Jump to content

Talk:Main Page

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mets501 (talk | contribs) at 02:06, 9 January 2007 (→Wikipedia Split?: response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Wikipedia Main Page: please read the information below to find the best place for your comment or question. For error reports, go here. Thank you.

Today's featured picture

  • Today's featured picture is taken from the list of successful featured pictures, If you would like to nominate a picture to be featured see Picture of the Day.
  • To report an error with "Today's featured picture...", add a note at the Error Report.

Main Page and beyond

Otherwise; please read through this page to see if your comment has already been made by someone else before adding a new section by clicking the little + sign at the top of the page.

Main page discussion

  • This page is for the discussion of technical issues with the main page's operations. See the help boxes above for possible better places for your post.
  • Please add new topics to the bottom of this page. If you press the plus sign to the right of the edit this page button it will automatically add a new section for your post.
  • Please sign your post with --~~~~. It will add the time and your name automatically.

Template:Main Page discussion footer




WP:RM note

The requested move is now closed with the result of no move. Simply south 14:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was closed due to Wikipedia not being a democracy so no result at all. Jeltz talk 20:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Talk:Main Page/Archive 87#Requested move. Simply south 20:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images not loading

When I go on Wikipedia, images won't load, only images already in my cache can I see. Thanks for any help —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.19.12.207 (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It's probably because of your internet connection. I doubt that it has anything to do with the site.--Azer Red Si? 02:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am running a broadband connection and I stopped loading images after viewing a huge page. Do you know how to fix this? It works now. Just had to wait a couple hours.--208.19.12.207 07:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check your page file and cache. ~user:orngjce223how am I typing? 23:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main page image vandalism again?

Just a little while ago someone posted a pic of a bloody vagina on the main page (probably the same loser who posted that mutilated penis pic a week or so ago). I'm guessing that this was done by adding it to an unprotected template that was used on the main page. A bot that automatically protects all templates used on the main page would certainly be a good idea. I'm even thinking that it might be a good idea to semi-protect all templates by default, since template vandalism can show up on hundreds of pages at once, and that way, even if one of the main page templates is left not fully protected by accident it will likely prevent vandalism to it.--Azer Red Si? 02:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval#ProtectionBot and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval#Shadowbot2. Sprotecting probably won't do much, only determined vandals vandalise templates I would think. --WikiSlasher 04:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also consider the following The pentultimate!!1-11 solution to vandalism --Monotonehell 04:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What template was affected this time? I'm just wondering because I tried to work out from the recent changes log but couldn't :-P Nil Einne 14:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a huge teletubbies image on the main page... it links to an article on penis.--Gonzalo84 00:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R.E

hey wikipedia

this is the best information website in the world because it has lots of things from buisness to the national flag and alot more.

thankyou

Miss Mulla

p.s sign your name:

It definitely is. =) Nishkid64 22:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is. Seldon1 18:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First article

Just out of curiosity, what was the first article ever to be written on Wikipedia? -Halibut Thyme

Go to Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles. There is a saved version of a particularly old one called UuU (i think) and another one at ThomasEdison. You will have to click back on the redirect and look at the history. Simply south 16:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, see also http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org though I'm not really sure what its contents represent, or why it isn't linked from WP:OLDEST? —Quiddity 23:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow they had the donation banner back then too I didn't know that... --WikiSlasher 23:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually i think that is an error from Wikimedia as it shows current figures. Simply south 00:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was being sarcastic. Should've made it more obvious --WikiSlasher 02:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

Shouldent we have werdernabot archive this page? FirefoxMan 19:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That might be helpful. How many days should it wait before archiving?--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 19:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about 1 week? Simply south 20:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's about time. Tennis DyNamiTe (sign here) 19:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is Werdnabot working on this page? Simply south 20:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The top section of the page (saying "Happy new C.E."), is presumably the oldest. It was written on the first. This means the the bot won't archive anything on the page until the 8th, where it will archive some of the topics. Since this page has become quite full and all stuff on here is usually replied to quickly, I'm going to change it to 3 days. And if it's not already, since 3 days may sound short, I'll make it 3 days only if there is more than one comment. --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 20:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation

On the home page it says anyone can edit. This is not the case with an increasing number of pages and with the main page itself. Seens as though you lot always bang on about misinformation whats the deal here? 86.142.89.192 17:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any one can edit the encyclopedia. Nowhere does it say that anyone can edit every page. Koweja 18:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'r totally right, mann User:Some random —The preceding manually signed comment was added by 86.142.89.192 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Spazbox. Blahhhhh —The preceding manually signed comment was added by 86.142.89.192 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The only time a person is utterly unable to edit (without resorting to extraordinary measures) is if they're blocked and banned with a protected user page. But, even then they can e-mail anyone who has filled in their e-mail address. So, there's no such thing as being excommunicated from Wikipedia. Vranak

A form of being "excommunicated" from Wikipedia is if you are indefinitely blocked.--CJ King 23:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not misinformation. It's true that anyone can edit any page here. Just that on certain pages, one must earn the trust of his/her colleagues before editing. --199.71.174.100 00:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of articles that have been fully protected to stop edit wars, administrators shouldn't actually be editing those either, unless it's something uncontroversial (e.g. spelling), or an edit that reflects a new consensus among all editors (admin and non-admin).
Articles that are semi-protected can't be edited by those without accounts or those with very new accounts, but as long as you're capable of filling in a username and password and don't have 3 days or less to live, then "anyone can edit" is still true. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madrid bomb update

Unfortunately, we now have the first confirmed fatality of the explosion. One of the missing men was finally found dead inside his vehicle: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Carlos/Palate/murio/asfixiado/aplastado/minutos/despues/atentado/Barajas/elpepuesp/20070104elpepunac_1/Tes The other one is still missing. Could anyone please update the info in the main page, so that it now reads something like '...leaving 1 killed, 26 injured and 1 missing', or something like that? Thanks Raystorm 13:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


UPDATE!: Second body has been found. Caption in main page should now (and definitely) read: ...'leaving 2 killed and 26 injured'. Thanks Raystorm 16:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect term used AGAIN

Forgive the capitalisation, but it now seems as if Wikipedia's being lax. Almost every single time there's an article making mention of something to do with England, it's referred to as Great Britain, or the United Kingdom. Even if one considered this dubiously fine, it's usually being done before 1707, and the union between England and Scotland.

Today's article on the main page referring to the burning of the palace of Whitehall says "English Monarchy," and links to the British Monarchy page! The British Monarchy won't even exist for another nine years from that date of destruction!

I feel like I'm posting the same thing every single time. If it's before 1603, the it's England and Scotland seperately (Obviously not the War of the Three Kingdoms period under Cromwell's forced unification).If it's after 1603 but before 1707 then It's England and Scotland under one crown. If it's after 1707 then England and Scotland together are the Kingdom of Great Britain.

With all due respect, it's beginning to seem like some individuals know fully well what they should be writing, but don't.

Cheers.

Kaenei 15:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English monarchy goes to List of English monarchs. British monarchy is the appropriate article content-wise, as it discusses the pre-UK history as well, regardless of quibbles over terminology. — ceejayoz talk 17:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's Wikipedia, for Pete's sake! The people writing it neither know nor care about that sort of thing. Still, I'm sorry we got it wrong and you were offended.--HereToHelp 03:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donation Template

I see that the green bar on the donation template on the top continues to move to the right. Is this signifing how close Wikipedia is to reaching its goal amount of money? What is their goal? It must be over a million and a half. Seldon1 18:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The goal is 1.5 million, and yes the bar fills up as the campaign reaches its goal. Koweja 18:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do we actually have a goal? Last time we had a bar, it turned out that a developer thought it was neat to have a bar and invented an arbitrary target when he created it, but the top of the bar was never actually considered a goal by the Foundation. So is there an official target, or is this just another arbitrary large number for the sake of pretty graphics? Dragons flight 13:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I remember reading about it somewhere on Meta, but now I can't find the page. Maybe there isn't a target, but in any case I doubt the Foundation would be too upset about going over their target. Koweja 13:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually things ran the other way, with people being worried when the fundraising drive ended without reaching our "goal" last time. Dragons flight 14:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

something

couldn't anyone just write random stuff in other people's articles????? well, i'm writing random stuff now too but not bad stuff —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.144.154.13 (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes! That's the beauty of a wiki. See our introduction for more about Wikipedia. And don't forget to sign your comments with ~~~~. :) Cheers, Dar-Ape 03:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that would be called vandalism. If you'd like to join Wikipedia and add stuff (factual, hopefully :p) to user pages just click on the button in the top right corner and register as a user. Then you can edit as much as you want. Have fun, and again, don't forget to sign your comments with ~~~~. Good luck, Mrmaroon25 03:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tintin

