Jump to content

Talk:Main Page/Archive 107

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 100←Archive 105Archive 106Archive 107Archive 108Archive 109Archive 110


10 million pages

The English-language Wikipedia now contains 10,006,232 pages in total, including articles (1,973,184), redirects, discussion pages, image description pages, user profile pages, templates, help pages, portals, articles without links to other articles, and pages for Wikipedia administration. ---Majestic- 08:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This should be on the Signpost, not this talkpage for the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.126.83 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ten million? That's OVER 9000!!!! --- RockMFR 19:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

????Tourskin 05:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What? Nine thousand? --Maxamegalon2000 21:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
He's right. It is, after all, over 9,000. 67.41.178.66 22:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Extraordinary, I did not realize. But did ever coem to you that theres an infinite amount of numbers less than 10 million?Tourskin 08:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing that was the point. There's nothing special about 10 million just as there's nothing special about 9000 Nil Einne 12:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah but choosing 9,999,999 is, to me, more to the point since the difference is one.Tourskin 07:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Anyways, unlike the 2 million article, which kinda makes a little sense cos its articles (and every article has at least one interested user, the creator!), alot of pages on wikipedia seem meaningless or uninteresting to some users. We could have 10 million pages and 9 million of those could be disambiguation pages or redirects. Tourskin 07:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Disasters

I see that 5 of the current 6 "in the news" items are about disasters. Floods, forest fires, hurricanes, earthquakes. I realise that these events are tragedies for those involved, but the history of such events can be very interesting. Without wanting to detract from the current events, if any editors are interested in similar articles, have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management, and Category:Natural disasters. Carcharoth 16:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC) For many of those who dont knoe ther world is changing as we go on with our daily lives many changes will be seen over the years —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.48.203.30 (talk) 17:11, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Now 3 of 6. Still too many but at least a bit better. --mav 04:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This imbalance is being discussed at Template talk:In the news#Disasters in the news?. Everyone's welcome to join in. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can edit

Why does Wikipedia have this rediculas feature of being able to edit information. For a long time now i have used this site (in directly) for facts etc on various things. Only yesterday did i find out that this information is not always correct and can in fact be edited by anyone at anytime, which of course is not true at all for a true Encyclopedia. This site will go down very soon as no one will trust is anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.56.112 (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2007

That so-called ridiculous feature is the very basis of Wikipedia. I'm surprised you didn't know about the editing ability before, considering that the main page has a big banner with the text Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit., and the fact that just about every page has an edit link on it. Wikipedia is a new way to write an encyclopedia, and is one of the largest collaborative projects, but of course there is always the possibility of inaccuracies. This is true for any encyclopedia, though. The trust issue has been discussed many times, and studies have shown Wikipedia to be of comparable quality to a so-called true Encyclopedia. But of course, before using Wikipedia for anything serious, you should have started by reading the disclaimer, which is also located on every page. --Pekaje 23:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The ease of which Wikipedia can be editted means that incorrect information has the potential to be removed almost immediately after its added. Tourskin 01:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If you click on the link that reads "permanent base" in the Moon article, you will see that something is wrong.

74.14.105.108 00:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything major wrong. Maybe it was fixed between the time you reported this and the time I checked. The link leads to Colonization of the Moon via a redirect. I did fix a broken citation in that article while I was there.-gadfium 01:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what the above anonymous user what hinting to, but isn't it somewhat unfortunate that the FA blurb says "NASA outlined plans for a permanent base" while the first line of the linked article says "For NASA's plan ... see Lunar outpost (NASA)"? Maybe the link should be to that article instead? --DBrane 11:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Fixed now Nil Einne 20:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What has happened to the Link-International Airways wiki page??? it seems to have gone. Regards Newcastleegnt 11:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Remove your hyphen and you'll find it. --74.14.17.150 11:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Socom3ELITE, tourskin & badgerpatrol

Im sorry but tourskin and badgerpotroll need to both be quite... its not a big deal.. you dont even know eachother... just get over it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socom3ELITE (talk • contribs) 21:55, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Um they stopped discussing the matter several days ago... Nil Einne 22:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
eh mister mystery guest, who the hell are you and what are you on about? Socom3Elite I don't know who you r but lol I can disucss whatever I want to discuss and put forward my opinion within reason. What the hell is this discussion about changing the layout got to do with me and badgerpatrol, we're not at war or anything and all misunderstandings have been cleared up.Tourskin 03:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh who created another talk section? I don't even know why my user name was dragged here, but I'm outta this one. Tourskin 02:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Uploading and protecting images from Commons not being done all the time

I’ve been seeing a few images each day on the Main Page that are from the Commons but have not been uploaded to en.wiki and protected. Does MediaWiki now prevent reuploads or the display of any newly uploaded images displayed on the Main Page? Or are we setting ourselves up for some image replacement vandalism? If we still need to do the upload to en.wiki and protect thing, then I think that would best be done by a bot; humans are too inconsistent given the need to plug this security hole. --mav 16:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the commons images are protected automatically when transcluded on our main page. —METS501 (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure? About 2 month ago I said I thought a feature like that had been implemented but I was wrong Talk:Main Page/Archive 103#Featured picture of US statehood. So it would have to be a recent change. The ITN template still tells admins to upload images. Admitedly it also tells them to protect the image but it's not necessary once the image has been uploaded to en.wikipedia and is on the main page as it's cascade protected Nil Einne 19:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
In the test I just ran, I cascade-protected a user subpage of mine, added a picture from Commons, and then was able to overwrite the image on Commons with a different one. This would lead me to believe that images are not protected if they reside on Commons. However, it is my understanding that images are automatically protected if they reside on the same wiki and are used on a cascade-protected page. As for a bot protecting and unprotecting images, that would require granting sysop rights to the bot, which has never happened before (to my knowledge). Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, Commons images are not cascade-protected here. Last month, this resulted in the repeated replacement of a turtle photograph (displayed in the DYK section) with a picture of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (which easily could have been a pornographic or racist image instead). It should be noted, however, that this prompted Zzyzx11 to begin cascade-protecting our TFA, OTD and TFP images at the Commons. —David Levy 19:52/19:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
See Commons:User:Zzyzx11/En main page, which is cascade-protected. And from what I know, non-admins cannot upload an image to the local wiki that has the same name as a file on Commons. Even if they could, the local page is cascade-protected anyway. howcheng {chat} 20:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Eureka! I think I got a perfect solution; simply have a bot constantly check to make sure that any image linked from the Main Page has a corresponding image description page on en.wiki. If it doesn’t then have the bot create one by adding a blank space to the edit page. Turns out, that simply creating an image description page here that has the exact same name as the image description page on Commons, let’s the cascading protection thingy work. Using a non-Admin account, I tested this on Image:Klaipėda Castle1.jpg, which is linked from the Main Page, is not under normal protection here and not protected on Commons by either normal protection or cascading protection. Please test to make sure I’m right. --Mougie149 22:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait - this only works for images uploads to en.wiki. Nevermind... --Mougie149 22:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I have an idea that may work, although I don't know enough about bot coding to say for sure if its possible. The idea comes from one that got tossed around a little while ago for general MP stuff before we had cascade protection. Anyway, somebody makes a bot. That bot examines the main page (and, to be proactive, also Main Page/Tomorrow) and checks the images. It then determines the where they're located (either locally or on Commons). If locally, great, cascading protection will deal with it. If they're on Commons, have it drop messages on a group of admins listed somewhere (on a totally op-in basis, of course) that basically says "Yo! Have an image that needs to be taken care of!" Now, ideally, this bot would, before making the notification, check if the Commons image is protected, but a lowly laymen like myself doesn't know if that's possible.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The DYK image was up for four hours tonight without being protected and no vandalism was done? Thank goodness so few people can recognize when images are unprotected on the main page :) --- RockMFR 01:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A few comments:

  1. As previously mentioned, anything that is cascaded protected here is not automatically protected on Commons. However it does prevent normal users from uploading a local image with the same filename here.
  2. As I detail on Commons:User talk:Zzyzx11/En main page, my cascading protected page on Commons is not a perfect solution because it is operated by me (or anybody who is an admin on Commons) instead of a 24/7 bot. I cannot adequately use that page to protect images on ITN and DYK because those templates can change at anytime. It does not work effectively when somebody else unexpectedly changes the TFA, OTD and TFP templates. And it definitely does not work if they are not updated until the very last minute before the clock strikes 00:00 (UTC).
  3. If anybody is still interested in a bot doing this work, you may want to contact User:Dragons flight if he still has the code for User:ProtectionBot. It was a bot intended to protect and unprotect templates and images on the main page, as well as protect images hosted on Commons by uploading local copies of those images here onto Wikipedia. However, Dragons flight withdrew the RFA request for the bot as soon as the cascading protection feature was implemented. Unfortunately, the Commons image problem still is not automatic yet.

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Jiffs/Indian Army

The did you know question about jiffs being a term used for the Indian Army is misleading. It should state the Indian National Army to distinguish it from the Indian Army fighting on the side of the Allies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.191.182 (talk) 05:13, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Please post any errors regarding DYK in the "Errors in DYK" section at the very top.Tourskin 21:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK errors

May I ask, what stops an incorrect statement being put up on the Main page for DYK? I understand that a review process takes place. However, one DYK was not confirmed from its references (it was about the oldest park west of the Mississipi or something like that). And there was a small error in wording in a DYK about the Indian army recently as well. Tourskin 21:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Potential "hooks" are listed for review for four days or so at T:TDYK. If no objections are raised, the editor(s) preparing the updates at T:DYK/N will give the article a once-over while preparing the template, and the updating admin will check again before the hooks are placed on the main page. Factual errors are fairly rare, considering there are around two dozen hooks per day, but some do slip through the cracks, which is why WP:ERRORS was created. The system generally gets it right in the end :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 21:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Default Cursor Position

Can we default the cursor position to the search box? I've noticed that Google does this on their site. Thanks. Synesthetic 07:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why doesn't the cursor appear in the search box, like with Google? for the explanation. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be good to default to the search box even though the arrows wouldn't be immediately available for scrolling the page. I think a lot of people use their mouse's wheel for scrolling these days, at least non-mobile phone users. It would encourage people to update their mice. Plus, I've seen the cursor default to the search page in other places on Wikipedia. Synesthetic 08:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If something like that is in an FAQ, I'm guessing the issue has been discussed many times before and there is consensus that allowing people to scroll is more important. 17Drew 08:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I figure the same Drew. One of the places I saw alternate behavior is when comparing the changes made in a revision with the previous version of a page. The cursor gets defaulted to the search box. The arrows don't scroll but the mouse wheel scrolls fine. Oh well, I guess there's a reason for it all. It would be nice if it was done consistently... my way. Just kidding.  :-) Synesthetic 08:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want it, you can have it. Check the FAQ entry above for how to turn it on. --Monotonehell 08:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Monotonehell, I did see that before. I didn't feel the urge to 'turn it on'... maybe I will though. I don't think most users would go through the effort to change it or even know they can do such a thing. Synesthetic 09:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Why can't the keyboard people 'turn it off'? Sorry, had to get that out of my system.  :-) Synesthetic 09:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly it's an accessability thing. Defaulting to being in the search box makes it difficult to use for people accessing the Web with disabilities or whatever the PC term is these days. Not everyone has scroll wheel functionality. The original discussion about this was a long time ago now, so my memory is a bit fuzzy. --Monotonehell 09:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That could be. Still, making everybody press Alt-F or move the mouse over seems like a waste of time with the default set to the exceptional case. Also, even without scroll wheel functionality, the scroll bar can be used for scrolling if you have a mouse. Rarr. It's okay. Don't worry about it. I'm fine. Synesthetic 09:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

How many people actually ever use the search bar anyway? I suspect the answer is not many. Most people either Google or try to get the refdesk people to find articles. Nil Einne 12:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Also I should mention that even though I predominantly use the mouse scroll wheel I do occasionally use keyboard both cursor and page up/down for a variety of reasons's e.g. if I'm on my PVR and I don't have the mouse with me, if both hands are on the keyboard. I suspect many others would be similar which is why IMHO it's quite significant if most people never use the search Nil Einne 19:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually a fair number of non-editors use the search bar. I can at least speak for the high school and university students who shouldn't but use (for research) or sometimes plagiarise Wikipedia. They often search "Wikipedia" and will find themselves on the main page. Then they will find they specifically want in the search bar. There are those however, who come to an article directly through Google. GizzaDiscuss © 06:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
If you search for wikipedia on Google the first result you get is actually www.wikipedia.org Nil Einne 10:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews Quiz

Wikinews has introduced a weekly news Quiz, This is composed on a Sunday morning (CET) - hopefully - and should be a question from each day of the preceding week. I'd love to see this linked to from Wikipedia, as well as get some input on how to persuade people to share their scores and discuss it. As you can probably tell this is just starting up, but we'd love people from Wikipedia to also be involved. It would be nice to - at times - have the quiz set by a 3rd party so all the wikinewsies can compare scores. --Brianmc 10:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Other than "not here" I'm unsure where you should post this. This page is for discussing how to improve the Main Page only. Maybe try Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)? Wikipedia doesn't really have a "community" as such. We're all business here ;) --Monotonehell 11:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The main page has an "in the news" section which already links to Wikinews. I'd just like some conditional code so on a Sunday PM and Monday AM next to the Wikinews link there is a Weekly Quiz link. --Brianmc 14:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay I see. Well I doubt that's going to gain any consensus here. Wikinews is the only Sister Project to get special mention on the Main Page like this. I wouldn't hold any hope to getting more space to link to a trivia quiz off site. --Monotonehell 15:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I really do not think that Wikipedia is the place for a quiz section, either on current events or indeed on anything else. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 15:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I wrote a response but somehow I never submitted it. Anyway I was going to suggest Wikipedia:Community Portal and/or the signpost in particular might be places where this should be mentioned. And I agree support for the quiz is doubtful Nil Einne 19:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, if you write an article for the Signpost it will almost certainly get published. You might want to ask first though. —METS501 (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Ooops that didn't come out right. I meant support for mentioning the quiz on the main page is unlikely Nil Einne 10:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Start a Wikipedia in another language

