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.

Hello,

I'm sure this has been asked before, but I can't find the information anywhere. Can someone direct me to an article on how to remove the title from the article? For example, on my wiki the main page always says "Main Page" on top and I would like to remove it. Thanks in advance.

Also, if you can also point me to where i can change the "article" tab on top to "main page" that would be great too. Thanks again.

I don't know much about this, but perhaps it's the skin you are using. Go to My Preferenses, then Skin and select MonoBook.--cloviz 02:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you can only do this if you log in or create an account. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a technical question about the MediaWiki software best asked on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). It's not difficult to do this but it would require code changes. Deco 02:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is done in MediaWiki:Monobook.js, with the following lines of code

var mpTitle = "Main Page";

var isMainPage = (document.title.substr(0, document.title.lastIndexOf(" - ")) == mpTitle);

var isDiff = (document.location.search && (document.location.search.indexOf("diff=") != -1 || document.location.search.indexOf("oldid=") != -1));

if (isMainPage && !isDiff)

{

document.write('<style type="text/css">/*<![CDATA[*/ #lastmod, #siteSub, #contentSub, h1.firstHeading { display: none !important; } /*]]>*/</style>');

Correct me if wrong, but I think all you have to do is add these lines to Monobook.js

This would be good to add to the Main Page FAQ. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 03:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. With your input, I was able to google search for the very answer to my solution here. Basically, its like you guys said edit the username:Monobook.js page (or Mediawiki:Monobook.js if you want to change it for the entire site - just search for that page), and append the extra code. My apologies if this posting is located in the wrong area, I simply could not find any other spot to leave this message. Thanks again. --dzitran 21:15, 7 September 2006

Should it read that the table bridge appears 'monstrous' when open? Nicolharper 16:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears some has taken your suggestion, and changed the spelling. Does it read correctly now? -- Zanimum 17:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I had enough trouble feeling that Steve Irwin's death belonged on the front page as it is, so might I bring it up that Peter Brock probably shouldn't be on the front page since I imagine very few outside Australia with the exception of die-hard racing fans have even heard of him? Not to be insensitive or anything, after all it is a terrible way to go and I'm sure he's done some nifty things, but does he really belong in "In The News"? On the same subject, I feel we shouldn't have famous actors' (or personalities along the same vein as Steve Irwin) deaths on the main page. I'd hate to connect to Wikipedia in the future and see Tom Cruise or anyone similar's death posted as big news. Not to hurt anyone's feelings or deny that someone's death is tragic, but I feel it isn't as important as most of the other major news that we post on the main page. I hope I've posted this in the right place and that I'm not alone in this. -- Cyrenaic

I don't believe Peter Brock's death belongs on the Main Page either. I personally have never heard of him (not that that's enough to not put it on the Main Page) and he doesn't appear to be on the home page of CNN or Yahoo! or several major news sites where I would expect it to be. -- tariqabjotu 10:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm personally more concerned over the word "legend". Jellypuzzle | ^Talk 10:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed "legend" to "driver" just before I found this discussion. —David Levy 10:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of Peter Brock, but I haven't heard of most racecar drivers from my own country (the U.S.) either. —David Levy 10:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have heard of Peter Brock but I don't think this should be on the main page. It is sad that he has gone (RIP Peter and Possum)but I doubt he is known outside of Australia and New Zealand. It is front page news here in NZ but putting this on the main page will only sets a bad precident.--Clawed 11:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin, Yes. Tom Cruise, Would be a yes. Peter Brock, No. (Even though i and most Australians know him, i doubt anybody outside of Australia would) Rafy 11:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you stupid? He hosted TV shows in New Zealand and raced there. He is known outside Australia.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 02:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The user is not "stupid", he has made an incorrect assumption. Please be civil.Melburnian 03:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's generally agreed that deaths aren't reported on "In the News", unless they are of political leaders, heads of state etc. or recieve heavy global media coverage. Since Peter Brock's death has received little media attention outside of Australia and NZ, and given the comments on this page, I have removed the entry. the wub "?!" 11:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it of any interest that it is two high profile Australians killed within 4 days of one another? --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.65.172 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 8 September 2006

Try four! Don Chipp, Colin Thiele, Steve Irwin and Peter Brock (EDIT: actually Don Chipp passed last month I thought it was much more recent)--Monotonehell 12:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Don Chipp and Colin Thiele don't count as most Australians only heard of them after their deaths.--58.104.15.66 02:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess by "most Australians" you mean YOU and by "don't count" you mean that a founder of the Australian Democrats and the author of many popular Australian novels and educator somehow rate lesser than a sports person and an environmentalist. Really "don't count" is a terrible thing to say. I say all four "count". This kind of subjective jugement call isn't what Wikipedia is about. --Monotonehell 11:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are now making the assumption that most Australians did know who Don Chipp and or Colin Thiele was before their deaths, and I was excepting the possibility that they probably didn't. I’m not saying they are any lesser than any other of the several Australians that died in the past 13 days. And I am sorry for any offense.--220.238.234.87 12:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyrenaic, I am intrigued. What "vein" do you consider Steve Irwin, and what "vein" do you consider warrants a mention on the main page? --liquidGhoul

Forgive me, perhaps I was quick to assume some things. I had always seen Steve Irwin as a mere television personality, turned into a stereotype and mimicked countless times thereafter. I had known nothing of his environmental work, which I do applaud him for. All the same, his passing, while tragic, didn't seem like something worthy of an "In The News" highlight. He seemed like a great guy and all, but I just didn't feel he was a necessary addition. I suppose the amount of news coverage he's [still] getting is notable, otherwise a great deal of the world has overlooked his achievements. It seems it's more about his death than HIM. As for Peter Brock, I'm satisfied enough now that his headline has been taken down. My condolences to his family, friends and fans. I have nothing against him. I just don't feel his passing is necessary to be mentioned for the "In The News" section. I apologize for any offense. -- Cyrenaic

Shouldn't this discussion be at Template talk:In the news as redirected from the top of Wikipedia talk:In the news section on the Main Page. Just for the record, Peter Brock is well known in Australasia as one of the most successful winners of Bathurst 1000 over the years. Just because someone may not have heard of him doesn't mean he isn't famous. Really the issue is about the amount of international media coverage his death is getting. In my view it may not be enough to justify it being In the news, where as Steve Irwin's death had plenty of international media coverage (see [references]). --Zven 21:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sad - yes. Tragic - yes. Worth while taking up the front page of my local paper - No. Worthwhile of being on Wikipedia's front page - No. Likewise Steve Irwin should not be there. --Midnighttonight Procrastinating on uni work... 22:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

When buying your paper you can look at the front page before hand and decide if you really want it. If you wrote a letter to the editor about why you dont think it was appropriate in your local rag, you would probably incite considerable debate from other readers. --Zven 19:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, the Steve Irwin story was up the top of Google News in terms of coverage by online newspapers for a day. 1500 or so newspapers. What is your rebuttal to that? Other than a personal dislike of the person possibly. Ansell 09:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and Steve Irwins death was major news in a lot of other sources such as bbc, cnn etc. If people have real reasons for believing it shouldn't be Template talk:In the news, then front up with the reason why, not just it don't think it should be there... --Zven 19:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think majority consensus on the talk page Template talk:In the news from a (possibly biased) sample of wikipedians would identify whether Steve Irwin's death was worthy at the time. Likewise, the Māori Queen's death would create some debate about its worthyness for In the news as globally few would know who she was compared to locally in New Zealand (which seems to be the main arguement by people above) --Zven 00:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

How does anything that not everyone knows about get in at all then. Andre Agassi's last match was in there! If that isn't at the same level then maybe the sample is continually biased, as you would expect it to be when it comes to national heroes. Ansell 23:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not he should be on there; it's too late. If you record someone's death there, it's incredibly insulting to his family and his fans to mention him then say, whoops, that's not important, and take it back down. Owen214 22:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Can and has been--58.104.15.66 08:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

How is putting that notice insulting at all? His family were used to having his name in print constantly, detailing the death of a celebrity is something that you can't just get away from by saying its insulting. Ansell 23:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Owen214 was referring to the quick removal from ITN (...whoops, that's not important...), rather than the posting onto ITN. -- 199.71.174.100 00:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I support having Irwin or Brock on the front page, but how is it that a Space Shuttle launching deserves a place on the Main Page, but the death of two people doesn't?

