Talk:Main Page/Archive 116

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 110 Archive 114 Archive 115 Archive 116 Archive 117 Archive 118 Archive 120


I guess WP has changed its server time over the past 24 hours or something, as yesterday when I visited past 00:00 I was given that days featured article etc, however today at 00:44 it is still 'yesterdays'. I'm on GMT here. Has the server date/time changed? (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

or, is it a manual thing? And if so, why aren't whoever is responsible doing their duty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Purge your cache. That should do the trick. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The game?

I have noticed on several pages directing back to this one references to "The game". Is this vandalsim? Wikipedia does have an artilce regarding this and it seems to be such a trivial thing on many important articles H.M.S Me —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Could you give an example of what you're talking about? Nil Einne (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
For something called "The game" there certainly seem to be a lot of them. violet/riga (t) 18:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I just lost the game. --- RockMFR 17:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I will tell you guys then. The objective of the "game" is to not remember you're playing. As soon as you remember, you lose. Once you've lost, you can explain the game to others, cause others to lose the game, or you can attempt to forget about it. A favorite pastime of mine is repeatedly telling my friend I've lost the game, so he automatically loses too. You cannot win the game. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I remember an article on that was deleted at AfD months ago. Actually, there seem to have been a few... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game (Life), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game (game), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game (game) (2 nomination)... J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe this is what anon was talk about. It appears we became the primary source for information about this supposed game so many people were linking to us but the article was eventually deleted as it should be because no one reliable sourcee appears to have covered the game. N.B. The funniest thing I find about the AFD is how so many of the 'keep' supporters have come across the game in multiple communities and in multiple cities. I never realise your average anon wikipedian was so widely travelled... There also some other funny comments like the claim the game is played throughout Nottingham City. The game may be one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while but hey at least the AFD is funny :-) Nil Einne (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Is anyone gonna point out that this has nothing to do with the main page? lol Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 17:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
While an article on this game should in no way be started before there is a reliable source discussing it, this non-anon user would like to point out that the game is widely played throughout many communities and cities. I find it's quite common to come across people saying/writing 'you've just lost the game' or to encounter people exchanging looks and cursing after certain topics/words are brought up. Or did I miss the point? Skittle (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oil price increase

It's not letting me edit the main page for some odd reason, so can someone change the link to Oil price increases since 2003 from Oil price increases of 2004-2008. Thanks! Cyclonenim (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:ERRORS & WP:R2D. -- (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Done ... I there's no real reason not to bypass the redirect. The item will probably be on the Main Page for a while. Graham87 02:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. CycloneNimrod (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Iowa Caucus

There seems to be a horrible case of vandalism on the Iowa Caucus page; an obscene picture is floating above the page. Somebody help. BirdValiant (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, it should be good now. BirdValiant (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments about the inclusion of the results on ITN moved to Template talk:In the news. violet/riga (t) 14:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Cascading parents

What on earth is the point of Main Page/1 thru Main Page/10? If they have a purpose it should be documented here... (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a deterrent against vandalism. Please see Talk:Main Page/Archive 99#Cascading protection backup subpages & Talk:Main Page/Archive 102#Main page/1-10. Perhaps an explanation should be placed at the top of those subpages. -- (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

ok Help

on the back of the dollor bill it says "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" and i looked it up and it translates to either

to nod, approve of a new order of the ages


to begin, undertake of a new order of the ages

now what does it mean i think i have an idea of what it means i was just lookin for your opion on this thanks DJ831415

See Annuit Cœptis and Novus Ordo Seclorum. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Worth mentioning?

Just noticed in the paper, today is the Earth's perihelion- it is the closest to the sun it gets all year. Is this worth mentioning? J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well we don't currently have any events for OTD so it should be fine and the article seems decent enough. But it's getting a little late for this year, maybe next year Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I was going to add it now that the date is unprotected but someone already has so it should be there next year Nil Einne (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia's insect photographers must be highly commended for the astonishing string of high-quality insect photographs that have graced the Main Page so often within the past few days. Well done! (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you on behalf of all, check out Wikipedia Commons[1] for a lot more. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 03:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Man, I wonder how our insect photographers hold those cameras, being so tiny and all (except the praying mantises, but they're still small relative to the cameras). howcheng {chat} 03:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Compared to the problem of figureing out the copyright status of the resulting pics that was a farily minor problem.Geni 14:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


why not let everyone change the main page!?!??!?!?!?!--Alex Vogt (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

because someone will replace it with "OMG! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL" every 2 minutes or so. --Howard the Duck 09:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
That's an underestimate. Remember when Robdubar unprotected it? He did so at 10:04. After 28 revisions (some were reverts of vandalism, but most were vandalism), at 10:12, Deckiller restored the protection. Robdubar unprotected it again, and there were three more vandalism edits until 10:14. That's a lot of vandalism, and it's something we really don't want.
Furthermore, there's not really much to edit anyway, most of the stuff is transcluded. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Well to be fair, a short term unprotection may not demonstrate what things will be like if we permanently unprotect the main page. It may be more (since not everyone may realise the main page is unprotected) or less (since people tend to get very 'excited' when they can do something they can't normally do especially when they know it's likely to be time-limited). And the transcluded argument only goes to a point since clear we can unprotected the ITN templates etc. But you're right that the level of vandalism, whatever it may be will not be pleasant and also vandalism aside can you imagine the edit wars of things like the Iowa caucas results, American football etc that will probably resulton places like ITN? Nil Einne (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The transclusion argument was more like-it's pretty useless to protect Main Page; if we want to make it open to editing, we should unprotect the templates.
Perhaps it's more reasonable to compare this to the protection of TFAs, those are never protected even though few of the IP edits are constructive. Still, I'm against unprotection, I simply can't see the potential benefits. Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not just vandalism that would be a problem. Well meaning editors that don't understand Main Page protocol, don't understand the relatively complex coding and who simply can't write so well would edit it, and that would not look good on the Main Page. Also, imagine the number of people who would be keen to add their own elements- their own pages to DYK, their own tiny piece of trivia to ITN, their own little made up holidays to SA. As everything would have to be discussed anyway (people would get tired of others being bold on the Main Page very quickly) and so there would actually be no advantage for everyone being able to edit it. Can anyone name one? I know I can't. J Milburn (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm definitely not advocating it but there are definitely some editors who are not currently admins or not yet admins yet will have a net positive effect, for example fixing errors etc without screwing things up, getting involved in edit wars or adding Britney Spears latest dramas to ITN. But you're right that the number of people who will inadvertently or purposely do damage will far outnumber them and it is therefore very unlikely there will be a net positive effect Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Said people will probably end up as admins in due course anyway, and I have no doubt would appreciate the fact that it is in the best interests of the encyclopedia for the Main Page to be edited only by admins. Back to the original poster- Alex Vogt, was there something in particular you wanted to do or change when you started this section? J Milburn (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hate to ask, how is an NFL story worthy of being part of the ITN section? Timmah86 (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
High profile sports records are often shown on ITN. Try WP:ITN/C, Archive for December 2007. -- (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


No picture for the Featured Article eh?  :) Jmlk17 10:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't have a free image of the subject.Geni 11:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I hate the no-fair-use-images-on-the-main-page rule. If we are using the image to illustrate the subject in question, it falls under fair use. It doesn't matter if it is on the main page, it still qualifies as fair use. Puchiko (Talk-email) 12:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
that is legaly questionable.Geni 14:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Some previous discussion Art LaPella (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I can provide laws on that case if you wish. I am a lawyer, and a member of the CIC. Dreamafter 19:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Our fair use rules are more stringent than the law anyway. We are not looking to toe the line- we are looking to create a free encyclopedia. J Milburn (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
We could have used a plant or something. Tourskin (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that. I prefer generic pictures to no pictures. J Milburn (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Message for Wikipedia

Dear Wikipedia, I have just came to say that I am sorry for the vandalism I have performed in the past. From now on I shall not vandalize anything on this Wiki ever again. Sorry! Please look at my talk page to see how much I have vandalized. :( --Jasper1066 (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your apology. I've given you a proper welcome notice to hopefully help you become a valuable editor in the future. Just so you know, this isn't really the place for stuff like this - as the big box at the top says, this page is for discussing the content of the Main Page only - if you want to chat to other editors/apologise/ask questions, you can do it at the Village pump. —Vanderdeckenξφ 21:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, another one gives up. --Kaizer13 (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Chicxulub Crater picture

Only 130 pixels wide

I cannot read the words in the image at its current state. Could we get a crop of just one map instead of trying to fit both in. –thedemonhog talkedits 00:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:ERRORS. -- (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

time for on this day

in that "on this day in history" bulitin it always changes to the next day at like 7 or 8 a clock p.m. for me but not even ussually the same time why is this do i perhaps live in a different time zone than the guy who writes that because sometimes i'll come on here at like 7 p.m. and it says the next day--Charlieh7337 (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Its based on GMT (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
To take precision to the point of pedantry, Wikipedia runs on UTC. Algebraist 01:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
It does always change at the same time of day (only DYK doesn't and ITN only changes by events) by design (it's completely automatic). But if you have daylight saving time or something then obviously the time will vary depending on whether you are currently on DST. However because of caching, you may not notice the change. If you purge the servers and your cache at 0:00 UTC every day then you'll find it does change at the same time Nil Einne (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"Euro currency"

(moved to Errors in ITN above) --Ouro (blah blah) 13:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why was Christmas omitted on the 25th December but included on the 7th January for "On this day..."

