Talk:Main Page

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 article

• Do you think today's featured article is awful? Instead of complaining see what you can do about it.
• "Today's Featured Article" is selected from existing featured articles. To nominate one for the Main Page see Today's featured article.
• To report an error in today's featured article, leave a note at the Error Report.

Did you know...

• "Did you know..." lists facts from new or newly unstubbed articles. To nominate a fact for inclusion see Did you know.
• To report an error in "Did you know...", leave a note at the Error Report.

In the news

• "In the news" items are listed as they are added – there is no subjective order.
• To suggest a Wikipedia article that has been updated with new material, see the "In the news" page.
• To report an error you've seen in "In the news", leave a note at the Error Report.

On this day...

• If an important event isn't mentioned in "On this day...", it may be because you haven't suggested it yet at Selected anniversaries.
• To report an error in "On this day...", leave a note at the Error Report.

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

• Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the Main Page
• Preview tomorrow's Main Page at Main Page/Tomorrow. To report an error on tomorrow's Main Page, leave a note at the Error Report.
• If you want to start a new article seek help here.
• If you see something wrong with a particular article, raise your concerns on that article's own discussion page, or fix it yourself. Do not talk about other articles here.
• Wikipedia running slowly? Check the server status.
• If you have an opinion, comment, question or are looking for help regarding Wikipedia in general, find the place where your post will get the most attention here.

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.

Can someone PLEASE take that big ass donation thing off the top of the page?

Please? - Anonymous, 2:13 12/17.06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.19.12.207 (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Just click the "dismiss" link to the right of it. That sets a cookie that will prevent the donation bar from appearing. If you do not have a cookie-enabled browser, however, I guess you're out of luck --Jmax- 22:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Plus you have to be a registered user. Chris as I am Chris 22:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

How about moving it to the sidebar? It would be still prominent on every page, but less intrusive. Rafy 00:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's supposed to be intrusive. If it's easily ignored, people won't get guilted/annoyed into contributing. See pledge drive for background on the annoyance factor, though people outside the U.S. that have state-funded public stations may find this whole idea weird. - BanyanTree 00:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, in previous fund drives, people have looked at the size of the notice vs. the number of donations, and it actually does increase donations significantly to make it slightly more intrusive. It's a bit of a pain, but it's worth it for the Foundation. Ral315 (talk) 07:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

well, if this is an arms race of sorts, does this mean it will take up half the screen, flash and play jingle-bells in two years' time? I find it bearable still, but the 'dismiss' link will prompt many people in reflexively switching it off without even looking at it -- so maybe a small bar that cannot be switched off will turn out to produce a greater effect than a big annoying banner you switch off and forget §about in two seconds. dab (𒁳) 10:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it won't. For starters, not all English Wikipedia readers are Christian or in the Northern Hemisphere, and thus Jingle Bells is irrelevant. Anyway, take a look at the pledge drive. As you may seem, there's multiple people/organizations matching donations, something we have never had before. This trend will continue, and will mean our goals are reached quicker. There is no other way to keep Wikimedia running as one of the top 10 most visited websites internationally, other than soliciting money. So get over it. -- Zanimum 16:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For example, I like it, and I enjoy refreshing the browser sometimes just to see how much it did increase. :) --V. Szabolcs 20:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Choose one of the following actions:

• Create an account, log in, donate, click dismiss.
• Create an account, log in, don't donate, click dismiss.
• Don't create an account, put up with it, stop complaining, it won't be there forever.

--Monotonehell 06:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

i just use adblock to remove them... The Uber Ninja 09:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're logged in just press "dismiss". --Monotonehell 09:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and adblock shouldn't be able to remove it, as it's hosted on-site. -- Zanimum 16:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh... why not? The Adblock extension for Firefox, and most other decent ad blockers, can block individual scripts, images or objects without blocking an entire site – Gurch 23:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop complaining from an IP. Follow WP:DICK. --Ineffable3000 03:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think you can classify objecting to begging notices as being a dick. I mean, the guy even said please. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If he really cared about the Wikipedia project, he would get an account, would do many legitimate edits, and wouldn't be here complaining about minor flaws. --Ineffable3000 21:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I wouldn't call him a dick. Ironically, directing thing him a link to an article just to say "don't be a dick" is alot more dickish than asking for a way to get rid of the banner.DarkGhost89 08:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

how much do i need to donate?

how much do i need to donate to have a article of myself? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wtfmaaan (talk • contribs) 08:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm afraid that that's not how Wikipedia works. Unless your donation is huge enough to be covered by multiple news agencies, it will not in itself confer the required notability for an article on you. If you want to be covered by Wikipedia, your best bet is to do something unique or notable ennough for the media and world at large to take notice of you. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 08:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and there was me thinking my 50p would get me an article. MFlet1 09:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You can, of course, make yourself a user page for nothing; just go to User:Wtfmaaan and start typing – Gurch 11:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

you mean, DFTTmaaan. dab (𒁳) 11:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

man then what's the point of donating when u dont get anything back. i'd spent the money to get a can of coke —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wtfmaaan (talk • contribs).

Funny, I thought people were paying for the continued pleasure of having and being able to contribute to an online encyclopedia. The project as a whole is primarily financed by donations. Dragons flight 16:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Donating literally means giving money or items in return for little or nothing substantive. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 17:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's your money, not mine --Signaleer 18:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:VAIN. However, if you donate a billion dollars, CNN might do a 30-second shot about you, and you might get a stub article. --Ineffable3000 21:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would venture a guess that a $1 billion donation will get more then a stub. Nil Einne 17:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Languages of Wikipedia

I'm used to use only the english Wikipedia, although my native tongue is finnish. I think it's best to participate to the most active Wikipedia in order to gain the most synergia through diversity and confrontation. We should build our native Wikipedia as a translation, not as an original version. But I've discovered a boundary, namely that history articles seem to be written only in the native language, and it seems appropriate to do so rather than to leave it for other nationalities. It would be negligence towards one's own cultural identity and linguistic distictiveness to write the history of his own culture in a foreign language. English is probably the most wide-spread language in the world. This can be measured by defining the areas of the world where some fixed percentage of people who know english. Thus I ask, should we write our own history in our own language, or write it first in english, while having a comfort of the idea that it's going to be translated? Teemu Ruskeepää 11:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that posting the question here will introduce a major bias to the answers you receive. Editors of the English-language Wikipedia are more likely to encourage you to edit the English-language version, just as editors on the Finnish Wikipedia would encourage you to post there. Ultimately it's up to you which you contribute to, there are pros and cons for both choices. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 12:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, this is probably not the best place to start such a discussion. Try Wikipedia:Village pump or possibly somewhere up in the meta. But I think that since you have a grasp of both Finnish and English that you should contribute to both language versions of "your history". Once in Finnish and once in English. The only neglegence would be denying one or the other language groups the knowledge. --Monotonehell 13:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Do it in Finnish. It's the right thing to do, besides, Finnlanders are probably more interested in Finnish history anyways.Cameron Nedland 23:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know about this policy for Finnish Wikipedia. Personally, I'd like to see more foreign language article translated into English. Please write in Finnish (or Swedish) and then translate to English. It makes sense, as there will be more people with knowledge on the subject who are willing to contribute only in Finnish. Often I see very poor articles on English wikipedia, and when I check to see if more is written in another language I find the same poor article has been translated (I don't read any other languages, but it's obvious). As an English speaker, I'd much rather see more foreign language article translated into English, instead of the other way around. And now that I've said my two cents, yes, Wikipedia:Village pump is probably a better place for this. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 02:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse my language, but the English wikipedia is fucking enormous, let some of the other wikipedias get some articles. None of the others come close, next largest is German and we have THREE TIMES AS MANY ARTICLES.Cameron Nedland 05:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, all of us just need to work on the English wikipedia, and then we can work on translating English wikipedia articles to the other Wikipedias. --Ineffable3000 22:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do is to write the article in your native language first, especially if it is a subject on the history, culture, arts or literature of your country. Why? Because there are more people – not all of whom speak English – who are knowledgeable about the topic or who have ready access to primary sources available only in your mother tongue who can make contributions of valuable information, thereby preserving it until someone can translate it and add it to the English article. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia languages

German wikipedia has more than 500,000 articles. 84.191.255.250 21:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's a waste of space to put it in it's own category though. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-12-20 21:42Z
  • Which is why the current "Wikipedia languages" section will remain unchanged for a long time, IMO. --Howard the Duck 23:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Until German Wiki reaches a million. Gizza^{Chat ©} 00:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • By then the other Wikis will catch up :p --Howard the Duck 01:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Finnish will be moving on up to 100k in a few months. Also, there are quite a lot of Wikipedias currently bottlenecked right below 20k. If we get too many 20k Wikipedias, we may reorganize to 250k, 50k and 20k. —Cuiviénen 02:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

With the 20ks all bottled up, the admins will come up with a new threshold - like 30k - which likely lead to the same languages displayed. --Howard the Duck 04:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• The English Wikipedia still dominates, so what's your point? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

They are conversing about the language categories that appear on the main page, which is definitely an issue if it gets too crowded. It doesn't matter which specific language is more popular -- thats not even the topic of discussion. falsedef 03:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Haven't we had this discussion 3 or 4 times already over the past month? Nil Einne 12:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but those darn foreigners keep writing more articles! If the article counts didn't change we wouldn't have to keep reconsidering how to list them :) – Gurch 14:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

But my point was that this isn't a new discussion. The German language wiki has been 500k for quite a while and people keep mentioning this and asking the same question. Sometimes it's the French one as well. But it's not a new milestone, just a rehash of the old one Nil Einne 10:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Positioning of appeal banner

The banner that runs across all pages asking for donations to the Wikimedia Foundation clashes with the co-ordinates for cities at the top of their pages. It would be good if someone who knows how to do it could sort this. Thanks. Itsmejudith 11:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that really the best place for coordinates? Wouldn't it be better with the rest of the article? Koweja 01:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the position of coordinates generated by {{coor title dms}}, etc are absolute on the page, rather than relative to the title of the page. In previous funding drives the location was just moved down temporarily, but I have no idea what sort of workaround is possible when some users see the banner and some do not. I have asked this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#donations banner. - BanyanTree 03:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Get ready for tomorrow

Vandalism is going to go sky high when this is featured.--Donald Goldberg 09:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh god, another Pokemon FA. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 11:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought they wouldn't do it again, hehe.--cloviz 15:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

So I herd u liek torchicz... Pacific Coast Highway ^{{Ho! Ho! Ho! • My Presents!}} 01:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to bring all Pokemon-related articles to FA. Then we can have a year of Pokemon FA's on the Main Page. It would become the PokeWiki. Nishkid64 02:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I think one exists already. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 02:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Search Bar

I think that Wikipedia should have a search bar. I think that it would be helpful and I know that I would use it. I know this is random, but they should. Just a plain old search bar, like the one Google has except for Wikipedia--Douglas Bradford Oliver 18:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

We already do. Its on the navigation bar on the left. FellowWikipedian 20:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think he means a search bar for the web browser.--cloviz 21:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Firefox has one for Wikipedia. --Maxamegalon2000 23:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There is an OpenSearch plugin which anyone with a capable web browser (Firefox 2 and IE7) can auto-detect and install. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 02:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone should make one. It is not difficult to program one for IE or Mozilla. --Ineffable3000 22:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Er read again, he said, "there is". In any case, I believe both FireFox and IE7 will be able to add them wikipedia directly via their respective add search engines pages Nil Einne 17:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Torchic!

