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.

I mean what about when your doing a project and a section pops up that you don't want to see? That's just wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.7.112.220 (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. See also our content disclaimer. ShadowHalo 15:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, the bad stuffs are added by vandals. Please help remove them when you see them. Thanks. --74.13.130.186 18:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In at least one instance a teacher got his/her kids to use wikipedia for some reason and then complained about the 'bad stuff'. But ironically, it turned out the vandalism 'bad stuff' originated from his/her kids. Nil Einne 18:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Template talk:Did you know clearly explains that rewrites and major article expansion are eligible for the "Did You Know" section while most templates say "Did you know mentions and links to new articles" and "From Wikipedia's newest articles:" which make no mention of rewrites or article expansion. 128.227.51.234 15:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

An article which has undergone such an expansion that it's beyond recognition is, in essence, a "new article". --kingboyk 15:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Why is this article a DYN and the featured picture of the DYN section? It is not new (it's been around since 2002) and the link name refers to only a small section of the article. If that small section were its own article, it would solve the weird piping that is happening now:[[Flag of Sweden|Union Jack of 1844]]. Are we doing DYNs for article subheadings now? 128.227.51.234 13:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The article Flag of Sweden is eligible for DYK since it was greatly expanded and totally rewritten since April 8. Camptown 14:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea I just read that on Template talk:Did you know which clearly explains it while other pages clearly say "Did you know mentions and links to new articles" and "From Wikipedia's newest articles:" which make no mention of rewrites or article expansion. Other than that I still do not agree with the abnormal piping to the article. 128.227.51.234 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The article used to be crap a week ago, And we are talking about a major makeover [[1] Camptown 14:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh you didn't answer anything from my reply. 128.227.51.234 14:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"From Wikipedia's newest articles" may need to be 'updated' and re-worded. This is beyond the scope of WP:ERRORS. Please consider starting a new section on Talk:Main Page regarding this issue. --74.14.18.181 14:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Stub expansion and link piping are both common practice; not an error. Savidan 14:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is that the intro "from wikipedia's newest articles" is perhaps not true when talking about stub expansion (although the alternative view is that expanded stubs are new articles). Whatever the case, this is probably best discussed in DYK not here as it's a DYK specific issue Nil Einne 22:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I was going to leave a comment to this effect about the Berne clock tower until I saw this section. We really do need to make it more explicit that these aren't all newly-created articles. Nyttend 07:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've brought this issue up in Wikipedia talk:Did you know#"Newest" articles. I would again encourage editors to continue the discussion there Nil Einne 07:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Could anyone please tell me how to join the science wikiproject? It would be appreciated thanks. --Susan Walton 17:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Just go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Science and add your signature to the list. ShadowHalo 18:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you --Susan Walton 23:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

In today's OTD: "1943 - World War II: Germany announced the discovery of a mass grave of Polish prisoners-of-war executed by Soviet forces in the Katyn Forest Massacre."

Cute. A bigger case of the pot calling the kettle black I ain't never heard of. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.104.131.76 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Poles don't have the same history of being despised as the Jews. Vranak

Mass murder is mass murder. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.104.131.76 (talk) 06:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

My opinion, but I think that today's featured article should be the RMS Titanic. As you may know, tonight is the 95th anniversary of the sinking. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.68.132.121 (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

First, today's featured article is usually selected a few weeks in advance. Secondly, the article was the June 29, 2005 featured article, and because of the rate that more and more articles are being promoted to featured status, it is almost guaranteed that it will never ever be put on the main page again. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, did you notice that RMS Titanic is in a way currently already posted on the main page? It is today's featured picture. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks for pointing out the pic. Well, at least couldn't she be on the 'On This Day'? -M

The pic was originally spose'd to be on the main page for May 2, but I asked for it to be put on today, for historical significance. Hadz

Thank you.

It's on On This Day today, the 15th, instead of the 14th. The sinking happened after midnight by UTC. --74.13.130.87 18:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's also on the history portal as feautured article. I think it has been for awhile...either that, or it's just a coincedence. (Excuse my spelling)

A lot of sites, particularly reference.com and answers.com duplicate wikipedia's articles exactly. Isn't this some sort of copyright infringement? --Hadz^Talk 17:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Not if they meet some requierments. See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks for details.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It frustrates me when I'm doing research and looking for a site other than Wikipedia for information and find all these other sites copying. /rant. shijeru 20:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Do Google searches with "-wikipedia" at the end. It will be harder if a said site steals from Wikipedia without attribution. hbdragon88 00:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Or there's an easier way if you use Mozilla Firefox (and you should :P) - if you hate WP mirrors showing up in Google search results, get the Customize Google extension, then use meta:Mirror filter to add a list of Wikipedia's mirrors (like Answers.com) to the exclusion filter. This means that whenever you Google something within Firefox, CustomizeGoogle will automatically remove results from any of Wikipedia's mirrors. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I use Opera, actually. I deleted my userpage (but I think I removed the Opera userbox long before that), so you wouldn't know that. If I wanted to, I could go into the search.ini file and simply set a keyword "gw" or something to append "-wikipedia". I already have "g" for nromal Google and "w" for adding "site:en.wikipedia.org" set up. I just don't do non-Wikipedia searches enough to warrant that addition, though. hbdragon88 06:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The article illustration image on the main page, Image:Pm1234 Cauchy.png, should probably be replaced with its vector version, Image:Pm1234 Cauchy.svg. Vector images scale much better than raster ones. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Whee! Done now. ShadowHalo 04:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Methinks you did good, I deleted my last question because I didn't before see that it says in big letters DO NOT ASK GENERAL QUESTIONS IN HERE.. Anyways yu did good shadowhalo it was ok, but you made it better! --71.218.112.231 04:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope this isn't too much of a general question, but is there anyway one can set up an rss feed so that the featured article3s show up, or maybe the quotes, from Quotepedia? Maest 19:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if such a mechanism is in place already, but one can write a simple perl script to do this.--Scheibenzahl 20:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Syndication for details. howcheng {chat} 23:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

iam an iranain and i write artticle in fa.wikipedia.org.

i can not write english good so i say my idea:why did you remove link to fa.wikipedia.org from main page of en.wikipedia.org thank--213.207.253.146 21:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

We include only Wikipedias that have over 25,000 articles in order to prevent the Main Page from becoming overcrowded with a long list of every Wikipedia. The Farsi Wikipedia, though fast-growing, has not yet reached that threshold. As soon as it does, it will be added. —Cuiviénen 21:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

farsi is a local name in international must say PERSIAN it is better thank i hope best for you do not remember PERSIAN thank--213.207.252.39 21:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the academic world considers the two terms interchangeable. Realistically, "Persian" would be the Western-adopted version from Greek and "Parsi" or "Farsi" the "correct" version. See Persian language#Nomenclature. —Cuiviénen 22:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Pls see Talk:Main Page/Archive 83#The 10k's and Talk:Main Page/Archive 83#Provide a way to get to all the Wikipedias. Thanks. --199.71.174.100 21:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break; where's the frickin' proof. And the article itself condradicts the headline!!! READ: "Using a combination of the previously published Hubble Space Telescope measurements and new theoretical models, Barman found strong evidence for water absorption in the atmosphere of the planet."

New theoretical models??? HELL-frickin'-O!!!!!