I think that someone is playing silly games or is very anti-christian. Could someone sort this silly behavior out. We all know that the 25th is the celebrated day for the birth of Christ (because the actual day is not known). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the 7th January is Christmas day for the Old Calendar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xicsies (talkcontribs) 08:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Christmas was also listed "On this day" on the 25th, Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries/December 25. However, the main source of your confusion appears to be not knowing that the ~250 million members of the Eastern Orthodox churches celebrate Christmas on January 7th. Merry Christmas. Dragons flight (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Although if you had follow the links on the main page you would know. BTW, in case you still have doubts, here is the version that was on 25th December 2007[2], as a look through the history will confirm. Nil Einne (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I remember checking Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries/December 25 on the 25th December and it did indeed have "Christmas day" listed, but the home page did not list "Christmas day". I still think that some editor is trying to be a smart-alec. Can someone give me a link to what the actual home page looked like on Christmas day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it is all based around templates, so we can only link you to what specific parts looked like. I can assure you that, at the beginning of December 25 this year, the 'on this day' section looked like this. Check the revision history here- the last edit made before Christmas day changed the page to look like the one I linked to above. J Milburn (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict with above)The Main Page is composed mostly of templates, and as such showing what the entire page looked like at a given point in the past isn't possible. You must be mistaken, however, as what you're describing is impossible. The relevant raw content here on the Main Page is {{Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}}}. That will mean the SA page for whatever day the server's clock is on will automatically transclude. What may have happened is, it may not have actually been the 25 by the server's clock when you saw it. Wikipedia's servers use UTC time, so if you're in a different timezone, it could have been the 25th where you were, but not according to the server. I can say that the Main Page absolutely did say Christmas on Dec 25, UTC.--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 20:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

News inclusion

Would the first tornado in 35 years in Oregon or Washington be news-worthy? RJRocket53 (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Make the suggestion at WP:ITN/C and find out! ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 06:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
If the twister happened in the border of Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Austria, it can be considered, but since it's on the States, you'll encounter an uphill climb. --Howard the Duck 06:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
So much for the idea of saying where to post the invalid statement and leaving it at that. :) ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 06:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm just saving RJRocket53 precious time, since more than likely, his suggestion will be thumbed down since it's American news. Face-surprise.svg --Howard the Duck 07:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I know, but still, we're all just trying to be nice when we answer the invalid questions, I've done it too, but if we're thinking of doing this thing we might as well do it right. ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 07:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
There was nothing "mean" about what I said. I said "you'll encounter an uphill climb", that's a lot nicer with the "mean" people at ITN/C who'd shout "U.S. story! Not international! aaaaaaah." --Howard the Duck 07:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Lol, I think were talking about two totally separate things right now. Nice, indifferent, mean, or just out right spiteful, the content of your comment to the guy isn't what I'm talking about, that fact that you helped him at all goes against the general idea of the conversation two blocks above, that we should just say: "Hey, this belongs at <insert correct place here>, and say nothing else. ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 07:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
At least we spared him from the mean people at ITN/C... Face-surprise.svg --Howard the Duck 08:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think 'mean people' has anything to do with it nor does anti-Americanism. An article on this tornado doesn't even appear to exist nor is it mentioned on current events. I would suggest when people are directed to ITN/C they are reminded to read the criteria. Also the claim it's the first tornado in 35 years is dubious, see [3] (first big tornado maybe but not the first tornado). BTW, I'm somewhat doubtful RJpocket is going to read any of this which is one of the reasons why I think a strong reminder at the top is good. Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how that obnoxious "reminder" applies here. Obviously, the OP was discussing the Main Page. —Nricardo (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point. The current big wording doesn't make it clear that this isn't the best place to discuss issues specific to one area of the main page (although the small wording does mean ITN/C). However I'm not sure if we can word it in a way which doesn't defeat the purpose (i.e. keeping it short and simple so a resonable number of people actually read at least the headline). Nil Einne (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'm somewhat doubtful RJpocket is going to read any of this which is one of the reasons why I think a strong reminder at the top is good.

BTW, It's RJRocket, and I did read it. I don't really think it would be included though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ooops guess I was wrong :-P Nil Einne (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sir Edmund Hillary?

Shouldn't the passing of Sir Edmund Hillary be noted on the main page of wikipedia? I'm probably biased as a New Zealander, but if he's on the main page of wikinews shouldn't he also be mentioned on wikipedia? I'd say he's certainly more important than a cricket sportsmanship row —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, as you can see from the information box at the top of this page, this suggestion should be made at Wikipedia:In The News/Candidates. ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 03:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Protecting children when accessing the main page

