Talk:Main Page

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Newsmare (talk | contribs) at 01:18, 5 January 2007 (→‎So what happened?: cox). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Today's featured picture

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

Main Page and beyond

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

Main page discussion

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

Template:Main Page discussion footer


Happy new CE

Since it's some kind of abitary milestone today and the talk page was very large, I've archived the whole thing to wipe the slate. If anyone was having an ongoing discussion that they want to continue they can cut it out of the archive and paste it back here. --Monotonehell 20:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bit late, you should have done it 10 hours ago.. Nil Einne 10:02, 1 January 2007 (NZDT UTC+13)
Meh; call me politically incorrect but I'm using the AD calender till the day I die. DoomsDay349 21:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Just for no reason, should we poll whether the topic should be called "AD" or "CE"? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note, does anyone know if it's true that Muslims are opposed to BC/AD as the CE article claims? I've never noticed much opposition to the terms in Malaysia, I suspect many people have never even heard of BCE/CE. Presumably the Gregorian calendar is of no religious concern to Muslims, the Islamic calendar is the ones that matters. The term BC is also not problematic as they acknowledge Christ as a prophet. AD is more problematic but I guess for many it's just a recognition that the Gregorian calendar is not the Islamic calendar. From what I've seen anyway, it appears to be primarily Jewish people that object to CE/BCE and Western secularists but there doesn't actually seem to be so much objection to the terms from Asians, Arabs and Africans who aren't Christians. (Indeed I wonder whether some Muslims consider BCE/CE 'Jewish' terms.) But my experience is somewhat limited. Nil Einne 10:37, 1 January 2007 (NZDT UTC+13)
Don't you mean 3 hours early (UTC)?  ;) --Monotonehell 21:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the news is a bit bias