Torchic vandalism

Would someone please lock the page now? Billbrock 02:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Done by an admin, Wknight94. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 02:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Billbrock 02:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't last too long though since it's main page featured. But I agree that was a little out of control. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Another porn picture has been loaded over the article. If the article can't be locked down, then perhaps the main page link to it should be broken for the time being. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That was to a template that was used in the article. It should be ok now, as I just went through every template and they're all protected now (including the one used in that vandalism). --Rory096 03:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I had almost invited my second-grade son, who loves these games, to come read the article. Glad I checked first, because that stuff was really sick. If you can discover the culprit, I believe the Feds would be willing to go after them as this breaks several federal laws. Askari Mark (Talk)

It's idiotic, yes, but I doubt that even if the person who did it was found out that he/she could actually be prosectuted. They couldn't get him for exposing a minor to indecent material or whatever because the troll didn't actually have any way of knowing that minors would view the page.--Azer Red Si? 21:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not remember anyone be prosecuted for anything analagous. --Ineffable3000 22:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

First Bulbasaur, now this...?

Why do we need another Pokemon on the main page? Could someone tell me how these get featured? They are fictional cartoon creatures and yet they are on the main page? Jeez, wikipedia, how can you sink this low? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caffolote (talk • contribs) 03:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

This is the guy you want to talk to: User talk:Raul654. He is the one who chooses which article gets to be featured on the main page. Andrew Levine 04:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured articles are chosen based on quality, not topic. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 04:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to both this and the below, featured articles are the best articles on Wikipedia. If that happens to be on a Pokemon, well, live with it. It's a good article, so it deserves its spot here. DoomsDay349 04:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly encyclopedic material. Then again there's the Pokedex(I can't belive I remember that now).--The jazz musician 04:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Now we know your big secret, hehehe.--cloviz 05:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly encyclopedic material? What pray tell is your definition of encyclopedic material? DoomsDay349 04:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Somehow, I doubt that we'd be having this discussion if the "fictional cartoon creature" depicted were Bugs Bunny or Mickey Mouse. —David Levy 04:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well of course, since they are very well-known, but I doubt that any one except poke-nerds (no offense intended) has even heard of "Torchic". This isn't poke-wiki. Featured articles should be ones that a fairly wide range of people can relate to.--Azer Red Si? 04:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Then I suggest that you formally propose changes to the selection criteria. As it stands, Torchic qualifies (as does any topic notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia). At issue is the article's quality, not the its demographics. —David Levy 05:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, even topics that aren't notable enough for inclusion could be FAs. FAs are judged solely on content, not on the topic. Technically, an article could be both on the main page as an FA and on AfD at the same time (and the AfD could even be in good faith)! --Rory096 05:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Getting FA status is one thing, and yes, all articles are worthy of it, but being on the main page is another.--Azer Red Si? 05:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Does a page exist where we can work toward buliding consensus on a set of standards for main page material? Djbaniel 04:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm surprised people are still complaining about main page topics. I rarely act frank and rude, but everyone, deal with it, act mature, and move on; it's today's featured article. It IS a featured article, and most people have no real issue with its inclusion on the main page. Period. — Deckiller 05:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Azer Red. It's just something obscure. Notable cartoon characters that are well written should deserve a spot. --The jazz musician 05:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

So, you think Pokemon is not a "notable cartoon"?--Eternal Imortal 16:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Pokemon as it is, is very famous cartoon. Torchic is not IMHO. And it is totally irrelevant atleast. I suggest a policy change in this matter, so that only relevant or interesting articles are chosen for front page.-- Anupamsr|talk|contribs 21:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you guys are missing the point. The point is not that Torchic is a fictional pokemon and also the featured article of the day. The point is that it is the featured article shortly after Bulbasaur. I understand that Torchic warrants inclusion on the main page, but couldn't it do so next year, when Bulbasaur is not so fresh in everyone's minds? People will think Wikipedia is concerned with topics that are wholly trivial.--Oreo Priest 16:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Both The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask and Final Fantasy X were main page articles this year, and in a relatively short distance between them (probably less than between Bulbasaur and Torchic), and you see no problem with that? Seriously, if you want to complain about featured articles, go bug Raul (it was his plan to put Torchic on the main page this month, with Bulbasaur in mind).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been 5 months since Bulbasaur. That's about 150 FAs apart; plenty of distance. Generally, the rule is only that similar topics don't go upon within a week or two of each other. —Cuiviénen 00:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

But next year we have to make room for Pikachu and Charizard. Dragons flight 00:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder, why is it so bad about a Pokémon being on "Today's Featured Article"? I don't see a difference, just because it's fictitious and because it's a cartoon. It doesn't matter if it's a cartoon, the point is that it's featured, in my opinion. I mean, today's Article is a plant. --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 01:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's true that Torchic isn't the first obscure article to be featured on the main page, and not much concern has been shown about articles on obscure subjects being featured until Torchic. Maybe some of us (myself included) are being a little poke-prejudiced. Featuring articles on obscure subjects is something that I can see people being legitimately concerned about, but if we are going to be so, then that concern shouldn't only be in effect when Pokemon articles are featured.--Azer Red Si? 21:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Pokemon were decided to be notable according to WP:N, so if they are very good articles, let them be featured. --Ineffable3000 22:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

POKEMAN

...WHY? Akloki 04:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Akloki

It's obvious. Fnord.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It really is.--Eternal Imortal 16:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Torchic?

Why is an article about a type of Pokemon on the main page? The day's featured article should be something that a fairly wide range of people are familiar with, not something obscure that only a very specific group can relate to.--Azer Red Si? 04:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I just said something about this on the Torchic talk page. That is not a requirement. A featured article is a good article, one of Wikipedia's best, and is recognized as such. Something that people can relate to is not a prerequisite. Now, please, people, to everyone talking about this, ask yourself this question; don't you think the world has bigger problems than Wikipedia putting Torchic up as a featured article? "Oh yes, there's a war in Iraq, several terrorist nations have nuclear weapons, globing warming is on the rise, but did you hear? Wikipedia put Torchic up as a featured article! Let's devote all our time and resources to complaining about it." DoomsDay349 05:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Especially since every true academic mind I've met in real life is actually impressed that Wikipedia can feature such a wide range of topics, and presents the material on the main page in a balanced manner. This is a source for general information, and this article doesn't go into excessive detail. I wish people's arguements wouldn't be bended to appear more mature than they actually are just by criticizing topics with a fictional foundation. — Deckiller 05:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to say Thank God that tomorrow's FA is about a shrub. Nothing controversial about that. Though you never know...*gulp*. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DoomsDay349 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

Lots of shrubcruft. Cue the complaints. — Deckiller 05:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I used to believe, from my own experience editing them, that the botany articles were the quietest, most easy going place to edit on Wikipedia. My belief was SHATTERED when, one day, I found a vicious edit war on a botany article (sorry, I cannot remember which one). Raul654 05:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually Banksia brownii sparked a very silly heated debate involving respected community members when it was nominated at WP:GA over WP:WIAGA criteria. There more pokemon FA than plant FA and half of the plant FA are two Banksia Gnangarra 05:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not against fictional material being on the main page, but I think that it should be such that a wide range of people could reasonably identify with it (e.g. Mickey Mouse), not something that only people deeply interested with a certain series would know anything about.--Azer Red Si? 05:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt very many people know about the Kengir uprising. Does that mean it shouldn't have appeared on the main page? --Rory096 05:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the point of an encyclopedia is not to learn about that which you already know, but to discover the unknown. DoomsDay349 05:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

hm, the only 'objection' that could be raised is there was another pokemon article some weeks ago. --87.194.72.129 05:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That was in July, not exactly recent. --Rory096 05:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

yeah, i mean, some could still say even in a year two pokemon articles are too much. i personally don't mind. --87.194.72.129 17:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Azer, I have come across tonnes of TFAs which 1) don't interest me, and 2) I don't identify with. This is one of them, and I have no problem with it being here. There is probably more interest, sadly, in this article than there is in the Green and Golden Bell Frog article, which was on the page earlier this month. And guess what? Not a single comment on this talk page. So, please tell me, what is your real problem with this being TFA, because your current argument doesn't stand up if you look at the archive. Oh, and people of many generations do not identify with Mickey Mouse, including mine. It is a very old character, which has not been popular for an extremely long time. There are millions of Pokemon fans out there, you'll have to live with it. --liquidGhoul 14:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The quick response to objections of this kind is: See Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#I think that today's featured article is awful. What can be done about it? - BanyanTree 15:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to like Pokemon but you heard of them and so has everybody else.--Eternal Imortal 16:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What is this awful shrub on the main page? I've never heard of it! How can Wikipedia have degenerated to featuring stupid, boring plants on the main page? I demand a recount! --Zeality 00:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

English Language Page

What happened to the article on the English Language?It's now a red link or was yesterday at least.I asked this before but some people were confused by what i meant? Dermo69 13:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

An administrator was removing a revision from the page history, which has to be done when someone posts personal information or violates copyright – Gurch 23:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a bit more detail at Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why is an article that is prominently linked from the Main Page missing? - BanyanTree 15:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

WHAT?!

BANSKIA BROWNII?!!?! What is wikipedia doing having such an IMMATURE article being featured!!?!?!??!!?!?!?!?!!?!? I CAN'T BELIEVE IT! WHY!!!????????????

Jesus Christ not again. DoomsDay349 06:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to award a barnstar if, before the year is out, someone comes up with an original joke about the choice of the day's featured article; one that makes me laugh and hasn't been done four billion and six times before. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Attractive...

