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 162.83.137.157 (talk) at 23:29, 7 October 2006. 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.

Template:Main Page discussion footer

This talk page

Reading through the top of this page, while there are several what NOT to post here I noticed that it isn't actually that clear about what TO post here (other then not what's not). Obviously wikipedians should realise that this talk page is for discussion of issues surrounding the main page that are not discussed elsewhere. But I think we should make clear this clear. Otherwise, new users might falsely assume if there is nothing specifically mentioned on the top about a location to discuss there question they should post here. For example it may not be clear to a new user that this is not an appropriate place for the discussing TV News Reading (since there is no place, as above) and reference desks questions since these aren't specifically mentioned at the top and it doesn't say that this is only for discussion surrounding the main page. I personally believe users should read more carefully but it might help if we make it more clear. Nil Einne 18:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe (and have stated here before) that the problem is the link that reads "discussion" on top of the Main Page. Since it's in the home page, people (specially those not used to article format) tend to believe that this discussion concerns Wikipedia as a whole. Maybe we should ignore the format for this special case and make that discussion link more precise or less conspicuous. Or perhaps this isn't such a big problem; let them learn from their mistakes! Hehe.--cloviz 21:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The header used to say "This page is for discussion of the Main Page only. See below for information on where to post on topics not concerning the Main Page. Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Main Page. Irrelevant discussion may be removed." I've interviewed a few users that did post innapropriate items here to see what their process was in the interest to help new users. And similar to what Cloviz says above; They've all clicked on "discussion", then blindly clicked the "+ sign" and added their comment. Not many people read instructions. Or even notice them. The new header has reduced people posting in the "wrong place" a little but I doubt anything we do except my wild idea (see below) will curtail it.
  • Monotonehell's wild idea
1.Perm protect this page.
2.Move the header to here permantently
3.Edit the header so it becomes a directory for new users to find the proper places for their posts. Make it very friendly and helpful.
4.Move the actual Talk:Main Page discussion to a sub page of this page.
5.Rinse, repeat.
I've had this idea for ages, but it's too radical to actualy perform.--Monotonehell 06:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe change it to "article discussion", sitewide? That'd prevent people using it to talk about how cool the band is, etc. too. .* 18:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing it to "article discussion" would be good, but a link to say the village pump labelled "Wikipedia discussion" could be put on the sidebar to show people where to go. Lcarsdata (Talk) 10:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good one; the term "Village Pump" doesn't seem to refer to discussion (at least to me). I think the changes should be made in the page itself; if we only change the talk page we disregard that there's a simple ambiguity causing this. We can't convert the talk page into a reference page just because of a recurrent mistake.--cloviz 11:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter if a few people post in the "wrong" place? Why make things confusing for people trying to fix errors and discuss ways to improve Wikipedia?--Clawed 09:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are actually trying to make things easier. Imagine if you leave a question here, then you go to sleep and the other day you come back expecting answers but you only find that you posted in the wrong place; must be quite frustrating. We must keep some order as well; if we answer all questions posted here, we prevent them from getting the proper attention they'd get in the correct place.--cloviz 13:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It only matters if they don't get the attention their post deserves because they've posted it somewhere that people aren't looking. The processes on Wikipedia have developed in an organic manner and are inherently confusing. What we need to do is formalise these processes and then create help paths for new users so they can find the resource they need easily. --Monotonehell 12:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's obvious that the less experienced people think that this is a page for discussing main page errors and Wikipedia in general, why don't we just use it for that and move the discussion about the main page structure to somewhere else, where experienced editors will surely easily find it? Zocky | picture popups 21:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what about this: We keep something like that header here only; with also another link for "Main Page General Discussion, if your post doesn't belong to any other section", which leads to this page, of course. Oh wait, that's exactly Monotonehell's wild idea; don't know why did I object it...--cloviz 21:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is Wikiversity and how come it's a red link? Ciacchi 15:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came in to say the same thing, wikiversity link is broken, but worked fine last night.
looks good/works for me BrokenSegue 15:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiversity is a MediaWiki project that made the horrible mistake of adding rounded corners to the monobook skin. It makes my designer's blood boil. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 21:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the rounded-corners distaste. But see Spanish and Italian for (2 variations of) precedent [sadly]. --Quiddity·(talk) 22:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I raised the issue at the English Wikiversity's Colloquium page. One of the site's eight sysops (also known as "custodians") informed me that "none of the Wikiversity custodians seem to be concerned about these sorts of subjective evaluations of the Wikiversity buttons," adding that "the buttons look fine on [his/her] computer" and "maybe [I] need a better display." Another opined that "if [I] have no greater concerns than the appearance of rounded corners than (sic) maybe this isn't the project for me."
That's some welcoming committee! —David Levy 07:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what is the problem? The French one does it too. The German one has some wierd thing about it. What's so bad? HellaNorCal 01:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

same. it redlinks for me, and when i try to sign up there, it wont show me the security thing. --24.208.123.129 01:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC) I love that design! What is it and is there a setting to make Wikipedia look like that in the English version? Please someone help me! --Adriaan90 16:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity is Redlinked... Again

I believe this is the third time its done so, according to this page. --Tom 07:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be okay now. I wonder why this keeps occurring. —David Levy 07:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia links turn red on occation on wikiversity as well. It's like the database splits.--Rayc 01:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Again

For Wikiversity, it is a red link again. What is the problem? At least the 4th time! — [Mac Davis](talk) (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)19:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appears fine to me; perhaps the problem originates from not clearing your cache? Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again

It links to the page V: on Wikipedia rather than to the Wikiversity. Strange thing is that when I open underlying templtate Template:WikipediaSister it correctly links to the wikiversity. Is it possible it is a sofware problem? E.g. one of the servers might not be able to interpret V: prefix for Wikiversity articles. Maybe various versions of Wiki software on the servers? --Jan Smolik 15:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the template needs to be updated with a direct link rather than a WikiLink? (Proclaims ignorance) --Monotonehell 17:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea! I've changed it to a full hyperlink. —Mets501 (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there not links to Wikipedia in other languages on the main page

The German version has links to all other Wikipedia projects. Why doesn't the English version? --66.111.51.110 13:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neapolitan

The correct spelling of neapolitan in the original language is Nnapulitano. Nnapulitana is the female adjective. --Twilight 15:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about something on the Main Page? If not, please post it elsewhere. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is, try WP:ERRORS. --64.229.231.231 15:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's about the "other languages section" that is not included in WP:ERRORS. --Twilight 15:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Profound bias on front page

Just look at it. Our main page has a horrendous pro Wikipedia bias. There must be at least 100 links to Wikipedia articles, but not a single link to Brittanica, Encarta, or other encyclopedias! What's worse, the few external links it does have are buried at the bottom and point to other Wikimedia Foundation projects. It's dreadful!! Has no one heard of reliable sources? Where are the references? Where are the links to other sites? It's as if everyone here thinks Wikipedia itself is the only source worth citing.

Clearly something must be done. Our policy on verification suggests we should just blank the thing are start fresh with only that material for which we can find external sources. Oh, and I'm sure some prominent links to Britannica and other encyclopedias would help convince people we are truly neutral and not just full of ourselves. Dragons flight 22:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Main Page is not an encyclopedic article. -- 199.71.174.100 22:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is probably satire. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 22:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I call that trolling. -- 199.71.174.100 22:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I'm shocked to see that kind of thing coming from an admin. I expect admins to be boring, callous, and devoid of all normal human characteristics. I prefer that they not even mention that encyclopedia that starts with B, neither on wiki nor off. I expect them to all have the exact same opinion about every subject imaginable because disagreement is a sign of weakness. And, above all, I expect admins to limit the number of consecutive exclamation points to just one. -- tariqabjotu 00:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot stolid.24.250.33.247 03:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wasting Wikipedia's bandwidth due to sarcasm, argh. And I thought talk pages aren't forums. Lol. Frankly, these "Main Page bias" topics on the Main Page should be posted here if it is purely for entertainment or satire. --Howard the Duck 05:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL 220.73.57.180

I forgot to bookmark Wikimedia Foundation Board election pages. Now the election has closed, the sitewide notice has been removed. Can anyone provide the links? I am sure others will also be looking for this. Can something be suggested at the sitenotice page to leave the notice up (suitable amended) for just one more day. I know some people want it gone as soon as possible, but one more day after over 20 days won't make that much difference. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Meta:Main_Page - where they still have the link there, but saying that the election is closed. Remember that people will want to go and read about it over the next few days, and when the result is announced. Carcharoth 00:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the result has been announced on the mailing list. Will there be an announcement on the sitewide notice? Carcharoth 22:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

