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.

How come featured articles are usually not protected, in this case, GameFAQS? There have been a lot of vandalism in that article and yet it's not protected. How come? Kashakak 13:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed time and time again; very often, the current FA article will not only get attention from trolls, but also legitimate editors willing to add useful informaiton. That's primarily why it isn't protected. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And for some reason people choose to cling to this hypothetical concept, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The day is not half over yet and today's featured article has been vandalised over 100 times, yet the text has not been improved in any way whatsoever by anyone who is not be able to edit semi-protected pages. Statistically there is a good chance that the page will be vandalised when viewed, giving readers a bad impression of Wikipedia. Yet this idea that it must not be semi-protected persists. It's a real testament to the power of the wiki concept that this project survives despite incredibly poor management of issues such as this one – Gurch 14:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole idea of wikipedia is that its better to have it open to vandalism and good edits then completely closed. You see we can undo the vandalism but we need the good stuff to get in there. Tourskin 23:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What kind of image would we give to first-time visitors if the most visible page on this encyclopedia that can supposedly be edited by anyone was closed to editing for them? -Elmer Clark 01:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The Main Page is already ready closed to editing so your argument is bunk anyway. Frankly it would leave a rather good impression if the FA was protected or semi-protected, as it shows that Wikipedia does in fact have some control over the quality of its content and does care about maintaining and protecting that quality against vandalism. First time visitors would frankly not give a shit over whether a page they're reading is protected or not, and in fact it would be a good way to introduce them to Wikipedia's protection policy. Let me ask you this: What kind of image would we give to first-time visitors if the most visible page on this encyclopedia that can supposedly be edited by anyone was vandalised when they viewed it? Not protecting the FA is a stupid ideal which does more harm to Wikipedia's reputation than good. The outside world will view content protection as sound thinking and judgement; it is only us Wikipedians who hold onto this notion of completely open editing and view protection as something bad. End rant. Zunaid©® 10:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the argument goes that there is no need to edit the main page, as not only do we want to keep the colours/layout the same (brand identity), everything should be double checked before going on the main page, and the source code of the mainpage is bewildering to anyone who isn't a master with <div> tags. On the other hand, TFA, while it should be checked, will never be perfect, and there is always room for improvement, be it spelling errors or a major edit, and the clear, simple layout is an excellent starting place for Wikipedians (many of the people who start off writing "omg lololololololol!!!!!!" on the TFA end up as admins, after all!) Laïka 00:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If the main page was editted it would be far more chaotic than vandalizing an article - the code will get screwed up, changing one or two letters can seriously screw up code. Tourskin 04:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This discussion page is starting to clog up with random stuff that has nothing to with improving the main page. What should we do? LB22 20:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait for the offending sections to get automatically archived? By the way, this section itself would fall into the category it describes. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This site needs a major makeover —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.98.101 (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed Wikipedia is not perfect. Do you have some constructive criticism (like what exactly should be fixed)? If you can pinpoint exact problems, we are more likely to be able to fix them. Puchiko (Talk-email) 23:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What he is talking about is all the discussion that ends up on the main page because people are not sure where to post it, although it does not really belong on this page. --Credema 06:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this discussion be on Talk talk:Main Page? (Yes, I know it doesn't exist, and it's probably a bad idea.) --ais523 09:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, on all talk pages it's accepted that stuff solely related to the talk page is on topic. E.g. archiving, BLP talk pages issues, reminders about staying on topic Nil Einne 12:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Awww! I was hoping for Talk talk talk talk talk talk:Main Page... Carcharoth 12:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No I meant really random stuff that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Like waht they won on a game they played last night! I've seen that many times... LB22 19:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I just remove random non-sequiturs posted to the page on sight. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Crap that's unrelated to Wikipedia should be removed on sight. People with Wikipedia-related comments and questions should be directed to the most appropriate avenue for that discussion, if it is not here. J Milburn 22:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that on the English Main Page, the Wikipedia Globe Logo features a backwards "Ñ" on one of the puzzle pieces, yet on the multi-lingual page that links to every Wikipedia, the И does not have a tilde? --Ye Olde Luke 00:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The "backwards Ñ" is a Cyrillic Й (as opposed to И). You must learn to think in Яцззїаи. -- !! ?? 16:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why, but there's a couple of differences between the www.wikipedia.org logo and the en.wikipedia.org logo; in addition to the Й, "'Ω" has been replaced by just "Ω" on the portal. Laïka 12:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The donation figure seems to have frozen. When you close ther message you get a higher figure than before you close it.Harland1 13:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see #Donations Dead?! above. --199.71.174.100 19:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No, he's reporting a different problem. This has to do with caching situations -- the progress bar (shown when it collapsed) is cached and regenerated at different intervals than the counter text, which causes the discrepancy. The difference is generally very minor (if it exists at all), but under certain conditions may grow relatively large. At present the difference is 19,315 (expanded) vs. 19,314 (collapsed). AmiDaniel (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. --199.71.174.100 22:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is the Wikimedia Fundraising C.O.R.E. practically not updated anymore? November figures. --Camptown 13:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A question for meta? --74.13.125.143 14:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The core has been switched; you can browse the new one here.--Eloquence* 18:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just learned that the Foundation is working on this issue. In the meantime, the daily balance of the fundraising is updated manually here. --Camptown 19:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Has the main page always been fully protected, because in the page history I've found this and it confused me. Noahcs 21:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That was back during the rogue admin scare. A handful of admins got their accounts taken over by someone. 128.227.61.237 21:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There were also one or two admins who took it into their hands to unprotect the Main Page as an April Fools' joke. And of course page protection itself hasn't always existed. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 22:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It has been policy to protect the Main Page and all its component templates since February 2005 - see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-02-07/Main page protection. Admins are human, however, and they would sometimes forget to protect templates or images, so cascading protection was added in January 2007. Graham87 07:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The Main Page is meant to be always protected. However, it has been unprotected before as an April Fool's joke (after that, an anon changed the width of one of the columns by one pixel, was reverted, and the page was reprotected), it has been unprotected by compromised administrator accounts (and protected shortly afterwards), and when the Main Page has been deleted in the past (usually by compromised administrator accounts, but once by mistake), that causes it to be unprotected as well, and on occasion admins have forgotten to reprotect it immediately after undeleting. --ais523 18:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Then we won't have rude people above telling us to use an unfamiliar page to give our two cents as one had it. Tourskin 23:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It is already linked in the giant box at the top of this talk page. There've been attempts to push it more heavily in the past, but they've generally been rejected as being too ugly. I suppose we could just condense the page to WP:ERRORS, and shove every longform topic over to the Pump. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 01:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I can't see any link to the Village Pump; there's the Help Desk, but that's very different to the VP. I'll add one after the Help Desk link. Laïka 15:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The link on the NavBar to Wikipedia:Community Portal may be a convenient route to the village pump, but newbies may not know about it. Perhaps we could use a link to the village pump on the NavBar. --199.71.174.100 19:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