Great to see him on the front page. Much better than Pokemon junk. Keep up the good work. 70.17.251.235 05:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get Asterix up there next! :-) Carcharoth 13:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to the picture? Nyttend 14:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go. It was a fair use image and got yanked, apparently. Carcharoth 14:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And it is back again! :-) Carcharoth 14:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April one

Over on the wikinews mailing list we were discussing what we would do on April 1, and Jimbo (as in THE Jimbo) mentioned that he has always wanted to have the front page of wikipedia have all the sections link to really unlikely but true articles/pics etc so that when people visit on April one they think it is a hoax but it actually isn't. You know the kind of articles, Exploding whale and the like. The bellman 10:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"and Jimbo (as in THE Jimbo) mentioned", WP:V WP:CITE your source. ;) --Monotonehell 10:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try to avoid Jimbo-worship :-) that way lies no wiki. But it does sound like a good idea; make people think we're pulling april fools, when we're really not. However, the articles linked to should be brought up to good quality, fully cited and possibly semi-protected before featuring on the main page. That way, what looks like nonsense could turn out to be a perfect example of the best of Wikipedia. DYK could be tricky, and ITN. 86.139.237.132 11:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think DYK will be too much trouble; we can relax the "recent" rule for one day. A good source for ITN would be Reuters Oddly Enough: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsChannel.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&WTmodLoc=Home-C5-oddlyEnoughNews-1. --Nelson Ricardo 13:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a great idea. In that case Nils Olav would be a nice touch, provided we can dig up more material about this character. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 14:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I nominate The Monkey Gland. Carcharoth 16:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Choose any of the articles in Category:Exploding animals. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or in Wikipedia:Unusual articles for that matter. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We tried something along these lines last year, but it wasn't planned as well as it should have been. We probably should start discussing specifics now, as this probably is our only hope of discouraging main page vandalism on the part of sysops who don't take their responsibilities seriously. —David Levy 16:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may also be worth making clear that gags within the project space are viewed only by the community and are not vandalism. Rollback and use of the {{test}} templates are not an appropriate response to jokes. As I recall, some established contributors were treated rather rudely and harshly last year for rather mild and funny gags in community space. - BanyanTree 02:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the same token, it must be made clear that vandalism is vandalism. Harmless jokes are acceptable year-round, but other jokes don't somehow become less harmful on 1 April. Certain sysops have performed inexcusable vandalism to the main page in years past. —David Levy 02:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any featured articles known as practical jokes? Simply south 16:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked the list - Spring Heeled Jack and the Infinite monkey theorem are what I would call semi- or off-mainstream FA-quality articles, maybe they would be suitable? --Ouro 17:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exploding whale is also an FA. —Cuiviénen 01:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was done last year, and the coordination page, Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page is still there if people want to restart the idea. Laïka 19:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about Dihydrogen monoxide hoax? | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 01:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a featured article. —David Levy 02:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know; I meant as DYK, or another use. It's something that would work (IMHO). | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 02:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. That might be usable, but only in a factual, non-alarmist manner. (We'd need to clearly identify it as a hoax.) —David Levy 02:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The word hoax appears in that article's title, I guess I'd call that clear identification. --Ouro 06:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that we mustn't attempt to perpetrate the hoax via the wording used on the main page itself (which was was proposed last year). —David Levy 16:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand now! Thanks for the link, David. --Ouro 16:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about something like "did you know people have signed petitions calling for water to be banned" Nil Einne 15:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good one! Maybe this (discussion) should be moved/continued here? --Ouro 16:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That wording would work. —David Levy 16:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More suggestions (for DYK): Thagomizer, Boston molasses disaster, Norton I Gavia immer (u|t|c) 15:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not "honor" a Feature Disambiguation Page and a Featured Redirest Redirect? I think that would be a good idea. The Placebo Effect 21:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirest? Simply south 21:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[:)]

Reverting: Tried and True?

We all know reveting vandalism is the most common way to stop it. But is it the best? We should be thinking outside of the box, coming up with new ways to stop vandals. (Are there any?) Reverting is not always effective, and it's as dull as watching paint dry.

