Talk:Main Page: Difference between revisions

Sections of this page older than three days are automatically archived

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 23:23 on 26 December 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Next DYK

• ... that some anarchists reject adjectives?

As the article makes clear, no, that is not at all what "anarchism without adjectives" means. I can hardly think of a less appropriate use of DYK than to feature a term with a non-intuitive meaning paired with a false claim that it does in fact mean what it superficially appears to. -Elmer Clark (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm also confused by this. My recommendation is to pull it, but I'll leave that decision to somebody else. RoySmith (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I've substituted the hook with ALT1. Schwede66 22:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me! -Elmer Clark (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(December 27, tomorrow)

• At "and The Indigo Disk taking place", the link is to a redirect.

Pls swap link from

[[Pokémon Scarlet and Violet: The Hidden Treasure of Area Zero#Part 2: The Indigo Disk|''The Indigo Disk'']] :to:

[[The Hidden Treasure of Area Zero#Part 2: The Indigo Disk|''The Indigo Disk'']] ie (The Indigo Disk)

(I think that's right.) And season's greetings to our wonderful main page admins! JennyOz (talk) 09:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. There were in fact two dab links, and I've addressed them both. Schwede66 22:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Monday's FL

(December 30)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

Tomorrow's POTD

• In blurb first sentence at "to study human movement under simulator lunar gravity conditions" the word "simulator" should be 'simulated'. JennyOz (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

General discussion

Powderfinger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both. The problem is we don't have enough contributers in other areas. More different people with different expertise and knowledge bases contributing will mean more different DYK candidates to choose from. If Kitchen Knife wants, we can have many DYKs about knives. Get working on articles on your favorite topics, everyone. --74.13.131.144 05:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Curious question about Donation

What determines how full the green donation bar is? Is it the number of people or the amount of money? Tourskin 19:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

People. Well numbers of donations technically, since a person could be counted multiple times if they made multiple donations. Dragons flight 21:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

ok thanksTourskin 23:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Money is an intresting thing. Some people have alot of it, others don't. Some people use to much of it, while others clean up the mess they make. Money is actually important as more and more things are being given prices. Things like getting braces, some may argue that it should be free for your child to have braces and i happen to be one of those people. Teeth are very important and with be with you for the rest of your life so the National Health people should pay for children to have braces no matter what. Some children havent been brought up with loads of money and have appauling teeth which need braces, but as they can not afford it, they have to live there lives with teeth that may cause alot of problems in the future. Others argue that the National Health is being sensible by not paying for everyone to have braces if needed, because if the children looked after there teeth, less of these issues would happen! User [PoppyH] Parent of two girls] If you argree with what i have said then please comment below! (PoppyHitchen 15:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC))

I really don't want to make you feel unwelcome, but it might be a good idea to review WP:SOAP. Thanks! Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 20:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't be feeding the trolls and we shouldn't be commenting. Oh wait that includes me huhTourskin 07:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI: but if you really cared that much, and you knew that either you, or your significant other had a family history that displayed genetic tendencies of developing bad teeth, wouldn't it be better to just not have children since that is, indeed, still free? 68.143.88.2 18:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That's funny. (funny as in laughing funny) ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 03:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Alot is not a word, and "there" is used when you're talking about a place, "their" refers to something belonging to something. Aaadddaaammm 03:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

To is also used incorrectly. BTW, my parents both have great teeth, as do I and one of my sisters, yet my other one has a 2 centimeter overbite, which is costing us $10,000 and 2 years to fix, though there has been no "genetic tendencies" of developing bad teeth. And also, you're saying that people shouldn't have kids, the joy of many people's lives and the hope of the human race, because they can't pay for braces? Sickening and pathetic, dude...Ben 01:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs their sarcasm detector adjusted.... 157.127.124.15 14:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the best hope for the human race is probably if people on the whole have less kids not more Nil Einne 13:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Active cursor in search box

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured picture too controversial

Please remove the picture of a dead Chinese soldier from the main page. It's common decency not to display a dead body in such a ghastly manner. Featuring this picture so prominently on the main page of Wikipedia offends the Chinese people and every fair-minded individual of any nationality. Being able to edit the main page of Wikipedia is a great responsibility, and I highly recommend anyone who has been entrusted with it to examine himself for any trace of vulgarity, insensitivity and prejudice as often as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hai Huang (talk • contribs) 07:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

See heading "Shocking" above. 128.227.55.145 07:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

And the content disclaimer. MER-C 07:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

And the Frequently Asked Question about whether Wikipedia is safe for young people. --slakr^\ talk / 07:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks both, but as long as a selected few are allowed to editorialize on the main page, I don't think I need to bother too much about the technicalities when lodging my protest. No offense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hai Huang (talk • contribs) 08:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The content of the Main Page is selected on the quality of the articles and images themselves. If you do not feel that a particular article or image is of high quality, please voice your concerns at featured picture nominations for delisting and featured article review. I assure you there is no main page cabal, and if there is, I wasn't invited into it :(. Hopefully this helps. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 09:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, this guy really doesn't like this pic [1] 128.227.55.145 08:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Who likes to see the dead body of a fellow man?

