This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The preview for the featured picture for today does not show the animated picture of the timeline for U.S. statehood, as stated in the description. Clicking on the picture will take you to a page showing just one frame from the complete animated picture. Can someone please fix this? --Jibran1 18:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing there says that you're supposed to click the image. You're supposed to click the giant link that says "View the animation". ShadowHalo 18:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I redirected the static image's description page to the animation page. I also protected the static image (which somehow sat on the main page all day without being vandalized) at the Commons. There isn't a new feature that renders this unnecessary, is there? —David Levy 19:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't everything appearing on the mainpage supposed to be automatically cascade protected somehow? Nil Einne 19:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's a new feature of which I'm unaware, the protection doesn't cascade to the Commons. —David Levy 19:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't quite read properly and didn't realise you were referring to commons protection. Anyway I'm not sure but I believe the way the cascading protection works the image on the main page won't change even if the commons image is changed. Therefore vandalising the commons version doesn't actually achieve what most vandals would like to achieve, putting a shock image on the main page Nil Einne 21:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be a new feature. I'll perform a test. —David Levy 22:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, such a feature has not been added. I uploaded this image to the Commons, transcluded it on a Wikipedia page and applied cascading protection. Then I uploaded this image in its place (using a non-sysop account) and it immediately replaced the original image on my test page. —David Levy 23:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry then. As for the lack of vandals, well I guess it wasn't something so obvious to vandalise. Also most Americans who I would guess make up a majority of vandals (given that they appear to make up a majority of wikipedians) are probably too busy having BBQs or picnics or blowing themselves up with fireworks or whatever they do on their independence day Nil Einne 01:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The placement of an unprotected Commons image on the main page usually results in vandalism almost immediately, so I'm leaning toward your theory that the American vandals were busy celebrating Independence Day. And yes, that's an accurate list of the things that we do (including blowing ourselves up with fireworks, unfortunately). —David Levy 02:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(undent)I thought what was done was to upload a temp version of a commons image to Wikipedia for inclusion on the mainpage and then delete it after it's finished. I have no idea where I saw this proceedure, or indeed if my crazy mind simply made it up. --Monotonehell 04:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I neglected my usual duty with protecting this image today. And there is no way to avoid this process, other than protecting it directly at Commons instead if you're an admin there. The process Monotonehell is describing is explained at the relevant template ((c-uploaded)). And in case for some reason I miss it again in future (as I will for the next few days) please just check to see that it's done. Thanks, and sorry for missing it today.--Pharos 06:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Back to the original question: the best solution is to use mw:Extension:ImageMap on the main page template, just like Template:Featured article. A redirect on an image page further restircts access to the attribution information which is required by the GFDL. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the addition of an extra link click "restricting access." —David Levy 05:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

For example, in the early use of Template:C-uploaded, we did not copy the attribution information locally. So when someone complained, User:Gmaxwell made this edit with the following summary: "We are obligated to provide attribution for most free content licenses, it is not acceptable to make attribution less accessable for images on the main page. And yes, we've had a complaint." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You aren't explaining how the redirect made the information less accessible. —David Levy 05:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What's especially puzzling is that when replacing the redirect with an imagemap, you suppressed the description page link. Therefore, you made it far more difficult to reach the description page (because clicking on the image no longer leads to a page containing a link to it). —David Levy 05:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I can remove "desc none" and the link to the actual image is there on the template. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was referring to when I said that you suppressed the description page link. This icon, however, is ugly and unfamiliar (so most people won't know to click on it). What, exactly, was the problem with the previous setup (which enabled someone who clicked on the image expecting to find the description page to simply follow one additional familiar link)? —David Levy 05:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I am trying to find from my archives, etc. who told me that putting a redirect on an image description page is not proper because someone else might use the image by itself on another page, in another conext like this. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree if we were discussing a redirect to a page with only peripheral significance to the image. In this case, the redirect led to a page that prominently featured the original source image from which the static frame was extracted. —David Levy 06:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The image description page of the static frame image does in fact give attribution information about the original source image from which the static frame was extracted, as well as the file history of the frame image as required by the GFDL. Or am I not understanding your comment? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It does appear that you misunderstood. My point is that the redirect led to a page that was built around the image (as opposed to one in which it played a relatively minor role). —David Levy 06:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am having trouble locating the message I got, but I think the point is pretty clear. Someone can immediately use the frame image in an article illustrating the United States in March 1867. A redirect would not only be proper but also make it less accessible to one, especially a newbie who has no idea what redirect are and how they are link and used, who would not expect it. Therefore, an image map is the best course of action. As for the "ugly icon", that is automatically generated by the image map extension so it may need tweaking. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, this shouldn't be a major concern when we're redirecting to page created specifically to showcase the original source image. If you disagree, how about linking directly to the animated image's description page (which, of course, contains the source and licensing information)? This could be accomplished via either a redirect or an imagemap (with the description icon suppressed), with the former having the advantage of providing a header link to the static image's description page. —David Levy 06:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Give me a few days to think about it. Having static versions of animated POTDs on the main page has been a work in progress since November 2006 when it was first proposed; there have only been a dozen or so since then. I am somewhat surprised that Jibran1's original comment has not been mentioned earlier. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, as if posting the outcomes of a bunch of random sporting events wasn't bad enough, now the first thing on the main page is that a decision has been reached as to where some useless sporting event is being held... 7 years from now?! Who can kick, bat, or toss a ball better, or do the most backflips down a ski jump without breaking their neck, is not front-page worthy news. Where the ski jump might be 7 years from now... really isn't front page news! Bushytails 04:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Olympics are actually internationally renowned and famous. It tends to be a big deal when a city/country wins their bid for the games, and it seems many can be proud when it happens. I'm not trying to push a POV here, but I think it deserves a decent amount of coverage. Jmlk17 04:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw a picture of my varsity team winning a championship at the front page of a broadsheet, so sporting events are front page news. --Howard the Duck 04:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me know when your local paper's front page has where your team is expected to play 7 years in the future. Bushytails 05:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Olympics is different, whole new thing. --Howard the Duck 05:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And not to mention qualification for the 2014 Olympics won't start until by 2012... and our paper won't do that since it doesn't snow at out place. --Howard the Duck 05:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually when New Zealand won the hosting rights for Rugby World Cup 2011 it was from memory, front page news on our largest paper the New Zealand Herald. Of course, so was a story about a picture of the legs of stripper once... Back to the main topic, the Sochi win seems like bigger international news then the Libby thing to me Nil Einne 06:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's see... cronyism and corrupt political officials on one hand, people playing in the snow on the other hand... possible major political issues... people playing in the snow. a political leader issuing proclamations that he's above the judicial system... people playing in the snow. something happening right now... something probably happening 7 years from now. about people playing in the snow. Bushytails 07:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If things are true to form there are 'cronyism and corrupt political officials' involved in both stories.ReadingOldBoy 08:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that your leaders practice cronyism and corruption or that your leaders seems to think he's above the judicial system is not exactly news (it's been kind of obvious for a long time) nor is it something particularly unique in the world. Therefore there's nothing particular surprising about the Libby thing nor does it really interest the rest of the world much. As others have pointed out, you don't seem to quite understand the financial or political importance of the olympic bid, regardless of whether it's just people playing in the snow. Personally, I don't really give a damn about the winter olympics. Winter sports are for temperate countries and not particularly interesting IMHO. But it doesn't change the fact that the importance of the winter olympics bid to the countries and parties involved. BTW, I just realised I forgot to mention but it wouldn't surprise me if this was front page news in most Russian newspapers. Indeed over 2 days after, The Moscow Times [1] and Pravda [2] still have stories related to the win as their main article/headline news Nil Einne 16:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, by winning the bid, Sochi gets $12 billion in development funds from the Russian government. Its very big business. Dragons flight 21:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made a template.