May I add a side point here - I'm still kinda new here - only a year since I was a user. So when i ask something, I'm not asking if someone knows. No, this not a test for experienced users to prove themselves. I'm asking because I don't know. In other words, if there is a link to the Village Pump, can you make it visible so that even someone like me can find it and not just say that there is one? Thats my original point here. People above have left unhelpful comments saying "this is not appropriate for the talk page" well thats great but if newbees like me can't find it, then its broke and needs fixingTourskin 19:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am probably one of the 'rude users' of which you speak, but can I please just add that both myself and the IP on the occasion I recommended you move the discussion to the Village Pump linked to it? It wasn't a matter of 'Oh My God, you are such a pathetic user, you should know that this should be at the village pump, you're obviously an idiot.' It was a case of 'This isn't appropriate here. Try this page.' You proceeded to become sarcastic, and said that as the conversation had started, it should stay here. There are a number of reasons that that is nonsense, and I will not patronise you with them. Anyone interested in the discussion can see it here, although it has not been fully archived as a large section was removed. Tourskin, you were the one being rude, if anyone was. J Milburn 14:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Such "rudeness" was developed from experienve of other administrators telling me to "lighten up" and "develop a harder skin". If people can't take sarcasm, why should I? Well anyways, the first rude comment was the one asking the discussion to take it elsewhere. A link at the Main Page to the Village Pump (preferably a tab) would be great. Come on, whats an extra tab at the top going to do?Tourskin 19:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. Heathcliff 22:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, damn it! I honestly thought this might go the whole day without anybody complaining. So close! Anyway, its been said before, so here it is, again: ANY article can be a featured article, and ANY featured article can be on the main page. That's the way it always has worked, and always will work. If you want to go get Tschirnhaus transformation or some other, more "serious" topic on the main page, feel free to work on it and get it up to featured status.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A minor correction: almost any featured article can be on the main page. Montreal Screwjob doesn't come remotely close to raising the same level of concern. - BanyanTree 23:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Meh. I'd call even that debatable, personally.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Heathcliiff loves it really :] 172.203.251.100 00:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, I was wondering where the greasy pitchfork-wielding mob had gotten to. In any case, I can't imagine anyone objecting to today's article on the grounds of "encyclopedicity". GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 01:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey the article is great, it reminds me of when i use to watch wwf. Tourskin 01:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You give absolutely no information on why you protest it being the featured article? Another WWE hater? Great. Look, it's a good article. Informative, and most importantly, every single statement has been sourced, somehow magically making it more informative than a fansite or God forbid, official ones. Strange how that works isn't it? Anyway, care to extrapolate on your criticism to the article's FA-ishness? --Kaizer13 01:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol probably because the FA was unexpected.Tourskin 07:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you should add "Fiction-Related Article of the Day". Does anyone agree with me? Pokemon Buffy Titan 10:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No, because every time there's a fiction-related article on the Main Page, somebody moans here about the supposed bias in Wikipedia's coverage – Gurch 12:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles about fiction are written from a real-world perspective anyway. Is Harry Potter (character) a 'fiction related article'? Even though it talks about the character from a real world perspective? Is Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone fiction related? The book actually exists. Is J. K. Rowling fiction related? She's famous for writing fiction. And so on... In short, no, it is a bad idea for a lot of reasons. J Milburn 14:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey everybody, usually I have the fundraising tab covered using a "Hide this message option on my monobook". This says that 20,326 people have donated, yet when I press the show more button it tells me that 19,306 people have donated. Why? Alo which figure is accurate? Thanks --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 18:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Now I see 14,000. Tourskin 19:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hadseys, that is probably a caching issue - they were both correct (I assume) when they were passed to the server, but they might have been passed at different times, or loaded from the server at different times. The greater number is more accurate, but people continue to donate. Tourskin, have you tried clearing your cache? That might update the number, but we're definitely past 20,000 as of this point. Nihiltres^(t.l) 19:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice, thank you its workedTourskin 20:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should add this wikipedia podcast to the main page, if not now, than someday at least. Wrad 01:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's on the Community Portal. And it isn't that enyclopedic and only of intrest to wikipedians. The Placebo Effect 01:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's not the right sort of thing quite yet, but some sort of discussion or vocal news report about what's new, what's featured, and so on. Wrad 01:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

on the did you know... section there is a reference to Susan Hadden's death to bandits, the link to bandit goes to a "Welsh language music television show on S4C,". as bad as welsh television might be, i don't think they killed her.--neolandes 16:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone's fixed it, thanks for the report. In future, please use WP:ERRORS at the top of this page for little reports like that- there are quicker replies. J Milburn 18:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is Russian listed before Romanian both in the sidebar and in the Wikipedia languages section? I read the FAQ section on this, but according to that, the languages should be sorted by domain name, and ru (Russian) should come after ro (Romanian). In fact, any sorting method (local language name, name in English) would seem to require Romanian before Russian. Lesgles (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You may want to bring this up at Template talk:Wikipedialang. --199.71.174.100 20:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We've been alphabetizing the list by the languages' native names for quite some time, and it appears that the Russian Wikipedia was placed before the Romanian Wikipedia based upon the mistaken belief that the Cyrillic "Р" in "Русский" was equivalent to the Latin "P." (In fact, it corresponds to the Latin letter "R.") I've corrected the order. —David Levy 21:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I suspected that was the reason. Lesgles (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a note: it's still backwards on the sidebar. I don't know who's in charge of that.Lesgles (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about that. I've corrected it now. Thanks again! —David Levy 22:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems an odd coincidence that an article about a gun should be featured the day after a prominent school shooting. Any thoughts?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It was chosen to go on the front page on the 27th October. [1] AlexJ 22:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a coincidence. Truthiness was the main page article the same day Stephen Colbert announced he would run for President of the United States (in South Carolina). SashaCall 22:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Spooky. D'ya think if I asked him nicely, Raul would pick some lottery numbers for me? -- Vary | Talk 22:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