...is a point of view. I, for one, threw up when I saw that plant. --JohnO 04:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

correct its a point of view, its also supported by citation within the article body specifically in the cultivation section with reference #3. Gnangarra 08:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, it does attract many birds and insects, as it is "a heavy producer of nectar". —Centrx→talk • 09:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

what are those red numbers in recent changes

question--12.72.32.40 04:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering the same thing, also what do the green numbers in brackets mean? This is also showing up in my watchlist. Suicup 06:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is the size of the change in the number of characters (green = characters added; red = removed) Bwithh 06:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, by god, that should be explained. We have to keep our software user-friendly and clear at all times. By the way, who thought this additional bit of information was important enough to clutter up user watchlist pages as well? Badagnani 06:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It's the number of bytes. This change was introduced over the last few days, so it probably is going to be updated soon. (Although the "user friendly and clear" kind of contradicts Bug 1...) As for who introduced it in watchlists, bug Leon.^[1] Titoxd^(?!?) 06:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there going to be some sort of anouncement somewhere that tells us what they are? Because really that's going to confuse a lot of people. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 06:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It only takes an administrator with a bit of sense to add an explanation to MediaWiki:Recentchangestext; lo and behold, that's what has been done, except they only linked to the village pump; since discussions there are temporary someone's going to have to make a more permanent explanation at some point – Gurch 11:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Christmas Island"

Kiritimati is the largest atoll in the world, not the oldest. --Indolences 07:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Next time, please make use of WP:ERRORS as per instructions at the top of this talkpage. Service is usually quicker there. Thanks, again. -- PFHLai 14:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Difference bewteen oversight and admin

i dont really see any difference bewteen the 2. both can hide revision. so what's the real difference. 07:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Block of sugars

Revisions deleted by admins can be seen via Special:Undelete, those by oversight users cannot. Titoxd^(?!?) 07:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

In other words, revisions can be in one of three places; in the page history, in the deleted page history, or gone completely (still in the database, but only developers can see them). Revisions in the page history can be seen by everyone. The deleted page history is where all the edits to a page go when the page is deleted, and only administrators can see it; since any administrator can delete or restore a page, any administrator can move edits in or out of the deleted history, but they have to delete the page in order to do so. Oversight allows you to take edits directly out of the page history without deleting the page first, and once this has been done the edits are inaccessible even to users with oversight (in other words, unlike most actions on a wiki the action is irreversible without the intervention of a developer, which is why only a few trusted users have the ability to oversight revisions) – Gurch 11:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Coloured numbers on watchlist

I'm still not sure i totally understand this, even after reading the "What do the coloured numbers mean?" link.

Am i asking in the wrong place?

If not, can someone please clarify further?

It is something to do with bugs and bites.

Simply south 12:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It's how much text has been added or removed to the page by the last edit. The number is in bytes, which is a small unit of measurement for computer... stuff. Your post, for example, was 339 bytes. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so i am going to guess that the green numbers indicate the number of bytes added and the red numbers are the number of bytes removed

Is that right?

Also, what have bugs got to do with this? Simply south 13:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Although my watchlist displays all the numbers in black, with plus and minus signs.

As for bugs, news about new features, and requests for them, are generally found at the same place for reports of bugs (i.e. errors in Wikipedia's software) and bug fixes - that is http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay so the bugs parts are just a reminder then to report if anything goes wrong, or something like that? Simply south 13:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes - and to show where the original feature request was (which is referred to as 'bug 8331', even though it's not technically a bug that we didn't have this before). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Err okay. Thanks. Simply south 13:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Colored numbers in Watchlist. --PFHLai 14:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

He already read that before asking here. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I posted the link for other people who may have the same question, hoping that this discussion would continue over there. --PFHLai 04:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I like it because it helps me see whether edits are actually 'minor'. --Ineffable3000 22:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

What was that? Who put up the penis picture, and why has all the talk about it been removed? J Milburn 15:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, why has it been deleted from the history? Have I just slipped into some kind of Nazi 'The vandalism never happened.' Conspiracy? J Milburn 15:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Some admin who can delete individual versions must have done it. I hope they found how it was done and prevented it, because I found nothing. The templates on the curent version were not vandalized.--HereToHelp 15:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"Well, let's go on Wikipedia and find out about that... Oh my god." Something needs to be done quickly. --71.252.244.148 15:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that Wikipedia:POTD_row/December_24,_2006 was vadlaised since it was just protected a few minutes ago. I have no idea why the admin would have deleted the revision. Why not keep it since the image is already deleted anyways? Jeltz talk 15:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Correction, the vandalism but not the images are still there in the history. I just missed it. Jeltz talk 15:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The vandalism was of the whole page. EVERYTHING was covered by a huge image of a penis. J Milburn 15:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but that can be done through nice CSS tricks. Not sure if that was the case this time though. Jeltz talk 15:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• This is the second time I have personally seen this happen... vandalization like this cause Wikipedia to lose credit, and it is already viewed lowly by many people. This is exactly the sort of thing that causes more problems for the community. It bothers me that the Main Page is not safeguarded against such attacks. --Ihmhi 15:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It was on there for long enough that I have to wonder how many people actually saw it, too. If anything could fuel the "imagine if a child saw this!!!!" issue, this is certainly it, vadalism or not. I think they take away the history (as opposed to simply reverting it) in extreme cases like this...but still...it seems weird that they are deleting the comments about it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 15:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the history of the discussion was also removed. I suspect that was by the same rogue admin who vandalised the main page. Who was it? Anyone gonna tell? J Milburn 15:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This history was not removed. -- tariqabjotu 16:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This is very strange. I could find no evidence of any penis images being uploaded recently. --Ixfd64 15:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This image was not uploaded to Wikipedia. -- tariqabjotu 16:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Aren't POTDs protected? It would sense that if the main page is protected, then so must be everything else displayed on the main page. The picture was up there for at least 10 minutes, and when you have such a busy site, the numbers must be in the thousands.... Cacofonie 15:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It should have been protected before it went onto the Main Page. Obviously, it was overlooked. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said, to me it looked like the whole page had been covered by the picture, it wsasn't just the POTD that was changed. And yes, as it was protected, it must have been an admin who did this. J Milburn 16:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it was the same guy that left his seasons greetings on my talk page yesterday... he uploaded the image, insisted it was suitable for the body modification article, and afterwards insisted the image is perfectly okay. The image appeared on WP:AFC (where I noticed it and proceeded to take action) yesterday via divs added to the page source in the same fashion - over everything. --Ouro 15:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, the page was protected after the vandalism, though it should have been protected before it went onto the Main Page. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps this discussion would be better suited to a more appropriate environment for the topic, such as the Vandalism article's discussion page? --Ihmhi 15:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  Here is fine. Wikipedia talk:Vandalism is generally not the right place to talk about specific incidents of vandalism. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

OK everyone it was not an admin. The POTD template mentioned above was unlocked, and some vandal added in the picture, which caused it to be on the main page. It has now been locked, as have the ones for the rest of the year. The vandal has been blocked indefinitely. The history hasn't been deleted, if you check the template history. --Majorly (Talk) 16:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Lock Main Page from Edit?

That was a sick image uploaded by some sick individual. Whoever viewed that would be scarred for years, if not for life. Can we urge Wikipedia to lock the main page everyday and not allow any major changes to it unless it's by an administrator or a tested wikipedia writer? -Eendrani 15:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Already, only admins can edit. J Milburn 16:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem was fixed fairly quickly, at least. This was obviously done by a registered user, and I'm sure somebody is already on their way to finding out who that is. Props to whoever it was on damage control on Christmas Eve...--SeanQuixote | talk | my contribs 16:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, the problem is that the main page includes other pages and sometimes people forget to protect those. Maybe a bot should protect the Featured Image template. The user was Panpel who is already banned by now. Jeltz talk 16:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the history of Wikipedia:POTD row/December 24, 2006, the images in question were WikiHell.jpg, WikiReal.jpg, Wikipef (note that only images with certain extensions can be uploaded), Wikipain.jpg, and Wikicolor.jpg. However, I could find no evidence that any of these images ever existed. Am I missing something? --Ixfd64 16:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

They were in wikimedia commons. --Majorly (Talk) 16:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up. --Ixfd64 04:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Mutated Penis? Deleted?

• No doubt I'm putting this in the wrong place and in the wrong format. However, I'll still make a go of it until you delete me in a few min.

I would like to know who decides what is obscene on Wikipedia. I found the articles to be more informative the many "Encyclopedia" websites due to the fact that they appear to be uncensored and written without regards to Political Correctness. I also see it mentioned that some bad pics have been posted. I cannot tell if this was due to vandalism or due to so religious crazy being offened. And one last point. Don't write .....won an award this year, or make mention of "this year". Or else at least append a date to it. When you read an article saying "this year" and you cannot find a date, it is quite maddending. Thank You. 69.1.59.67Idrinkwine

• I just wrote a 'disscussion' on those 2 mutated penis pictures on the top page. . . and someone deleted it! What was it about? It was disgusting - can we even edit the homepage? was it a hack? Please someone tell me! User:JoWal

Please start new discussions at the bottom - this topic is already being discussed. --Monotonehell 16:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ending Some Speculation

There was no rogue admin that caused the vandalism on the Main Page. What happened was that a template transcluded on the Main Page was not protected (by accident; it was just overlooked). Around 15:30 (UTC), someone spotted the vulnerability and used several sneaky tactics to make the vandalism difficult to spot and fix. This is the result of an error on the part of the admins who did not see the template was not protected. However, realize this is extremely rare. The vandalism of the particular template was not actually removed. If you find it, that's great. However, I'm not going to explain it so that other vandals do not use the devious technique. -- tariqabjotu 16:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The question still remains as to why comments here about it were being reverted... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes people will remove comments if their relevance has expired. The editor who removed the comments may have thought that. However, I endorse keeping these here at least a bit longer as people have questions. It may be a good idea to remove these at some point so potential vandals don't get any ideas as to how to add vandalism that is difficult to detect. -- tariqabjotu 16:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

They were probably chewed up by edit conflicts. I've already had to replace Tariq's post above. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for suggesting there was a rogue admin, I really got rather agitated when I saw the main page... J Milburn 16:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, to quash the speculation that some pretty CSS trick was used to make the picture look really large and dominate the page, the picture was merely set by the vandal to appear at a large size. This was really simple template vandalism that slipped onto the main page because one of the templates was left unprotected. Now, I suggest that we all go looking for the templates and images that will appear on the main page in the next week or two, and make sure they are all protected (or ask for them to be protected). Carcharoth 19:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Comments Disappearing

Well here is one particular instance of comments being deleted... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ihmhi (talk • contribs) 16:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Note what it says above that text: "Please start new discussions at the bottom of this talk page. Thank you." Comments about vandalism that is already being discussed added to the wrong part of the talk page will be removed, no questions asked. —Cuiviénen 16:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for god's sake, people...