I think it would depend on the people who died and their global fame and/or impact. Also, I think the launching of a space shuttle is pretty big news. -- Cyrenaic

Please add add as anniversary. It is today.--Michkalas 17:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's also the 40th anniversary of Star Trek. The Wookieepedian 22:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added the former. The latter should wait for the 50th anniversary, if at all. —Cuiviénen 23:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"Tony Blair announces that he will stand down" sounds strange; the phrase "step down" is more familiar and suitable for the context, as the idiomatic definition of stand down is "Withdraw, as from a political contest or a game or race", and the position of Prime Minister is not a contest/game. On the other hand, the definition of step down is "Resign from office", which is more fitting. --Schzmo 01:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The term is correct. When the Cold War ended and the Missile Silos were deactivated, the order given was to "stand down". The PM, in the sense of service to the Queen, is acting like any other member of the Services. --Ancheta Wis 01:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC) To Step Down, in the sense of a Ruler of a Junta, would be less respectful of the responsibilities of a PM.01:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it to resign, so there shouldn't be a problem. —Mets501 (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

With respect to which of these terms is used with respect to a resignation from office, the difference between "step down" and "stand down" is more a British/American usage issue than anything else, I believe. "Stand down" in this sense is more common in the UK and Canada, while "step down" is idiomatic in the US. Newyorkbrad 01:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of y'all are prob'ly too young to know this, but there was the song "Stand Down Margaret" by the The Beat back in the '80s. howcheng {chat} 06:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The link for Simon Byrne is to bare-knuckle. It should probably be to Bare-knuckle boxing. --Eyrian 04:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed. —David Levy 04:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that the 10 most popular articles of the day are listed on the main page. That list may be updated on a daily basis. Bondkaka 09:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you accompany your suggestion with the benefit of such? It's fair enough to make suggestions, but please back them up with reasons why such a suggestion should be adopted. --Monotonehell 11:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The list doesn't really seem to show anything positive about the encyclopedia. It's all articles that are in the news (which are linked in ITN anyway) and sex related articles (which people would complain about). Jellypuzzle | ^Talk 12:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

And if you only include Wikipedia articles (rather than special pages/WP pages), you'll get about 2/3 of the top articles list being sex-related. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't know there was already a list like that. My suggestion was mainly based on the fact that popular websites like The New York Times have featured lists like that on the homepages, and that doesn't seem to cause any problems. But after reading the list, I'd agree about the cons. Bondkaka 15:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

(EDIT: Comment removed per WP:LIVING, even if it was a quote it wasn't in good spirit Ansell 01:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

Steve Irwin has just passed away days ago. Don't bring his name up in a joke like that. Let's show a little more respect to the dead, please. -- 199.71.174.100 00:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The New York Times (and BBC News) are okay, since they don't usually have articles like List of sex positions. -- Mithent 10:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Tell me if I am seeing things or if it is because the Tfa is being refreshed in UTC, but it seems to me that more than one article is being featured in a day. If that is true can we call it Today's featured articles? The other one/s can be listed at the bottom of the featured article, but on top of the recently featured and be titled Soon to be featured. If more than one article is not being featured in a day, should we have something like Soon to be featured?

This and the aforementioned probably should be discussed at the village pump but I see no reason why I can't discuss it here: since sex related articles are so popular, does anyone think that it would be a good idea to create a portal dedicated to sex and have it up there with our 8 portals? Also maybe someone could created a wiki dedicated to sex and drugs, like wikisexpedia the free sex encyclopedia that anyone can edit(unless you are under 18). A wiki city like that could start up pretty quickly if vandals don't ruin it. Pseudoanonymous 00:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

One featured article per day changed at 00:00 UTC--Clawed 01:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What about a sex portal, sex wiki and soon to be featured list? Pseudoanonymous 01:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

See WikiAfterDark Raul654 01:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There's Portal:Sexuality that covers sex. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 01:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And those portals directly linked in the Main Page are there for their encyclopedic content, not their popularity.--cloviz 01:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

We already have a sex portal and a soon to be featured list, as for the other, Wikipedia is meant to contain the whole of human knowledge, so you're already looking at it (less any how-to articles you may have in mind, in which case look at wikibooks) --Monotonehell 07:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Pseudo, there are (fortunately) more articles than just one per day being promoted to FA on average. Only one, however, is featured on the main page each day, selected by Raul654. There's no real status for them, they just didn't get lucky (or weren't as interesting or were too similar to something recently or whatnot). As for your other interest, try Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality in addition to the portal. (Stick your neck out around here, and we tell you to get to work!) --Dhartung | Talk 05:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I fully accept that Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of minors or anyone else. Nonetheless, I question the wisdom of including the item about Frantisek Kotzwara on the main page. Comments? Newyorkbrad 02:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with it. It's an interesting, well-written, well-referenced article — Precisely the sort we should be presenting to the public.--SB | T 03:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's an ideal cautionary tale to warn the kiddies of the dangers of classical music. </flippant> Self censorship is a slippery slope, as long as an article is presented in an adult, scholarly and NPOV manner I see no problem with it regardless of the subject matter. It's about education and information unfettered by any emotional reaction. --Monotonehell 07:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd note that I had no idea what the FA picture was before I looked at its page.. it's a bit blurred in full (though that's not to say it's bad, it was obviously not taken in ideal photography conditions!) but when reduced to 1/4 of the size it's even harder to make out. Equally I'm not entirely sure what else could be used, though, so I guess it's moot. -- Mithent 10:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not our best. As noted above, the picture is completely unrecognizable on the Main Page, and the article in general is not representative of our most "brilliant prose." Sentence two: "The future is full of uncertain events, some of which are undesirable." Yikes. I guess I should stop complaining and start participating in the FA process. Or else clean up this "Featured Article" —Nate Scheffey 12:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, you could help clean it up... and you could also participate in the FA candidacy process to prevent articles you don't feel are suited as FAs from being voted in as such. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 17:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Just noting that people don't have to participate before being entitled to give opinions. Zocky | picture popups 19:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The featured article summary on the main page contains the following unfortunate sentence: "Actuaries are highly trained experts with a deep understanding of financial security systems, their reasons for being, their complexity, their mathematics, and the way they work". This text is not contained in the article itself, the phrases "highly trained" and "deep understanding" have been added, and this gushing text makes the summary intro POV and unencylopedic. Doesn't belong in the main page. Whoever can edit the main page, should. --Xyzzyplugh 22:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that the FA is due to be updated in less than an hour, I'm not sure that it's worth the effort, to be honest. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 23:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that they weren't added to the FA summary; rather they were initially in the article but recently removed (by me) but the copied text on the main page wasn't updated accordingly. Redquark 23:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

These things happen -- the admins putting together the blurbs (is it just Raul?) have a hard time squeezing out the salient points as it is. In any case, please use Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors in future. --Dhartung | Talk 05:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"third of only five Jews" is hardly formal. i suggest: "third of only five Jewish men [and or women] to survive" ... ;-) --71.32.102.49 08:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"...men and or women" is so clumsy. Try "people" in future. In any case what's wrong with "...third of only five Jews"? It could easily be "...third of only five Budhists" or "...third of only five Christians". --Monotonehell 13:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with "Jews"? That's the correct term for Jewish people. —David Levy 23:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Jew" is pretty offensive to some people. Jewish people works better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.85.15.193 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC).

I'm Jewish, and what bothers me is the belief that "Jew" is an inherently derogatory term. —David Levy 06:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Cartman: Kyle, you know when I called you a dirty Jew? I'm sorry, I didn't mean it--you're not a Jew.

Kyle: What? Yes, I am a Jew!

Cartman: No, don't be so hard on yourself.

Sorry, couldn't resist. Raul654 07:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Lol naughty Raul. The only people who think being called a "Jew" is offensive are the people who think being a Jew is offensive. Get a grip. "Black, Gay, Arab, White, Green" these are all perfectly innocent adjectives, it's "you people" who make them "offensive". Damn Christians. ;) --Monotonehell 10:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, this is not the silliest naming complaint I've seen though. A couple years ago, someone complained that the word 'homosexual' is offensive because it is too "clinical". Raul654 01:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What did they suggest in its place? o.o --Monotonehell 09:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

'Gay' (or lesbian) Raul654 09:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

...is the death of a king of a country of 100,000 people really worth putting on the main page.--Moonlight Mile 10:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it is. Even if it is a small country, 'tis a king none the less. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. — ceejayoz ^talk 12:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

i agree. u cant ignore the fact that these people believed in him and relied on him for their wellbeing. his house is just down the road from mine(auckland, NZ). its a big event

Tonga has no political importance in the World and could be ignored, But there are very few kings in the world left, hence we have to feature it. --Ageo020 22:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs more stuff from small countries, IMHO. Far too much of the time the same-stuff you get on the front page of Wikipedia is the **SAME** stuff you may have already read on the front page of Yahoo.com, Excite.com, MSNBC.com, CNN.com, FT.com, (your ISP's startpage), etc, etc... The variety which Wikipedia brings is refreshing. Use-it to take the chance on learning something new and different every once in a while. CaribDigita 23:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Noting the death anywhere less than the mainpage could be interpreted as systematic bias. After all, the Pope is monarch of a country of less than 1,000 people, but John Paul II's death was surely there. How about the Prime Minister of Grenada? How about the King of Swaziland? Lets not judge the importance of national leaders, and the notability of their deaths, based on Western, or size-based, or any other, perceptions. Picaroon9288 02:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/September 11.