I'm new here. Just getting acquainted with the site. Are the people who manage this thing, not necessarily the editors, but the Wiki-Foundation politically involved in American politics? Anything of remote historical concern which involves the US is written from a US Liberal vs. US Conservative bias. It's frightening. I think the Foundation is doing a disservice to international users by making itself irrelevant to the rest of the world with regard to history. I'm pretty firm that these areas should be specifically protected as best possible, while still remaining in the spirit of Wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.42.81.33 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

See Wikipedia:Systemic bias. However, no, the managers are not involved in American politics, and moreover, there are many international users editing the Wiki to keep it as broad as possible. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 10:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that some people automatically claim "Liberal bias" and conspiracy when they see academically cited text? What exactly is a "US Liberal" view of history and why is it frightening? And how does recorded history differ from "US Conservative" version of history? Wikipedia has a process of verification based on credible scholarly sources, any disputed text can be called to attention and undergo review. There is no conspiricy here. Contributors come from all over the World. You're invited to contribute but please leave your political and personal views at the door, and keep an open mind. Wikipedia is far from perfect, but there are people of disparate backgrounds working on improving it. --Monotonehell 11:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not what they said. I suggest you reread the comment. Skittle 13:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yah I totally misread that even though I read it 3 times before I commented. Sorry. Now I'm unsure what they are refereing to. What's the link between some conspiracy of "management" and historical articles? What you see in articles is a result of many hands on the edit.
One thing that happens on articles that have two opposing camps of POV is they suffer from the dicotomy by ending up as an adversarial narative instead of an academic article. This is a sad thing and shouldn't happen with historical articles where there's a fairly accepted record. Even when some points are under flux in academic circles, there should be a stable set of references available.
I don't think protection is the answer though. --Monotonehell 14:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get some examples? 66.67.58.191 19:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to rephrase what the original user is saying: Many articles about history (as well as politics and so-called moral issues) are written from a US perspective, and are contrasting US conservative and liberal views, while ignoring views and opinions in other countries. They are right about that, and Wikipedia:Systemic bias is a page that gives some clues on that question.
About the foundation, politics: the foundation is not involved in party politics, and AFAIK, neither are board members or foundation staff (at least not at any significant level). They (foundation and people) are involved in politics as "public matters", of course, but that's a given for a public project.
The idea about protection is a consequence of unfamiliarity with the project, I believe. There are plenty of links at Wikipedia:Welcome newcomers and Wikipedia:FAQ that should be helpful for understanding how the project works. Zocky | picture popups 01:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article for Wikipedia's hometown mayor is the most egregious example of PR-Speak I have ever seen, worthy of historic preservation:

"The same energy Mayor Baker has devoted to youth and education can be seen in his progress in revitalizing the city's urban core"

This type of 'encyclopedic knowledge' simply doesn't contain any value for non-US readers, who chuckle at that type of speech, obviously written by one of Mayor Baker's pastry makers.

Wikipedia does not currently treat historical or political material in a responsible manner. I would suggest, if this were a serious effort, preventing anonymous users from being able to edit anything of historic or political importance. Given the obvious nature of human beings, this is simply logical. Besides, by keeping them open actually prohibits them from improving because so much time and effort is probably spent cleaning up the work of vandals, ideologists, and associated parties. There also needs to be a header above each article stating to readers that historic and political articles may contain 'institutional bias', not 'systematic bias' which is the boring type of bias. These things would vastly improve Wikipedia's quality and credibility.

Also, I've noticed a few times editors claim scholastic pedigree. Unfortunately 'Time' magazine is not a scholarly publication. Also, most of the scholars cited seem to be employed by US Thinktanks, whose work is not submitted for peer review nor generally known to be reliable. Likewise, no attention is paid to actual documents. For example, the article on the US-Vietnam war does not cite the Pentegon Papers or the LBJ tapes, which are the richest un-biased resources on the matter known to humanity. Instead, the article on the Kent State shootings is almost entirely pasted from the Nixon administration's lawyers! Can you imagine if that were one of your children who died that day, especially the one who supported the war?

Suppose the world's historians decided to take a look at this site. Suppose they were to announce publicly, for all of humanity to hear, that Wikipedia is a propaganda tool used by US politicians against its people and not even worthy of curious attention by students or learners. Suppose, for example, the world press--who is often critical of the US--decides to write about the site being used as a propaganda tool. Suppose, for example, US or world politicians decide they don't want their grandchildren to read the Administration's perspective on the war against Iraq. Suppose they publicly chide Wikipedia, while threatening to remove its tax-exempt status which exists as an 'educational' entity. Whether or not they could do it isn't the point. It would be silly to have huge negative attention on such a great site, which so many people obviously care for.

Also, there needs to be an article on Institutional Bias and another on Subversion. The 'race riots' article is no doubt offensive, and should instead be included in a 'Civil Unrest' article, but that title currently leads to something referred to as 'civil disorder', which sounds like a name from somebody who hates the public.

These things are all very important to democracy, and each of us should study them. In fact, we should simply study them because a great many people don't want us to. The best documents are those which come directly from the sources. For example, the LBJ tapes and Nixon tapes are very, very entertaining and enlightening and available online.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.81.33 (talk • contribs)

What does this have to do with Main Page ????????????? --65.95.106.8 14:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

military time

Is using military time on wikipedia a standard? dposse 19:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the 24-h clock time in UTC is used by default when ~~~~ or ~~~~~ is used. --199.71.174.100 19:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States

I find that the front page of this site routinely highlights the obscure at the expense of the prominent. Specifically, one can find articles on the most obscure topics. But missing are the major--predominatly U.S. oriented--news items of the day. Sorry to state the obvious, but the U.S. has nearly 300 million people, far and away the largest global economy, and it's the world's only superpower. Seems its' news items should be a bit better represented.