More penis vandalism? Am I really going to have to start checking every template myself? Enough. Get your act together. – Gurch 16:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Anybody up for the drama of trying to get an admin bot approved so we can make sure all the templates used on the Main Page and TFA are protected? It's got my support. - BanyanTree 17:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I would also say that protecting the templates would be a start. dposse 17:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've always wanted a bot that automates the protection of such templates. --Ixfd64 04:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, obviously, we need a dozen or so admins to double check the templates -- not just the one or two that has currently been the case. There might be more times that templates will be overlooked if both of them are busy and go on a wikibreak or something... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Enough is enough! This is the kind of lowly, intolerable and, frankly, disturbing conduct that cannot be accepted - under any circumstances. Wikipedia is used by many young people, including people from age 12 onwards. What about kids being exposed to this horrible image? Right on Christmas Eve! Also, think of people having been brought up in very traditional societies. What will they think about Wikipedia's inability to get its act together? Therefore, I would suggest that the following steps be taken, with immediate effect.

1.) Ban any user/IP address from modifying any part of Wikipedia, if identified with such gross conduct.

2.) Completely and permanently lock down the Main Page and restrict editing to the highest level of administrators

3.) Tighten the terms of editing of this encyclopaedia, especially for a group of articles that can be labelled as "politically or culturally contentious".

If we cannot get this done, then surely, we need to think about removing administrators who don't crack down hard enough on this kind of inacceptable behaviour. Prqc

We already do all of that. The failure to protect this one daily template was a rare oversight. As for removing administrators, this is a volunteer project, no-one is obligated to do any particular job (with a very few exceptions such as Raul as the Featured Article Director and those who volunteer for the Arbitration Committee), so there is no one admin who can be desysopped for failing to protect a template. We could always commit collective hara-kiri and have the entire admin corps desysopped; I'm sure a number of users would be very happy to see that. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Rare? It's the second Main Page penis this month. Such an event should be impossible. Templates on the Featured Article have been infested with phalluses in a regular basis over the last few weeks. Wikipedia is one of the world's most-visited websites. The Main Page is by far our most-visited page. This simply isn't good enough – Gurch 18:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

{I'm just glad that most vandals aren't smart enough to know how to do template vandalism.--Azer Red Si? 21:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have to agree with Gurch, this is not good enough. Even if it was "rare", as asserted by you, Sam, it is nonetheless a gross case of neglect that has brought up the issues I raised in my initial post. I'm certain that you are aware of the fact that Wikipedia is indeed one of the most visited websites on the internet (and rightly so). But in order to protect the sanctity of this project, something needs to be done. Lest you think that I am merely all talk and no action, I would be happy to apply for an admin post myself and monitor the current affairs articles for objectionable opinions/images. How's that for some contribution? Best regards, Prqc 19:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping that this bot request will go through and we will get a centralised list of all the pages that are going on the Main Page tomorrow, and whether they've been protected yet or not. That would make it far harder for pages to slip through. (This post also posted to the similar thread at WP:AN.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sam, much appreciated...but we need to find watertight ways of protecting our pages Prqc 19:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Prqc, wikipedia is not censored. If kids come here and search for the penis article, they are going to find images of a penis. The same goes for the female breast. It is not anyones fault but the parents if their kid comes here and sees disturbing images. I agree that the vandalism has to stop, but i think your arguement goes too far. This is an encyclopedia, not the catholic church. Having pictures of dicks a day before a christian holiday shouldn't mean anything here. Second, this penis vandalism isn't anything new. It's happened to the talk page before, and it happened to many articles on wikipedia. I know, because i was there at Steve Irwins article after his death when it was unprotected. It wasn't a pretty sight. dposse 19:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted, it's not the penises that make this a problem - it's the vandalism, period. It would not be better if it were false information, Ashlee Simpson, or anything else. So the rhetoric about "Think of teh children on Christmas Eve" is kind of beside the point. Phil Sandifer 20:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually it would. An unwanted picture of Ashlee Simpson on the Main Page would be confusing, and irritating for anyone wishing to use the Main Page, but it wouldn't make people recoil in horror, ban their kids from ever visiting the site and pelt us with complaints. However, it is safe to assume that if a high-visibility page is left unprotected, the worst that could possibly be done to it will happen before very long – Gurch 20:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't be and is not responsible for what people see on this website. That should be and is the job of the parents of the children to censor what they can and cannot see. All we can do is make sure that we have a system in place that deals with vandals who decide to interupt the workings of this website. dposse 20:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it shouldn't. It's not about responsibility (at least not until someone sues us); however, that doesn't mean we can shrug off incidents that damage Wikipedia's public image. I don't know if this latest incident was reported in the media, but when they get hold of such a thing, it is. So far Wikipedia's popularity has done nothing but rise, but that could all too easily change – Gurch 22:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Haha, i highly doubt anyone would sue wikipedia. If they did, it would get laughed outta court. This is an encyclopedia which is on the internet. Do people sue merriam-webster for having "fuck" in there? No, of course not. dposse 22:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Censorship is overrated. --Ineffable3000 22:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, dposse, I would normally agree with your argument. However, it is flawed, as the users in question did not actually search for that image (if they had, it would be a totally different ballgame altogether), but it was imposed on them. Surely, only a miniscule proportion of Wikipedia visitors go straight to the item they search for. It's much more convenient to search from the Main Page. It's not about whether Wikipedia gets sued, it's about maintaining standards. It is way too easy to absolve ourselves from responsibility in the name of free speech. Wikipedia needs to set stringent standards as to how we deal with these vandals. In fact, I would wholeheartedly second the idea of banning anonymous IP addresses altogether from being allowed to edit ANY article, as the anonymous users are the main vandals. And just because this sort of vandalism has occurred before doesn't make it less necessary to deal with, on the contrary. If we want Wikipedia to be the very encyclopaedia that is about free distribution of information, then we will have to become strict with those who would seek to abuse the freedom to inform and be informed. Prqc 23:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually agreed with just about everything you just said, Prqc. Vandalism should be stopped as soon as it happens, and we should do everything in our power to stop it. Like i said before, as long as we keep a accurate system in place, we should be fine. I just disagree with your comment that wikipedia should censor itself because children come onto this website, and your indignation at it happening on christmas eve. We deserve, especially on the internet, to have the free exchange of ideas and infomation. dposse 23:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and also, those penis images weren't ones that are stored in Wikipedia's image repository. They were uploaded by the vandal and have since been deleted, some thing which makes an older proposal of mine that newly registered accounts not be allowed to upload images look pretty darn good if you ask me.--Azer Red Si? 23:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't work with Commons since the whole point of registering there is basically to upload material. Dragons flight 23:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Banning IPs is often suggested but routinely rejected. Most edits submitted by IPs are legitimate (something like 80-90%). While IPs, as a class, may account for more vandalism than registered users, it is generally thought that forcing registration is more likely to discourage the good IP contributors than it is to actually be effective at stopping vandalism. All of the recent vandalism seen here, for example, was done by a vandal who registered an account. Dragons flight 23:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

dposse, I agree with you on your ideas regarding the free flow of information...I wasn't referring to censorship as the way out, it isn't. My main point was, which may have been open to interpretation, was the fact that we need to ensure that as many users as possible have the ability to responsibly alter content on Wikipedia. I agree with you, censorship, in whatever guise, would spell a certain reduction of quality in terms of contributions. Prqc 02:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The real discussion took place at WP:ANI

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Vandalism on Main Page, and please report vandalism like this to the Administrators' incidents noticeboard in future. Thanks.

For the record, the vandal uploaded images to Commons, and put the images in an unprotected template (the POTD one mentioned above). The initial vandalism lasted 8 minutes, was reverted, the vandal re-added the vandalism, this lasted 3 minutes before being reverted, the vandal re-added it again and this time it lasted 1 minute. Then, finally, the unprotected template was protected and the vandal blocked indefinitely. Carcharoth 19:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a bit of additional info: the uploader was also blocked (and IP-blocked) from the Commons. —UED77 01:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like in this case Wikipedia policy wasn't really at fault for what happened. The vandal was just very crafty. Unfortunately I'm sure that a lot of people are going to put all of the blame on Wikipedia. I wonder how donations have been doing since that incident.--Azer Red Si? 22:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up proposal

I've written and posted something on this general issue here. Please comment there on how you think we can tighten up the checks and balances we need to have in place. Carcharoth 22:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Top of main page

it reads:

Welcome to Wikipedia,

the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

6,825,753 articles in English

I think it'd look better with the last line:

Welcome to Wikipedia,

the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

6,825,753 articles and counting

I think that'd look better, non? (I don't know why the formatting is off.) → JARED ^(t)  16:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather we didn't - we're focusing on the quality of our articles rather than the quantity at the moment. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it could hurt to make this tiny change, but perhaps the phrase "and counting" does put a bit too much emphasis on quantity over quality. I do think that a link like this would be useful in getting people to start a new article. --Ihmhi 16:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Ihmhi on that Samaster1991 16:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No, because we don't want people to start new articles. Seriously, we don't. We want people to improve existing ones. We get far too many junk articles that then have to be deleted as it is, without encouraging more of them. It would be better, in fact, to remove the article count from the Main Page altogether; this was extensively discussed and for a time it wasn't there at all. Whereas in the early days of Wikipedia it was necessary to focus on the number of articles in order to increase basic coverage of important topics, the project now has more than enough articles, and the focus has shifted, as Sam Blanning mentioned, to improving existing articles rather than creating new ones. Also, anonymous users can't start articles at all (this was necessary to stem the aforementioned flood of junk articles) so this would be unhelpful – Gurch 16:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If we don't want people to start new articles, why not just disable it? Should be easy enough, because unregistered users could't start new articles, so just expand it to include all registered users too. Then if something new happens that is encyclopedic (Olympic Games, presidential elections, etc.) nobody could start a new article and pretty soon Wikipedia will be so far behind that Citizendium could finally be the ultimate online encyclopedia. Thank you Wikipedia! --Gunsfornuns 17:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Straw man. - BanyanTree 17:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

We want people to create verified, neutral articles on topics of encyclopaedic interest; the Main Page is not for us, it's for our readers (the vast majority of Wikipedia's traffic), and the vast majority of them won't have any inclination, nor the ability, to do that. We already have links to the Introduction and the Help Pages, which is a much better path towards editing to follow. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

We do want people to create new appropriate articles if they wish, or improve existing ones if that's what they wish.--Azer Red Si? 21:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the de-emphasis of quantity and problematic nature of the proposed link, this exact wording was proposed and rejected during the recent main page redesign process. As I noted at the time, the phrase "and counting" is a figure of speech that would seem confusing or nonsensical to some people for whom English is not a primary language. Also, the "in English" wording was included to avoid falsely conveying that all of the Wikipedias combined contain only 6,825,753 articles. —David Levy 17:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I prefer:

Welcome to Wikipedia,

the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

6,825,753 articles in English and counting

It adds the nice extra bit and doesn't provide misinformation. --Muna 02:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"As I noted at the time, the phrase "and counting" is a figure of speech that would seem confusing or nonsensical to some people for whom English is not a primary language." You could change it to so far or at this time --Muna 02:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't we just put the "and counting" part at all Wikipedia's indifferent of the language, that should solve all problems.--Eternal Imortal 13:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Main page

This isn't really a big deal, but if you look on the side under navigation, the first link is to the "Main page" with lowercase p. The p is supposed to be capitalized, i.e. "Main Page". --75.20.219.75 17:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is deliberate, but I suspect it might be - Wikipedia:Community Portal has the same mismatch between capitalisation in the title and on the sidebar. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This is, in fact, deliberate. (Also note that a Community portal link has existed on the main page since March.) Both Main Page and Wikipedia:Community Portal are inconsistent with our MoS-prescribed naming conventions and the titles of other project pages. We've retained the former for logistical reasons. I've proposed that the latter be changed. —David Levy 18:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

See also: § Requested move

The ultimate solution to vandalism

A while ago I read a news article about a revised Wikipedia editing system. In this system, edits made to pages do not appear immediately. They must be viewed and approved by an admin before actually replacing the current revision of the page. This is, if I'm not mistaken, already being tried on the German Wikipedia. I have been in approval of this ever since I saw it, and that "mutilated penis" incident has just made me all the more so. If this is implemented, vandalism as we know it will cease to exist and Wikipedia's potential as a functioning encyclopedia will increase a hundredfold. And in addition, there will be no more need for page protection, as any edits made will be reviewed before going into effect. Who's with me on this?--Azer Red Si? 21:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

One problem. There's only ~1050 admins on Wikipedia. We'd get backlogged so fast that this system would be pointless. Would you really want to wait an hour or two before your edit is actually processed? Nishkid64 21:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a concern, but I'm beginning to think that that's the only way that Wikipedia will be able to achieve true credibility as an encyclopedia. Maybe it should start creating more admins, or maybe give certain users the right to shift revisions of pages while ommitting them other rights such as block rights.--Azer Red Si? 21:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've suggested in the past the Wikipedia content presented to not logged in visitors might be made subject to a stability criterion, so that only versions that have persisted unaltered for at least 15 minutes be shown to visitors. In my plan, versions that are created and then reverted within 15 minutes need never be shown to the public at large. Admin edits could be made exempt from the criterion to avoid vandals trying to use it against us. Dragons flight 21:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What "mutilated penis" incident are you talking about? There are penile disease pictures on Wikipedia but that is encyclopedic. --Ineffable3000 21:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The one that appeared on the Main Page earlier today. Again. Dragons flight, it's a good idea, but there would be problems. Example: article is vandalised, 15 minutes later the vandalised version becomes the displayed version, someone reads it, spots the vandalism and fixes it. But they're not an administrator, so the vandalism persists, visible to everyone, for another 15 minutes. The majority of vandalism is reverted by non-admins, and we don't have anywhere near enough of them to go chasing after edits that fixed vandalism but haven't been shown because they weren't made by an administrator. Having completely separate display and development versions of popular articles would be better, but at the rate MediaWiki development is currently going won't be with us for some time, if ever – Gurch 21:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict with Gurch]

So admins are the only users on Wikipedia who are exempt? There are hundreds of users who do just as much good if not more. Another solution, would be to, oh I don't know, stop letting IPs edit. They are the main vandals on this website. --SonicChao ^talk 21:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There have been just about 100 million edits made since 2002. That's what, 25 million edits a year on average? That's 68,000 edits a day. No way in hell are 1,000 editors going to slog through that 24/7. — ceejayoz ^talk 22:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could get bots to do it that flag edits with certain key words/text that are likely vandalism, and these suspicious edits could be reviewed by admins.--Azer Red Si? 22:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

And then people catch on and name pictures of dicks to "sunshine"? dposse 23:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that couldn't always be avoided, but this isn't intended to be just solution to image vandalism, but to vandalism in general. For instance, say some vandal thought that it would be funny to post the word "poop" all over an article. "Poop" would be one of the key words and this revision would be flagged for an admin to review before becoming the current revision.--Azer Red Si? 23:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

My best solution to image vandalism is to not allow newly-registered accounts to upload images (e.g. accounts should have at least accumulated enough edits to edit semi-protected pages before they can upload images).--Azer Red Si? 23:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This already happens. In fact, not only do bots pick out suspicious edits, they revert them as well. User:AntiVandalBot. – Gurch 23:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about within the proposed revised editing system (edits made do not appear immediately, but first have to be approved). Considering the number of edits that Wikipedia gets, admins would never be able to keep up with this, so I proposed bots that would cause edits made to articles to go into effect unless the edits contained suspicious terms that were likely an indication of vandalism, in which case those suspicious edits would be flagged for admin review before going into effect.--Azer Red Si? 00:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Keyword flagging is essentially what's happening with User:Lupin/Filter recent changes (may not be viewable without the JavaScript entry in your monobook). Banning IP edits has been repeatedly discussed and rejected/failed to gain consensus. There was also a proposal to only allow users with email addresses registered to upload images, but I don't think it was ever implemented. Requiring a minimum number of edits to upload images might reduce the vandalism, but it's pretty contrary to the "anyone can edit" spirit.--Kchase T 23:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well so is semi-protecting pages (only registered users with I think twenty 20 edits can edit them) and protecting the main page, and we do all of that.--Azer Red Si? 00:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It's four days, as described in our semi-protection policy. That said, this suggestion probably won't fly, as it goes against our foundation issues. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I don’t know that the admin pre-read approach would be practicable and, if it were, the nuisance would simply drive a lot of current editors away and discourage many new ones from joining. What I would rather see is elimination of “drive-by editing” through requiring joining up as a member before one can edit. That would eliminate most of the petty vandalism which is due simply to being able to edit on a whim with complete anonymity (not to mention all the time wasted reverting their nonsense). Serious — and semi-serious — editors have no problems with becoming members. This wouldn’t eliminate the recent pornographic vandalism performed by an ill-intentioned person who was willing to become a member and wait out the four-day upload restriction; extending it to 7 days or even 30 days might help and wouldn’t hurt, but even so not all examples would be prevented, simply because there are some sick people who really get a kick out of doing sick things. Still, becoming a member eliminates a certain degree of anonymity and binds them to certain conditions of responsibility. The recent pornographic vandalism recently posted appears break a number of laws, so it might strengthen any case against them that the authorities might pursue (assuming Wikipedia notifies them of the case). Askari Mark (Talk) 00:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be the free encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. This system, if implemented, will probably deter many new users from joining Wikipedia. Another problem: How will the edits be attributed to a user? The history of articles will only show admin edits, so everybody else will have a low edit count. Encarta already uses a system similar to this. If this system is implemented, won't Wikipedia become just like Encarta? Yes, this will completely get rid of vandalism, but the existing system, with a few improvements (like protecting the high-risk templates on featured articles, for example), is already good enough. Besides, our goal is not to eliminate vandalism, it is just to keep it to a minimum. Vandalism is inevitable in a user-contributed encyclopedia. --67.116.239.213 01:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that the software could be modified so that the contribs for each indiviual user could be viewed, though the admins (or bots) would still have to upload the most recent changes to a page before that version could actually be viewed. And going with this system would actually help Wikipedia to live more fully up to its name as the encyclopedia that anyone could edit: under this system, there would no longer be a need for page protection because any edits made would have to be "activated" before going into effect.--Azer Red Si? 00:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree fully with comment by 67.116.239.213. Above SonicChao suggested to stop letting anonymous IPs edit. Would mean we wouldn't have comments like the above. And more that we would miss. Jimbo Wales emphasizes in all talks that I heard the number 1500 or 1000, as the number of editors that keep the project going and make nearly all valuable contributions (very similar, I don't remember the exact wording he uses). I think that's crap. It's impossible for 1500 users to write 1,500,000 articles. Or even the good ones, if you can name such a group. As far as I could see, a lot of admins or people with many edits didn't contribute a single article. They tag articles, delete them, and correct grammar. That's important also, agreed. To my knowledge there has been no investigation yet, who really writes the articles (compare Who Writes Wikipedia?). There is only this number 1500 around. I am convinced there is a long tail in the frequency distribution of contributions in the sense that added up, unregistered users make more edits than the group of registered ones. And I am sure, anyone is the one, who write the articles, anonymous IPs, e.g. That's the revolutionary idea about wikipedia, if you didn't understand it yet. If you don't like it, maybe you should have a look at Larry Sanger's new project. I am sure it will fail. --Ben ^T/_C 10:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

A simplified version of what actually happens is this: Lots of anonymous and new users add information in a few big chunks, then administrators and regular editors make lots of small edits to tidy it up. Almost all our content comes from anonymous or infrequent contributors, but without the relatively small number of dedicated users checking and correcting it, and generally ensuring some level of consistency across the site, it would be a massive jumble of nonsense rather than an encyclopedia – Gurch 12:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no merit whatsoeber to the fact that "anyone can edit" Wikipedia. Most of the edits by new IP addresses appear to be be vandalism, and editors who want to make Wikipedia something to be proud of have to spend their time reverting stupid vandalism and posting meaningless warnings on IP address talk pages. A given page may be vandalized a dozen times a day, and the vandal can insert the word "poop" or someone's name in an article way faster than another editor can revert it and paste a warning template. Blocking an IP address at a school or library for 12 hours or 24 hours after several warnings and posting on an admin noticeboard is a pretty lame and ineffective penalty. Edison 18:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Our day off

Haha...look at this [2]. It almost feels weird that this page has not been vandalized at all today (so far). If you want a solution to vandalism, then make every day a major religious holiday. :-D Nishkid64 01:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's good though, no vandalism! But doesn't that also mean that only us workaholics are on at this time? No newbies or anons? Happy Holidays, be sure to spend some time with the family! :) Cbrown1023 01:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

(knocks on wood...) Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is because people are too stupid to make up a clever form of vandalism for Clement of Dublane. --Ineffable3000 02:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been picking up as of late. It's not like you have to be clever in order to vandalize (the most recent I saw was "PENIS PENIS PENIS POOP").--Azer Red Si? 04:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe because Clement was a Dominican friar, and that has to do with Christianity. Nishkid64 02:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Either way, Raul made a good decision of choosing that article as Today's featured article. And the picture I nominated will be the featured picture the 25th. --Ineffable3000 04:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"Main Page"?

What if someone was actually looking for an article called "main page"? Why not move this page to Wikipedia:Main Page?, delete Main Page as it is now and then re-create it as an actual article? Just a suggestion. --172.194.17.74 03:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

1. The idea of moving the main page has been discussed from time to time, and it's been decided to leave it at Main Page for logistical reasons.

