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 Selected anniversaries shows;

• 1829 - The practice of sati, a Hindu funeral custom in which the widow immolated herself alive on her husband's pyre, was banned by Lord William Bentinck in British India.

A little more info is needed here. Wikipedia's own article on sati states;"The view of sati as a core practice of Hinduism, including the idea that it was compulsory, continues to be held and disseminated by various groups today, some within India, and many in the rest of the world. In recent years in Poland, criticisms and attacks by Catholics on the Hare Krishna movement in that country included charges that they planned to introduce sati into Europe[34]. The practice is often quoted as the ultimate example of the subjection of women, and this sometimes provokes resentment and criticisms from Hindus and Indians.[35]"

This is widely misunderstood issue. When mentioning sati, it would be would be good practice to also mention three other points; 1) Sati has remained illegal in India from 1829 to present & the law is vigorously enforced. 2) When one considers modern India as a nation of nearly a billion people, it is extremely rare. 3) The thought is completely insane.

Perhaps the text could read;

• 1829 - The bygone practice of sati, a Hindu funeral custom in which the widow immolated herself alive on her husband's pyre, was banned by Lord William Bentinck in British India & the law has been vigorously enforced ever since.

Veej 13:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Mention of RajaRam Mohan Roy, it's most famous opponent (not Bentinck) is also desired.

1829 - The bygone practice of sati, a Hindu funeral custom in which the widow immolated herself alive on her husband's pyre, was banned in British India largely due to the efforts of social reformer Raja Ram Mohan Roy & the law has been vigorously enforced ever since.--Pranathi 19:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

*On 4 December 1829, the practice was formally banned in the Bengal Presidency lands, by the then governor, Lord William Bentinck.

This is what is mentioned in the Sati article itself. The main difference is the word formally. Otherwise it is pretty much the same as in the Selected anniversaries section of the Main Page. The word formally does suggest that it still may be happening illegally or something like that. DaGizza ^{Chat (c)} 19:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I've rewritten the 1829 item on Sati. I tried to incorporate the ideas above without making the sentence too long. Hope it's okay now. -- PFHLai 20:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, the key word widow is missing. Regards--Pranathi 21:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Sati was never practised all over India. i live in india

The article was incorrect (I've fixed it). Marquette only camped in the future Chicago, he founded no permanent settlement there. Jean-Baptiste Pointe du Sable was the first settler, over a century later. --Dhartung | Talk 23:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it scrolled. Guess that solves it. ;-) --Dhartung | Talk 04:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I wish I had known about this earlier. I've taken it off the SA template, so it won't re-appear next year. -- PFHLai 06:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

who selects the featured article? i think its sort of lame for it to be used to hype the courtny cox movie , or some crappy sitcom. is this really what wikipeadia should be about? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.150.253.56 (talk • contribs) .

You've missed the point -- the placement hypes the article, which in both cases is fantastic. Certainly superior articles by any standard, even if you dislike the subject matter. What Wikipedia is "about" is determined by its members. If you don't like what's getting featured, the better response is to write more articles that interest you and get them to featured standard -- that only helps Wikipedia more. --Dhartung | Talk 04:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

and it's a great sitcom. --86.135.179.53 07:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

An amazing sitcom.

I agree with Dhartung, also, if you are going to be critical, please attempt proper spelling while you are about it. Literacy is a great thing. Zashera

There should be a full-stop after Dhartung; if we are going to be picky about literacy.   freshgavin TALK    05:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

'Full stop' does not have a hyphen. That semi-colon is unnecessary. And you need to wash behind your ears. --Last Malthusian 12:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks please, they're against policy. 84.67.0.132 17:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Delicious reading!

I agree with the initial poster. This article, while 'fantastic', is clearly written by her agent's inern.

I think there are too many elections in the news section. If the idea is to link to articles, it only exposes a narrow range of them. Bhoeble 01:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Do you know of any good wikiarticles updated with recent news materials ? Please suggest a news headline at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Thanks. -- PFHLai 06:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

A fair criticism. I've put a blurb up on the recent Archaeopteryx discovery.--Pharos 08:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

With regards to the featured articles for the next three days- Arrested Development, Roy Orbison and Michel Foucault- I'd like to voice my strong objection to using any fair-use images on the main page, except for rare circumstances like important news stories. (previous discussions). --Duk 03:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• I strongly agree with the general sentiment, although I would actually say fair use should never be used for In the News, as news pictures always have market value, and I would concede that sometimes for FAs on fictional works fair use pics are almost unavoidable, though the principle of fair use should be stretched as little as possible. Please also see Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 5, 2005.--Pharos 04:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Correct slightly: I do think it's generally fine when organizational or political logos appear on In the News.--Pharos 05:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The Fifth Republic Movement won 114 seats, not 115. Descendall 15:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing this out. -- PFHLai 15:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The section in DYK about the vessel used to transport Churchill's body might be better said by replacing vessel with "ship". When I first read the DYK I thought of vessel as in a Cauldron or some ceremonial sarcophagus, not a ship. --Syrthiss 16:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

A smaller vessel than a ship was used. Vessel is a more general term than ship. They are not synonyms. As part of Churchill's state funeral, his body was transported on the River Thames in the vessel named Havengore, described as a launch or barge. See for example [1] and [2] --Zeminkaya 14:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Can it be modified as it is here, seeing how "has typical presentation distinctions of a documentary, such as narration style, etc. etc." is better than "complete with narration, etc. etc." - "complete with" sounds really informal, hyped and lazy. -- Natalinasmpf 21:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Except for certain ancient figures, possessive names are formed with as apostophe plus "s". Please fix Hugo Chavez. Thanks. Nelson Ricardo 01:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I rearranged the sentence to avoid the apostrophe all together. Evil Monkey - Hello 02:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm French and I'm confused. Of couse I'm sad for the person made dirty with such accusations. And I'm also sad for eventual consequences on Wikipedia. This site is the most beautiful thing the Web can offer. The concrete ideal of regrouping and sharing everyone's knowledge in a perfect way of empathy.

There are always people who think they know, though they can be very wrong. And there are always bad-acting ones. And as any research on the Net, one have to cross and check information, as though Wiki is an encyclopedia, it is done by its users... with the risk that some may be wrong, the same way that any personal website may contain mistakes.

But as far as I know, this has been made by a kidding idiot who added those false facts to an existing article. He could have as well done it in any other website, or by throwing any hoax.