And "strong evidence" does not constitute a discovery, unless you're dealing with super sloppy standards, and a low bar for proof. Maybe the operative word "strong" should have read "kinda strong" or maybe "deeply-felt" or "smacking". But is it really, "unmistakeable," "decisive," or "persistent."

Hey, maybe somebody needs funding, give it to them; but don't say things are true unless they absolutely are beyond a reasonable doubt. PLEASE!!!!

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" [Carl Sagan] --Charlesrkiss 03:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Talk:HD 209458 b #Water vapor discovery question. If the line on ITN needs to be re-phrased, please post a new line at WP:ERRORS or WP:ITN/C. Thanks. --199.71.174.100 04:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless it was changed, you also seem to have missed part of the headline - it reads "...water vapor in its atmosphere", not "water". —AySz88\^-^ 04:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And it should actually be rather surprising that we've never detected water vapor in the atmosphere of extrasolar planets, not the other way around; every planet in our system that has an atmosphere has at least some water vapor in it. Saturn, IIRC, has a higher percentage than Earth. —Cuiviénen 05:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about the above discussion, however I think someone should point out Charlesrkiss's less than civil comments. There's no need to use less than savoury language to get a view point across & doing so only shows that you can't find a better word & must resort to swearing. Anyway, just my 2 cents. Spawn Man 05:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What swearing? "Frickin" is to " ing" as "darned" is to "damned". "Hell" may be considered verboten by some Christian groups, but is perfectly acceptable among Catholics and probably most non-Christians. 70.23.169.146 10:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a theory. In about 100 years, everyone will be speaking English, and in about 101 years, everyone will be speaking German. At least the Übermensch! :)--Scheibenzahl 19:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah! The IP speaks. ;) Thansk for the reply, but the second part of my comment was hypothetical whilst the first was directly relating to the above comments. So no, he/she did not swear, but in my hypothetical explaination I was giving that person did. Thanks, :) Spawn Man 11:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The detection itself is notable; however, what's so exciting about H₂O? It's what hydrogen & oxygen do naturally. Unstated premise is possibility of life on other planets; it would really be surprising if planets in other systems were uniformly barren of water. Billbrock 05:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You all seem to be missing the point. The story isn't that there may be water there. The story is that this is the first time scientists have been able to detect it on a planet not in our solar system. --Monotonehell 12:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The story is that they now (hopefully) have a better idea of how to detect water on other planets. Detecting stuff like this is not easy, you know. It's difficult enough detecting the planets themselves! Carcharoth 02:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What did the "German and English" thing have to do wit hanything?--Katherine Kaiquser 01:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the ITN section should be renamed to "In the Olds". What's the point of it if it lists events from three weeks ago as current? 89.172.155.225 01:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right. It's "In The News", not "Currently In The News". If ITN is not current enough for you, please consider helping out and update wikiarticles with recent news materials. Only those articles that are well updated can be used on ITN. Thanks. --PFHLai 06:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think tomorrow's (17th April) ITN should say about the college massacre at virginia tech college?!(ColaRules 18:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC))

Please go to WP:ITN/C to post suggestions for ITN. Thanks. --PFHLai 06:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Kk, quick question. Why does User:Wikipedia redirect to the main page? 71.154.153.209 07:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikipedia is wikipedia, whose's page is the main page. Or something. Maybe... Nil Einne 07:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Schobeiri would be the one to ask. (S)he was the one who redirected it. ShadowHalo 08:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There actually was someone who registered that username and made a few edits before being blocked (obviously). [2] After that time, the page was created and deleted several times [3] before Schobeiri decided it would be best to have a redirect there. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

maybe a better redirect would be the Community Portal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.155.136.77 (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Why even redirect it at all? --Katherine Kaiquser 01:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Could put that in holidays and observances. DandyDan2007 17:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget Emancipation Day in Washington, too. --199.71.174.100 19:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Patriots Day is already added. Just added Emancipation Day for next year. --PFHLai 05:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the discovery of extra-solar water vapor on this planet really news-worthy anymore? It's been on for a really long time. EDIT-Forgot to sign. --Geoffron 19:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's not news-worthy.--Katherine Kaiquser 00:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you know of wikiarticles better updated with more recent news materials, please post them at WP:ITN/C. Thanks. --PFHLai 05:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It certainly is newsworthy, otherwise it would have been removed or not inserted in the first place. The only way for valid In The News items to be otherwise "removed" from the main page is for them to be pushed off the bottom of the list as newer items are added to the top. In The News isn't magic, it relies on people suggesting new items at WP:ITN/C. Recently there have been very few candidates for inclusion. As mentioned above, if you'd like to help out, please do. --Monotonehell 10:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Louis Vitton Cup is beginning this evening in Valancia, Spain. Perhaps someone should feature the America's Cup article as this is the third biggest sporting event in the world. Thank you. --Conner5553 12:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

America's Cup is not a featured article. ShadowHalo 13:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

maybe for ITN? --Howard the Duck 14:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Louis Vuitton Cup" article may become a featured article if someone (Conner5553 & friends?) can substantially expand and improve this article. Happy editing. :-) --PFHLai 15:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Instead of on the front page saying a school shooting, put the name of the gunman now that he's formally been identified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.98.125.108 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 2007 April 17 (UTC).

Suggestions for ITN are best discussed at WP:ITN/C. Thanks. --PFHLai 18:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a member but I forgot my user name, i wish to continue to contribute content to this section of Yahoo but I cannot sign in. Please help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.11.12.188 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 2007 April 17 (UTC).

If you remember what you've previously edited, you may want to go back to those articles and check the edit history.

Please feel free to start a new account. You are also welcome to edit in Wikipedia (not Yahoo) as an anonymous contributor. If you need further help, you may want to go to Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). Good luck. --PFHLai 19:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This should be added to the news section. --Kalmia 03:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A request has already been made to WP:ITN/C. However, the relevant article, Itchō Itō, has scant information. - BanyanTree 04:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Salicylism syndrome results from mild chronic intoxication of salicylates (e.g. aspirin, diflunisal etc.). It is characterized by headache, dizziness, ringing of the ears (tinnitus), difficulty in hearing, dimness of vision, mental confusion, lassitude, drowsiness, sweating, thirst, hyperventilation, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea.

Timoy Pacis, RPh —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.161.158.242 (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

This appears identical to that described by Salicylate sensitivity and I have redirect Salicylism and Salicylism syndrome as such. - BanyanTree 04:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's outdated. It currently points to m:Help:How_to_start_a_new_Wikipedia, which itself states to be obsolete. I'd like someone to change it to m:Meta:Language proposal policy since that is currently the correct policy. -The preceding signed comment was added by Nazgjunk (talk • contrib) 07:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the note. - BanyanTree 08:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a question: where would a discussion about putting this current event on the main page take place? Here or in the article concerning the federal ban itself? I think it's important enough to warrant inclusion on the main page.--Swattie 16:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You can use WP:ITN/C. --Howard the Duck 16:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The US Marine Corps featured Article 17 April. This article reads like a schoolboy scrapbook. Too much padding and obscure detail whilst missing key points. Much of the detail could be packed off to separate pages eg badges of rank. More pertinent information required eg the Corps problems with homosexuality, narcottics, war crimes and poor training so readers can benefit from Wikipedias ability to be up to date.Everef 21:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As stated in the banner at the top of the page, "This page is for discussing the Wikipedia page 'Main Page'." If you have comments about an article, please discuss it at that article's talk page. ShadowHalo 22:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is the standard for Feature Articles main page, has deteriorated considerably and the selection criteria seems to be nothing but 'is it good enough'. Why is the Wii on the front page? Are people really that uninformed about an electronics product that was released within the last year?--Dacium 02:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I have had no inclination to find out about it at all up until now, but, thanks to the FA, I know more today than I did yesterday. Bazza 12:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The only real criterion for a page to be the TFA is that it be a featured article. The whole point is to show off Wikipedia's best written articles, not the most interesting.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Dacium, if any of the featured article candidates is not up to your standards, please voice your opinion there, and please be encouraged to edit them to your satisfaction. This is a wiki. --PFHLai 18:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

