Jump to content

Talk:Main Page/Archive 120

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 115←Archive 118Archive 119Archive 120Archive 121Archive 122→Archive 125
Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive.

001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207

Category for news

It seems to me that these last few days, the news seems to be dedicated to space. I wonder what next week's one will be. Simply south (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Things on ITN are articles that have been updated by contributors and submitted to WP:ITN/C. If you don't like, it, feel free to comment on that page, or just submit other articles about recent events. ffm 13:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry that title should be Theme for news. I was not saying i didn't like anything or that, i was just commenting that how it looks now seems to be space-themed. Simply south (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion I don't find it racial if there is 8 killed whether they were Jewish or not...what if you were Jewish how would you feel then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aragornrox (talk • contribs) 16:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Oxygen TFA image

File:Liquid Oxygen.gif

I think this free image of liquid oxygen (O2) and the gas above it would be better for the Main Page than the image of ozone stuctures currently chosen for it as TFA. First off it actually shows the element (in two of its states and in its most common allotrope). Second, the pale blue color of liquid oxygen is pretty cool and due to its electonic structure, plus you can even see bubbles of the gas, plus the gas above it. Ozone (O3) is important, but relatively rare. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I liked this image! where did it go? the current diagram of an oxygen atom is boring! --71.234.251.108 (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. wtf?Tourskin (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Me too, why did this get swapped out - the image of liquid oxygen was way better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.75.228 (talk) 06:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Because the featured article is oxygen, not liquid oxygen. And besides, without the caption saying so, that could be any gas in there, whereas the atom is instantly identifiable as oxygen itself. howcheng {chat} 06:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand your logic. Liquid oxygen *is* oxygen and the photo demonstrates that it is blue. I don't know for sure, but I doubt that any other liquid element is the same color. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
See here -- nearly all liquids are colorless. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I assume you mean liquid forms of elements which are usually gaseous? Because milk, cola, juices, etc. are certainly not colorless. howcheng {chat} 22:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
FA images are supposed to help identify the subject, not decorative or cool. Blue liquids may be rare, but given how infrequent people actually get to see liquid oxygen and the fact it's a fairly technical detail, I'm somewhat doubtful many people would necessarily be aware that the liquid in the photo is oxygen, even many chemists. On the other hand, I would hope that anyone with a decent understanding of chemistry is able to understand that the diagram is a representation of the electron shell of an oxygen atom Nil Einne (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
So why can't the caption say (gas and liquid pictured) - the blue liquid may pique readers' curiosity and have them read the article itself. The current atom diagram image is not an accurate depiction of elemental oxygen - in its most common form on Earth it is a diatomic molecule, not an atom. Also quantum mechanics tells us the electrons are not fixed in space or on circular orbits as depicted (they are in orbitals). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me fairly pointless having a picture if no one is going to actually know what it is unless they read the text, as I said, the whole point of the picture is so that someone gets an idea of what the subject if about without reading the text, not to be decorative or look cool. Also, as I stated the current image is a diagram intended to represent something. The fact that it is not accurate doesn't change the fact that it is hopefully recogniseable to many people, and also serves a useful purpose to understanding the subject. Also, I don't understand how you can argue 'most oxygen is not atomic' then go on to argue for the inclusion of a picture of liquid oxygen. Besides that, the artcle is about the element oxygen, not the element oxygen as it commonly occurs. When I last learnt chemistry and it has been a while so perhaps things have changes, it is usually most helpful to consider elements in the atomic sense before you start considering things further. I agree with Howcheng here. If this we an FA on liquid oxygen then the picture would be best, but it's not. Nil Einne (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. I don't know if this will help at all but you may want to consider Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 14, 2007. At the time, I didn't agree with the picture, as I mentioned somewhere and was brought to Raul User:Raul654/archive12#Image with Featured Article on main page, 14/3/2007. When I read his reply (after it was off the main page), I didn't really agree but let it be. But over time, I've come around to his line of thinking and agree that the picture he choose was best Nil Einne (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
To me, a blue liquid with gas bubbles in it is the best single image of oxygen, but I also know more about it than the average reader. I also would point out that Raul himself added the picture of liquid oxygen that Howcheng removed (and that both images are better than the ozone structures image originally chosen for the Main Page). I will not revert the image change, but I am not convinced a 1950's style electrons as circles diagram is the best either. Thanks for your input, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Surely the diagram of oxygen is better. Liquid oxygen is not normally what it is found in, and since it wouldn't be a great image to show show a picture of the gas then the structure would be the best one. It just makes more sense than this one. At first glance this just looks like a test tube of water being boiled.Chris_huhtalk 15:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
When I first saw the liquid oxygen picture (without knowing what it was), my first thought was, "Oh, I guess you can't really get a picture of oxygen because it's a gas." So I figured that the bubbles in the liquid (in what appears to be an IV bag) were supposed to be oxygen. It's extremely unclear that the blue liquid is oxygen in liquid form. Looks like Raul put the liquid picture back, though. howcheng {chat} 16:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Why not put in the portrait of Joseph Priestley or Carl Wilhelm Scheele who discovered oxygen? --199.71.174.100 (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
No, the TFA picture should represent the topic as best as possible. Those two people aren't the subject of the article, so their pictures are inappropriate. howcheng {chat} 22:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Computer game article yesterday

This comment relates to the featured article ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, which featured a link to Hot Coffee minigame controversy in its main page blurb.