== A a car bomb exploded Kufa in southern Iraq killing 30 and another bomb in a busy market of Baghdad kills another 36. Yet that doesn't make the news. Instead a car bomb exploding in Madrid, a western country, makes the news even though only 26 were killed. I understand that in the news in only for articles that we have...but maybe we should be making those articles. Pseudoanonymous 21:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC) ==:Hundreds of car bombs explode in Iraq every year. When one does, its not news, its generally considered the status quo. They're not nearly as common in Madrid, so when a bomb explodes there, its big news. This would be similar to the case of someone finding a big nugget of gold in a gold mine (not news) to someone finding the same nugget of gold in a totally new area (gold rush). — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 21:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When was the last time a bomb exploded in Madrid? --Ineffable3000
See 2004 Madrid train bombings Raul654 01:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, not true ([1]). User:Zoe|(talk) 21:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, articles go onto ITN when an article receives significant updates. Whenever a car bombing occurs in article, there problem is not a significant update to an article, since it's so commonplace. However, I would like to note that the bombings in Sadr City on November 23, 2006, did make it to ITN because of the new article – Sadr City bombings – that was created. -- tariqabjotu 01:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 isn't as big a deal as it is being made out to be.--HamedogTalk|@ 07:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per Hamedog although Wikipedia:Home page seems to a better title for me. --Howard the Duck 07:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • You know you're a Wikiholic when... you compare moving the Main Page to abolishing slavery. -- tariqabjotu 22:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Association_fallacy -- Rafy 00:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • Conditional Support the implications to meta,foundation, and other language wikipedias are assessed/address before implmentation. Gnangarra 09:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Cheers for using my thoughts in your vote!--HamedogTalk|@ 01:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support as long as this is discussed on meta and with other Wikipedias.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 15:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support - Main Page is not an article, and shold go in the Wikipedia space. 0L1 | Talk | Contribs 11:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The main page definitely should not go in the main namespace, since its not an article. A lot of the oppose votes seem to talk about the move being too much of a problem, or not worth the amount of work it would take. I think that positive revisions on Wikipedia should be made regardless of how much work it entails. The end result is what we need to strive for here. --Kevin (TALK) 00:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per OL1. Move shouldn't be much of a problem, people just need to update bookmarks. --75.26.8.194 03:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per OL1 I don't see the harm in this. --Tohru Honda13Sign here! 03:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Strong Support - Absolutely move it, but put it in Portal:Main Page, definitely not Wikipedia:Main Page. It is, after all, a portal, not an article nor a Wikipedia-information-related page. Encyclopedic integrity is much more important than a minor inconvenience for some people. If this issue is not addressed now, it will continue to be in the future, again and again, until the move happens. Let us just get it over with now.--TomI edit my userpage too much, 06:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but I prefer Portal:Main Page. The main page is clearly a portal both in layout and contents. The layout of the main page is very similar to the other portals (Portal:Technology, Portal:Sweden, Portal:Mathematics, etc). Jeltz talk 10:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, though I also prefer Portal:Main Page.Mowens35 21:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose. Ain't broke. Don't fix it.--Skyraider 04:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who said it isn't broke? Nil Einne 14:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose per Skyraider. Naconkantari 04:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it is broke, so surely we should fix it? Nil Einne 14:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. PullToOpenTalk 04:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose - My views echo those of tariqabjotu Rafy 04:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Simpler URLs are better. -/- Warren 04:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Why change what isn't broken? —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it is broken. That's why people want to change it... Nil Einne 14:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Can you imagine how many links would have to be fixed? Yikes. --Woohookitty(meow) 06:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose - not to mention double redirects... MER-C 09:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose, a solution in search of a problem. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 09:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Tariqabjotu, Skyraider and Warren. --Ouro 13:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But Skyraider said it isn't broken and it is broken... Nil Einne 14:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Oppose Naming conventions are not that important. . .--Banana04131 18:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Every rule needs an exception. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose per Skyraider. —EdGl 03:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • We wouldn't need a redirect if we fixed all of the links. Uncle G 13:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • How are we going to fix the links pointing from external sites in? Titoxd(?!?) 23:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all the above. I think everyone's made better points than I could make. Ral315 (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose Main Page is not an article but the overwhelming links to the page means that it will have to stay. GizzaChat © 08:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a wiki. Links can be altered. Uncle G 13:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Bad idea. Let's move on. --Ligulem 09:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 10:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, no, this is fine. Terence Ong 10:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But does that mean we shouldn't change it if the alternative is better? Nil Einne 14:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per Skyraider RHB 13:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who said it isn't broke? Nil Einne 14:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whats wrong with it as it is? It changes dynamically every day, its entire content. What is we have a band/political party/famous person called Main Page? We stick a disambig link at the top? RHB 00:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose as per everyone else here. Someone tell me this is a joke. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 00:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, as per everyone else. Timrollpickering 01:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - not something we should be worried about. --Ineffable3000 02:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this vote is stupid. -- Zanimum 17:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is called main page, because it's the site's main page. Equivalent to a index.htm file. This is a clear case of where WP:IAR comes into play. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, as they say. --SunStar Nettalk 19:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A complex and major change with no real benefit other than conforming to an arbitrary standard. - SimonP 22:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose besides all of the difficulties mentioned above, I don't think this is even the right place to go. This page is really more like a portal into Wikipedia. Dar-Ape 22:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because that would still be the wrong namespace. As discussed below, this is a Portal. Matchups 02:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Clearly, the main page is the Main Page. I don't see how this warrants any discussion. Mrmaroon25 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I see no point to this. Wikipedia is created for the readers, remember that. What might be better for us and our over-bureaucratic policies is not always better for the readers. The stuff in mainspace is meant to be seen, it's the encyclopedia part. Everyone sees the main page. I just see no good point to move it. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's good as it is!!! Pseudoanonymous 21:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Has some one not got better things to think about? 87.113.82.36 15:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Consistency for consistency's sake is unnecessary and futile, in this case. Natgoo 16:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per many of the arguments above. — ceejayoz talk 17:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The main page will always be a special case of one sort or another. To people with particularly narrow points of view special cases are _always_ "Wrong" in some way. The main page is legitimately a special case. There is no point to perpetually juggling it unless it's actually causing a problem. APL 21:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong opose Due to the fair use of copyrighted images on the main page loophole (see below) --Monotonehell 21:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose-per everyone--Randalllin 22:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The main page IS part of the encyclopedia. It is the cover; just like the lovely leather-bound cover of the encyclopedias on my book-shelf. You can't use leather on a website; so you make a page showcasing some of the best of the contents to be found inside. 70.231.126.33 03:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unnecessary jumbling up of things. I agree with the above-mentioned sentiments - lets fix what is broke instead. --Ezeu 04:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose it is not in article namespace. It is different namespace called main page. So there is no issue to make requested move. Shyam (T/C) 20:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the main page is in article name space. That is a fact. Name spaces are for example "Wikipedia:", "Template:", "Portal:". Since there is nothing such in the beginning of the title of this page it is in article name space. Jeltz talk 11:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. per all above. —dima/s-ko/ 21:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Care