Why is there a link to "Start a Wikipedia in another language" on the Main Page? This seems ridiculously obscure... the Main Page presents content to visitors; exactly how often is your average visitor going to want to start a new language Wikipedia? Especially given the number of other things that must be vying for a spot on that page (most of which would be more useful) -- 217.44.232.252 20:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's unlikely that we'd miss many (if any) opportunities to start new Wikipedias without the link. 17Drew 20:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree but don't want to argue that point. However I don't feel the start wikipedia in another language is necessary given that people should surely check out the complete list to find out if one already exists before considering starting a wikipedia in another language. P.S. Although I'm thinking the start wikipedia in another language link is more for balance then anything. You can only really add something related to multilingual wikipedias in that line and only having complete list and multilingual coordination means it would be rather short Nil Einne 21:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Its not taking much space and besides someone might wanna start a "simple french" wikipedia for example just lik how they started simple english. Its not of any harm being there. Tourskin 02:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
If they are keen to create a whole new language Wikipedia then they would be looking further than just the main page. violet/riga (t) 09:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
But if they want to start a simple french wikipedia then surely they should check the complete list and make sure one doesn't already exist from the complete list. Just as someone proposing a simple English wikipedia should Nil Einne 11:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of the link was to encourage creation of new language encyclopedias. I agree with your previous comments illustrating the nonusefulness of this link. However, it increases the chance of a new language wikipedia being started. Therefore, it fulfills the reason behind Wikipedia as a whole. Wikipedia can only be called a encyclopedia available to the world when every language has an encyclopedia as large or larger than the benchmark (Brittanica) User:Wikijjc 19:24, 29 August 2007 (PST)
Am I missing something here? I can't see that link anywhere on the main page, and nor should it be there. Having one on the complete list of languages makes sense; having one on the main page does not. Modest Genius talk 14:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Its goneTourskin 20:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Order of the sister projects

Is there any big thought on why the Wikipedia's sister project are displayed in this order? I see that other wikipedia languages have it in a different order. --Steinninn 15:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I applied the following criteria (in this order):
  • Place the Commons and Meta-Wiki last.
  • Place Wiktionary and Wikinews first (because those projects contain the content that people mistakenly seek at Wikipedia most often).
  • Place Wikiversity immediately before the Commons and Meta-Wiki (because it's the "new" project).
(All of the above assumes the perception of three horizontal rows.)
Should we make this the official order on all projects:
  1. Wikipedia
  2. Wiktionary
  3. Wikinews
  4. Wikiquote
  5. Wikibooks
  6. Wikispecies
  7. Wikisource
  8. Wikiversity
  9. Commons
  10. Meta-Wiki
That is, all syster projects, all languages? At least all english projects. In my opinion, these templates should always look the same, with the same order. And the same text above. Currently, this is not the case. --Steinninn 18:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
But that's not actually possible. Each sister project lists all the projects except itself – so they'd all be in different positions on different projects anyway 217.42.78.92 19:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I know, Wikipedia dosn't list itself so Wiktionary would be first. On Wiktionary, Wikinews would be second... --Steinninn 19:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
While I can understand why Meta is last, why is Commons second-to-last? It is quite large and active, and has a higher level of integration with Wikipedia. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
There's also the question, do we put them in the order left to right, or up and down. Currently I see Wikiquote a bit unimportantly put on the right, but Wikiversity beeing identified as important because it's at the left. But I agree with Titoxd about having Commons upper on the list. --Steinninn 19:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
When scrolling down, the links are revealed one horizontal row at a time. This is especially relevant at lower resolutions. —David Levy 19:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The logic is that the Commons and Meta-Wiki are the two meta-projects (projects that exist for the benefit of the other projects). It also would make sense to put them first, but I definitely believe that they should be paired. —David Levy 19:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
But Commons is not used only to serve Wikimedia projects. Its purpose is to create a free image repository, and that is independent of being an image dump for Wikipedia et al. Besides, they're being quite successful at that, and they're one of the more active projects outside of the Wikipedias. Perhaps they can be placed in the same column, but Commons placed in the top row? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
That's a good point and a good idea (which I believe would work well with a slightly different layout). Let me put together an example. —David Levy 19:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I put up a string of ugly parse functions at test.wikipedia that could work on all sisterprojects. --Steinninn 19:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
If we really want a universal order throughout the projects then surely we need to discuss this on meta rather then here? Nil Einne 20:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I was looking around on meta, and honestly, I just couldn't find any place to discuss this. Can you bring it up and give us a link? --Steinninn 12:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed redesign

In response to the above comments, I created this proposed layout, which I adapted from the one used at the Indonesian Wikipedia (and probably others). It includes four project links on the first line and five on the second line (conveniently enabling the future addition of a tenth project link by having two rows of five). As requested, the Commons link is on the first line (with the Meta-Wiki link below it on the second line). Here is what the main page would look like (except the background would be white and the standard header would be suppressed). —David Levy 21:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I liked the 3x3 row. When the time comes, it's easy enough to change it into 2x5. --Steinninn 21:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the 3x3 looks "better". The 2 x 5 looks too spacious to me. Tourskin 21:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Gaaah, please think of us poor souls who are forced to use small screens... five in a row is too many, it doesn't fit. stick with three 86.140.176.147 22:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
When i moved back to england for short holiday in the christmas, I also had to use my small screen. I FEEL YOU!! User 86.140.176.147. I feel you!Tourskin 23:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Given the lack of consensus for my proposed redesign, I've reorganized the links within the existing layout. Per the above comments, the Commons now comes first. Wikinews, Wikisource and Meta-Wiki retain the same positions. Wiktionary remains in the top row (now on the right instead of the left). Wikiquote and Wikispecies now reside at the beginning of the second and third rows (respectively), with Wikibooks and Wikiversity both sliding one spot to the right. As before, each column contains one image with a width of 51px, and each row contains one image with a height of 41px (thereby ensuring uniform distribution). —David Levy 01:05/01:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Catalan Wikipedia

Just relaying a note from the miscellaneous Village Pump: the Catalan Wikipedia (article, link) now has over 75,000 articles. I believe this means that they get bumped up a spot on the Main Page ;) congrats to contributors there. GracenotesT § 06:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is everything in BOLD TEXT with IE6?

Wikipedia was fine. Today I go to Wikipedia with IE6 on Windows XP with SP2 and all current updates and ALL the text is bold. It's fine with Firefox 2.0.0.6, Netscape 8.1.2 and Netscape 7.2. The text is bold ONLY in IE6 and it is ONLY Wikipedia displaying all bold text. IE's font size is set to MEDIUM, which is the default. Far as I know, IE6 has no way to set all text to display as bold and certainly does not have site-specific font setting capability. I WILL NOT INSTALL IE7 ON THIS COMPUTER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 09:42, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

JUST USE FIREFOX INSTEAD. IT'S BETTER -- 81.155.70.18 14:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
HAHAHAHA, that's a little to the point, but funny none the less... -seconded KeineLust90 15:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It's normal. Maybe it's fixed or I don't install all of the updates. --Howard the Duck 17:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Nvm, I had an image to show (Image:Bold IE6.png) but it was just my IE6's font size set to large for some reason.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 19:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you Bizzybody? Nil Einne 21:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The font looks like it's set to Arial Black rather than just being bold, because the normal bold text is the same weight as the text that's not supposed to be bold. I just checked with Wordpad and Word, no problem using normal Arial. Something's screwed up with IE6, causing it (and only it) to substitute Arial Black for Arial on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 04:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it's probably Adobe Type Manager Deluxe having something to do with it. I want to use Multiple Master fonts and though XP has builtin support for PostScript fonts, it doesn't for Multiple Master fonts without ATM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 08:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Removing ATM Deluxe didn't cure it, nor did getting at least 4 trojans on this PC that deleted AVG and Spybot, doing a repair install of XP (that failed to kill the malware) and having to wait until September 2nd for AVg to get the updates out to take care of the trojans. I'm still stuck looking at Arial Black on Wikipedia with IE6.