Yea its so much better to pretend people don't die in wars. 128.227.55.145 08:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The reality argument again? See heading "Shocking" above, or just go on with this type of reality education for your children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.153.21 (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and that includes for children. That's one of the main policies policies of Wikipedia. If parents wish to censor their children's access to internet content, they are free to do so, but Wikipedia does not do that job for them. --slakr^\ talk / 08:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Certainly a very admirable policy. What I am concerned about is if Wikipedia has an effective enough policy to ensure the selected few are not to editorialize in one way or another on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hai Huang (talk • contribs) 09:12, 2 November 2007

You might have a point. Check out our project for countering systemic bias. Though, please be sure to refer to my post directly above about how to nominate articles and pictures for delisting. Keep in mind, featuring pictures, articles, and other content is based on consensus that can change, so it's totally within your power to raise your concerns. --slakr^\ talk / 09:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree - this featured picture does not belong on the front page. Someone is showing exceptionally poor taste and insensitivity by using this gruesome image here. 08:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates2008 (talk • contribs)

Why can't we get nudes of chicks on the main page?! WHY?! --Howard the Duck 09:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

We already have. See Image:Orlando Furioso 20.jpg. --slakr^\ talk / 09:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we more for the future? --Howard the Duck 09:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There's the more saucy one: Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg. Of course, it's quite possible people would get more worked up over censoring someone living than someone dead. :) --slakr^\ talk / 09:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There should be more of these! :p --Howard the Duck 09:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I cannot believe that some ?? put such a picture as a "featured one" It is a shame to the so called free encyclopedia became a such racist place!! To be a balanced report why don't you also put a picture with a dead US white soldier? For that war, both sides lost a lot of young ones. none can be proud of it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.164.81 (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2007

Again, images are selected for Main Page inclusion based on quality and relation to good content. I assure you we also have pictures of other dead people from monumental wars that are in the rotation, as well, so that we avoid being racist. Check out featured historical pictures for more examples. --slakr^\ talk / 11:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Errr - this is not about racism for everybody, so rotating a picture of a different corpse tomorrow will not fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates2008 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

All of you could have participated in the community discussion Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Korean War causality which decided whether the picture was suitable. Wikipedia does not exclude images based on controversiality, or "common decency". The sum of all human knowledge (which is our goal), includes such images. Puchiko (Talk-email) 12:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I just came here to make sure this thread was here. ;) IvoShandor 12:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have seen worse on Law and Order at 3:30 in the afternoon on a Thursday, on the news, and in textbooks. These complaints, as usual, are pointless and without any real validity. IvoShandor 12:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Except for the sytemic bias stuff, which I am pretty sure everyone affiliated with the Main Page does their best to combat.IvoShandor 12:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I remember that after the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake some newspapers had images of dead bodies (even of children) on their front pages'. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Today's All Souls' Day. It makes perfect sense. --Howard the Duck 15:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but what shall we say in about a month or so? I'm sure that picture will generate a lot of discussion. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You know what, there have been lots of war-related FPics lately. Now I'm not sure how they're selected to appear for each day, but if they're by basis of promotion time - perhaps they're batched nominated - then that'll explain it.

Also, if we want WP to be shocking, why can't we get photos of naked women (as I've said earlier) on the Main Page? That'll be nicer. Young people must know the reality that is sex. --Howard the Duck 16:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe people are really this shocked by an image of a dead body. Puchiko: I think they are front paged in the order they are promoted, except when they are mixed up a bit to avoid topic stacking. I think Howcheng is the de facto FP director. As for the November 27 FP, that's racist against white people of European descent, and in poor taste, as all of reality is. ;)IvoShandor 16:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, IvoShandor has it exactly in regards to scheduling. howcheng {chat} 17:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a discussion on this topic recently. I raised the question on Featured picture criteria, and the consensus was that the pictures have been through a lengthy selection process and have been chosen for their merits. I am not unhappy with the images, though I am concerned that people are sometimes disturbed by strong images and there is no acceptance of this in the guidelines - indeed the criteria includes the phrase "it might be shocking" without a qualifying phrase to encourage awareness of the impact of the image. The BBC has a policy on the use of images: here and here for example - and, as we know, the BBC is not censored, and is widely respected for its strong, factual reporting. I understand the point of view of the picture editors involved in creating the featured picture criteria, and I do not wish to hinder the use of stunning images. However, I would like some sensible, non-censoring guidelines along the lines of the BBC, though less severe: "Images should not normally feature the following:

* Graphic violence, torture, or any extreme violent behaviour.

* Gratuitous nudity or graphic/extreme sexual acts.

* Images depicting children (under the age of sixteen) in a sexual context.

* Explicit drug use.

* Self-harm, suicide, or attempted suicide.

* Hangings or other forms of execution."

SilkTork *SilkyTalk 16:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a form of censorship. However, to calm your worries, "Images depicting children (under the age of sixteen) in a sexual context" are illegal, and are therefore not in the encyclopedia at all. However I feel that no picture should be excluded from being featured based solely on the controversy of what it depicts. That would be a form of censorship, which is something I strongly oppose. Furthermore, doing this would decrease the encyclopedic value of the main page, and I see no reason to do that. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Puchiko here. What you call "non-censoring" guidelines, I call censorship. Semantics won't change an apple into an orange. IvoShandor 17:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with censorship is to who's ideals it should be met. If it's my ideals, we oughta see more naked women and more naked women on the Main Page. --Howard the Duck 17:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is why censorship should not be engaged in. Who gets to play Thought police on Wikipedia? Who decides what is offensive, shocking or vulgar? The community has expressed its will that Wikipedia not be censored for anyone. If folks feel differently I would suggest bringing it up at WT:NOT, but would suggest so with the caveat: don't expect it to go anywhere. IvoShandor 17:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not censorship as no-one is asking for the page to be removed from the Encyclopedia. Those people wishing to find out about acts of war, should fully expect to see pictures of this nature in the context of articles on that topic. However to pull one of these pictures out of that context, without the story, and without sensitivity to the broader audience of the Encyclopedia, and put it on the front page where people do not expect to see gore of this nature, is wrong. What some folks are missing is that everyone's reaction to a photo of this nature is subjective. Someone who has just returned from a tour of Iraq might not blink at a high resolution image or video of a decapitation, because they've been desensitized to it; however others might have trouble keeping their meal down. So please stop viewing this from your own subjective points of view, and consider what other people may or may not have seen. In this light, the BBC guidelines described above are perfectly reasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates2008 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is a form of censorship. This isn't intrinsicly wrong but the problem is, how do you know what people don't expect to see? Indeed, the problem is the whole thing is subjective. For example, a fundamentalist Christian is probably going to be offended by FP October 18th. Other people may be offended by one or more of September 3rd, 8th and 10th. Note that even if we were to adopt the BBC criteria as worded, there is likely to be a very large variance in interpretation between editors Nil Einne 12:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope - no-one would have had issue if the article from which this photo was taken had been featured instead. In that case, there would not have been only a single gratuitous war photo, but an article putting it in context. Guidelines would mean less variation in interpretation between editors, not more (e.g. "Don't show a potentially controversial photo out of context of an article" would seem like a pretty clear guideline). There is a balance to be struck here between the desire of individuals to see any photo they want (e.g. gore, child porn, extreme violence, executions etc) and those of society as a whole. To say that this is about censorship is an extremely selfish point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates2008 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI, we've had dead white people, dead Jews, and dead Filipinos in recent months, so I think we can say that Wikipedia is racially/ethnically blind when it comes to showing pictures of corpses. howcheng {chat} 17:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