For example? Look there's spinach intoxication in USA; if it was in Kenya many people would have complained of its absurd irrelevance already. By the way, political or economical power has nothing to do with encyclopedic relevance. After all, people come here to learn; do they really want to read what they already know from media?--cloviz 02:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to burst your bubble, but the EU has a larger share of world trade, and the US is a declining power (due to the demands being a hegemon has placed on it). Furthermore, people are SICK in California makes the ITN? That is an extreme bias towards America. No other country would get anything close. Maybe once people die it might. But honestly, these people are sick. Why on earth should that be on the front page of Wikipedia? That makes it look like pro-American. --Midnighttonight Procrastinating on uni work... 05:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - that California item really does not belong. Certainly not of world interest in any way and food scares occur all the time around the world. --AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 05:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I can't see this being a very important item of news in the USA either but I don't read any american news sources regulary. Food poisoning is very common. Jeltz talk 08:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a major news item in the United States (and it could possibly affect people in Canada and Mexico, to which some of the tainted spinach may have been exported). As cited in our article, it's been reported that the strain of E. coli seems to be more potent than strains that have caused previous instances of food poisoning (with roughly twice the typical rate of hospitalization). —David Levy 09:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously didn't read the article, Midnighttonight. The tainted spinach was grown in California, but it's turned up in no fewer than 25 states. It's believed that some of it may have been exported to Canada and Mexico.
Furthermore, of the 171 people reported ill, half were hospitalized, 27 suffered renal failure, 10 became seriously ill, and at least one (and possibly two others) died. —David Levy 09:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't change the fact that it is not world news, but simply a case of food poisoning. Just because people became ill and a few have died does not make it ITN worthy. I am yet to be convinced at all. --Midnighttonight Procrastinating on uni work... 09:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You just finished complaining that the story only involved people who were "sick in California," and that "maybe once people die it might" warrant inclusion in ITN. I then pointed out that the contamination spread to 25 states and caused at least one death (and likely two others), but you still claim that "it is not world news" (despite the fact that the tainted spinach may have been exported to two other countries). I'm sorry, but I fail to see the logic behind your assessment. —David Levy 09:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious as to why you believe that the shipment of food containing a deadly bacterium (apparently more potent than in previous cases) to half of the United States and possibly to two other countries doesn't qualify as "world news," but the following stories do:
—David Levy 10:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with the first one. I'm ok with the spinach thing too; let's admit it might lead to further problems like mass hysteria, and it's good that we update the news section everyday. By now, let's just pray that Popeye is alright. But it would be fair that every country gets the same attention; actually if that happened in Argentina, it would never cross my mind to create an article for it. To me this doesn't have so much encyclopedic value; in 10 years not many people will care about it. But some people think it has, it fills the section, and I learned because someone put it there; that's why it's ok.--cloviz 12:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't paper. We have articles for individual television show episodes, for crying out loud! To claim that an article pertaining to an instance of widespread food contamination (possibly from a bacterial strain of unprecedented potency) that has caused serious illness and death (not to mention threatening thousands of farmers' livelihood) "has no encyclopedic value" [quoting the original text, subsequently changed to "doesn't have so much encyclopedic value"] is utterly ludicrous. —David Levy 21:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ludicrous is that we don't have articles for some large cities or important historical events and still focus on minor current happenings. Instead of promoting work on those articles by displaying them in the Main Page, we could suggest people work on those that are completely lacking. We rather try to balance Wikipedia, not make a news service for the average reader out of it.--cloviz 22:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. The tainted spinach story is far from "minor." It's a devastating current event of international importance. A Wikipedia article has been written about it, so it fits the ITN inclusion criteria. If you disagree with these criteria (or believe that ITN should be abolished), feel free to propose reform.
2. You're quite correct in stating that Wikipedia lacks articles on many important topics. By all means, help to create these missing articles, build them up to featured status, and then we can highlight them on the main page. This would be far more productive than arguing against the existence of an article that people actually bothered to write. —David Levy 23:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, perhaps I'm unaware of the actual magnitude of the spinach story; but "devastating" sounds exaggerated (its effects are limited to one single industry of one single region). As I said before, I'm ok with it in the ITN; as long as similar stories get similar attention. The problem is that it's not likely that articles like that are created when the event is in a region that lacks articles on fundamental topics; it wouldn't be reasonable. You suggest me to create great articles to be displayed; but my idea was that improving an article generally requires the work of many people (which can be optained by displaying the article). When we indirectly promote articles that are fine for what they represent, the coverage happens to become excessive comparing to articles needing work (remember that my idea is to conduct users' wills and energy to what is truly needed). You are right that I should work more on counteracting the imbalance (don't want to call it bias because it's unintentional); to be sincere I've only created two articles so far...--cloviz 00:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the families of people sick and dying, this is devastating. For the thousands of U.S. farmers who depend upon spinach sales to make a living, this is devastating.
I'm glad that you realize that the imbalance is not intentional. I certainly will support the inclusion of an entry pertaining to a similar story from elsewhere in the world, provided that a new article has been written or an existing article has been significantly updated. You point out that this is less likely to occur. That's unfortunate, but holding back the articles that do exist won't help matters. People write about subjects on which they possess knowledge, and people are most familiar with subjects pertaining to them. Discouraging Americans from writing/editing articles on American topics won't encourage them to write/edit articles about other countries instead. They'll simply write/edit fewer articles. We need more contributions from people knowledgeable on the neglected subjects (the lack of which is not a valid reason to punish the people who do contribute). —David Levy 00:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since own knowledge can't be cited as a source, people only need interest to edit. If everyone was concerned in just improving Wikipedia, it would be easier to balance; but that's impossible actually. I thought you said "devastating" from a global point of view because you used that word to support its possition in ITN.--cloviz 17:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't as simple as taking an interest in something. Interest and knowledge go hand-in-hand (with people seeking knowledge on topics in which they're interested and developing interest in topics on which they become knowledgeable). This knowledge has to come from somewhere, but it isn't always easily accessible to readers of a particular language. For example, a person who reads only English is incapable of reliably citing sources written in Chinese. For that matter, he or she might not even be aware of the Chinese subject's existence. This is why we need bilingual and multilingual editors from as many countries as possible.
A tragedy need not be devastating on a global scale to qualify for inclusion in ITN; it need only be of importance and/or interest to people in more than one country. —David Levy 23:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor note to say somehting about the international scope of this item. It hasn't appeared in either DN, SVD or SVT which is a good indication of that Swedish media enterily ignores it. My point is only that it is hard to argue that an anit-USA bias exists ITN when there is an item which is doubful if it belongs there. It is far from the only item that is borderline. I don't really care about if it should be on ITN or not. But I seriosuly doubt that if this had happened in almost any other country in the world it would have been on the main page. Food poisoning happens all the time around the world this might be a sever case but it doesn't seem like international media gives a damn. For the record I'm quite fine with the current items. I don't care much about absolute fair global scope. Jeltz talk 15:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I agree that no anti-USA bias exists within ITN. There is, however, an anti-USA bias among many editors who complain about an alleged USA bias. (I'm not referring to you.) People need to realize that entries don't magically appear in ITN. Each one needs to be suggested by someone or inserted by a sysop familiar with the story. And yet, this page frequently receives complaints about missing items that no one ever bothered to suggest (accompanied by the claim that biased Americans deliberately suppressed them).
2. You seem to be under the impression that a story must be of worldwide significance to be included in ITN. This is not the case. The relevant criterion is that it should be of "international importance, or at least interest." That means that it should be of importance or interest to people in two or more countries. Given the fact that the spinach scare affects people in three countries (in which Sweden is not included), I don't see how anyone can argue that it doesn't qualify. —David Levy 21:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The E. coli-spinach news item is notable because people have been using spinach as part of a health regimen which turns out to be deadly. Families now have to consider this during their grocery shopping: A healthy nine-year-old boy involved in this debacle, in my hometown, ate a supposedly healthy meal prepared by his parents; now he has to face kidney dialysis for the rest of his life ("As Children Suffer, Parents Rethink Spinach Use", New York Times Sept 24, 2006 pp 1, 25. The resulting month of life-and-death struggle costs more than that of a bag of freshly cut spinach from the farms of California. They supply the nation. This could decimate that industry, by the way; it has international implications 10% of those infected with E. coli come down with hemolytic uremic syndrome. Given what we know today, would we casually eat a meal prepared from a bag of freshly cut spinach? Anyone? The world waits. The answer is no. We would have to know where that spinach came from, who cut it, who inspected it, who has examined the public health provisions of the companies and governments who oversee the distribution, etc. --Ancheta Wis 15:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole topic still seems rather obscure - the BBC's 'Americas' page contains about twenty news stories, and none of them mention the Spinach epidemic sweeping the nation... Robmods 18:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page in question does not appear to include topics on the basis of their importance. (As far as I know, hypoallergenic cats aren't "sweeping the nation.") —David Levy 21:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ITN didn't change much for days. When I posted the item on the tainted spinach on ITN yesterday, it was the best available item from the candidates' page to update ITN with after consecutive slow news days. Now, if it's removed from ITN, people will be complaining that ITN is all about politics. I guess it should stay on ITN for a little while.... If anyone has better news stories, please post suggestions on the ITN candidates' page. Many thanks. -- PFHLai 19:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone thinks 2006 Ryder Cup is a good item to make ITN less politics-heavy, please say so on the ITN candidates' page. Thanks. --PFHLai 19:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Other than elections not many articles seems to have been suggested the last few days which made the spinach item stay on there for some time. Hopefully we will see some new interesting candidates soon. :) Jeltz talk 19:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only found out about the spinich contamination story (and very interesting reading it has been) from Wikipedia, so thank-you to however put it there. But then again, I have been watching the Ryder Cup 2006, so I was half-hoping to see that up there in ITN... :-) Carcharoth 22:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. .... The US lost (again). I hope this is not perceived as an anti-US bias. .... BTW, if you have watched this on TV, please consider adding some text to the 2006 Ryder Cup article. It could use some prose on the matches. Thanks. -- PFHLai 13:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Explaining terms like 'fourballs' and 'foursomes' would be helpful, too. -- 64.229.177.211 15:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You play fourballs with four balls (see, it's simple!) and you play the other one (the one without 'balls' in the name - ie. foursomes) with two balls. Fourballs = four people playing with four balls (a ball for each person). Best score from each team (of two) wins the hole. ie. Each team has two chances (two balls) to score. Foursomes is four people playing with two balls. Each team of two only has one ball, so they have to take it in turns to hit the ball. See also Golf_glossary#F and Golf#Team play Carcharoth 21:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Missed the obvious place. Ryder Cup#Format has a good explanantion. Carcharoth 11:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have now added a little bit of stuff to 2006 Ryder Cup - not a lot, as I dislike the 'blow-by-blow' style of some sports articles on Wikipedia. The one there looks like it will stand the test of time. Carcharoth 22:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of all non-golfing Wikipedians who want to learn more about golf, I say "Thank you very much". -- 64.229.221.243 12:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Foley scandal

Here we go again.... Come on. We don't need this to displace ancient ITN items today. Where's the global interest? Don't admins read ITN guidelines anymore? Please at least apply boldface to the internal link to the updated article and m-protect the image. -- 199.71.174.100 19:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

subsequent scandal dominate political discussion in the United States ahead of the 2006 House elections. This is a blatant liberal injection - this isn't dominating the news and the American people don't care about the story. What a crock. Haizum 22:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I only heard about this through Wikipedia. I read news headlines in the UK everyday, and this isn't being mentioned. Again though, I can't really complain, as firstly "In the news" is not a news ticker, and secondly, I found the article interesting to read. Carcharoth 21:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yemeni missed out