User:Atropos/Importance

♥ Atropos 06:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

How about an "In the news articles are not chosen because of their newsworthyness" one?  :)

It's a sports event, almost a full seven years in the future. Let's have articles on upcoming rock concerts, too... knowing where a popular band will be playing 7 years from now will help people start planning their vacations! Maybe we should offer a crystal ball service too? Or how about tv episodes and upcoming movies... Some holywood studio announcing they might make a sequel to a popular movie is certainly front-page news! Or a list of 2014's lotto numbers, I'd like one of those... Bushytails 07:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Obvious Olympico-centrism. First the ITN thing, and now the FA. Wikipedia is going down a bad road. On a more serious note, Sochi winning the bid is more important internationally than the Libby thing. People outside the US who don't closely follow US politics have no idea who Libby is. 89.120.193.125 08:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If the president of Russia goes to Guatemala for the Olympics, that's something, considering Russia and Guatemala seem to not to care about each other. I mean, when was the last time a Russian president went to Central America except for political reasons, well include political reasons? That's something. --Howard the Duck 14:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, the Olympics (yes, even the Olympics seven years from now) ARE a "story of an international importance, or at least interest." You may not like it, it may not even make sense, but it is reality. You see it as people "playing in the snow" and unimportant. Much of the world disagrees.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting inasmuch as this is a more general comment) I must confess that I wasn't entirely sure of the ITN-worthiness of the item when I nominated it, and although there now appears to be a consensus for its continued inclusion, it was, as almost all of our ITN items, posted after receiving support of just two users, principally because we'd have few ITN items were admins to wait for the participation of the number of editors the presence of whom we might otherwise think to be necessary to bear out a consensus. Although ITN discussions will surely never take the extended form of FACs or XfDs, they could surely use the examination of more editors to determine the extent to which they comport with the ITN criteria and to which a consensus exists for their ITN inclusion. My point, I suppose, is that whilst it's certainly helpful for one to raise objections to posted items here or at Template talk:In the news, I imagine that the admins who partake regularly of ITN would be altogether appreciative and think it quite helpful were editors to weigh in more frequently on proposed items. Joe 04:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the correct form (in English), and if the accents are not always included, should they be?

Please take a look at the top of this page and find a more appropriate place to ask this question and other similar ones like your previous one on renaming pages. Also do remember to sign with four tildes ~~~~ Nil Einne 06:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Since today 8 July 2007, Greek Wikipedia has more than 25.000 articles. Please add the "el" link to the appropriate "More than 25,000 articles:" section. Thanks. --FocalPoint 15:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on the milestone. I have added the link. Picaroon (Talk) 16:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Tomorrow's Main Page, it seems the short FA blurb and fairly lengthy right side are going to make for a somewhat unbalanced page. Unless admins are going to use 12 or so DYK blurbs, it might be an idea to cut an item from the July 7 Selected Anniversaries box for now. 84.71.1.34 10:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

What they will do is remove a heading from 'In The News' as they usually do. --AxG ^{@ ►talk} 12:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Tomorrow" is now today. Please trim ITN. Thanks. --74.13.129.82 01:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

On the 7th July, frankly I'm disgusted that a tennis match is considered more important than the London bombings. 89.243.64.23 22:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The 7/7 bombings aren't news... maybe 2 years ago, but not now. --Howard the Duck 04:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the anon was talking about "On this day" for July 7th. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 12:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Due to the English-centric nature of the Internet, the vast majority of the links to Wikipedia link this English version. It also means a lot of people whose first language is not English end up on the Main Page. While a lot of languages are linked in the InterWiki column, not all are, and it is not very visible.

All of the visitors to the En: main page have in common that they can read English in some way. When a visitor finds the English language on this page (today's FA!) too difficult, it should be easy to navigate to the simple English Wikipedia. Some white space exists at the top of the page, and I think a link akin to "Simple version" should be able to fit in there. Thoughts? --User:Krator (t c) 00:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, only Wikipedias with a certain number of articles (20,000?) are put on the Main Page. Simple English Wikipedia is several thousand away from that. ShadowHalo 00:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. — thesublime514 • talk • 03:17, July 8, 2007 (UTC)

What white space? Nil Einne 06:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Simple English Wikipedia is in really bad condition, and there has been a lot of talk about discontinuing it entirely. Putting a link to it on the Main Page would be a poor decision. —Cuiviénen 01:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I also think it is a good idea. Oysterguitarist 01:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ideally more effort should be made in making the lead paragraphs of all articles on english.wp "simple". Thus rendering the redundancy of simple english.wp so redundant it will be closed. --Monotonehell 10:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that. While many leads could be simpler, I've looked at the simple En on occasion and I don't think we should aim for that in our leads... Also, some of the stuff covered tends to be more then should be in the lead but still in a simple format Nil Einne 21:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that we could like rebuild the entire home page.Our old home page is getting old and we could, like all come up with a new page design for wikipedia's anniversary thing.TaylorLTD 18:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I don't know. I'd tend towards the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" side of things. We have a design that works, why spend time/effort making a new one to do the same things?--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Any proposed redesign of the main page requires a lengthy discussion by the community. The current version, dating from March 2006, was implemented after this several month long discussion. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Also note that if you are getting bored with the standard Main Page, there are numerous alternate versions already available. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fyre2387 "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Theres not really a need for a new home page. Oysterguitarist 23:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the original author, at least partially - the mainpage, especially the banner/header is boooring. How about adding at least a long search field (like google's), so it's more "inviting" to search? I think there are a few people out there who're just users, not editors. - Alsandro · T · w:ka: Th · T 21:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

WRT: Ebionites featured article, what Bible translation was used for this? "Congratulations to the poor?" What a distortion of "Blessed are the poor"

Try asking on Talk:Ebionites, that'd be the better place to ask about the article.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Changing it on that page wouldn't fix the Main Page, afaik. But seriously, if it's going to be billed as a "best known quotation", it ought to be taken from a mainstream translation rather than the current odd (and frankly childish-sounding) rendering. I suggest that a better translation would be something like the NIV, KJV, NASB, or NRSV. The current one is awful - and not used in the Beatitudes article, I might add. The reference is Luke 6:20, available in numerous translations in the link. Vonspringer 03:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The best way to handle things like this is usually to change it in the article first and once this has been done and accepted by other editors, make an error report (in the error report section at the top), not try and deal with it here where editors of the article may not read any of the discussion & even if they do, may not respond since it's not the place to discuss issues concerning the article. BTW, the phrase is sourced in the article Nil Einne 07:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any link to yesterday's main page that will still work tomorrow? Thanks in advance Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 14:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