I know this is not the best place for this, but lets face it--you get the most respone on the main page. Seldon1 17:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See User:AntiVandalBot for an example of a different method :) — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 17:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, other than blocking repeat vandals who ignore warnings, which we already do, the only other way I can think of to stop vandalism would be to stop people editing in the first place. We already do that, too, on a small number of frequently-used or problematic pages, in the form of page protection and semi-protection. Preventing unregistered users from editing completely is an idea that's been discussed before, but it's generally agreed that the drawbacks outweigh the benefits – Gurch 17:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I say block then on the first offence, serious editors never do it, ever.
It's often difficult to tell the difference between a vandal and a well intentioned but misguided user on the first edit ever. — ceejayoz talk 01:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another option would be to make it official policy to 24 hour ban any registered users who clearly vandalises twice without any warning. Currently policy dictates test3 or blatant vandal must be given. Some admins block for frequent clear cut vandalism without sufficient warnings but many people like me don't report such users and instead just give appropriate warnings. If it were official policy, I would report anyone who violates such policy. For IPs, perhaps 4 cases of clear cut vandalism in the past 3 weeks should be enough for a ban without sufficient warning. Of course, if people would warn appropriately, we wouldn't have such a problem. It's difficult for bots to adjudge I understand. But in cases of blatant vandalism, e.g. putting fuck into pages so often people give test 1 even with 3 other test 1s and thatsif they warn at all. I myself was blocked as an anon a long while back for a single instance of vandalism even tho it wasn't anything that bad. Against policy (or at least standard practice) but I didn't complain and it probably reduced the chance I would vandalise again altho I'm still miffed that this happened now that I know it's against policy or at least standard practice. P.S. By clear cut vandalism, I mean things like putting fuck, gay etc into pages. Deleting sections and whole pages kind of falls in between and I would say when it's a LP article we shouldn't ban so quickly in case it's poorly done attempt to enforce BLP. I'm in no way referring to content disputes and other misguided attempts to improve pages which some confused users call vandalism Nil Einne 15:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Hockey Championships

Moved to Template talk:In the news

These links (one in the Featured Article section of the Main Page and one in the "On this day..." secion of the Main Page) lead to a 404 not found page. Could anyone fix this? Nitin.viswanathan 13:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They work for me. —Mets501 (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Im getting 404 not found pages, but refreshing or reclicking the link takes me to the proper page. Apparently, though, trying to get to the main page: "MediaWiki does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Main Page in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings." Refreshing worked again. RHB 16:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All mailing lists were recently (a few hours ago) migrated to a new server, and as part of the process, the URL (and email) of the mailing lists were moved to a lists.wikimedia.org address. The old list page should redirect to the new site, but there may be some (hopefully temporary) problems. Note that the link to the email list is included in Template:TFAfooter, and if the redirect stops working, we can change the current link to a simple URL. For now, though, I don't think that's necessary. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmose

Take that ugly-ass picture of the dead Egyptian guy off the Main Page! 89.120.193.125 18:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's today's featured article and will disappear by tomorrow. If you don't like it then ignore it. Simple.Simply south 18:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wikilink for Middle Kingdom on the FA teaser leads to a disambiguation page. It should be corrected to Middle Kingdom of Egypt. Mrbluesky 20:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. I thought I would get a whole lot of responses involving two things: 1. "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED!!!!11!!" and 2. "You're so stupid, you write 'ugly-ass dead guy' and you want it removed? Ha, ha!" Instead, I got a very nice and simple answer, plus a comment which has nothing to do with what I said (except the fact that it's connected to the FA). 89.120.193.125 20:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even more interesting, I was wondering how many people would complain that this picture and that of Nancy Peolsi got interchanged!SkierRMH 06:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there two links to the complete list on other language Wikipedias, in the 'in other languages' bit on the Main Page. I don't see why there is two thay link to the same page. AxG (talk) (sign here) 20:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's one link in Template:Wikipedialang at the page bottom, and one link in the sidebar list Template:MainPageInterwikis (though it's not in that template's code, so it must be included via a subscript or css page somehow). Hope that helps. —Quiddity 21:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

Hi, Its not very important but I just noticed in the "Did you know?" section it says this:

...that curb feelers (pictured) are especially popular for hotrods with whitewall tires?