So you habe election in Gambia, and Estonia but you dont have the yemeni elections...im so sick of this bias in the news section, please either have a proper format and rules or remove the news section alltogether. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.80.113.51 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Yemen presidential election, 2006 is the article. Suggest it at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. --Midnighttonight Procrastinating on uni work... 09:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a bias, just me working too slow. It took me quite a while this morning (UTC-5) to find a free pic of the President of Yemen for ITN, then I got called away from the computer. (I posted the pic on the ITN candidates page before I logged off, hoping for someone to take over, but no one came....) Now the Yemeni election is on ITN. Hope everyone is happy. -- PFHLai 18:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did the wiki really just get accused of a pro-Gambian bias?
By the way, good work PFHLai. - BT 19:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the pro-gambian bias obvious? Nice job from those who created the article about the Yemeni election. Jeltz talk 20:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, BT. Yes, the pro-Gambian bias was unbearable. So I had to take Yahya Jammeh's pic off MainPage yesterday.....
The article on the Yemeni election is indeed good. The one on the Gambian election is rather short, but quite interesting -- I didn't know they vote with marbles. Cool! -- PFHLai 12:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was more of an accusation of anti-Yemen or more likely anti-muslim/anti-arab bias Nil Einne 12:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English Wikipedias

Shouldn't the number of articles be updated. For example, the German and Spanish version are described only as having more than 50,000 articles, when they appear to be much larger: 470,000-odd and 150,000-odd respectively. Grusl 18:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we are waiting for more Wikipedias to exceed 100,000 articles to start a new category, and more to exceed 50,000 so that this category won't get too empty. -- PFHLai 19:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The danish Wikipedia just made 50K so if someone could move "Dansk" from 25K to 50K in the list that would be great :-) Regards Malene 22:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —David Levy 22:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think a vastly better approach would be to get more of the English wikipedia articles translated to other languages and then focus the front page on developments in highly-populated English-speaking nations, which means doing a lot more of the U.S. And, by the way, to the person above who said the E.U. has a larger portion of trade than the U.S., um, that's not exactly how we measure economic productivity. By GDP standards, the most relevant statistic for economic productivity, there is the United States, and then you end up having to go pretty far down to find the #2 country (Japan). I know the U.S. may be disliked around the world (jealousy, perhaps), but no country rivals the U.S. or even comes close in matching its political, economic, military and other influence. Sites like this overcompensate to accomodate these other nations. Gambia had an election? Great to hear that, but I'm pretty internationally educated and even I'm going back to watch the NFL...it's game day, Gambians! Let's get some serious U.S. coverage back on the cover and skip these second-tier nations and developments...no one gives a damn.
No need, dude. Learned enough and seen enough to know the obvious: America rules, and the rest of you cats are fools. Now, I just wish we could keep the rest of these foreign peasants out of our nation. In case you didn't notice, people are fleeing just about every nation in the world in an effort to get here. And no one here wants to leave (understandable). What sort of loser is sitting there reading about the Gambian elections? It has about as much impact on us as the fall of one leaf from a tree.
But seriously: ca we please get some US news coverage on the front page of this site before this thing becomes irrelevant? No one is rushing to read any of the developments in Yemen? Am I to understand that would lead the newspaper in any English-speaking nation? Not here in the US and probably not in Britain either. Let's get a clue and get this crapp off the front page. Thanks for considering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.203 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil. Also, please understand that the world doesn't revolve around the United States. Picaroon9288 20:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a newspaper Rafy 01:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the EU has a higher total GDP than the USA and total GDP is what counts when comparing the size of two markets. See List of countries by GDP (nominal). So the person who said that the EU is a larger market is correct. Not that it really matters since I hope that we are not going to hold a "my nation/part of the world is better than yours" debate here. Please calm down. Jeltz talk 20:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It has been predicted that China will replace USA as the biggest economy (in the pure sense of the word) in less that 20 years; it has around 1/6 of the world population as well. It's prominence in Wikipedia is not comparable to that of USA anyway. But note that we are not making a popularity contest among countries; we are trying to record the knowledge of humanity.--cloviz 21:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have to do with Main Page ????????????? -- 64.229.177.211 15:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Shostakovich

Should we let our readers know that today is the 100th anniversary of the composer's birth? Check Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/September 25 for details. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shostakovich is now on MainPage, Ghirla. Please consider adding a bit on the celebrations and other commemorative activities to his article. Thanks. --PFHLai 12:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also: § Wikiversity: a red link ?

Again, the wikiversity link appears red. The broken link applies also to the image. The link in {{WikipediaSister}} works fine. No relevant recent changes in both the Main Page and the above template namespace. --Dead3y3 Talk page 15:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's temporary. Don't worry about it. -- 64.229.177.211 15:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A special location for general Main Page errors

Is there a specific page to report general Main Page errors? In WP:ERRORS there are only sections about specific parts (In the News, Today's featured article, etc). If it is not, can it be created so that this talk page doesn't flood by error reports? --Dead3y3 Talk page 15:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try talk pages such as Template talk:Wikipedialang. -- 64.229.177.211 15:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even better, comment at Talk:Main Page/errors. --hydnjo talk 01:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity link on main page

Um - this shouldn't be a red link, right? Bwithh 15:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See #Error report: Wikiversity redlink issue #2 above. --64.229.177.211 15:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snowflake disambig

Snowflake link on today's page needs disambig. JanSuchy 08:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out. Raven4x4x 09:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrell Owens

Doesn't the alleged "suicide attempt" deserve to be a "current event"? Thanks Soxrock 00:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can suggest it in WP:ITN, but I honestly don't think it does.Borisblue 01:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Portal:Current events/Sports, but most definitely not ITN. -- 199.71.174.100 01:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, it is not a significant enough global news story to put on ITN. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't rate even he had actually committed suicide. Global view, please. --Dhartung | Talk 09:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not even news. Only good for tabloids. -- 64.229.221.217 10:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If he *did* actually commit suicide, I think it just might - cf. Steve Irwin. See Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page#Criteria for adding entries, criterion 5b. zafiroblue05 | Talk 20:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, Steve Irwin was an international figure. Terrell Owens isn't even universally known in the US. 130.64.130.18 00:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal

It's a little embarrassing that an article that has a neutrality disputed tag and a grand total of two citations is today's featured article. --Descendall 03:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which is better, well-referenced Pokemon articles or poorly-referenced geography articles? Seriously though, I agree, this probably deserves to get kicked off the list. YoBub 05:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's already on WP:FAR. Apparently there are citations in the article source, which passed muster in 2005. --Dhartung | Talk 10:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sad but true

the only thing that this wikipedia is good for is spreading nationalist propaganda... but that makes no difference to you admins, does it? it's obvious how u r dedicated to making this wikipedia a better place guitardemon666 click me guitardemon666

That's not true. Spreading nationalist propaganda is not what wikipedia is for. And for general complaints, please go to the Village Pump. -- 64.229.221.217 10:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what propaganda is wikipedia supposed to be spreading? Do you have any evidence, or are you just very bored? dposse 14:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He/she is obviously very bored, look at that grotesque signature. As an admin, who works on frog articles, I am interested to know how I am spreading nationalist propaganda. --liquidGhoul 14:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to complain about your concerns regarding Macedonian content on those pages that you take issue with. It's a very large generalisation to stretch your experience on one topic to the WHOLE of Wikipedia. Instead of EXPLODING randomly, have you considered rational, reasoned debate backed with academic research? You may find you get further contributing to Wikipedia rather than screaming at everyone. --Monotonehell 16:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please update ITN

Several ITN candidates have been left unattended at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Admin attention is requested. Thanks. --64.229.221.217 10:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have better writing in DYK squibs?

was subsequently killed in action two years later?

Oh God, that's awful. Take one of those out. Please. Daniel Case 02:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Featured Article - maybe they shouldn't be 'good'

Have a look at what's happening over at yesterday's FA. A previously quiet page that was made an FA back when standards were perhaps lower(?) However that's not the issue I want discussed here.

The result of featuring a poorer than usual article might be that it becomes improved. Although the political issues of this particular subject may impeed progress. What if the TFA section occasionaly featured articles that needed attention? Something along the lines of...

"Today's Featured Article: Green Widgets is an example of a work in progress on Wikipedia. Can you help improve this article?"

