what I am trying to get across. The public hates trademarks. It looks corporate, and people do not trust corporations. We don't Wikipedia to seem like a corporation; that would only encourage allegations of cabalism. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Thursday, 11 May 2006 @ 19:00 UTC
But the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is a non-profit corporation. To attempt to hide this fact would be deceptive. I though that Wikipedia® was all about reporting the facts in an NPOV manner. Jimbo is committed to this in an "absolute and non-negotiable" manner. Such language obviously implies that Wikipedia® be NPOV about all of its on-line content; Jimbo's bio, the works. I feel like I am talking to Landru, which I hope is not the case. Could we have a self-perception problem here? Hmmm. This needs exploring. -- 71.139.168.199 21:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one is attempting to hide anything. We indicate that "Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc." at the bottom of most pages. We have no legal, moral or ethical obligation to declare this with greater prominence, thereby uglifying the site and giving many readers a false impression of our motives. —David Levy 21:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. Searching Google on nonprofit trademark brings up a lot of interesting results. Look at http://www.goodwill.org/ . Now, there's a place that is a benevolent organization with concrete, positve social results. Admittedly, their CEO have much higher salaries than Jimmy. They put the mark really tiny below their logo. I wonder if http://www.unicef.org/ even has a trademark; i do not see one on their page. You know, trademarks are really "intellectual property" things. Wikipedia certainly has a lot of intellectual property to protect. Here is a practical-sounding article on the matter: [1]. Well, maybe you all are rigth. I am glad we at least have the community input on this. -- 71.139.168.199 22:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like it either. Keep the trademark sign off.Borisblue 01:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. Wikipedia depends on donations so it musn't do anything that makes it look like a business, as that will discourage contributions. Scranchuse 02:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well the off-site article, http://www.allbusiness.com/periodicals/article/892684-1.html which is truncated unless you do a free sign-up, does start to talk about the impact of trademark on non-profit fundraising. -- 71.6.14.2 02:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reset indentation. That article doesn't say anything about that you should use trademark symbols, it says that you should trademark your name/logo. Wikipedia has already trademarked the name (which might be a good idea, but I'm no lawyer) and the legal disclaimer in the footer says so clearly for those who wish to know anything about the legal status of the name. Your trademark isn't forfeit if you forget to put an R after it. It is the resposibility of those who want to use it to look it up. The main page shouldn't be littered with legal speak (exaggeration). Jeltz talk 21:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the R symbol pushers watch the movie The Graduate. Near the beginning is a famous scene in which an middle aged suburban man tells a promising youth that his future lay in "one word: plastics." Notice the response of Dustin Hoffman, then realize that you are the old man. --24.131.209.132 22:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of us think that Wikipedia should not look like a business. It will not motivate too many people to make contribs to the site. As mentioned above by user:Scranchuse and other users. FellowWikipedian 22:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody likes a trademark.

Wikipedia already has one on the bottom of the page.
Therefore logically we shouldn't need a second (and possibly more)dotting the Wikipedia network.--Fissionfox 07:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion, putting the R symbol on the logo is simply absurd. Just because it is a trademark, doesn't mean that it needs to be advertised, expecialy if it's ugly. One might wonder if the seemingly fanatical R pushers might have ulterior motives... --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 04:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Marley

Bob Marley died 25 years ago today (11 May) , shouldn't that be mentioned on the main page ?

He died of cancer, partially, it seems, due to his reluctance to take advange of Western medicine. Marlye's article suggests that his birthday, not his deathday, is what is celebrated annually. Does Wikipedia do these anniversaries on round numbers like 25? -- 71.139.168.199 11:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not usually. Maybe on the 100th anniversary of his death. Maybe. More likely not. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Thursday, 11 May 2006 @ 19:02 UTC

There should be a Bob Marley holiday :) sick197666 71.29.173.68 21:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any information on Japanese names?

Can anybody give me more names for Japanese? See page Kitsumiti --Shadow ruler 19:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on the user's talk, pointing to the entries on individual characters at Wiktionary. - BanyanTree 21:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

phone tapping news

I wonder why wire tapping isn't mentioned in the recent news section.

We need a recently updated article. The shut-down of the investigation into the NSA wiretaps would probably qualify for "In the News". —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Thursday, 11 May 2006 @ 20:11 UTC

Inappropriate featured article

While I think the topics are relevant to current events, I don't think the computer game and China prostitution articles should be main page articles. These topics just aren't what most people go to an encyclopedia for. A main page article should have broad appeal to all audiences. Perhaps you could have a "relevant topics" box at the bottom of the first page to contain references to these types of articles and ideas with hypertext links for those interested. I think the main page article should also contribute to the days' news. For instance, since the NSA wiretapping was in the news, the main page article could have been on the NSA or spying. Just something so that when you wake up and turn on Wikipedia you get an article that that is somehow relevant to the day's news.