  • Right Here Just H 03:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To all of those opposing this move who have voted to remove all other Wikipedia namespace redirects from unambiguous non-namespace terms: be consistent and support this move too. —  AjaxSmack  06:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it matter? dposse 22:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This whole conversation is an argument over a fairly trivial suggestion. There's nothing terribly wrong with the main page, it's not broken, and nothing would happen if it were to be moved, though there would be no real reason to move it in the first place. Unless someone is going to create an encyclopedic article about "Main Page", there's no reason to move the page. Most people are smart enough to figure out that the Main Page is not an article. No one's going to be confused about the purpose or mission of the encyclopedia because of the Main Page. I give credit to the human population as a whole and I trust that they are smart enough to figure out what the Main Page is. Moving the Main Page to a Portal: or Wikipedia: namespace is unnecessary, as most people using the encyclopedia will not care where the Main Page is -- they'll just pass right past it on the way to the information they need. Although Wikipedia editors might disagree, we must take into account the interests of the encyclopedia users over the interests of the encyclopedia editors. And about the issue of redirects and double redirects, that's a trifling issue. If there are any, they'll be easily and quickly discovered and fixed, given the prominence of the main page in Wikipedia. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 01:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do people even realize that all of these support/oppose votes count for nothing? All that can possibly matter is the discussion below. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-01 21:48Z
  • The only reason I'm writing this is to express my discontent at ever having bothered to read it. Couldn't time be better spent than arguing over something that doesn't matter? Trebor 22:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Do you think i should put up a seperate WP:RM to propose to move this to Portal:Main page or Portal:Wikipedia, or not really? Simply south 02:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I would say yes, but judging from the oppose comments above, I would say that too many people are resistant to any change at all. —Mets501 (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the looks of it, a few oppose votes agree on that this a portal. Simply south 15:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about inserting Template:Moveoptions or do you think this would be a bad idea? Simply south 22:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Current events is at a Portal, this suggestion makes sense. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who has done that and how, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Main_page seems to be a perfect alias already. Checked it with http://web-sniffer.net/. Seems not even to be a http redirect. So, whoever wants the main page at Portal:Main page: just use it :-). --Ligulem 10:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Main_page works too. Does that mean the main page is effectively in 3 namespaces ;) --Nilfanion (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems we already have:
--Ligulem 12:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the "main name" (hehe :-) of the main page is defined by MediaWiki:mainpage. So that name is used if I click on any of the edit tabs on one of the listed "pages" (that is, I currently always get http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=edit when clicking on the edit tab on any of them). So it seems all we are talking about here is: "What do we want to have in the address bar?" of the users browsers. Maybe some consulting with the devs/brion would be in order as well (but I fear they might find this main page naming discussion a bit strange... :-). --Ligulem 12:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above pages are just normal redirects. The main page uses some special CSS to prevent "(Redirected from _____)" from appearing. Nothing special. --- RockMFR 22:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Swedes have sv:Portal:Huvudsida and sv:Huvudsida. Their MediaWiki:mainpage is [2]. So they have "Portal" on the first tab on top. --Ligulem 12:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Consensus does not mean super-majority, it means agreement. The way we (attempt to) reach agreement is through discussion and argument. Consensus is reached when the discussion reaches a conclusion. Sometimes this doesn't happen and no-concensus is reached. It's not about weight of votes, it's about weight of argument. --Monotonehell 12:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I thought of this too. Though having Portal:Wikipedia be about Wikipedia itself (kind of like where it leads to now) is also not a bad idea. Jason McHuff 02:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. GizzaChat © 08:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