They are up to standard, what I am saying that the main page shouldn't simply be a featured article. It should be an article about something of considerable encyclopedic value. Wii Information can be found anywhere easily. Information that is sources from books etc. is hard to find online. WP:Featured_articles, certain sections (namly Computers and video games) get to much attention. Consider all of world history and look how many history articles are featured... what 100 articles from all of world history, while video games have just about as many? Its really quite sad, but I guess that is the nature of a computer based encyclopedia, but it is surely the reason why academics don't take this site seriously, because you come to it and its featured article is Final Fantasy or Wii...--Dacium 21:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is easier for people to write about what they like than to force people to work on something they don't. aka Systematic bias. The Placebo Effect 21:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Look on the bright side: Wikipedia is pretty strong in fields that are not traditionally academic fields, and at the same time, we have many FAs on academic topics. I don't think Wikipedia is set up to cater to academics, but for the general public, or anyone who has internet access. Let's not worry about the few closed-minded academics up in the ivory tower. If you really think it's a problem, please be encouraged to work on articles in academic topics and get more of them featured. We'll read them, too. :-) --PFHLai 01:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Today's the day, after all... :) Oh, and apparently it was recognized by the City of San Diego in 2005: [4]. Mdiamante 23:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

... Well, not anymore, I suppose. Mdiamante 00:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have any information on National High Five Day. So there isn't a wikiarticle on this to put on MainPage. This also seems to be too minor, imo. --PFHLai 15:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi I've recently been usurped, and my contributions weren't copied. I was wondering if an admin or beurocrat could fix this. NOTE: My discussion page was copied, but not my contributions (EDIT: Well they were sent to User:Kkrouni, not Kkrouni usurped). (I was Sony trademark vs dell trademark before)--Kkrouni (usurped) 23:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Kkrouni! Just so you know, this isn't the place to post this. Try Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations. ffm ✎talk 00:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

_{moved to WP:ERRORS by ffm ✎talk on 13:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)}

Uh, no it isn't. Corvus cornix 20:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it was, its just since been removed. Check the history at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

How come when looking at the Main Page's history, the view is different then on other pages and there is no log button (though it's still accessible at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Main_Page ? --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 19:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This occurs because of some CSS designed to hide the word Main Page from the title. Apparently, this also hides other parts as well. ffm ✎talk 21:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

To all people who edit Wikipedia, what do you think is the best featured article? Hadz

Hadz, you'll get a better response at WP:VP. --74.14.19.53 22:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there this article in ITN? Russian to US tunnel. [5] [6], cause it would be nice, request? premisson to create? It will be called TKM-World Link. -- Pseudoanonymous 02:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ordinarily I'd suggest you make a suggestion at WP:ITN/C. But this one is a bit too much pie in the sky for now. There'd need to be a verifiable announcement from the authorities that it definitely was going ahead before it could be considered. Also the article has very little information. Not really ITN material. --Monotonehell 09:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeing the discussion thing above about Hitler's birthday, I wondered: could we perhaps have a separate page for birthdays, accessible from the Main Page? Say, a link to "Today's Birthdays" somewhere in the "On this day..." section, linking to a separate birthday page for each day in the year? I know it would be a significant task, and likely require a bit of arbitrary decisions on who deserves to be on such a page, but perhaps it could be constructed slowly, over the best part of the year, to relieve the workload somewhat. Nyttend 22:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure exactly what you have in mind. The very first bolded link shown on each "On this day" template already has a link to the date pages (e.g. April 21, April 22, etc). Are you suggesting that we split April 21#Births, April 22#Births , etc. to seperate pages? I would prefer to add ((birth date and age)) to each entry on those pages so it looks more like [7], [8] etc. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't aware of the births section on that page. However, I think it might well be a good idea to have a separate page for births, rather than making it a section of the other page. Nyttend 23:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we could transclude all of the sections of each day page. Corvus cornix 23:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the bithday section date pages and linking them on the main page as "Today's Bithdays" sounds good. Buc 09:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not link to Deaths also? Or also to Events? Because they're all already covered in the date page. There's no reason to add births/deaths/events to the main page when they're already one click away. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-23 14:35Z

Since the use of Parser Functions is now encouraged, I am requesting that the FA section's code be changed to: ((Wikipedia:Today's featured article/((#time:F j, Y)))) and the On this day section's code be changed to: ((Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/((#time:F n)))). Thanks, ~ Magnus animum _{(aka Steptrip)} 22:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The Main Page still uses the default magic word variables of the MediaWiki system: ((CURRENTMONTHNAME))}, ((CURRENTDAY))}, and ((CURRENTYEAR)). If these were actual templates, I might agree with you. But AFAIK, they take either about the same, or even less, processing time. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. I seemed to see, everywhere I turned, the sentence "This template is depricated please use m:ParserFunctions instead, but I didn't know that the same rule applied for Magic Words. ~ Magnus animum _{(aka Steptrip)} 23:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Magic words beat ParserFunctions at any time. Usually, they're server variables, or variables declared in LocalSettings.php, so they do not have to pass through the parser, as ParserFunctions do. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

the main page image for Dhaka has no source. it's from world66, a user generated site, but on that site, it has no authorship information, so our usage of it breaks the CC-BY license. bogdan 15:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced it with Image:Dhakarushhour (54).JPG. the wub "?!" 15:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice catch, bogdan. Quick fixing, wub. Good job !  :-) --PFHLai 19:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I'm not used to editing the Main Page so was triple checking everything! Is it protected? Yep. Is it still protected? Yep. It's still protected right? ;-) And yes, thanks for pointing it out bogdan. the wub "?!" 22:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

A Wikipedia error occurred at approximately 8:00 PM (+10:30 GMT) resulting in the Main Page being editable. However, so many people were editing it that it was very much a "the quick and the dead" sort of thing. ThirdEchelon 10:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So what exactly is being done about this? Marijuanarchy 10:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

How should I know, I'm just a lowly editor...? ThirdEchelon 10:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically, the account of an inactive admin was hijacked and compromised. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps not... Corvus cornix 20:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

HEELLLPPPP!!!!! SOMEONE'S REPLACED THE ENTIRE MAIN PAGE! SOMEBODY PLEASE (pardon my language) DAMN HIM FOR ETERNITY! --Ryanasaurus0077 10:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow... Who unprotected the Main Page? All things considered I think maybe it wasn't the best idea... Piet | Talk 10:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's fixed now. --60.228.55.167 10:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Erm...

Where IS the main page? It says it doesn't exist... Michaelritchie200 10:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Rogue admin? :O Mgiganteus1 10:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Im suing for emotional distress.--293.xx.xxx.xx 10:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a main page, it just happens to only consist of one word; Niggermayor.