I herd somthing about this. Its a general IE6 bug. get Internet Explorer 7, beats the butt out of firefox and IE6 - Download link EvilHom3r 03:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia for mobile devices, tiny screens and poor bandwidth

Is it possible to add a mobile device access page natively in Wikipedia? I think its ridiculous to have to go to a 3rd party provider. The initial page could consisit entirely of a tiny wikipedia logo and a search box. Content pages could use very slimmed down graphics (or links to the graphics)and minimal formatting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.35.225.229 (talk) 20:19, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

We already have several alternatives that might be what you are looking for. Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (PDA version) and Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (text only) both might be suitable. The full list of alternative Main Page designs is at Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives. Raven4x4x 00:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, you could try Wapedia. ffm 15:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Um isn't that precisely what 158 was complaining about? Nil Einne 08:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-free image in blurb for tomorrow's FA

Non-free image in blurb for tomorrow's FA (1st September):Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 1, 2007. Hopefully this can be discussed and settled before tomorrow to avoid unseemly reversions throughout the day. Carcharoth 08:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Easy, just use Image:Indiafilm.png. --Peta 09:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
That seems a little low-quality and vague to the article for the main page in my opinion. Also - its an animation. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Er, it's not an animation. It's pretty obviously an icon representing Indian film. Also it is better than nothing; which is the other option. --Peta 11:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know. But it not a real image, is what I mean. You can't tell me its an actual photograph of something real. I suppose it is better than nothing... I dont care either way. Whatever is decided... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I know a better option! – Atropos 20:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I think nothing is better than an uninformative or related image. --- RockMFR 17:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
We could use a photo of Gandhi, the spirit/image of whom is suggested in the blurb to be a significant part in the film, but such usage would, I think, be a bit odd and not preferred to our including no image at all (the same thinking would disfavor our using an image of Manmohan Singh, whose depiction would, inasmuch as he appears to be of only tangential relevance to the topic, be even less sensible). Joe 19:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
We should just use an image from (*gasp!*) the film itself. The notion that fair-use is not allowed on the main page is based on fuzzy precedent at best (one misinformed edit by Jimbo). There just happen to be a lot more anti-fair-use cops than there are sensible people who understand that an encyclopedia is supposed to inform its readers. But I'm beating a dead horse, as I lack the willpower to edit war over the template all day like the fair-use cops do. — Brian (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I suppose I should note that I agree with you entirely with respect to the use of fair-use media on the main page; my suggestion was made only in view of the community's not yet having reached a consensus for the conferring of an NFCC exemption on the main page (and, ultimately, one hopes, for all portal pages, at least under certain conditions). Joe 01:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
See also: Talk:Main Page § Featured Article image

Today is the International Day of Peace

As far as I can see, the English Wikipedia does not even mention this on its start-page. :( Why? --87.176.133.7 10:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably because the International Day of Peace is September 21. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article image

Why is there no image for the Featured Article? Because it's being used under Fair Use? Is there something that stops Wikipedia from having a Fair Use image on the Main Page???--Basisplus 19:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use is not currently acceptable on the main page, even though there is neither consensus nor a good reason for this stance. Atropos 19:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
?? Then nothing should be holding back the images! This isn't cool.--Basisplus 21:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Last time an image could not be used due to fair use, there was a discussion about the policy, I just can't seem to find the page. The discussion did not reach a consensus though. --Credema 21:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The discussion about the policy has moved to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions#TFA/Main Page exemption, revisited although it seems to have died. What is clear is that there is no consensus either way and both sides claim each side lack solid arguments. The no fair use side claims that the current policy is to disallow all fair use and so we need to reach a consensus to change it. The side that supports fair use on the main page claims that the old exemption was improperly removed and as such current policy should be to allow fair use unless we achieve consensus to remove it. What is clear is that we can't change policy without consensus either way. As such we have an uneasy stalemate which seems to have held this time that fair use is removed but those who support it claim that it should be there. Nil Einne 14:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
See also: Talk:Main Page § Non-free image in blurb for tomorrow's FA

Australian Equine Flu

It didnt stop all racing, so todays trivia is false220.239.20.242 02:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to specify that it was a nationwide ban (implying Australia). --- RockMFR 02:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Please use WP:ERRORS next time. Thanks. --74.13.129.88 06:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

False Facts?

How does wiki make sure that there are no false facts being posted and that people aren't just creating articles just for the heck of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.67.163.168 (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

We always check what has been written with an internet wide search, and than, if nothing is found, we nominate it for deletion, and there, if someone has found something, they could bring it up there. Dreamy \*/!$! 14:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Ideally every article should be based on facts which should be referenced and multiple parties will check the references to ensure the claim is supported by the reference. However this does not always happen and you should not assume it has happened. As such, when doing research particularly for academic or professional purposes you should use the article at most as a starting point and do you own reading particularly of references. You should treat unreferenced claims as dubious and are welcome to tag them as unreferenced; or remove them altogether particularly if it's a claim about a living person or if your own knowledge perhaps from the reading you've done suggests it's BS. Bear in mind that encylopaedias are never a good source for academic or professional writing/presentations anyway. Also simple doing an internet search is not really sufficient in many instances to determine if something is likely to be true or false. Many sources use wikipedia without acknowledgement and just because other people say something doesn't mean it's true. It is important that you make sure the sources are reliable. Also the fact that you can't find something on the internet doesn't automatically mean it's false. There is still a lot of stuff that isn't on the internet and for certain subject matters not finding anything on the internet is mostly meaningless. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:General disclaimer. In short, there is no way that 'wikipedia' (which isn't even a sentient entity) or its editor's can make sure that no false facts are being posted or that people aren't just creating articles for the heck of it. We do have various ways we try to catch such problems and all people are welcome to help in that regards but there is no guarantee Nil Einne 14:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