    • I've been typing en.wikipedia.org for 2.5 years, and oddly, i can type en.wikipedia.org in 1.12 seconds according to my computer. Faster than at the typing rate I use for my own name. —ExplorerCDT 01:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can always change your name to en.wikipedia.org. You might get in the signpost, but i'd watch out for legal actions by the foundation. Just H 03:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In firefox, simply typing wiki in the adress bar will take you to wikipedia's main page. For me that is even faster than using bookmarks. --WS 01:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]



I just found wiki. All I do is type in wiki and it will give me options. Ricky

Interesting examples

I'm pretty sure it isn't uncommon that sites change their layout so the main or front page address changes. But when this happens, the people who own the site don't seem to panic or go into crisis simply because some external links will now point to the wrong address (and we still don't really know how many external links actually direct to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page anyway). All of them seem to handle it fine. For example, I believe Microsoft changes it resonably often. I'm pretty sure that one of http://www.microsoft.com/index.htm or http://www.microsoft.com/index.html was a valid link at one stage and the main Microsoft page. But guess what? It's no longer a valid link. What does this say to all those convinced we will have to maintain en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page in perpetuity as a redirect to whatever we decide on in perpuity because of external links? I would actually think it a good either to maintain en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page as a redirect until and unless we have a reason to make the page a disambig of something but not because of external links. Simply because it makes sense! Nil Einne 18:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The New Zealand Parliament changed its site from being http://www.parliament.govt.nz to http://www.parliament.nz with little problems (and that was far more than just the main page). As long as you keep a working redirect (for a while), there won't be much problem. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 22:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use

If we acknowledge that the main page is just another portal like all others, then how will Raul654 be able to continue using fair use images for his featured articles. Currently the only reason we allow the fair use images is because of this little cheating where we claim that since the main page is in the article namespace allowing fair use was ok. If it was a portal that would become a problem, just see Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals, which is clearly not going to be adopted any time soon. Personally I feel this is a hypocritical situation (Why would it be ok here, but not on Portal:Computer and video games). The fair use images are actually already in Wikipedia namespace, but are transcluded here. For example:

Sigh, this is one of discussions that's bound to go on forever and never actually see any action because people here never agree about anything. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-2 19:49

That's a clintcher for me. Before this point was put forward I hadn't seen any argument that swayed me either way. --Monotonehell
See also: Talk:Main Page/Archive 87 § About the proposed move

Happy new year

Happy new year Wikipedia! :-) —Mets501 (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What obvious bias using a Gregorian calendar! As a true Wikipedian, you are now obligated to wish us Happy New Year at least a dozen more times. Dragons flight 00:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too true. HNY Simply south 00:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC) (Not sure on how order got mixed Simply south 00:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC) )[reply]
And don't forget timezones. It's been New Year in some places for 13 hours now; others won't see 2007 for a further 12 – Gurch 00:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sould be 11, otherwise adds up to 25 hours. Simply south 00:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are 25 time zones, excluding the half-hour time zones. The International Date Line, if it went straight north to south, would bisect a time zone, making 25 time zones. (The time zones are 0, +1 to +12, and -1 to -12.) —Cuiviénen 01:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Time zone bias! I live in one of those half hour timezones and I don't appreciate being excluded! ;) --Monotonehell 04:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually UTC+13 does exist, partially because of DST in NZ and so does UTC+14 (because one country decided they wanted to see the millenium first). Nil Einne 14:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*cough* Chinese New Year's *cough* Vranak
*Aachteee* Norouz .... --64.229.226.252
Wikipedia uses UTC, so it is now 2007. --Kalmia 00:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GEEK! :P JACOPLANE • 2007-01-1 00:38
Here's to world domination in 2007 by Nishkid and his Imperial Army in the new year! Btw, I created 4th article (Cecil F. White) of 2007. Nishkid64 01:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year using EST standard time!that_guy 05:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, you might wanna find some sources, otherwise that has some POV...Cameron Nedland 02:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new year notice?

can we have a notice on the main page that wishes people happy new year?