To be honest, thats not really true. I don't think I have ever seen a hotrod like that, not even the very old ones... Just thought i'd get that out while i'm learning how to use wikipedia. Ad0500 21:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make a comment on the curb feelers page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moonlight Mile (talk • contribs) 02:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Question

I feel i'm asking a stupid question here bt what will happen to the status of the donations when the numbers reach the borderline? Simply south 00:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wild guess: The donation template will disappear? --Ouro 01:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wild guess #2: It will revert to zero so Wikipedia can beg for even more unneeded funds. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "unneeded funds". We are experiencing exponential growth, and the money is badly needed in order to keep up with this traffic and to improve our experience (be it reading or editing) here on Wikipedia. Look at some of the archives of this page for more details. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "beg" either. Beggars don't give anything in return when Wikipedia provides everyone with internet access a massive amount of encyclopedic knowledge. GizzaChat © 06:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really have to feed the trolls? --Howard the Duck 06:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Should dates in articles be written from the perspective of local time or from the perspective of GMT time? For example, someone died on Jan 31st in his locality but it was still Jan 30th in Greenwich. --Ineffable3000 08:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say local time, although in the few cases where the distinction is important, it may not hurt to mention both. Additionally, you may wish to refer this to the village pump, where it will probably get more attention. Luna Santin 08:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA for ProtectionBot

As this community is more impacted by the request than any other, I would like to make you aware that I have filed an RFA for ProtectionBot, an automated process designed to protect the main page from vandalism. Dragons flight 09:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this is the best place for this notice. The Village Pump or the notices section of the Community Portal seem more appropriate. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 22:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the page that is directly affected, much like if there were a bot for Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies, WP:RFPP, etc., or even simply an AfD. —Centrx→talk • 22:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the news/Speak of the house

Is it just me or has this piece of news hogged the spotlight for 2+ days now. If US news gets more attention its an unfair slant on other English users.

It's not that it's hogging the spot, there's just not been any newer suitable item suggested at the appropriate place since. --Monotonehell 12:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of getting sick of it, too. Yes, I'm American, but I'm also a Republican! → JARED (t)  13:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Word to that, man. DoomsDay349 18:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not have the Ashes item at the top? It's the newest, and there's supposedly no subjective order. Tntnnbltn 13:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering about that, too. --Howard the Duck 17:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a new PD/free picture for the Ashes? --65.95.105.205 17:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image doesn't have to illustrate the top item, that's what the (pictured) is for. But I dont think arbitrarily switching around the items is worth the hassle. Just wait until something new hits the presses to displace it. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely shows bias toward the US. If the UK House of Lords gets a new chair, we won't probably hear about it, especially for 3 days. --Ineffable3000 21:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you would, and it would be on the template as long as it is not pushed out by newer news. —Centrx→talk • 21:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I doubt we'd put a change in the House of Lords, which is not all that politically important and has no elections, on the Main Page. The House of Commons, though, would. —Cuiviénen 21:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason the speaker of the senate item is there is because she's the first woman speaker. Ordinarily the inner workings of the senate wouldn't be ITN worthy. --Monotonehell 01:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd like to turn that around and say that the request for the rules be bent to avoid having the item in the lead is in fact slightly biased against the US. If it were an equivalent story based in Uganda or Japan, people would be complaining of staleness, but no-one would be demanding the re-arrangement of items to "freshen up" the section. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 21:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as we start bending rules like that we're guilty of introducing bias instead of letting the organic process continue. There's not normaly such a pause in ITN candidates, so I don't think its actually a problem. Go make some news ;) --Monotonehell 01:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do have all the components for TATP on hand, and 3/4 of a Master's in chemistry. I guess I could see about ending the dry spell of news myself :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 13:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you hear them breaking down your front door yet? Carcharoth 16:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still desperate to get rid of Nancy ? Please be encouraged to update pages related to politics of Austria. A new Chancellor of Austria will be installed this week, and we have his picture standing by at WCommons. --PFHLai 01:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

→ Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#SIDEBAR BROKEN. Please followup there. --Ligulem 15:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Grammatical Error