If this garners enough attention I might wade into the pump with it. But I'd like a few more thoughts on it to develop the idea better before exposing it to more editors. --Monotonehell 04:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. A major problem is that everyone would want certain articles to be featured (and someone would want every article to be featured). How would an article qualify?
2. We already have a section for this purpose (Did you know...), and we address the above issue via the criterion that every article must be newly created or newly expanded from a stub.
3. Every Wikipedia article is a work in progress that can be improved. If we draw too much attention to our weaker articles (by featuring them individually), we'll lead some people to believe that we have nothing better to offer (and are desperately seeking help). —David Levy 05:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1.The mechanics of selection can be worked out later. Perhaps the dicotomy between WP:GA and WP:FA? I'm thinking of only articles that have reached a good level but need more work to get to FA status. It's easy to get an article beyond stub, we have many. Raul has stated in the past that we're running out of FAs to feature. If we pick one day a week to feature a "needs work" article that could fill the growing gap. Also, if it works we may get more articles up to FA status. Isn't that the focus that we are supposed to be embracing now?
2. DYK is for newly created or unstubed articles. I'm talking about articles that are good but not great. Like those that need citations, fact checking etc. The DYK section doesn't seem to gain the attention that the TFA section has.
3. What's the problem with that? We do need help. Most visitors aren't aware that Wikipedia is a commnity project. Wikipedia isn't Britanica, it's a WIKI. --Monotonehell 09:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a very bad idea. Raul654 15:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. It's not the first-time anonymous Main Page visitors who write featured stuff. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't, but the people who are now editing Nepal aren't either. This article has benefited from being featured. --Monotonehell 17:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a link to the collaboration projects would be enough. Wikipedia:Community_Portal#Collaborations. I agree with Raul that putting inferior articles in the featured article stream is a bad idea. If we ever look like running out of featured articles, then an appeal to get more people working and nominating at WP:FAC should be all that is needed. And what about Wikipedia:Danny's contest? That is trying to increase the number of featured articles. Carcharoth 22:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic

Why is there no Arabic Wikipedia? I live in the Middle East, and although am an English speaker, I find it odd that so much of the world is not represented in this wonderful site. User:Waldo J. Cartridge

Actually, there is. It's at http://ar.wikipedia.org. Raven4x4x 09:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals

I wonder where it is that Wikipedia has been listed just recently that has increased vandalism to such amazing heights in the past few weeks? --Monotonehell 14:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

College freshmen with new internet access and nothing better to do on campus are probably to blame. Can't wait for mid-terms to come.... --64.229.205.204 15:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, seems almost too childish for Freshmen. I wouldn't put it pass them, but there have been shadows of a wikivandal group with proxies banding together. It makes you think. --80.42.102.144 20:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
School-age kids, perhaps. Mainly, I think it's just the fact that we have more traffic than ever before – Gurch 22:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reason the Citizendium fork of Wikipedia will not allow anon edits. Why Wikipedia still does so is beyond me. To paraphrase Robert A. Heinlein, to grant power (to edit) without requiring the burden of responsibility (accountability) is to invite disaster. - Vedexent (talk) - 01:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is accountability. Blocks. Vandalism gets reverted quickly enough in 99% of cases that it hardly matters. —Cuivié<;/font>nen 05:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that about 72% of articles are unwatched (ie, on nobody's watchlist), it seems unlikely that 99% of vandalisms are being reverted... — BRIAN0918 • 2006-10-03 06:06Z
At best there can be said to be a form of limited accountability for anon users. Blocks are mostly ineffective against IPs, as (at least in North America) most high-speed Internet Service Providers do not provide their users with a static IP address. All a vandal has to do is wait until they relog in, or in the case of some ISPs wait a pre-determined number of hours for their IP to automatically "tumble" (this practice is put in place to discourage high-speed home users from mounting servers on their home systems - and is one of the reasons dynamic-DNS services became popular). A cleverer form of vandal, mentioned above, can route though proxies. There is even software that allows someone to route through a random proxy in a massive list with each http-request. Additionally, a great deal of random vandalisation seems to come from blocks of IP address attached to school districts. In those cases, it seems that all a vandal would have to do is shift one seat to the right (left, back, whatever) in the computer lab to continue their "fun".
I think the vandalization statistics speak for themselves, as does their recent upswing, and the fact that the Citizendium proposal will no longer allow them.
Vandalization is not the only abuse that anon edits are used for. Avoiding censure for the 3RR rule in an "edit war" and using anon IPs as "anonymous sock puppets" in talk page arguments and straw polls are other popular anon past times, just to mention two.
For user accounts, there is full accountability. Edits are tied to a single pseudo-identity whose behavior and adherence to all wikipedia rules and guidelines is logged as part of the system. I have seen user accounts shut down within ten minutes of going on a "spamming spree". I have also dealt with pernicious spam which I presume to be from the same author (because the spam messages were the same, reinserted into the text repeatedly) spread over half-a-dozen IP addresses.
I understand the ideology behind allowing anyone and everyone to edit. The hope is that anyone and everyone will contribute, and that by lowering the "hassle" involved in being allowed to edit to zero, the casual reader with that critical nugget of information will add it when they otherwise would not bother if they had to go through 10 minutes of setting up and account, providing an email address, getting a confirmation code, entering the code, etc.
The question that Wikipedia has to ask is "What is the real contribution of the majority of these anonymous edits". I myself don't know this - not having made a systematic survey of it. It is entirely possible that the vast majority of anon edits are positive contributions. It may be that none of these people who are making positive contributions anonymously would do so if they were required to create an account. It may be that the number of positive editors lost by the requirement that a user account be created to edit would outweigh the number of negative editors and the time/energy/resources consumed correcting spam and vandalism rather than expanding wikipedia. My personal belief is that none of these conditions holds true - but given that I don't believe anyone has gathered empirical data on any of them, I am willing to admit this could be a mistake. Perhaps this is grounds for someone with higher level access to do some statistical analysis of Wikipedia itself? - Vedexent (talk) - 08:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Until recently (a matter of weeks) the anon vandals have been a minimal annoyance with maybe one or to RVs a day, but now it seems that the actual edits on this page are out numbered by Vandals by a factor of 10. Although not all the vandals on this page are anon. Quite a few are from user accounts.
There may be a point in the future where anon edits are disabled. It depends on the balance Vedexent mentioned above. --Monotonehell 09:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There were studies done on this. Burried somewhere in my contribs is a posting on village pump which showed that anons produced hundreds of thousands of kept articles per year, and a research cited in an article on the web a month or so ago suggests that most articles are written by anons or irregulars and edited into shape by regulars and admins. Zocky | picture popups 03:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the recent increase in vandalism is because school started. College students not so much a problem, but high school and lower are often a source (when I run the IP through WHOIS). This school year, I'm less tolerant of vandalism. If the talk page has past warnings, I start with {{bv}} or maybe {{test2}}, and then block. Of course it's tricky when the school IP is a shared IP. In those cases, the blocks will be short. It's a waste of time, IMHO, to go through test, test2, test3, test4, and then block if the intent is obvious. Basically, zero tolerance. Other times, instinct tells me the vandal wants attention, and it's best to revert, ignore them, and they go away. And sometimes, the "vandalism" is really a test, and will handle it accordingly. --Aude (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rampant pro-hurricane bias

OMG, the two top sections of the Main Page have tropical cyclones at the top of them? Where are the earthquakes and tornadoes? It's rampant pro-hurricane bias, I'm telling you! Titoxd(?!?) 23:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give it about 5 minutes ;) Raul654 23:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Main Page too long?

One of the things I like the most in the Main Page is the Featured Picture, and unhappily I almost always miss it since it's two pages down @ 1024x768. While all the content is very important, I feel a lot of it is "lost" because it isn't in the right place. I wish the Main Page was a bit different from the rest of Wikipedia... well it's already different since no normal user can edit it. It's the face and first impression of Wikipedia.

As a suggestion, could the In the news, Did you know... and On this day sections be transformed in some sort of news banners, showing one item at the time? Moving text does catch the attention of the user more than static ones.

I also thing the side-bar takes too much area from the content of the page, but I have no ideas how to change it.

In sum, this is one of the main sources of knowledge of the humanity, and I do feel it needs all the presentation it takes to make it more pleasing to read, user friendly, and still contain all content you'd like to pass to everyone else.