Given that kids use this, do we need a reference to pornography on the main page?Andycjp (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED Nil Einne (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Children have a right to a childhood, uncontaminated by exposure to content that is inappropriate for them (cue some smart-ass; "Define inappropriate <smug grin/>"). Nobody is saying that adult material should not be on Wikipedia, simply that it should not be displayed in areas that are accessed unitentionally (ie, the main page). If you want to find out about adult stuff - search for it. If you think children should not be protected, you're perverted. --Oscar Bravo (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So if you bring up a glaring logical problem in an often-suggested policy change you are a smart ass and entitled to a smug grin? Or, is your conservative standard of moral decency completely universal, and anyone who disagrees is a smart ass who invents fictional opposing views for the purpose of displaying a smug grin? APL (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Why are you letting a small child use Wikipedia? Parents bear primary responsibility for protecting children, which would include monitoring or restricting internet use. Dragons flight (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
What reference are we talking about, here? – Luna Santin (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
If parents don't want their kids seeing certain things, then it's up to them to install the appropriate filtering software on their computers. We can't make pages for any specific age group with specific standards because of the sheer variety of people who use the site. - Koweja (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I would guess it was the DYK about Le Menage Moderne Du Madame Butterfly being "the earliest known hardcore pornographic film to depict bisexual and homosexual intercourse". Generally I agree with WP:NOTCENSORED but perhaps references to hardcore porn, however fleeting, are a little much for the front page. MorganaFiolett (talk) 09:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with you. Where do we draw the line? You're opposed to pornography- what counts as pornography? What has to be covered? What counts as a 'sexual act'? Are you opposed to this? How about this? This? And so on... J Milburn (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
... I didn't even say I was opposed to pornography, I just said that referencing hardcore porn on the main page is 'perhaps' a 'little much'. My position is nowhere near as extreme as you imply. You responded as if I'm rushing out to stand on the streets shouting with a big protest sign, but actually I was just slightly raising my eyebrows before getting on with more important things. MorganaFiolett (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I realise that- I am just pointing out that it is difficult to draw the line, and so it is in our best interests, as far as possible, not to. I realise a reference to hardcore porn is more extreme than those pictures. J Milburn (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is referencing hard core porn a bit much? Are you saying you think most people don't know hard core porn exists and will be offended to find out it does? Are you saying we shouldn't let people know it exists? We have an article on hard core porn which was new and sufficiently updated to meet the DYK criteria. It was proposed for DYK and it was put on the main page as with many, many articles on a variety of subjects that appear each day, each of which may or may not interest readers and each of which may or may not offend some readers. I don't see any reason we should not feature an article on DYK just because certain readers feel it's offensive. If anything, hiding our content because it may offend some people is worse because people may not realise that wikipedia is an uncensored encylopaedia and yes we cover a large variety of subjects including some which may offend them and yes we do not arbitarily censor content if it happens to offend certain people and yes if content is relevant then it will be mentioned in whatever place is appropriate. People may feel we are trying to draw them in by making wikipedia seem a 'friendly' place where they can read about stuff without having to accidentally stumble upon something which offends them because it was relevant to what they were reading. But wikipedia is intrinsicly not that place. Do note that no one is saying we should include content which offends because it offends. All people are saying that when content is relevant and useful then it should not be censored. Nil Einne (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
If you don't want kids to see objectionable content then don't let them use the internet. It is not as though our picture of the day is a erotic picture, it is merely a mention of a film. 1 != 2 16:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me say this to all of you Wikipedia is not censored! For the simple reason that Wikipedia is not made for children, nor for adults. Wikipedia is made for everyone! If you worry that children will see nudity, then don't ever let them take a bath! These things can never be prevented. Evil can never be destroyed. And yet nudity is not evil, and neither is pornography, it is those minds which think it is evil are those which are evil! Remember that Wikipedia is neutral and so goes with pornography and nudity. That is why we got thousands of article about it and hentai. -- Felipe Aira 11:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Every time this question comes up, pretty well half of those who join the argument have no contribution other than to point out that Wikipedia isn't censored. Yes, Wikipedia is not censored. We understand that. That's not the point, and it is in fact a strawman argument. Wikipedia cannot be censored except in countries where censorship is possible - for example, I am writing this in the US, and I read Wikipedia in the US, so as far as I am concerned it is impossible to censor Wikipedia given the reality of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
You have a total missunderstanding of the first amendment, it gives you the right to free speech against your government. It does not give you the right to free speech in a private place such as wikipedia. Wikipedia can be legally censenored. The only time a website can't be censored is if it a goverment website, for example a government message board cannot be censored. It also means the government can't come along and censor us. For example if the person requesting we remove the adult content was from a government department, your first admendment right would be violated. Wikipedia itself could quite easily be adult censored perfectly legally, and because of the first amendmant the goverment could not even order this censorship removed!--Dacium (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This is not correct, but it's beside the point. HiramShadraski (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
What is at issue here is the type of material those who construct the Main Page deem appropriate to include on it. I don't have any answers to the "where do we draw the line" question, but I do know that "we're not censored" is not the same thing as "we don't have any self-restraint and hence will put anything that pops into our heads on the Main Page and you can't do anything about it, neener neener."
N.B. I personally don't care about children, and I personally don't think that this particular instance (that of including a reference to a pornographic work) crosses any lines. I also personally don't think there should be any limits - self-imposed or otherwise - on material that appears in individual Wikipedia entries. I'm just addressing the issue of occasional lack of self-restraint on the part of those who construct the Main Page, and the silly and specious "it's on the Main Page because Wikipedia is not censored, so shut up" argument.
HiramShadraski (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
There is absolutely no agreement to censor the mainpage at the current time. The main page is intended to highlight our work with criteria established for when we highlight it (TFA must be our best work, DYK must be a sufficiently updated stub or new article etc). Provided something meets the criteria then yes, it should be on the main page without some arbitary undefined criteria about 'children' being considered. We do in fact mostly take great care and self restraint about what appears on the main page to ensure neutrality, balance and quality but as I've already stated there is nothing about 'protecting children' expected as part of the self-restraint. If you feel we should have a 'protect the children' or 'avoid offending HiramShandraski' criteria for the main page, you're welcome to propose it but until then... Nil Einne (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Did you even read what I wrote above? Apparently not, so here's the core of it again: I personally don't care about children, and I personally don't think that this particular instance crosses any lines. I'm just addressing the issue of occasional lack of self-restraint on the part of those who construct the Main Page. The "what about the chiiilllllldrun" thing is from user Andycjp.
HiramShadraski (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Showing pornography to children under 18 is illegal in the USA. Putting it on the main page would be making it conspicuous and easy to find. Wikipedia is made for everyone, and should be tailored towards everyone.

RJRocket53 (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually wikipedia is intrinsicly not designed for children and it's already very easy to find pictures of penises, vaginas and nudity as well as various drawings of people have sex on wikipedia. Also the detail and language used in many articles probably greatly limits a children's ability to understand articles. Parents need to be responsible for ther children's internet use. Besides that, we have no pornography on wikipedia nor is there any consensus to include any. N.B. By children here I'm thinking 5-10 or something like that. Nil Einne (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Legally, it isn't as simple as RJRocket makes out. We can have images which, to many, would appear to be 'pornographic' for a number of reasons- educational, artistic, etc. I believe Jimbo once said that we could quite legally have hardcore pornongraphy on the Main Page the whole time. I personally don't know the legality of that, and, as I don't live in the U.S., don't really care. What I am however sure of is that we have a moral obligation to not be censored, and we should not put ourselves in a position where we have to start chopping and changing what is on the main page because we are scared we may offend. As long as we remain neutral, and everything put on the main page is verified well, there is no problem. Reporting is not illegal, and I think you'd struggle to find someone who would say it should be. J Milburn (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
In America, pictures parents put of their kids taking a bath were labeled porn. They were all closed down. (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Has the idea of an alternate main page that is safe for kids ever been entertained? DonES (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that's an awful idea. DYK and the like are already updated too slowly. Plus, how would they get to it? They would have to be linked from the actual main page, and no child is going to want to click it. That also just opens up Wikipedia to censorship, which is a bad idea. J Milburn (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You can always go to conservapedia. I agree with J Milburn, they couldn't get to it. And then there's always the problem about the definition of "safe for kids". Millions of parents consider unveiled womens' faces to be a bad influence on their children, millions of parents would consider an article about atheism to be a bad inappropriate. History would be a touchy subject too, wars are violent and "violence promotes violence" could be an argument to remove it from the Kids Main Page. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Commons Picture of the Year Advert

Kushan_I.A.K.J (talk · contribs) has posted the advert [4] at the top of this page, at Wikipedia:Community Portal, and several other portals. Without making a judgment about the other usages, I don't think this is appropriate to Talk:Main page. This page is not really intended as a community page, and we want to discourage random surfers from thinking of it that way.

I'd suggest removing it from this page. Other thoughts? Dragons flight (talk) 05:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I say get rid of it immediately, this is NOT a community portal, which several of the above discussions will attest. ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 06:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention that it kind of nullifies the giant red warning. I removed it. Nufy8 (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with its removal - certainly shouldn't be on here. violet/riga (t) 12:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

MESSENGER "In the news" description

"The NASA mission MESSENGER (pictured) flies by Mercury, the first spacecraft to do so in thirty-three years." should read "(artist's impression)" or "(artist's impression depicted)". "Pictured" might mislead someone into thinking that this is a photograph of MESSENGER in orbit of Mercury. DOSGuy (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done. east.718 at 03:15, January 15, 2008

Happy Birthday, Wikipedia!

Source: Article in WIRED Magazine Bernd in Japan (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow! It's amazing that, even for its own birthday, Wikipedia requries a source! (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
LOL Definition of "LOL (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Main Page Protection

Hi, I have noticed that a few administrators unprotect the main page, just for fun or to mess around... when this happens, random editors can do things such as this. This is obviously not acceptable, so can I just remind admins not to do so, or there will probably be some serious consequences...