More apophenia in action. Raul654 22:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, for my next trick: Bobcat is going to be the FA on the 11th. I predict that somebody, somewhere, will have some experience involving a bobcat, and that searching on google news for "Bobcat" will reveal at least one story for that day. Raul654 22:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh man - Google news has not one, not two, not three, but thirty eight bobcat related articles for today. Clearly the article's selection for the main page for this date was indicative of some sort of bias towards the subject of one of these articles (The fact that the Bobcat article was scheduled for this date more than two weeks ago is totally irrelevant). Raul654 06:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha :) AmiDaniel (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the Charlotte Bobcats will win a basketball game that day... Houston may have a problem with that.  :-) --199.71.174.100 22:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Too bad the Rockets were spoilers... --Howard the Duck 03:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Bobcats were actually leading at the half! Then midnight UTC came, with a new TFA on the main page, and the Rockets came from behind to win the game. --74.13.128.113 06:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Too bad there's no Rocket-related stuff on today's FA. --Howard the Duck 13:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that's why the better team won by merely 3 points. --74.14.17.245 13:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Bobcats should win now :D --Howard the Duck 04:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Too bad the Bobcats' next game won't start till midnight UTC tonight, i.e. when MJ leaves the MP. But then, the Miami Heat sucks... --74.13.127.238 06:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why no one is complaining of Charlotte Bobcats-centrism yet... --Howard the Duck 06:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Everybody loves the Bobcats. --74.14.16.199 04:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Raul, it would be a greater coincidence if that incident made its way onto WP:ITN SashaCall 22:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it would only be a strange and eerie coincidence if the shooter used the Webley in the shooting, which he didn't. hbdragon88 04:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The current event notice about riots in Georgia is a little confusing because it's not clear that the subject is the country of Georgia rather than the state of Georgia (in the US). Neither the listing nor the article itself clarifies this (although reading the article, it becomes obvious that it couldn't be referring to the state). And no, the world doesn't revolve around the US. Wikipedia is a global thing. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to identify _which_ entity is being referred to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.134.67 (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The main page notice and the article both link to Georgia (country). The notice also refers to Tbilisi, which I'm reasonably sure shares it's name with no other place in the world. Is this insufficiently clear? The original suggestions at WP:ITN/C explicitly mentioned that Tbilisi is Georgia's capital. Would that make it more obvious? Algebraist 21:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, I'm Canadian and knew it was about the country. Most likely just Americans will think it's Georgia, even though Tbilisi is mentioned. Sorry if I sound rude.--Billyboy0 22:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, with would be somewhat degrading to have to append (the country) to the end... why would we talk about the name of a state without mentioning in country anyway? We don't and wouldn't.--Dacium 02:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this really what the world thinks about Americans? Do you guys really think that we are that self-centered, stupid, and egotistical? I was very much aware that it was the country, as I'm sure most people were...I'm rather insulted, though. Benjamin 04:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. I did say that the world doesn't revolve around the US. But I must say I'm pretty unimpressed with the pro anything-but-US stance. All I was asking for is clarity about which entity was being referred to. I'm sure I'm far from the only one who was initially confused by it. I don't see how writing clearly is somehow 'degrading'. And even as a 'stupid american', it didn't take me long at all to figure out that it was referring to the country of Georgia. My only point is that I shouldn't have had to deduce it or already know about it. Isn't the whole idea of an encyclopedia to educate the uneducated? It just seems prudent to write in such a way as to avoid confusing a large portion of the audience. But I suppose americans should specifically not be considered since we're stupid, and we'll be confused regardless. 98.207.134.67 08:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Using the parenthetical would not actually be necessary. If you needed more clarity you could simply write more clearly. ("The nation of Georgia") I'm not sure why more clarity was really needed though, since a city was also mentioned. 69.95.50.15 16:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Its obviously not the US State Georgia since all this story got in the US news was a small blurb. If it was the state you would never hear the end of it, documentaries in the years to come..--Coasttocoast 02:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering, why is the Métro referred to as "subway" on the main page? For one thing, "subway" is not an entirely generic term (for example, London people would tend to call it an underground, universally). Second, why is there a need to change from Métro? In Ireland, I very often hear any underground train system referred to as a "metro", whether in its official name or not. So if Métro is for some other reason, innappropriate, why isn't it called "rapid transit" as per its article name? - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 19:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I just depiped it so it says "Paris Métro". No objection to rapid transit, although I think the real issue is that most readers understand the term in context. Whether or not they the word is generic is secondary.--chaser - t 20:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that was another example of an Americanism that has been imposed thoughtlessly. There have been several complaints about such incidences today. I think it is high time that the admins get used to the idea of using international forms of English that are appropriate in each context. And to be clear about 'subway': this means 'an underground passage through which pedestrians can traverse a road without needing to walk over it' where I come from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.41.184 (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad you volunteered. I'll deal with inappropriate Britishisms (as I have often done) and you can handle inappropriate Americanisms (better than I can - I have little experience with British English outside of Wikipedia, and besides my Pacific time zone doesn't match yours). So can I expect to see you at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship so you can help? In the meantime, there are ways for non-admins to help - by suggesting a more British-sounding paraphrase here, for instance. Art LaPella 22:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help anytime. And believe me, I'm as opposed to the inappropriate use of Britishisms as I am to inappropriate Americanisms, Australianisms or any other isms. I want to see the use of Standard English prevail in writings that are intended to be of academic quality. Standard English admits the use of different spelling conventions and, where absolutely necessary, different terminology, but these should be used appropriately and sensitively in any particular context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.41.184 (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In the future, perhaps you could avoid describing an honest mistake as "an Americanism that has been imposed thoughtlessly" (which seems to imply that the editor was aware of the issue and simply didn't care). As noted above, similar errors are made by sysops from many different nations, and this is entirely understandable. —David Levy 23:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

An honest mistake can be a thoughtless mistake. An admin who refers to Manchester, UK railways as 'railroads' may be honest, but they are certainly thoughtless, even careless, especially when that expression is not used in the relevant article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.220.191 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Referring to the mistake as "thoughtless" implies that the sysop had ample reason to be aware of the issue and didn't care enough to address it. Claiming that the incorrect terminology was "imposed" conveys that the action was deliberate and possibly malicious.

In case you aren't aware, we have more than enough heated debates about alleged nationalistic bias. There's no need to spark yet another because of an innocent error. —David Levy 22:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"I want to see the use of Standard English prevail in writings that are intended to be of academic quality." Just like we have here on WP then? Multiple articles from different geographies on the main page with consistent spelling within each article, and sensitivity when they are summarised. There's an occasional slip up that's fixed quickly when it's pointed out? Not bad for a community of volunteers. --Stephen 23:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And I'm from Paris and I sometimes say "subway" when I talk to foreigners (even if I more often say Metro) :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, spelling in many articles is not consistent. I know that because I have cleaned up some of them. Not bad for a community of volunteers? Not bad at all. Wikipedia is a great world asset - no doubt about that whatsoever. But I think we can agree that things can always be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.220.191 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and this is not accomplished by accusing said volunteers of "[thoughtlessly imposing]" their preferences on the community. —David Levy 22:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not entirely clear to me how the proposed "Standard English" picks one of the multiple meanings at subway to avoid confusion of this sort, although Paris Métro seems clear enough. -- !! ?? 08:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Standard English is not a proposal. It actually exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.220.191 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't look very helpful! Bazza 14:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Standard English is a social dialect. Using it is an art, not a science. For a good description of SE, have a look at [2]this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.211.68 (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to see more vigilance, especially on the Main Page. But I prefer to say that by setting an example - not by making a speech whenever all of us, including you and I, have overlooked an error. Art LaPella 18:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I try to watch for (and correct) these errors, but I don't accuse the sysops who commit them of "[thoughtlessly imposing]" their spelling/terminology on the community. That's a needlessly harsh criticism that can spark the sort of bickering that we need less of around here. —David Levy 22:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Only if someone looks for offense where none is intended. The only bickering seems to be from you. ReadingOldBoy 08:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Presently, there is no bickering at all. I was referring to an unfortunate situation that sometimes arises when people ascribe innocent mistakes to nationalistic bias. I didn't claim that User:80.3.41.184 intended to offend anyone, but comments along the lines of "I think that was another example of an Americanism [or any other county's "ism"] that has been imposed thoughtlessly" tend to have that effect. —David Levy 22:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact, many cities in the US don't use the term "subway" to desribe rapid transit. In Washington, DC, the "subway" is always refered to as "Metro".