I feel a bit sad about using such as buzzword, but the Main Page does need a more Web 2.0-ish feature rich look, of course in a healthy way that our high-profiled webdesigners can surely do. --ren 05:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically any redesign for the main page will have to go through a lengthy community discussion such as here and here. However, you do have the option instead to look at one of the pages listed on Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives. If you just want to look at the feature picture of the day, you can always put {{Pic of the day}} on your user page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly oppose any moving text. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can always "roll your own" main page under your user page and bookmark it. Put the sections in an order that makes sense to you, omit what you care less about, and as they say, viola. --Dhartung | Talk 14:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible pro-contributor bias

Come on. Where's the original research, unreferenced statemets, and goatse images? You need to fairly represent vandals, this is a horrible pro-contributor bias! 80.41.202.89 10:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know! How can wikipedia be so biased? dposse 16:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Such a travesty. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. dposse 16:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<sarcasm> OMG! Yes I totally agree! </sarcasm> YSHOULDUKNOW123 21:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone read Wikipedia:Community Portal lately? The pro-contributor bias is beyond horrible there. -- 64.229.229.244 13:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its just a disgrace. --Gold Blade53 05:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a recent merge of Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers, the links in the header ("Welcome" and "anyone can edit") both lead to the same place. I'd suggest "Welcome" gets unlinked, or at least linked directly to the Introduction instead of via a redirect. --Quiddity 19:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers link. —David Levy 19:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super-Sub Paragraps

On my view of the talk page, some of the sub-paragraphs (the ones that have the left margian moved to the right) are being done so much, the text is only 20 characters long, and also shoved to the extreme right of my screen, making them very hard to read, and also making the page very [[[LOOOOONNGGG|long]]. Should there be a limit on this?Biteebacca 20:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usually someone anounces an 'indent reset' and the discussion moves back to the left, which topic(s) are extreme for you? I'll flick them back a bit. --Monotonehell 20:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling error.

"In the news" The recent addition about Israel and Lebanon misspells the word Israel as Isreal, and actually redirects to the Isreal disambiguation page. Someone mat want to correct it. LordNaughty 21:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of WP:ERRORS? Try that next time. --64.229.221.9 10:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had not, but I will now use it if a similar situation arises. LordNaughty 14:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil. Jeltz talk 14:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Would smileys help? If whatever I typed is somehow perceived as uncivil, I apologise. -- 64.229.229.244 14:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have read the debate at both Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wikipe-tan and Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day#Wikipe-tan as POTD?, but I am still not sure if Wikipe-tan is appropriate on the main page due to its potential self-reference. Keep in mind that this is a consequence of the only requirement on how a picture of the day is selected: being the list of FPs in the order they get promoted. Thoughts? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:RULE PARANOIA. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • Spinach crisis '06! • WP:NYCS} 00:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...well, it's a valid concern. I don't think this particular situation raises too many ethical concerns though, but this is simply an uninformed opinion. --HappyCamper 00:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is more like I am still a little emotionally uncomfortable about it. That's all. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The image is meant to illustrate moe anthropomorphization, not Wikipedia itself. —Cuiviénen 01:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try actually reading WP:ASR. It's not simply "avoid self-references". If you are still confused, read the discussion at Image talk:Wikipe-tan full length.png. --BRIAN0918 03:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose using this as a front page image. Phil Sandifer 01:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Pacific Coast Highway {blah • Spinach crisis '06! • WP:NYCS} 02:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose people adding their unqualified opinion. This is Wikipedia, please explain your reasons, otherwise your opinion counts for nothing towards consensus. --Monotonehell 13:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in two minds. I don't think it is the best look for Wikipedia to focus on itself, but then again, it is a good illustration of the personalisation of organisations are done, with an organisation that readers obviously do know about. However, having Wikipedia on the front page I would completely object to. --Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 06:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal

1535 - French explorer Jacques Cartier sailed along the St. Lawrence River and reached an Iroquois fort on the island now known as Montréal.

On this day in 1535, Jacques Cartier discovered the Island of Montreal, not the Island of "Montréal". It is now known as Montreal in English, and Montréal in French. On it is the City of Montreal (French: Ville de Montréal). This city has a long and very interesting history which you can read about at History of Montreal, and not "History of Montréal". There is a reason why Wikipedia articles omit the accent: this is the English Wikipedia, and English names are used.

Moreover, Montreal is the name used by the native population (which is 25% English-speaking, with almost all others being bilingual). This means that Montreal is not just an English spelling imposed by Anglophones onto a foreign place, but a native English name. Montreal is not some tawdry mini-Paris Disney attraction designed to allow Americans and Ontarians who are too lazy or cannot afford to take a six-hour flight a taste of France. It is a real city, with a large and highly cohesive and functional English minority. Furthermore it is located in a country where English is the majority language. These English speakers also call it Montreal. The lack of accent is not because of laziness or technical impossibility. French speakers have long been able to type accented letters and if the English name required an accent, we would have used it long before now.

Every day, Montrealers succeed in living together jovially and peacefully while being acted upon by the influence and demands of (often Anti-Quebecois) English Canada and (often Anti-Anglophone) French Quebec. One thing we do not need, however, is foreigners imposing their uninformed ideas of cultural sensitivity onto us.