It's getting really slow in the peak hours could we please just have ads or have volunteer hosting or something.Mike92591 20:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that adding a link to the sandbox (in a prominent place, not in the small print) will help new users to find a right place to experiment, and not carry out trial edits on actual pages. My hypothesis is that this will noticeably reduce unconstructive edits falling under the new user test category. Any for my theory? 218.186.9.1 05:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly I think it's a good thing that random tests can occur in main space. It rams home the fact that wikipedia can be edited by anyone. The only way for some people to believe this is to try it. Secondly, even after the header redesign for this page with the "red flashing lights" many people still don't notice it. But even after my disparigment I'm not against including a link to the sandbox somewhere more prominent, where do you suggest? --Monotonehell 11:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest with the Overview - Searching - Editing - Questions - Help part, the one under the 'Welcome to Wikipedia' box. With a brief explanation of what it's for in brackets, so new users know what it's for and don't get perplexed by what they see as yet another confusing feature of Wikipedia. 218.186.9.1 12:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, at 800x600 pixel resolution, there is no room for any more links in that area. Carcharoth 13:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

OK...how about including it in either the navigation or the toolbox boxes on the left side of the window instead of on the Main Page? That way, the sandbox is accessible anywhere without having to know what to type into the search field or having to go back to the Main Page, which might achieve my aim better since it's less troublesome to go to the sandbox. 218.186.8.12 13:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this could be used better than your using this site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.111.142.123 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 21 September 2006.

BTW I'm still the same user! My IP has changed again for some strange reason I'm unaware of. 218.186.8.12 13:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Or how about under 'Other parts of Wikipedia'? 218.186.9.2 12:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, any support? Perhaps there is room there... --218.186.9.2 11:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

To me the most logical way of doing this would be to put the link to the Sandbox is a less clearly subordinate place on the edit page. After all, every user making test edits will have to use this page. As for your IP, you probably have a dynamic IP address. To avoid confusion you may want to create an account. --IntrigueBlue 16:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion sounds good, thanks! --218.186.9.3 13:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is it called Main Page? I feel the word Main suggests a hierarchy in which this page stands highest as the most important. I see the Main Page more as an utility; a gate to Wikipedia with an introduction, an example of a good article, one of our many beautiful pics of Australia, links to our ecyclopedic coverage of some important current events, to some portals, etc. Thus I wouldn't label it as more important that the pages with own content; perhaps I'd name it "Index Page", "Start Page", "Its Majesty Main Page". Just a comment.--cloviz 00:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's mostly a matter of tradition, but I don't really see any need to change it. I'd disagree about naming it "Index Page" though; since it doesnt function as an index, this'd be a tad misleading. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 01:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Front Page" or "Welcome Page" would probably be more descriptive. But it's too late to change now. Newyorkbrad 02:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... FrontPage sounds a tad MS-ish. "Welcome Page" should refer to Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers. "Main Page" is fine. It's the Main Street where internet traffic comes to Wikipedia. --199.71.174.100 13:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

To follow that analogy through how about "driveway"? ;) --130.220.79.99 05:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Driveway ? That's probably your userpage, I suppose. :-) -- 199.71.174.100 18:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, newspapers have front pages, and the fact that Microsof uses that as a name of one of its programs is somewhat irrelevant. Zocky | picture popups 13:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I still think I'd have to agree with Front Page. That, or Index Page. --68.47.41.252 21:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion over changing the subtitle from "anyone can edit" to discourage the common interpretation that "any idiot can add crap". "Good writers always welcome" and variations on that was one suggestion, but problems with it were that it specifically emphasized "writers", which downplays the many other contributions that people make and, as one person pointed out, is not precisely accurate: Stephen King would not be allowed to put his stories here, etc.

"The free encyclopedia that anyone can improve", however, is a relatively minor change. Certainly, it is clear that edits that decrease the quality of the encyclopedia are not welcome, and "improve" is sufficiently broad to include all different ways of contributing while conveying exactly what is meant by this slogan. Comments? —Centrx→talk • 02:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I like. --liquidGhoul 12:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "new contributors always welcome" would be a good replacement for "anyone can edit". "Contributor" implies a positive addition - vandalism is editing, but it isn't contributing. 130.64.130.18 13:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Old contributors are always welcome too. Another suggestion was "Good contributions always welcome", but was considered too clunky. "Improve" certainly implies positive addition. —Centrx→talk • 14:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Presumably, an old contributor knows that they are welcome and doesn't need to be told. —Cuiviénen 19:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

How about "muck around with"? Seriously though, I like your suggestion. — ceejayoz ^talk 18:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to go with this sort of "closing the sale" approach, go all the way: "The free encyclopedia that you can help make better."

"The free encyclopedia that you can help make better." -- ALoan (Talk) 19:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"you can improve", otherwise it is too long. —Centrx→talk • 20:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't "the free encyclopedia that anyone can improve" imply that Wikipedia is so bad that anyone (even the "worst editor possible") can make it better? (Oh yeah, anyone can improve it, even monkeys!) —EdGl 00:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there's something in the word "anyone". What about changing it to "everyone"?--cloviz 11:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my first thought. "Man, we must suck!" ;P

Frankly, I like it the way it is. Everyone who adds crap to Wikipedia falls under one of two categories: either they're just unfamilar with the rules and mean well, or they're commiting vandalism for kicks. Making the subtitle say anything like "no breaking it plzkthx" would do absolutely nothing to stop the second kind; they're not being stupid just because no one's told them not to yet. They know what they're doing. On the other hand, putting even the slightest drop of elitism in the subtitle ("what if my edit isn't enough of an improvement?") might well discourage the first kind from even trying. Which, of course, would be a shame, as lots of them become excellent contributors. Finally, it feels a little cheesy to me, in the vein of "You can help! :DDDD Yes, you!" --Masamage 04:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems a little frivolous, and kind of misleading. Anyone CAN edit it (however they want pretty much), they just SHOULDN'T edit it harmfully. "Anyone can improve" makes it sound like there's some sort of evaluation of contributions or something. Leave it how it is; hardly anyone will interpret that as "just dump whatever you want anywhere," and if they do, they'll quickly be corrected with ((test1)). If it ain't broke, don't fix it, especially when you're needlessly complicating a simple message. -Elmer Clark 02:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a public image issue, not an issue of whether a person will take it as instruction to do anything they want. Though, there are instances where people do retort, "But anyone can edit! That's what I'm doing!". —Centrx→talk • 03:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