The Helpful One (Talk) (Contributions) (Review Me!) 11:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm, that was around 9 months ago and was dealt with at the time. violet/riga (t) 11:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You can read the article about it in the signpost. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, just wanted to remind the admins. Thanks! The Helpful One (Talk) (Contributions) (Review Me!) 13:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Your name is ever so fitting :) -Elmer Clark (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
One, any admin who unprotects the main page is rogue, two, you think they don't know that?, three, since then a system of Main Page alternatives with cascading protection has been implemented so a rouge admin would have to unprotect 11 pages at the same time without being noticed. —Vanderdeckenξφ 16:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
In one or two cases it's been unclear if the person who carried out the actions was the actual admin. In one case related to vandalism not unprotection, an admin left his account logged on when a stupid friend came over. And a while back an admins account was hacked because it had a weak password. In any case, admins unprotecting or deleting the main page are usually desysoped and the only way they are likely to get adminship back other then going thru RfA again would be if they didn't do it (not sure what happened to the admin with the weak password). Definitely no admin that I'm aware of has ever accidentally unprotected the main page or thinks it's okay to fool around in that manner. Nil Einne (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It's been both accidentially deleted and accidentially moved in the past. Both people apologised, explained how they had made the mistake, and that was the end of it- no desysopping or anything, everyone makes mistakes. I remember one of them (I think the deleter) was a brand new admin at the time. The person who moved it was showing a friend how to move pages, and then, rather than moving the page they meant to, moved the Main Page. J Milburn (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
There's quite a history, really. You can trace most of the stories by looking through the extensive page log. Admins who unintentionally delete the page are generally "emergency desysoped" asap, but I've never heard of someone having to go through another RfA. If a password is stolen, there are various ways of identifying the true owner. — xDanielx T/C\R 03:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Well I was wrong then I wasn't aware some admins had really done it accidentally. I was under the impression that most admins who'd done it had either had their accounts misused or were inactive when it occured (indicating that they either really did it or had had their account misused but didn't realise). As far as I'm aware when admins didn't do it accidentally and didn't have their accounts misused, these admins don't usually get their adminship back Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well whatdoyouknow? 2 days after we discuss it another admin account is compromised Nil Einne (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference to "black"

DYK mentions that Peter de Villiers is the first-ever "black" coach of South Africa's national rugby union team. Surely to be politically correct, "black" should be change to "African South African" or "African native African" or "African African African egg, sausage and African". Surely. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-15 15:01Z

I think we should do what about 50% of Americans do and call him "African American" dispite the fact that he may have never touched U.S. soil, nor may he ever have lived there. (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I remember hearing about a newspaper that printed an article about an inanimate object that was "African American". — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-15 15:20Z
When Jesse Jackson was in London a few years ago he was interviewed on the BBC Radio 4's Today programme and talked of the British Afro-Caribbean community as 'African Americans'. I kid you not. I almost choked on my cornflakes laughing. (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

From a policy point of view, there is no consensus on the matter. However, the item is accurate- he was the first black coach, and the sources call him 'black', and the proposals you made are less specific than the word 'black'. Yes, 'black' is not a race, but his race is irrelevent- the fact he is black is not. J Milburn (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have linked to the relevant Wikipedia policy regarding my original proposal. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-15 19:16Z
I got it. Nice Monty Python reference. Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 23:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Got the reference, I just assumed you were making a serious comment about political correctness. J Milburn (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

India-Australia Test match

For God's sake, would someone please get rid of that stupid news item about that stupid test match. Its been around for days - surely there are more important things going on in the world than this. For "allegations" and controversy, plus the error that this series has been temporarily suspended (they are in Perth now, for the 3rd test), surely denies it world-calibre news status. Also, there have been dozens of matches with more controversial happenings in cricket, football, hockey, that haven't made front page. (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe how an isolated match with commonplace controversy and speculation (no series in cricket goes by without bad umpiring, match-fixing, ball tampering, etc.) has hogged the news section for days on end. Its unjustifiable, incomprehensible. So what if there is a controversy in India and Australia media? Is that enough to make main page news? Hey, I got a few score different items deserving attention then —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Once a news item goes on, it stays on until it is bumped off by other stories, not after a predetermined amount of time. If you wish to propose other stories, please see this page. For what it's worth, I'm with you, but I am not usually a fan of sports items on the Main Page anyway. J Milburn (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, the Indian car item is muchgoogol worse. --Howard the Duck 03:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Owl pic

I just have to say, it was really difficult to restrain myself from making the POTD caption "O RLY?" ... howcheng {chat} 07:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

NO WAI! I agree, I've edited the image for personal use now. The head's at the perfect angle of tilt... —Vanderdeckenξφ 10:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

autofocus the search box, please

It is annoying that unlike Google etc etc the focus isn't automatically put into the search window when you visit the page. (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This had been discussed time and time again - basically if the cursor would automatically focus in the search box then one cannot scroll down the Main Page simply by pressing the down arrow. This is just a brief summary of a multitude of discussions and hundreds of edits already devoted to this issue. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 15:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. Is there any way to arrive at a bookmark that 1) displays the top part of the main page and 2) is focused to allow search text input directly? (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe if you did some thingamagic to your monobook.js, but you'd have to wait for an answer from someone who's better-versed in this, as I am not. Oh, and you'd have to register for that (which is always a good thing). Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 15:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, register and you can set up a script to do it. Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why doesn't the cursor appear in the search box, like with Google? explains.--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 16:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
You could also use a bookmark in your browser to search directly. For example, in Firefox I have a bookmark with the keyword 'wp' and the url thus 'wp foo' in the address bar takes me to foo. Algebraist 17:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I checked that FAQ. I have to say, neither workaround given is especially use/newb/anon-friendly. Using the page is the cleanest, but of course misses the entire point as the nice "newsish" info isn't there. Having to register would be as bad as if Google started requiring registration, the point is to have a free, ad-less, not-agreeing-to-anything search service. And I'm using wikipedia about as often as google. (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The best option would be that Wikipedia autogenerates a variant version of its mainpage. (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that it would be a good idea to create a main page alternative.
However, I don't think that you can compare Wikipedia and Google. Google is a search engine, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Google's users just use Google. Wikipedia users use, write, develop, and maintain Wikipedia. That's why we need more users, and asking you to WP:Register, is one way to achieve that.
Of course, it doesn't mean we shouldn't care about unregistered users, maybe we could use cookies to make Wikipedia (to some extent) customisable without an account. I'm not saying give them a monobook.js, I'm saying give them an option to focus the search box. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
That's actually quite a good idea. Perhaps you should bring it up at the technical corner of the village pump? J Milburn (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
It's already possible to customize Wikipedia, or indeed any other website, in any way you like with the appropriate browser settings. Firefox has extensions such as Greasemonkey (for JavaScript) and Stylish (for CSS) that make the process easier – Gurch 01:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not just learn the keyboard shortcut? Hover with your cursor over the searchbar, and you'll get your browser's shortcut (Alt-Shift-F for Firefox). · AndonicO Hail! 18:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC) If you just use the main page as a place from which to search Wikipedia, I suggest you try instead.-gadfium 19:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

And if you're using bookmarks [[5]]. BTW on both IE7 and FireFox and probably many other modern browsers besides you can add wikipedia to your browser's search selection Nil Einne (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for dodging the issue - that of Wikipedia not being as userfriendly as possible. (Translation: any solution involving me doing stuff is clearly useless, as that won't solve the search issue for anyone else... sheesh...)

I would have thought that enlightened people like you would have realized by yourselves that any real good solution involves the site itself changing, with no hoops whatsoever required from the users? (Translation: a really good solution does not involve bookmarks, keyboard shortcuts, or any special stuff at all: it just works).

Why not simply say openly you don't care a rat's ass about anonymous users that wish to use Wikipedia as a search portal, eh? I'm outta here... (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's an absurd accusation, and frankly very rude to the people who have been trying to help you. It's the way it is because the majority of the users - registered and otherwise - prefer it that way. If you want it differently than the majority, of course you're going to have to go to extra effort - only one option can be the default. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether you're registered. -Elmer Clark (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It's also absurd to assume that the Main Page should adhere to an alternative use rather then its actual use... as a display area of Wikipedia's best content. You want to search, use Special:Search. ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 13:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that Special:Search does now put the focus in the searchbox if you use a direct link like the above. There's no navigation issue on that page, so it's likely to stay that way. Gavia immer (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It's also worth pointing out that I never said it did :) And I just realised you were agreeing with me, I hate abbreviation's, lol. ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 04:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC) ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 03:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Look, it has been decided through consensus that autofocus won't be the default. I have proposed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Cusomisation_for_the_unregistered, asking for some degree of customisation for unregistered users. But you have to realise that making such a big change is going to take longer than 18 hours. So please, register and customise it, or don't register and use alt+shift+f. But as Elmer Clark pointed out, if the majority doesn't want it autofocused it isn't going to be autofocused. Check the discussion from October, there have been numerous before that of course. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

is there a way to see old editions of the main page?