2. If we were to move page to the Wikipedia namespace, we also would correct the capitalization to comply with our Manual of Style (which didn't exist when the page was created); the title would be Wikipedia:Main page. Actually, it's been argued that we shouldn't even refer to it as the "main page." ("Front page" would be a possible alternative.)

3. Under no circumstance will Main Page ever be used for another purpose. This is, by far, the page most likely sought by someone typing that phrase. Even if a best-selling novel entitled Main Page is published, it won't usurp the title. If the page were to be moved elsewhere, Main Page would become a redirect to the new location. —David Levy 03:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Leave it as it is now. And remove any search that leads to the Main Page. Only an idiot would search for the main page. --Ineffable3000 04:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

To not naming it the main page, in theory, it is as it is the most visited page, thus the "main page". Just a little smart-assing for you :).

Yeah imagine a best-selling book being called Main Page...we'd need to have a disambiguation link on the main page. That would not be good. --WikiSlasher 05:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

See also: § Requested move

again mutated penis

Not to repeat everything. But the thing is still on, or again. As the christmas tree. Maybe someone could remove it? Thanks. --Ben ^T/_C 10:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Already fixed. And I see that now all images on the main page are protected. Wise decision. Ben ^T/_C 10:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* – Gurch 11:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

How come I never see any of this? lol --Howard the Duck 11:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If you ever do, you'll wish you hadn't, trust me – Gurch 12:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this the same moron from yesterday at it again?--Azer Red Si? 21:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if it were. --Ixfd64 01:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

largest wikipedia list

I noticed the top category was changed from 250k to 300k. Why was it changed to this? I was hoping to see Dutch jump up to the top tier soon :( Under Logic 11:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Just as what I've expected. --Howard the Duck 11:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Special page to report vandalsim for non registered users?!

Hi I was just having fund reading random articles and I noticed that the article Midlands_State_University seems to be messed up. I was curious where do I alert registered users of this so that they can revert it?. Is there some special page where unregistered users can report vandalism?. It would be a great idea to at least have such a page in the navigation box so it would be much simpler for everyone to help make wikipedia better. (yes I know I could just register but I don't want to... at least not yet ;) )

• you can revert the vandalism yourself! look at the top of the page, there's a history tab. click it and find a previous version of the page. then click edit this page, and save the page to revert it. 12:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. In other words, you don't need to register in order to edit'! Hence the "anyone can edit" – Gurch 12:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

haha stupid me :) Thanks a lot, now the vandalism is also reverted so everyone should be happy now I guess! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.213.169.193 (talk) 12:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

Today's Article

Just minor but shouldn't it have something to do with Christmas as today is Christmas Day...? Simply south 14:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Todays only christmas if your christian, and most people arnt. IsaactheNPOVfanatic 14:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering that more than half the world is christian, i think you are mistaken. Anyway, what i think you meant was that christmas isn't notable for the front page just because christians celebrate it. dposse 14:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Its not really just only christians who celebrate it, just to say. Simply south 14:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well... it's about a Catholic bishop, so it's a Christian topic, on a Christian holiday. That's enough of a connection, I think – Gurch 15:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

True, most people aren't - actually some not most, but excluding non-religious people (like me ;) who still jump on the christmas bandwagon... oh well...) the biggest religion is christianity by far. I think it's worth mentioning it in OTD. 84.64.226.4 16:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Why? What's notable about it this year? dposse 16:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It's acknowledged by millions of people, that's what. 84.64.226.4 16:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Very true. However, that's meaningless since they celebrate it every year. dposse 16:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned in On This Day as a holiday. There is a related news item in Did You Know. Today's Featured Article is a Christianity-related topic. This should be sufficient; Wikipedia must remain neutral every day of the year (and, sorry dposse, two thirds of the world is not Christian). -- tariqabjotu 16:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

dposse, I suggest you research your facts before making statements like that. Roughly 30% of the world observes some of Christianity, and that basically translates to 2,000,000,000 followers. The world has around 6.5 billion people, so there are easily more non-believers than believers. Nishkid64 19:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

And I previously stated (look a few sections up) that the FA wasn't getting any vandalism in the first two hours possibly because it was a Christianity-related topic. Well, now it's getting hit, but it's still not that heavy. Nishkid64 19:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it also true to say that a large percentage of people whos primary language is English practice Christian religion? I mean, this is in fact the English Wikipedia. MadHistorian 19:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Although it's unsourced at English language, only 350 million speak English as their first language, and I would assume many of those people practice Christianity. My point was about dposse's comments about Christianity in the world, not about Christianity here on the English language Wikipedia. Nishkid64 19:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Getting back to the original question, I'm sure that under ideal circumstances, a Christmas-themed TFA would be gracing the Main Page today, but sadly no-one's gotten around to writing one in the past year. Since Raul has only a limited pool of topics to choose from, it'd been a case of picking the best from the ones available. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Christmas used to be a featured article, and it has been on the Main Page on Christmas before, but it was removed as a featured article because it fell far below modern standards. —Cuiviénen 23:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

About the non-believers outweighing the believers, it's true they do, but the 4.5 billion are spread thinner than the semi-united 2 billion Christians. I could say more but I'd get myself all deep south preacher pissed off and insult many billions of people. DoomsDay349 00:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Although Christmas day is past where I am, just to clarify according to wikipedia article Christian: "It is estimated that there are around 2.1 billion Christians in the world making up 33% of the world population, with the largest Christian denomination being Roman Catholicism."

Also consider the amount of non Christians who appreciate the Christmas holiday as a time of goodwill and not as a religious holidays; certianly millions of people. The fact of the matter is Christmas in the modern world is not just a religious holiday, its a cultural holiday as well; one based on traditions and activities that are more commercial than religious. And although the non believers clearly weigh out the believers/followers, Christmas is an important part of human life in the Western (and not just English) World! So why should we not feature a Christmas related article on the main page on an encyclopedia that acknowledges all aspects of human life (whether its a small school in a place no ones heard or a holiday that billions of people know of? I suppose what I want to say is this; the ultimate aim of wikipedia is surely the diffusion of knowledge; so wheres the harm in diffusing some knowledge thats related to something we've all heard of on a day thats important to the knowledge of its subject! Merry Christmas. LordHarris 02:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

True, but you are forgetting that Wikipedia is a neuetral encyclopedia, not a forum. Even if 99% of the world celebrated Christmas, it should still be the job of an encyclopedia to respect that 1%. Besides, a main page article of Chirstmas would have to be perfectly worded so that there can be no question of wrong information or non-nuetrality or else we'd REALLY have a problem. Well, either way, merry christmas to all who celebrate. 04:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Lambert, Bertrand

Bertrand Lambert (1880-1946), sculptor and painter from the XIX century specialized in landscapes and naturalistic themes. His oil landscapes are renowned for his master treatment of light and perpective, that create in his pictures the full impression of depth and natural illumination. He had a very reduced painting production and for this reason his works are highly appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.127.198.236 (talk • contribs).

Did I miss something here? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You can go ahead and make the article on Bertrand Lambert, 217.127. Nishkid64 19:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Crab Nebula

Please correct the errors discussed on the Crab Nebula featured picture discussion page. --Ineffable3000 20:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong? Another penis vandal? dposse 21:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Light years wide instead of light years away. --Ineffable3000 21:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

A wrong picture? That's kinda rare. dposse 21:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it correct now? It says light years wide now. Nishkid64 21:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. :) --Ineffable3000 21:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

James Brown taken off "in the news"

So I noticed James Brown's death was on In The News, but prompty got taken off. I'm upset. Is this not relevant? He's an incredibly important figure in American music. INCREDIBLY important. I think news of his passing might be a bit more relevant to English speaking people than news of Ethiopia invading Somalia. NIRVANA2764 01:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree on this one. Usually, deaths are not included, but James Brown is an ideal 5b candidate: "the deceased was a key figure in their field of expertise, and died unexpectedly or tragically". His death was unexpected (he was scheduled to perform in my hometown on Thursday!) and he was a defining figure in the field. The topic is currently under discussion at Template talk:In the news#James Brown death, however. —Cuiviénen 02:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The James Brown article contains three sentences pertaining to his death (up from the two sentences that it contained when the entry was added and removed). —David Levy 02:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

So we should write a full paragraph section everytime a person dies a in order for it to be added in the main page? (Of course, those persons which had rather notable deaths, like the Russian spy deserve a section). --Howard the Duck 12:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well basically yes, that's one of the requirments of ITN. Ignore that, I misread your comment. --Monotonehell 13:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't pad articles with prose that doesn't belong. Some news, however prominent, simply doesn't warrant article creation/updates that result in ITN qualification. There is, however, ongoing discussion of revamping the section. —David Levy

Requested move

Main Page → Wikipedia:Main page — This page is not an encyclopedia article; therefore, it does not belong in the main namespace. Simply put, the Wikipedia namespace exists for pages related to the project, which is exactly what the main page is. —Mets501 (talk) 02:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Main page is part of the encyclopedia. It is the very first page of the encyclopedia, like the title page or table of contents of a book or the front page of Britannica.com. The Wikipedia namespace is for pages about the encyclopedia or policy and processes for creating the encyclopedia. The Main page does not fit there. —Centrx→talk • 20:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