New Year's Day is mentioned in Today's Anniversaries. It isn't the New Year everywhere, and, even if it was, Wikipedia's purpose is not to celebrate even secular holidays. —Cuiviénen 01:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images not loading

When I go on Wikipedia, images won't load, only images already in my cache can I see. Thanks for any help —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.19.12.207 (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It's probably because of your internet connection. I doubt that it has anything to do with the site.--Azer Red Si? 02:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am running a broadband connection and I stopped loading images after viewing a huge page. Do you know how to fix this? It works now. Just had to wait a couple hours.--208.19.12.207 07:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main page image vandalism again?

Just a little while ago someone posted a pic of a bloody vagina on the main page (probably the same loser who posted that mutilated penis pic a week or so ago). I'm guessing that this was done by adding it to an unprotected template that was used on the main page. A bot that automatically protects all templates used on the main page would certainly be a good idea. I'm even thinking that it might be a good idea to semi-protect all templates by default, since template vandalism can show up on hundreds of pages at once, and that way, even if one of the main page templates is left not fully protected by accident it will likely prevent vandalism to it.--Azer Red Si? 02:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval#ProtectionBot and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval#Shadowbot2. Sprotecting probably won't do much, only determined vandals vandalise templates I would think. --WikiSlasher 04:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also consider the following The pentultimate!!1-11 solution to vandalism --Monotonehell 04:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What template was affected this time? I'm just wondering because I tried to work out from the recent changes log but couldn't :-P Nil Einne 14:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a huge teletubbies image on the main page... it links to an article on penis.--Gonzalo84 00:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrej Nadrah

Andrej Nadrah (born June 27, 1968) is Slovenian citizen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Si05400 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Any drive by admins want to SpeedyD (G1 A1?) this guy's contributions? --Monotonehell 10:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have put a speedy tag on the article. AxG (talk) (sign here) 10:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Wiki indexes.

I think the main page is biased towards the Wikipedia and its sister projects only. It makes no reference to the other Wiki projects around the world (It may look like it but they are all sister projects). The Wikipedia talk about a neutral POV, but the main page points to internal links only. Even the second level pages do the same.

For the Wikipedia to loose its bias I think it need to address external wiki issue.

I just visited a great wiki called -- Removed spam Monotonehell 10:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC) -- that carries a list of all the Wiki's submitted sites. That could be one option. Its unbiased and lists anybody who cares to add a discovered wiki to the project.[reply]

The other option is to link to a wikipedia internal page that list indexes of external sites, like the one mentioned.

Personally I'm not biased one way or the other, but I do think it would make the main page a great place as a home page for knowledge. Right now it biased and lacks that universalness a really good porthole has. --155.143.214.10 10:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not a collection of external links or Internet directories That's Google and similar's job. The links to the sister projects are because they and Wikipedia are all under the same Wikimeta umbrella. Many marketers would love to get their promotions onto wikipedia simply because of the high google ranking. If we put one link on the main page, we'd have to let EVERYONE onto the main page, that would be bias. --Monotonehell 10:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say, "It makes no reference to the other Wiki projects around the world (It may look like it but they are all sister projects)." This is not true. The term "sister" in this context – for example "sister project" or "sister publication" – has a particular meaning; it refers to a project (or publication, or whatever), operated, managed or administered by the same organization. So Wikipedia's "sister projects" comprise the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, all of which are listed at the bottom of the Main Page. Other wikis on the Internet are very definitely not sister projects, even if they look the same (this means they just happen to use the same wiki software – MediaWiki – which is open-source and can be used by anyone) – Gurch 11:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a link should be added to Wikia, though. They aren't technically affiliated with the Wikimedia foundation, but Jimbo Wales did found it, and I think he still oversees it. --Grand Slam 7 | Talk 01:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia is a commercial, for-profit organization; the Wikimedia foundation is a non-profit organization. Linking to Wikia is a bad idea – it would be almost as bad as advertising – Gurch 15:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained Basque link