Sort of like the "yesterday" link but for an arbitrary date. Clicking in the page history doesn't do it, since most of the contents are served from today's edition. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That's tricky -- you can get an "old version" by clicking relevant links in the page history tab, but it's important to remember that template calls will grab the current template version, rather than the version which existed at the timestamp of the page version being viewed. In many cases, this isn't much of a problem, but the main page in particular is mostly built from templates. I'm not sure if there's any perfect solution. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
You can always look through the archive pages for Today's featured article, Selected anniversaries and Picture of the day, plus the page histories for In the news and Did you know. It might take a bit of searching but you'll be able to find what was in each section an any particular day. Raven4x4x (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Or, you could copy the source of the main page (click View Source at the top) to the sandbox, then change all the date references in the templates to be yesterday's date, or last week, or whenever. —Vanderdeckenξφ 19:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Funny that this thread is already here—I just came to this page to report that 2 months ago I had saved a permalink to the Main Page. I got it by clicking "Permanent link" in the left-hand "toolbox" pane. Tonight I tried it out and it doesn't work in the slightest. Just brings up today's version pretty much. Perhaps this "Permanent link" tool should simply be removed from the Main Page's toolbox so that people don't try to use it. Vanderdecken's workaround, mentioned above, sounds clever. I may not bother to try it tonight but good idea. — ¾-10 01:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S.—"Vanderdecken's workaround" sounds like something that ought to be a controversial theory in the field of hyperbolic topology. — ¾-10 03:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

New neighbours, old relatives!

It would be nice when you added a link to stq:Haudsiede, the language nearest to English at the contintent. --Pytk (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Because there are a very large number of languages and deciding importance or interest to English speaker is fraught with problems, we have a simple criteria of only accepting wikis larger then a certain size which at this time is 20k articles which the language you mention is quite far off. (We also don't list wiki's below a certain depth to try and avoid wikis with a lot of bot created stubs which is why certain wikis like Volapuk? are not there). Further discussion on this should take place at Template talk:Wikipedialang Nil Einne (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
What is 'depth'? Prodego talk 01:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems like the author ment Article length (ooh, nasty mainspace to projectspace redirect) ffm 01:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
'Depth' is explained at m:List_of_Wikipedias, in the Notes section just before the list begins.-gadfium 04:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


I'm wondering, why do we have in the 'navigation' box 'Contents' in plural but 'Featured content' in singular? Randomblue (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Because there are the contents, and you can look at featured content. It makes sense. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 21:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
"Contents" is a semi-frozen usage in that it is just "the way people say" the heading at the start of a book that tells the reader a summary of what's inside, most especially in the set phrase "table of contents". You could very well say "content", but it's just not the standard way. There is a lot of this type of thing in language. Click through to set phrase and Idiom for elaboration. Meanwhile, the content in featured content is being used in its conventional mass noun sense. The short answer to your question is, language can sometimes have more than one possibility for how to say something, and the option that's most commonly used may not be the one that seems most logical upon analysis from a certain angle. — ¾-10 02:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks User:Three-quarter-ten, that's a rather neat answer. Randomblue (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"Did you know" and "On this day" are getting too long

Just bringing this up. My feeling is that on a screen of normal height (this one is 1050px, which is probably more than some people have), I should be able to see at least the top of the "Today's featured picture", otherwise how do I know it's there? Having any more than six bullet points for either DYK or OTD is excessive (I'd recommend five), can we please exercise more constructive minimalism? Separa (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My observation, since I have frequently worked on the OTD side, is that it all seems to start with those admins working DYK, who want to get as many items on there from T:TDYK as much as possible ... which then leads them to add every backup item on OTD, and restore old items on ITN to "balance the main page". Normally, I just leave OTD at five items a day, but during the day, I have seen admins immediately add more stuff to that side just after they have updated DYK. Just my two cents. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I was planning to mention this based on the comment a few days ago. OTD rules say no more then 5 items but we often seem to have more then that nowadays. While balance is more important then the rules, we either should relax the rules or get stricter with DYK IMHO. Since this concerns both DYK and OTD, this is probably the best place to discuss it Nil Einne (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
From my perspective, it's been the opposite. I haven't updated DYK recently, but when I was doing it regularly, I frequently found that I had to keep sticking more DYK items in because ITN and OTD were too long. howcheng {chat} 17:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the problem is since DYK doesn't necessarily get updated at midnight UTC the left over DYK items may be fairly long so even if OTD starts off with only 5 items it quickly changes to 6 or 7 for balance. This will then stay throughout the day and with each DYK update, it will stay long since OTD is long. Then when the next day rolls over, this repeat ad nauseum...? Nil Einne (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
So insert a little IF too long REMOVE 1 or 2 from both...or are the projects not coordinated enough to do that? (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
As a fairly frequent DYK updater, I've always picked DYK hooks based off the size of OTD and ITN. I've never once edited either of the other templates. I was unaware that DYK admins were ever stretching the other templates; are we sure that this is common behavior? --JayHenry (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been padding up the RHS regularly. Alternatively, we could start enforcing the "unusual" requierment of hooks but a few people did star boycotting DYK when their stuff was rejected. Most of the hooks don't show anything non-normal. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
My mistake about the padding. I didn't know this. As for "enforcing the unusual requirement". As User:Blnguyen already knows, there's a miniature riot about once a month at WT:DYK when a hook doesn't get selected. I cringe to imagine what would happen if the number of hooks were reduced to the point that this became a regular occurrence. How would we have a remotely objective criteria for "interesting"? --JayHenry (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor grammatical error - news

Moved to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Thanks! --Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

is mainpage all about india

i have visited mainpage after a span of 1 month but still the fa is about india or music or america.why can't you people pick out any other topic for fa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, am outraged at the blatant Indian/melodic/American bias found throughout Wikipedia. Cigarette (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is so Indiocentric, melodiocentric, and Americacentric... I am outraged. Sbrools (talk . contribs) 17:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Blame the Indian wikiproject, they churn out FAs faster than Wikimedia's donations reach their target. --Howard the Duck 04:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
An article is only picked to be featured if it meets the criteria. If you or anyone else writes an article that meets that criteria, it can be nominated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. If it passes, the article will go onto the main page.
In practice, this means that if you write an excellent article about snails, we will have a snail article on the main page. So get working on your favourite topics everybody!
However, the next few days should be to your liking. Tomorrow's FA is Religious debates over the Harry Potter series, a British literature topic. The day after that is William Bruce, who was a Scottish architect. Puchiko (Talk-email) 18:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey that's too Britcentric ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
And really, weren't America and India both British colonies at one time? I think we've discovered that England is secretly mad that they have to share Wikipedia with America, so they're trying their hardest to make Wikipedia into... Britipedia! Alphabet55 (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
No way on your last point. We'd call it Britpaedia ;-) By the way, India never was a British colony. It was considered an empire in its own right. The 13 colonies that eventually became the USA started out as English colonies, the UK not existing at the time that they were originally licensed by the government of England and Wales. Eventually of course, the colonists decided to get rid of the King, but some time later they got King George I in the White House and some years after that, King George II, who is still on the throne so to speak. After King George I they got King Clinton I and, who knows, they might get Queen Clinton next. :-)

Thanks god there is some change.after all wiki contains lot of fa's form very diverse topics those can be used here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually we don't have FAs from a diverse range of topics sadly Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is true that due to systematic systemic bias some subjects such as math and philosophy are underrepresented, while others have lots of featured articles (media, music, war). If you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page you'll see what I mean.
However, User:Raul654 attempts to topically balance the articles (so that there aren't six music articles on the main page in a single week). And remember, this is a wiki. If you write a good article about snails, a snail article will be on the main page. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Puchiko means "systemic bias", not "systematic", btw. Tempshill (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I hate typos. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
My point is that since we don't have enough FAs from a diverse range of topics, it's not surprising that we fairly rarely have core science articles and articles on China, Africa etc. The claim that many people keep making that we have FAs from a diverse range of topic ignores the systemic bias that exists. It's important that editors and readers understand this because it's ultimately up to editors to overcome this. Raul cannot invent stuff that doesn't exist and although he does a good job of balancing ultimately we just don't have enough FAs on some rather important subjects which is why you rarely see them. Also given that we are growing at a rate of more then one FA per day which is a good thing, editors should be aware that it is never guaranteed their article will make it to the main page. Personally I would hope most editors have reasons more then wanting to see the article on the main page such as making a very high quality article rather then simply wanting to see their article on the main page. Nil Einne (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Well said. Aside, I believe that lots of India FAs is a good thing, it means that we are finally overcoming the western developed country bias. Puchiko (Talk-email) 18:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
but thean you are falling other way there are too many india only articles.although east has large number of cultures.--User talk:Yousaf465 04:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Puchiko was intending to suggest we no longer had any systemic bias. He/she was simply saying that it's good we at least have a fair number of Indian FAs since at least then the Western country bias isn't so apparent which I agree with. Of course we still have a great systemic bias with very few featured articles from many parts of the developing world (outside of India and to some extent Malaysia and perhaps SA if you consider that part of the developing world)... Nil Einne (talk) 08:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this is relevant, but I've noticed that a lot of technical subjects get sabotaged by the large group of technical professionals who edit articles without realizing that Wikipedia's target audience is ordinary people. Good, encyclopedic articles are constantly replaced with terse, technical definitions and graduate-level literature surveys. Understandable descriptions are removed due to ludicrously anal-retentive complaints about them not being precise enough. Words with which normal people are familiar are replaced with more "correct" jargon words most people have never heard in their lives. This might be part of the reason technical subjects have a hard time getting here. I found that I don't have the stamina to out-argue these people. That was how I personally became disillusioned with Wikipedia. Xezlec (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This is exactly the challenge Wiki poses, to all of us - to bridge the gap between the experts and the educated layfolk, in all fields. It souldn't be a reason for starting the war, though, - there is enough room on the servers for both the intro-level and the graduate-level (why not even the state-of-the-art level, as long as it has been reviewed somewhere?) Simple explanations shouldn't be removed unless they are misleading or wrong, according to an established source. Jargon should be avoided if possible, or at least explained. Xenonice (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