With the way that the Main PAge is set up, I'm afraid not. You can grab the templates for the day's Featured Article, Featured Picture and Selected Anniversary sections, but Did you know and In the news don't keep copies of oolder templates (WP:DYKA aside). The only way to do this would be to take a screenshot on the day, and just link to the screenshot. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 14:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you anyway. I'd better take that screenshot today then, or it will be gone forever! Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 14:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's none of my business, but what do you want it for? I won't be offended if you choose to tell me where to stick my noseyness. ;-) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This seems like it would be the next logical step after 250,000. Two Wikipedias have it. I think another row should be added listing Français and Deutsch. Atropos 20:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This has been asked and answered many times. Short answer, the general agreement is there's no point having a seperate cat for 2 or even 3 languages. Long answer check the archives including Template talk:Wikipedialang or Google for it Nil Einne 20:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look you will see that almost all of them are stubs and they appear to be machine-translations. I don't think this counts for the "Wikipedias by number of articles" though I suppose that is automatically generated. -- Evertype·✆ 20:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The list isn't machine generated but currently we don't evalute quality of articles at all. A similar issue was raised re Cebuano although the specific issue (lots of tiny stubs and machine translations) was never really addressed. I don't know whether it would really be wise for us to attempt any quality determinations, even if it's simply something like ignoring stubs. Ultimately, it's up to the other wikipedias to manage themselves. Nil Einne 21:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, we'd better not start evaluating quality. As it is, we get plenty of requests for listing one language or another with very thin rationales; we can turn these away because we have hard numerical standards. If we adopt a soft, subjective "quality" standard, we're inviting every interested party on every wikipedia to lobby us about how theirs has such obvious, evident quality that we should make an exception for them. Worse, the same instinct that makes people point out current quality issues with the Cebuano wikipedia (if it was off the listing, there's a notional "free spot") would likely attract editors with little else to do than see some other wiki get delisted, come hell or high water. Lastly, remember that en.wikipedia benefitted greatly (and particularly, increased our article count) from nearly raw dumps of 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica and Rambot's autogenerated placename data. For all we know (I don't speak Cebuano or Lombard, and I'll bet most editors here don't), those wikis are already planning to improve their machine-generated content the way we obviously did. There's nothing especially wrong with that unless it's an indictment of us as well. -- Gavia immer (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is an objective way to tell if the Wikipedia is "quality:" the depth collumn on the list of languages. Cebuano, Lombard, and Volapuk all have a depth of 0. The next lowest depth is Telugu with 3, followed by Slovak with 14 and Polski (which has the third greatest number of articles) with 15. Requiring a depth of at least 1 doesn't seem at all unreasonable. Atropos 20:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

While depth may work in some instances, quite a number of editors feel it's a flawed statistic that only gives a very rough estimation of quality. This was discussed here before I believe and is also discussed in Meta:Talk:List of Wikipedias where there is some unarchived discussion Nil Einne 21:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course depth is not completely accurate, I never said it was. However, I think having a depth of 0 is a pretty clear indication of the Wikipedia. As I previously noted about Cebuano, the vast majority of its articles are 1 line stubs about French communes. I have to admit that I can empathize with members from Wikis that are more active (like Islenska).

To clarify my position (because it doesn't seem at all unlikely that someone will take this as support for adding every wiki to the mainpage), I just think that wikis with a depth of 0 don't really belong in our "biggest Wikis." Atropos 00:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is if there is any call to use a flawed metric at all? Is it true that all wikipedias with a depth of 0 are going to be utterly crap? Theoretical, I don't see any reason why this has to be the case. It's likely perhaps but not guaranteed. There could be some (unlikely perhaps but possible) scenarios when a wikipedia has a depth of zero but is resonable quality. Even if you can argue that a wikipedia with depth of zero is always going to be poor quality, can you also argue that a wikipedia with depth 3 (which there are some) are always going to be better then one with depth 0? If not, how is it fair to deny a wikipedia with depth 0 from the main page but allow a wikipedia with depth 3? And why zero anyway? Why not 3? 10? 14? What criteria are we using to establish a minimum 'depth' to deserve a mention on the main page? And what research is being done to show all this and who is going to do it?

The simple reality is, while I appreciate the concerns expressed, there is IMHO no fair & accurate way to establish the quality of other wikipedias so it's not something we should be considering at all in our linking. Also what about the gaming that may occur once we start to use such measures (not that I'm convinced other wikipedias are that concerned about wanting a link). Yes our current system has the unfortunate side-effect of potentially encouraging other language wikipedias to emphasise quantity over quality. But there is no reason depth is going to push quality. Instead, all it's likely to do is to encourage editors to perform small edits, increase vandalism etc. No, our current system works well enough. It may not be perfect but it's simple & IMHO accurate. We currently only list our largest wikipedias (by number of articles). This should be resonably clear by the way it's set up. And even if many of their articles are worthless crap, Lombard, Cebuano and Volapük do indeed have more articles then Greek and Thai. If you really feel it's misleading as is, I propose you ask for a change in the wording to make it clear the biggest means largest number of articles, not most useful content (although as mentioned I don't see this as necessary) Nil Einne 10:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm Lombard and i think that its very poor. You can find MANY article with, for wxample, number 990859 is the number that come before 990860 and after 990858. see "Nömer 990859" in that wiki for a confirmation of I said.. How it is possible?? I'm disgusted.. Please, DO something Francisco83pv 13 July 2007

. Soory, this is no longer necessary. Thank you.

Great image. Why isn't it on Commons yet? Daniel Case 04:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. ShadowHalo 04:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Um... what? — thesublime514 • talk • 04:34, July 9, 2007 (UTC)

ShadowHalo's point, which didn't exactly fit with the text of the template he used, is that it's better to fix something than to complain about it. In this case, Daniel Case can himself go to Commons and easily upload Image:Vernal Falls Rainbow.jpg. Λυδαcιτγ 05:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, it's AFAIK recommended your ask the original contributor to upload it out of simple courtesy. Of course, there is no legal requirement for this, although it helps simplify the copyright situation. Of course, Shadow's point is still valid, Daniel Case could ask GodofWar himself Nil Einne 07:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I was wrong, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons Nil Einne 13:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I also felt it was not proper to upload it to Commons while it was on the Main Page, as Main Page pics are usually protected. Perhaps I will do so now. Daniel Case 19:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"...ultimately resulting in the American Revolution." Shouldn't this be: "...ultimately resulting in the British Civil War in North America."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.122.229 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 4 July 2007

It's called the American Revolution everywhere. Might as well call the French Revolution the "French Civil War in Europe" --Howard the Duck 11:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha, that was the second funniest comment I've heard all day! Useight 16:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

How about the Catholic Civil War? :-) — ceejayoz ^talk 12:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

But what was the status of residents in the British Colonies. Were they English, British or what?

Then go ahead and rename all "Revolution" articles into "Fooian civil war" --Howard the Duck 04:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It may well have included a "British civil war" but in they eyes of the American Patriots they were fighting a war of independence between two nations. Besides, this is not a common term and hence American Revolutionary war is used. Had the Loyalists won, it would have been just another colonial uprising, which were common in the British Empire. Tourskin 23:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As for the status, they were considered by Britain as protectorates of the British crown, or so I heard. The territories that rebelled were in British control so were deemed British subjects, even though there were many Irish, Scottish and Germans, also lots of French, depending upon the location.