A WP donor earlier today suggested the implementation of an active cursor in the search box on main page. Seems like a good idea, doesn't it? --Camptown 09:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Giving focus to the search box prevents the user from using the arrow keys or other shortcut keys to navigate. We long ago decided that being able to scroll down at the push of a button was the more important function. Dragons flight 09:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's in the FAQ btw Nil Einne 13:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, the good old argument of 'but we've always done it like this...'. Can I ask how long ago this was decided? In this era of scroll wheeled mice as pretty much standard, I would have thought that most people navigate a page using that, or if not by dragging the scrollbar. Not being able to type directly into the search box I feel is more important. Whilst frequent visitors to WP, may spend time browsing the main page, most casual folk just want to use WP as an encyclopedia - by searching it. Is it possible that this can be looked at again? Thoughts? My two cents courtesy of Dutpar 08:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

From my experience, most non-editors go straight to the search box. Only the contributors themselves (these are generalisations) browse through the main page. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 09:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

But how many readers actually search from the main page as opposed to www.wikipedia.org, Google, IE/FireFox search tab etc? Mind you, this question is almost impossible to answer as are most claims about the majority of users. By definition, people who only come to the main page to use the search box are not likely to be checking out the talk page and even if we were to put a big banner ad on the main page for a survey they might not notice (I guess we could put it throughout wikipedia but anyway...) Nil Einne 13:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, search box focus doesn't really prevent arrow key scrolling. All the user has to do is TAB out of it first. The result is scrolling at the touch of two buttons. --Siradia 18:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I use a laptop, with a touchpad, and I have always found scrolling with the arrow key more comfortable than dragging the scrollbar. However, maybe it is time to revisit this topic, and confirm consensus. Puchiko (Talk-email) 23:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I use a laptop with touchpad too, but I have scrolling enabled on the touchpad (as well as back/forward) so I just have to run my finger along the edge to scroll. It's very nice. And this is coming from a person who does a lot of shortcut keys to get around. I understand not killing functionality for keyboarding types, but I don't think it's really that disruptive to focus. Especially if keyboarders want to type in the search box. That's a lot of tabbing. --Siradia 01:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if you've set up your system to work well for you, that's good, but this doesn't answer the question of what the majority of people with touchpads are going to do. I suspect it's probably with keys (arrows or page up/down, neither of which will work with focus). Nil Einne 14:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I would hate it if when i typed it went straight to the search box because i have a heavy hand and it tends to press the odd key on my laptop. the way it is perfect. Philbuck222 11:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This idea gets mentioned every once in a while. I actually think it's one of the most often given suggestions. The reason why it isn't done is because it (a) immediately breaks some important shortcut keys (giving focus to the search box means you can't use space bar to scroll down, for example), which is a major pain when visiting a long article, (b) it doesn't even matter too much as most people come to an article either via the www.wikipedia.org homepage (which does steal focus) or via a wikilink. I myself find it hugely annoying that when I view a Flickr results page, I first need to click the page to be able to use space bar (I can't even use tab, because it just jumps to various other input boxes). Anyway, I'm against this! —msikma (user, talk) 21:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Whenever I think of this as a possibility, I think of it happening only on the main page, not on the other article pages. Is that not technically feasible? I hadn't considered that before.--Siradia 15:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I can see there is a weight to continuing as is, (Thanks Mskima, I don't think I ever realised space bar could be used for scrolling!) but perhaps as a compromise the tab order could be amended so a single tab takes you first to the search box, as opposed to the 270th as on today's Main Page. Dutpar 19:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If like Siradia said the it only occured on the main page, would it be a problem because that's where most people go immediately upon arriving at the main page? freenaulij 21:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freenaulij (talk • contribs)

I think I should I add in my not-so-sought after opinion - like many others have suggested before me, a mouse is the more preffered version of navigating a page. Using a keyboard to navigate a page in my opinion is too conservative (not politically) but in terms of technology and not to most user's liking. The idea of pressing tab once to get their sounds good but to be honest how maany people know of that? Having said all of this, I don't think that either way makes a hell of a difference Tourskin 00:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What if you don't have a mouse? Or are unable to use one? Pressing a space bar to scroll down (or PageDown and PageUp) is about as simple as it gets. Bazza 13:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

if u dont have a mouse, it'll take u ages to get to wikipedia in the first place using tabs and alt!!! invest in a wheeled mouse!!!Tourskin 21:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone can use a mouse. Blind people, for example.81.174.226.229 13:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Or people with limited movement. I don't know where Tourskin lives, but in the UK (and most of EU), it's a legal requirement to keep these things in mind. And apart from that, on discussion pages, the first thing I often do is press "End" to go down the bottom of the page.Bazza 14:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

For me it's not that much about the space bar, but more about the arrow keys. Sure, it only takes one click to focus out of the search box but it's still annoying.
I also think that today, many of Wikipedia's readers use a laptop. Of course some of these simply attach a mouse or use the "hot spots" on their touch pad (run their finger along the edge). However, there is still a substantial number of users that cannot do that.
Since Wikipedia is hosted on servers in Florida, the laws of UK and EU are legally irrelevant. However, since Wikipedia is "the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit", I think we should consider the blind users for moral reasons. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

uh.......could anyone tell me how a blind person uses a computer? but I think that's a great point that Puchiko makes about the laptops, the keyboard is a major function on the laptops. freenaulij 03:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

With a Refreshable Braille display or text-to-speech. Yay Wikipedia!81.174.226.229 08:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There's also a (current) software consideration not yet mentioned: at the moment, MediaWiki doesn't treat the Main Page any differently from any other page—while the header has been hidden, this was done via CSS and is not part of MediaWiki itself. This means that giving the search box default focus would cause this behaviour on all pages. Of course the software could be modified further to only give this treatment to the Main Page (or whatever is defined on MediaWiki:Mainpage), but this added inconsistency could be even more troubling for casual readers. Garrett^Talk 09:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering everything it is probably best to leave it alone. For the people who would use it it would be a slight convenience, but it could cause some problems for other users. freenaulij 23:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The banner at the top has changed!!!!! The Placebo Effect 04:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Hiding the fundraiser box how to hide it. --NE2 04:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems like the new design is having problems on IE. See the bottom discussions on Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't have that 'Wiki feel' to it. The previous one was better, I'd say. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow... I'd forgotten just how well-hidden I had it. To see what had changed, I had to disable my custom stylesheet, NoScript and Adblock :) – Gurch 13:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely true that the new fund raising banner is way too much like a big, flashing banner ad, and definitely doesn't fit in well with the Wiki style. What about the first fund raiser graphic? I recall it being eye friendly. 24.7.71.43 07:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This makes me want to donate less.