In any case "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is one of the project's slogans. I believe that main page talk is not a wide enough venue for making such decisions. Zocky | picture popups 13:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Today's featured article on the T. Rex is being heavily vandalized. Please lock the article for today. Evertype 09:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if the article was locked, it wouldn't benefit from being an FA. Most articles improve greatly after being featured on the front page, and protecting the article would totally eliminate that benefit. Even if it was protected, vandals would just edit the templates. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 10:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of them do not get improved. I have had three articles go through, and the only improvements are small (gramatical and spelling). The good edits are mostly done by registered users. --liquidGhoul 12:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with LG. The improvement thing is a myth; it may have applied in the days when FAs were of a much lower standard - but now editors just spend the day reverting bad changes to very good articles.--Peta 12:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree, as well. I've seen several FAs end up at WP:FAR after being on the Main Page. Dmoon1 14:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Silly question expecting an obvious answer. If the articles were FA quality a few days ago, and have deteriorated to FAR quality in that time, can't people just revert them to their FA state? Skittle 14:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. If you just compare the differences between pre main page and post main page, you can clean up the bad edits. However, this still shouldn't occur. It took me ages to clean up frog after its appearance. Complete reverting doesn't work, as there are some good edits which need to be retained. --liquidGhoul 14:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah right. I wasn't meaning it isn't annoying, and the way it should be, just wondering why people would nominate such a relatively easy fix for FAR. Skittle 14:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it seems like a weak argument. --liquidGhoul 14:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if featured articles substantially improve after being on the Main Page, but I think the more important reason is that the featured article is not just an example of the best articles on Wikipedia, but also a showcase of how Wikipedia works. New readers try out an edit on the featured article, see how they can make changes, and hopefully become new productive contributors, or at least fans. See also User:Raul654/protection. —Centrx→talk • 15:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have read that many times, and it is always displayed as be all and end all when this argument comes up. However, I only agree with one point, and I don't think that it is particularly important. Point one is out of date, and just not true. Those examples are from a year ago. A lot of work has since gone into improving the quality of featured articles, and most aren't as low quality as they were back then. Also, if you look at the history, I bet the improvements were made by registered users. I agree with point two, but I also think that people understand, and if we semi-protect, and have a banner saying that the article is protected for being on the main page, and will be editable tomorrow, it won't make a difference. I'm more worried about driving people off, because they show their kids an article about Bulbasaur, and it is full of penises. I don't agree with the protection policy statement. I have been watching two articles recently, which were either semi-protected or protected. British Shorthair was semi-protected because of continual vandalism, yet there is so much more vandalism on a main page article, and they are not protected? I just don't think the risk of losing a user because of vandalism on an article is worth the benefit of not gaining an editor because they can't edit an article, which I think is a silly reason really, they should be able to understand that the integrity of the article is important. --liquidGhoul 15:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Global warming, an undoubtedly controversial topic subject to vandalism on a good day, was improved by being featured (in my opinion). Dragons flight 18:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Upon looking at that article, I agree. However, I just went through the history, and only a few of the anon edits were kept, and only one of these was the addition of information (rest were grammar, and there were also a few reverts). I can't see the harm in semi-protecting it. As long as we explain that the creation of an account, waiting a day or asking on the talk page will result in the ability to change the information, information should still be able to be added, and it would encourage people to create accounts. --liquidGhoul 01:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Creating an account won't help anyone who is trying to edit a semi-protected article, as semi-protection also locks out accounts from the newest 1% of users (about 4 days). Therefore, semi-protection on featured articles is a bad idea unless there is an extreme amount of vandalism. Graham87 09:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It is four days. They might not be able to edit the article on the featured day (talk page is there for a reason), but if they create an account, they will be able to do it in the future. How is that not encouraging it. Also, have you watched a TFA? It is an "extreme" amount of vandalism. They don't stop all day, and I have seen it not be reverted for a long time. In fact, after frog was on the main page, it said they were found in Antarctica for about a month! --liquidGhoul 09:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow that's bad, and should have been caught earlier, but those changes can be hard to track. I was thinking about the time an anon updated the population status of the kakapo while it was on the main page with the edit suggesting that he/she worked for the Kakapo Recovery Group; those very good edits seem to be increasingly rare though. It'd be nice when the feature to approve changes or a time delay is added, but it would reduce the gratification of "Wow! My correction of that spelling error worked!" However, there are over a million other articles on wikipedia that need improvement, and new users can always start on those. Graham87 10:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should make it possible to add today's featured article to the watchlist. Meaning today Mariah Carey would be on my list but tomorrow (luckily :-) ) she'd be gone. It would mean a lot more people could catch bad faith edits to it. Piet | Talk 11:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Piet, a technical solution isn't really needed here. Maybe we just need somebody to start an FA Patrol, to coordinate the efforts already undertaken daily by other editors & admins. I rarely see true vandalism last for more than a couple of minutes, for example. --Dhartung | Talk 21:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, now that I think of it, it wouldn't really work. If I recall correctly Bulbasaur was vandalised mainly through the templates. Piet | Talk 07:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Templates are now protected since that episode aren't they? --liquidGhoul 14:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the diff for today - the Mariah Carey article has definitely improved. Raul654 18:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Here's the article history - looking at today's edits it seems that the article has been reverted some 150 times during its time as FAotD. Also, it seems to me that the most of the improvements have indeed been made by registered users. --KFP 22:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Many registered users started out in Wikipedia as anonymous contributors. --199.71.174.100 18:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• We know that, but the improvements are basically rarely coming from them. --liquidGhoul 22:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Let them learn by doing. FAs should not be more protected than other articles in Wikipedia just to keep inexperienced contributers away from supposedly better articles. -- 199.71.174.100 23:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• The problem is that they are not learning. People are taking advantage of our willingness to allow them to edit articles on the main page, and there are very few people who are learning from the featured article. They can learn on other pages (I did), I am sure this will not drive them off. It is understandable that we protect something on the main page. However, the experienced editors are left having to clean up an article, and revert almost 200 strikes of vandalism a day! They could be creating a new article, or using their time improving Wikipedia elsewhere. There is a very simple solution, which I don't think will drive off anyone. The current system does drive off people. --liquidGhoul 23:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What I've seen happen when an article is semiprotected is the vandals follow links and vandalise either the talk page or move on to somewhere with less eyes on it and leave vandalism that stays there for a while until someone spots it. I think it better to let them at the FA when lots of editors are watching and can do something about it. There's no way to stop vandals other than to repeatedly revert them until they get bored. I'd advise against leaving a warning on their talk page, they probably wont see it, and if they do it just eggs them on. --Monotonehell 08:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks MonotoneHell, that is a pretty valid reason.--liquidGhoul 01:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Try to take a step back here, guys. You stumble upon this website touting itself as an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." Wow, awesome! What a concept! So you follow the large, prominent link to today's "featured article," try to see if this is really the case and...no, it's not. I would guess that a large number of vandalous featured article of the day edits are not bad-faith, but are people testing out this concept on the most immediately available article. I think this alone makes the effort of cleaning up the vandalism worth it, and the improvements to the articles are not negligible either. -Elmer Clark 02:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it me, or is the last sentence of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 14, 2006,

"The battle also apparently exhibited Japan's willingness to sacrifice large numbers of its people in desperate and suicidal tactics in an attempt to slow or stop the Allied advance on the Japanese homeland."

a little inflammatory? If it's meant to summarize the opinions cited at Operation Ten-Go#Aftermath, it should also incorporate the more positive viewpoint

"The story of Operation Ten-Go is revered to some degree in modern Japan as evidenced by appearances of the story in popular Japanese culture which usually portray the event as a brave, selfless, but futile, symbolic effort by the participating Japanese sailors to defend their homeland"

somehow. Melchoir 00:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

...two people are killed. Several others were injured... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnOw (talk • contribs) 02:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC).

ITN is always in present tense. Although I have to question about actually having that shooting in ITN in the first place. It seems to be more local news. --Midnighttonight Procrastinating on uni work... 03:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

1. JohnOw quoted the exact wording erroneously placed in the section earlier.

2. This is one the top headlines in the United States. Given the fact that the incident occurred in Canada, I wouldn't describe it as "local news." —David Levy 03:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's slow news day in the U.S. Journalists in the U.S. have to fill up air time during newscasts and print space in newspapers, but Wikipedians don't really have to fill up ITN with "local news". However, shooting sprees like that may be big enough news for ITN. -- 199.71.174.100 08:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you consider Columbine local news, Midnight? What about the Oklahoma City bombing? It can be argued that both only affect people within one small area. -- Zanimum 14:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, harking back to earlier debate, Peter Brock doesn't on the news, because he was deemed too unimportant, and country spercific...and yet now 'in the news' there ios a brief report on tainted spinich in California, because, you know, the whole world cares about a hard hitting issue like that. -- Evilio 1026, 24 September 2006

Pls see below #United States. -- PFHLai 14:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to wonder why the phrase "tainted spinach from California" led people to believe that the problem was confined to California. I also wonder whether the phrase "tainted bananas from Costa Rica" (a purely hypothetical scenario) would generate similar confusion. —David Levy 14:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls with spinach and bananas. Give them carrots. The vitamin A may help their eyesight, and hence their ability to read properly. -- 64.229.177.211 15:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Should the term "godfather" in the first DYK point (Austin Leslie=godfather of fried chicken) be linked to the Wikipedia definition? Many people (such as myself) aren't very familiar with this word. --Whiteknox 18:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What article do you want it linked to precisely? Borisblue 23:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

At a guess, I'd say godparent. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 07:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

My brain is going, "The godfather of fried chicken." It's making me laugh and laugh. --Masamage 04:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Caffiene! Whoever chose this for today is a good person. Wikipedia is great. NIRVANA2764 12:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be a good idea if the ITN items mentioned the dates. Some items can be there for some time. -- Beardo 19:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Why did the Main Page just not exist for a few moments? I cleared my cache and it was still gone. Now it's back. What was up? Hyenaste ^(tell) 09:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

happened with the pillows article too 80.41.194.129 09:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

shouldnt the spelling be Tsar as this is held to be the correct spelling of the word (the wikipedia page on the title itself is spelt Tsar) and Czar is a less common spelling of the word BritBoy 13:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The "correct spelling" could be царь ;) but try Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors for this. --Monotonehell 14:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I already fixed it, citing the third paragraph of Tsar#Etymology and spelling. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a typo at the featured picture section: reponse to cholera epidemics.