New design for page

I think we need an all-new main page design. This design has been here so long that a variant is required. Your input is requested. Laleena 13:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree its a bit boring now but it is effect and simple, dont think many would agree with a change. I'd personally like to see a bit more style, a modern and slick layout --Childzy ¤ Talk 13:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm unsure that change for change's sake is reason for change, look at Google's main page. If you can think of some material problems with the main page design and pose solutions for their cure that would be a different story. Bear in mind that a simple layout is required for accessibility reasons (people with disabilities, people in areas without broadband and so on) --Monotonehell 14:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
What would improve the look is if we figured out how to make the titles of DYK and OTD be exactly opposite each other, balance always improves a webpages look. Maybe use 4 divisions instead of 2?
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 14:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The current design was implemented in March 2006 after several months of discussion and input from the community (see the final vote). A new redesign would have to go through a similar process. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
the current design is excellent. Don't fix it if it isn't broken. --dab (𒁳) 14:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
How about this? —METS501 (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Thats more or less what I was thinking yeah. And I think that the fact that the editable version of the pages is identicle bar the one change I suggested should say something pretty obvious.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 15:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The page wasn't like that until I made it like that to show your change :-) —METS501 (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh ok, lol. But irrelevent, what do people thing of this potential edit?
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 15:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Ain't broken - don't fix it. Nothing wrong with keeping what is functional and usable. People get used to things. Okay, I'm kind of conservative. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 15:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
METS501's idea is great, very simple but it looks better. Couldnt an admin just change it like that without consensus or a vote because it makes perfect sense to have the headers lined up --Childzy ¤ Talk 17:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
They could, as part of the WP:BRD cycle, but speaking for myself only, I'm happy enough with how it appears at the moment. Having three dynamic boxes allows for easy adjustments to get both halves of the page to match anyway. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. It's nice to have only two halves (not four quarters) to worry about, and it actually looks much worse to have a large amount of blank space in the middle of the page than it does to have it at the bottom. (I remember this from the redesign process.) We also would lose the stylistic advantage of having two thematically-related sections in each of two columns. —David Levy 23:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes but those adjustments never happen; the main page is always out of balance, always. Now I'll admit from the offset that I find order to be the first step to perfection, but ever since I first started using Wikipedia my eyes are drawn to the misalignment between the two headers. I'm pro METS501's example as well, could we arrange for one of those Support/Oppose/Neutral votes to see what the general opinion of this is? Or better yet, just make this change and see how people react on the talk page.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 23:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, such adjustments frequently are made. The proposed setup would make that far more difficult, and something similar already was discussed and rejected during the aforementioned redesign. —David Levy 23:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Then why is the main page constantly out of balance? And the tweek to the design would help, not make it more difficult, if there’s space in the box, add another item/sentence, it’s as simple as that. This is Wikipedia’s main page, its only edited by admins, a.k.a experienced editors. I'm fairly sure they can overcome any minor issues I'm not seeing, to make the first page English users will see look ordered, and hence better.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 23:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The main page isn't "constantly out of balance" for most users, but it's impossible to balance it for everyone. (You seem to be under the impression that it looks the same to all users, but that isn't the case.) We do our best to make it look as good as possible, and the proposed change would make that more difficult. Right now, we can try to roughly balance the page under the average user's settings, but there always ends up being some blank space at the bottom of one column for some users. Under the proposed setup, we'd have twice as many boxes to worry about, we'd no longer be able to compensate for a long/short section by editing the one diagonally opposite (and chance anomalies of this nature no longer would cancel each other out), and some users would end up with blank space in two boxes (often in the middle of the page). —David Levy 00:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes blank space would still exist, that is called physics, but having a grid of boxes would mean that there would be a small amount of space in one or two boxes, instead of a chunk of space on one side, like the current page provides an example. The proposed look would mean that everyone, in any browser, on any system, on any platform, would have balance on the main page, where under the current system, almost no one has a perfect grid, I’m perfectly aware that websites look different on different systems as I move around a lot during the day in my line of work, but in my spare time at any of those locations, I read and edit Wikipedia, on the available system, and I never see it as a perfect grid.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 00:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
No, there would be much more blank space with 5 seperate sections then with two... Also keep in mind that font size, screen size, window size, and many other factors determine how much blank space there is to individual users. Move your settings out of 600 x 800 and you'll see that it's not that bad... As for redoing the main page, that just happened 6 months ago, and it really doesn't need to happen yet again. I would be happy to see the focus go to the search box, but any further tweaks are really un needed --T-rex 01:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the current design was introduced in March 2006.  :-) —David Levy 02:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
1. You seem to be missing the point that under the current setup, a long/short On this day... section can cancel out the imbalance caused by a long/short Today's featured article section. Likewise, a long/short In the news section can cancel out the imbalance caused by a long/short Did you know... section. (And this sometimes occurs by chance.) Instead of worrying about the lengths of four separate boxes, we need only deal with two. All of that would be lost under the proposed setup. As a result, a user who currently sees approximate balance might instead see two boxes containing empty space (including one at top).
2. You must have a different definition of "balance on the main page" than I do. That's the only explanation for your statement that "everyone, in any browser, on any system, on any platform, would have" it. I assume you're referring to alignment of the heading bars, which isn't what most of us mean. (We're referring to a lack of empty space.) No one is attempting to create "a perfect grid," as the consensus (when the page was redesigned) was that a lack of wasted space is preferable (and that the current layout is more aesthetically pleasing). —David Levy 02:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I just restored two items to the In the news section to compensate for the long Did you know... section (which probably was lengthened to compensate for the short Today's featured article section). Under the proposed setup, none of that would be possible. —David Levy 02:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, I don't use 800x600, I use 1680x1050 on two seperate screens, so I can see the page under greater resolutions that 99% of users, so could you please stop making assumptions about me, if you need to know something to make your point, ask, because your assumptions really dont seem to be on target much. Secondly, of course thats my definition of balance, why would I argue for the layout I'm trying to get corrected? And thirdly, if its impossible to balance the page under both definitions then way is the example of whats being proposed (linked above by METS501) balanced under both definitions, wheres the actualy main pages is still unbalanced on the left side?
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 09:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

1. It would be helpful if you'd type individual replies (or at least note the names of the users to whom you're responding). T-rex implied that you were using the 800x600 display resolution, but someone reading the above might assume that you were addressing one person.
2. I wasn't criticising your definition of "balance." I was noting that it apparently differed from others' definition (to explain why there appeared to be some confusion).
3. Who said that it was "impossible to balance the page under both definitions"? Again, what you (or I) see is not what everyone sees.
For me, the actual main page's columns currently are fairly balanced (by my definition), with just a small amount of excess space at the bottom of the On this day... section [screen capture]. In the proposed layout, the heading bars line up, but a large amount of excess space is present at the bottom of both the On this day... section and the Today's featured article section [screen capture]. —David Levy 13:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so in others words both layouts would be more or less the same in pro's and con's, couldnt we set up one of those Support/Oppose/Neutral votes to see what a general opinion on this is, because so far only a handful of people have talked about it. With you, David Levy, and I presenting most of the arguments.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 14:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
You want more opinions? OK. I read websites in column format like this, which frequently fail to have the headers lining up. I don't find this a problem at all, and would support keeping the two column format rather than switching to a four quarters format. Because the main section of the Wikipedia main page is a compact set of 4 roughly equal units in two columns, it sometimes appears that the aim is to have the headers balanced, but as David points out, it isn't. The aim is to minimise wasted space at the bottom of the columns. PS. Who is the "you" you are responding to? Carcharoth 16:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
1. Several cons have been cited. Are there pros other than the aligned headings?
2. Please see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion.
3. I am David Levy, so I share Carcharoth's confusion as to the identity of "you." —David Levy 16:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Trying to get things neat & tidy on the main page is good, but don't complain too much when the two sides on the main page are off by just a little bit on one computer monitor. It's probably fine on another. It depends on font size, resolution, screen width.... etc. As long as the two sides are not grossly unbalanced, giving Wikipedia a sloppy appearance, it's fine. Don't fix things when things ain't broke. --74.14.17.10 18:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Polling may not be a substitute for discussion, but it is an easy method for people to give their opinion without flying off on tangents, such as people’s apparent inability to recognise the use of a comma, as a short pause in a sentence, instead of just a mechanic to list elements, which I’m afraid, is not its only use, and yes, I’m well aware that a semicolon can serve the same purpose. The other pros are that the apparently unavoidable space that exists is split amongst the sections instead of one side having a large space, irrelevant of what side it is to each user, because as I've said already I view Wikipedia on several different monitors throughout my day and am perfectly aware that it appears differently from user to user . Pro number three is that the page would be guaranteed some geometric conformity and hence would be more aesthetically pleasing. Now, before anyone decides to introduce another irrelevant tangent, I referred to my second mentioned pro as number three, because David Levy already mentioned one above.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 20:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
1. The only "tangents" are yours. You could have resolved the honest misunderstanding by politely explaining that "you, David Levy" was a single entity. (Better yet, you could have avoided the ambiguity by instead placing "David Levy" in parentheses. Actually, given the fact that you correctly indented and addressed only one person, there was no need to specify my name at all.)
2. The excess space is not unavoidable. We usually are able to reasonably minimize it for most users, and the proposed change would render this considerably more difficult. Additionally, under the current layout, it's impossible for more than one section to contain excess space, and said space always appears at the bottom of a column. The proposed layout would enable two sections (one of which always would be on top) to contain excess space.
3. You say that you're "perfectly aware that it appears differently from user to user," but you claimed that the proposed layout was "balanced under both definitions, wheres the actualy main pages is still unbalanced on the left side" (as though this applied to everyone).
4. As I noted, previous discussion resulted in the consensus that the current design is more aesthetically pleasing (because it reduces the likelihood of wasted space and pairs two thematically-related sections in each column). —David Levy 21:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
1. Im afraid that tangent would be yours, not mine, I had no part to play in you "honest misunderstanding" other then that I wrote the source material.
2. Ive already admitted that space would still exist, but under the proposed layout, that space would be cut in half by the division, so the "minimised amount" would appear even smaller.
3. I've also already said that I view Wikipedia under different aspects everday, so any opinions I give on its current appearance is based on a common element between these viewings, not a single viewing. The monitor I mentioned above is the one I use to respond to these messages.
4. The new layout would help minimise wasted space for the reason mentioned in point 2. Here is an example: [[1]] and [[2]]
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 11:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
1. Misunderstanding what someone wrote and inquiring as to its meaning isn't a "flying off on a tangent." Berating the misunderstander for failing to understand is.
2. At best, some of the excess space would be shifted upward (resulting in additional scrolling for some users). At worst, the amount of excess space would be greatly increased.
3. And yet, you're continually citing characteristics that don't apply to everyone. You even claimed that "the left hand side of the page is longer then the right, a good 99.9% of the time."
4. Again, the new design would not help to minimize wasted space. It would hinder the effort.
In your examples (in which your red box significantly overshoots the actual excess space on the current main page), some of the excess space has been shifted upward (thereby pushing down the Did you know... section). To eliminate said space, we would need to edit two sections (instead of one). We'd have to remove text from In the news or add text to Today's featured article (most likely the former) and remove text from On this day.. or add text to Did you know... (neither of which is something that we like to do). Under the current layout, we could simply remove text from In the news (as I just did). For the reverse situation (in which the right-hand column contains excess space), we can simply add text to In the news. This is the usual course of action (because it's very easy to add/remove ITN items without interfering with the main page's overall format).
In my examples (current layout/proposed layout), the suggested change creates a large amount of excess space (because the diagonal offset has been eliminated). Instead of having a fairly balanced main page (under typical settings), we have two sections that need to be addressed. Instead of doing nothing, we have to edit two sections (including one that we prefer not to substantially modify between replacements).
And as I explained, the consensus was that the current design is more aesthetically pleasing. Even setting aside the issue of excess space, it features two color-coded columns, each of which contains two thematically-related sections. Under the proposed layout, that would be lost. —David Levy 17:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The current version is efficient. It's informative, easy to read, and organized; I see no reason to change it. · AndonicO Talk 14:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Position of search box and searches