So I hope there will be no harm to Wiki, that every mistake can be noticed and fixed but that everyone is aware that the concept itself, though idealistic, is not pure utopia and works very well as far as one knows there can be mistakes... or "mis-acting". I wish good luck to Wikipedia, keep your integrity and your way of working !

Eric, FRANCE

It's all over the IT-news 1, 2, 3, and more besides, but it isn't on Wikinews...just a little ironic. --Chinfo 02:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, for all the positive progress the project has made, this will take us back several steps. To think that anytime during those "132 days" he could have click "edit this page" and removed the false information. I'm saddened deeply by this. -Scm83x 02:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, this is not a step in the right direction. Kade 16:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Not covered here? The children of the shoemaker walk barefoot. patsw 17:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe Jimbo was trying to keep it quiet. IT SI A COSNRPIACY. Kade 21:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is starting to turn out ugly USA Today's take on Wikipedia. Honestly they're (specifically this Siegenthaler guy) making a really huge deal out of this incident, as if it's the first time it had happened.--Chinfo 13:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It's the first time it's happened to him, and he's a real person with real feelings. Imagine if it happened to you. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone think this is just a way for this guy to get his name back in lights? Feelings? Please, he's a journalist. (unsigned)

It is born of ignorance, he COULD have edited it and changed it at anytime. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Bashing Wikipedia is nearly as risky as bashing Scientology. I know that I'm going to get barraged by the Wikivangelists—"If an entry's wrong," they'll say, "stop complaining about it and fix it." But if I were truly conscientious, I'd have to stop and edit something almost every time I use Wikipedia. - Paul Boutin, Slate Magazine.

Kade 18:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It is born of ignorance, he COULD have edited it and changed it at anytime.

Why should it be his responsibility? Maybe (God forbid!) he'd never heard of Wikipedia or maybe he had something better to do with his time than patrol his entry. The fact that he wasn't interested in playing editor doesn't excuse posting a slander for one third of year.

I see that the "selected anniversaries" section appropriately cites the sad anniversary of the Polytechnique massacre, but I'm wondering why 6 December isn't accordingly indicated in the section's heading by the name it has attained: the National Day to End Violence Against Women (the student handbook provided by the Canadian Federation of Students actually refers to it as the "International Day ... Women"). In any case, it is observed in Canada, with white ribbons and memorial ceremonies. I thought it might be worth mentioning, along with the other national anniversaries (or international anniversaries, as implied by the handbook mentioned above). Rod ESQ 04:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The "selected anniversaries" section now has two events from Canada. (The other being the Halifax explosion.) We should avoid posting too much Canadian content at the same time. Is it really "International Day ... Women" ? (Not sure if we should follow the CFS handbook without checking. What do they have as references?) If so, please add the info to that page. Move the page as necessary. I'll gladly add this to the MainPage, and I might even add the purple ribbon, if it's really international. :-) Thanks. -- PFHLai 06:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, should that be a white ribbon or a purple ribbon ? I'm quite confused .... -- PFHLai 06:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've talked to a couple organizations and searched a few sites. What I found is that there is a bit of confusion on the different dates and the significance of each ribbon. What I gathered is that the Purple Ribbon Campaign is an international campaign against "Interpersonal Violence and Abuse Awareness/Prevention" in general, while the White Ribbon Campaign is a more specific campaign initiated by men seeking to end violence against women. The latter started in Canada as part of the aftermath of the December 6 massacre in Montreal; it has since expanded into the international arena. As for the dates, there are actually a few of related observances. March 8 is International Women's Day, November 25 is the International Day to End Violence Against Women, and in Canada December 6 is the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, according to Status of Women Canada. The white ribbon campaign uses the proximity of the related dates of 25 November and 6 December to promote the campaign in the time span between those days. The CFS seems to have gotten the related observances mixed up in its handbook, as both observances are related and have nearly identical goals, and their primary differences are their geographical and memorial origins. Based on this, it seems that the white ribbon is the more appropriate symbol for this particular anniversary, although both campaigns appear to be in cooperative terms and overlap in some areas.Rod ESQ 16:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed reply, Rod ESQ. -- PFHLai 08:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone think this is just a way for this guy to get his name back in lights? Feelings? Please, he's a journalist.

On the main page's last sentence, "when computer was able to play" should be "when a computer was able to play". Art LaPella 05:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"Robison Cuusoe" in the ALT text of the picture at DYK should be spelt as "Robinson Crusoe". It's very minor, but can someone with sysop powers fix this, please ? Thanks. --64.229.33.170 22:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Fiixed. -Splash^talk 22:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for changing "Cuusoe" to "Crusoe". Please also change "Robison " to "Robinson ". -- 64.229.227.247 00:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Fixed also. the wub "?!" 00:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. --64.229.227.247 00:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Not more than 10-15 minutes ago CNN just did a small feature on Wikipedia. They specifically featured Wolf Blitzer's wiki article. (Even went as far as pointing out some errors about the show host). i.e. Wolf Blitzer didn't grow up in Syracuse (but Buffalo), nor is his name influenced by his great-grandfather, but by his Grandfather. They said would show how to fix the article at the end of their show. I predict a slim to small increase in vandalism across Wikipedia perhaps for the next 24 hours as people who saw the article come-in and learn how to change things they see. BE vigilant there might be some wiki-vandalism coming but now's the time to put forward a good face and quickly revert such errors. Although try to be welcoming to these potentially new Wikipedians and show them how the Sandbox feature among other areas work. CaribDigita 23:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Again? Wasn't there one last night too? --Kiand 23:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyone cap it? I'd like to see. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It'll probably be on CNN International in about, oh, 4 years like it takes them to get most 'features' over here. Wake me up when that happens and I'll dump down the MPEG2 of it. --Kiand 23:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it is just them showing it 'again' - this is the first time I saw it. They said the Wikipedia site was "under fire for one entry falsey implicating the journalist John Seigenthaler (Sr.) in the Kennedy assassinations."

Jacki Schechner in "The Situation Online" is the CNN 'Internet Reporter' presenting this story. I just went back to view it again with Tivo to double check my fact. Also about Wolf Blitzer's name the reporter didn't say whether it was Wolf Blitzer's -maternal- or -paternal- grandfather that is attributed to his name during the feature. CNN did state they would fix it themselves. CaribDigita 23:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia just got served by Wolf Blitzer. Kade 18:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

NY Times doesn't want its staff to use Wikipedia to check information anymore: http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=10748

The End -- Author apologizes for fake Wikipedia biography - Yahoo!