Fixed. In the future, please report errors at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Thank you! —David Levy 06:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I know it's probably no good trying to fix this now, but the Main Page shouldn't really be in the article namespace, as it isn't an article, it's a Portal. Clearly if it is moved we should leave a redirect behind, and we may need to change the software so that it loads the portal by default; it just seems wrong at the moment that we have a portal in article space (especially as an encyclopedia article probably could be written at main page if the space were free (for some reason, the software seems to disregard the lowercase p in this special case)). I also know that this suggestion is impractical and will never happen, but I may as well make it to see what the community's response is. --ais523 12:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main_Page_FAQ#Why_is_Main_Page_in_the_main_namespace.3F Rafy 12:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"Historical reasons" seems to go against Wikipedia:No binding decisions, and I am aware of why the Main Page is currently at Main Page. Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion is now a redirect, so there is precedent for radical changes of historically-entrenched pages. Even the historical redirects were getting deleted in large quantities at WP:RFD a while ago. --ais523 12:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The FAQ mentions other pages that are in main namespace for historical reasons, but I as a Wikipedian that have been around for some time can't think of which pages they could be. Jeltz talk 14:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Besides the main page, the other big one is the page Transwiki, which requires a page at exactly that location (a redirect is sufficient) in order for the process to work. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 16:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone else having this error? It is only happening in Firefox for me. The page loads fine in IE Tab. This is the first time this has ever happened to me, and it has only been happening for the last 15 minutes or so.--Dreaded Walrus 01:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It happened to me too (#deletion). It's also been reported at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It now seems to be working. Thanks for the assistance. I don't personally use the Main Page much, but I just noticed it myself.--Dreaded Walrus 01:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Happening again. JoshuaZ 03:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the way the headline regarding the Pope is poorly worded, though I may be wrong. In my understanding, the Pope did 'not' apologize for using the medieval dialogue; rather, he apologized that people were offended by it. Here's a Fox News Story which may clarify things. --Ambrose 14:22, 19 September 2006

Exactly my thoughts, here's a post from the Language Log about it:

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003592.html#more

Is this vandalism? Sandwich Eater 15:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't know what is that doing there.--cloviz 15:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Argh! It be the greatest holiday betwixt springtime and mickelsmass, and ye darn landlubbers wishes to remove it? Argh, lock up yer darlin' daughters, fer we shall burn down ye town! Shiver me timbers! Oskar 15:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, it's a genuine thing. Willnz0 20:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Results 1 - 10 of about 676,000 for "International talk like a pirate day". (0.20 seconds)

In the future please use the Internet.

--einexile 11:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

We didn't question its existence or popularity, but its importance as a celebration. Maybe because we usually see official or traditional holidays there.--cloviz 11:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

And what's wrong with untraditional holidays, may I ask? After all, isn't an encyclopedia supposed to enlighten people to what they don't know? .--Thirteen Figure Skater 2:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually changed my mind about the talk like a pirate day: its inclution has enlighten me, even though it's just a parody (after all, in order to enlighten people we don't have to include the same holidays every year). I still believe it's a pity that we break the "official or traditional" law for this case only though. Today it's students day here; it's a holiday and all students go out to celebrate, there are music shows, etc. It's not a coincidence; every day is special for different reasons in different places of the world. There are many holidays and commemorations each day; some of them might be disregarded because the nation or culture they belong to isn't getting enough attention. So you see, if the "norm" is broken only once anyway, the situation would naturally catch some eyes.--cloviz 21:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've spotted a mistake on the Main Page, the "In the news" says the ISS is pictured, however it is the flag of Thailand. Thank You. | AndonicO 16:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, The picture im seeing is the ISS. Have you refreshed or Hard refreshed lately? --Actown ^e 16:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have, but it's fine now; the Thai flag says (pictured). | AndonicO 17:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, currently it says that it implies that the picture is the flag of Bangkok, when its actually the flag of Thailand Bwithh 17:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. If more problems like that appear on the MainPage, please report them to WP:ERRORS (as per instructions near the top of this talkpage). Thanks. -- PFHLai 18:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The correct spelling of neapolitan in the original language is Nnapulitano. Nnapulitana is the female adjective. --Twilight 15:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this about something on the Main Page? If not, please post it elsewhere. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If it is, try WP:ERRORS. --64.229.231.231 15:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's about the "other languages section" that is not included in WP:ERRORS. --Twilight 15:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Just look at it. Our main page has a horrendous pro Wikipedia bias. There must be at least 100 links to Wikipedia articles, but not a single link to Brittanica, Encarta, or other encyclopedias! What's worse, the few external links it does have are buried at the bottom and point to other Wikimedia Foundation projects. It's dreadful!! Has no one heard of reliable sources? Where are the references? Where are the links to other sites? It's as if everyone here thinks Wikipedia itself is the only source worth citing.

Clearly something must be done. Our policy on verification suggests we should just blank the thing are start fresh with only that material for which we can find external sources. Oh, and I'm sure some prominent links to Britannica and other encyclopedias would help convince people we are truly neutral and not just full of ourselves. Dragons flight 22:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Main Page is not an encyclopedic article. -- 199.71.174.100 22:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is probably satire. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 22:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Really? I call that trolling. -- 199.71.174.100 22:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm shocked to see that kind of thing coming from an admin. I expect admins to be boring, callous, and devoid of all normal human characteristics. I prefer that they not even mention that encyclopedia that starts with B, neither on wiki nor off. I expect them to all have the exact same opinion about every subject imaginable because disagreement is a sign of weakness. And, above all, I expect admins to limit the number of consecutive exclamation points to just one. -- tariqabjotu 00:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You forgot stolid.24.250.33.247 03:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wasting Wikipedia's bandwidth due to sarcasm, argh. And I thought talk pages aren't forums. Lol. Frankly, these "Main Page bias" topics on the Main Page should be posted here if it is purely for entertainment or satire. --Howard the Duck 05:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL 220.73.57.180

I forgot to bookmark Wikimedia Foundation Board election pages. Now the election has closed, the sitewide notice has been removed. Can anyone provide the links? I am sure others will also be looking for this. Can something be suggested at the sitenotice page to leave the notice up (suitable amended) for just one more day. I know some people want it gone as soon as possible, but one more day after over 20 days won't make that much difference. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

See also Meta:Main_Page - where they still have the link there, but saying that the election is closed. Remember that people will want to go and read about it over the next few days, and when the result is announced. Carcharoth 00:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the result has been announced on the mailing list. Will there be an announcement on the sitewide notice? Carcharoth 22:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm new here. Just getting acquainted with the site. Are the people who manage this thing, not necessarily the editors, but the Wiki-Foundation politically involved in American politics? Anything of remote historical concern which involves the US is written from a US Liberal vs. US Conservative bias. It's frightening. I think the Foundation is doing a disservice to international users by making itself irrelevant to the rest of the world with regard to history. I'm pretty firm that these areas should be specifically protected as best possible, while still remaining in the spirit of Wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.42.81.33 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC).

See Wikipedia:Systemic bias. However, no, the managers are not involved in American politics, and moreover, there are many international users editing the Wiki to keep it as broad as possible. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 10:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that some people automatically claim "Liberal bias" and conspiracy when they see academically cited text? What exactly is a "US Liberal" view of history and why is it frightening? And how does recorded history differ from "US Conservative" version of history? Wikipedia has a process of verification based on credible scholarly sources, any disputed text can be called to attention and undergo review. There is no conspiricy here. Contributors come from all over the World. You're invited to contribute but please leave your political and personal views at the door, and keep an open mind. Wikipedia is far from perfect, but there are people of disparate backgrounds working on improving it. --Monotonehell 11:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not what they said. I suggest you reread the comment. Skittle 13:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yah I totally misread that even though I read it 3 times before I commented. Sorry. Now I'm unsure what they are refereing to. What's the link between some conspiracy of "management" and historical articles? What you see in articles is a result of many hands on the edit.

One thing that happens on articles that have two opposing camps of POV is they suffer from the dicotomy by ending up as an adversarial narative instead of an academic article. This is a sad thing and shouldn't happen with historical articles where there's a fairly accepted record. Even when some points are under flux in academic circles, there should be a stable set of references available.

I don't think protection is the answer though. --Monotonehell 14:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we get some examples? 66.67.58.191 19:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me try to rephrase what the original user is saying: Many articles about history (as well as politics and so-called moral issues) are written from a US perspective, and are contrasting US conservative and liberal views, while ignoring views and opinions in other countries. They are right about that, and Wikipedia:Systemic bias is a page that gives some clues on that question.

About the foundation, politics: the foundation is not involved in party politics, and AFAIK, neither are board members or foundation staff (at least not at any significant level). They (foundation and people) are involved in politics as "public matters", of course, but that's a given for a public project.

The idea about protection is a consequence of unfamiliarity with the project, I believe. There are plenty of links at Wikipedia:Welcome newcomers and Wikipedia:FAQ that should be helpful for understanding how the project works. Zocky | picture popups 01:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The article for Wikipedia's hometown mayor is the most egregious example of PR-Speak I have ever seen, worthy of historic preservation:

"The same energy Mayor Baker has devoted to youth and education can be seen in his progress in revitalizing the city's urban core"

This type of 'encyclopedic knowledge' simply doesn't contain any value for non-US readers, who chuckle at that type of speech, obviously written by one of Mayor Baker's pastry makers.

Wikipedia does not currently treat historical or political material in a responsible manner. I would suggest, if this were a serious effort, preventing anonymous users from being able to edit anything of historic or political importance. Given the obvious nature of human beings, this is simply logical. Besides, by keeping them open actually prohibits them from improving because so much time and effort is probably spent cleaning up the work of vandals, ideologists, and associated parties. There also needs to be a header above each article stating to readers that historic and political articles may contain 'institutional bias', not 'systematic bias' which is the boring type of bias. These things would vastly improve Wikipedia's quality and credibility.

Also, I've noticed a few times editors claim scholastic pedigree. Unfortunately 'Time' magazine is not a scholarly publication. Also, most of the scholars cited seem to be employed by US Thinktanks, whose work is not submitted for peer review nor generally known to be reliable. Likewise, no attention is paid to actual documents. For example, the article on the US-Vietnam war does not cite the Pentegon Papers or the LBJ tapes, which are the richest un-biased resources on the matter known to humanity. Instead, the article on the Kent State shootings is almost entirely pasted from the Nixon administration's lawyers! Can you imagine if that were one of your children who died that day, especially the one who supported the war?