I think someone's taken over an old account and is mucking around. Maybe a admin account as well, which makes it worse... Sentinel75 10:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What happened? I've never seen this. --zrulli 10:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My guess - Your Wikipedia A Splode. 212.219.142.161 10:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Even Portal:Main_Page is shot... whoever did it (assuming it was someone and not software going wild) knew what they were doing. Utopianheaven 10:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"how long can i keep this up" I like this guy :P(Mrutter 10:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC))

It's back, but the "edit this page" tag remains. This is what happens when you let people write stuff! Someone is always going to take advantage! Michaelritchie200 10:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we are under attack

I hope the admins know about this

How do we tell them? Now back to normal but unprotected. Sentinel75 10:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Did Stephen Colbert tell his fans to vandalize Wikipedia again? --293.xx.xxx.xx 10:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

some one is messing about!!

All is fixed now. --60.228.55.167 10:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Admins!!

No admins around???? Are they asleep? Madhava 1947 (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll keep watch over the page and revert any vandals. Karrmann 10:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted it back to an unvandalised state. Meh. Idiot vandals. Darkmind1970 10:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I reported him to WP:AIV --zrulli 10:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And David Levy saves the day!!!

good work man the attack was resolved in under 15 minutes thats nothing to be ashamed of

15 minutes seems incredibly long for the ******* main page... Piet | Talk 10:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason it took so long is because we don't have enough people who can respond to admins going crazy, because many people in the community feel that we "already have enough" b-crats and other similar positions. — Deckiller 10:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So Who Watches the Watchmen? --293.xx.xxx.xx 10:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The stewards watch the admins.--cj | talk 10:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrats can't revoke the sysop bit. This required a steward. —David Levy 10:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's right. Darr. — Deckiller 10:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't fix the problem. Jon Harald Søby did. —David Levy 10:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it regular practice to desysop admin's accounts soon after they've left? Sentinel75 10:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily unless they request it. Will (aka Wimt) 10:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Future policy suggestion, then... Sentinel75 10:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been suggested (and rejected) in the past. The general consensus was that a current admin's account is equally likely (if not more likely) to be hijacked than an inactive admin's account is. —David Levy 10:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess this isn't really the place to discuss such a matter but I for one think we should at least encourage admins to voluntary put their adminship on hold (with the option to request it to be 'unheld' without a VFA). While it may be true that an active admin's account is more likely to be hijacked, it's obviously a fact that the more admin accounts, the more targets we have. If we reduce the number of available accounts, there will be fewer targets and since it doesn't cause any harm, why not? Obviously this won't stop this kind of thing as there are still other accounts and a more sneaky person might be able to con people into reinstating the adminship anyway. But the way I see it, if we reduce the risk by 1/10 it's well worth it. Nil Einne 11:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Demoting inactive admins and Wikipedia:Inactive administrators (2005) for some previously rejected proposals. Note that neither of these would have affected a user who left the previous month. - BanyanTree 00:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Link to the request.[9] ElinorD (talk) 10:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So is there always a steward active? Is there a big red button somewhere to call them? Piet | Talk 10:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find a Wikipedia page about Stewards, only Wikimedia. Are all Stewards cross-Wiki roles? How do we go about suggesting we need more Stewards? --Dweller 10:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps we should propose that b-crats be given the powers to remove adminship status. That would be a very controversial proposal. — Deckiller 10:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah the list of stewards is at meta:Stewards and they operate across Wikimedia. Will (aka Wimt) 10:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Jon was notified about the incident through IRC (it seemed like a pretty good excuse to compromise my wikivacation). There was a lot of consternation at #wikipedia and yelling about finding an admin or steward, but apparently all one needed to do was to join #wikimedia-stewards and state the problem there. Seems like that's the closest we have to a Big Red Button right now, so maybe it should be better advertised.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict.) There is (or should be) always a steward or a developer online that could do emergency desysoppings like this. Go to #wikimedia-stewards, then write !steward, and someone should react within a few seconds. If they don't go to #wikimedia-tech and tell them about the problem. There is no need for more stewards at the present. Jon Harald Søby 11:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Just far the sake of the complete examination of the situation: given that there was a significant time gap betwen User:Robdurbar retiring from wikipedia and this burst of vandalism, is there any way in which we can tell if he did it? Has he been asked? Could his password have been compromised? Could his account have been hacked? If he ever wants to rejoin the project these are meaningful questions.--Anthony.bradbury 11:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There has been a checkuser request made - that might give some clue. Will (aka Wimt) 11:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

He does mention that he can be contacted via the "Email this user" link on the side. Trouble is....would the reciever be the previous user or the vandal? --293.xx.xxx.xx 11:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait, so admins can unblock themselves?[10] I never knew that and doesn't that defeat the purpose of an admin being blocked for 3RR or another rule that gets them a short block. I'm guessing admins are under an honor system that they will not unblock themselves or face de-desyoping? 128.227.57.24 16:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much, "wheel warring" ie the repeated undoing of admin actions by two or more admins, is seriously frowned upon and has in some cases resulted in desysoping--VectorPotential^Talk 16:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Uh, anyone know what's going on [11]? Looks like an oversight removed one or more edits. Can someone explain, or has this been mentioned? Also, should there be a checkuser to determine who hacked it? Explanation, please? PS.me no time to read I have to go. – AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?)} 23:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

They were just lost in the deletions and undeletions of the page. They were only regularly deleted, not oversighted, and are back now. Prodego ^talk 04:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

where is "Adolf Hitler is born" under "on this day" 65.1.27.111 04:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't do birthdays on the WP front page (unless it's a nice round number, like Leonhard Euler's 300th last Sunday) Otherwise, all the birthdays we would have to put on would dominate "on this day". Borisblue 05:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

See April 20#Births. --74.14.18.233 11:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the guidelines for selected anniversaries/"on this day", births and deaths can only be used on centennials, etc. Hitler is only 118 years old. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Madness? THIS IS SPARTA!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by The monkeyhate (talk • contribs)

How did I know that would happen? It did take longer then I thought it would, though. --LuigiManiac 17:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if someone who had athority here could put somthing about how this is a reliable site on a page here becasue teachers say that this is not reliable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chessmaster3 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC).

Your teacher has a point, if he or she is saying that you shouldn't cite it in papers. See Criticism of Wikipedia. - BanyanTree 12:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

And indeed, this is NOT a reliable site... It might refer to reliable sources, but this is NOT a reliable SITE. Oh my God! - irrªtiºnal 16:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia. You shouldn't be citing encyclopedias at all. The Wikipedia is very helpful for giving you a general idea about a topic and for pointing towards reliable sources, though. The References section at the bottom of many articles is great. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Wikipedia is of course different to other 'pedias because it's not paper. The depth that Wikipedia goes into on many subjects, with individual articles on the early lives of historical figures, hundreds of elections, books, songs, concepts within concepts, famous sketches from TV shows, etc., not to mention the WikiProjects co-ordinating work on specialist subjects, makes the coverage seem anything but general in my view. --AdamSommerton 22:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, why does that mean that you should suddenly be citing it? It has a lot of depth, therefore it is reliable? I didn't say the coverage was general, I said it shouldn't be used as a reference. No teacher/professor/instructor above high school level would accept an encyclopedia as a source, and many high school ones won't either. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone seen the vandalism in this guys contribs? Ironic :) 81.77.73.180 19:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Which guy?--74.13.127.204 07:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is no more unreliable, and probably less, than any other mass media outlet: television, newspapers, books, magazines, radio. Usually you get information from one person or group, but since Wikipedia is written by anyone it's more trustworthy, not less as some might think. That's my two cents anyway. --AdamSommerton 11:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Who called the Teacher a Teacher! It appears to me that any document submitted for assessment should itself be checked for reliability. That is to say the Teacher should give credit to the writer and examine the document content and mark accordingly. If a 15 year old knows someting they claim to be a fact and therefore accurate - any adult or Teacher should understand that just maybe the 15 year old is right. Seek the correct answer and give credit or learn something new! ANCORA IMPARO.