At the top of the "in other languages" bar, there's a link to eu:Txantiloi:Urtarrila 1. What's all that about? --AdamSommerton 18:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that an interwiki link on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January 1 was not enclosed within the <noinclude> tag. This has been fixed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help needed

Hello, please help to change all image links of Image:Wiki letter w.png to the .svg version Image:Wiki letter w.svg. After all links are changed, the .png version can be deleted on commons. Thank you. --GeorgHH 19:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting to it with MetsBot. —Mets501 (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually, I don't think there are any uses except in the template {{sectstub}}, which has been changed, but I'll wait for the image file links to update before I'm certain about that. —Mets501 (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Image:Wiki letter w.png is not a speedily deletion candidate at the Commons (and I've noted this in a message on GeorgHH's talk page there). Quoth Erik Möller (now a member of Wikimedia's Board of Trustees) regarding Commons policy: "'Obsolete' images should indeed no longer be deleted except where they're orphaned and there's clearly no opposition." There doesn't appear to have been a deletion discussion, and some users generally oppose the deletion of "superseded" images. —David Levy 22:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If those images are used in those templates, shouldn't they be protected? Also, what links here doesn't show the image beng used in {{sectstub}}, though it is there. What's going on? Carcharoth 01:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

problem with Recent deaths

I'm not sure if this is a good place to report this, but this is about a page that is linked from the main page and this is a pretty busy page. Recent deaths should redirect to Deaths in 2007 now, and I changed the redirect, yet it still redirects to Deaths in 2006. Why could this be? Thanks. Academic Challenger 23:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you needed to bypass your cache, but it certainly redirects properly now. -- tariqabjotu 23:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knee Cartilage

I am looking for information about cartilage related issues to teh knee Nbaldanz 11:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles Knee, Cartilage and Knee cartilage replacement therapy may be of help --Melburnian 11:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the future, such questions are answered at the Wikipedia:Reference desk, not here. —Cuiviénen 17:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although even at the reference desk, we expect question askers to try and find information themselves first. Nil Einne 16:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible vandalism / Forced Redirect

Is anyone else being redirected to Charitable organizations if he/she clicks within the search bar? This problem seems to be persisting even if I purge my cache and reload. Any ideas as to cause? Kaushik twin 15:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R.E

hey wikipedia

this is the best information website in the world because it has lots of things from buisness to the national flag and alot more.

thankyou

Miss Mulla

p.s sign your name:

It definitely is. =) Nishkid64 22:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is. Seldon1 18:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First article

Just out of curiosity, what was the first article ever to be written on Wikipedia? -Halibut Thyme

Go to Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles. There is a saved version of a particularly old one called UuU (i think) and another one at ThomasEdison. You will have to click back on the redirect and look at the history. Simply south 16:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

Shouldent we have werdernabot archive this page? FirefoxMan 19:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That might be helpful. How many days should it wait before archiving?--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 19:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about 1 week? Simply south 20:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's about time. Tennis DyNamiTe (sign here) 19:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor question