To IvoShandor's comment, I think you are right in your stance of who is to decide who plays Thought Police, and I feel it should be the community as a consensus. Therefore, I have expressed my opinion on WT:NOT, given it seems the consensus is to put nude female pictures (preferably attractive ones) on the main page! Justice for all! 68.143.88.2 17:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha. I am sincerely laughing, now that is justice. IvoShandor 17:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Finally my naked women crusade is bearing fruit! Justice to all!!! --Howard the Duck 18:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Does this all mean that if I had created an article for this movie now instead of eighteen months ago, it could make it into Did You Know? Back then I was told that while "...Wikipedia is not censored, it also should not intentionally try to offend." Cigarette 20:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[/me whacks everyone with a wet noodle (again)] ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 03:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why people think the image is racist against the Chinese soldier. Whenever I personaly see a war photograph that includes a corpse my first emotional response to to think negatively of whoever killed them. Why would anyone think negatively of the corpse? There's no shame in having died in a war. I would have expected far more accusations of racism if the photograph was of a white man killed by a Chinese solder. APL 18:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The photo should not have been posted. The argument of those defending it is rubish. I don't think this has to do with censorship. You wouldn't want photos taken from shocksites, even if they were free and of high quality´, would you now? Or what about photos of tortured people, raped women, slaughtered babies? They address an important topic in our society and if they are of high quality, you will accept them, right? I say bull. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It would depend on the encyclopedic value (and that is often very little for images from shock sites). However, I disagree with your statement "I don't think this has to do with censorship". If we look at the censorship article the first sentence is
Censorship is defined as the removal and/or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body. .
In a way, refusing to put the picture in a prominent place based, solely on the fact that it depicts a controversial topic, is "withholding information". Of course, the sentence has a citation needed tag, and so should be treated with caution. In my opinion, we should feature photos of tortured people, raped women, and slaughtered babies, should they be high encyclopedic quality, high quality, free, legal (and this might not be the case, identifiable images of rape or torture victims might be illegal due to privacy issues), and satisfy other criteria.
In my opinion, refusing to feature images because they display corpses is moral censorship. I have once again decided to quote the censorship article:
Moral censorship is the means by which any material that contains what the censor deems to be of questionable morality is removed. The censoring body disapproves of what it deems to be the values behind the material and limits access to it. Pornography, for example, is often censored under this rationale.
In conclusion, I will include a brief passage from Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria
A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all. See these examples for a basic guide.
I would encourage all who participate in this discussion to carefully read through Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, as well as Wikipedia is not censored. Thank you. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So it doesn't have to do with censorship, just limiting the use of content that offends you and others like you? --APL 19:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Editors cite Wikipedia is not censored as though it means there is no control on Wikipedia - yet there is. Quote from that policy: "obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, or content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy can be removed". Also, intro from Wikipedia:Profanity: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if they are informative, relevant and accurate, and should be avoided when they serve no other purpose than to shock the reader. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not." So we already have an awareness and an acceptance that there is material we don't want on Wiki. What is being suggested here is not that content is censored, but that content is used appropriately. What is being suggested is that an awareness that some images may shock be included in the Featured picture criteria, and care taken when selecting those images. The front page is the landing platform for the encyclopedia, as such it has a political purpose and impact which is somewhat different to the main encyclopedia and as such there are different criteria - for example, one our main founding principles is that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, immediately; yet most long standing editors cannot edit the main page. It's a different animal to the rest of the herd, and slightly different guuidelines are needed. I agree that information should not be withheld in the main encyclopedia, but care applied when selecting images for the landing platform. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 09:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

undent

The Featured Picture criteria are

1. Is of a high technical standard.
2. Is of high resolution.
3. Is among Wikipedia's best work.
4. Has a free license.
5. Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article.
6. Is accurate. It is supported by facts in the article or references cited on the image page.
7. Has a good caption.
8. Is neutral. It illustrates the subject objectively.
9. Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation.

There is nothing there about how unshocking, inoffensive or tasteful a picture should be. And the comments about the content of the main page being different from the rest of the encyclopedia is pertinent — the main page's content is decided by a nomination and approval process. Other pages are not. Bazza 14:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The criteria are exclusive in the sense that images of a low technical standard, low resolution, etc are excluded - so the notion of adding a criteria such as "Is unlikely to shock" or "Is not unnecessarily provocative" is already present, as is the notion of using a judgement with the criteria of "best work" (by whose standards?) and "neutral". As for the nomination process - that is what we are discussing. We are discussing adding into that process an awareness that some images may be too shocking for a landing platform, rather than the encouragement that the image "might be shocking", which is the wording in the current criteria. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 09:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the exclusivity bit - the criteria are about what properties a picture should have to be included, not what it should not. And I read the bit about being "shocking, impressive, or just highly informative" as saying those qualities are as much of a qualification as being aesthetically pleasing. That's not an encouragement to be any of those, just a statement that it doesn't have to look good to be good. In any case, I'll go back to a statement I made earlier in the month when this was being discussed: come up with a definition of "shocking" which most people will accept, and then you can determine what criteria to apply to content you think should or should not be displayed. Bazza 13:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Racist

moved from WP:ERRORS

I cannot believe that some ?? put such a picture as a "featured one" It is a shame to the so called free encyclopedia became a such racist place!! To be a balanced report why don't you also put a picture with a dead US white soldier? For that war, both sides lost a lot of young ones. none can be proud of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.164.81 (talk) 07:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Racist? No. We feature a picture if:

• • It is high quality (this is sometimes not required for historical images)
  • It has high encyclopedic value
  • It is a free image
    

If you can find a picture of a dead US soldier that fulfills the above criteria, nominate it for featured picture, and it will become featured. Also it was not "some ?? put such a picture as a featured one". This was selected through a community discussion, that you could have participated in. There were twelve votes supporting, but only two votes opposing. I would also recommend reading Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored. Puchiko (Talk-email) 12:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't find it racist, but it IS in poor taste, as have been several other Featured Pictures lately. We've had flagelated slaves, a child soldier, even pits of Holocaust victims. C'mon, folks, is it that hard to see how bad this makes Wikipedia look? It's one thing to find such images if you look for them, another to log in the site and have them trusted in our faces. - Wilfredo Martinez 15:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a discussion on this topic recently. I raised the question on Featured picture criteria, and the consensus was that the pictures have been through a lengthy selection process and have been chosen for their merits. I am not unhappy with the images, though I am concerned that people are sometimes disturbed by strong images and there is no acceptance of this in the guidelines - indeed the criteria includes the phrase "it might be shocking" without a qualifying phrase to encourage awareness of the impact of the image. The BBC has a policy on the use of images: here and here for example - and, as we know, the BBC is not censored, and is widely respected for its strong, factual reporting. I understand the point of view of the picture editors involved in creating the featured picture criteria, and I do not wish to hinder the use of stunning images. However, I would like some sensible, non-censoring guidelines along the lines of the BBC, though less severe: "Images should not normally feature the following:

* Graphic violence, torture, or any extreme violent behaviour.

* Gratuitous nudity or graphic/extreme sexual acts.

* Images depicting children (under the age of sixteen) in a sexual context.

* Explicit drug use.

* Self-harm, suicide, or attempted suicide.

* Hangings or other forms of execution."

SilkTork *SilkyTalk 15:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. However, we should not be having this discussion in Errors. Good places to speak about this would be The Village Pump, Main Page General Discussion, FA criteria where you had already raised this, and Picture of the day. However, in my opinion we should keep this on one page. Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to the above comment and wasn't aware of the procedures for this particular page. My bad - I thought I had come upon the talk page for the Main Page because I had clicked on the discussion tag on the main page and saw the comment on the featured picture. Ah, I see the problem - the top of the page is for reporting errors, while the lower part is for more general discusion of the main page. Should this entire section be moved down to the discussion section? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 16:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I responded here too, earlier. My mistake as well. However, this is getting lengthy, so we probably shouldn't continue here. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved. --199.71.174.100 19:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

So a picture of a nude 15-year-old drug user hanging themselves is out of the question? – Gurch 06:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol I thought the featured pictured of an Iraqi man was racist, cos I am Iraqi by birth and blood and I don't look anything like that guy. lolTourskin 06:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion to follow the BBC guidelines is a good one, and should be raised at a variety of locations. This would not prevent pictures on such topics being featured - it would merely keep them off the front page. Before people get upset about that, they need to consider that most of Wikipedia's featured content will never appear on the main page. We long ago passed the point where featured content is being produced faster than it can be featured on the main page. Rather, we have to trust that readers will find their way from the main page to the various featured content locations. Carcharoth 08:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've yet to see any picture on the main page that you would not see either on cable news, a Discovery Networks channel, or a History Channel documentary. Mr.Z-man 23:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the uproar from having Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg as today's FP.-Wafulz 15:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

:::Well, it will picture of the day eventually. I can imagine it quite well, it will clog up half of the main page discussion, several "concerned parents" will threaten to sue Wikipedia for not protecting "my babies" from pornography, others will demand the banning of howcheng. But honestly, let them whine, and pretend they know best. We don't have to come here, and defend our policies if we don't want to (while it is fun to read some of the comments). Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC) ::::I don't think this attitude is acceptable (finding readers' anger over the main page content funny, and describing them as whining). I've taken this to your talk page. Carcharoth 16:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. My comment was unclear, and I wrote it when I was quite angry and frustrated. I apoligise to all I have offended. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed my comment as well, so that should bring this to a close. Carcharoth 21:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So, does anyone agree with the BBC guidelines? Carcharoth 21:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't. At all. Atropos 01:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree, for all the same reasons that Wikipedia is not censored. J Milburn 20:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This conversation largely duplicates the one above: Talk:Main_Page#Featured_picture_too_controversial. Might be better to keep them together. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 09:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Donation banner

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

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

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

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

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

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

This makes me want to donate less.