• Support - Per the suggestion. Article space is for articles. Main Page is obviously not an article. All the oppose votes seem to be about the links being broken. As far as I am aware, not many pages redirect to the main page so double redirects wouldn't be an issue. Bots and a task force could then fix the redirecting links. Links being broken isn't an issue. And besides, the main page is less than 5% of Wikipedia's traffic (which granted is still a lot) so this is as big a deal as it is being made out to be.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 07:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, per Hamedog although Wikipedia:Home page seems to a better title for me. --Howard the Duck 07:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support I proposed this requested move back in 2004. Another case of Wikipedia defying its own rules...namely, the naming conventions. I always love how several editors will gladly bitch us out for minor violations of these rules, but for simple, no-brainer violations of the rule by the administration, they'll defend it as if they were preserving a wounded virgin's honour. I'm afraid the WikiHypocrites will WP:SNOW this proposal yet again. —ExplorerCDT 08:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Your anticipation of this issue and concern for consistency are noted with appreciation, although no one has responded to my inquiry below about whether the suggested move has any practical implications rather than largely meta and theoretical ones. However, this is hardly a contentious discussion, and I see no reason that terms like "WikiHypocrites" would need to be used. Newyorkbrad 17:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Brad, I know I should probably be civil, but you being a lawyer would know that it's usually the aggreived who quote the rules and argue loudly and strictly for a response from the bureaucracy that enforces rules by the letter. Living by the sword and dying by it. I'm using a little corollary of the Bush Doctrine on this one, pre-emptive strike against the those who quote rules vociferously to others but are mysteriously silent when they realize they're in a glass house. From my knowledge of this, I don't see any technical problem with moving the page, the theoretical won't become practical or experiential, but the database stuff isn't my forte and my knowledge is limited. —ExplorerCDT 18:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Although also Portal:Main page could be workable. A great part of Wikipedia is that it is flexible. Given policy over name spaces, there is no reason to keep the main page where it is, other than tradition and bookmarks. Well, slavery was a tradition, so too was denying women the vote, oh and don't forgot burning old ladies as witches. So I think that reason is rather defunct. The second holds more sway - but a great deal of wikipedia is also ready redirects, so I don't see why a redirect can't be used. However, ultimately, there are far greater problems in Wikipedia than what name space the main page should be in. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 09:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC) (after edit conflict)
  • The WikiHypocrites always raise reasons that are illogical and specious. But they desperately hold fast to them like my dog does to paper towel rolls.—ExplorerCDT 15:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You know you're a Wikiholic when... you compare moving the Main Page to abolishing slavery. -- tariqabjotu 22:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Association_fallacy -- Rafy 00:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think this is a case of association fallacy. Perhaps Midnight didn't choose his/her words well. But the meaning of the words are clear. S/he isn't comparing this to slavery nor is s/he saying well slavery was bad and so was abc so Main Page must be bad as well. What s/he is saying is that a lot of people have argued in a lot of instances that we shouldn't bother to change it because it's always been like that/it's tradiation. But when something is broken and a bad idea, should we really let intertia and the fact that it's tradiaition stop us? Or should we Wikipedia:Be Bold and do something which should have been done a long time ago? Some changes may seem radical at the time, but later, we are all amazed that they took so long to come Nil Einne 14:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Support the implications to meta,foundation, and other language wikipedias are assessed/address before implmentation. Gnangarra 09:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Support - Assuming that there is nothing about Meta that would keep the redirect from working properly, this page should be moved immediately. Otherwise, let's fix that which needs fixing and do this move ASAP. As long as this move does not immediately deprive people of access to the main page using the same means as before, there should be no problem with doing it. (In the longer run, if someone wants to write an actual article on "main page", they should be allowed to do so. However, I advise keeping the left-over redirect locked for at least a year before permiting such a thing to happe.) --EMS | Talk 16:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Support – make sure that all of the consequences have been thought through and planned for before the move takes place. It makes sense to have the main page in the appropriate place - and it's not an article. Mike Peel 07:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support According to Comment of Hamedog. to that, when Main Page has moved, the old title "Main Page" will be redirects to an suggested new title: Wikipedia:Main page. but that makes few "Double redirects". however, they are easy to fix. so moving does not affect links from other pages. -- Korean alpha for knowledge (Talk / Contributions) 09:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support per Hamedog and the original suggestion. Makes perfect sense. We should choose what is most consistent and simpliest, especially to new users. Wikipedia:Main Page or Portal:Main Page is consistent and simpler then Main Page. Our current set-up is likely one of the causes of confusion as to the purposes and functioning of the main page and of wikipedia in general. Nil Einne 14:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per Hamedog's redirect suggestion. It is important to maintain consistency throughout the encyclopaedia, and it makes no sense having such a unique page listed as an encyclopaedic article. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 15:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Support as long as this is discussed on meta and with other Wikipedias.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 15:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Moral support. It's not as stupid an idea as some of the opposers seem to think... Imagine the ruckus that would be caused if there was an encyclopedic article called "Main Page" to be had. It might not be bad to think ahead a little. :-) Grandmasterka 20:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

• Oppose because this page has been here forever. If this were to move to Wikipedia:Main page, it would have to be a considerable amount of time – certainly years – before it would be safe to break the cross-namespace redirect as there have been so many pages linked to Main Page from all over the Internet. And then what would we do with that former redirect? Make it a blank, useless page until someone directs a featured film entitled "Main Page". I can already see it now... in a world... where Britannica ruled... there was one page that dared to dream... the MAIN PAGE. -- tariqabjotu 03:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Clearly we'd need to get Don Lafontaine to do a voice-over. :-) -/- Warren 04:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

We would likely leave Main Page as a redirect until we ever have use for the other page. If there is ever something called Main Page, we will probably turn it into a disambig Nil Einne 13:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm in complete agreement with tariq on this. The issue might be worth looking at if a topic for which the best article title is "Main Page" becomes encyclopedic one day, but otherwise it's more of a problem than a solution to move the Main Page at this point. —Cuiviénen 04:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this idea. I don't think the reason should have anything to do with whether there should be an article called main page but what is the most consistent, makes the most sense and is simpliest. Wikipedia:Main Page or perhaps Portal:Main Page are that not Main Page. More importantly as others have pointed out who oppose, if we do change it we will need to leave the redirect for quite a while. If we suddenly find we need an article and we still have Main Page as Main Page we will have a right royal mess. What do we do? Suddenly change it and turn Main Page into a disambig? We need to anticipate problems before they arise, not pray to God they don't arise and then when they do run around in a mass panic Nil Einne 13:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, it would just be too confusing and in this case it's best to preserve the status quo. DoomsDay349 04:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ain't broke. Don't fix it.--Skyraider 04:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Who said it isn't broke? Nil Einne 14:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's a good idea, but way, way, way too much work would be involved in implementing it successfully. Chalk it up to an intricacy of our community. alphachimp. 04:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Skyraider. Naconkantari 04:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

But it is broke, so surely we should fix it? Nil Einne 14:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - (double super mocha latte edit conflict) This would cause chaos for the newcomers who don't care about namespaces. Also, if it gets moved, Slashdot might link to it, causing even more chaos...you get the picture. PullToOpen^Talk 04:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If the newcomers don't care about namespaces, it will not affect them. And Slashdot linking to Wikipedia has not been a problem for quite a while now. Wikipedia is largely immune to the Slashdot effect, much to the chagrin of Slashdotters. Uncle G 20:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - My views echo those of tariqabjotu Rafy 04:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Simpler URLs are better. -/- Warren 04:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Why change what isn't broken? —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

But it is broken. That's why people want to change it... Nil Einne 14:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Can you imagine how many links would have to be fixed? Yikes. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Approximately 9,500, according to Special:Whatlinkshere/Main Page. However, the large majority of them are links from notices on talk pages. And most of those are links that result from templates such as Template:mainpage date, which would all be modified by adjusting the template. Uncle G 20:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - not to mention double redirects... MER-C 09:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The double redirects would be far fewer and would be the few obvious ones, such as mainpage and main page, and a couple of not-so-obvious ones such as %s. Uncle G 20:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, a solution in search of a problem. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 09:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tariqabjotu, Skyraider and Warren. --Ouro 13:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

But Skyraider said it isn't broken and it is broken... Nil Einne 14:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, not to me it isn't. 'sides, it's just simpler for newcomers/for the bulk of users, if the Main page stays in the main namespace, because the're basically going to be mostly interested in the main namespace anyway when looking up information, or am I wrong? It's always been this way, it's definitely not broken. Still oppose :) --Ouro 15:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Naming conventions are not that important. . .--Banana04131 18:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Every rule needs an exception. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose "Technically correct" and "user-friendly" are not always (or, quite possibly, ever) the same thing, and user-friendly is much more important in this case. Moving the page would cause a lot of problems and not solve any, so there is no reason to move it. The main page isn't an encyclopedia article so we don't need to be correct about the name. Koweja 18:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That the main page isn't an encyclopaedia article is the very rationale given above in favour of the move. Given that altering the "Main Page" link in the navigation side bar would be a concomitant part of any such move, please describe what other user-friendliness issue you are alluding to. Uncle G 20:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. You must be joking me. The main page gets three million views per day. Much of that probably comes from links directly to the main page (bookmarks, etc). Making it into a redirect would cause the "redirect from" crap to display for tons of people. Also, the main page doesn't belong in the Wikipedia namespace. As others have said, it is part of the encyclopedia. --- RockMFR 02:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to clear things up, the software would be changed to point to Wikipedia:Main page, so there would be NO redirects. —Mets501 (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Skyraider. —EdGl 03:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It'd be one thing if Wikipedia had just started, but since Wikipedia is one of the top-visited sites of the Internet, I think that changing it could wreak havoc. Also, using similiar logic, should Google change its home page to http://web.google.com, to match with convention of other Google services, such as http://images.google.com and http://video.google.com ? If and only if something notable enough to merit an article with the title "Main Page," it is then we should move it. Until that time, it isn't sensible. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 05:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. No real benefit to a move: the page is linked from everywhere, so we would need a cross-namespace redirect anyways. Besides, if we moved it, what would take it's place? A redlink? No, thanks. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We wouldn't need a redirect if we fixed all of the links. Uncle G 13:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per all the above. I think everyone's made better points than I could make. Ral315 (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose No way you can justify removing url of a page which is direct linked to as the MediaWiki standard, which implies a permanent XNSR, and whats the benefit of that? And on this page not being an encyclopedic page, it has far more encyclopedic content than Wikipedia: space pages do. Unnecessary wikilawyering I say. Ansell 06:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

As others have explained, there is no MediaWiki standard and it doesn't affect the Foundation or Meta. Other wikis already do it. Portal:Main Page is also an idea. This isn't wikilawyering. It's about doing what makes the most sense, is most consistent and is simpliest and easiest to understand. The fact remains, Main Page clear isn't an encylopaedic article no matter how much encyclopaedic content it may have Nil Einne 14:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Main Page is not an article but the overwhelming links to the page means that it will have to stay. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a wiki. Links can be altered. Uncle G 13:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Bad idea. Let's move on. --Ligulem 09:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't supposed to be a simple vote. Could you explain why it's a bad idea? Nil Einne 14:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 10:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, no, this is fine. Terence Ong 10:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

But does that mean we shouldn't change it if the alternative is better? Nil Einne 14:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per Skyraider RHB 13:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Who said it isn't broke? Nil Einne 14:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Another type

I suppose Portal:Main page would also be out of the question? Simply south 00:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

See sv:Portal:Huvudsida. It makes more sense to me than the Wikipedia name space; the main page is like the main portal. // habj 15:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Location of move request

Somehow I don't think this is the best place for this move request. They normally appear on the talk pages for their associated articles so that those interested in the respective articles will take a look at the move request. But everybody reads the Main Page. We are polling nearly every visitor that chooses to come by... longtime editors and one-time readers alike. I understand that nearly everyone is allowed to !vote, but the idea behind the move request (Wikipedia-space vs. mainspace) is not a trivial concept the average fly-by reader would understand. I predict us getting an exceptionally large amount of !votes from uninformed visitors. That would not be helpful in resolving this issue. -- tariqabjotu 03:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It might not be helpful because there would be a large volume of such !votes that would make this discussion quite long, but the outcome of this discussion will be based on consensus and not the number of !votes, so I don't think it can really be that detrimental. Dar-Ape 16:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Its ironic that they may not even understand the logic behind the whole idea in the first place. Especially this nonsense about "!vote" (ie, not-vote). It is clear that votes happen, much to the disgust of some it seems. If the average reader wants the page to stay here who are you to say they should be ignored? It all comes down to the number of votes in the end. Consensus is just another word for super-majority after all. Of course, campaigning for your "cause" could make all the difference. Keep up the effort and dont you dare look at improving an encyclopedia article :-O... 59.167.118.99 08:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it's looks like we haven't actually been getting that many votes from the uninformed and new users. But extremely sad to say, we have been getting a lot of no votes from experiences users :-( Nil Einne 14:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Practical implications?