This has nothing to do with Main Page. Please go to WP:Pump to discuss further on this. --64.229.44.226 03:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

i have more than 3000 edits, see "user contributions" - i was blocked for no reason. User:Haham hanuka

The reasons are documented in detail here. -VJ 14:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

L O L Kade 18:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the recent change in creating entries (where people have to sign in to do so) could be mentioned on the front page - especially as it says that anyone can edit the encyclopedia. Clarification rather than complaint.

Jackiespeel 17:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a good idea - see wikipedia:Avoid self references. Gratitious self references like what you propose are very bad style. Raul654 17:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Simply state "Requires an account to contribute" 132.205.45.148 18:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

One can still contribute to existing articles without an account in Wikidepia. Just can't start new articles without an account. --64.229.229.30 14:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Fellow anonymous contributors with no desire to register for an account, but strongly feel that certain articles should be created, may want to make use of Wikipedia:Articles for creation. -- 199.71.174.100 23:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

IS there a good place to pick up news about Wikipedia itself, like this policy? The first I heard about it was on third party websites. I don't see why there can't be a link to such a page on the front page, or is that what the community portal is supposed to be and I'm just not paying enough attention? :) --JohnDBuell 21:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The weekly community newspaper (comes out Monday evening) is The Signpost (which is linked to from the Community portal) and it is invaluable for keeping track of these sorts of internal issues. If you can't bear to wait, major news like this will normally be mentioned at the Village pump. Consensus is that self-referential material from the article space should be avoided in an attempt to keep a clear distinction between the articles and process that creates the articles. - 66.153.106.157 22:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said, it was a suggestion: perhaps a "policy change" flag, for a day or two, which links to to relevant section might do. Sometimes it is useful to discuss whether a suggestion is practical or not, or can be handled in a different way.

Jackiespeel 16:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Last comment on the subject - perhaps a link to The Signpost on the main page might cover the matter. (I see the point of the new policy - the original comment was on the best way to alert people to changes). Jackiespeel 14:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The first Did You Know item says "that Junípero Serra and Juan María de Salvatierra have both been called "the apostle of California". You wouldn't use the word "apostle" to describe the two men as a pair, so I think the right word is "each" instead of "both". Art LaPella 19:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

July 1, 2004 is the most recent available?

• Well, it is the most recent uncopyrighted photo available. Wikipedia doesn't subscribe to the AP, you know.--Pharos 04:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, I know, that's why I was asking if there were more recent photos available to use, but thanks for the added explanation.

This site is great!!!!!!!

The world knows that to a degree which remains to be seen, Saddam Hussein has much to answer for, but the 'perp photo' Alt tag is the sort of juvenile attitude that makes people take notice and say, I bet that was put there by an uneducated American. The guy is innocent until proven guilty. Another thing, 'perp' is not a real word in the context in which the author has used it. Perpetrator is a real word that has been abbreviated, probably by those unable to spell the full, big word. It's all about standards folks. If Wikipedia is to have credibility then news articles need to be factually correct and void of playground parochial slang.

It should be BC, not BCE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.146.114.141 (talk • contribs) .

we'll need some sort of solution for this soon. dab (ᛏ) 14:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

BCE is culturally neutral. Wikipedia is culturally neutral. BCE contains the letters BC anyway. There you go, sorted --86.144.85.93 16:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's based on commonly accepted nomenclature, rather than culturally specific, and BC has been accepted for a very long time, just like A.D. Kade 19:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"Culturally neutral" is a meaningless expression. If you're offended by the acronym for Before Christ start your own calendar.

• Culturally neutral means it can assist communications across cultures, which one might expect the front page of the largest Wikipedia version in existence to be doing with its diverse content and global readership.

Technically, the rule is that if you're going to use loaded terms that only ring well with one culture, you do it with the one your Wiki best represents. So in the case of an anglophonic Wikipedia, A.D. might be appropriate. In a Japanese or Arabic-language one? Not so much. Kade 01:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

start our own calendar?! well that's a great idea! How bout we put the start date around about... 1 AD? that one seems popular. We'll call it "CE" though, for "Common Era", seeing as Christians are so common. And what about before the start date, this "1 CE"? Oh, I know - let's call those years "BCE" = "Before Common Era" - before all those Christians got so common, I guess. Wow, this new calendar idea works great! thanx for that!! :) --86.135.179.53 23:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, there is no year 0 CE (or 0 AD for that matter). The years go straight from -1 to 1, no matter which nomenclature you prefer.  ;) Cigarette 01:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Very good point. Corrected. :p. --86.135.179.53 11:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Main Page. Please go to WP:Pump to discuss further on this. --64.229.44.226 03:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure it does, he's complaining about the use of BC on the main page! Kade 03:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Where on the Main Page ? I think not. Can't find it. The AD/CE problem is a Wikipedia-wide issue. The complainer probably just wants more attention here on this talk page. --64.229.222.214 06:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• What's wrong with the current solution? It's considered a style issue on wikipedia. If the first person uses BC then its BC if the first person uses BCE then BCE. AD/CE should not be used by wikipedia policy becaause they aren't neccesary. 12.220.47.145 16:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• What's wrong ? The problem is that people keep bringing this up necessarily. If they don't like the policy, they should complain at WP:Pump, not here on Talk: Main Page, especially when no BC/BCE/AD/CE is used on Main Page. This is worse than the British English vs American English debate. --64.229.207.5 16:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• BCE/CE is not culturally neutral, it simply sanitizes pro Western European Christian predjudice. A more culturally neutral calendar would use the non-religious Chinese calendar years, combined with the common calendar dates.
  Ofcourse you could always date things BP/AP (1950 being year -0). 132.205.45.148 20:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there a procedure for fixing typos in the blurbs for the news? It's nothing vital, but I've noticed a few(1 or 2) typos when I read the front page, and if they could be fixed it might make the wiki seem more professional. After reading this talk page, it seems like I should just comment on them here. Am I getting the correct impression? Tigger89 16:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

That is correct. If you leave a message here about an issue on the front page, such as a typo or factual inaccuracy, a user with administrator privileges will normally act on it on fairly short order. The main page actually consists of a number of templates, all of which have been protected as the targets of persistent vandalism, so the main page is actually not edited directly in most cases. This talk page is the central place for comments on the front page but, if you wish to target your notes, you can also leave them on the talk pages for ITN and the other templates listed at the upper right of this page. Thanks for the question, BanyanTree 17:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

For that matter, there is currently a Spacing issue on the Did you know.. template between Cathedral and in. It's slightly more minor, but it's there. Thank you. Bobo192 22:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Johann Wolfgang took care of it. Thanks, BanyanTree 23:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Currently, there is a red and blue box separating content into visual blocks.