I think the search box sahould be moved to a more accessible position near the top right hand corner of the page or at least have the cursor already placed in the box just like google. also the search function is crappy and definetly needs to be upgraded so that it recommends pages and suggests alternative spellings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.232.118 (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to your google comment, this was discussed about a week ago and is also discussed in the FAQ, see Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why doesn't the cursor appear in the search box, like with Google? Nil Einne 03:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the recommended pages thing. As for moving the search box, thats a new idea but to an old and seemingly perpetual argument regarding what the main page should look like. Personally I think its position is fine but its ability to find recommended pages is something that I think should be looked at. Tourskin 08:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Byron Plant

Can someone change the "did you know?" about the Byron Nuclear Plant to mak eit clearer that it produces 2300MWe average power. I have done this in the article but I dont know how to on the main page (probably I cant). I think it makes it clear that were talking about the average power produced rather than the total energy. If you disagree then please say!

John CaptinJohn 10:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

More admins watch the Errors section at the top of this page. You might do better moving this there. --Monotonehell 13:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article - Hamlet Chicken Fire

I'd love to know how this article made it on the Featured list. I found it confusing and poorly written in places, with some hints of POV thrown in. There are much better "fire disaster" articles around, like Our Lady of the Angels School Fire. --Jquarry 02:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If you think it should be de-listed, there's WP:FAR. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The article was promoted to featured article status on March 20, 2007 (see the nomination discussion). However, the article may have significantly changed in the past seven months – especially now that it is on the main page, which tends to attract a number of both new users and vandals. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah! Ok, thanks. I didn't realise there could be such a time differential between promotion and listing. But I don't think the article should be de-listed :P --Jquarry 03:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Articles are listed when they are promoted, because the two words mean the same thing (they appear on this list). They just aren't put on the main page the day they are promoted. Atropos 03:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) You may be slightly confused about what 'listing' means. A FA is listed as an FA from the moment it is promoted. Becoming the TFA however is a different matter and some FAs have a year or more without being the TFA, it depends on many factors as ultimately determined by Raul. Given that the rate of growth of FAs is AFAIK greater then one a day this isn't likely to change anytime soon. TFA is really somewhat seperate from the FA process, the only connection is that TFAs must be FAs of course. Being a TFA should be thought of as a bonus for an FA more then anything else. And there's nothing intrinsicly different between an FA which has been TFA and one that hasn't; they're all FAs and if they don't meet the criteria they should be put up for FAR. BTW, the Our Lady article is not an FA, if you feel it meets the FA criteria then you should consider nominating it Nil Einne 04:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I have uploaded an adjusted jpeg version of the cooker image here: Image:Imperial Foods Cooker 1 JPG.jpg if anyone wants to use it. Ian Dunster 07:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Lol I have never seen so many shortened words. My brain is going to FAxplode!Tourskin 08:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
PCMCIA: People Can't Manage Computer Industry Abreviations --Monotonehell 08:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Your head is going to featured article explode? Nil Einne 15:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a case of THEGS! Ian Dunster 21:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Thats right Nil. My head will explode and the content of the blown up brain will be Featured Article content, of the highest quality.Tourskin 02:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Just like an exploding whale! :) — TKD::Talk 02:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Close. It will have more stink but less grime. Tourskin 06:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

ro.wiki

Please add the Romanian Wikipedia in the section "Wikipedias with more than 75,000 articles" on the Main Page. Thanks. --Mocu 20:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting very close 74,467 according to Meta. --Monotonehell 21:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
No. We have 75.000+. See ro:Special:Statistics --Mocu 22:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah okay, Meta's a bit behind. --Monotonehell 23:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Done by RockMFR. - BanyanTree 23:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed several links on the main page that lead to redirects... hurricane goes to tropical cyclone, MWe goes to watt, Swedes goes to Swedish people, and western classical music goes to classical music. Scepia 08:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken. 17Drew 08:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Seems like a silly guideline. I wholeheartedly disagree. --Nricardo 02:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually (and its documented in a linked page), its a very good guideline. A redirect link would have to be clicked 10,000 times to cost as much bandwidth as the edit made to fix it. Its simply rather wasteful. Atropos 03:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I was unable to follow the rationalization on that page. I just don't like to see "redirected from" at the top of the page and the "wrong" URL in the address bar. I have self-diagnosed OCD, so it's a reasonable accommodation for people like me. --Nricardo 10:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:General disclaimer and Wikipedia:Disturbing or upsetting content. 17Drew 16:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
:-) --Nricardo 16:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Note that the primary point of the guideline is not to fix links that aren't broken. There's nothing wrong with piping links in the first place and from memory of the last discussion policy in this area is somewhat unclear. Nil Einne 17:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
There was a discussion on whether or not it is appropriate to change [[direct|redirect]] to [[redirect]], but it didn't generate consensus either way. On one hand, some like to be linked directly to the page, but others find easily reading the code more important than linking directly. 17Drew 22:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
What? The main reason for not fixing some redirects is that one day the redirect might be turned into its own article. Wrong spellings need changing, obviously. There is also the issue of preserving original usage. Changing [[direct|redirect]] to [[direct]] can be misleading when the source (eg. a historic list of medal winners) used the form A. W. Person, instead of Anonymous W. Person. Carcharoth 14:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Note that MWe doesn't link solely to Watt but to a heading in Watt Nil Einne 10:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