I can understand the meta/theoretical argument for this proposed change, but apart from serving perfect consistency, is it anticipated that it would have any practical effects on the site or on users, good or bad? (The only effect I can think of is that edits to mainpage talk would be in a different category for the edit counter, but that is hardly a big deal.) Newyorkbrad 04:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally think it will be easier for users to understand the purpose and intention of the Main Page and also how wikipedia works if we use Portal:Main Page/Wikipedia:Main Page Nil Einne 13:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In the hypothetical

tariqabjotu's hypothetical, though intended in jest, touches on something important. Given all of the really strange and odd things people name books, films, music, etc., I'm actually pretty surprised that no one has ever used such a fairly common phrase for anything else. And what if someone did? Would the main page have a dab link? –  Anþony  talk  08:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Meta / Foundation

An interesting proposal but one must ask what implications for the foundation such a move would entail, I remember it was a significant effort to alter the side bar recently. I dont think that consideration to mirrors, or other sites that just feed off our efforts is a valid reason to not consider the move. As for internal changes a bot could be run to correct redirects, though it would consume a few resources for a couple of days and produce significant increases in watchlist sizes while it was occuring. Gnangarra 09:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• There aren't any implications for the Wikimedia Foundation. Indeed, some other Foundation projects already have their main pages in the project namespace, without affecting the Foundation one iota. The English Wiktionary has its main page at wikt:Wiktionary:Main Page, for example. Uncle G 19:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Target namespace

Considering what User:Midnighttonight said above, shouldn't this move be to something like Portal:Wikipedia? The Wikipedia namespace is usually for policy, help, and meta processes, but the Main Page much more like a portal into the encyclopedia. Dar-Ape 16:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

How do most people come to Wikipedia?

Do most people (not users) come via http://en.wikipedia.org or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page ? Are there any statistics for how many people get here via http://www.wikipedia.org ? Because if people are going via http://en.wikipedia.org or http://www.wikipedia.org they are already being redirected so it wouldn't hurt bookmarks (or typing in the address) so much. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 22:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

From my personal experience, I would say most non-editors don't know Wikipedia's URL and hence come via Google. The first link when "Wikipedia" is typed should be where most people go to. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I would guess people who do type in would type in en.wikipedia.org or www.wikipedia.org. Bookmarks would probably be en.wikipedia.org/Main_Page since thats what you would get whn you click add to bookmarks/favourites. Of course, booksmarks can easily be updated. I don't know about the load on the servers cause of the temporary redirects but I presume it won't be that great Nil Einne 14:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I always type in en.wikipedia.org on my address bar. But there are other ways to access Wikipedia:

• Directly going to a specific page on the address bar (example: to go to my userpage, I type http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ed skipping the Main Page altogether). This is useful if you want to check your messages/watchlist right away
• Typing in wikipedia.org and clicking on English
• Typing in en.wikipedia.org
• Going to a search engine (Google, Yahoo, etc.) and typing in Wikipedia

--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 18:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Standard Time

What time zone is Wikipedia run from? For example, I would assume that the featured stuff on the main page is changed around midnight, but midnight in what time zone? If there is no set time zone Wikipedia runs on, then that should be taken into consideration. Seldon1 04:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's servers are located in Florida, which is in the North American Eastern Time Zone, but Wikipedia uses Coordinated Universal Time as its default. —Cuiviénen 04:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I see. Hence "UTC," I suppose. Thanks. Seldon1 04:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, it changes when it's 4:00pm in Los Angeles (5p in the summer), 7:00pm in New York (8p in the summer), 9:00pm in Rio de Janeiro, 12:00am in London (1a in the summer), 1:00am in Paris (2a in the summer), 2:00am in Jerusalem, 3:00am in Moscow, 4:00am in Dubai, 5:30am in Mumbai, 7:00am in Bangkok, 8:00am in Beijing, 9:00am in Tokyo, 11:00am in Sydney (10a in the winter), 1:00pm in Wellington (12p in the winter). -- tariqabjotu 04:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I live in the UK and so my time zone is UTC, but everytime I make and edit say, 11:34pm, 22 Dec. and then I go to my Watchlist and Wikipedia tells me I made this edit on 12:34am, 23 Dec. AxG (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Check your preferences and set the time offset (in the date and time section) to zero. --Cherry blossom tree 15:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

During Daylight Savings Time, the UK does not observe UTC. —Cuiviénen 16:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed we do not. But we are in UTC at the moment – Gurch 23:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you reset your offset to 0 or not? Nil Einne 13:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I did. AxG (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Five Pillars

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Five pillars. --15:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

wikifying encyclopedia in subtitle

Can someone wikify it, as the page is protected? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lakinekaki (talk • contribs) 10:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

It was decided by past consensus that the link to Wikipedia which contains links to all the terms is enough. Having many links in the title was considered too cluttered. --Monotonehell 11:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Lakinekaki 11:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia globe image contains wrong devnagari symbol for "wi"

The wikipedia globe image contains wrong devnagari symbol for "wi". The correct one should be :
File:Devnagari logo.jpg

- Vishalmungi 14:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh. They're meant to be specific symbols? I thought they were just random letters from different alphabets – Gurch 14:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

They're all "W" or "Wi" sounds (or a close equivalent). I think there is a better place to bring this up, but I'm not sure where. —Cuiviénen 16:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to User:Ambuj.Saxena/Wikipedia-logo and its talk page.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 16:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Cyrillic one is "I" and the Greek one is "O". They're indeed random letters, not approximations of W. Zocky | picture popups 16:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This came up once before as the Japanese katakana at the top is "kwi" and someone thought "wi" was meant, as it's only one stroke away. It eventually came back that the letters were chosen pretty much randomly, though the "W" is confusing. - BanyanTree 17:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case, why did the logo creator choose "W" for the English letter?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 18:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Why not ask him? – Gurch 18:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The backstory is at meta:Meta:Historical/Logo history, though the actual meaning of the letters/characters is not mentioned. - BanyanTree 19:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

but the Devanagari symbol isn't even valid, it doesn't just not mean "vi", it is meaningless. Clearly, the creator intended vi but got it wrong (WP:COMPLEX). I do think this should be fixed, it is embarassing. dab (𒁳) 18:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Gerald Ford's death on In The News

Okay, first James Brown's death isn't important enough to qualify as news, and now Gerald Ford? Who was the last surviving member of the Warren Comission? A former President? Shame on you, Wikipedia.

You can begin the onslaught of technicalities now. NIRVANA2764 14:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically, Arlen Specter is the last surviving member of the Warren Commission. Having said that, I think Gerald Ford's death should be on ITN. I don't think James Brown's death should have been, but Ford is much more notable. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 14:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see it's up there now. :) NIRVANA2764 15:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What is/isn't notable is subjective, as many people on this site have claimed James Brown is more notable than Ford. That is why notability should be kept out of the discussion whenever possible. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-12-27 16:32Z

Furthermore, notability wasn't the only issue. James Brown was taken off ITN because his article was deemed inadequately updated. Please see various related discussions on Template talk:In the news. --PFHLai 17:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggested this news tidbit at about 12 midnight EST (05:00 UTC) on IRC, and there was some users who disagreed with it being put on there. I shrugged and guessed that the death of an American president was not worldwide enough to merit an ITN mention, and didn't add it. I guess I should have been bold and added it anyway, but I just figured I was an ignorant American. Oh well. What's past is past. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 21:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

100,000,000+ edits

I just noticed that users on English Wikipedia now have made 100,128,601 edits. --Camptown 16:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get that figure from? Simply south 16:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Statistics --Camptown 16:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Any idea on what the 100 millionth edit was? (Then again, that would be hard to find). Simply south 16:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember that day when we celebrated 1,500,000 articles? How did we calculate that?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 16:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone narrowed it down to three new stubs and then waited for two to be AFDed ;) --Monotonehell 17:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess we'll have to work our way back recent changes to determine the edit. =( Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 17:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yipes! Good luck. Simply south 17:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait! It says that there are 1,552,539 articles, not 100,000,000! Tennis DyNamiTe ^{(sign here)} 18:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

100,000,000 edits not articles. BTW the millionth article was measured exactly, unlike the 1.5 millionth. Prodego ^talk 18:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A NEGATIVE DONATION WAS JUST MADE

Your donation thing just dropped by 200 000 dollars. I saw this and did not know who to tell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Conrad.Irwin (talk • contribs) 21:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

There was a stock donation, apparently according to the live list of donations. They might have excluded this from the total, it could be phony, or some other reason. I'm sure we will find out what's going on within the hour. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, see my comment at WP:VPN#Massive_donation.3F. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 22:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I didn't even scroll down to see the whole picture, but I'm pretty sure whatever is at the bottom of the page is vandalism. ShadowUltra 23:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on the mainpage...again

I managed to scroll away before I saw much of it, but there's some sort of major vandalism on the main page. I remember this happened a few days ago. Can someone fix it? ...again? RememberMe? 23:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• How can the main page of wikipedia become vandalized? Flying Hamster 23:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Don't ask me, but it's been done before somehow. I think it's either a hacker, or they're editing a featured article before it gets protected. RememberMe? 23:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If someone hits a template that is transcluded on the Main Page, then the page can be vandalised. Nishkid64 23:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oh, well shouldn't that be easy to fix? RememberMe? 23:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It is, but this is a recurring problem. This is happening almost daily now. Something really needs to be done about this. ShadowUltra 23:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Yeah. I still can't see what has been vandalized though. Apparently, someone said it was DYK, but I know I protected the image before putting it on the Main Page (and yes, it was protected). Anyone know where this happened? Nishkid64 00:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Shit. It was on the DYK. It was {{Baseball Year}} which I had used for my DYK on Guy Bush. Sorry. =( Nishkid64 00:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)