The "In the News Section" contains a grammatical error. "Defeat" in "Australia defeat England " should be plural. It should read "Australia defeats England". --Geoffrey Gibson 01:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shouldn't. "Australia defeat England" is correct. In both countries' varieties of English, groups of people are grammatically plural. —David Levy 01:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is truly bizarre usage and I was going to object as well, but it seems David Levy is right. Googling reveals it is common among sportswriters. I've never seen anybody do this when talking about the result of a war or something, though... Redquark 02:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably because most writers would use the past tense "Australia defeated England" it's just the ITN writing style that forces the use of this tense. These days due to the overwhealming amount of US media, in Australia both plural and singular are acceptable. It's almost to the point where "defeats" is becomming the norm. The logic is as David said above, a team is a group of people and therefore treated as a plural. Even though "a group" is singular in itself, it's to recognise a team effort. --Monotonehell 02:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Png is NOT animation

Something needs to be done about the PotD - either fix the caption, which says the image is an animation, or replace the png with the animated gif... (The fact that there is a "view this animation" link does not remove the error.) --Janke | Talk 08:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been the convention for animated images for a fair while now. It came about for two main reasons: to cut down on the time needed for 56k dialup users to load the Main Page (the png is under 20kb, while the gif is over half a meg) and easy thumbnailing of animations with large dimensions (480x360 may be a tad too large for people using an 800x600 resolution). It was believed that for the Main Page, usability took precedence over a niggling and somewhat pedantic point of accuracy. I don't much care which way it's done, but then I'm using a fairly top-end machine, so the gif is hardly a strain on my system. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 09:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. To help out a bit, I've changed the png image description page to redirect to the main gif, so in addition to the "view" link, you can now click the image itself to see the animation. I'm not sure how ProtectionBot'll react to having one of its uploads become a redirect page, but I'll keep an eye on it and delete it myself tomorrow if necessary. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 09:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bot isn't running at the moment, so it won't do anything – Gurch 13:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP: RM above

Will anyone object if i manually move the Requested Move to the archive to stop people adding to an already closed discussion? Simply south 18:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. (Isn't there a 'force archive now' tag for (one of the) archival-bots?). —Quiddity 20:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. Simply south 20:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it.

For the archive requested move see Talk:Main Page/Archive 87#Requested move

Simply south 20:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TITLES

Wikipedia needs to have an edit title feature, there are too many titles that have grammatical mistakes. These titles lower credibility, and make the site look BAD. Any thoughts? Danielfolsom 21:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean page titles? There is one: any page can be renamed. If your account is less than four days old, you won't be able to do this yet; if so, make a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Otherwise, you can move it yourself using the "move" tab at the top of the page. If you mean section titles, anyone can fix them (unless the page is protected), just edit the section and change the text at the top – Gurch 21:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On this day...

Can't find the right place to report this, so I'll start here - the image for January 25th's On this day... is gone. I can't seem to find a history for it either! SkierRMH 21:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's now fixed. Thanks for pointing this out. --PFHLai 00:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the picture (animation) of the day is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today's_featured_picture_(animation)

If you click on the link, it takes you to that page. However, if I click the link from the main page, it turns into

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_picture_%28animation%29 (the same page, but with code substituted for symbols in the address)

Why does this happen?

--JianLi 21:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Percent-encoding. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Day

I may be completely blind, but I don't see the picture of the day today. What's up with that? 22:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind; I see it now...--Falconus|Talk 22:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Split?

Maybe there should be an english and american versions separate to wikipedia as a lot of the content is americanised and as I am english a lot of it takes figuring out which to be frank is not very good to do late at night.--99ghorner|Talk 01:26, 9 January 2007 (GMT)

No, no no! We need to work on collaboration, not splitting up. A preferences for American/British English would be a lot better than a split. —Mets501 (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of articles are Britishized, and I really don't have a problem with it, though I'm American. A rule I use, is that if the article is about an American thing, use American spellings;if the article is about something British, use English spellings. If it has to do with neither, make a decision. --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 01:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A profoundly idiotic idea, if I do say so, and I am not usually rude about this sort of thing. Separating versions by tiny dialectic differences would only result in two inferior versions of Wikipedia, mostly overlapping and yet neither as complete as the current united project. Mets501's idea, which I'm certain has been proposed before, would be a solution—it's already done that way at the Chinese Wikipedia—, but it seems like far too much work for our programmers for piddling differences. (Chinese had a much larger problem of two different character sets to deal with.) I suppose I have some advantage in understanding both easily, being British-American, but I don't understand what causes such trouble in understanding. —Cuiviénen 01:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same here, I don't have any problem at all understanding it and don't mind it's usage, so I would be opposed to user preferences. It may be the only way though, in the long run. —Mets501 (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=99465740"