And today's featured article is about a computer game. Once again Wikipedia shoots itself in the foot. Scranchuse 02:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait until you see tomorrow's featured article... JusticeGuy 02:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Computer games are just as notable as anything else. It isn't as if we only have video games on the front page. And yes, tomorrow's featured article will rile up a few people. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Friday, 12 May 2006 @ 02:53 UTC
It's not like we have to worry about China blocking us. Raul654 02:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more along the lines of people appalled that prostitution is on the Main Page. I know about the Chinese blocking Wikipedia. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Friday, 12 May 2006 @ 03:03 UTC
Prostitution was on the Main Page on 3 May 2004, so there's precedent. (Since defeatured.) My initial reaction was also "What the?!!" but I just read the article and it's very well done and deserving of a wide readership. - BanyanTree 00:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bizarre choice for a featured article. Although well written, researched and presented it tells the reader nothing original about the relationship beltween prostitution and the state. Any number of countries have tried innumerable of methods or controlling or eliminating prostitution, all with very little success. Surely a featured article on the front page of Wikipedia should encycopedic in nature. This article may qualify as a featured article but it's not worthy of the front page of Wikipedia. --86.141.56.73 12:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Surely a featured article on the front page of Wikipedia should encycopedic in nature." Who are you to say it's not encylopedic, though? Besides your misspelling of the word and your omittance of the word 'be', you also fail to mention what does is encyclopedic. I'd say it is, if it's well-written and informative, as this article is. I'd say it's an excellent choice for the front page.Retinarow 21:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

© NPGD1263.jpg ?

Is that not a copyright symbol I see on Image:Charteris.jpeg ? I am sure it has been seen by many eyes, but there is no explaination on the page documentation. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to add such documentation? If the copyright is meaningless, perhaps you would do well to white it out, if that is permitted (I really do not know the rules, it is just that it is very confusing to see it there). Again, docs on the image page would also clear up the matter for the average user. -- 71.6.14.2 04:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This image can be found on http://www.npg.org.uk/live/search/portrait.asp?LinkID=mp51939&rNo=0&role=sit where it says on the bottom in fine print "All images and text are subject to copyright protection". Permission can be requested from the National Portrait Gallery, but someone better quickly post the request and the granted permission on Image:Charteris.jpeg soon. -- 199.71.174.100 07:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly confident that they don't have copyright over it - the subject died in 1732. --Cherry blossom tree 08:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that they are more aware of their own copyright issues that User:Irishpunktom, the Wikipedian who uploaded the image, is. The engraving might be "very old", but I think that it is possible that the National Portrait Gallery or England owns the actual engraving itself. Based on their PDF labeled "website information pack", they charge reasonable rates (on the order of £25 to £200 for a limited period, like one to three years. Even if he actually shelled out the money (which I have my doubts about), he does not state when his licensing will expire. And there in the "fine print" at the bottom of every page, it re-states what the © on the image strongly implies: " All images and text are subject to copyright protection. 12 May 2006".
And they state clearly here:
http://www.npg.org.uk/live/copyrite.asp
"However, if you wish to use this material in any other way than those specified above, you must seek separate permission."
I can see at User_talk:Irishpunktom is Irish and punky, but the question is: did he pay up first and, if not, how is this best handled? Just take the image down? Have the Foundation send the Gallery the money? All of the above? -- 71.6.14.2 10:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I promise you, no image created before 1732 is under copyright anywhere, whatever the NPG say. See our articles on copyright and public domain. --Cherry blossom tree 10:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So why does npg.org.uk bother to go through all that effort, with web forms, PDF's with details, costing schedules and fine print on their web site? I would expect that the laws of the Unite Kingdom apply here and I am just an American private citizen. In such cases, sometimes the devil is in the details. Maybe they are some special case in the U.K. They certainly seems to have a business model, for some reason or another. And if you are so sure of yourself, then maybe you can just go an suck down their entire pre-1900 inventory right now. In fact, I dare you to. -- 71.6.14.2 10:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here, you can just go contact Copyright Officer, Bernard Horrocks, (email bhorrocks@npg.org.uk) and see what he thinks of the matter. It is true, they do have ongoing concerns about the works of artists who lived and produced in the past 100 years at http://www.npg.org.uk/live/rescopy.asp, but that is their copyright issues. Engravings and such are often numbered. The Foundation copyright issues might be rather different. Again, why would they both with leaving a © NPG 1 on their "Chandos" portrait portrait of Shakespeare. Why, it is very ugly and intrusive, is it not? Why, is is simply inane! -- 71.6.14.2 10:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to contact anyone - they have no claim to copyright at all. Museums often claim copyright on things they have no copyright over - even for the things that are still in copyright that copyright belongs to the artist, not the gallery. --Cherry blossom tree 11:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This handy chart from the Museums Copyright Group may be useful in this situation. Natgoo 11:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the issue here is not copyright of the piece itself, but rather the copyright of the picture of the piece. Whoever took the snapshot owns the snapshot. Period. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 18:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Well, you all found