100 most viewed articles

When I click on the number of articles made (the number now is 1,991,000 approxiamatley) the page which comes up exclaims MySQL error...I had tried to view it yesterday and now today; same thing happened. Do you know if this is my problem or yours? If it IS mine just give me a shout on how to fix it... LOTRrules 19:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The toolserver is broken. Again. Unlike the main site, keeping it running appears not to be a high priority at the moment, which is a shame -- 86.139.86.174 20:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that a disk broke, and the toolserver has only three servers to run a lot on. They cannot easily switch to another DB server. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

non-controversial Main Page change

Could we list the previous five FA's rather than just the previous three? (I would even go for previous 7 but the titles would run over too many lines I think.) This would be more helpful to people who only access the net on weekends, or editors who only occasionally check the Main Page. Can we please not get into too much discussion about this, its a fairly simple suggestion that doesn't need to wait for the next Main Page redesign. Please cross-post if there's somewhere more appropriate for this to go. Zunaid©® 08:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, discussion is going to be made of it. That is the way of Wikipedia. I think 5 is a fair idea, but 7, especially if the 7 happen to each be fairly long (or even if only a couple are fairly long), would clutter things up too much. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Depends on the balance between different screen resolutions. What is too cluttered for one person may be too spread out for another. The current arrangement is presumably a balance. Carcharoth 08:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that the small benefit of doing this outweighs the introduction of it taking up two lines on most occasions for many readers. violet/riga (t) 09:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I think Zunaid has a very good point here. I also think three is a bit too few, but space is, obviously, an issue; however, we could discuss using the white space available on the following line prior to the Archive/E-mail/More links. ProhibitOnions (T) 10:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it will look strange or even ugly if we make it so the list of FA's continues onto the left of the Archive/Email/More line Nil Einne 11:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
One thing to take into consideration is that the left hand side of the page is longer then the right, a good 99.9% of the time. Do we really need to make it longer?
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 11:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If listing five items threatens the left/right balance, just make the FA write-up shorter by two lines. That is the most (on a low-res screen) that the extra two links will take up so at worst we are in exactly the same place. BTW violetriga, I use a large font setting so the list is almost always over two lines for me. It does not look ugly. Can we not just trial this over a week, say, and take it from there based on how complaints do/don't come in? Zunaid©® 12:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this kind of the whole point of having archives? Capuchin 12:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
That's my thought also. There's a link to every previous TFA, as well as a link to all FAs. Even on my 22" screen there's only a little room left on that line, I'd hate to see it at lower resolutions. Perhaps move the archive link onto the same line and rename it "Previous featured articles" Would that help? --Monotonehell 14:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
What if there were five (seven) previous listed, but in smaller type? I agree with the general thought, just pondering on how to lose a potential problem. For stats sake - I have a 17 inch CRT @ 1024x768. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 15:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just click "Archive", and you'll get all the FAs in the month. I don't see a need to clutter the Main Page in order to make articles just one click away slightly more accessible (unless you don't know about the Archive, but that's why the link is there, right?). · AndonicO Talk 14:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

So I've struck-through the "non-controversial" part of the title, seeing as it is controversial.~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 01:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion - continuous FA reviewing

To maintain consistent quality in all our featured article, I propose that every featured article automatically be re-reviewed every year to make sure that it maintains signicantly high enough standards to keep its position —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

We have over 1,500 featured articles, roughly 5 a day every day, with that number increasing all the time. Reviewing them all regularly seems a tad Sisyphean to me. Would you care to volunteer for the task? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah and im sure other people'd do it too, to maintain the quality and integrity of this establishment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 11:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Currently, users may post a request on Wikipedia:Featured article review, but no, there is no current system in place yet where all 1,500+ featured articles are posted there automatically each year. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Hence why its a suggestion. I believe that all featured articles, instead of those that have been noticed should be reviewed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Right now, there is about 1 FAR started each day. As of this post, there are 1570 Featured articles, so far this year, there have been an average of 63 articles promoted each month. With 4 more months left, there may be 252 more articles promoted this year. if we start this process next year, we will review about 1800 articles which corresponds to 5 article reviews beginning every day. If each FAR lasts 5 days (and they can often take much longer), there may be 25 reviews going on at any given time. If the average number of FAs added every month stays constant (and it actually seems to be increasing), the year after next we will need to start 7 reviews every day, the year after that, 9 reviews (which would correspond to 45 in progress at any given time). Yearly reviews would quickly become backlogged. Mr.Z-man 22:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Well its not like there aren't enough of us —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there are too few. Look at Peer Review: more people are desperately needed. But of the 5,500,000 users, only a handful are active, and only a select few have the time/patience/skill to review articles frequently. · AndonicO Talk 14:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
But featured articles are kept in a balance because as many are demoted as are promoted, so it seems alright to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
What gave you that idea? While some FAs are demoted, more are promoted than demoted. Believe me, a full review every year would not be practical. One thing you could do, though, is look over every FA just to see if you think it needs a full review. You could probably get a group of people together. Atropos 19:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Lol if it aint broken don't fix it! Sorry but someone just said that cliche to me. Besides, The Gas company does not go around every home to check if everything is fine. It waits for a call from the customers if they need it. Just like with FA's. No need to review 'em unless they are needed to be reviewed.Tourskin 18:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • But the system is flawed, a featured article was shown recently was not upto standard, and if you go onto the featured content page and have lots of random selections there are dozens of articles that arent quite upto speed and thats puttin it mildly. That sort of quality was acceptable when the project was first inaugurated, but now that we're six years in, i think we can expect significantly higher standards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Well then I guess we should be more careful with what goes up as TFA - ??Tourskin 02:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
If there is a sustainable method for doing so, then great but checking every FA after a time period is not going to work as stated above. I have suggestion. We could just check the oldest FAs of wikipedia. Ignoring previous FA reviews, the oldest FAs were created when wikipedia was new and requirements for passing an FA review were less strict. But this is only a short term plan. As more FAs are made, it will become more difficult for us to make them good.Tourskin 20:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Why spend all of that effort on improving articles that are already in the top 0.1% - why not spend the time getting a few more of the other 99.9% up to a similar level of quality? SteveBaker 17:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Good point, couldn't have said it better. If anything is broken, its the articles that are not of FA quality already. The ones that are must have been good to get through a community review. Ok, the fire one may not have been to everyone's taste - if thats the case, then start editting!!!Tourskin 19:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

CIA Edits?