The reason why we get along so well is that in Montreal, each group allows the others to conduct their cultural lives without criticism or comment (the famous Laissez-faire ideology). It is not the place of an English-speaker to impose their language on Francophones, and it is not the right of Francophones to dictate how the name of our city should be spelled in English. Certainly, therefore, you the administrators, being neither Montrealers (francophone, anglophone, or otherwise), Quebecers, or even Canadians, have no such right.----65.94.95.158 01:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typing it without an accent would be deciding the issue as much as typing it with an accent is. You can't have it both ways. —Cuiviénen 02:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was quite a discourse for an accent. However, you should consider the possibility that whoever wrote that didn't have any evil intention against people from Montreal; just spelt it that way because she thought it was right.--cloviz 03:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While the discourse must seem strange to a non-Montreal, language is an extremely divisive issue here. As the OP says, you can read up about it in the history section, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois_de_la_langue_fran%C3%A7aise. Regardless, having Montreal written with an accent is jarring for an english Montrealer, since it causes an english phrase to finish with a french word, with a different pronounciation. While I agree the OP probably feels a bit *too* strongly on it, it does feel a bit insulting. However, it probably was an accident. Tyir 03:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This outsider finds it quite strange that "Montreal" / "Montréal", with a very non-English pronounciation, is considered an English word. ... BTW, thank you Canadians for being as civil and polite as advertised. Chances are that if the word in question is the "Spanish" name of a place in (or controlled by) the US of A (Is "Guantanamo Bay" / "Guantánamo Bay" English or Spanish ?), many Americans would be screaming here.... IMO, the accent should be included whenever the keyboard allows it (kind of hard for English typewriters till recent years). I might get flogged in Montréal, eh? --64.229.221.9 12:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the first poster feels, this site, which claims to be the official portal of the city, seems to use Montréal in English as well. Piet | Talk 13:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and your saying that English is the native language because "we speak English and the other ones are bilingual" tells us more about you than about Montreal. According to the Montreal article, in 2001, 67.29% spoke French as a first language, followed by English speakers numbering 12.07%.
On a side note - not related to the issue at hand, of which I know nothing - You are acting all insulted about your language, but how many native English speakers, when abroad, have ever made an effort to address a foreigner in his own language? Respect goes both ways. Admire the French-speaking majority of Montreal for speaking your language too and don't dismiss their native language by saying they're "bilingual". They're French speakers. Piet | Talk 14:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The main page text should reflect whatever is written in the main Wikipedia article which, in this case, refers to Montreal with a note that it is Montréal in French. If the article is wrong, then that should be changed first and the main page text amended afterwards to reflect it. It is right that, as this is the English-language Wikipedia, places should be referred to by the commonly accepted English version — so, Cologne, not Köln, and Moscow not Москва or Moskva — alternatives belong in the articles, not on the main page. I also would like to add my thanks to our Canadian friends for their civility in what is obviously a sensitive matter. Bazza 14:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad at least to have raised some discussion on the issue. Please not that there have been pages of discussion before coming to consensus within the community about how to properly write Montreal placenames (including Street names). I would like to respond to all of the points raised and clarify any misunderstandings.
Firstly please excuse me if my explanation sounded accusatory. I am merely trying to explain the sensitive issue and maybe lack the patience to explain to outsiders what is an ongoing and ever-present dialogue in our own city. To the poster who found it strange that Montreal is considered an English word, I would like to point out that Montreal has had an English-speaking community for several hundred years, and at one point the population was split equally between English and French speakers. Montreal, along with its English pronunciation, is the native name of the city to these people.
Let me clarify: Montreal is inhabited by two main groups. They are the French and English speaking citizens. Both communities are coterminous and overlapping. Other groups are generally grouped into the "Allophone" or "Other" group. The English and French communities exist side by side and each have a name for everything. This means that the poster's comparison to Guantanamo Bay is inaccurate. A better example would be San Francisco, Los Angeles, New Orleans, or Boise, all of which have names coming from other languages but which also have a English name given by their native English-speaking inhabitants. The idea of writing Montreal in English with an accent is as ridiculous as writing Boise or Baton Rouge as "Boisé" and "Bâton-Rouge" (their French names).
To the poster Pieter, who linked to the City of Montreal's official website, there is a very simple reason why they write Montreal in French. This is because Montreal's official language is French only and English has no official status. Under Quebec's Language Laws, a city must be over 50% English-speaking just to be allowed to be officially bilingual. It is unclear whether the city has a legal right to recognize official English names. Thus, the City uses only French placenames, regardless of language.
Piet also mentioned statistics found on the website which say English speakers constitute 12% of the population. These statistics are only for the City of Montreal, which is not the only municipality in the Montreal Urban Community. The Metropolitan Area includes other municipalities. In the 2000s, the provincial government tried to force the merger of all these municipalities into one "Mega-City". All of the English-majority cities and some French ones left the Megacity and were reconstituted as separate organisms. The statistics I mentioned represent the entire Island of Montreal, including these separate English communities (some of which are contiguous with the inner city, while others are suburban) which is the most common idea of "Montreal".
Piet also talked about English-speakers abroad not bothering to use the native language. As I have outlined above, English is one of two "native" languages in Montreal, and not a foreign language. Respect does go both ways, as I said in my original post, which is about why Montreal's Anglophone community should be respected. To be clear, I didn't "dismiss" French-speaking Montrealers. I was merely pointing out nature of Montreal. In fact Anglophones are Montreal's most bilingual group, with over 60% of English-speakers being functionally bilingual. Bilingualism is, however, besides the point. I say this without judgment or prejudice, but in Piet's final statement, "[...] don't dismiss [the majority's] native language by saying they're "bilingual". They're French speakers.", he displays a prodigiously shallow understanding of the linguistic situation and of the point of view I was trying to express, which is to call for respect of both of the city's main linguistic groups.
To Bazza, the Montreal article is indeed correct for the reasons outlined above and the consensus was reached after extensive negotiation. Also, you are quite right to thank everyone for their civility and I would like to thank them in advance for their sensitivity in any future contributions they would make.----65.94.174.69 21:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A prodigiously shallow understanding of the linguistic situation... Correct, however we have our own linguistic situation in Belgium and Brussels so I am very well aware how sensitive it can be, and of the crooked reasoning that people use to prove their point (no offense to you). I will repeat what I said. Calling your own group "English speaking" and the others "bilingual" is disrespectful. Just as it would be to say that 50% is French speaking and the other ones are bilingual. Piet | Talk 08:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you misunderstood what I said. I was talking about the number of English speaking Montrealers. If quoting the number of French speakers I believe it would be acceptable to say that the city is 50% Francophone with most others being bilingual, as this is in fact the case. The important part of what I was saying was the number of English speakers and I could in fact have simply said that the city is 25% English speaking. For you to suggest that I am in some way against francophones is insulting mostly because it is so untrue. What I am against is the diminishment of the importance of the native English speaking community by outsiders who insist that Montreal is French when in fact it is bilingual. I don't know if the situation in Belgium is comparable but in Montreal nearly everyone is bilingual and that is what I was trying to convey. Writing Montreal with an accent brings mild disgust to most English Montrealers and is disresepectful for the reasons I and others have stated. Citing the number of anglophones and saying that most Montrealers are bilingual is not.---65.94.228.63 23:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave the demographics alone; whenever a city has an name in English, that one should be used. Montréal was an error as München, Los Ángeles or Heūng Góng would be. But believing that who did this was trying to introduce a French identity to Montreal denying its anglophone population is a bit paranoiac; use Hanlon's razor and assume good faith.--cloviz 12:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why would "Boisé" and "Bâton-Rouge" be "ridiculous"? And why would "Los Ángeles" be an error? "Heūng Góng" is an error, as "phonetic symbols" can't be considered a language. I would consider "Moscow", "Munich" and "Hong Kong" English words, but I wouldn't consider "Montreal", "Boise", "Baton Rouge", "Los Angeles" ... etc. English words. "Mourn-Tree-All" is the English pronounciation of the French word "Montreal" with or without the accent on the "e". Maybe I am stupid (see Hanlon's razor), too. Omitting the accents doesn't seem enough to me to make any word borrowed from a foreign language English. (Is there a threshold? I don't know. Would changing "Abe Shinzō" to "Abe Shinzo" make the new Japanese PM's name English words? I don't think so.) BTW, accents should be applied when possible. (But don't get too upset when accents go missing. Many people don't know how to type them out, or can't do it with an old keyboard.) --64.229.231.60 15:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cloviz, I am not saying that it was some kind of attack on anglophones. I'm just pointing out why it should in fact be written without an accent, for future reference (this is also the second I have seen Montreal appear in French on the main page). I would just like to impart the importance of what may seem to others a trivial matter. I'm not sure who updates the Main Page, but I wish they'd read the talk page now and then...
For the anonymous user who said a word must be changed in order to become "English", by your definition most English words are not English. Roughly a third of English words derive from French and Occitan, and many others from Latin, Greek, Italian, other European Languages. Many of them have no change in spelling, not even removing an accent. Is "tradition" an English word? How about doctor, privilege, sterile, metropolis, polygon, and others... Come to think of it, you say Baton Rouge isn't English, but "baton" is an English word taken directly from French. Is it possible that the thing that gymnasts twirl has no name in English and we have been unknowlingly speaking foreign languages our whole lives?----65.94.229.41 22:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of placenames (with no change in the meaning of the word at all), well, if the spelling doesn't change, it's hard to convince me that it's a different language. As mentioned in my previous post, I don't know where the threshold might be, esp. when the same letters of the alphabet are used in different languages. I also have trouble seeing the use of accents in borrowed words as errors. --64.229.227.51 01:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching this discussion since it started and, forgive me but, I'm of the opinion that it's all a little silly. With or without the accent Montré/eal is Montre/éal to any English speaker. It's only cultural elitists who become annoyed over such things. I love Canada and Canadians, but the whole French v English thing you guys have going on in some groups is divisive and annoying at best. Most Canadians get along regardless of what their language 'preference' is. The wars were over by 1774 (correct me if I'm wrong there) and you have several wonderful heritages to be proud of. Even your packaging is bilingual so who cares if a little accent vacilates in and out?

As for English, it's a mongrel of a language having taken bits from successive occupations, plagiarised from Shakespear, invented new bits based on latin and greek by academics and more recently adopting an international outlook taking all kinds of foreign words on board. So no one can claim particular pedigree on English. --Monotonehell 23:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you think the subject is "a little silly" doesn't mean that others may not want to discuss it, especially as that has been conducted in an admirable way — I would urge the anonymous contributors above to register a name by which they can be known: they appear to be people who can contribute to Wikipedia discussions constructively. Back to the subject: I say again that as this is the English language Wikipedia, and the English language name for the place concerned is "Montreal", then that is what the reference should say — the main article shows its other name(s). The same goes for the English language versions of "Boise", "Baton-Rouge", "Munich", "Los Angeles" and many other places whose native version is not used as the English language place name. Bazza 10:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About editing..

Since anyone can edit, and since there are so many articles, and so many people editing, how is it possible to monitor all the edits? Does the fact that anyone can edit also make the information in wikipedia less credible? please help me understand thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.239.163.234 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 2 October 2006.

Because there are lots of editors, lots of editors monitor too. It's pretty credible. 80.41.214.65 10:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I monitor Recent Changes from time to time. In relatively quiet periods, I can (just) keep up with the pace of anonymous edits, but I don't check logged-in users, and I have to select only the most suspicious-looking edits during busy times. And of course I'm not there all the time. But there are many more who do a similar thing, so chances are your edit will be checked by someone. Blatant vandalism (e.g. blanking an entire page and writing "I like poop") doesn't even need to wait for a human to check it, as automated "bots" that detect this kind of edit will repair the damage within seconds. Slightly less blatant, but still obvious, vandalism will be reverted by people like me as and when we come across it (in the 10 seconds - 5 minutes timeframe). More subtle but malicious edits, such as the deliberate introduction of inaccuracies, may be picked up straight away but more often waits until someone proofreads the article or makes a major edit to it, or until someone who has watchlisted the page checks it. Sometimes, unfortunately, inaccuracies do remain in articles for many months, but one of the beauties of the "anyone can edit" system is that while anyone can mess up an article, anyone else can put it right again.
Of course the fact that anyone can edit makes the information in Wikipedia less credible. This is a trade-off against the size, detail and rapid grown of the project that such a policy has allowed – Gurch 11:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as a conspiracy-fearing paranoid, I tend to see this as an advantage. Reading on Wiki, it's harder to sink into the confidence you get when reading other material. Anything that has a good reason to be biased probably is, and you'll need to check the sources thoroughly before being sure of something. Other compendiums may be better-equipped, but who knows about their intentions?--SidiLemine 13:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article

It says towards the begining "plane crash survivors on a mysterious, seemingly deserted island, somewhere in the South Pacific." I think it should go mysterious, seemingly deserted, island, somewhere... since seemingly deserted is the appositive phrase renaming the mysterious island. schyler 01:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct English. "Seemingly deserted" is not an appositive phrase. Andrew Levine 16:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting's ITN

Just a suggestion, and I will probably be yelled out for suggesting this, but... Instead of having just the Amish school shooting, how about having "a number of school shootings occur through the United States of America" and then have links to each of them? There have been arguments before about whether an individual shooting is notable, so how about this proposal? I don't think each individual shooting is notable, but collectively they could be. --Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 02:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are individual cases and not related. But look at that Mark Foley thing; if you complain about that I'm with you!--cloviz 11:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As in #Mark Foley scandal. -- 199.71.174.100 13:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset-to-Sunset Holidays

I know this probably belongs on Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries, but no one ever looks at that page. So...