Suppose the world's historians decided to take a look at this site. Suppose they were to announce publicly, for all of humanity to hear, that Wikipedia is a propaganda tool used by US politicians against its people and not even worthy of curious attention by students or learners. Suppose, for example, the world press--who is often critical of the US--decides to write about the site being used as a propaganda tool. Suppose, for example, US or world politicians decide they don't want their grandchildren to read the Administration's perspective on the war against Iraq. Suppose they publicly chide Wikipedia, while threatening to remove its tax-exempt status which exists as an 'educational' entity. Whether or not they could do it isn't the point. It would be silly to have huge negative attention on such a great site, which so many people obviously care for.

Also, there needs to be an article on Institutional Bias and another on Subversion. The 'race riots' article is no doubt offensive, and should instead be included in a 'Civil Unrest' article, but that title currently leads to something referred to as 'civil disorder', which sounds like a name from somebody who hates the public.

These things are all very important to democracy, and each of us should study them. In fact, we should simply study them because a great many people don't want us to. The best documents are those which come directly from the sources. For example, the LBJ tapes and Nixon tapes are very, very entertaining and enlightening and available online.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.81.33 (talk • contribs)

What does this have to do with Main Page ????????????? --65.95.106.8 14:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Is using military time on wikipedia a standard? dposse 19:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the 24-h clock time in UTC is used by default when ~~~~ or ~~~~~ is used. --199.71.174.100 19:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I find that the front page of this site routinely highlights the obscure at the expense of the prominent. Specifically, one can find articles on the most obscure topics. But missing are the major--predominatly U.S. oriented--news items of the day. Sorry to state the obvious, but the U.S. has nearly 300 million people, far and away the largest global economy, and it's the world's only superpower. Seems its' news items should be a bit better represented.

For example? Look there's spinach intoxication in USA; if it was in Kenya many people would have complained of its absurd irrelevance already. By the way, political or economical power has nothing to do with encyclopedic relevance. After all, people come here to learn; do they really want to read what they already know from media?--cloviz 02:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hate to burst your bubble, but the EU has a larger share of world trade, and the US is a declining power (due to the demands being a hegemon has placed on it). Furthermore, people are SICK in California makes the ITN? That is an extreme bias towards America. No other country would get anything close. Maybe once people die it might. But honestly, these people are sick. Why on earth should that be on the front page of Wikipedia? That makes it look like pro-American. --Midnighttonight Procrastinating on uni work... 05:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - that California item really does not belong. Certainly not of world interest in any way and food scares occur all the time around the world. --AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 05:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I can't see this being a very important item of news in the USA either but I don't read any american news sources regulary. Food poisoning is very common. Jeltz talk 08:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a major news item in the United States (and it could possibly affect people in Canada and Mexico, to which some of the tainted spinach may have been exported). As cited in our article, it's been reported that the strain of E. coli seems to be more potent than strains that have caused previous instances of food poisoning (with roughly twice the typical rate of hospitalization). —David Levy 09:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read the article, Midnighttonight. The tainted spinach was grown in California, but it's turned up in no fewer than 25 states. It's believed that some of it may have been exported to Canada and Mexico.

Furthermore, of the 171 people reported ill, half were hospitalized, 27 suffered renal failure, 10 became seriously ill, and at least one (and possibly two others) died. —David Levy 09:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that it is not world news, but simply a case of food poisoning. Just because people became ill and a few have died does not make it ITN worthy. I am yet to be convinced at all. --Midnighttonight Procrastinating on uni work... 09:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You just finished complaining that the story only involved people who were "sick in California," and that "maybe once people die it might" warrant inclusion in ITN. I then pointed out that the contamination spread to 25 states and caused at least one death (and likely two others), but you still claim that "it is not world news" (despite the fact that the tainted spinach may have been exported to two other countries). I'm sorry, but I fail to see the logic behind your assessment. —David Levy 09:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you believe that the shipment of food containing a deadly bacterium (apparently more potent than in previous cases) to half of the United States and possibly to two other countries doesn't qualify as "world news," but the following stories do:

• The New Zealand Parliament passes an act making New Zealand Sign Language the third official language of New Zealand, alongside English and Māori.
• Russel Norman is elected as the new male co-leader of the New Zealand Green Party.
• The trial of Tim Selwyn for sedition begins in Auckland, New Zealand. Selwyn is the first New Zealander in over 80 years to be charged with sedition.
• Tim Selwyn is the first New Zealander found guilty of sedition in over seventy-five years.

—David Levy 10:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with the first one. I'm ok with the spinach thing too; let's admit it might lead to further problems like mass hysteria, and it's good that we update the news section everyday. By now, let's just pray that Popeye is alright. But it would be fair that every country gets the same attention; actually if that happened in Argentina, it would never cross my mind to create an article for it. To me this doesn't have so much encyclopedic value; in 10 years not many people will care about it. But some people think it has, it fills the section, and I learned because someone put it there; that's why it's ok.--cloviz 12:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't paper. We have articles for individual television show episodes, for crying out loud! To claim that an article pertaining to an instance of widespread food contamination (possibly from a bacterial strain of unprecedented potency) that has caused serious illness and death (not to mention threatening thousands of farmers' livelihood) "has no encyclopedic value" [quoting the original text, subsequently changed to "doesn't have so much encyclopedic value"] is utterly ludicrous. —David Levy 21:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ludicrous is that we don't have articles for some large cities or important historical events and still focus on minor current happenings. Instead of promoting work on those articles by displaying them in the Main Page, we could suggest people work on those that are completely lacking. We rather try to balance Wikipedia, not make a news service for the average reader out of it.--cloviz 22:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

1. The tainted spinach story is far from "minor." It's a devastating current event of international importance. A Wikipedia article has been written about it, so it fits the ITN inclusion criteria. If you disagree with these criteria (or believe that ITN should be abolished), feel free to propose reform.

2. You're quite correct in stating that Wikipedia lacks articles on many important topics. By all means, help to create these missing articles, build them up to featured status, and then we can highlight them on the main page. This would be far more productive than arguing against the existence of an article that people actually bothered to write. —David Levy 23:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps I'm unaware of the actual magnitude of the spinach story; but "devastating" sounds exaggerated (its effects are limited to one single industry of one single region). As I said before, I'm ok with it in the ITN; as long as similar stories get similar attention. The problem is that it's not likely that articles like that are created when the event is in a region that lacks articles on fundamental topics; it wouldn't be reasonable. You suggest me to create great articles to be displayed; but my idea was that improving an article generally requires the work of many people (which can be optained by displaying the article). When we indirectly promote articles that are fine for what they represent, the coverage happens to become excessive comparing to articles needing work (remember that my idea is to conduct users' wills and energy to what is truly needed). You are right that I should work more on counteracting the imbalance (don't want to call it bias because it's unintentional); to be sincere I've only created two articles so far...--cloviz 00:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

For the families of people sick and dying, this is devastating. For the thousands of U.S. farmers who depend upon spinach sales to make a living, this is devastating.

I'm glad that you realize that the imbalance is not intentional. I certainly will support the inclusion of an entry pertaining to a similar story from elsewhere in the world, provided that a new article has been written or an existing article has been significantly updated. You point out that this is less likely to occur. That's unfortunate, but holding back the articles that do exist won't help matters. People write about subjects on which they possess knowledge, and people are most familiar with subjects pertaining to them. Discouraging Americans from writing/editing articles on American topics won't encourage them to write/edit articles about other countries instead. They'll simply write/edit fewer articles. We need more contributions from people knowledgeable on the neglected subjects (the lack of which is not a valid reason to punish the people who do contribute). —David Levy 00:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Since own knowledge can't be cited as a source, people only need interest to edit. If everyone was concerned in just improving Wikipedia, it would be easier to balance; but that's impossible actually. I thought you said "devastating" from a global point of view because you used that word to support its possition in ITN.--cloviz 17:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't as simple as taking an interest in something. Interest and knowledge go hand-in-hand (with people seeking knowledge on topics in which they're interested and developing interest in topics on which they become knowledgeable). This knowledge has to come from somewhere, but it isn't always easily accessible to readers of a particular language. For example, a person who reads only English is incapable of reliably citing sources written in Chinese. For that matter, he or she might not even be aware of the Chinese subject's existence. This is why we need bilingual and multilingual editors from as many countries as possible.