--Henry W. Schmitt 04:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree-- the previous donation banner was much more appealing... :( Lusanaherandraton 05:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This is almost as bad as an ad, and one step away from an animated GIF banner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.1.125 (talk) 06:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the last one was bad, until this one showed up. No offense to whoever created this banner, but the people in a line showing how many people have donated doesn't do it for me. A graph is much more helpful compared to a bunch of people in a row. I understand it is trying to convey the message of a world-wide effort, but it sounds preachy. The red button helps in the long run, I think, but the whole left portion of the banner does not. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 19:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that this current banner, which is very close to an ad, is not apealing to anbody at all. I liked the old one much better. Juliancolton 18:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see whats the problem here

Scroll down if u don't want to contribute, or just scroll down enough to have it out of your way. Its not like its jumping out of the screen. Tourskin 07:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This banner really looks much like an aggressive ad... the previous one was much better. 11:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.218.178.220 (talk)

Huh? What banner? I can see it on other computers but not this one. In fact, logged on or off, it is invisible on this computer. How is this possible? Can someone tell me what it looks like? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You probably have JavaScript turned off. I recommend you leave it that way – Gurch 20:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I also thought the new banner was an improvement on the first one. Although, I'm using firefox, and the text and some lines look a little squished compared to the old one. Perhaps that can be fixed, but otherwise the new design is nice. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 21:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Though I hate both banners, the second one is better. Having the banner on the top seems a bit "pushy". I am not a fan of asking people for donations. If they want to donate, they will donate. Also, this could have a counter-effect and make people not want to donate.--SJP 22:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Yeah, because not reminding people to donate will make them more likely to donate.</sarcasm> Seriously, they're both fine, and there's a nice little button there that says "hide this message". Use it. Grandmasterka 00:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree the second one is better, the first one drove me nuts because I have a serious pet peeve with animations on web pages, movement on the screen is distracting especially if trying to read an encylopedia. The current one is far less distracting then the previous one. The hide button works well on both and the little meter that is left when hidden isnt too bad (though I think by default something this size would be better). I do support the foundations effort to solicit donations, running this stuff isnt free and many people wont donate if they dont realize there is a current need. As an american I liken it to PBS and NPR fund drives, which while they annoyed the hell out of me, I saw as a unfortunate nessesity to allow me to get commercial free unbaised and quality programming the rest of the year(and I did donate every year). Think about this reguarding wikipedia, suffer the banners for a breif period, the alternative is something like google ads all day everyday, personally, I will take the banner. Russeasby 00:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean:) Will they be pernament, or are they temporary? I hope they are the second!--SJP 00:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we're aware that the "people bar" is currently squished; hopefully this issue will get sorted out tomorrow.

I think no matter what we put at the top of the page, we'll probably get 20 comments telling us that it's horrible, unprofessional, too professional, too preachy, not preachy enough, too irritating, not irritating enough, too colorful, too gray, too banner-like, not sufficiently banner-like, too familiar, too unfamiliar, ... I'll stop now.

Since we put up the new banner, the number of donations per day has more than doubled. [3] Whether this is due to its newness or the new design -- it's clear that we have to make modifications like this to meet our fundraising goals. We need $4.6M for the FY 2007-2008, and so far we've raised $368K. We expect that we'll need another fundraiser in 2008 and we also have some major donors interested in contributing for this fundraiser; this one will run into late December. During that time we'll experiment further with the notice, the landing page, etc. Helpful comments are appreciated at Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign. ---Eloquence* 01:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It is great that we have gotten that much money! It is excellent. I am happy with that. I hope that it will be taken down when the goal is met though.--SJP 01:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless you've got a lot of corporate donors in reserve, we might miss that $4.6M by >70% in this drive, which could easily put us in the position of needing 2 more long fundraisers just to pay for 2008. At which point, much of the year is a "fundraiser". This leads me to wonder about the origin of that $4.6M number. Traffic only grew ~40% in the last year, but if I understand correctly the projected budget is ~3 times larger than this year's budget. Any chance you guys are grossly overestimating the costs for the coming year? A number more like $2.5M would seem much more obtainable and in line with growth in Wikimedia's core activity. Dragons flight 02:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There are two paths the Foundation could take in its organizational development: 1) Focus, 100%, on hosting Wikipedia and generating enough funding to do so -- rely almost exclusively on ad hoc volunteerism for everything beyond hosting. 2) Build WMF into a mission-driven non-profit that is not merely hosting a website, but distributing knowledge to people world-wide, and reaching out to the global community for participation and content creation. These paths are extremely different. For example, in scenario 1), it would not be necessary to relocate the Foundation from St. Petersburg, Florida to San Francisco, as we've decided to do -- we would surely be able to support basic server hosting without it. On the other hand, becoming a successful and global charity requires access to a different talent pool, the ability to execute program directives, etc.

As Jimmy's video should make clear, the Foundation (through its majority-elected Board of Trustees) has chosen path 2) -- we're not merely a webhost; we want to be a new kind of charity: a charity of free knowledge. And this necessitates that we prepare & plan our growth accordingly.--Eloquence* 06:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In the end, it all comes down to numbers, and they aren't big enough. Obviously I can't say "you should have gone with 1)" without being accused of trolling, but... you get my drift – Gurch 14:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Theres no Hide button :{ ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.227.194 (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You have to log in to hide the banner. :-) I am a lemon 04:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Discrepancy

Seriously, has nobody noticed that when the donation banner is opened, it shows a different number of contributors than when the donation banner is closed? Right now there's a discrepancy of between 8 and 14 contributors. Which is the real "updated" number? Is there some sort of lag? ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 00:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The same things happens with the number of articles: nothing can be dead on, dude. Stuff changes moment to moment, they can only be exact to within a second or two. Ben 02:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Besides, what is the difference between 14,900 and 14,908? Does 8 people really matter? I know every donor counts, but statistically, not so.

The discrepancy is much bigger on my screen. When the banner is open, it says "0 have donated". When closed, the number is over 14,000. It has been a while since I took statistics, but I think this is statistically significant. :-) I am running Firefox, if that makes a difference. Johntex\^talk 19:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Mine is showing a discrepancy of about 1000 now...Ben 22:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...mines off by 1. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 22:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Mine's off by 11, but consIdering the gaps listed above, this IS somewhat serious. Yadaman 22:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Every time i check the number of doners it is different evry time, by a few thousand or so. I checked an hour ago and the number was over 24,000. Now, the number is just over 19,000. Juliancolton 19:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC) i think this site should get better stuff......................15/november 07 andy........... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.143.251 (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey,User:194.82.143.251, it really would be nice if you would sign your user name. Thank You. Juliancolton 01:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, what's up w/ the picture for the featured article: Bill Gates w/ master chief for Halo 3 release when the article is on Halo 1, or rather Halo: Combat Evolved? Am I missing something? Is there some direct corellation that I'm missing? Benjamin 03:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Best available (copyright-)free picture. --74.14.16.199 04:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the image is copyrighted. It's available under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 license. —David Levy 05:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That's why I put it in brackets. It's "free," but I don't know the proper legal term. --74.14.16.199 05:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've cropped the photograph to exclude Mr. Gates. —David Levy 05:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Good crop, Mr. Levy. Welcome back to the Main Page. I miss your squares. --74.14.16.199 05:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