This works for 'Today's featured article' and 'In the news' (by the way, these 'titles' should have the first letter of each major word capitalized i.e. 'Today's Featured Article' and 'In the News'), however the 'Selected anniversaries' and 'Did you know...' should be in separate boxes preferably in different colors to visually separate them from each other.

You may wish to participate in the manual of style page discussions. If you were to log in and subsequently participate in the Encyclopedia, you might effect the changes you desire to see. The primary reason for this type of capitalization is the use of the wiki link, which is all lower case but in a different color, red (non-existent article) or blue (existing article). What the editors have come to recognize is that upper-cased text in the articles becomes awkward. There was a time when your recommendations were in vogue, but this changed about two years ago with a conscious move toward the uniform style you see now. --Ancheta Wis 03:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently the Mandan weren't the only Great Plains tribe to establish permanent villages (see Talk:Mandan). It's been changed in the article, someone probably ought to fix it in the featured article box too.--Elmer Clark 03:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems like it was uncontroversially wrong. I've corrected the blurb. Thanks for pointing that out. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Why that picture of Hugo Chávez? There are pictures that are probably... better. Rmpfu89 00:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Chavez World Social Forum 2005.jpg was chosen by some of the contributors to the Hugo Chávez page. Please see Talk: Hugo Chávez#Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 10, 2005. Some people really like that picture. They've even made a special request on Raul's talk page. I prefer Image:HugoChavez1820.jpeg (needs cropping, though), but I'd leave things "as is". -- PFHLai 01:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree that it's a strange choice. Obviously I didn't help find a better one, so I shouldn't complain, but I can't help but think there has to be a more dignified photo of Chavez out there that could be used. --Bad carpet 21:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

A small suggestion for the main page is the addition of a text link to "Other fetured content" or "More featured content" giving driect access to featrued pictures and featured lists and any other featured stuff we have. It would probably fit best after the "more featured articles link". I suspect we would need a new page for Other featured content (Wikipedia:Featured content perhaps?). It would link to featured articles, pictures, and lists. Explaining in one senetence what each of the types is about. Perhaps it could also highlgiht one or two examples of each, selected from ones eibable for featuring on the main page. Thryduulf 00:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It could also serve as a portal to other languages featured content as well. Thryduulf 00:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The featured article summary seems to say that only non-poor people criticize Chavez. That's obviously false and supports a POV that poor people love socialism, and never should have made it to the front page. Could someone correct or justify that part? 24.162.138.238 01:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The featured article summary seems to say that only non-poor people criticize Chavez. - You're wrong. Here's what it actually says --> "However, Venezuela's middle and upper classes have severely criticized Chávez, accusing him of repression and electoral fraud". It doesn't say they are the only ones criticizing him, nor does it even mention poor people. You are criticizing the write-up based on your own false assumptions. Raul654 01:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Why does it only mention the middle and upper classes criticizing Chavez? That's similar to including the statement "Many racists oppose the war in Iraq" in a summary on the front page. It is true, but portrays opposition to the war as being grounded in racism. Today's FA summary makes it sound like people are criticizing him only because they're not poor. You can't shrug off a statement like the one I gave by saying "Well, it doesn't say only racists oppose the war in Iraq." That's not how it works, I'm afraid. Please come up with a better argument. 24.162.138.238 01:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

In the context of a discussion of neo-nazis/white seperatists attitudes to current events, then that statement would not be POV. in a similar fashion, the text immediately before the quote you mention is talking about economic reform and provides the context that clearly shows the non-POV nature of the statement. --86.135.179.53 01:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

His "anti-imperialism"? Well I guess that's what he calls it. 134.69.166.145 03:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Human Rights NGO's have given him an F many times. It's not just domestic criticism. Kade 03:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

However, Venezuela's middle and upper classes have severely criticized Chávez, accusing him of repression and electoral fraud. The anonymous editor has a good point -- the sentence is very very weird. *Economic* criticism could be class-based; but human rights and electoral processes surely have nothing to do with class. It's a non-sequitur; and as a result, the sentence could be construed as suggesting that these accusations are merely a façade or fig leaf for the true source (presumably greed) of upper- and middle-class dissatisfaction. Unlike the anonymous editor, I'm sure it's not a matter of POV -- just an oversight. My suggestion: split the sentence into two -- one reporting without comment Chavez' relative popularity among the various classes, the other mentioning that he's accused of human rights violation and election fraud by activists or watch-dogs or news reports or what have you. Doops | talk 05:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I, too, have found this very POV. Practically a love letter. The one sentence regarding crticism seems thrown in as a feeble attempt to avoid accusations of POV. --Nelson Ricardo 16:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I also found it to be an embarassment, particularly given my knowledge of the complex political situation regarding venezuela. This should not be taken as a general criticism of raul, but the wording was clearly unacceptable, and circumstances such as this (and others in the past) make it clear more peer review is needed for main page summaries. Sam Spade 16:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

THere is a peer review process on WP:TFA(I've made one or two comments in the past that were duly corrected) It just doesn't have enough publicity. Add that to the fact that practically every wikipedian is leftist/communist/anarchist and there you go. (as an aside, I actually think the Chavez intro is OK, though I see why ppl find it unacceptable. I guess it's just my POV showing) Borisblue 19:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the intro itself is bad; it's just the one sentence. And I don't think that sentence is POV, just sloppily-written. But I am sorry it hasn't been dealt with yet; we've had hours to fix it. (In the article it has been fixed.) Doops | talk 19:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I must disagree, except for that one sentence, the blurb heaps praise upon the guy. --Nelson Ricardo 21:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Come to think of it this sentence -- Abroad, Chávez has acted against the Washington Consensus by advocating alternative models of economic development and fostering cooperation amongst the world's poor nations, especially those of Latin America. -- is weird and badly-written too. Whatever the Washington Consensus is and whether it's a good or bad thing, I'm sure it doesn't oppose cooperation among the world's poor nations! It looks like another victim of brevity: like the sentence I complained about earlier, the Wikipedia's attempt to squeeze too much into once sentence is inadvertently misrepresenting the views of Chavez' opponents. Doops | talk 21:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Dutch already has 100,000 articles, why is not it listed among other 100,000+ languages?--Nixer 16:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