Welcome to Wikipedia®,

to be so terribly ugly, how about that non-applicable © NPG in the right border? When the image goes off protection, who volunteers to go and just trim out that ugly © on this beautiful engraving? You know: just crop it out. It is very intrusive. -- 71.6.14.2 11:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Yeah, well I had planned on doing that, I didn't think they were going to use the image on the DYK, but they did, so when the protection is lifted I will crop it - if no-one beats me to it!--Irishpunktom\talk 11:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sent Mr. Horrocks an email suggesting that I might do the same on my own web site and I got an automatic reply that he is at the Picture Buyers' Fair (www.pbf.org.uk). So I just called the Gallery from the USA at 011 44 20 7306 0055 and talked with Picture Librarian Matthew Bailey. He indicated to me that while the orignal works are, indeed, out of copyright, the photos and scans that the Gallery has created are very much separate and quite in copyright. Now, if you could get permission to borrow the actual engraving and make your own photos and scans, well, then that would be a photo that you would own. Good luck trying that approach. Do you see? It is a photo. It is a new work. Just like if I took several antique works of art and photographed them together. Even just two paintings side-by-side. My photo. And if I snuck in a digital watermark into the image in a very subtle way, that would also be not simply a faithful replication of the original work.

Now, if Picture Librarian Matthew Bailey does not understand how to do his job, then that is too bad for him. But I bet he does. You might want to reconsider your position on the matter. Somebody in London, just give him a call and see if I am bluffing. -- 71.6.14.2 12:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: The Gallery has generous discounts for educational and non-profit organizations. But those discounts are not 100%. -- 71.6.14.2 12:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, in case my sarcasm was missed by the Roumanain sysop who did the dirty deed of cropping the image: my suggestion was in jest. I strongly suggest that you put the old version back ASAP. Cropping out the copyright might fix the problem in Roumania, but not in the USA or the UK. Actually cropping out the copyright only makes matters worse.

Please revert ASAP.

Once the American adults get into the office, Eastern Standard Time, you should let them sort this out. -- 71.6.14.2 13:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, taking a photograph or scanning 2-dimensional works of art does not involve any creativity and thus does not generate any new copyright. --Cherry blossom tree 13:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. --Cherry blossom tree 13:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflicted)Please see our extensive project documentation on definitions and guidelines for copyright. Note that as copyright issues are fundamental to the project, issues such as this one have been extensively discussed over the past five years. The relevant page is Wikipedia:Public domain#Uncreative works, specifically the paragraphs:
Another class of uncreative works which are unable to claim copyright protection in the U.S. are those resulting from mechanical reproduction. Following Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., a simple reproductive photograph of a two-dimensional artwork does not give rise to a new copyright on the photograph. Many other countries (but not all!) recognize a similar ineligibility for copyright for reproductive photographs of two-dimensional public domain works.
Photographic reproductions, as a form of derivative work, may inherit the copyright of the original work. If that artwork is in the public domain, then so is the photograph. If, however, the depicted work is copyright protected, then, although there is no independent copyright on the photo itself, it cannot be considered to be in the public domain as the original rights holder still has the authority to control how reproductions of his work, including photographs, are made and distributed. The same applies to digitized images.
Basically, nobody can claim copyright over reproductions of two-dimensional images unless they claim that they are creating an entirely new work of art. Marcel Duchamp fiddling with a copied Mona Lisa is original art and "resets" the copyright clock; a scan of the unaltered Mona Lisa, regardless of how much effort is made by the person scanning to ensure its quality, is the intellectual copyright of da Vinci, and therefore public domain because his death is long past.
To answer your question more directly, I am certain that Mr. Bailey believes what he told you, but he is mistaken. These questions have been brought up repeatedly and I have seen enough Wikipedians with law degrees speak up that I have no doubt that our usage of images as you describe is 100% legal in the jurisdictions from where the vast majority of readers are accessing them. - BanyanTree 13:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will take your word on that. Who knows? Maybe they are just out to make money on the antiques they hold. I do notice that http://www.nga.gov/ allows "non-commercial use", which is slightly different language than the London Gallery's more narrow "non-commercial private research and study purposes". Somehow, the latter seems to not be exactly what Wikipedia® is doing, but I really do not know. Nonetheless, it would be nice to have the Image: page updated with the URL that identifies the source of this image, just so that we all know its origins. Also, the descenders of all three letters of ".jpg" left a few dirty-looking pixels in the right-hand margin that a good re-crop would clean up. -- 71.6.14.2 13:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about the Corel decision some more: I noticed that [2] makes an assertion on this da Vinci image:
Copyright © 2002 The National Gallery, London. All rights reserved.
Now, there is no obvious watermark on this mid-sized image, but they do watermark the zoomable one. Just click on the mid-sized image and they give you a Java-based zoom option. Now, if they drew some moustaches on the The Virgin of th Rock and the surrounding cherubs, that would be pretty funny. Sort of like those animations in Monty Python. I bet that Monty Python did its homework at the time and maybe gets grandfathered in on its intellectual property. When do you cross the line into originality? With a moustach? With a watermark? I do not know. Please note that the Corel decision resolves this important distinction in the USA. If the UK wants to draw the line at a slightly different point on the playing field (what with the European Union and some of their peculiar ideas about things like what you can call "Champaign" and whatnot) well, they are free to do that. Let me also point out that these Galleries are probably not going to make a big fuss about one and two images or simply misunderstanding. They are just going to go after the big offenders. It says here that the portrait Gallery has about 10,000 images online. Let us just say that 5,000 are in this "100 year old" category. If I set up a web site with 5,000 of their images and added a few nice tasteful photographs of naked women and ask for donation to help "support the display", I bet I would hear from them. Especially if I and my ISP was in the UK. Whether they would have legal standing, I do not know. Maybe they would just bluff and see if they could get me to back down. Or maybe they would remind me "if I had only asked permission, all of this would not be necessary." Civil law tends to work like that, to avoid these arguments. My point is: if they ask to you ask for permission, then those are reasonable terms and even if you find them irksome, give them a try. It is just the mature, reputable thing to do. They probably admire Wikipedia's lofty goals and would be happy to oblige. Maybe they would even make arrangement for some blanket permission if they relationship was good. -- 71.141.22.14 22:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Danny decided to settle the matter anyway by yanking it anyway. Who knows (I really do not, honest), but maybe there is no compelling legal reason to so. Maybe he is just being extra-careful. You know, when they ask for written permission (and both Galleries do) (Yeah, it is kind of like a note from your Mommy, but school was supposed to acclaimate you to this concept) it is just common courtesy to go get the silly thing. It is a delay, so it is not that instant-gratification of "Internet time", but it is probably a good idea. And, you know, those fine legal points of law sometimes work out that way: just common courtesy. All nice and business-like. You know, you scratch the Gallery's back and maybe someday the Gallery will return the favor to Wikipedia®. Then again, maybe not. -- 71.6.14.2 14:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are now going to call me a troll or disruptive or a bunch of other things that I have been called in the past, please remember this: I am just looking out for the Foundations best interests, in my own peculiar manner. Maybe there is a more efficient way to achieve this than the process we have gone through over the past few hours. Maybe some language to the effect of "common courtesy" on the Wikipedia:Copyright page would assist in the matter. Mabye especially some language about maintaining good relationships with these other sources of content and doing what the (fill in your favorite explictive here) they tell you do to do when you are getting it for free from them, even it involves cumbersome (OMG!) snail mail and stuff. And I am pretty sure that cropping out their copyright symbol out is, for the Community, right out. I am sorry if my sarcasm was misunderstood by some sysops for whom English is not their native toungue. I did not seriously mean to suggest that the cropping was a good idea. Look, we all make mistakes. I have made many mistakes in the past year both inside and outside of Wikipedia, including a nightmarishly large number of typing mistakes. Well, these are just, I suppose, growing pains for this young Community. Peace. -- 71.6.14.2 14:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added some comments at Image_talk:Charteris.jpeg. I agree that it was a very bad idea to crop out the copyright label - that is just asking for trouble. It makes it look like you are trying to hide something. At the very least, there should be an acknowledgement of the source of the picture, and not just in the "background" documentation, but upfront at all places the picture appears. In other words, there should be a credit line with the photograph crediting the NPG for scanning the picture. That would, IMO, solve a lot of problems. So, in general, why are credit lines not used more widely on Wikipedia? Carcharoth 09:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