With regards to "In the News", why is "the New England Patriots defeat the New York Giants 38-35" of any notable significance to anyone outside of the USA? (talk) 06:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I came here as a regular reader to ask a similar question. Why does Wikipedia so frequesntly highlight articles on sports which are rarely played outside the United States - such as baseball and American football? There were two today. Statistics or news about those sports are incredibly boring for the rest of the world who use Wikipedia. They tell us, "This is a US site, and the rest of you can go hang." Even if it is a US dominated site, its purpose is dissemination of knowledge. It would be good for many US citizens to learn a bit more about the big world outside, not more about their own little fishbowl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
"It would be good for many US citizens to learn a bit more about the big world outside, not more about their own little fishbowl. " The user who said this is posting from an Amsterdam IP and is complaining about seeing information on a foreign (to him) current event. I just thought I'd point that out. (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems kind of butthurt to complain about American sports on the English wikipedia. There are ~300 million American English speakers to whom those sports could be considered relevant, and if we were to work out the numbers, it would probably make more sense to place American sports before any others, and if we deign to say we ought to remove all sports, well we are just being a bit ridiculous--they are news to a great deal of people! In addition, with regard to the specific incident, the football game in question was quite remarkable for a number of reasons ;-)
btw which sport is this ? baskball icehockey or rugby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yousaf465 (talkcontribs) 08:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Basketball scores are usually closer to 100. Ice hockey scores are usually less than 5. Rugby (either kind) is not usually played in the US. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Reasoning is given at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates#December 30. Puchiko (Talk-email) 11:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
For the "haters", don't expect the admins will take this down unless it reaches the bottom. It has stayed for too long on the main page so the only chance for it to be taken down is by the ordinary means. --Howard the Duck 13:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
About references to American sports articles on Main Page.(1) Many (most?) US citizens do not follow sports such as baseball or American football. It is absurd to pretend that 300 million people in USA all demand references to articles on those sports on the Main Page. (2) These are minority sports on a world basis, rarely seen outside USA. (Everywhere outside USA, "football" means soccer.) If the Main Page of English Wikipedia reflected the numbers of English speakers, and their interests, baseball and American football would rarely appear. (3) There are a lot of English speaking countries outside USA - UK, Ireland, Canada, much of the Caribbean, Australia, New Zealand, Liberia, Ghana, and very many more. Add all the English speakers in India, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Botswana, Swaziland, Lesotho, Pacific islands and so on. Now add all the people who speak English fluently as a second language, which includes a large proportion of the EU population and huge numbers worldwide. (4) There's a lot of us out here. And for us the English Wikipedia Main Page references to US sports are cryptic, irrelevant and boring. They tell us that Wikipedia is a US site for the USA - not for us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
When we had the 2007 FA Cup Final there were complaints, now we have this there are more complaints... when will it end... (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
With respect, the issue is not whether Wikipedia should refer to American team sports on its Main Page, but whether it is reasonable to refer to them almost EVERY DAY. To avoid withdrawal symptoms, I suggest you initially limit the references to one per week, then try to reduce gradually to about one per fortnight. As a methadone-type substitute, I suggest using references to internationally known sports - soccer, athletics - on other days until the symptoms stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, there are two sports items on at the moment- neither are very American. In fact, judging from the anti-British humor on American TV, cricket isn't even played over there, and the Dakar Rally is in Africa, and the story concerns the French. J Milburn (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Is racist humour allowed to be depicted on TV in the USA? It doesn't seem likely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. In fact, relatively soft jokes about Mexicans, or jokes about the differences between white folk and black folk make up some comedians' whole routine. Generally not good comedians, though. Harsher, more nasty racist jokes are rare because most networks and cable channels have internal guidelines that they've determined would lose them viewers if they break them. You may hear such jokes on the radio, though.
In any case, "British" is not a race, and given the amount of anti-American gags in British shows, I'd say turn-about is fair play. (Especially if they insist on playing a silly game like Cricket.) APL (talk) 05:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
It is true that the British do not constitute an homogeneous ethnic group, but what country has such a thing? Cricket is admittedly baffling to some people, but at least it is a truly international sport that is enjoyed by millions of people around the world. And moreover, like many world sports, it was invented in GB. USAmericans used to enjoy cricket and one US cricketer played for England I believe. US rugby players gave a good account of themselves at the recent Rugby World Cup tournament. So, maybe you guys should take up cricket once again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
1. There are 300 million people in America

2. There are 60 million in the UK, 30 million in Australia, 30 million in Canada, much of the Carribean is US citizens any way, and many speak Spanish or French, same with the Pacific Islands, Liberia and Ghana 26 million

America has way more.

It would be good for many US citizens to learn a bit more about the big world outside, not more about their own little fishbowl.

Conversely, it would be good for the rest of the world to learn about America. You know, in Muslim countries, some people hate Americans because they're all Christians! Only 80% are though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, "much of the Caribbean" is NOT "US citizens any way", no idea how you could possibly come to the conclusion you came to. Most of the Caribbean is made up of people who are citizens of their own Caribbean nations. Secondly, if you really think "in Muslim countries, people hate Americans because they're all Christians!", well, I dont even know what to say to that. Russeasby (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I meant some people in Muslim countries.

About the Carribean, I meant the many resorts, the fact that the Florida Keys and US Virgin Islands are in America, and the US troops stationed there. For what it's worth, why would this be on the front page?

The Indian cricket team's tour of Australia is temporarily suspended following a controversial Test match, due to a racism incident involving Harbhajan Singh, along with claims of poor sportsmanship and bad umpiring.

Well, reguarding the Caribbean, the Florida Keys are not generally considered the Caribbean, and yes the USVI and Puerto Rico are (but that is a very small portion of the Caribbean) and the resorts? Are you Serious? There are many independant nations in the Caribbean, many of them english speaking. As for the Indian cricket team, well, WP is NOT us centric, and much of the english speaking world is nuts for cricket (personally I would opt to have no sports coverage on ITN, but hey, I know I am in the minority). The US is about the only english speaking nation that doesnt go wild for cricket, that news item has as much place in ITN as the patriots having their winning streak does, perhaps even more so. Russeasby (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
As a matter of fact India has almost 300 million people (I think) who can talk English either fluently or as a second language. It's taught in most schools as part of the British colonial legacy. That is why there are so many Indian FAs when compared to other developing nations. And the fact is that at any one time in India almost 400 million people are tuned in to watching their cricket team play. Despite the fact that it has a larger following than most sports in the world, cricket is mostly ignored in ITN (I say mostly because sometimes it is included), and scorned upon by some administrators of ITN. So there is a bit of US-centrism in there. Darrowen (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The number of English speakers in India doesn't appear to be agreed on. The Wikipedia article cites an 1991 source, claiming the number to be some 90 000 000 total speakers. However, other sources suggest that there are "350 million English language speakers in India - more than the combined populations of Britain and the United States. "
Also if I may correct you, "who can talk English either fluently or as a second language", is kind of imprecise. You can speak English fluently, and as a second language at the same time. "Fluently" just indicates that you know the language rather well. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just some more India paranoia from Yousaf and his Pakistani IP colleague. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Main page only template