What language to you see between Japanese and Polish? - BanyanTree 16:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

HI my name is chandler and i dont like this website because it doesnt tell me wat i want

That's too bad. :( Rampart 19:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I say we give that Chandler guy what he wants ASAP!!!! Sam Spade 23:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

If you find what you want, Chandler, come back and add it to the Wiki for the rest of us! -Scm83x 23:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

the #1 question is... what does Chandler want?!?Sam Spade 01:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

That's an easily answered question, the same thing women want! Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 06:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Be nice to the newbies, chuckleheads. Kade 18:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Quite right. Chandler, trust me on this one. Get out some candles, pour her some red wine, put on some romantic music like William Shatner's Greatest Hits (Vol. II), and she'll throw that silver ring straight out the window. --Last Malthusian 16:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Reproducive should be spelled reproductive, and there is no reason to capitalize entomophily, even though all article titles are capitalized. Art LaPella 02:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. Evil Monkey - Hello 02:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The bee is a wild Melissodes bee. I don't know how to edit that section. Pollinator 04:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Editing of the MainPage is restricted to administrators only. What do you have in mind, Pollinator ? You may want to edit Wikipedia:Picture of the day/December 11, 2005 instead, and then suggest to adminstrators that the MainPage should be revised the same way. Hope this helps. -- PFHLai 09:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I yam an admin. -But this is something I've never done. Pollinator 14:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:Today's Second Feature might help you Broken S 17:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[I fixed a link in the previous post to go directly to the page, instead of using a shortcut. The shortcut has been usurped for something more pertinent in 2018. BrokenSegue's post was the only time "WP:TSF" was ever used on Wikipedia as a link to WP:Today's Second Feature, which has been a dead page since 2008.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)]

Oooh, glad to see another fellow administrator interested in working on the MainPage. MainPage sections are always protected to prevent vandalism, and we could always use an extra hand from a senior Wikipedian with the required editing privileges. -- PFHLai 17:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

with a few tragic exceptions, it's not our job to say what is or isn't tragic, that's a point-of-view. Suffice to say there were exceptions, but why should we call the Polish collaborators "tragic", when we don't call German or Romanians "tragic"? I hate to be anal, but there ya have it Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 06:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Really? It's schmucks like you (and Bush) who turn the world into the shithole it is today! --Nelson Ricardo 09:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Was that really necessary Nelson? Raven4x4x 12:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd be interested in the reasoning for that comment, personally. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)}

I wish to offer my sincerest apologizies that I did not phrase my distaste for your comment in a more civil manner. I do not know you, so I do I really cannot condemn you without knowing your motivations. I do take issue, however, with anyone who says that tragedy is POV. It is not. Anything that causes human suffering is a tragedy, even if there are those who cheer it on. 9/11 is held by most to be a tragedy. Are we not to call it such because there are many who feel otherwise? Hurricanes and other natural disasters are virtually universally held to be tragedy. Do we have to avoid that term because a few nutjobs (such as http://www.godhatesfags.com/) celebrate it? I'm sure you are a nice guy, so in order for others to realize that, I urge you not to take political correctness to the extreme. Thank you. And once again, I am sorry about my personal attack. --Nelson Ricardo 17:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

There's a pretty heavy worldwide consensus that the Holocaust was a tragic event. I personally find it tragic that the Axis Powers did what they did in their entirety. Sure, some Neo-Nazis would disagree, but they're welcome to put a criticism sub-section up. POV is a slippery slope...you have to find some point to draw the line, otherwise you're going to wind up with nothing but doubleplusgood newspeak on all your pages. Kade 18:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not even a reference to the Holocaust. Please consider reading what is disputed, before you offer "only Neo-Nazis would disagree with me" opinions. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Polish citizens slaughter Jews by the hundreds at the same time as a systematic genocide of Jewish citizens in Europe, and you don't think that it has anything to do with the Holocaust? Please. If you had read the article, you would know that the involvement of German nationals is questionable but not overruled. Ho ho! Ensnared by your own INKREDABLE LOGIK TRAP! No points to add to your e-reputation today, Mr. Snarky Pseudo-Intellectual! I also take offense at your snarky, self-righteous attitude, but after viewing your User Page, I can see that it seems to be part and parcel to the inferiority of your moral character. Kade 21:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to note, if any significant group (and the neo-Nazi movement, however distasteful, is significant) could legitimately argue against a statement presented as fact, it should not be presented as fact. This isn't political correctness (so often used pejoratively) but neutrality. [[Sam Korn]] 19:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The way academic knowledge works, the burden of proof is upon the person asserting against the status quo. In some situations that's bad, in others it's fairly appropriate, such as the Flat Earth Society. At this point, those who try to downplay the significance of Jewish massacres in the early 20th century have the burden of proof thrust upon them, and the world considers it a tragedy. In addition, regardless of Nazi involvement in this particular massacre, I think this objectively fits the definition of a tragedy in reasonable circles of discourse. Not to kooks, but to reasonable people. That's the burden I feel we sould be striving for, not all-encompassing NPOV. Kade 22:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Reasonable people can probably also safely assume that Josef Stalin was a murdering tyrant...but I wouldn't expect a 'Front Page Summary' to use that term. Was the Holocaust tragic, of course. Was the Jedwabne Tragedy tragic? Of course. But that doesn't mean we lump it together as "part of the Holocaust", which it wasn't - nor do we attribute points of view to it. It happened, it is a fact, it is reported as such. We don't say "Charles Manson was a sexually depraved sadist who orchestrated the brutal murder of a beautiful woman", because although a "reasonable person" might agree that Sharon Tate is beautiful, that's not an encyclopaedia's job to report. We can say she was 'considered' beautiful, or many people 'thought' she was beautiful, but we can't say "Sharon Tate was a beautiful actress who did some really superb acting", that's what NPOV means. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 22:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Now it's covered in The New York Times. I think someone needs to comment.--Knapster2005 17:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Jimbo_Wales has been in lots and lots of media. It's discussed everywhere on the wiki, and always has been. — David Remahl 14:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but somebody was fired and it now a legitimate news story. It seems odd that it is not reported on Wiki. At this point I think it needs to be done.--Knapster2005 17:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

(1) He quit - "Chase resigned because, he said, he did not want to cause problems for his company. " (2) Wikipedia:Avoid self references Raul654 16:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

"Mr. Seigenthaler urged Mr. Chase's boss to rehire him, but Mr. Chase said that, so far, this had not happened." That's not the point, though. It's on par with The New York Times reporting on the Jayson Blair controversy. I agree with the self-reference policy, but I don't think it applies in this case.--Knapster2005 17:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I think in the interests of not being accused of covering this up, we should have it under In the News. Self-reference does not apply when Wikipedia is the news. (Frankly the guy should be canned for relying on Wikipedia without double-checking the source, as he should with any source). --Nelson Ricardo 18:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The intention of no self-references is to avoid gratuitous self-references. This would not be gratuitous. Pcb21 Pete 18:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The Avoid Self-Reference rule should not be used as a smokescreen to avoid informing the community that it might need to clean up its act. Kade 18:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

An article needs to be written that addresses the vandalism issue and what Wiki intends to do, if anything. I find it interesting that the online edition of The New York Times put a link to Wikipedia-Watch but not Wikipedia. No one was contacted by the paper?