^ As the Act of Union was in 1707, which joined England and Scotland as the United Kingdom, by the time of the American War of Independence, both Scots and English were British subjects. In fact, the Scots punched above their weight in establishing and running the British Empire, being reknowned as great administrators and engineers. (Scots are still pretty influential today in British life - look at the media and government!) As a sidenote, Elizabeth is separately Queen of England and also Queen of Scotland. When James VI of Scotland later also ascended the English throne as James I of England, the two crowns became held by one person.

I am in the process of creating a new character info box for characters in the Dune Universe. All has been well and good and I currently have a infobox in the new page. But I still am not sure about the bit which people have to copy and paste onto the page they want the infobox to be. How is the actual template thing, and I try to express my question as best I can, created.

This page is not the place to ask general questions. This page is for discussing the Wikipedia page "Main Page". For more information on this page, see Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ. Use this link to find out how to ask questions and get answers.

--Eddie 13:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't be a dick. If you use that template, at least provide a link to the correct location. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 14:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem. I don't know the answer to the question. I was pointing him to a place where he could get his question answered. No need to be a dick. Eddie 14:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally any question containing the word "infobox" is going to be more appropriate on the Help Desk. This isn't an exception. I just really detest that template, as it's essentially an incredibly brusque way of pointing to WP:QUESTIONS. If you want them to go there, say so. Don't put up an intimidating (to a newbie) box telling them they've done wrong and don't belong on this page. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, man. The template's there for a reason. Eddie 15:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, to stop people posting the questions in the first place. Once they have, they should at least get a helping hand beyond what's already said at the top of the page. If you (general "you", not you specifically) aren't able to do that, leave the question for a bit. This is the most highly-frequented talk page on Wikipedia – someone's going to come along fairly shortly who is able to give more specific directions (or an actual answer). GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. My mistake. I'd never edited this talk page before. Now I know how things work here. People ignore the template and we still answer their questions. That's what I love about Wikipedia :-) Eddie 15:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Eddie, the consensus for this matter was that no matter how helpful the header we still get around the same number of people asking questions, so we've abandoned the header and decided to help people by giving them a quick answer and point them directly to a helpful resource. Although since then others have added the template you used to the top of the page. --Monotonehell 01:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Helpful? That was the most horrible and daunting header we ever had. 89.120.193.125 14:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

July 10th, 2009, two years from now, will be the 500th birthday of John Calvin. Are anniversaries like this worthy of inclusion in On This Day? What did we do on Mozart's 250th? 70.17.207.95 04:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I would think so. We did Euler's 300th a while back. Borisblue 04:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup, see the SA on that day. As long as someone remembers to add it... - BanyanTree 06:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say probably, but I would be careful about speculating on things so far in the future. Things may have changed significantly by then in how we choose things for SA, if we still have an SA Nil Einne 13:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I know that on Wikipedia, images always link to enlarged versions of the images themselves. However, I would argue that on the front page they should be linking to the articles themselves since this is the convention on virtually all other websites and it avoids unnecessary confusion for new visiors (also... the image itself is invariably found within the article, so there is no difficulty in finding the enlarged version either way). Thanks. 128.232.240.178 13:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There are several reasons that this isn't done:

1. Legal: Many of the free-content licences attached to the images used on the front page require that the photographer be credited (Attribution) or that a full copy of the licence accompany each inclusion (GFDL). The linking of images to a description page is a compromise. There are those who feel that burying licensing information even a click away runs contrary to the licences' requirements (though I don't subscribe to this). Making the information even harder to find would not be a positive step.
2. Technical: Getting images linked directly to the relevant article requires a rather messy workaround (uploading a duplicate copy/crop and adding the line #REDIRECT Foo above any desctiption.) It's just more hassle for a limited payout - links to relevant articles are already bolded in whatever section they appear in.
3. Practical: Finally, some people actually do click on the images to see larger versions – thumbnails don't do them justice in most cases (particularly Featured Pictures). Or they wish to find out more about the image itself, its creator, and what hoops they'd have to jump through to use it on their own site/project. Moving the description away from a direct link is going to be just as annoying to these people as the current setup is to those who want to have the images link to the article. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 13:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The "technical" point is not technically correct (try clicking on one of the barnstars at the right side of my user page), but the point still stands that this method is used for legal and practical purposes. -- tariqabjotu 14:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally consider the ((click)) template to be another rather messy workaround. On backgrounds other than white, it shows up as an ugly blob around the images - something to be avoided on the Main Page. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 14:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We now have the ImageMap extension. I agree, however, that we shouldn't use it for the images in question. —David Levy 14:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I came up with the thinking, as I found it, last year at User:BanyanTree/Image links, if anyone's interested. Once someone noted that Template:Click breaks accessibility in inscreen readers for the disabled and some other browsers, I stopped using it in my user space, and I think its use is dubious in general. If anyone knows of a copyright discussion relating to ImageMap, I'd be happy to add a summary to my little essay... - BanyanTree 21:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your summary of User:BanyanTree/Image links#The GFDL prohibition, the ImageMap extension does have a feature where a direct link to the image description page can be displayed ... but it is in the form of a "i" icon. See ((Eye diagram noframe)) as an example; the icon is in the lower left hand corner. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added a summary. Thanks, - BanyanTree 22:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A bigger template would be more obvious to those with a question.Tourskin 00:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

By bigger do you just mean bigger in size or do you mean more detailed? We used to have a detailed template but after some discussion it was decided it didn't help and may have just made things worse as it could have been too confusing or too much to read. So we settled on the current one (actually we got rid of the template for a while first). If you just mean bigger in size (bigger fonts, bigger icon) then that's a different issue although it's a bit unstandard practice AFAIK and some may feel we risk frightening newbies (that was also an objection to the older one IIRC). Nil Einne 00:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair point - then place a more obvious link in the main page - when new users goto wikipedia, they think that the main page "discussion" is a great place to "discuss" their question, so if we made a more obvious link in the main page this would help, I believe. Not more detail, but bigger font etc. in agreement with your latter suggestion.Tourskin 04:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This kind of thing comes up occasionally, as I've stated before, half the problem is having the |page|discussion|edit|+|history| buttons at the top. If they were at the bottom for those not logged in then the urge for readers(*) to hit them would be quelled. Also, Tour's idea of having a link to the desks on mainpage is a good point. (* readers as opposed to editors - the two kinds of user) --Monotonehell 07:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose it'd be possible to use a CSS hack to redirect those clicking on the discussion tab for the Main Page to a WP:QUESTIONS-like page? If a prominent link were added to the top of said page linking back to the actual Talk:Main Page, it'd probably solve most of the issues. I suppose it's a slightly drastic step, though. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