I hope this template doesn't go away. Its perfect and very eye-catching. Tourskin (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh... What template? Dreamy § 02:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The huge one at the top of this page...pretty damn hard to miss for sure. Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 02:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
If that doesn't keep off off-topic discussions I dunno what will. --Howard the Duck 03:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
A magical sticker that flies out of the user's screen and on to their fore head, whenever an off-topic discussion is made. Tourskin (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I say we just start getting really stricked with what we reply to, if something is in the FAQ, we just reply "Please See FAQ#" and leave it at that, or if something is off topic, we just say "This is not the correct place to post this, please see: WP:Village Pump(Which ever section) and again, leave it at that. I know its a little harsh, but it would help the message get across that this is for discussion the Main Page, and its talk page, only. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 04:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Most of the time we do that, but I get guess people either forget or become too friendly and reply.Tourskin (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I know, that's why I underlined the "leave it at that"s. Maybe we should add something to the template to let replying editors know not to offer any further help. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 06:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Something like {{Trollshere}} but instead of trolls say don't feed the... unknowing? I don't know what we would call these people!Tourskin (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What about "don't abuse the newbies"? ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 01:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The template on top made me go whoa. That's what I call hammering a point in. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally I like the latest iteration of the template. But I'm somewhat doubtful it will stay. From my experience though the template seems to change fairly regularly. Usually what happens is someone tries to make it more visible which stays for a while then someone else comes along and says it's too 'bitey' or too confusing or argues there's no point and tones it down which stays for a while then someone tries to make it more visible again. Repeat ad infinitum Nil Einne (talk) 09:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
It could do a little trimming though, you won't expect someone to read all of that. Like just say "This talk page is for the Main Page only. All other discussion should go to <link>." in big letters. --Howard the Duck 10:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but think the trimmed version should have the FAQ prominently(sp?) included. (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Then FAQ=<link>. Short big lettered instructions are easier to follow than long instructions. --Howard the Duck 11:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This is just ridiculous, in my opinion. I mean, something eye-catching, yeah, but there's a fine line between that and just plain silly, and this goes about a mile over it in the wrong direction.--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 18:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)-Note: this comment referred to this revision.--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 19:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Gurch was being a bit pointy particularly from the edit summaries. Nil Einne (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The addition of Face-surprise.svg was silly. Just leave it how it is now, the stop hands added by me should be enough. —Vanderdeckenξφ 19:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh and also based on the face surprise. Also see User talk:Gurch. The ironic thing is no one has reverted the increased font size yet. I guess the 'joke' is on him/her if we end up keeping the larger font size :-P Nil Einne (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
At the moment, I'm lovin itTourskin (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I like it at the moment, too. Should help keep the page free of clutter. In fact, thanks to that template, I'll actually finally add the Main Page talk page to my watchlist. J Milburn (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

this is a section edit link so that I can edit this thing later

<moved back left> OK, that's unnecessarily huge; it fills my entire browser window. Sure, make it big, but not THIS big! Modest Genius talk 20:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You are mentioning your browser window, which may have nothing to do with the main page - please take your complaints to another discussion page please - gees i thought the template was clear enough. lol.Tourskin (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
From what I can tell, he/she's complaining about the size of the messagebox which probably fills most browswer windows and was even larger when he/she made the comment [6]. This is definitely the best and only place to discuss the size of the messagebox. Personally I still feel the template is good but people are welcome to comment if they feel it is too large. Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
That's only because there's no Talk talk:Main Page. howcheng {chat} 22:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Eh, it was suppose to be a joke - you know, ha ha, go away dont discuss here? Get it? ahh geeess...Tourskin (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Our unofficial, yet prevalent mascot. Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I said big letters with a short instruction, not big letters with a loooooong instruction Face-surprise.svg --Howard the Duck 03:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The template fills up my whole screen, you guys want a screenshot? It's even more whoa than yesterday morning Face-surprise.svg --Ouro (blah blah) 11:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Face-surprise.svg << new Wikipedia mascot. --Howard the Duck 11:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
That is a good idea. But how would it be the new mascot? We don't have a current mascot! The "oh no" face is a perfect candidate, because that is what I think most of time when I find people acting silly. (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
While there is no official mascot, we have Wikipe-tan, who could be considered a mascot. Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I was going to say something about Wikipe-tan in my previous post. This is an international encyclopedia, why do we have an mascot (albeit unofficial) based on a Japanese concept? Granted, the smiley face and it derivitives started in the US, but it's basically international now. Of course, I jest about seriously making it a mascot! (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Someone needs to draw Wikipe-tan doing the :O face – Gurch 17:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
<< Wikipe-tan after seeing Jimmy Wales naked. --Howard the Duck 07:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, the first thing I thought after seeing that notice? "Well then, where DO I ask questions, make comments, etc.?" The second thing? "Make the "main page only" less noticeable and the FAQ, Wikipedia:Questions, etc. more noticeable." The third thing? "I had better edit it." And the fourth thing? "Shoot, the school's IP is blocked. Now I need to log in." ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 17:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Update: I just did. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 17:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I reverted it. I believe the longer version is better and still gets the point across - too much unnecessarily huge text is /incredibly/ ugly - and gives more details about where directly to go rather than to just another page. I also think that it shouldn't be 100% width. -Halo (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I've had a tinker - I've tried to make it big and stand-out without making it overly ugly and try to be as useful as possible. Comments? -Halo (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
...really, guys? We get, what, one off-topic question every day or two? Is it really necessary to put this gigantic thing up there? Much better would just be to start removing inappropriately-placed questions and making a template to put on the user's talk page informing why it was removed and where to post future questions. This seems very silly. -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
....Or do bothFerdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 05:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Ferdia. Instead of making the user go Face-surprise.svg when he opens this talk page, let's do something like
G'day Glad you made it to Wikipedia. However, your question was inappropriate for the talk page of the Main Page. Next time, kindly go to the Reference Desk to get the response you are looking for.

for their talk pages. Right? --Ouro (blah blah) 12:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I mean, the text can still be edited. And for fans of Face-surprise.svg I have created {{User:Ouro/whoa}} :) --Ouro (blah blah) 14:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Can't we put the warning sign at a separate template? Like Template:Main Page talk header? And I gotta use that new userbox. Face-surprise.svg

--Howard the Duck 14:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

How about Template:Main Page talk info? Cos it's not a header for the main page but an info template regarding Main Page talk? --Ouro (blah blah) 15:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Strike that, I misunderstood which template you meant. Yeah, second that! --Ouro (blah blah) 15:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC), I agree that Wikipe-tan is not international. I suppose she is used because many people (including me) like her, and consider her to be cute. If you don't want to use her, pick one of the other ones instead.
The template is great, Ouro! Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
We all have something for cute girls working their heads off, wearing miniskirts at that :) about the template: yeah, so I'm thinking, put this as a separate template so it can be substed and its contents adjusted according to a specific need (like, to point someone to the RD, HD, VP or everywhere at once). Then you slap something to the effect of {{subst:mainpagetalkinfothingy}} on an IP's/newbie's talk page and they can be off. Huh? --Ouro (blah blah) 15:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

this is a section edit link so that I can edit this thing later (2)

Whatever is finally decided, please do not have 300% font. Even on my laptop's large wide screen, it is far too big and obnoxious. We don't want to terrify people, just inform them of the proper uses of this page. - auburnpilot talk 18:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest, instead of having the long block "This is not the place to ask general questions" with no help whatsoever, replace it instead with "To ask general questions, see WP:Q." (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the Main Page only.

This is not the place for discussing Talk:Main Page

If you want to discuss Talk:Main Page please use Talk:Talk:Main Page.