To play devil's advocate, a lot of the content in this encyclopedia is reliable. You just have to know how to use it and know that citing it may not be the best thing to do. Overall, though, it have good content that is for the most part, reliable, but should be taken as if it were actually not reliable. Be skeptical about what you read here! _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  12:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

For the article count, why is it 1,750,344 and not 1.750.344? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.170.51.155 (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

The Manual of Style for Wikipedia tells us to use commas, as this follows the common practice in the English language. timrem 22:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

For more detail on why, see Decimal separator. —Cuiviénen 04:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, everyone, on having over 1¾ million articles! Keep up the good work; we're almost to 2 million! Does anyone know what article 1,750,000 was? 68.162.53.85 03:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't keep track of these things...do we?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

We used to. Maybe on the 2-millionth article... --Howard the Duck 07:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

While the number is large, and the quantity of subjects is something to behold. The fact that many of those articles are poor stubs, newspaper style reports or not near FA status is more of a concern. Quality over quantity! --Monotonehell 09:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the current look of the main page. It's classy and elegant, and not at all flashy. However, some may consider it a bit boring (actually, so do I...). It's interesting to note that the English wikipedia is one of the simpler main pages, like the German and French main pages. However, some other languages, like the Indonesian are more colorful (and more friendly), and full of icons. The Italian Wikipedia is downright shiny. I read somewhere on this talk page that the main page is periodically revamped. When will this happen again? How can I get involved? I suppose it could be tedious and time-consuming, but probably a lot of fun. Thoughts? Goldfritter 09:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Use some of the Wikipedia:Main_Page_alternatives as your personal main page. ffm ✎talk 11:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That's a nice and simple way to put someone down. =/ . I don't want to customise my Wikipedia. I want to improve everyone's Wikipedia. I go back to my previous question: Is the main page going to get redone in the foreseeable future? Or should I leave it alone? Goldfritter 12:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It was redone a few months ago, so I don't see it being redone in the near future, may be in 2008. IMHO the Main Page is fine enough, I don't like flashly pages, since it distracts attention away from the content. --Howard the Duck 12:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

To Howard: thanks. To FireFoxMan: sorry - that was uncalled for. I realise that you're just trying to help. Goldfritter 13:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"A few months ago" is actually "over a year ago" now. If there is enough support for it being redone, i could see it happening, but be warned that people only like incremental changes. —Cuiviénen 12:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And thanks, again. Where would people go to show their support? To be honest, I think that we should wait a few more months, but if it could happen now, that would also be cool. Goldfritter 13:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(reindent)Check out some of the links in Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Is there some way to make the Main Page look better? I'm certainly not going to reopen months of discussion over multiple options requiring six archives back when the user base was much smaller, but that's just me. As I recall, consensus opinion back then explicitly stated their distaste of Italian Wikipedia's design, so it may be worth checking out details before proposing it as a template. Cheers, - BanyanTree 19:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The look of the Dutch Main page has recently changed: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoofdpagina. On its talk page a few alternatives are shown. Wiki-uk 09:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Gradient overload. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate it when TFAs get so long one day, and the other sections on the main page don't adjust accordingly to fit the screen. --74.13.127.204 07:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note that it's impossible to cater to all fonts and screen sizes. What looks fine on your monitor may look unbalanced on another, or vice versa. When MainPage appears to be out of balance, with a big void on one side, please let admins know at WP:ERRORS. Sometimes an old DYK or ITN item can be pruned to reduce the difference in length between the two sides. Thanks. --PFHLai 12:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Out of interest, what are we going to do when the number of archives of the main page talk reaches 100? It will do so in a few weeks - do we expand the box, add a page or... what? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Just expand the box to include 101 through 110--VectorPotential^Talk 16:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually if you look at the code for the box, it's already there. It just has to be uncommented or something Nil Einne 17:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I added the next line in after we were on archive 94 or so, IIRC. ffm ✎talk 00:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you expect ? The same thing we did for the 1 000 000-th article ? :-) --74.14.18.233 11:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Party like it's 1999! Vanderdecken: don't worry the issue is at hand. But the question to ask is when will long be too long? When will the archive box outgrow this talk page? --Monotonehell 13:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess we will just have to archive the archives! We will just have to put a link to Archives 1-100 or 1-50 at the top, and the rest will stay like it is. ffm ✎talk 13:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

How about keeping it simple like what I've just done? Feel free to revert, I'm just being bold. --Monotonehell 09:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

YOUR BOLDNESS SHALL NOT BE TOLERATED... uh... personally, I like it with the archives showing, regardless of how long it is. We can always shrink the font size. Gracenotes^T § 21:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I continue to be bold *chest forward*! ;) I like it with them showing also, but we're talking long term here when the list becomes very large. I'm unsure if smaller font sizes are a good idea, depending on people's monitor/resolutions, but why not give it a try and see what you can do with it? (be bold yourself) --Monotonehell 10:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Instead of nano-fonts, perhaps we can use a mini-scrollbar. Just a thought. --PFHLai 20:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

We tried a scroll bar recently with the TOC, it was not well received to say the least. :( --Monotonehell 11:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

May as well try it... we'll see if there are any complaints. Gracenotes^T § 13:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

...that Julian Salomons was the only chief justice in New South Wales to resign before he was sworn into office? Yeah now I'm wondering how i can sleep tonight. --Fertuno 16:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia is a global tool, but must there be a reference to cricket in every single day's "Did You Know" section? HiramShadraski 18:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement for a cricket article in every single DYK. However DYK, as with all things we feature on the main page are strongly dependent on what contributors contribute. In the case of DYKs in particlar, it is fairly common that we get a rush of newly created/improved articles in one particular topic when a contributor decides to work towards them. This happened a month or two ago with Eurovision songs for example. For balance reasons, there should generally not be more then one DYK on one particular topic per refresh. Therefore, when we get a load of nominations for one topic, you will usually see one for every DYK until it runs out. For some topics and areas, cricket, India, the US, Australia for example, there are a lot of contributors interested in these subjects so we tend to get a lot of DYKs in these areas anyway. Nil Einne 18:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was being a little facetious, of course. It just seems like there's been quite a lot of cricket lately.... HiramShadraski 22:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't be surprised if Brian Lara makes it to ITN, lol. --Howard the Duck 06:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

i dont know what im doing or what this wikipedia thing does. would someone like to explain? i thought it was a encylopedia when all it looks like is a place to "post" comments of some sort... makes me wonder if the stuff i read off this so called "encyclopedia" is even true...

i dont understand....