In case no-one has seen the error report I filed for the PotD (the eye anatomy), I've asked for the list at Template:POTD/2007-07-12 (note the 'small' tags) to be put in Template:POTD protected/2007-07-12. I feel that a list to read is more reader-friendly than hovering to find out what each number is. It is also easier to scan a list and get a feel for what is there, rather than trying to remember what number '5' was when you hovered over it. If you agree, please say so here. Carcharoth 00:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added to full list for now. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. For others arriving at this discussion, the non-list version is here. Hopefully there will more images like this being featured in the future, so some feedback on which is preferable: (1) a list + hover-click, or (2) just hover-click - would be good. Carcharoth 00:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Always with a list version - hover-only requires a mouse; keyboard tabbing will activate the link but not show the hover-text. Bazza 13:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• And seeing as the eye talk pages seem inactive, could anyone reading this give central retinal vein and bulbar sheath a check? I created these stubs to avoid redlinks, but any corrections and/or expansions would be much appreciated. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Should we add a link to Commons, as we do with the Wikinews project, for TFP? Richard001 04:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I may not be understanding your question, but are you talking about a link to Commons:Main page or a link to the image description page of the current TFP? We normally do the latter, but the picture for this day is a special one – it is a diagram so we programmed the image using the ImageMap extension so users can click on each number to go to that associated article. Clicking on the blue "i" icon in the corner of the image links to the image page. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think what he means is that just as ITN has a link at the bottom to Wikinews, the featured picture should include a link to the Commons as a huge repository of images, alongside the Archive and More featured pictures... links.-gadfium 06:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

One concern I have is that not every featured picture here on the English Wikipedia is stored on Commons. A number of en.wikipedia FP image files are still locally stored here. In other words, images are nominated on WP:FPC, promoted, and eventually selected on WP:POTD regardless of whether the files themselves reside on Commons or here on Wikipedia. Having a Wikinews link at the bottom of ITN is understandable because there almost always will be a Wikinews article related to each item on ITN. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Commons also has its own set of featured pictures, as well as its own seperate featured picture of the day. I am concerned that new users to both web sites would be confused with a Commons link there, expecting to find a en.wikipedia TFP image file on Commons, and then not realise that each web site has its own seperate FP system. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have been replaced by the letters "td". T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 20:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's been fixed. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 20:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You're sure it happened? There's nothing in the log. 17Drew 22:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it really appropriate to have such a disgusting picture of a cut-open eye right there on the main page? Won't someone think of the children?! Cigarette 16:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Then you won't want to see the June 5 2006 FA then... Laïka 16:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is roughly the same as any diagram you might see in a doctor's office, and it's nothing compared to the eye surgery picture. howcheng {chat} 16:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Every time you think of the children, God kills another one of them. 17Drew 20:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: For the background on the above, see this cache on google. ffm ✎talk 23:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Not far enough back. See Raul654's original comment. 17Drew 00:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A month later and it's still obnoxious... --Elliskev 17:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a diagram. The eye was not cut open: it was designed open :) Gracenotes^T § 04:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked at some yet-to-be-featured-on-the-main-page pictures at Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs 08 and there are some dead bodies there... A particularly bad one is Image:V-2victimAntwerp1944.jpg. It is a smoking/burning body after a V2 rocket attack. I wonder if that will ever get on the front page? Carcharoth 17:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope so. It's a good picture. 17Drew 17:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain it in simple words? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.49.94.106 (talk • contribs).

The introduction to our article on wikis summarises it pretty well: "A wiki is a piece of software that allows multiple authors to edit web page content."

If you mean Wikipedia in particular, then Wikipedia is, to put it in its simplest terms, an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. To learn more from a beginner's perspective, you may find the introduction helpful. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

you edit them

On a more technical level, there is a table that contains a lot of rows. Each row represents a specific edit, and it contains a lot of information: the username of the user who edited the page, the user's edit summary, an id of the page to which the edit was made, a reference to another table that contains the text of the page, etc. When you edit a page, a new row is created. When you access a page, an existing row is retrieved from the table of edits, and the server formats the text and sends it to you. That is more or less the basic idea, but to the end user, a wiki works by a mix of both collaboration and individual initiative. I'm not sure if you want to know how it functions technically or in practice. Gracenotes^T § 04:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Errors

Though I haven't seen anything wrong with the Main Page myself, I've noticed that lately some other pages (such as the Bionicle and Creatures of Primeval TV Seires pages) have been edited to where the make no sence, and at least I (though I bet others have been affected in similar ways) can't edite them back.

I'm not sure if it's my computer, if it's someone doeing this, or if something is happening to the site itself, but I just wanted someone to know so something can be done (if there is actually something wrong of course). - Toa of Gravity July 12, 2007

BTW, this will be more likely to be seen by devs if you post it to mediazilla. ffm ✎talk 13:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the guilty verdicts of Conrad Black be on the News on the Main Page? Acceptable 17:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:ITN/C. 17Drew 18:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Is Conrad Black notable? Just another CEO.

Again, that discussion should take place on WP:ITN/C. ffm 21:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Me and my friend C-V ask if it is possible to go to Milawi and buy land and make it into a country. how hard would that be cos we're planning on making a country if we have enough to do so. Just askin u guys here cos loads of people here may have info. Thaught of this question cos of that Country made by the US to send Black slves to, and they baught the land aswell. OsirisV

Well, a lot greatly depends on how much money you have. You would need to buy quite a lot of land to have a significant size to make your own country. You would probably also need to have money to rent out a private army to defend your country when you violate Malawi's sovereignty by declaring independence. After that you would need to bribe some UN officials to give you diplomatic recognition. Then you need to give some corporations some kickbacks so they can start incorporating in your country so you can start getting meaningful tax receipts. In the meantime no doubt you will be horrified by the state of infrastructure in Malawi, and will be spending to improve roads and hospitals in addition to schools and water quality. Add onto that the money needed for a fancy presidential mansion and you're talking in the hundreds of millions here. Incidentally, next time you have a question like this I recommend you try the Reference Desk found by searching for "WP:RD". More people will see your question there and be more inclined to give a more detailed answer. X.spasitel 15:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This page is not the place to ask general questions. This page is for discussing the Wikipedia page "Main Page". For more information on this page, see Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ. Use this link to find out how to ask questions and get answers.

However, if you want examples of a similar thing, try Principality of Sealand or any of the other fifty micronations on Wikipedia .—Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

How about How to Start Your Own Country? :-) Carcharoth 17:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

And don't forget to apply for international aid! Carcharoth 17:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone verify this? Have there been any couples that met through WikiPedia and got married? If so, can an article be created? Thanks.--Inetpup 05:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No idea on that but an article can't be created unless it's noteable enough which is unlikely. In any case, your question doesn't have anything to do with the mainpage, try the village pump instead Nil Einne 06:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be so funny if that actually happened:

"How did you two meet?" "Oh, we're both Wikipedians" "You're both WHAT??" ^DAVID _CAT 13:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

But that's likely to have already happened ... two geeks falling in love, right? I'm not excluding gay civil unions either. Since Wikipedia is predominantly male, maybe it's more likely that gay partners found each other here. --Inetpup 00:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily, it depends on the percentage of males who are gay. I've read estimates before between 10-20%, although this is for the general population. Nil Einne 21:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've heard 10% as a rough guess, but Wikipedia is, as Conservapedia points out, more liberal than your average group of people, probably leading to more homosexuals. I am honestly not sure how many women there are on Wikipedia, in terms of proportions. J Milburn 11:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I would question every single 'fact' in the posts above :-) Skittle 15:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As would I. Strongly. Atropos 18:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Chances are that it (a Wikimarriage) would be SO notable that it would almost certainly make its way into mainstream media.--Inetpup 06:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Two of my friends have just got married, who originally met via their blogs. It's not that different. PeteVerdon 21:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Aren't Tim and Angela married? I don't think they met on-wiki, though. Sr13 03:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