Why have the CIA been changing things on wikipedia and censoring a lot? Just type it in the BBC website and look what comes up! LOTRrules 19:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the main page. Besides that from what I can see the changes made were inconsequential or vandalism and were almost definitely made by some low level hack. If the CIA really has a campaign to edit wikipedia we won't be able to find out about it simply by looking at IPs. Nil Einne 19:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
This is pump material, and should not be posted on this talkpage. --74.13.124.222 06:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Today's featured picture is Image:Male Lion and Cub Chitwa South Africa Luca Galuzzi 2004.JPG. I feel that this is a gruesome picture. Is it really necessary to have such a gruesome picture on the Main_Page? Should the main page not be for family viewing? JRSpriggs 00:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. --Boricuæddie 00:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
And you could see images just as bad (video actually, in high-defintion) on the Discovery channel. Mr.Z-man 00:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Gruesome? If ur a vegetarian, or a vegan, then fine, but if u like me, love a good juicy steak at Fridays, then u have nothing to complain about. Besides, its educational. Tourskin 02:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
"Gruesome is subjective, but either way, Wikipedia is not censored or in anyway tailored for families or for children. Useight 03:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if I speak for all vegetarians, but I have absolutely no problem with images of animals eating each other in the wild. I think there might be reason to complain if TGI Friday's started serving Cape Buffalo though... Hammer Raccoon 12:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Children can see such images in BBC's wild cats diary that use to come on Sunday afternoon till evenings. Or any random David Attenborough documentary. So I don't see the image as unfriendly to families or children. In fact, wildlife documentaries are excellent programs for the family to watch. Obviously I've gone of a tangent again. That, and wikipedia is not censored. But then again, we don't excactly put up pornographic images on the main page do we?Tourskin 03:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
If some good pornographic image reaches the featured picture level, I see no problem in putting it in the main page. But, it's hard to imagine some porn that can qualify for that... wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 13:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:Michele_Merkin_1.jpg Is already an FP... Borisblue 14:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the lions image is gruesome; on the contrary, all it's doing is making me hungry. Borisblue 14:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm... man those Lions know how to eat an Iron steak. Tourskin 19:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia passes 200,000

Another milestone for WP: 200,000 articles --Camptown 08:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

поздравления русский Wikipedia! Another 50,000 and you'll move up a rung on the Main Page ladder. How's the stub to GA ratio? --Monotonehell 10:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Obituaries

Recently, the death of Ingmar Bergman was ignored on the main page. The item was certainly nominated for ITN, but was considered ineligible according to the ITN criteria. The same thing is about to happen today, when Luciano Pavarotti probably fails to meet the same criteria. However, the main page basically consists of two columns. How about letting the section "Today's featured picture" (in the bottom of the page) share the page's full width with a new section called "Recent deaths", featuring, say, two or three items? The nomination process could be administered like ITN in order to guarantee a minimum standard of quality. --Camptown 11:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that wikipedia should be concerned with the deaths of notable people that they put every one on the front page. This isn't wikideath. Capuchin 11:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
There's already a link to Deaths in 2007 in the Wikinews section. If you look at that page, the quality (and even existence) of articles is usually very poor. I doubt you'd get enough up to scratch items to list. Luciano Pavarotti's article is an unusually good quality article compared to most obituary candidates we get. Also there's not enough space for the featured picture and another column to its right (considering the most common screen sizes). --Monotonehell 13:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It should not have been included; we are very clear that deaths only appear in ITN for people who are both extremely prominent and active as well as die suddenly or unexpectedly. The latter was not the case. —Verrai 13:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This discussion isn't about the inclusion of Pavarotti, it's a suggestion for a new main page section. --Monotonehell 13:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
If you do what to discuss that, go to WP:ITN/C or WT:ITN Nil Einne 18:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Very front page

Has anyone else noticed that when you first go to Wikipedia.org , that there is an annoying scroll bar for width? Could an admin fix our main css please, because it affects the viewing. Thank you. (Please to not take this as a rude or offensive comment, it's not intended to be, it's just a suggestion, if no one agrees, feel free to disregard this) --Yamakiri 00:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, my bet's with this part:
<!-- Bookshelves -->
<div style="width: 100%; overflow: hidden; margin: 0.5em 0;">
<div style="width: 1100%; position: relative; left: -500%; text-align: center; white-space: nowrap;">

I'm good with XHTML, but I'm not certain that's what's wrong, it's just a guess, I'm just an intermediate XHTML user, not advanced. Yamakiri 00:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any horizontal scroll bars on two different browsers. --MZMcBride 01:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I think Yamakiri's referring to this, not the main page. The scroll bar's there for me, too. — Malcolm (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see what the problem is we need it cos the page is too long without it.Tourskin 01:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was talking about the one with links to the different languages. For even more to clarity's sake, User:Malcom got it. --Yamakiri 01:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I knew you were talking about http://wikipedia.org/ . It appears to be a Windows issue; it's not showing up on my Mac in three different browsers. The page that controls that page is meta:www.wikipedia.org template. There's an unprotected test page here that is synchronized every couple of days with the master page. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I have Windows. IE7 has the scroll bar, Firefox does not. Smokizzy (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is very odd. I've seen this kinda whitespace before in a few articles when the template FA is applied, like here. I fixed it on the Icelandic Wikipedia with CSS but never bothered with other -pedias. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 02:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok let me get his straight - at wikipedia.rog right? I know thats what was meant. I have IE7 too and it needs the scroll bar.Tourskin 02:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh damn you mean for width? Damn I didnt read that part. Yes i see the problem know. I agree it should go. Tourskin 02:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem appears to be related to the 1100% in the lines Yamakiri mentioned above. Changing them to 100% reduces but does not eliminate the problem and also creates other problems. Also BTW wrap is not a valid parameter for the white-space parameter [3]. But I tried all valid parameters and it doesn't fix the problem. Nil Einne 12:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thought, but when I did a quick nowrap to wrap, nothing happened. Could any XHTML programers comment here? It would be appreciated. --Yamakiri 14:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
this broke it. Why changes to the testing page are blindly synchronized with the live page without testing, I really do not know -- 81.129.47.109 22:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure? I tried the old version you mentioned but it didn't help matters. No for the matter did going back to the November 2006 version so I think the problem has been there for a long time. Also I presume the page was tested just not on IE Nil Einne 23:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In the news

Can someone direct me to where the contents of the "In The News" section gets discussed? I cant seem to locate the appropriate place. Russeasby 02:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it via a link at the bottom of this talk page, though honestly it could stand to be more obvious. Russeasby 02:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a link in "The Main Page Toolbox" at the top of this page (part of Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors). Evil Monkey - Hello 02:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


im all for academia and all... but

when sociologists start studying youtube videos like "bus uncle"

they should have their salaries cut..

my main criticism is that this article inflates the relevance, influence, and importance of the bus uncle video/incident

reminds me of the line in the spice girls entry that says that "the term girl power changed the face of britain" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.3.44 (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the main page. And did you actually read the article properly? "In June 2006, TVB television made a parody of the Bus Uncle video in promoting its coverage of the 2006 FIFA World Cup", "In addition, sitcoms of ATV and TVB imitated the video in argument scenes", "The famous quotes of Chan are now frequently used, mimicked, and parodied in Hong Kong, particularly by teenagers", "The catch phrases appear on Internet forums, posters, and radio programmes.[22][6] Various music videos have been created using the catch phrases, including pop,[4] karaoke, rap, dance and disco remixes.[2] Merchandise such as cartoon T-shirts and mobile phone ringtones have also been produced and sold on the Internet", "Furthermore, the banning of the usage of some video catchphrases in certain schools made the incident more appealing"... It seems to me the video/incident clearly had a big influence even if perhaps only for a short time Nil Einne 14:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page/Archive_107&oldid=1136980889"