I take the deafening silence to mean that administration is considering addressing the issue?--Knapster2005 19:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I see that they did contact Jimmy Wales. Was that there this morning?--Knapster2005 20:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope that this "story" about Seigenthaler has NO EFFECT on wikipedia: Any famous, influential, celebrity person should be aware that they are game for mischief. Seigenthaler has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used..as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether small or large, he can correct it. Everyone fails to understand the logic and exploit the magnitude of the error. A small error is no less an error. The attention-starved media is just looking for another line to run.

It is simple: Mr. Seigenthaler needs to take responsibility: It goes with the territory of being well known.

How can people logged into Wikipedia change the article in the "Today's Featured Article" section? mikejacoby13

You can't. You need Sysop powers for that. FireFox 15:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually, that not good enough either. You have to demonically possess User:Raul654 and hope you don't get thrown off the New Jersey Turnpike.--Pharos 15:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

What the hell? That's like...two movie references in one. Kade 18:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yikes !!! I rewrote the TFA section for the Roy Orbison article a few days ago !!! If I don't sign in tomorrow, please retrieve what's left of me from the Turnpike. I'd like my ashes scattered near the nice lawn next to the school hall at Wah Yan College, Kowloon, if possible. Many thanks. Goodbye...... -- PFHLai 19:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by "change"? If you'd like to edit the article yourself, you can just click on the article title to open the full article, then edit it as you please. If you want to edit the description on the main page, you'll have to post your suggestion here; that template is protected so that only administrators can edit it. If you want to change which article is mentioned, you can't really do that. It gets changed automatically at midnight, UTC. The articles displayed are selected from the featured article pool. If there's an article you'd like to see shown on the main page, you can work on improving it to featured status. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Why not just use the English of whoever is writing a piece? Not everyone is American, you know. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 88.105.248.102 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 2005 December 11 (UTC)

That's what we tend to do, personally I'd go so far as to say that I see more British/Canadian spellings than American in articles - though that could just be related to the types of articles that interest me. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It is indeed Wikipedia policy to use the English of whoever is writing a piece, except in some country-specific articles.-- PFHLai 17:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I see a lot of Commonwealth English spellings within articles, but practically every article has a redirect from the Commonwealth to the American English spelling of *title*, so I assumed it was some official policy. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 88.105.248.102 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 2005 December 11 (UTC)

FOOTBALL NOT SOCCER YOU STUPID YANKS, AND IT'S COLOUR, NOT COLOR. Kade 18:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

EDIT: It has come to my attention that somebody might take this seriously. This post is satire. You can help Wikipedia by laughing at it. Kade 18:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

L O L -- PFHLai 18:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Anything to help. Ha! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

If an article is written in Commonwealth English, then 'moved' to get a title in American English, making the original title in Commonwealth English a redirect, it's a violation, at least in spirit, of the language policy. I don't think this is right. -- PFHLai 19:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You might notice British spellings because they appear foreign and stand out to you more. violet/riga (t) 18:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

"...agree to extend the provisions of the the Kyoto Protocol to 2012."

"the the"

Jackk 19:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Corrected. [[Sam Korn]] 20:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry but your main paige isnt verry well done. you makeit sound so boring. jazz it up a little bit and it will be awsome! and i promise you will have more visitors.

thanks a lot! ~ sydney lennon ~

In fact, a new version is being worked on right now. Do you like this any better? Canderson7 ^(talk) 22:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the draft adresses anything beyond the superficial concerns. If we want to make wikipedia less boring-sounding I suggest we incorporate a few more swearwords onto the front page, maybe naked females too, blinking gifs - music videos, in fact. Perhaps several playing at once, at least 2 Gwen Stefani ones. Then we could link to more of the great articles like buttplug or exploding whale, the pokedex wikipedia has built up... and we need flash menus, flash EVERYWHERE and probably a few more prominent links to cafepress thongs. --86.144.85.93 23:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget lots of spinning dollar sign .GIFs, and those skulls with cigarettes between their jaws, usually beckoning with a bony finger. Maybe a MIDI or two. Or that really really grand theatrical music you find on YTMND a lot. Kade 02:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the new design a lot but don't make it too crazy! We all like simplistic pages that quickly load (like google)!!!! rofl lmao

What Wikipedia needs is a mascot. And not like the piss annoying helper they had in MS Word 2000, more like Morizo and Kiccoro from the Expo in Aichi, Japan this year.   freshgavin TALK    00:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Per discussion on Image talk:Yuan character (1st century).png, Yeu Ninje and I have concluded that the main page image for today's featured article would benefit from the addition of a 1-2 pixel black border around the image. The image is currently locked, but if an admin could make this change it would be much appreciated! Thanks. -Scm83x 02:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I added a 1-pixel border. I have no real preference either way, so if others don't like it, please mention it here or remove the border. Thank you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it wrong to put Chinese names in red? I know it is frowned upon in Korea. Anyone? --JohnO You found the secret writing! 04:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

On Image talk:Yuan character (1st century).png, Yeu Ninje commented that this color scheme is traditional. -Scm83x 04:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Raul654, nice coincidence with Yuan Shikai in the Selected anniversary. --Ancheta Wis 05:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It says "Concentración", but the correct word is "Concertación"

EricRoss 06:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks; I've fixed it.--Pharos 06:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

What is moment and can ou give me a picture of the word moment

And can you give som information about pressure please????????????????