We did meet on Wikipedia, but we're not yet married. Angela. 23:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree. In the early days of the internet (well early days when the internet began to get some mainstream coverage, I'm thinking 1995-1997), these sort of 'we met thru the internet' got some press coverage because it was still an oddity. Nowadays, I don't think it's likely to get much, if any because it not really that unusual. No matter whether it's via blogs, chatrooms, forums, usenet, MSN, wikipedia, MMOs or whatever it's not really that different Nil Einne 17:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the ITN item be linked to Summorum Pontificum somewhere? Don't know if someone wants to move this into the "error report" though. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Done Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

God, it just gives me the creeps every time I come to this site and see the pope grinning ominously and staring at me with his eyes glowing in the dark. Can somebody please change it to something more amiable?

Suggest a better item with a free picture at WP:ITN/C. ffm ✎talk 14:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please replace the pope's image with something less scary and possibly more eye candy? Its somewhat terrible to find him staring at you everytime you login :(

Heavynash 02:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh man :(...the pope is still here :'(

Heavynash 03:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh, just stare at Johannes_Kepler instead. Smart Germans are awesome! Spazure 07:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

He's been there for like three days straight now! Almost anything would be better at this point!

Aaaaargh! The pope is still here. I smell conspiracy. Heavynash 05:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the Pope. Gavin Scott 16:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't; why in hell is he STILL here? Has this place been over-run with Jesuits or something?

Yes. We, the Jesuits, have a conspiracy against Wikipedia and are going to take over the world, one Wiki at a time. *Laughs evilly* --Eddie 19:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This may be the longest running ITN picture of all time. Murcielago 18:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

ITN images seem to change rather slowly; I've never contributed to ITN, but I would guess that it has to do with the difficulty of finding images for news items that (a) can be sized down and still be useful and (b) are not fair use. I have a feeling b is the bigger problem. Atropos 00:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what's he still doing there? New image! Of something else! Not the pope! Useight 04:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If anyone commenting here can find an alternate picture that meets the criteria that Atropos has rightly hit upon then please suggest them at WP:ITN/C. If a newer picture was available it would have been placed by now. --Monotonehell 05:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that in this case there is currently only 1 newer ITN item so it's not just an issue of the unavailability of main page suitable pictures. If someone can work on some of the existing proposals or even just comment on them, or make new proposals then that may mean more newer ITN items and which may in turn mean a change of the picture. Having said that, no news is good news and ITN is not really about the news anyway Nil Einne 18:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

4 days in a row now. Might as well become a monk.

Heavynash 09:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems Wikipedia has become part of the Holy See. Gavin Scott 10:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I like that picture. It makes repent every time I visit the Main Page. --Eddie 19:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"The head of the Roman Catholic church in Los Angeles apologised for the sex-abuse scandal that will see his diocese pay out a record $US660 million ($758 million) to more than 500 victims." Maybe they can put this news headline under it as a caption. ;-) At least it will provide some reason for that creepy photo to be there.

Why is the Pope still there? Someone's probably written the answer here already, but I can't be bothered to read other people's comments. It really needs to be changed. I don't have any suggestions, but I'm going to keep being annoyed and suggesting conspiracy theories until someone does something. And now I'm curious why it's not happening. 17Drew 00:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't we get a different picture for the main page? I've been welcomed by the pope for about four days now, and that's a long time in Wiki-days. Useight 23:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

To appease the masses, I've changed the picture with the addition of a new item. All hail me! Evil Monkey - Hello 00:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yay! All hail to Evil Monkey. Shimon Peres looks much nicer. :-)

Ahhhh, that's better...Useight 05:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hail Evil Monkey! Shimon Perez is eye candy and can stay as long as he wants to :). I feel Evil Monkey deserves a barnstar :)

Heavynash 08:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually 4 days is not particularly long for an ITN picture and I highly doubt it's a record Nil Einne 08:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've decided it would be a good idea to create "question articles" and redirect them to "answer articles". For example: someone searches for

Who sings "Grace Kelly" (2007 song)?

they will be redirected to the MIKA article. 124.176.173.164 02:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't; it is much appreciated, but is not in line with Wiki policy. --MosheA 03:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea - but it falls over pretty quickly, particularly if there are more than one answer to a question! And as it is, all you have go do is search Grace Kelly and then follow the link: For the Mika song, see Grace Kelly (song). PseudoEdit ^(yak) _(track) 03:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

How would you redirect Where's the beef? ? :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 06:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

....Beeferly Hills? I can't have been the first person with such an awful sense of humour to come up with that, surely? :P --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 07:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, proposals, such as this, would get more discussion by the community if it was posted on WP:VPP, as WT:MP is not for general dissucsion about wikipedia. ffm 17:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It is an intersting idea but you would run into many problems. Oysterguitarist 21:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia, and besides a few minor edits I haven't done much. I've been looking around trying to figure out how to start a new article, and I haven't found a way to do that. Will someone please send me a tell explaining how to start it? Much appreciated. Thank you.

Лёха Фурсов: Sacrublood 17:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

See Help:Starting a new page. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You can also check out Wikipedia:Your first article. --Boricuaeddie ^hábleme 17:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Answered on the user's talk page. --ais523 17:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone be so kind as to give me the citation to a concept having to do with “the one who opposed the most” as being guilty . . . Some said it has to do with a writing by Shakespeare. Chailai 18:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chailai, you already know where the Wikipedia:Reference desk is, that would be the appropriate place to ask this, not here. --Monotonehell 19:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I heard that if you spread sulfur around your house it will keep snakes away from your house

But what are you to do if you are on a plane? Lots of people fly every day but there's only so much Samuel Jackson to go around... Raul654 21:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Psh. Samuel Jackson is Morgan Freeman Lite. Atropos 22:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The way to deal with snakes on a plane, is the same way you deal with all such matters. Rather then only letting the criminals possibly taking snakes on a plane, you let everyone bring snakes Nil Einne 22:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What kind of snakes? Pythons? Cobras? Sea snakes? This snake? Nil Einne 21:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sea snakes? I hear that Sulphuric acid takes care of them pretty well. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 22:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me of the "stupidest redirect" someone ever saw: re: Justin Timberlake. You don't want to use sulfur for that sort of snake. And talking of aircraft, does anyone know where the Brazil crash article is? Carcharoth 02:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this what you're looking for? --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 02:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you. Carcharoth 03:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? [3] [4] Nil Einne 11:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I take it all back. :-) Carcharoth 20:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm hearing an explosion has occured causing injuries and structural damage in a 'breaking news' part of Newsnight. I've also found this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19837147/ This may be front page stuff. Anymore info? Articles made? Jeff24 22:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Current events articles are generally quickly linked from Portal:Current events, while likely candidates go to WP:ITN/C. - BanyanTree 22:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is an error as such, just surprised to see it there when so many other languages aren't listed except on the complete list - is it a "special guest" language?