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

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

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

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

I don't see whats the problem here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since we put up the new banner, the number of donations per day has more than doubled. [2] Whether this is due to its newness or the new design -- it's clear that we have to make modifications like this to meet our fundraising goals. We need $4.6M for the FY 2007-2008, and so far we've raised $368K. We expect that we'll need another fundraiser in 2008 and we also have some major donors interested in contributing for this fundraiser; this one will run into late December. During that time we'll experiment further with the notice, the landing page, etc. Helpful comments are appreciated at Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign. ---Eloquence* 01:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Discrepancy

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

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

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

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

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

Gamefaqs?

No wonder no one takes wikipedia seriously. I know only FA status is needed to be Potd, but there should be some bias to offset the systemic bias wikipedia has. How many video games have been page of a day now, and now video game sites?--58.111.134.238 11:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe no one wants to write about boring articles. --Howard the Duck 11:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Twenty video games have been featured article of the day in the three and a half years this feature has existed (from WP:FA and WP:FFA. Algebraist 11:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

20 video games out of 1280 articles???? BIAS!!!! lol Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 14:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, video games don't represent ~2% of all (anglophone) human knowledge.81.174.226.229 16:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that the purpose of PotD was to represent "all (anglophone) human knowledge". The purpose of PotD is to show off our featured articles. If you'd like more non-game articles to be featured, I suggest you work on a few. --Oldak Quill 20:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I was merely commenting that 20 in 1280 is not such a ridiculously low number, but the point of TFA is to show off the best of wikipedia, which (I hope) is trying to cover "all (anglophone) human knowledge" (If we're insisting on putting my jokey phrasing in scare-quotes).81.174.226.229 09:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Out of about 2,000,000 articles, just over 20,000 of these have been flagged with {{cvgproj}}, the template of WikiProject Computer and Video Games. This amounts to about 1% of Wikipedia being about computer games. Given that many articles are probably unfeatureable for whatever reason (too few sources exist (eg Nectandra truxillensis), too few editors are interested (eg Imre Csiszár) or the page is not an article (eg List of Cluedo characters)), I'd guess that there are well fewer than 1,000,000 articles which can realistically expect to be featured, so having 2% of FAs being about computer games actually seems roughly on target, especially for an encyclopedia written largely by young, tech-savvy males in developed countries! Laïka 18:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Instead of bitching about systemic bias, please help out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. 67.182.140.86 18:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured articles not protected?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes/Refrences Thought

Has anyone ever given any thought to making a separate tab (to go along with Discussion, edit this page, +, History and watch) for the Notes and References? I've noticed that they can take up a large chunk of an article at the bottom. Just my two cents. Txredcoat 13:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have that, wouldn't you need a section tab for every section in an article? That's why there is a table of contents. Dreamy ^§ 13:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No..he's talking about the references at the bottom of the page. Why not tuck it onto a subpage, or a tab, so that the entire article is anarticle, not an article and a bibliography. I agree.-^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 17:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but doesn't the current layout make composing/editing easier? Shir-El too 21:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Shir-El too. Having it on one page makes editting the references so much easier, especially if theres a mistake or if wikifying needs to be done. As a tab requires too much waiting time Tourskin 23:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is what I was trying to get at. Dreamy ^§ 02:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the Main Page, which lists no references at the bottom. Please continue at WP:VP or elsewhere. --74.13.131.144 04:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Donations Dead?!

The donation count has just messed up. 0 people have donated? It was a lot just five minutes ago. Josh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.15.35 (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Someone please fix this immediately. I have no idea where else to post this.--Pharos 19:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't anyone please fix the donations error quickly? Harland1 19:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The donations tracking server appears to have gone offline. I have no idea why. Depending on the cause it may take a while to resolve. Dragons flight 19:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

LOTD proposal

You may have seen either the original list of the day proposal or the revised version. A more modest experimental proposal is now at issue at WP:LOTDP. Feel free to voice your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep an eye out!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Globe Logo

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

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

What happened to Wikimedia Fundraising C.O.R.E.?

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

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

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

Protection Question

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

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

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

How about a tab on the main page that leads to the Village Pump?

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

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