Someone mentioned on WP:ERRORS the fact that Yom Kippur was selected as an anniversary for October 1 (beginning at sundown), but not on October 2 even though the bulk of the holiday was on October 2. In some ways, I agree with his sentiment. I suggest that from now on holidays that run from sunset-to-sunset (or something close to that), like Yom Kippur and Eid ul-Fitr, be mentioned on the primary day (e.g. Yom Kippur (Judaism, concludes at nightfall) for October 2 and Eid ul-Fitr (Islam, concludes at sunset) for October 24). Any thoughts? -- tariqabjotu 03:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One advantage to a sundown-to-sundown accounting is that observant people can then use Wikipedia as a reminder. Otherwise it's 'darn', I forgot that xxx is yyy. So if the observance is timely, it's more useful to the observant. And if the bulk of the day is on yyy+1, then Selected Anniversaries might conclude the observance with an annotation 'until yyy+1, sundown'. --Ancheta Wis 03:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the choice is listing on the first day (begins at sundown) only or the second day (ends at sundown) only, I'm not sure I'd change the current convention; a case can be made either way. But my instinct was that in the case of Yom Kippur, the day could be listed on both dates. I understand this couldn't be done for every sundown-to-sundown holiday, but the omission that Monday was Yom Kippur just seemed incongruous to me. Newyorkbrad 03:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused now. Is the "two day listing" because that's how a sundown-sundown holiday works, or is it because sundown-sundown will cover two days as the Earth rotates, with people one side of the International Date Line starting the holiday two days before people the other side end the same holiday? Carcharoth 15:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sundown-to-sundown is how the holidays work. For this past Yom Kippur, for example, the holiday began at sunset on October 1 and ran until nightfall on October 2 in the observer's given location. -- tariqabjotu 03:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help Wanted

I have no idea where to put this, but what are Wikipedia's vandals names? I know that there are some. We need help that has to do with vandals. PS: I would love thair Email, if possible.

There are lots of vandals and most are anonymous. This is a list of banned users. Note that this is not the right place for this kind of questions (this discussion page belongs to the Main Page only); next time check here which is the appropriate place to post your questions.--cloviz 01:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you are thinking, it will not help anyone. Stop thinking it. --Monotonehell 01:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most vandals no longer have pages on Wikipedia about them due to WP:DENY. 151.188.16.20 12:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC) — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 12:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its to end an evil regime of moderators on another wiki. --74.135.10.74 04:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know...Cape Otway

Today's blurb says Cape Otway is in the Southern Ocean. It's not; it's on the Bass Strait (between the mainland and Tasmania).

How does one get that fixed?

Try WP:ERRORS. --64.229.231.60 15:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Perhaps any article featured or linked on the main page shuold have a protect on it until it is taken down? If an article is featured it'll be ok for 24 hours without edits... i'm at school and clicked on today's featured article and i'm lucky i didn't get caught looking at "porn" and suspended! It didn't used to be so rediculous way back when... Kuronue 15:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pls see User:Raul654/protection. --64.229.231.60 15:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An idea on the topic. Why not prevent images from being added or removed from Featured articles during their time on the main page? This would prevent people from adding inappropriate images (such as pornography, shock images, etc) to featured articles. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 16:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should have a "featured version" of the featured article protected and linked from the Main Page, added with a link to edit the "current version" of the article. Almost like uploading an image from WCommons and protecting that copy in English Wikipedia. -- 64.229.231.60 16:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From your info it looks like your in the US. If so, I suggest you change school. I don't know how things work in the US but IMHO in any rich and highly developed country, if you get suspended for looking at a featured wikipedia article which happens to have vandalism and so contains something approaching porngraphy you need to change school. Or perhaps change country... Nil Einne 04:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
looking at pornography is against the terms of service for our school internet access; I could probably explain my way out of any serious retribution but I'd rather not have the headache. Though changing countries is really, really tempting... mostly I don't trust my teachers to have a level head about giant images of penises on my screen during instructional time when I'm supposedly doing research on a school computer using their internet access. Kuronue 06:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obscene images can now be prevented from displaying where they are not supposed to. If you encounter any being used for vandalism, ask an administrator to add it to the list. It may be easiest just to ask me as most admins are not familiar with it. —Centrx→talk • 06:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On this day...

Shouldn't the title of this section be "On this day"? The '...' makes perfect sense for they DYN section but not for the On this day section. Vicarious 02:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's a complete title and it's not like we're introducing anything particularly dramatic or surprising most of the time. Jellypuzzle | Talk 08:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use image on Main Page

I notice the picture accompanying today's Featured article is a copyrighted book cover. I thought Fair Use only covered the use of such an image in the article itself, to illustrate the book in question, which means Main Page usage is not acceptable (particularly as "Today's Featured Article" is intended as a marketing tool for Wikipedia). Is that correct? SteveRwanda 09:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst in principle it's always better to include free images everywhere, especially on the main page... it's grey area acceptable here; and I agree that the image is suitable for inclusion. From Wikipedia:Fair use:
Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. This is because it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia (like the templates used as part of the Main Page).
Estel (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When no free image is available (as in this case), a fair use image is substituted. This happens often when "pop culture" articles are featured. —Cuiviénen 12:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor grammar error

Did you know...that Halltorps Manor (pictured) on Öland island, has been the site of

There shouldn't be a comma, or there should be a pair setting of "on Öland island". 59.112.55.33 13:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the future, this should be reporetd at WP:ERRORS. It will be more quickly noticed there. —Cuiviénen 21:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of the Rings?...

... how trivial!

What a joke; let's get a serious subject on the front page quick. Who on earth cares about elves and hobbits?

/sarcasm off

Seriously though: fantastic pick! Chris 15:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Redirected from %s)

I'm not sure what's changed, but suddenly I see '(Redirected from %s)' and the main page title now. The javascript that removed the main page title used to handle this, but now it doesn't. Any ideas? -- drrngrvy tlk @ 15:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tantra

This page links to Tantra, a page with a lot of headers to indicate this page is not NPOV, lacks quality, needs citation. May be better to remove the link? 145.222.138.61 11:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it appears on the Main Page, someone familiar with Tantra may be able to clean up the article. The only articles screened for high quality are Featured articles and other articles whose links are in bold, though of course we will only link to real articles, not vandalism, from the Main Page. —Cuiviénen

Sandbox ?

I wonder if a link to Wikipedia:Sandbox somewhere on this talkpage would be useful to the newbies. -- PFHLai 18:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Wikipedia:Tutorial. The sandbox is one click down on the 3rd tab (Formatting) on this page. And the Tutorial is protected, so the sandbox is the place to learn. --Ancheta Wis 00:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism...

Is it possible to revert a vandalism edit AND give that user a warning in one swift motion, or do you always have to manually change the page back to the previous edit, and manually go into the user's talk page and add a template? --Captain538 12:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof, User:Henna/VF, etc. And of course, join Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit. --64.229.177.31 13:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

flag of lesotho

Not showing up correctly, but the link is correct. - Che Nuevara 05:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


When?

The intro to the featured articles gives no idea when the person lived. Hoylake 12:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persondata

I would like to suggest that the number of articles with Wikipedia:Persondata is included in the statistics page [1]. Camptown 19:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Clean-up

How do I request an article for clean-up?

  1. Read Wikipedia:Questions.
  2. Decide where to ask your question. You probably mean to ask at Wikipedia:help desk.
  3. Repeat your edit at the appropriate page, not the main page.--21:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Overwhelming bias throughout Wikipedia

I noticed most criticism on Wikipedia gets wiped out more often than not, resulting in articles that almost always present the topic in positive light. Almost everything has criticism - and its entirely unfair to have literally any article without criticism, barring things that are not debatable (such as mathematical formulas). Not only that, but I noticed that we have tons of thorough articles on TV shows, movies, video games, and such, and other things - such as anything rooted in the sciences and maths are sometimes sparse. So whats going on?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=80112665"