So, it doesn't actually fit in with the article directly, but it's the best we had that is legal? What if I took a picture of a halo game thing, would that be my own work and therefore able to be put up? Nice crop Benjamin 05:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots? No, that's considered "fairuse," and not "free" enough for the Main Page. --74.14.16.199 05:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The image is now cropped. Having a pic of Bill Gates there with the soldier reminded me more of Halo than before, cos Microsoft owns Xbox and Xbox owns Halo!Tourskin 05:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's making a way too big deal out of fair use pics. Seriously, guys, nobody's going to sue you.. goddammit!! --nlitement ^[talk] 06:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless we use a picture of Prince... then we'll get sued, whether it's fair use or completely 'free'! Fakelvis 08:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

How do I create a page? I'm working on a political essay, which deserves a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattdflpp (talk • contribs) 06:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Just search for it, and if it's not there, you have the option to create it. But please don't do that if you're writing the essay; only create the article if by "working on a political essay" you mean studying a notable published essay.81.174.226.229 09:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Does Halo really need to be the featured article, I mean, is it just that well written. Or did an overzealous fanboy endlessly petition for it to secure the spot. There are so many pages on Wiki that deserve to be here & aren't some manifestation of pop culture.67.184.114.4 12:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Find them and nominate them. Or, if they aren't featured articles, make them so, then nominate them. The fact is, video gamers are passionate enough to make up to standard aritcles, and thus they get featured a lot. Perhaps it's a matter of systemic bias, but being a page that anyone with net access can contribute to, it's all up to those who want to contribute. And a lot of them like video games. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Aww, the copyrighted design of the SPARTAN armor is somehow "free" enough to be used in the FA blurb, eh? This makes a wonderful precedent for taking pictures of game cartridges for the rest of us. Thanks for chipping away at the copyright paranoia. Apparently, real life image = free. Zeality 23:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the DMCA protect Wikipedia (as a web server) from being sued for copyright infringement, as long as we remove copyrighted images (that don't qualify a fair use) upon request. SashaCall 00:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia's choice to keep the main page content "free". 1 != 2 00:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Not one that necessarily has consensus.. Atropos 02:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

And, apparently a real life picture applies to game art now. Halo is the second FA to do this. The first was Donkey Kong, whose image was a picture of a Game & Watch console with a live game on the screen (so double the copyright). Once Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, and MNSG are fixed up, I'll secure real life images for those too. I'm not expecting it to go through, but I'll definitely push it like hell to force an actual policy decision on this rather than vague paranoia. Zeality 06:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Good timing on the Oklahoma FA, as an Oklahoman. Happy birthday, Oklahoma. 216.61.238.76 00:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You can thank Raul654 (talk · contribs) for that. SashaCall 06:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As well as Okiefromokla who requested it. Atropos 09:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved from WP:ERROR -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone should check the today's number of articles in "Wikipedia languages". They're not at all correct (e.g. Volapük) now has more than 100'000 articles). Pausanias 18:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, if you compare the Main Page list to m:List of Wikipedias, then తెలుగు, नेपाल भाषा, Sinugboanong Binisaya, ইমার ঠার/বিষ্ণুপ্রিয়া মণিপুরী, and Volapük are missing from the Main Page. Maybe the Main Page list isn't updated as often as m:List of Wikipedias, or vice versa. Art LaPella 04:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed a while ago. The reason the Volapük Wikipedia was removed was that a lot of articles there were bot-created, are stubs and not really high quality. --Ouro (blah blah) 19:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

See relevant discussion at Template talk:Wikipedialang#Quality requirements (Volapük) and multiple sections on "depth" at meta:Talk:List of Wikipedias. The question of if and how to distinguish smaller Wikipedias largely comprising bot-created stubs has been contentious recently. - BanyanTree 20:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

How many times have powderfinger figured on the front page in the last few weeks? WHo are they?--Kitchen Knife 11:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the article. --74.13.128.59 17:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have an cannot see why they should be on the front page so often. The seem like a rather no mark band.--Kitchen Knife 10:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read the article then. They are a very well known band. DPCU 15:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Main page appearances aren't dictated by the topic of the article -anything that meets Wikipedia's notability requirements can be featured on the main page. -Elmer Clark 00:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

They are back again after 5 days. Sounds like PR to me.--Kitchen Knife 16:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Or a WikiProject doing what it's supposed to do... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"supposed to do" according to their own lights or those of Wikipedia?--Kitchen Knife 11:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Both. The problem is we don't have enough contributers in other areas. More different people with different expertise and knowledge bases contributing will mean more different DYK candidates to choose from. If Kitchen Knife wants, we can have many DYKs about knives. Get working on articles on your favorite topics, everyone. --74.13.131.144 05:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"[A] rather no mark band"? WTF, Powderfinger are one of the best and most well-known Australian bands. Kitchen Knife, just because you obviously don't know much about recent music doesn't mean that it doesn't belong the Main Page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.110.207 (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Let's be civil. Powderfinger are one of the most popular bands in Australia, but their success has been confined to the continent. Teemu08 23:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but even if the person hadn't heard of them, the Wikipedia article should have tipped you off to the promince of the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.110.207 (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

They appear more often than the beatles, rolling stones, Elvis or the Sex Pistols. There promince is very limit by comparison.--Kitchen Knife 12:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, this means that we need to get some articles about the beatles, rolling stones, Elvis or the Sex Pistols.... up to FA status. Please also note that we already have quite a few existing articles about the beatles, rolling stones, Elvis or the Sex Pistols .... that do not qualify for DYK unless someone makes a substantial expansion in the past 5 days. Get working on articles on your favorite topics, everyone, or they won't get on the main page. --74.13.128.113 05:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

FA status has nothing to do with DYK, DYK is about new articles. Just look at what it says under "Did you know". If an article has attained FA status then its probably not new. Mad031683 18:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The question was "How many times have powderfinger figured on the front page ...." After getting on the "front page" as a DYK, options are ITN (unlikely), OTD (unlikely) & TFA (work is required). --74.13.128.245 (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I really think that the recent sulfur and oil spills, in San Fran and the Black Sea, should really be in ITN. It's all over the news, so why is wikipedia not putting it on the front page? Benjamin 00:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for ITN should be posted on this page , not here. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"All over the news"? It hasn't been mentioned once, actually. Rather depends where you live. violet/riga (t) 07:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"hasn't been mentioned once"? You get a 1,000 hits on google news, rather independently of where you live. This is a major ecological disaster. You may perhaps have missed it if your only news outlet is slashdot. --dab (𒁳) 09:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to television news, and it hasn't appeared on there once. Oddly enough I know the net provides alternative news sources. violet/riga (t) 16:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thought I should mention that all news headlines go to Portal: Current events. Only those (big) news items with a well updated encyclopedic article in Wikipedia gets featured on Wikipedia's MainPage. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The MainPage of Wikinews would be a better place for things "all over the news". --PFHLai (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I know "balancing the main page" has been discussed occasionally so there is no extra empty space at the bottom of the right and left columns. So my question is: how can you determine whether the main page is in balance when Wikipedians use different display resolution settings on their computer monitors? The layout of the text that appears on a 800x600 monitor does not look the same as it does on a widescreen 1920x1200 one. Does this mean that when every time an admin wants to balance the main page, he or she has to change his or her computer monitor settings to a specific resolution, and if so what should it be? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what anyone else does, but I deliberately maintain a setup that approximates that of most users that I've seen report/act on this over the years. In other words, when the columns appear roughly balanced to me, they should to most other people as well. (My resolution is atypical, but I compensate via a reduced window size.)