Oh so andrea 12:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Nil Einne 13:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh so andrea, you are here on Talk:Main Page where we discuss the contents on Main Page of this encyclopedia. Every encyclopedic article in Wikipedia has such a discussion page for contributors of each page to discuss how to improve the article. Please visit Wikipedia:Community Portal to find out more about contributing to Wikipedia. There are links to various help pages and other resources. If you need assistance, please type ((helpme)) on User Talk:Oh so andrea, your own user talkpage for communicating with other contributors. Hope this helps. --PFHLai 13:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this happening only to me? Currently on my computer the text of TFA doesn't wrap at all; instead it rolls right through the In the News block and continues on one line...I have to scroll horizontally through several screens to see it all.

This may be my old software (IE 5 on Mac OS9) but I don't think so — it's only happening with the TFA, and only in the last few days — maybe something from that vandal attack mentioned above? DYK and OtD also "overflow" their frames for me, but they wrap and are legible. I'm running the default skin btw. —Turangalila talk 14:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Just giving you guys a heads up. JHMM13 19:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Where?--74.13.128.93 03:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problems right now. In future, please post a note at WP:ERRORS (above) for such problems with MainPage templates. Response is usually quicker there. Thanks. --PFHLai 13:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Could someone replace the Iraq bombings with the Virginia Tech massacre as the bombings hold little importance. Christopher Connor 22:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm? Skittle 22:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Importance to whom? Are you speaking for a majority of people in wikipedia? I think that 198 human beings dieing is more tragic and more serious than 33 people dieing, though both are very serious. Other wise, you are being nothing more than an arrogant racist person with no concern for human life, regardless if it happens to be Iraqis blowing each other up Shame on you. Both are very important, none more so, but more people dieing does in fact equal more importance. Tourskin 23:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Compare the media coverage of both events (and also the interest in editing their respective articles) and you'll understand. Christopher Connor 00:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to American media or international media? Keep in mind that Wikipedia is an international website, and there is a large percentage of its users who do not live in the United States. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Both, really. Bombings in Iraq happen so often that not many would be interested in them (or at least, not as interested than in a school shooting). Christopher Connor 00:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason why this particular bombing is unique is described in the line you're asking to remove. Also, you don't appear to understand how ITN works. Things which qualify for ITN are added in chronological order and removed as needed when new ones are added. We don't selectively remove newer ones which we judge 'less important' while preserving older ones which are 'more important' because amongst other things this sort of importance ranking opens up a whole host of issues there is no need to deal with. We already have enough problems deciding whether something should be on ITN in the first place. Nil Einne 02:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well for starters, wasn't the Iraqi bombings the latest news? It caused lots of casualties and even from an American point of view, which, I living in America (though being British) still find very important since it updates us on the war that Britain and America has participated, that virtually all English speaking countries, like Australia, Canada and so forth have participated in. School shootings happen in America all the time so that no one would be interested in them. Did you see what I just did? I turned your logical fallacy against that opinion. Iraqi bombings happen alot . So do High School shootings in America, compared to other High Schools around the world any ways. (As far as I know).Tourskin 03:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please keep both off ITN. The ITN guidelines say there should be 3 to 5 items only. There are SIX items now. Please stick to the rules and remove one. BTW, why is DYK sooooooo long these days? --74.13.128.93 03:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

These aren't hard and fast "rules". There are six listed because it fits with the length of the featured article. —Centrx→talk • 03:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Both the bombing and the shooting have been removed as they are old news and were displaced by newer items.

I would like to adhere to the ITN guidelines and trim off the sixth and oldest item. However, this would lead to a left-right imbalance on MainPage, as DYK currently has too many items there. The DYK guidelines call for 5 to 8 items, but somehow there are 9 right now when 5 would be sufficient. --PFHLai 14:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Both ITN & DYK have been trimmed and now conform with their respective guidelines regarding length. --PFHLai 22:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Why was my comment deleted?Tourskin 05:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fyre appears to have missed an edit conflict [12] Nil Einne 06:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Now restored, along with quite a few other comments that were somehow removed. --PFHLai 12:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah geeze, I'm really sorry. What I think happened, I had been looking through the page history and accidentally edited an older revision. Please accept my sincere apologies for any problems this caused.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's one of the biggest discoveries of the century and it doesn't even get mentioned on the main page.... wow.... 01:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zazaban (talk • contribs).

For suggestions on "In the news", please post a message on WP:ITN/C. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Gliese 581 c should be listed in Portal: current events. To get mentioned on the main page, the relevant articles in wikipedia must first be updated. Wow, what? Start working! When you are done with the updating, please post a message on WP:ITN/C. Thanks. --74.13.128.93 03:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's on ITN now. --PFHLai 12:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). --13:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The (more...) link at the end of the Featured Article is gone. Was this intentional? It now looks like the opening paragraph is the sum total of the article. 129.22.194.137 15:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it was removed since you can now click the title to get to the article (although having "(more...)" might be a better idea). --Howard the Duck 17:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Humm...looking through the templates, it wasn't in yesterday's either, nor any of the upcoming ones. Can't find an explanation anywhere, though.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is how it used to be, until a number of people (including me) pointed out that this led people inexperienced with Wikipedia (such as myself when I first visited) to think that the first paragraph was all there was, and not know where to click for the rest of the article. The 'more' was added, and I have not seen anyone complain about it since (although some did complain that it was unnecessary at the time it was proposed). So why has it vanished now? It is not intuitive that the first word should be a link to the article, if you are not experienced in wikiways. Skittle 22:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We should bring it back it. People seem to forget that 95% of our readers have never edited an article, and are more clueless than the most clueless newbies one would encounter on RC patrol. Yes, redundancy may be against our beautiful programming geek aesthetic, but the readers should come first.--Pharos 03:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The more link at the end of the summary, that usually links to the featured article itself, seems to have vanished. I assume this is an error, since I haven't seen this change (reducing accessibility to new users) discussed anywhere. Skittle 22:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if it is an error or it is done deliberately because the last one to have the more link was the April 22 FA. Every one since then, including the new ones added to this month's queue that have yet to appear, do not have it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It is no accident. Sine we added it, I've never been particularly fond of it. It makes scheduling them easier and less error prone. IMO, it didn't add much and was redundant. Raul654 00:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I know you've never been fond of it, but it's only redundant to people who are familiar with Wikipedia. The main page is aimed at new and inexperienced users especially, surely? I've searched, but I can't find the removal discussed anywhere. 217.43.138.193 10:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Without the "more" it looks like the summary is the whole article. You could read the summary, think "nice article", and then move on without realising there was more to read. Clicking on the first word, or the bolded word, is not intuitive. I think the "more..." bit should be restored. Carcharoth 13:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with every point in Carcharoth's argument, and add that even as an experienced user, I find the "more" helpful as a reminder that the article is merely a summary. I didn't even know for the first few months I was on Wikipedia that the feature wasn't just the first few paragraphs of the article. New users in particular will not be aware that by definition, a Wikipedia featured article is extensive. Lawikitejana 21:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll add my name to the list of people advocating the restoration of the "more" link (or something similar). As stated above, this is an important indication that text visible on the main page isn't the entire article (something not obvious to all readers). —David Levy 03:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Count me in as well. Please, sir, I want some "(more...)" at the end of TFA templates on MainPage, even if Oliver Twist is not a featured article (yet). I click that link at the end more often than I click the first one. --PFHLai 12:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The "anyone can edit" portion of "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" on the Main Page links to Wikipedia:Introduction. While Wikipedia:Introduction appears to be a normal page, it in fact is a sandbox where people are encouraged to edit the page with what ever content they choose. It doesn't seem appropriate to provide a Main page link directly to a posting such as this or an advertisement for their company. -- Jreferee 15:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your objection. You seem to be complaining that anyone can edit the page with whatever content they choose, and so the page might contain something inappropriate. How is this different from any other (unprotected) page on the wiki? – Gurch 10:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Jreferee wants that 'sandbox' at Wikipedia:Introduction raked clean more often/regularly. 'Inappropriate' content will be removed quickly, as in any other unprotected wikipage. --PFHLai 12:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Often, when an article about a subject such as Scooby Doo is featured, there's no free images which can illustrate the topic, and fair use images aren't allowed. Nevertheless, the page feels unbalanced without an image in the top left since every other section has one. Therefore, what about using Image:Featured article star.svg? It's not perfect by any means, but at least it keeps the main page feeling balanced. I've created a test here, demonstrating how it could work. Laïka 16:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Image:Featured article star.svg is the logo for "Today's featured article" (see Wikipedia:Featured_articles), your proposal make sense and I agree with your proposal. You might want to run your proposal by Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests. -- Jreferee 16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