A tragedy need not be devastating on a global scale to qualify for inclusion in ITN; it need only be of importance and/or interest to people in more than one country. —David Levy 23:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a minor note to say somehting about the international scope of this item. It hasn't appeared in either DN, SVD or SVT which is a good indication of that Swedish media enterily ignores it. My point is only that it is hard to argue that an anit-USA bias exists ITN when there is an item which is doubful if it belongs there. It is far from the only item that is borderline. I don't really care about if it should be on ITN or not. But I seriosuly doubt that if this had happened in almost any other country in the world it would have been on the main page. Food poisoning happens all the time around the world this might be a sever case but it doesn't seem like international media gives a damn. For the record I'm quite fine with the current items. I don't care much about absolute fair global scope. Jeltz talk 15:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

1. I agree that no anti-USA bias exists within ITN. There is, however, an anti-USA bias among many editors who complain about an alleged USA bias. (I'm not referring to you.) People need to realize that entries don't magically appear in ITN. Each one needs to be suggested by someone or inserted by a sysop familiar with the story. And yet, this page frequently receives complaints about missing items that no one ever bothered to suggest (accompanied by the claim that biased Americans deliberately suppressed them).

2. You seem to be under the impression that a story must be of worldwide significance to be included in ITN. This is not the case. The relevant criterion is that it should be of "international importance, or at least interest." That means that it should be of importance or interest to people in two or more countries. Given the fact that the spinach scare affects people in three countries (in which Sweden is not included), I don't see how anyone can argue that it doesn't qualify. —David Levy 21:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The E. coli-spinach news item is notable because people have been using spinach as part of a health regimen which turns out to be deadly. Families now have to consider this during their grocery shopping: A healthy nine-year-old boy involved in this debacle, in my hometown, ate a supposedly healthy meal prepared by his parents; now he has to face kidney dialysis for the rest of his life ("As Children Suffer, Parents Rethink Spinach Use", New York Times Sept 24, 2006 pp 1, 25. The resulting month of life-and-death struggle costs more than that of a bag of freshly cut spinach from the farms of California. They supply the nation. This could decimate that industry, by the way; it has international implications 10% of those infected with E. coli come down with hemolytic uremic syndrome. Given what we know today, would we casually eat a meal prepared from a bag of freshly cut spinach? Anyone? The world waits. The answer is no. We would have to know where that spinach came from, who cut it, who inspected it, who has examined the public health provisions of the companies and governments who oversee the distribution, etc. --Ancheta Wis 15:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole topic still seems rather obscure - the BBC's 'Americas' page contains about twenty news stories, and none of them mention the Spinach epidemic sweeping the nation... Robmods 18:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The page in question does not appear to include topics on the basis of their importance. (As far as I know, hypoallergenic cats aren't "sweeping the nation.") —David Levy 21:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

ITN didn't change much for days. When I posted the item on the tainted spinach on ITN yesterday, it was the best available item from the candidates' page to update ITN with after consecutive slow news days. Now, if it's removed from ITN, people will be complaining that ITN is all about politics. I guess it should stay on ITN for a little while.... If anyone has better news stories, please post suggestions on the ITN candidates' page. Many thanks. -- PFHLai 19:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

If anyone thinks 2006 Ryder Cup is a good item to make ITN less politics-heavy, please say so on the ITN candidates' page. Thanks. --PFHLai 19:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I see. Other than elections not many articles seems to have been suggested the last few days which made the spinach item stay on there for some time. Hopefully we will see some new interesting candidates soon. :) Jeltz talk 19:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I only found out about the spinich contamination story (and very interesting reading it has been) from Wikipedia, so thank-you to however put it there. But then again, I have been watching the Ryder Cup 2006, so I was half-hoping to see that up there in ITN... :-) Carcharoth 22:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Posted. .... The US lost (again). I hope this is not perceived as an anti-US bias. .... BTW, if you have watched this on TV, please consider adding some text to the 2006 Ryder Cup article. It could use some prose on the matches. Thanks. -- PFHLai 13:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Explaining terms like 'fourballs' and 'foursomes' would be helpful, too. -- 64.229.177.211 15:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You play fourballs with four balls (see, it's simple!) and you play the other one (the one without 'balls' in the name - ie. foursomes) with two balls. Fourballs = four people playing with four balls (a ball for each person). Best score from each team (of two) wins the hole. ie. Each team has two chances (two balls) to score. Foursomes is four people playing with two balls. Each team of two only has one ball, so they have to take it in turns to hit the ball. See also Golf_glossary#F and Golf#Team play Carcharoth 21:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Missed the obvious place. Ryder Cup#Format has a good explanantion. Carcharoth 11:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Have now added a little bit of stuff to 2006 Ryder Cup - not a lot, as I dislike the 'blow-by-blow' style of some sports articles on Wikipedia. The one there looks like it will stand the test of time. Carcharoth 22:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

On behalf of all non-golfing Wikipedians who want to learn more about golf, I say "Thank you very much". -- 64.229.221.243 12:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Mark Foley scandal

Here we go again.... Come on. We don't need this to displace ancient ITN items today. Where's the global interest? Don't admins read ITN guidelines anymore? Please at least apply boldface to the internal link to the updated article and m-protect the image. -- 199.71.174.100 19:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

subsequent scandal dominate political discussion in the United States ahead of the 2006 House elections. This is a blatant liberal injection - this isn't dominating the news and the American people don't care about the story. What a crock. Haizum 22:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I only heard about this through Wikipedia. I read news headlines in the UK everyday, and this isn't being mentioned. Again though, I can't really complain, as firstly "In the news" is not a news ticker, and secondly, I found the article interesting to read. Carcharoth 21:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

So you habe election in Gambia, and Estonia but you dont have the yemeni elections...im so sick of this bias in the news section, please either have a proper format and rules or remove the news section alltogether. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.80.113.51 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC).

Yemen presidential election, 2006 is the article. Suggest it at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. --Midnighttonight Procrastinating on uni work... 09:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a bias, just me working too slow. It took me quite a while this morning (UTC-5) to find a free pic of the President of Yemen for ITN, then I got called away from the computer. (I posted the pic on the ITN candidates page before I logged off, hoping for someone to take over, but no one came....) Now the Yemeni election is on ITN. Hope everyone is happy. -- PFHLai 18:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Did the wiki really just get accused of a pro-Gambian bias?

By the way, good work PFHLai. - BT 19:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the pro-gambian bias obvious? Nice job from those who created the article about the Yemeni election. Jeltz talk 20:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, BT. Yes, the pro-Gambian bias was unbearable. So I had to take Yahya Jammeh's pic off MainPage yesterday.....

The article on the Yemeni election is indeed good. The one on the Gambian election is rather short, but quite interesting -- I didn't know they vote with marbles. Cool! -- PFHLai 12:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it was more of an accusation of anti-Yemen or more likely anti-muslim/anti-arab bias Nil Einne 12:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Reading through the top of this page, while there are several what NOT to post here I noticed that it isn't actually that clear about what TO post here (other then not what's not). Obviously wikipedians should realise that this talk page is for discussion of issues surrounding the main page that are not discussed elsewhere. But I think we should make clear this clear. Otherwise, new users might falsely assume if there is nothing specifically mentioned on the top about a location to discuss there question they should post here. For example it may not be clear to a new user that this is not an appropriate place for the discussing TV News Reading (since there is no place, as above) and reference desks questions since these aren't specifically mentioned at the top and it doesn't say that this is only for discussion surrounding the main page. I personally believe users should read more carefully but it might help if we make it more clear. Nil Einne 18:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe (and have stated here before) that the problem is the link that reads "discussion" on top of the Main Page. Since it's in the home page, people (specially those not used to article format) tend to believe that this discussion concerns Wikipedia as a whole. Maybe we should ignore the format for this special case and make that discussion link more precise or less conspicuous. Or perhaps this isn't such a big problem; let them learn from their mistakes! Hehe.--cloviz 21:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The header used to say "This page is for discussion of the Main Page only. See below for information on where to post on topics not concerning the Main Page. Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Main Page. Irrelevant discussion may be removed." I've interviewed a few users that did post innapropriate items here to see what their process was in the interest to help new users. And similar to what Cloviz says above; They've all clicked on "discussion", then blindly clicked the "+ sign" and added their comment. Not many people read instructions. Or even notice them. The new header has reduced people posting in the "wrong place" a little but I doubt anything we do except my wild idea (see below) will curtail it.

• Monotonehell's wild idea

1.Perm protect this page.

2.Move the header to here permantently

3.Edit the header so it becomes a directory for new users to find the proper places for their posts. Make it very friendly and helpful.

4.Move the actual Talk:Main Page discussion to a sub page of this page.

5.Rinse, repeat.