The ones listed there are all Wikipedias with more than 25,000 articles. If I'm reading vo:Cifapad right, Volapuk has over 27,000.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at the Volapük wikipedia a few days ago, and it looks like it has a large number of very brief (1-2 sentences with stuff like the population), perhaps machine translations, of various US geographical location articles. Looking at it again, I would say most of their articles are probably 1-2 sentences. Given that there are apparently only 25-30 fluent speakers this perhaps isn't surprising and it's a rather strange way to run an encylopaedia IMHO. However we use 'number of articles' in deciding which wikipedias to list on the main page for a reason, as discussed a few days ago (check the archives) and so far any suggestions to change IMHO haven't been particularly convincing Nil Einne 18:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, Volapük is the third 0 depth wiki. Atropos 17:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know, that's why I looked at it a few days ago Nil Einne 20:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I am also of the opinion that Volapük should be taken out of the main page interlanguage portal; it has well less than 50 speakers. I know it does technically have 25,000+ articles, but really, who's going to look at the Volapük Wiki? It's a bit alarming that languages such as Vietnamese (30 million) and Hindi (400 million) aren't in the portal (regardless of how many articles they have), and Volapük is. I don't suggest linking these two other languages, but do definitely think Volapük should be removed. --MosheA 04:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to disagree, but rather than retype everything I said just a few days ago, I'd rather point you (and anyone else) to the most recent discussion, mentioned by Nil Einne: Lombard does not really have 50,000+ articles . -- Gavia immer (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Gavia immer, I'm not sure if you've read both discussions completely, but this user is making a very different argument, so linking them to that discussion isn't very helpful.

MosheA: Languages are not chosen by how many speakers they have (which is often dispute, by the way) or how important they are. All that matters is that the wiki has at least 25,000 articles. Any attempt to judge based on the language itself, rather than its wiki, would be impossible and invalid. (Can you imagine the objections of people who's language is deemed unimportant? I expect many of them would be outright offended.) Atropos 20:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what would make an image "fair use"? I just want to know for future references. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Megagents (talk • contribs).

See Fair Use and WP:FAIR. ffm 14:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a camp in Massachusetts for disabled people called Camp Arrowhead. Can we add that? --71.174.109.96 20:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, depending on its notability. Try reading Wikipedia:Your first article.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Best FA. Ever. --Howard the Duck 01:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've always liked how there's an article on fighting in ice hockey, and one on violence in ice hockey. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 01:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I wish the NHL would pay WP:HOCKEY (most importantly, it includes me) to write Main Page FA's to boost the popularity of the sport in the U.S.. It might just work, but it's unlikely. :D Maxim 01:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I only wish that could happen. I would totally hit up Interscope. 17Drew 01:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but Gary Bettman is too busy running the NHL into the ground. Crassic 01:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

worst FA... ever? not big on the glorification of violence thing. oh well its there now... Boomshanka 04:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a template at User:Atropos/Importance that kind of addresses your concerns. As it suggests, we choose featured articles based on the quality of an article, not on its subject. Having this particular article as FA doesn't glorify violence, just like having a military battle as an FA doesn't glorify battles. Whether fighting in ice hockey itself glorifies violence, however, is a different matter entirely. ;) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a degree of disassociation with 'war' compared with sport, in which we can watch on telly, go see live, or partake in. Thanks for your concerns, i'm not a prude - i'm all for 'bringing back the biff' occasionally, its just that wikipedia is quite influential. i think. maybe. excuse me i gotta go smack someone now. .) Boomshanka 05:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and it's unlikely that it will be any time in the near future. You're far from the first person to raise an issue with something "objectionable" on the Main Page. 17Drew 06:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

ok... didn't think i was in a race to be the first at anything but thanks for the certificate. Humans have morals and/or a conscience apparently and wikipedia is governed by 'fact' so i'm sure there is a degree of self-censorship Boomshanka 22:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

One thing I didn't like though was the thumbnail had more referees than players. LOL --Howard the Duck 06:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone please think of the domo-kun! (They're really not big fans of hockey.) 89.120.193.125 07:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter if they're not big fans of hockey? The article in question is not about hockey but ice hockey Nil Einne 10:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Everytime a hockey fight breaks out, God kills a Domo-Kun. Please spread the love on hockey games. --Howard the Duck 12:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeepee!!! I asked before how I could kill Domo-Kun's without killing babies but never received a response. I can't believe I'm saying this but thank god for ice hockey! Nil Einne 22:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a different problem with it being the FA - it's pretty poorly written and confusing to those who do not follow the sport - therefore it does not (to me) represent the "best" of wikipedia.

While officials tolerate fighting during hockey games, they impose a variety of penalties on players who engage in fights. eh? so they tolerate it and they show this by imposing penalties? eh?

Broadly speaking, fighting exists in organized ice hockey to protect star players, who are generally discouraged by their coaches from fighting because of fear of injury, to deter opposing players from overly rough play, and to create a sense of solidarity among teammates. fighting exists to discourage certain players not to fight? eh? what?

Now I'm sure this all makes perfect sense to followers of the game but those descriptions are as clear as mud to this brit. --Fredrick day 13:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This would be a good thing to bring up on the article's talk page where more editors to the article are likely to see it. ffm 14:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe its because I follow the game it makes sense. They tollerate it by letting the players fight and when the fighting is done they asess penalties to those who did it unlike other sports where officials immediately try to split the players up. And as far as teh fighting discouraging fighting. It's just like the nuke arms race. You have to have a guy that fights the other tough guy so that their tough guy doesn't go after your skilled players. Just like the Cold War when the US and USSR went hard core into nukes just so that neither could go after other countries. --Djsasso 17:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page its like a parody of wikipedia is it related to wikipedia at all?? is it a real language???--Coogamonga 00:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Scots language is a real language. 17Drew 00:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

And yes, that site is related to the English language Wikipedia as are all these other-language Wikipedias. See also Scots Wikipedia.--Melburnian 01:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it really a totally different language, or just a dialect? I am a native English speaker and I have no trouble at all understanding it, even though I live on the other side of the world from Scotland... it looks to me just English written in a Scottish accent. --203.208.110.207 11:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This page is focused on discussion relating to the main page, but if you ask the question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language I'm sure the friendly and knowledgeable people there will have plenty of opinions to offer --Melburnian 11:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

See Mutual intelligibility. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 13:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks --203.208.110.207 11:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the perfect example of Britocentrism! Bwahahahaha!!!!!!!!!...... --Howard the Duck 09:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not only is it Britocentric, it's also anti-Welsh. There's never any reference to Wales on the front page - won't someone please think of the Welsh children? Fakelvis 10:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you want me to bring out Domo-Kun again? --Howard the Duck 10:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm? *cough* 3 November 2006 *cough* Slate industry in Wales *cough* 19 March 2005 *cough* John Dee *cough* Nil Einne 20:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh and it just occured to me, given how often Wales comes up in wikipedia, is there really any reason to have to include a mention on the main page too? Nil Einne 07:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the general Britocentric trend masks a strong systemic bias against certain regions of this island. For example, there are at least six Kent-related featured articles, but not one has appeared on the main page! Remember Otford! Algebraist 01:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Come on people, even ITN is infested with Britocentrism. Harry Potter? WTF? --Howard the Duck 03:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