I believe that the most common resolution is 1024x768, and we need to assume that the browser window is spanning the screen's full width. (Mine isn't, of course.) —David Levy 06:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that most monitors sold currently (and most office monitors) were 1280x1024, or are we using the assumption that most people are using their OSes default resolution? (Which at least in windows and ubuntu is 1024x768) TheGreatZorko 09:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You might be right. I'm sure that there's a "1024" in there somewhere.  ;) —David Levy 10:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, in my company (web development) I know that we design pages for 1024x768 resolution so that most users will not be forced to scroll horizontally. Admittedly, that's not a problem given the liquid layout used here. howcheng {chat} 17:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There's also the minor issue with font and font size. Sometimes, the text wraps differently on different 1024x768 screens, with the last word of a bulleted item starting a new line on one screen but not the other. ... I don't think it's possible to cater to all monitor screens. I'd worry less about thee bigger ones, and users get to see more at the same time. I use IE, and when I edit MainPage templates, I usually check if everything fits alright at font sizes 'Medium' and 'Smaller' (presumably most commonly used sizes) in my default font. If the two sides are within three lines of each other in length, I consider it a nice enough fit. When I see two bulleted items sticking out, I'd tweak ITN or DYK to balance. When SA/OTD templates were filled up (quite a while ago, when SA/OTD was on the wider leftside of MainPage, beneath TFA), most of them had five bulleted items occupying 12 to 16 lines on my screen. The consistency was intended to make it easier to manage the layout on MainPage. It's hard to balance the two sides on MainPage as TFA varies in length on a daily basis (sometimes very long), and DYK too frequently has backlogs to clear (demanding more space) while ITN has to dig out stale headlines to balance the two sides. Then users of smaller screens will be forced to scroll down just to see what's on POTD. Perhaps we need a word limit for the various MainPage templates. When all four templates above POTD are always within a certain (predictable) length, layout management on MainPage would be easier. That's my 2 cents. --PFHLai (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Since it looks like Today's featured list proposal is going to pass, I am here to recrute people to help get this going and help decide who should be in charge of it. Any suggestions? -- The Placebo Effect (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Try WP:VP. You'll reach more people there, anyways. --74.13.128.245 (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I was interested how long the donor list remains online. The Last Page goes to a rear title page and not the last donor listed. At this time - is page 374 and Oct22'07 and to speed search along I had to get there by the process of elimination, changing page in the address line of IE6. What is the time frame or truncate point? fyi Win98SE IE6

Planning on making 1st donation and was interested in the process. The donate page including a message line is a nice touch.

ps - I guess WikiFoundation talk page is restricted. Maybe create a link to here. Just spent 10 minutes doing a double check in a 2nd window, and THERE IS a maze to postTALK on the Foundation side, and it is not the same as here. I'll copy and paste in both places. Greg0658 (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This cross post situation, Well (thats a deep subject, well - sometimes shallow, sometimes wet, sometimes dry), my question was answered here: [[4]] Greg0658 (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The main page, under Did you know, has a link named Start a new article. It currently links to Help:Starting a new page. I recommend changing it to link to Wikipedia:Your first article. The former is not very helpful, the latter is much more helpful - particularly for new editors. -- Sbowers3 (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the latter is much better for newbies. However, what I find helpful about the Help:Starting a new page is the search box, which lets editors check if the article exists yet. Sure, more expiriened experienced editors will simply use the search box on the left, but the page is targeted at very new contributors.

If we could add this to Wikipedia:Your first article I would be in support of linking to it from the main page. Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

All in all I think that's probably a good idea and I will go ahead and do it. My only hesitation is that sooner or later they should learn that they can do it via the normal search box to the left. But they can learn that later so we might as well make it easy for them now. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

So if you put this search form on Wikipedia:Your first article, what are you going to do with Wikipedia:Your first article#How to create a new page where it specifically says, "In the search box to the left, type the title of your article, then click Go or press Enter. If the Search page reports 'No page with that title exists' then you can click the 'create this page' link to start editing your article."? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Replace (most of) that section. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) I just finished a major reorg of Wikipedia:Your first article. Please check it out. So now, I reiterate my suggestion that the main page link to Your first article instead of to Help:Starting a new page. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Balzac, this French aeronaut, and cigarettes? I call France-bias! Zeality (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

don't you mean, zigarettes!!!Tourskin (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget ma cheeze woman! --Kaizer13 (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And the featured picture is of a neuron! It is well documented that French people are in possession of several of these. BIAS! Atropos (talk) 09:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ben ça aidera à compenser l'inclinaison américaine omniprésente dans tous les autres articles :p. Jackaranga (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this page not archived? I can't find a way to see a span of discussion from last year, except for through the history, which is less convenient. Is the history my only option? Cormaggio ^{is learning} 16:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Blame 222.254.135.142 (talk · contribs). (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=next&oldid=171850570).

I've restored the link to the talk archives. Scroll to the top and you'll find it. (unless someone removes it again.) --74.14.21.230 (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Slightly ironic that I didn't check the recent history. :-) Cormaggio ^{is learning} 19:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Should Talk:Main Page/archivelist be fully displayed next to this talk page's table of contents? The space there looks too empty. --74.14.21.230 (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine to me as is. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 18:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Good job with Talk:Main Page/Archives, Mr. Levy. Nicely done. Thank you. --74.13.127.7 (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and you're welcome!  :-) —David Levy 06:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The lung cancer photo looks a lot like an overdone jacket potato with cheese. I know it isn't this. Simply south (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Its Thanksgiving week and the cancerous lung picture looks like a cooked turkey, coincidence or planned?--Coasttocoast (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, do we have to choose an actual close-up picture of lung cancer. I mean is there a more moderate picture to use on the main page? Janus8463 (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've switched to an image of the cells through a microscope. The tumor was a really tasteless choice for an image.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