How about a pic of a Great Dane that looks like Scooby Doo? --Howard the Duck 16:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

When there's absolutely no way around it, Raul (the FA director) regularly allows fair use images. -- Zanimum 17:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Or not, I see. I thought you were referring to an upcoming FA, but I see it's already happened. -- Zanimum 17:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think what's being discussed is a Main Page policy. Fair Use seems increasingly unpopular among the higher ups, but AFAIK it isn't a bar to FA status. On the Main Page, though, FU images are verboten. —Turangalila talk 19:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be good because it would make the readers think that the Star has something to do with Scooby doo itself. Just an opinion. Tourskin 05:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

When there's no free images that can illustrate the topic, then fair use images are allowed. But some Wikipedians believe that in order to communicate the freeness of the encyclopedia, we must only have free content on the main page. This doesn't apply, however, to the Featured Articles themselves—one click away—which are meant to showcase Wikipedia's very best work. Not all of us agree with this bizarre double standard. Despite the opinions of a few in power, there is no community consensus that non-free content is banned from the the main page, as the recent survey indicates. So no, we shouldn't have used a gold star; we should have used an image representative of the cartoon. Punctured Bicycle 21:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, why are there " " marks for Operation "Law and Order". These are unnecessary and seem to be mocking the name a violation of NPOV. I know its not exactly critical, but taking sides in the Iraq war is a serious violation of NPOV. Tourskin 21:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Quotation marks removed. The irony doesn't really need to be highlighted. - BanyanTree 05:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A few days ago, there was a request at WP:ERRORS and also at ITN/C to have "L&O" italicised. I looked up the article and saw that "L&O" was indeed in italics there, so I made the change on ITN. I have no clue how the italicizing became double inverted commas or why "L&O" is no longer in italics in the article. Very strange..... --PFHLai 22:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

AP article states that Boris Yeltsin has died. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obit_yeltsin;_ylt=An88RF.zxC.sVla5D_NcsFG79LQF —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.168.7.243 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

As does his article, and the In The News section. Is something missing? – Gurch 14:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

199.168.7.243 probably wanted to suggest adding this news item to ITN at the same time when ITN was being updated with this by someone else. 199.168.7.243 should have posted the suggestion at WP:ITN/C. --199.71.174.100 23:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the bot time stamp 2 minutes b4 the ITN update infact. But you're right, this should been suggested at ITN/C where discussion was starting to take place Nil Einne 12:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Actualy he is died at age 77, not 76. Also I live in Russia @by DarthRahn|talk on 04:16, February 28, 2024 (UTC)

Pls "correct" that "mistake" in Yeltsin's article, DarthRahn. BTW, the timestamp in your signature doesn't work. Pls fix that as well. Thanks. --74.13.128.93 04:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Does not work? What do you mean? @by DarthRahn|talk on 04:16, February 28, 2024 (UTC)

I explained why he's 76 on the article's talk page. MaxSem 20:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The time & date in the timestamp should indicate when you posted your message, not the current time, whenever that may be. --74.13.127.253 20:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Persian Wikipedia has reached 20000 article, would you please update your main page?--Pejman47 00:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, it's still 5,000 short. ShadowHalo 00:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

you are right, I thought your threshold was 20000. (It seems you had changed it some times ago)--Pejman47 01:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... there are only 9 (nine) admins at the Persian Wikipedia [13] ;D Camptown 20:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The featured picture says "first photograph of a person". Don't you mean by a person. Its a photo of a street not of a person. Although having written this, all photogrphs are "by a person", unless you count the earlier time consuming lab methods as having not been taken by a person. Whatever its suppose to mean, to me it doesn't make much sense, and would kindly ask anyone to tell me what its trying to say.Tourskin 03:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The guy in the lower left corner is apparently the first human ever to appear in a photograph. --74.13.129.24 04:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The first photograph by a person (that survives) was Image:View from the Window at Le Gras, Joseph Nicéphore Niépce.jpg. This is the first one known to actually contain a human being in it. howcheng {chat} 06:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The exception is a man in the lower left corner, who stood still getting his boots polished long enough to show." I'd like to note that that the photograph includes two people, the person getting a shoe shine and the person giving a show shine. Surely the shoe shiner counts as a person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.211.90.75 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 27 April 2007

Apparently not, in those days anyways (bad joke). Thanks.Tourskin 16:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The person doing the shining doesn't appear because (presumably) he was moving around too much. The photo required a ten-minute exposure, so anything that's wasn't still for most of that period doesn't show up (such as the traffic on the street). howcheng {chat} 16:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It really seems to me that the front page features a disproportionally large number of articles relating to the game of cricket, people who play cricket, and things done by fans of cricket. Living in the western part of the United States, I don't even know if it's possible for me to view a cricket match, yet somehow (thanks to Wikipedia) I know more about the sport than would generally be considered healthy for someone from the colonies. What say we ratchet it down a bit and let some other subjects float up into the spotlight for a while? VictorTyne 09:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a factor of systemic bias. There's a lot of editors involved in cricket related articles and a major competition is currently being held. As a result a lot of cricket related items are put forward for main page inclusion. There's also a lot of these cricket related suggestions that get rejected. If you would like to see more other topics in ITN for example, you can help by finding suitable articles on Wikipedia, having a look at the criteria and submitting some. --Monotonehell 10:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The CWC's championship match is today so that'll explain it. --Howard the Duck 11:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It was a specific request Raul654 16:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There's been an earthquake in England, at 8:18 am this morning, at least 4.3. While it may be piddly in terms of recent earthquakes this is ENGLAND - we don't get them!!! http://uk.news.yahoo.com/skynews/20070428/tuk-earthquake-shakes-southern-england-45dbed5.html Lady BlahDeBlah 10:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