Should we archive Talk:Main Page? FellowWikipedian 00:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er...we do. It's at the top. Also, could you please log in for once? Like on the Keith Marlowe article, there is no way of telling that some of the anon edits are actually you. Also, you may actually be an anon masquerading as FellowWikipedian, which wouldn't be fun. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pain to log in. But I am login in more so don't worry. FellowWikipedian 02:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Featured article

How do you think Baidupedia's article on Prostitution in the People's Republic of China compares with Wikipedia's? Hawkestone 11:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the photo they used was inappropriate. The timeframe of the story is post-Mao and the near-WW II vintage photo seesm out-of-place, especially the dreary and menacing nature of the soldier and that large bayonet. It will not help with the Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China either. Wikipedia does not need to censor itself, but this will not help the situation. -- 71.141.22.14 12:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint about the photograph is a valid one. However, to date, noone has uploaded a more fitting photograph on the subject. If you wish to, you can travel there and take one yourself. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 14:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that wikipedia could have censorship to some extent. In my opinion, the featured article today "Prostitution in the People's Republic of China" paints a bad picture about China. It can also be linked with racism to some extent. Also, I don't see the point of having articles of prostitution of any country. People that are brought up in Europe or America might not think that it is offensive, but as a person brought up in Asia, I declare that I am very offended by the article. Also, I doubt the information of "Prostitution in Hong Kong" being correct at all.

You might think that China blocking wikipedia is ridiculous, but to some extent, some content in wikipedia does give people a bad image to China, or cannot be accepted by people in China. Cherubfish 14:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really agree with you about this. Having an article on "Prostitution in the PRC" featured on the main page no more paints a bad picture of China than putting Ku Klux Klan (also an FA) onto the front page paints a bad picture of the United States. They're both negative topics, but they're encyclopedic, and the articles are informative and interesting. As for being racist, I'd say it'd be erring towards reverse discrimination to say an article on the subject shouldn't exist. It's a shame the articles on Prostitution in the Netherlands and Prostitution in the United Kingdom arent of the same quality. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 14:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, most people brought up in Asia do not find it interesting, and would be offended. If a person from America/ Europe does not find it offensive, then I won't mind protitution articles about those countries existing! Also, I demand more information on the term "encyclopedic" in terms of wikipedia's standards.