But now young children won't be scared out of smoking! THINK OF THE CHILDREN Gracenotes^T § 03:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I was finishing my lunch when I opened wikipedia and almost threw up all over my desk. Many thanks to those who changed the picture. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. That was definitely the right thing to do. --Masamage ♫ 03:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah geez. Tourskin (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No, wait. I'm not saying that the picture shouldn't be on wikipedia. I'm just saying its not the first thing I want to see when I sit down at my computer (wikipedia's main page is my IE home page). I'm all for lung cancer being the feature article, but there has to be a more appropriate picture (one that has less shock value) for the main page. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. The tumour image can be IN the article, but is a bit too much being ON the main page.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok I guess so. I suppose someone got carried away with that pic. Tourskin (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with HisSpaceResearch's conclusion and thanks to the people who changed the images.Janus8463 (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you thank you thank you so much for changing that picture. I've been wikisurfing all evening and have resorted to covering that nasty and grotesque picture up with my hand as I type in my searches. I'm glad to know it's not just 'cos my old man died of lung cancer less than a year ago and I was being an overdramatic weenie! Great job as usual guys. 24.166.178.235 (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for changing that image, admins. I seriously lost my appetite upon seeing it. Sick. I actually changed my home page from Wikipedia (it's been my home page for almost 1 and a half) to Google to avoid seeing it again. Knowitall (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You could just use Special:Search to search... Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It really wasn't that disgusting if you think it's not lung cancer. --Howard the Duck 11:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like the image was reverted back to the original one... Do I sense an upcoming edit war here? (actually it would be more of a wheel war since only admins can edit the template) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol the revert edit summary is Revert. That is the best main page image ever.. Jackaranga (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it was switched back again with the edit summary, "This image has more scientific merit and is not just up there for the shock factor". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Technicaly not a whell war since commons admins who have a different sets of permissions could join in too (don't worry no chance of that actualy happpening).Geni (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In this particular situation, I don't see how a commons admin effectively "could join in too". The only thing that a commons admin can do is protect/unprotect the images in question. Most of the edit warring and reverting is on the TFA template here on Wikipedia. Also these images can be "((c-uploaded))", essentially blocking any effects by commons admins. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Commons admins can upload over the top.Genisock2 (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"Over the top" of a "((C-uploaded))" image? Such a Commons admin would probably have to be an admin in English Wikipedia as well, I'm afraid. --PFHLai (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I am gravely concerned that admins were removing a picture for being "gross." Consensus has clearly been against those complaining about pictures they find unpleasant appearing on the main page. Atropos (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be too, but in this case, the new image was at least as good, perhaps better, than the one there before. I would tend to agree with IronGargoyle's edit summary; the first image was more shock factor than educational merit.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I would have to strongly disagree. The second image has little merit for the uneducated viewer (I.E. our audience). Perhaps for a doctor or biologist it does but not so much for the average reader/viewer. It looks just like a bunch of purple round things. The original image is much more meaningful to the average reader. Yet it may seem disgusting to some but if anything, that just shows readers can see there is something seriously wrong with the cancerous cells unlike with the replacement. Nil Einne (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So, let's see. A "gross" medical image gets removed, but when an objection was raised to the phrase "Lick Me in the Ass" on the main page, cries of attempted censorship were raised and the phrase stayed where it was. Huh. The main page has become, at least partially, a tool for demonstrating how edgy and envelope-pushing Wikipedia can be. This is disappointing. HiramShadraski (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

When it offends me, then removing it is of course not censorship. How can you not understand that? Danthemankhan 23:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the banner went up, I believe I have seen vandalisim rise a bit. Your thoughts. Marlith ^T/C 00:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thought: This has nothing to do with the Main Page Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 01:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I shall move it to a different talk page. Marlith ^T/C 01:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, The Village Pump would be best. --Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 02:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems multiple login are required across the project platforms. Is this desirable? Wished to place Well in Quote with link, but can't without a 2nd login. Greg065874.139.161.183 (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not really desirable, but it's what happens with current programming. There's a long term project m:SUL designed to make it possible to use one account on multiple projects sometime in the future, though. --ais523 19:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a suggestion: Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to put John F. Kennedy's death on the front page's "On this day" section? I saw it had his assassination on other languages' homepages (like Spanish Wikipedia), and I believe that it's fitting to do the same to English's Wikipedia. Cuyler91093 (talk) 07:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's already (well not really) in the Featured Picture section. --Howard the Duck 09:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Implied pretty much I guess. Jmlk17 10:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if an anniversary is mentioned or implied in either Today's featured article or Today's featured article, it usually does not appear in the On this day section because it would be redundant on the Main Page. But rest assured, John F. Kennedy's assassination will be back in 2008 (unless the John F. Kennedy assassination article is selected as the featured article for November 22, 2008). Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me or does the placement of a quesiton mark after each article statement both look confusing and seem unnecessary? Halogenated (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't find it confusing. I mean, it is need to make the sentence grammatically correct.
Did you know...that ______________________________________?
I find the question mark vital in this case (because it is a question). However, being a non-native speaker of English, I can't really tell what is confusing, and what is not. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It makes grammatical sense overall, but for some reason whenever I look at the article snippets all I see is the question mark and it throws me off. Probably just me and my myopic reading. Halogenated (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That's a shocker. There's nothing here about Pakistan becoming suspended from the Commonwealth of Nations.

• Pakistan suspended from Commonwealth
• Pakistan barred from Commonwealth
• Pakistan suspended from Commonwealth
• Commonwealth suspends Pakistan
• Suspension from the Commonwealth: What it means

CaribDigita (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because, wow, you haven't posted at WP:ITN/C. Anyway, it's posted now. --Howard the Duck 02:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for that tone. Not everyone knows about WP:ITN/C. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The tone of my reply deserves the tone of the original poster. Ask nicely and be answered nicely. At least it's not a personal attack. --Howard the Duck 15:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the rules and ways of the Commonwealth, but is it such a big deal? Pakistan's been suspended three times before. --Soetermans (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it's a big deal since it's reported everywhere. --Howard the Duck 15:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't a tone to the response, was there? I didn't notice one it was just a straight forward response to my question. CaribDigita (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this isn't the right place for this recommendation ... but, I think the link on the main page (titled 'Commonwealth of Nations') should take you to the Suspension section on the Commonwealth of Nations page. That's where the current event is discussed. Wikidsoup _[talk] 17:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, whomever did that. Wikidsoup _[talk] 20:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Next time you want to suggest small tweaks to any text on the Main Page, try WP:ERRORS. You may get a better response. --70.50.201.220 (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys. I have no idea how this site works but I nominate the chess resources on wikipedia as outstanding. Virtually every opening variant and game notable as a theoretical examplar is covered. Incredible! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.104.69 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Please feel free to improve the articles. Your work may be featured on the Main Page some day. --70.50.201.220 (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You can join WikiProject Chess, who are working to get more Chess articles featured (so far, Chess and The Turk are the only chess-related articles which have got to featured status). Laïka 11:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it disconcerting that 127.0.0.1 has 16 contributions? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, none of the contributions are on the Main Page or its Talk Page, so disconcerting or not, it doesnt belong here, try Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) instead. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 17:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:127.0.0.1 for an explanation for this. Gracenotes^T § 00:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)