Does all vandalism have to be marked as minor? Simply south 20:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you reckon that vandalism is a minor problem, then doing such would be appropriate. Vranak 21:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism should generally be marked as a major edit and summarized with "blanked the page" so that it can be reverted easily. Vandals can save time all round by issuing themselves with a final warning and then reporting themselves to WP:AIV so they can be blocked – Gurch 21:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have also put this q on the help desk. Simply south 21:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you meant reverting vandalism. Completely different thing. Consensus leans toward doing so: 55% of all vandalism reverts are marked as minor – Gurch 21:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait,where did you get those stats from? I had trouble finding them on Wikipedia:Statistics. Simply south 22:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism reverts are marked as minor because they make no changes to the page except to reverse patently bad changes. They do not need to show up as major edits. —Centrx→talk • 22:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that cause problems for anyone who chooses to ignore minor edits if the vandalism is is marked as major? Not that I know anyone who ignores minor edits, seeing how some vandals mark their edits as minor in the hope of not being noticed. Actually in today's climate I don't see the point in a minor edit checkbox. Back when we were civilised maybe. Having said that, I do use the minor check box... --Monotonehell 22:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I use the minor check in a vain attempt to get my last 150 ones up to 100% edit summary. Doesn't seem to be working though. Do edit summaries like "typo" get ignored? (I know, I know, use spellcheckers and the preview button...) Carcharoth 01:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of my edits can be classed as one of two things: minor, or very minor. I don't select "minor" for minor edits, but I do select it for very minor edits – Gurch 16:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading

Is it possible to upload a video file (mpeg file) or a music file (wav or wma file)? If so, how do you do it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bob the ducq (talk • contribs) 21:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

See Wikipedia:Media help. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-2 21:09
No. Wikipedia:Media help is for playing files found on Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Media is for generating and uploading them Raul654 21:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't that be at Help:Media instead of Wikipedia:Media help? Zocky | picture popups 23:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The help namespace is for mediawiki related issues. And regardless, help:Media redirects to Media help. Raul654 23:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quick answer BTW is NO. We accepted video files and audio files but not MPEG or WMA because of patent issues. (WAV is uncompressed and we don't accept uncompressed because of size. Loseless compressed might be acceptable but not uncompressed. Technically of course you can give a MP3 and other formats a RIFF WAV header but I'm assuming you mean a normal WAV here). We greatly prefer open standard and patent unencumbered formats. Since Ogg Vorbis (and the other audio formats) and Ogg Theora (for video) are free from such issues and are more or less able to do whatever MPEG and WMA can do, they are preferred. GIF is patented format that we grundingly accept because it's currently the only format suitable for animations, although IIRC the GIF/LZW patents have all expired now anyway so it isn't an issue anymore Nil Einne 16:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I noticed from your talk page you may not totally understand our copyright policies. Take a while to read them as all uploaded content must obey them. If you didn't create the video or audio yourself, don't upload it unless you properly understand them and have received the necessary permissions Nil Einne 16:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Misinformation

On the home page it says anyone can edit. This is not the case with an increasing number of pages and with the main page itself. Seens as though you lot always bang on about misinformation whats the deal here? 86.142.89.192 17:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any one can edit the encyclopedia. Nowhere does it say that anyone can edit every page. Koweja 18:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'r totally right, mann User:Some random —The preceding manually signed comment was added by 86.142.89.192 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Spazbox. Blahhhhh —The preceding manually signed comment was added by 86.142.89.192 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The only time a person is utterly unable to edit (without resorting to extraordinary measures) is if they're blocked and banned with a protected user page. But, even then they can e-mail anyone who has filled in their e-mail address. So, there's no such thing as being excommunicated from Wikipedia. Vranak

A form of being "excommunicated" from Wikipedia is if you are indefinitely blocked.--CJ King 23:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not misinformation. It's true that anyone can edit any page here. Just that on certain pages, one must earn the trust of his/her colleagues before editing. --199.71.174.100 00:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of articles that have been fully protected to stop edit wars, administrators shouldn't actually be editing those either, unless it's something uncontroversial (e.g. spelling), or an edit that reflects a new consensus among all editors (admin and non-admin).
Articles that are semi-protected can't be edited by those without accounts or those with very new accounts, but as long as you're capable of filling in a username and password and don't have 3 days or less to live, then "anyone can edit" is still true. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RSS feed symbols