Also, note that, I only said "I don't see the point of having articles of prostitution.", NOT "these articles should not exist", so I am not having reverse discrimination here. I am just passing on an information of people brought up in Asia may have the tendancy of being offended. Cherubfish 16:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored. But, out of curiosity, besides being "offended", where do you see the harm in offering comprehensive information about the international status of prostitution? The article about the PRC happens to be the only one that has reached featured article quality standards, though Prostitution in Germany is also fairly comprehensive.--Eloquence* 16:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, wikipedia is not censored. Only WP:OFFICE can censor Wikipedia. 65.95.63.179 02:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OFFICE has a right to remove libellous, unsourced content. This is not censorship. If the content was well-sourced (not to some random internet forum) and neutral, then it would be alright. Unfortunately, almost all of Wikipedia is unsourced, and rarely neutral. --BRIAN0918 18:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any action that supresses the flow of information is censorship, even if the said information is considered bad, garbage, libellous to some people; or if one has the right to remove it. Supertramps 19:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if Wikipedia was a government/community first, then you could call it censorship, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first, and well-sourced, factual information takes precedence over unsourced, libellous, false information. This isn't about freedom of speech, it's about the freedom to have access to useful, correct, well-sourced information. If you want to ramble on without caring how true your statements are, sign up with MySpace or LiveJournal. --BRIAN0918 21:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
YES, wikipedia is a commnuity, so yes, it's censorship. 70.48.250.138 06:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article made it seem like Chinese government are trying hard to stop protitution but there are still loads--ie seems that they are quite vulnerable, plans don't work, etc.