That monstrosity at the top is totally ridiculous. Why don't those EDITS who spend all day on Talk:Main Page getting all pissy about the great unwashed masses directing their questions to a link that says discussion on the Main Page take a break and do something useful, since they can't seem to figure out how to do something helpful? BTW, I'm blasting edits, not editors. --Elliskev 00:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well clearly the more subtle version wasn't working, and I haven't noticed a misplaced questions since its arrival, so ridiculous is a word I'd use to describe something on this page, but it certainly isn't the helpful box at the top.
BTW, I'm blasting an edit, not an editor.~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 03:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Heh heh --Elliskev 13:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
If we're going to have a list of links to other question-asking locations in the header, adding WP:ITN/C might prevent a lot of inappropriate questions too. -Elmer Clark (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 Done. ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 11:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The simple fact is, most 'off-topic' posts are ignored or are directed to somewhere else. But since the vast majority of people who post 'off-topic' posts don't seem to bother to check back, the only way we can help these people make their posts useful is by directing them to the proper place where they will actually get the attention they deserve in the first place. I and other people sometimes move off-topic posts to the proper place and it is usually only then that they get tne attention they need. When we don't do this, often nothing happens and the well meaning attempt to improve wikipedia goes to waste. So realisticly encouraging people to post in the right place with a clear message at the top is going to reduce the time they waste posting stuff which everyone ignores and the time other editors waste moving or redirecting them to the right place Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, to my mind the only factor left is getting to correct look to the box. ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 11:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand the purpose of the banner. What I'm getting at is the mindset behind it. I've watched this talk page for a long, long time. I have seen that Nil Einne handles "off-topic" posts very well; treating the person posting with dignity. I have also seen other editors treating these "off-topic" posts as a personal affront. That ridiculous banner at the top seems, to me, to be the exact opposite of a welcome mat. I look at it and think "Wow. I have a question, but these people seem pretty uptight. Forget this."
Why not handle it like I've seen it handled by helpful people for years? Answer the damn question and follow up the answer with direction to the proper place to ask next time? If they have an account, answer on their talk page. --Elliskev 13:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That'll probably happen anyway, to be honest. But really, what's the harm in a message directing people to the right place before they post? Really, I don't see it (in the current form, anyway) as being "ridiculous" in any way. If I saw that, I'd not think "these people seem pretty uptight", I'd think "Oh, I should ask this on this other page, OK." I just really don't think its the monstrosity you're making it out to be.--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 15:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was being a little extreme on purpose (cue the WP:POINT responses) to illustrate my opinion that the banner is far too impersonal.
For a lot of folks, the Main Page is the entry point to Wikipedia. It's the Main page of Wikipedia. Any banner at the top of the Main discussion page (I know, I know... it's not the Main discussion page) should be welcoming, not admonishing. Admonishing is how it appears - at least to me. There's a lot of systemic follow-the-damn-rules templates and banners and cryptic links to guidelines and policies all over the place on Wikipedia. Hell, new folks are even welcomed with an impersonal template. We should do everything possible to be a little more gentle to those who don't know the rules. Like, maybe, let them know the rules without a template or banner. --Elliskev 16:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The issues as I see it are
  1. Very few people are actually willing to deal with all the stuff that ends up here
  2. Of those that do deal with it, many already feel the volume is too high and aren't willing to reply to or redirect any more then already occurs which isn't enough
  3. From my experience both here and in the RD, it appears very common that someone won't actual check back to their post for a long while if at all (even if they are asking for help) meaning that it will probably have disappeared by the time they check back. Therefore simply telling someone you should take this somewhere else usually means nothing will come from it. And more importantly if they asked a question and come back several days later only to find they were simply told to go to the RD they're unlikely to be any happier then if they at least found their way to the RD themselves in the first place even if they had to go through an unwelcoming template to get there.
  4. I for one think many people who don't know about the 'rules' would prefer a simple even if 'unwelcoming' template which directs them to where they have to go rather then to have to post here being unsure if it's where it should go only to either be ignored or directed to somewhere else.
  5. Both 1, 2 and 3 mean that often nothing useful will come from an OT post at all so it is probably far better if they are reduced.
  6. From what I can tell, most people who do deal with the main page are supportive of the changes to the template and feel it is already helping to reduce the amount of 'clutter'. And it seems to me only fair to defer to their wishes (within reason). Even if the template is mildly unwelcoming, isn't it better that we actually have people who will deal with talk main page? This isn't OWN here simply a case of it being unfair to tell people 'you have to deal with things in a certain way' when they are the ones volunteering their time and no one else is voluntering to do it the other way. Obviously there is a limit, it is not acceptable to tell people to 'fuck off' for example and if people were dealing with things in that way then you are justified in telling them this is unacceptable even if you yourself aren't willing to deal with what they're dealing with. But surely this template is mildly unwelcoming at best? Talk pages for controversial articles do tend to have similar templates because it's perceived as the best way to reduce the frequency of people having lengthy debates about the topic (and this can be a big problem).
Nil Einne (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
OK. Can we at least tone the banner down some? Something like: --Elliskev 19:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a question?

Click here!

this is a section edit link so that I can edit this thing later (3)

You know guys, if you are tired of everyone and his brother coming here, one could consider deleting or renaming the "discussion" tab that appears on the main page. Simply seeing a prominent link to "discussion" probably does foster the wrong idea for some web visitors. Dragons flight (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't mind turning this page into a WP:QUESTIONS-style disambiguation page and shifting discussion on the Main Page itself slightly farther away. At least if everyone had to come through the interface, there'd be a better chance of having them end up at the right place. But then, I've currently got enough alcohol in my system to power a generator for a few hours, so it's not necessarily a good idea to listen to me :) GeeJo (t)(c) • 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Everybody knows that the consumption of massive quantities of alcohol makes one's opinions much more interesting to others. Works for me, at least. ;) --Elliskev 22:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay then, you're the defacto question answerer. Be aware that if a question goes unanswered for more then 12 hours the foundation is going to sue you for breach of contract! :-P (In case this isn't obvious this isn't a legal threat since I don't represent the foundation) Nil Einne (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The 'question' template above is good. I'd be for placing it. But (as always) the WP:QUESTIONS page has to be made simpler - I'm seeing something like the front page of WP:RD - a few words, a few links - very, very simple style. What do you all think? --Ouro (blah blah) 08:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, how's about something like (example is just the thing from WP:RD, just edited) this for WP:QUESTIONS...
Knowledge reference deskFace-surprise.svg
Wikipedia HelpWikitanface.png

Error: Image is invalid or non-existent.

Error: Image is invalid or non-existent.

Knowledge reference desk Help The Village Pump Errors on Main Page
Encyclopedic knowledge on all topics Help on contributing to Wikipedia Discussions on the inner workings of Wikipedia To report an error on the Main Page of Wikipedia

...huh? --Ouro (blah blah) 08:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest Ouro, my eyes are much more easily drawn to the banner at the top then to yours, although yours is much less threatening it seem much more ignorable, which we definatly dont want. (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
It's just a suggestion, and it's definitely not a suggestion for a header for this page - but for WP:QUESTIONS. I wanted this to be simple and definitely not threatening :) --Ouro (blah blah) 15:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I would just like to say that the above templates are hilarious and I wouldn't mind seeing anyone of them. Tourskin (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Nice. First my new best friend Face-surprise.svg then my old buddy 20px. This'll be great! --Howard the Duck 06:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How about we add "If you do not regularly visit this page, please review the following information" just above the list of places to ask questions. ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 10:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've implemented the above, if you don't like it feel free to take it away, just reply here while you're at it. ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 13:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I added some more of those "impersonal templates" (leastways, that's what you called them). But hey, if it works, it works, and if it works, it works, and if it works...~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 01:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


I'd be all for protecting this page and forcing people to go down one route; this would become something of a discussion portal that leads you to where you ought to go. violet/riga (t) 12:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice. And it wouldn't stop people from talking legitimately about MP, since they could post on Talk:Main_Page/TMP or something similar. ffm 17:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
And the point in this would be??? Modest Genius talk 22:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
If people were forced to a more specific page in order to make a comment we would remove the constant "you should've posted that [here]" and much of the irrelevant rubbish that is written here. violet/riga (t) 22:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Except that every one of those specific pages would be full of "You should have posted that in [name of other specific page]" comments – Gurch 01:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 01:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, why do we have two templates saying the same thing all of a sudden... ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 08:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Tourskin (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

New version

OK, this new version (as of this revison) just plain stinks. Can anyone explain to me how its better to be less helpful? Because I just don't see it.--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 17:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it, it was done by an anonymous IP who clearly didn't read the conversation here. Just while I'm thinking of it, would anyone object if I made it a template to make it harder for inexperianced users to vandalise? ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 18:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Heres the template anyhew:
feel free to go ahead and add it as a template instead of the raw text at the top, I'll do it myself in a couple hours if no one objects here... ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 18:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)