Try looking at Moment (physics) and Pressure. Leithp (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

As of 12-12, 12:30 EST, the Yuan article on the main page says "33rd in poopulation" whereas the actual article says 34th. These are in the first sentence of both instances. 68.143.166.174 17:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The article was changed earler today by the anonymous user 68.62.107.52 (talk · contribs), who didn't cite sources for the edit. I've changed it back. Thanks for letting us know. Canderson7 ^(talk) 17:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Why the heck wasn’t—isn’t—Yuan (surname) protected? I thought that was SOP for featured articles; now it’s full of vandalism. crism 20:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, main page featured articles are supposed to be left unprotected, so that all our visitors can see how open Wikipedia is. The articles are closely monitored for vandalism and the like. Canderson7 ^(talk) 21:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I am of the understanding that Gebran Tueni was a Lebanese MP, not a Syrian. In fact, he was anti-Syrian. The main page summary that says he was a "Syrian MP" needs editing.

The blurb states that he is a "Lebanese anti-Syrian MP", which seems clear enough... - BanyanTree 20:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you please typeIAN MILLS and read the article and give advice please? Make changes if you want but I'd really like to hear what people have to say.

This page is for disscusion about the Main Page only. Please read the top of this page before editing it.

It's a textbook example of a candidate for speedy deletion. A biography of a non-notable person. A vanity item. Please get rid of it. Thank you. -- 199.71.174.100 00:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This article has already been deleted. Please see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for the guidelines and procedure for clearly non-notable articles. Thanks, BanyanTree 15:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I have recently moved to Richmond Va and was totaly lost on it's areas. You have created an excellent web site, showing what areas are around,what they are like and the history of them. Thank you so much,it has helped me out greatly.

Glad to hear that you found Wikipedia useful. Cheers, BanyanTree 15:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Stanley Tookie Williams is currently an unprotected redirect page that seems to be receiving a lot of vandalism. Either the redirect page needs to be protected, or the link on the front page needs to be changed to Stanley Williams. Someone42 15:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Quite. I've blocked a dozen or so IPs at this point. Can you protect a redirect without breaking it? Mackensen (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Bullshido is a working redirect, yet it is protected. However, you probably can't put the actual ((protected)) template on it. Someone42 16:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I've protected the redirect, without a template. - BanyanTree 16:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Now unprotected. Cheers, BanyanTree 16:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I know I'm not supposed to post this the day after the article was on the main page but there wasn't a problem there yesterday. I was sitting in my first block class (because I'm a high school student) checking up on the latest news of the race riots in Australia. I typed "2005_Sydney_race_riots" and the first thing to pop up was a photo of a man and a woman having sex. This is something I normally wouldn't mind just the fact that I'm in school and IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARTICLE! Although this isn't on the main page today it was yesterday and I'm sure if the problems in Australia worsens it'd be back on the main page in the news. I'm requesting that someone would at least look at the article and remove what's not needed or what is irrelevant to the article.

It was vandalism. You probably looked at a short lived edit. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[3] the blurb at the end Borisblue 17:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that's actually mocking the journalists who think checking wikipedia is a substitute for doing their job :) dab (ᛏ) 18:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Funny that his Andy Borowitz's biography says he eats his own dandruff. Intersting stuff. ;-P --J. Nguyen 21:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there a reason that Discussion pages are not called Talk pages? The Discussion tab displays "Talk" information. Was this a conscious decision? There is enough Wiki terminology and acronyms around already. Why not label the Talk pages with Talk tabs?

...always remembering the time stamp now... Msass 18:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Which brings up another point. why should I have to use a character that requires a SHIFT key, in order to supply the name/timestamp. Where were the designers heads when they thought that up. "Please oh please add your name/timestamp (you're are naughty if you don't), but let's make it a little harder by requiring an upper case character that is really hard to find and reach on the keyboard." clever, oh so clever. Once more, Msass 18:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Try the second icon from the right (the one next to the "no wiki" icon) immediately above your editing window. Look carefully before you complain and mock the designers. --64.229.230.104 15:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks like every article linked on the front page, especially the featured article gets vandalised about 300 times a day (rough exaggerated estimate). It seems like a good idea to lock the featured article (at the very least) to save everyone the headache of reverting the article to its previous state every 10 seconds. --Wesman83 18:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No. See user:Raul654/protection Raul654 18:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

:) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-13 19:05

They need to start locking featured articles and articles that link to them. Omoo 21:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Definitely not. Featured articles are often improved a good deal on their big day. They are rarely close to being flawless, and telling people that the basic tenets of wikipedia don't apply to certain prominent articles is a very poor idea. If one sees an opportunity to improve it, one must be free to do so. CalJW 00:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

so why are images protected then? i agree with the idea of protecting a featured article while its on the main page. suggestions to change it can be registered on another page, compiled and added when the article is no longer a featured article and the children have less to gain by defacing it.

Is there any interest in adding this cool little bit of coding to the main page, or any other public page? I've noticed other languages' main pages have this, or something similar (eg: ar:الصفحة الرئيسية). Or are we still in "fear change" mode? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-13 19:05

Hey - that's neat! --mav 19:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, slight problem. As a result of caching, there's a small-but-noticable delay between time in the time variable and real world time. This means that the clock will almost always be wrong by several minutes, and the date will occasionally be wrong. Raul654 20:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

That's why if you click on the time, it purges the page. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-13 21:37

I think someone's renaming the article, but in the mean time it's a dead link.

I think it would be a lot less ambiguous if it was stated, "after two days of firefighting". These two words can make it sound all the more clearer. ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 19:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh, uh, anyone? -- Natalinasmpf 09:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion today's featured article does nothing to promote wikipedia. Articles about minor actresses are just dull for non-fans, and they have no wider value. CalJW 00:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

There will be many similar complaints today SO PLEASE UNDERSTAND: We do not have enough canoncial encyclopedic FAs to choose a good article everday. Lotsofissues 00:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe switch to an FA article of the week, then? --Bad carpet 01:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That would become unbearably dull in exactly 25 hours. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 01:34

All the more reason to pick an article and help it along the way to FA. (also, I'd just like to note the precipitous decline in notability between today's FA and yesterday's, Isaac Newton) -Scm83x 01:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You know, you could use this as an example that shows how wide a collection of articles are on wikipedia. MechBrowman 02:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Not only that, if someone hasn't heard of her, now they have and as such, the encyclop(a)edia that Wikipedia is has served its purpose. In other words, you've learned something. Peter1968 14:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe reuse old, good ones?Limbo socrates 18:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Try to find a better source on this actress anywhere. Period. That's what we're about, not always covering stuff everyone else has covered too (eg. Isaac Newton). That's obviously important, but pop culture is basically everywhere, so why not embrace it with open arms? Harro5 09:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