Normally, people brought up in Asia (especially north east Asia) associate prostitution and prostitude with pornography quite well. Cherubfish 19:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is possible to talk about prostitution in China without the Chinese being made to feel like they are being made to look primitive or having to worry about if this is some kind of vieled rehashing of Tienamem Square. In this particular case, you do have that up-to-date photo of prostitutes in incarceration within the article. True, those photos are what the authorities are providing the people to show that they are attempting to fight this social vice, so they have a POV to them. Also, they do not scale down very well so you might have tried cropping the "middle tier" photo, maybe just the two girls on the left. It is not the best of circumstances, but if that is the "face of prostitution" (although their faces are turned away) that people see on TV these days in China, then that is more relevant. -- 71.141.22.14 19:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really agree with you here. I think the article could be more acceptable when it is written and structured in a more philosophical/ scientific/ which ever subject concerned way. Cherubfish 19:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And could we not have featured an article on the Main Page with an "unsourced statement" tag in it? It doesn't look good. Daniel Case 23:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the current FA (as well as the last three before it) and I see no such tag anywhere. Raul654 23:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies ... it was there earlier today but it has been fixed. Daniel Case 23:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks fine to me- not fantastic by FA standards, but certainly not egregiously bad. Provided the information is true and verified, it is irrelevant whether some find it offensive on subjective grounds- it certainly does not seem to me that the article is written to shock, or that the average person would find it unduly shocking or offensive. I am very surprised that the issue of censorship has even been brought up. If the Chinese government don't like this encyclopedia because of articles like this, then we need to wait until that government is removed or until they change their minds, not dilute Wikipedia to suit political pressure. Freedom of speech is not negotiable. Badgerpatrol 23:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jimmy may be flying high and be an anticredentialist, but I bet he would be happy to get from advice from somebody with serious credentials on the matter of the China blocking and how best to help it come to a speedy conclusion. If the advice is free, then I just hope it is still good advice. If this current block goes on for years and both sides feel they are not losing much, then I guess there is no problem. -- 71.141.31.151 00:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The members of the chinese community are appealing the ban (and have been for months now). Jimbo has already stated that he believes the block to be an error on the part of the Chinese government. Beyond that, Wikipedia remains blocked in China due to the intrasigence of the Chinese government. On the other hand, I agree with the people who have argued that the Chinese government is really only shooting themselves in the foot, because by blocking Wikipedia only non-mainland chinese viewpoints get written into the Chinese Wikipedia. Raul654 00:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point Raul- although all contributions to the project should strive to not be reflective of any particular political viewpoint. (Having said that, I'm not sure that my Mandarin is quite up to the task of NPOV'ing articles on the Chinese Wikipedia, so I think I'll leave it to others :-) Badgerpatrol 01:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be realistic here. If they don't ban Wikipedia, there is little point in having political censorship at all. I expect the ban to last as long as the Chinese Communist Party's monopoly on power. They aren't "shooting themselves in the foot" at all. They are doing exactly what any efficient dictatorship does; managing domestic opinion. 62.31.55.223 04:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LoL, actully that makes wikipedia look bad. The Chinese Government doesn't really give a damn what other countries think of them. 65.95.63.179 02:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, that's probably true. We can say empiracally that authoritarian governments require a vacuum of information, and that free expression is toxic to them (consider the American and French revolutions, or the recent events in Nepal; conversely, look at states that have a vacuum of free speech: China, Cuba, North Korea. The Soviet Union is the best example of all - as soon as they opened up even a little bit to free expression, the whole thing collapsed, although I suppose one could argue about cause and effect). Rich area for a poliysci thesis though ;) Raul654 04:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raul654: You are using a lot of Wikipedia jargon and applying it to a soveriegn nation of a billion people that has its own space program (and a viable vehicle). It is a sovereign nation and Jimbo should respect that. If Jimbo dared to characterize any decision of the leadership as an "error", then I hope that the Communist Party leadership is not deeply offended. If Baidu Baike's 90,000 articles are comparable to the 67,000 of http://zh.wikipedia.org/ , then I do not see what Jimbo has to offer China anymore except more criticism about issues of style that they are not receptive to. I would also like to point out that the current front page of http://baike.baidu.com/ has a reference to World Toilet Organization and this page at http://baike.baidu.com/lemma-php/dispose/view.php/7266.htm . I do not know if this is a joke, but if it is serious, then perhaps they are dealing with it as a health issue in a culturally appropriate manner. If this works well for China, who are well to tell it otherwise? Perhaps they were planning this for months or years and the blockages were just to get people used to it. Perhaps this is China just telling Jimbo: Thanks for the idea! Have a nice day! -- 71.139.166.23 13:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese Communist Party is not the Chinese nation. The Chinese Communist Party is a murderous tyranny that has killed millions of people (nearly all of them Chinese) and deserves daily condemnation from every decent person. 62.31.55.223 19:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And remember, Raul654: they can just suck down anything from http://zh.wikipedia.org/ that they find useful and appropriate. And they likely have properly-financed "business model", so I expect that their version of Wikipedia:Reward board and Wikipedia:Bounty board are well-financed. And I bet the Baidu Baike web site points to plenty of their equivalent of our .gov boards such as http://www.doc.state.nc.us/ and http://www.ocpd.com/ that they think that such is all very good and much more practical, and that they have detailed, practical subjects like, maybe, bicycle and small engine repair, as opposed to Hello Kitty. And, you know, China considers the Internet highly addictive in a bad way anyway [3]. You know, Wikipedia still has the world outlook of a 20 year-old and maybe China wanted a chinese version of wikipedia with a world outlook of a 30 year-old. So they built their own. They have ample resources. And unlike Bill Gates, Jimbo does not have a chinese Wikipedia 1.0 (or 2.0) on the drawing boards that has compelling new features. I bet they gave Jimbo what they consider a more than ample opportunity to listen to their well-intentioned fatherly advice and that they found him to be not a flexible negotiator; not yet ready to delegate the matter to somebody on-the-ground in China. Who knows? Perhaps too many other problems would have emerged anyway. Jimbo is on Time magazine's 100 "The People Who Shape Our World" before his 40th birthday. Quite an achievement. But if Jimbo really wanted China to round out his resume, he blew it. I supposed he does not have to admit it, but with things like WP:OFFICE, his "absolute and non-negotiable" language in reference to NPOV have also been already been compromised. At least in this latter case, he still has time to re-adjust his position and restate himself. I hope he does so. Such a move on his part might help to reduce possible misunderstandings and missed opportunities for productive and orderly collaboration in the near future. -- 71.139.166.23 18:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And based on Chinese Wikipedia#Baidu Baike (which I had not read previously) that is exactly what they are doing! -- 71.141.12.10 04:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More thoughts on the matter: If China wishes its new enterprise to have a great leap forward in quality and utility, it can share the intellectual property of existing commercial chinese encyclopedias within its borders as it see fit. You may consider that to be unfair competition, but within the borders of China, that may be perfectly legal and ethical, as well as appropriate to the best interests of the People. I am no fan of Communism, but I recognize the certain limited scenarios exist where it gains some competative advantages. You have given each other Barnstars with the hammer and sickle upon them as jokes, but in China they might be doing something similar in relation to this Baidupedia site and it be no laughing matter. -- 71.139.162.227 23:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In economics, Gresham's Law says that bad money pushes good money out of circulation. All things being equal, the reverse is true with information - good information pushes out bad information out of circulation. Meaning that any encyclopedia created by the Chinese government, where "reactionary" material (read: anything the Chinese government considers dangerous) is removed would be unable to compete anywhere there was free access to better information, like the Chinese Wikipedia. So yes, Baidu might just have found a niche - a mainland chinese market which has been deprived of the Chinese Wikipedia. On the other hand, it can only exist where the Chinese government is creating a vacuum of good information. Raul654 23:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on your definition of "good information". Does good information = accurate information? Supertramps 00:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished listening to another fascinating talk in the Berkman archive: "Web of Ideas: The Authority of Wikipedia" by David Weinberger. Perhaps "authoritativeness" would have been less ambiguous a word to use (a funny joke in the context of this discussion, me thinks). Steward User:Sj participates a great deal in the last half-hour. It is about 80 minutes long. Dr. Weinberger presentation style is somewhat informal, but the talk is lively and thought-provoking and well worth it. -- 71.139.185.8 00:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How nice! Dr. Weinberger explained to me that User:AaronSw, aka Aaron Swartz is the other major participant you hear in the talk. -- 71.141.22.255 06:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After listening to that, I must confess to being a little surprised. I kinda expected Essjay to have a deeper, more authoritative voice, I guess. --maru (talk) contribs 07:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
he sounds like a little geek? 70.48.250.138 08:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Sj and Essjay are two different prominent Wikipedians. Sj was at the talk. -- 71.139.179.114 10:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why should Baidu care about GFDL or CC? GFDL and CC probably doesn't even apply under chinese laws. Hell, Baidu can sell wikipedia content if they want to and the chinese governmnet would not give a damn. 70.48.250.138 01:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Baidu, according to reports in teh press, is listed on the NASDAQ, so presumably they have a physical presence in the US (which impells to respect US copyright laws). Raul654 21:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
however, the servers are located in China! 70.48.250.138 10:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what is that paragraph about Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China where they mention the October 31, 2005 incident about the Korean server cluster. I got the vague impression that the data lives in Korea. I will look around for more definitive information. -- 71.139.169.59 22:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I expect that there is no one place. A more full story is here:
but I would expect that they are all full mirrors of all of the data in all languages. Maybe the "squids" are read-only? I am not sure what the Asian "database servers" are. The exact details probably do not matter and are subject to change. The Korea thing is probably a statistical statement: Load balancing probably directs requests from the Mainland to the Korea server cluster more than the other worldwide sites. "Service area" might imply that the routing rules are a bit more firm, but "Service area: Everyone" for Tampa Florida implies that a failure at the Korea site would failover to Tampa. It is complicated, but these redundant designs is how you make a service reliable (and then databases have to mirror and transaction managers deal with concurrentcy and blah blah blah). Really, you start with the wikipedia.org domain name (Brad is correct that this is a very valuable piece of the Foundation's intellectual property) and it translates to an IP address. For me in the USA, en.wikipeida.org and zh.wikipedia.org evaluate to the same list of addresses. I dunno, maybe if I was in China or Asia, it would evaluate to some other value or some other tricky network thing like that. Again: the Korea servers are there and take the load from Asia under normal conditions so that that "squid" incident effected China. And again, 60,000 aritcles? No big deal from a data volume management point of view (I am talking off the top of my head, but my instinct tells me that I am correct). -- 71.139.169.59 23:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article-May 27