Given the high frequency of RSS feeds on the net, perhaps the Main Page should be better at noting that they exist for several of the items. By placing a feed icon within the FA and FP (DYK, OTD and ITN are currently feedless) boxes, the feeds would become better known. Of course, on clicking the feed icon (a feed icon), the page opened would have to be the feed itself (or at least Wikipedia:Syndication). I don't know about the technical aspect of actually linking to the feeds (as far as I know, clicking on an image must open the image's page), so maybe it is an idea for the future. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 03:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked WikiNews - they use
<span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:70%;text-align:right;">[http://feeds.feedburner.com/WikinewsLatestNews <span class="rss">RSS</span>]</span>
on their main page to produce
RSS
might be an idea. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 08:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madrid bomb update

Unfortunately, we now have the first confirmed fatality of the explosion. One of the missing men was finally found dead inside his vehicle: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Carlos/Palate/murio/asfixiado/aplastado/minutos/despues/atentado/Barajas/elpepuesp/20070104elpepunac_1/Tes The other one is still missing. Could anyone please update the info in the main page, so that it now reads something like '...leaving 1 killed, 26 injured and 1 missing', or something like that? Thanks Raystorm 13:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect term used AGAIN

Forgive the capitalisation, but it now seems as if Wikipedia's being lax. Almost every single time there's an article making mention of something to do with England, it's referred to as Great Britain, or the United Kingdom. Even if one considered this dubiously fine, it's usually being done before 1707, and the union between England and Scotland.

Today's article on the main page referring to the burning of the palace of Whitehall says "English Monarchy," and links to the British Monarchy page! The British Monarchy won't even exist for another nine years from that date of destruction!

I feel like I'm posting the same thing every single time. If it's before 1603, the it's England and Scotland seperately (Obviously not the War of the Three Kingdoms period under Cromwell's forced unification).If it's after 1603 but before 1707 then It's England and Scotland under one crown. If it's after 1707 then England and Scotland together are the Kingdom of Great Britain.

With all due respect, it's beginning to seem like some individuals know fully well what they should be writing, but don't.

Cheers.

Kaenei 15:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English monarchy goes to List of English monarchs. British monarchy is the appropriate article content-wise, as it discusses the pre-UK history as well, regardless of quibbles over terminology. — ceejayoz talk 17:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donation Template

I see that the green bar on the donation template on the top continues to move to the right. Is this signifing how close Wikipedia is to reaching its goal amount of money? What is their goal? It must be over a million and a half. Seldon1 18:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The goal is 1.5 million, and yes the bar fills up as the campaign reaches its goal. Koweja 18:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page Vandalism

Someone has managed to change the main page so that it appears as a large picture of the teletubbies... Just so we know.CaseKid 00:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I'm too slow. You guys are too fast for me. CaseKid 00:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tellie Tubbies!!!

What is a gigantic picture of the Tellitubbies doing on the Mainpage?! (Vandalism, I know, but how???) Isn't the page protected? This is terrible! | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 00:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

We appear to have a vandal ... Mrmaroon25 00:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this time it seemed to be dealt with very quickly, unlike some of the other recent ones. Is there anything a non-admin like myself can do to get rid of something like that, even though we can't edit the main page?Rgrizza 00:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what happened?

Admins--what happened? -Nicktalk 00:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AHAH even though i despise vandals it was pretty funny, it linked to penis. thuglastalk|edits 00:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:POTD image/2007-01-05 was vandalized after a certain sysop boldly decided to change the entire POTD template system. --- RockMFR 00:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any tellie tubbies or a large penis there; what exactly happened? | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 00:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So... who's the vandal?--Gonzalo84 00:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm the only one who saw the mutilated penis in addition to the teletubbies Regularjohn 00:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no one else was it, aside from all the others who have complained. :-) | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 00:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that it seems like everyone is complaining about the teletubbies, which was nothing compared to the penis. Regularjohn 01:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Internet. Aclimatised users drift soporifically through the barrage of fleshtoned images. The vividity of the teletubbies however... deeply jarring. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 01:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. I did see it, but I had already complained about the tellie tubbies. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 01:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

did wikipedia got hacked?

omg cant believe it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.6.103.249 (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No, why would you think so? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you didn't see the huge Tellitubies picture that linked to the penis article?

I did, look at the comments above. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 00:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think i saw something that what i believe is a *ahem* but its gone now

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=98545583"