I've had this idea for ages, but it's too radical to actualy perform.--Monotonehell 06:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe change it to "article discussion", sitewide? That'd prevent people using it to talk about how cool the band is, etc. too. _.^* 18:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Changing it to "article discussion" would be good, but a link to say the village pump labelled "Wikipedia discussion" could be put on the sidebar to show people where to go. Lcarsdata (Talk) 10:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a good one; the term "Village Pump" doesn't seem to refer to discussion (at least to me). I think the changes should be made in the page itself; if we only change the talk page we disregard that there's a simple ambiguity causing this. We can't convert the talk page into a reference page just because of a recurrent mistake.--cloviz 11:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Does it matter if a few people post in the "wrong" place? Why make things confusing for people trying to fix errors and discuss ways to improve Wikipedia?--Clawed 09:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

We are actually trying to make things easier. Imagine if you leave a question here, then you go to sleep and the other day you come back expecting answers but you only find that you posted in the wrong place; must be quite frustrating. We must keep some order as well; if we answer all questions posted here, we prevent them from getting the proper attention they'd get in the correct place.--cloviz 13:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It only matters if they don't get the attention their post deserves because they've posted it somewhere that people aren't looking. The processes on Wikipedia have developed in an organic manner and are inherently confusing. What we need to do is formalise these processes and then create help paths for new users so they can find the resource they need easily. --Monotonehell 12:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Since it's obvious that the less experienced people think that this is a page for discussing main page errors and Wikipedia in general, why don't we just use it for that and move the discussion about the main page structure to somewhere else, where experienced editors will surely easily find it? Zocky | picture popups 21:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

And what about this: We keep something like that header here only; with also another link for "Main Page General Discussion, if your post doesn't belong to any other section", which leads to this page, of course. Oh wait, that's exactly Monotonehell's wild idea; don't know why did I object it...--cloviz 21:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What is Wikiversity and how come it's a red link? Ciacchi 15:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I came in to say the same thing, wikiversity link is broken, but worked fine last night.

looks good/works for me BrokenSegue 15:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiversity is a MediaWiki project that made the horrible mistake of adding rounded corners to the monobook skin. It makes my designer's blood boil. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 21:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the rounded-corners distaste. But see Spanish and Italian for (2 variations of) precedent [sadly]. --Quiddity·(talk) 22:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I raised the issue at the English Wikiversity's Colloquium page. One of the site's eight sysops (also known as "custodians") informed me that "none of the Wikiversity custodians seem to be concerned about these sorts of subjective evaluations of the Wikiversity buttons," adding that "the buttons look fine on [his/her] computer" and "maybe [I] need a better display." Another opined that "if [I] have no greater concerns than the appearance of rounded corners than (sic) maybe this isn't the project for me."

That's some welcoming committee! —David Levy 07:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, what is the problem? The French one does it too. The German one has some wierd thing about it. What's so bad? HellaNorCal 01:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

same. it redlinks for me, and when i try to sign up there, it wont show me the security thing. --24.208.123.129 01:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC) I love that design! What is it and is there a setting to make Wikipedia look like that in the English version? Please someone help me! --Adriaan90 16:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikiversity is Redlinked... Again

I believe this is the third time its done so, according to this page. --Tom 07:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be okay now. I wonder why this keeps occurring. —David Levy 07:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia links turn red on occation on wikiversity as well. It's like the database splits.--Rayc 01:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet Again

For Wikiversity, it is a red link again. What is the problem? At least the 4th time! — [Mac Davis](talk) (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)19:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Appears fine to me; perhaps the problem originates from not clearing your cache? Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And yet again

It links to the page V: on Wikipedia rather than to the Wikiversity. Strange thing is that when I open underlying templtate Template:WikipediaSister it correctly links to the wikiversity. Is it possible it is a sofware problem? E.g. one of the servers might not be able to interpret V: prefix for Wikiversity articles. Maybe various versions of Wiki software on the servers? --Jan Smolik 15:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the template needs to be updated with a direct link rather than a WikiLink? (Proclaims ignorance) --Monotonehell 17:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea! I've changed it to a full hyperlink. —Mets501 (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The German version has links to all other Wikipedia projects. Why doesn't the English version? --66.111.51.110 13:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Um, did you look at the bottom of the Main Page. It has many language links, and links to the entire list. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Many of the main pages in other languages use the built-in interlanguage linking facility for doing this, however, so that the list appears in the conventional "in other languages" area of the page, and is thus consistent with all other pages. That is apparently what 66.111.51.110 is talking about. Uncle G 09:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I quite agree. We just have ugly whitespace where it should be. People that speak a forign language are never going to find it at the bottom of the page. Can this be changed?
      • I'll happily add the interlanguage links if editors wish the page to have them. Please discuss whether you want them. Uncle G 16:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Perhaps we should have an seperate page metioning all of them? That way, it will look less cluttered. Ps0 03:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Like this? —David Levy 03:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the number of articles be updated. For example, the German and Spanish version are described only as having more than 50,000 articles, when they appear to be much larger: 470,000-odd and 150,000-odd respectively. Grusl 18:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess we are waiting for more Wikipedias to exceed 100,000 articles to start a new category, and more to exceed 50,000 so that this category won't get too empty. -- PFHLai 19:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The danish Wikipedia just made 50K so if someone could move "Dansk" from 25K to 50K in the list that would be great :-) Regards Malene 22:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 22:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think a vastly better approach would be to get more of the English wikipedia articles translated to other languages and then focus the front page on developments in highly-populated English-speaking nations, which means doing a lot more of the U.S. And, by the way, to the person above who said the E.U. has a larger portion of trade than the U.S., um, that's not exactly how we measure economic productivity. By GDP standards, the most relevant statistic for economic productivity, there is the United States, and then you end up having to go pretty far down to find the #2 country (Japan). I know the U.S. may be disliked around the world (jealousy, perhaps), but no country rivals the U.S. or even comes close in matching its political, economic, military and other influence. Sites like this overcompensate to accomodate these other nations. Gambia had an election? Great to hear that, but I'm pretty internationally educated and even I'm going back to watch the NFL...it's game day, Gambians! Let's get some serious U.S. coverage back on the cover and skip these second-tier nations and developments...no one gives a damn.

• • See if you can get that money back on yer internashionul edjamacation. Grusl 20:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No need, dude. Learned enough and seen enough to know the obvious: America rules, and the rest of you cats are fools. Now, I just wish we could keep the rest of these foreign peasants out of our nation. In case you didn't notice, people are fleeing just about every nation in the world in an effort to get here. And no one here wants to leave (understandable). What sort of loser is sitting there reading about the Gambian elections? It has about as much impact on us as the fall of one leaf from a tree.

But seriously: ca we please get some US news coverage on the front page of this site before this thing becomes irrelevant? No one is rushing to read any of the developments in Yemen? Am I to understand that would lead the newspaper in any English-speaking nation? Not here in the US and probably not in Britain either. Let's get a clue and get this crapp off the front page. Thanks for considering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.203 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 24 September 2006

Please be civil. Also, please understand that the world doesn't revolve around the United States. Picaroon9288 20:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper Rafy 01:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the EU has a higher total GDP than the USA and total GDP is what counts when comparing the size of two markets. See List of countries by GDP (nominal). So the person who said that the EU is a larger market is correct. Not that it really matters since I hope that we are not going to hold a "my nation/part of the world is better than yours" debate here. Please calm down. Jeltz talk 20:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• It has been predicted that China will replace USA as the biggest economy (in the pure sense of the word) in less that 20 years; it has around 1/6 of the world population as well. It's prominence in Wikipedia is not comparable to that of USA anyway. But note that we are not making a popularity contest among countries; we are trying to record the knowledge of humanity.--cloviz 21:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Main Page ????????????? -- 64.229.177.211 15:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Should we let our readers know that today is the 100th anniversary of the composer's birth? Check Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/September 25 for details. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Shostakovich is now on MainPage, Ghirla. Please consider adding a bit on the celebrations and other commemorative activities to his article. Thanks. --PFHLai 12:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, the wikiversity link appears red. The broken link applies also to the image. The link in ((WikipediaSister)) works fine. No relevant recent changes in both the Main Page and the above template namespace. --Dead3y3 ^{Talk page} 15:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It's temporary. Don't worry about it. -- 64.229.177.211 15:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a specific page to report general Main Page errors? In WP:ERRORS there are only sections about specific parts (In the News, Today's featured article, etc). If it is not, can it be created so that this talk page doesn't flood by error reports? --Dead3y3 ^{Talk page} 15:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Try talk pages such as Template talk:Wikipedialang. -- 64.229.177.211 15:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Even better, comment at Talk:Main Page/errors. --hydnjo talk 01:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Um - this shouldn't be a red link, right? Bwithh 15:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

See #Error report: Wikiversity redlink issue #2 above. --64.229.177.211 15:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Snowflake link on today's page needs disambig. JanSuchy 08:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out. Raven4x4x 09:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the alleged "suicide attempt" deserve to be a "current event"? Thanks Soxrock 00:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You can suggest it in WP:ITN, but I honestly don't think it does.Borisblue 01:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Portal:Current events/Sports, but most definitely not ITN. -- 199.71.174.100 01:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, it is not a significant enough global news story to put on ITN. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't rate even he had actually committed suicide. Global view, please. --Dhartung | Talk 09:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not even news. Only good for tabloids. -- 64.229.221.217 10:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If he *did* actually commit suicide, I think it just might - cf. Steve Irwin. See Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page#Criteria for adding entries, criterion 5b. zafiroblue05 | Talk 20:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah, Steve Irwin was an international figure. Terrell Owens isn't even universally known in the US. 130.64.130.18 00:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)