Hi. Could you guys consider posting the followin Wiki on May 27?-F-4 Phantom- Its maiden flight was on May 27, 1958. Please! (Hpetwe 19:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Go here.--ᎠᏢ462090Contribs 19:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/May 27 may be better. -- 199.71.174.100 09:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling error

The short description of the Sanssouci article contains a spelling error; "single-storey" should read "single-story."

It is indeed. A storey is a floor of a building, a story is a tale. Handy, but confusing for those unfamiliar no doubt. 57.66.51.165 08:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should report main page errors here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors --Andeee 19:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk Hogan error

It should be "WWF's Hulk Hogan" or "WWE's Hulk Hogan" or "Wrestler Hulk Hogan". WrestleMania is an event, and as such Hulk Hogan can't really belong to it.

Fixed, Thanks. --Mark Neelstin (Dark Mark) 01:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preval Sworn in As Haiti's New President

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti - Rene Preval, the only elected president in Haiti's history to finish his term, was sworn in Sunday to again lead the impoverished nation in its latest attempt at democracy after decades of armed uprisings, lawlessness and foreign intervention.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060514/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/haiti;_ylt=AnenSGV.bOmDqak_4hEn0Jms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b3JuZGZhBHNlYwM3MjE-

This is an important international news.Patchouli 01:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So ? Instead of stating the obvious, please go update Current events, René Préval, & List of Presidents of Haiti.... and various related pages in Wikipedia. **THEN**, think about a suggested headline for ITN and post it at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. -- 64.229.177.247 03:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't bite the newcomers. That said, as soon as the relevant articles are updated, that information can be placed on the Main Page. —CuiviénenT|C, Monday, 15 May 2006 @ 13:52 UTC

Sandbox seems to have been deleted fully!

Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox and someone wrote China and so one. Unfortuantly I don't know who the culprit is, but I hope you can catch him as I was going to work on sand box and that person has runined it for me. If they are allowed to do that then please inform me. Thank you and best regards, --kitsumiti 15:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It gets re-set every 12 hours, by Sandbot, so it's not the end of the world, but their not supposed to mess with the heading.--ᎠᏢ462090Contribs 19:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi

hi

If you like to spam then please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox. This is a discussion page not a spam page. Thank you and best regards, --kitsumiti 16:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of things on WP

Could there be other projects created so that the unknown albums that will never be encyclopaedic articles be dump at so that when cleaning WP of the new articles, these would be classified easily and not dropped into oblivion until. I suggest something like WikiMusic or WikiVideogames or things like that so that articles like Milord (album), Loin de moi (album) or X (Game Boy game) be put in an appropriate place and not stay uselessly on WP knowing that people wont read the articles??? Lincher 20:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that no one will read them? Someone created the articles so there must be some people interested. mad_cat_42 16:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know but if there are seperated wikis for them, it would be easier to find since this is not the first place people search for albums or games or that kind of stuff. Lincher 23:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you search by Google, you may end up here anyways. -- 64.229.177.254 12:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

помощь!