We do get numerous every week but can't be felt, I have no idea why this has to do with the main page or in the News. AxG ҈ ^►talk 10:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The item has been suggested for inclusion into In The News here Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates but it needs to be brought up to a standard so we can work out if it's on international interest or importance first. The article to get up to standard is here 2007 Kent earthquake. Please help if you can. --Monotonehell 11:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia has reached 200,000 article, would you please update your main page? Dazissimo 17:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The next tier is "more than 250,000 articles." The Spanish Wikipedia is up to 228,216 articles. —David Levy 17:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the second time this has happened. Moving goal posts! I wonder if any of the language Wikipedias will be unfortunate enough to have this prize moved away from them at just the speed they are growing at... (yes, I know, quality, not quantity). Carcharoth 00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you will see the goal constantly moved. The whole idea is there are not more than there already are on the main page. To keep this many there is a constant increase in the goals.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dacium (talk • contribs) 01:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Should be included in the Bronze Soldier part. Christopher Connor 00:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. A link to 2007 Estonian unrest is now on ITN as suggested. Please post future suggestions for ITN at WP:ITN/C. Thanks. --PFHLai 05:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's now off Mainpage due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Estonian unrest. --PFHLai 08:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Today 5 of the 7 suspected bomb plotters were jailed for life on terrorism charges. The article currently covering this is Operation Crevice. What the consensus putting this in the 'in the news' list? Jamie 15:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The place to ask would be WP:ITN/C. ShadowHalo 15:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed a small defect on the POTD. A dust spot IMO. I removed it as the POTD is locked I uploaded the edited picture at Media:Catoptrophorus semipalmatus edit-cleaned.jpg. Ericd 22:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any difference between that and Image:Catoptrophorus semipalmatus edit.jpg. Maybe it got uploaded over the old pic by now? Carcharoth 00:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No ! Compar both pictures at full res. You will notice a small spot on the neck. Ericd 00:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Yes! Well-spotted. This is not really the right place to get the correct image uploaded though. Maybe ask over at Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures? Carcharoth 00:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thread started here. Carcharoth 00:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want people to think that wiki is just brushing this under the carpet... God forbid.

-G

Jeez, man. Before you accuse people of having political motives behind everything they do, stop and think for a moment. It could be an accident. It could be an oversight. Or it could just be that the world doesn't revolve around the USA, and that Wikipedia is trying to represent a more global, cosmopolitan, multi-cultural attitude. Seriously, it's an inappropriate way to express your political views, by setting yourself up on some pedestal and accusing others of evils without assuming good faith. Chill, dude. LordAmeth 23:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which works by contributions from anyone. Your pet story hasn't appeared firstly because Wikipedia is an enyclopedia, not a news service. If you're interested in breaking news why not report it at wikinews which is our sister project for just that. Secondly, if this news turns into something that an encyclopedia should have an article on, as was the case last year volunteers will create an article. There's no centralised control at Wikipedia that is responsible for brushing anything under the carpet. If an article is written about a subject it's firstly because someone cares enough to contribute it and secondly because it's a topic worth documenting by an encyclopedia (not a news service). --Monotonehell 23:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is most people don't even know about Wikinews. I never knew about any of WP's sister projects until I actually became an established editor. Even then, I still don't edit a lot anywhere else except for here. Therefore, one should take this into consideration when dealing with inexperienced people. Please try not to bite the anons.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 23:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if people are not aware of wikinews (which is linked to on the main page in ITN), they should be aware that this is an encyclopaedia not a news site. Besides that, I would suggest anyone who has visited the wikipedia main page more then say 5 times in several weeks and is aware of world events should know that we don't always mention undoutedly important events for a variety of reasons Nil Einne 07:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a wiki. Go to Portal:Current events and start typing, G. --74.13.124.59 00:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Today, LAPD fired into pro immigration rally during the day of mass peaceful immigration reform marches.

-G

G, you are probably looking for Portal:Current events or Wikinews. Please go there to post news headlines. Not every news story gets mentioned on the main page. Please see Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page. --74.13.124.59 07:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

moved to Foucault Pendulum vector diagrams Nil Einne 20:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone redirected this to Mainpage-url and it's been vandalised, it's fixed now but can sum1 protect it.--User:Rock2e ^{Talk - Contribs} 20:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The link to the page unredirected is here and is still unprotected.--User:Rock2e ^{Talk - Contribs} 20:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

some admin decided to break it, I guess they were bored or something – Gurch 20:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not as simple as about a protest against a government. This is popular opinion on one hand, but also a powerful military threatening - in public - a government. This is about a country that after a 1960 military coup (one of many), passed in 1961 into their constitution that the military have political power through a security council. i.e. a more descriptive heading would have all three heads involved, public opinion, the military threatening the government, and the government. --Leladax 23:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please draft a new headline and post your suggestion at WP:ITN/C. --74.14.17.57 03:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a forum where all the users of wikipedia can chat generally (not rude things!)or just "hang out" if not i think there should be a link on the main page discussing general things on wikipedia and other user privilages. This might then encourage more users to join wikipedia and other projects. Wiki.user 20:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Try WP:CHAT or WP:VP. --74.13.126.166 21:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at the main page and it made me wonder, how do I delete my account? -- 05:25, 2007 May 5 (UTC)

JohnOw, it's odd that looking at MainPage would give you such an idea..... Too much wikistress ?

I'm afraid Wikipedia accounts cannot be deleted, as edits you've made will always be attributed to you / your account. (See m:Right to vanish.) Maybe it would be easier to just take a wikibreak and come back whenever.

Hope this helps. --PFHLai 06:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

In DYK, Philadelphian is spelled wrong. DandyDan2007 07:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Admins can work on this faster if this was posted at WP:ERRORS. --Howard the Duck 11:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I clicked tomorrow's main page on the discussion page for the Main Page, and the featured article for tomorrow, is the same as for today, fix it!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brent Ward (talk • contribs) 20:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC) [14]

It's not. Try purging your cache (Ctrl-F5). —Cuiviénen 22:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The format of this talk page keeps changing. Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnOw (talk • contribs)

Someone sees a need. Someone finds a solution. Someone decides to be bold and implement changes to meet the need with the solution. That's life on the wiki. --74.14.21.93 05:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the maintainers keep trying to improve the usability(!), and lower the quantity of people posting unrelated comments here, or appropriate comments in the wrong section. The constantly changing height/width of the TableofContents makes many potential designs impossible, so various compromises are continually attempted (with different editors giving different designs aimed at what they think the various target audiences need here). That's my hypothesis, at least. Just be grateful we don't let the overeager helpers redesign the Main page as easily/often ;) --Quiddity 05:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This page used to have some interesting banter. We were always told it "wasn't the place for it." But really, what does it matter? (And I'll be leaving this post unsigned, too. Please don't add a sig for me. I know how to do it and I often do it of my own volition. But when I don't add my sig, I don't want it added by you.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnOw (talk • contribs) 17:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

You should always sign your posts on talkpages, otherwise discussion threads can become very confusing.

It is a bot that adds the unsigned template, you're welcome to replace it with you actual sig, but please don't just remove it. --Quiddity 18:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, no. I don't have to sign my posts. I've been through this before. I don't need an account to comment on this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnOw (talk • contribs) 02:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't need an account, nor are you compelled to sign your posts with your account's name, however you do need to at least demarcate your post from others somehow to avoid confusion over who said what. But since you do have an account why not sign your posts? Or log out and use your IP to sign? Why be disruptive? --Monotonehell 08:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

My comments are "demarcated" by setting them apart with colons. So kindly f—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnOw (talk • contribs) 14:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't work if conversations become long-winded and people decide to put a little white space in their text to make it more readable. Without some kind of tag, it can be anything consistent, it just makes it hard to know who's saying what and when. --Monotonehell 09:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)