All of this thanks to increased Scottish Nationalism! Lol.Tourskin 06:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What? Atropos 20:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Scottish National Party? --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand about Scottish nationalism, it just doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand. I guess Tourskin thinks that anyone who would write in Scots must be doing it because of an increased amount of Scottish nationalism. Atropos 20:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The scots wikipedia has existed since "23rd Juin 2005" BTW Nil Einne 22:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure where the appropriate place to put this is, so here goes. Just heard a trail for a half hour programme on BBC Radio 4, next Tuesday (24 July) 11.30 am UK time, called The Wikipedia Story, presented by Clive Anderson. Programmes can be heard for up to a week after their broadcast on the BBC website via the Listen Again facility (link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/ and click on the Listen Again button. Please feel free to move this post/copy it to a more appropriate place in Wikipedia if you can think of one! 81.156.127.5 15:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You can tell the editors of the WP:POST at the Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, will do 81.156.127.5 15:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably worth a post on the Community bulletin board once it's broadcast, as well. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems main page worthy: [5]. Arrow740 22:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

To add something to the "In the news..." section, please go here. Atropos 22:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I just decided to randomly browse the history and the main page goes back to January 2002, then jumps to August 4 2002 the further you go back and finally finishes on a temporary page on the 5th August.

2 queries. How old is the main page so has it been here since 2001? If not, what was here before?

What exactly is going on with the History?

• here
• here

and

• here

Simply south 00:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia should have met the notability requirements in 2002. Just saying. Atropos 01:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question about how old the main page is: it has existed since they day that MediaWiki software was installed, because they must have created a main page. --Credema 02:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Once I heard that the main page used to be open for everyone to edit, but it was vandalized so much that they decided to remove its history and protect it (they did not want the vandalism to be archived in the page history). Tim Q. Wells 05:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the Main Page from 28 February 2001, via the Internet Wayback Machine. (Looks like they were still transitioning from CamelCase.) - BanyanTree 06:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia wasn't as organized back in the day. A lot of the older history was lost around 2002 when they first changed servers, and started moving out of the forced mixed case (see UuU). I think the very first article was on the United States of America, but I'm sure they got to a main page pretty quickly. --T-rex 00:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This is obviously best discussed elsewhere but isn't the loss of history a problem under the GFDL. Or do you mean the content was lost as well and not just the history? Nil Einne 11:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Loss of history is a GFDL problem, but it kindof still happened anyways... wikipedia was a much smaller place at the time, and I guess everyone just assumed that it wasn't too big a deal. Part of this though was also copy/paste page moves in getting rid of a lot of the cammelCase hacks used at the time. History wasn't always maintained as well as it should have been... although I think some of the history was kept seperate for a while, and then the server died or somthing... --T-rex 21:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"On this Day...

1793 – Two days after becoming the first Euro-American to complete a transcontinental crossing north of Mexico, Scottish-Canadian explorer Alexander MacKenzie reached the westernmost point of his journey and inscribed his name on a rock using a reddish paint made of vermilion and bear grease."

What is bear grease? It doesn't link to anything and there isn't an article for it here. Arthurian Legend 14:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I would guess that it would be grease made from rendered bear fat. Should be enough links there :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I was going to put the same thing. You beat me to it. --Ancheta Wis 15:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Changed to "rendered bear fat". Keeping this here for now in case I've made some grievous error and bear grease is some non-ursine patented gunk. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Google suggests you're right Nil Einne 19:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

turkey 's election has made today.it should be put in main page news.

To add something to the "In the news..." section, please go here. Atropos 18:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

When full results are known, it will go up. Not before then. —Cuiviénen 22:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Mindman1 00:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The BBC have a radio programme on Wikipedia here: [6] under 'Listen Again Choice of the Day' The Wikipedia Story if anyone's interested. Ian Dunster 21:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I know that HP is big, and I kind of expected it to be on the news part of Wikipedia... But come on. It is not the #1 news story. The winner of the Stanley Cup was not even put onto the news for days after the last game if I remember correctly... It just kind of demeans WP imho. Hazelorb 05:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The news stories, if my memory serves me well, are not in order of importance. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 05:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct, they are sorted by date, with the most recent at the top. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

the fact still stands that it is ridiculous that the release of this book is supposed to be important world news come on wikipedia don't fail me Agoodguyiswear 06:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The final entry in one of the most successful book series of all time? I think that's pretty notable. --MarcK 07:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree, not important enough an event for front page. Fine in current events page. yalbik 07:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Largest book release in history. Works for me. Dragons flight 07:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This should be brought up at WP:ITN, not here. However, I expect an event that has being anticipated by people world-wide will be deemed notable enough, and that "importance" isn't the primary requisite for ITN items in the first place. Atropos 07:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think that the release a book should be placed on the front page news, at least not at the top on the first day. --Credema 08:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

As people have already stated, there is no 'top'. The items are sorted by date and the release of the book is the most recent event we currently have. Also ITN isn't front page news so to speak... See Template:In the news for more info about what ITN is actually about Nil Einne 11:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure when people began to think ITN was only for politics and catastrophes. Whenever we deviate from that, there are always a few complaints. -- tariqabjotu 14:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The release of HP is not news. Someone dying or a war breaking out or muggles committing suicide due to HP, now that's news. --Howard the Duck 10:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have been in the news a hell of a lot, so it does seem to be news. Or there just isn't any other news to report, so it is notable enough.Davie4264 13:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What's confusing is that the newly-elected president of India is named Patil, since the Patil twins are somewhat significant characters in Harry Potter; I definitely did a doubletake upon looking at ITN just now :-) Nyttend 16:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Howard the Duck, how is one person killing him or herself a matter of international importance? 17Drew 00:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the circumstances. --Howard the Duck 02:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

*Cough* When Adolf Hitler committed suicide, was it not of 'international importance'? I heard he did it because he had a dream which spoilt the end of the final HP book - 100% fact. Fakelvis 10:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If my neighbor killed herself, would that be of "international importance"? Note that all suicides are by default newsworthy. --Howard the Duck 12:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be discussed at WP:ITN or a related page, where people more familiar with the ITN process could consider the objections. Atropos 02:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What the heck is the Stanley Cup? I have never heard of it. However if you haven't heard of HP you've been in a cave for 10 years. Lord Laos

If a kid (not living in a cave for 10 years) from Sierra Leone knows about HP, I'd be impressed. I actually didn't know the FA Cup existed until we had cable 5 years ago. --Howard the Duck 00:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly you guys should forget about it. Does any one know the State Champion of the British World Cup Tennis Championship in 1996? (that is without looking it up)....no? Am i right? People come and go, so do most books. The Harry Potter series will be collecting dust in peoples basements in little more than 5 years time. Its fantasy, its fiction, and it will be forgotten before you know it. Yeah it sells! So what! So do tickets for the 'Big Game'. If something wants to be remembered, it usually needs more than just a title!

Randomly jumping in long after the subject's dead— the vast fame surrounding HP has been advanced several times as an argument in favor of his newsworthiness. But surely that's backwards! If everybody already knows something, then it's not news. Doops | talk 05:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)