Здравствулте!. Где я? Я не знаю я. Вы знаете? Где это место здесь? Где русский вариант этого? Я помощь! Help. No spek englis.

Try the russian wikipedia: Заглавная страница --flatluigi(talk/contrib) 21:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, Russian Wikipedia —CuiviénenT|C, Monday, 15 May 2006 @ 21:10 UTC

Greek Wikipedia up one floor

Please note that the Greek wikipedia has happily surpassed 10,000 articles, so it should be moved to the "More than 10,000 articles:" section. Cheers - Badseed 22:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The update has been performed. --Allen3 talk 23:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Day

Does anybody know where the ISS is orbiting above in that picture? If so, maybe that could be added to the heading. It looks like it's over the Caspian Sea to me. But I could be wrong. BirdValiant 00:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My first question, upon seeing the image, was how was it taken?
Hubble? mad_cat_42 16:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely. It's probably from one of the Soyuz capsules used for cargo and/or crew transport. Stuff has to get to and from the station, after all, and that provides plenty of photo opportunities. — ceejayoz talk 16:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the description of the ISS' inhabitants is great, but we could use a picture caption as well. Anyway, all of our questions about the picture, and more, are succinctly answered by APOD, which by some dark conspiracy is featuring the same image today! Melchoir 10:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So it looks like the answer is the Caspian Sea. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 20:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh. shouldn't questions like this be directed elsewhere? Like the image's talk page? -- nsandwich 03:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beaconsfield

Instead of 'two miners, can we have, 'Miners Brant Webb and Todd Russell'? They were trapped for 2 weeks. I think we should at least mention their names. Scalene 08:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadam Hussein

Where is this story? It's not on the bbc and its not on the actual page. Dave 15:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is on the BBC [4] although not prominently. It is a bit of a non-story really. Badgerpatrol 16:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok, thankyou, but, as a non-story, why is it on the news section? Dave 16:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because being officially charged with a crime over two years after arrest is notable. mad_cat_42 16:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the line should be like so:

Saddam Hussein (pictured) is formally indicted for crimes against humanity.

Just for those who forget what an indictment is. Also, the bit has been added to Saddam's article. mad_cat_42 16:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also added this reference to the Crime Against Humanity article. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 18:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Hussein is NOT currently pictured.

"Saddam Hussein, he's our hero. He's going to take pollution down to zero." -- nsandwich 03:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Large

When will Wikipedia ever have over 1,000 featured articles? It's getting tougher to promote featured articles these days. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) 18:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We will hit 1000 featured articles sometime next month. -- The featured article director. 20:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Error on Main Page: Featured Picture - International Space Station

The blurb for the Featured Picture - International Space Station says "there have always been at least two people on board" (emphasis added).

Actually there were five shuttle flights that docked with the ISS before it was permanently manned, during each of which there were several people on board for several days before it was once again left unmanned.

So, it should say something like, "there have always been at least two people on board since the arrival of the first permanent crew." - Reaverdrop 22:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that errors in the future should be reported to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors (also accessible via WP:ERRORS). joturner 22:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam (is no longer pictured)...

In the current news section, there is a picture of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, though it still says "Saddam Hussein (pictured) is formally indicted..."

It doesn't say that any more. Either someone is avidly monitoring this page or happened to notice it himself. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So shouldn't it say "Ayaan Hiris Ali (pictured) ..." ? RyanMcK 00:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Error reports posted on Talk:Main Page may be moved without notice.

I like this policy. Should remove quite a bit of the clutter on this page. -- 199.71.174.100 09:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. It was not my idea but I supported this one. There is too much clutter. FellowWikipedian 21:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, somebody's just got a policeman or schoolteacher complex. --Nelson Ricardo 00:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find this proposal to be shallow and pedantic. -- nsandwich 03:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Dropshot

I've been searching and albeit the percentage of history covered there isn't such article??? Not sure whether I address appropriate site, but please move this request to appropriate site, as this is indeed notable topic of 20th century. --193.77.179.47


I think that the big symbol should be found anywhere on a webpage not just at the top because some people might not know that is clickable they mite think its only decoration.


Would anyone like to discuss...

Would anyone like to debate this question here at: Talk:Akimichi Choji Thank you!--kitsumiti 15:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big debate. I put my answer there. FellowWikipedian 21:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone

Someone named Hans keeps on deleting the navigational box, which makes it more annoying to scroll around just to find some subjects. Can you please trace who this person is and try and get him not to do that? Thank you and best regards, --kitsumiti 19:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What navigational box are you referring to? --TantalumTelluride 19:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Square?

Today's featured picture about the British Museum describes the Great Court as a "covered square", but it's unclear from the picture if it's a geometric square (that was my first impression) or some sort of town square. Would a link to town square or market square be appropriate? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 00:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=53809440"