How does an obscure psuedo-celebrity fall under the rubric of "pop-culture"? It seems a subject would actually have to be "popular" first to fit that definition. If there is no other source for information on something -- that might be a big warning sign flashing, "Irrelevant". Limbo socrates 18:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

A better snowjob, more like. Negative reviews are mentioned in passing, good reviews are quoted. She hosted an artshow! Of paintings! By an actress! It was "engaging", and "a complete success"! When is she going to bring about world peace? Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Please, one thing at a time. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 15:04

Where is the best place to complain about this? Is it here, or is there a certain FA talk page I should try? How can I help prevent this kind of thing in the future? I am concerned about other potentially "promotional" articles making it to this spot in the future. -- Cam 16:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• If it is a featured article, it should be neutral, not "promotional". You should complain on the article's talk page if you think it is promotional. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 16:12
  • Or you could try Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article. Filiocht | The kettle's on 16:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks -- Cam 16:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

complaints about obscure topics of FA's show lack of understanding of the whole concept of FA's: the point is to show good articles, especially about obscure topics. If you're not interested in it, don't read it; it is still an article that was considered well done, not because of the notability of its subject, but for its own merits as an article. dab (ᛏ) 16:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess the problem here should be the poor quality of many so-called canoncial encyclopedic articles in Wikipedia. Rather than complaining about non-canoncial encyclopedic articles getting featured, we should be working on improving canoncial encyclopedic articles to feature status. This way, "articles that interest you" get a better chance to be featured. STOP COMPLAINING !!!! Go to WP:COTW or WP:AID !!!! --64.229.221.18 16:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The "Stop Complaining" argument is simply simply wrong. Like it or not, the FA is the face of Wiki. When an article is chosen for the front page, it makes a statement about what Wiki is, and what it aspires to be. By trying to separate content from presentation, we are saying that Wiki articles are just exercises in writing; without regard to the relevance of the content to audience or culture. The obvious slippery slope here is a descent into long and vacuous vanity pages. What does it say about Wiki as a whole if the Featured Articles are irrelevant to 99% of Wiki readers? Limbo socrates 18:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Limbo socrates, what you posted has nothing to do with my "Stop Complaining" argument and you described it as "simply simply wrong" ? I was just proposing how we could actively do something about it rather than complaining. I don't like those flakey TFA selections, too. We are on the same side, pal. -- 64.229.44.47 22:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I second,third, 100th, whatever the motion. Although it might be difficult to implement, could we institute historical constraints on the featured article of the day? We have current events right next to it, why not let the featured article expand our historical consciousness??? Perhaps we could have a smaller pool of articles which are eligible for featured article status, chosen by an editorial board or something???? I suspect that wikipedia is being used for promotional purposes, cf the admittedly very thorough entry on an almost unknown actress who is by no means widely recognized as a master of her craft, which has been dominating the home page for 2 days (?) now. I also wonder why some articles on the main page stay for longer than others, and why of all the articles out there we are lately getting so much popular entertainment on that page. Is somebody hacking the wiki? It's been my homepage for a while but if I have to look at kadee macfarland or whatever her name is one more time I'm going to puke.

Of the 100-odd FAs since September 1, the following are the pop culture items:

1. The Giver (book)
2. Thunderball (movie)
3. Wario (game)
4. Katamari Damacy (game)
5. November (movie)
6. Cool (song)
7. Roy Orbison (singer)
8. Layla (song)
9. Arrested Development (TV show)
10. KaDee Strickland (actress)

This rough 10% doesn't seem excessive at all, given that pop-culture is a huge industry, and important to lots of people who might also enjoy more traditionally encyclopedic material. I think the anti-pop-culture feeling has a lot to do with a revulsion towards pop-culture sullying a magisterial intellectual exercise like WP. IMHO, there's room for high- and low-brow material here. TotoBaggins 20:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

For those who don't like the topics of featured articles: please select articles you would like to see on the Main Page, and help bring them to featured status. I work on medicine articles. Some people work on historical ones. Others work on articles relating to politicians, or to highways. If you don't like the topics others have been working on, you are welcome to improve articles on your own pet topics, but realize that others will work on the articles they enjoy. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

so how exactly does a b-list actress attain "featured article" status, anyway? and how does kadee strickland qualify as pop culture anyway? why don't we just write an article about her agent, who obviously wrote the article??  : ) also, i can think of at least one other pop culture article, it was no doubt or some other band like that.

I wrote the KaDee Strickland article in compliance with WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation, i.e. by using quotes about Strickland from the media (in other words, attributing points of view to sources). From all of the articles I have read, the press generally seem to rate Strickland quite highly, so I tried to reflect this in the article. Extraordinary Machine 22:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

a quick look at rottentomatoes.com reveals that the films she's been involved with haven't fared too well with the critics. eg 'the grudge', from the venerable usa today: 'As some wise person once said, Hollywood will always churn out movies like this as long as there are teenage girls who want to squeeze the hands of teenage boys while sitting in a dark theater.' the nytimes was harder on it. so, where is a mention of this and the other hard times kadee has had? if you're not her agent, extraordinary machines, you need to stop staring at her poster on your wall and get back to work fleshing this thing out with some objectivity.

You have posted this comment at Talk:KaDee Strickland also. I have left my reply there. Extraordinary Machine 18:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

how many days are we planning on keeping this 'very informative' article on the main page, anyhow?

"Crip's co-founder ... turned anti-gang campaigner is executed" Can someone please be good enough to tell us why he was executed? Erm... he was also a convicted multiple murderer who never apologised for his crimes. jucifer 16:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Added "...for the murders of four people in two separate incidents." I took that line from the Stanley Williams lead. Harro5 23:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

..that the parents of Chicana fiction writer and Cornell Univeristy English professor, Maria Viramontes (b. 1954), met while working in the fields, and that the impact of Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers later influenced her fiction?

Somebody please remove the commas around Viramontes. It's not that kind of appositive. Doops | talk 17:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I know this is not wiki-ish, but it seems like the featured article of the day always seems to be heavily vandalized. Maybe the featured article could be temporarily protected from editing for the day it is featured. Just a thought. Censorwolf 17:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

No. See user:Raul654/protection Raul654 17:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

...but, Wikipedia always needs more helpful people monitoring the FA for vandalism, so the vandals are reverted quickly. You may consider helping do that now and again. dab (ᛏ) 22:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)