Is a link to Hot coffee on the front page featured articled combined with a wikipedia 1.0 promotion to schools a bit bold? Maybe it wouldnt be censored as an article, but is it worthy of the front page? New release hardcore sex movies dont get the six o clock news in the Netherlands or the Dutch lands, do they? Would you give Debby does Dallas a pulitzer prize? No, but you would give it to Freddy does Dallas and provide special links to Debby does Hot coffee. I could see that topics involving both children and sex are monitored so that "no bias" may be implied in one manner or another. Should sex and violence not be banned from the main page? Would such graphic sex and violence fiction be notable enough for the front page of an encyclopedia?
ThisMunkey (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem - the hot coffee article is an article about lots of relevant social issues. --Fredrick day (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:CENSOR. I don't think sex and violence should be banned from the Main Page. That would mean we couldn't feature military related stuff. Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Is that what excluding sex and violence fiction from the front page would mean to you, Puchy? Censorship? You have no opinion on anything that is not suitable for the front page?ThisMunkey (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well hang on. War is not as corrupting to a person as is sex. People can commit sexual acts, but how many ordinary people (so not state leaders) who read wikipedia have the ability to wage war? Few, if any. Tourskin (talk) 08:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • War is an informative topic. Graphic sex and violence fiction is an eyesore or a questionable passtime. It is not informative. Fiction that gets a prize for peace or something is notable. Fiction that gets banned for being disgusting is hardly notable for the front page. A good article on blow job might get a few laughs, but its hardly fair to put it on the front page and then advertise it to little kids as Wikipedia 1.0 is to be. For instance- "Blow jobs were banned from public places. Here is a detailed description of them and a load of pictures." - Hardly suitable for the front page. How are the computer game articles any different to this? Anyone wants to see porn and violence fiction on the front page of the encyclopedia is a wind up.ThisMunkey (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My God, I am sick and tired of people saying 'Wikipedia is not censored, but we mustn't let people see anything that might offend them.' We cover all topics; if people want to pretend that things they don't like don't exist, then they can go elsewhere. People may be interested in these topics, and the featured article is to offer people something they may wish to learn about. Seeing as everyone else is throwing their opinions around as fact, I will too- a controversial book is of far more interest than a Booker prize winner. Booker prize winners suck. If given the choice between Lolita and The Sea, I know damn well which one I would read or read about... J Milburn (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Look Mildew I said ON THE FRONT PAGE SPECIFICALLY WHAT IS ON THE FRONT PAGE and I can see exactly what you said which is a child molestor not only perverted but corrupted by accepting other perverts. You are the casual acceptance, fickface, that I had in mind when displaying this idea. The local nutcase is easy because when he does something wrong he makes a lot of noise but the casual fickface keeps quiet and promotes it on the internet. You are the fickface that makes a nice bloke slit throats. Wow, I can really see this idea getting somewhere. And your page says you are an administrator. With that comment an administrator should be cancelled. What kind of thing is that to administrate the encyclopedia? ThisMunkey (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't censored, but nothing is said about the main page. RJRocket53 (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • this is exactly what I could see when reading the two computer game articles yesterday but with perverts like Mildew in charge of administrating there is little point discussing it. Where can you report this <libelous accusation redacted>? ThisMunkey (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
ThisMunkey has been blocked for 48 hours because of incivility. I don't feel it's necessary to refute his comment. RJRocket, since the Main Page is a part of Wikipedia, I'd expect it not to be censored either. Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My oh my, what would we do if we didn't have people like ThisMunkey to tell us what we can and can't watch, see, hear, or otherwise experience. We might have nudity on actual public broadcasting or in our video games like the British or the rest of Europe, and look how awful they turned out (sarcastic). Knowledge is for everybody, but please use it responsibly. -KriticKill (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And what does it mean to use responsibly? Lets take that advice and be responsible ON THE MAIN PAGE. Tourskin (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Using knowledge responsibly means not hiding it away from the masses. On a very simplictic level, that is what not showing something on the main page is doing- we are hiding it away and pretending it does not exist. Handling these controversial issues with care shows Wikipedia in an extremely good light, and the articles often make extremely good reading. J Milburn (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Why are we even talking about this? Wikipedia is not censored, not, nip, nadda, case closed, we don't do it. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 12:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Funny, but doesn't the word "responsible" place limits on behaviour or exposure? Thats what I always thought. Tourskin (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Certain things should not be widely dispersed in public forums, for the direct well-being and safety of the general public. Instructions for making homemade explosives, for example. I was asking people who edit here to think responsibly and not promote knowledge that serves no good purpose except to hurt or destroy other people. There is a place for responsibility with knowledge. However, I don't think the Hot Coffee scandal really counts. If we ban that from the main page, then we should think about banning a lot of other stuff. Lets start with Michelangelo's statue of David. Male genitalia! Shameful! -KriticKill (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Here here. The front page is a promotion of the knowledge within. The concern should be not restricting it to science. Something ought to be out of the question. As I should for outbursting. Sorry. Have respect for Wikipedia. ThisMunkey (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Nakes statues and works of art are different from pornography or art produced for ones lustful desires. I can see that even if you don't answer my point I won't make a difference, I'm arguing here to prove that one can be responsible with information without censoring everything. Tourskin (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a service, not a public service. We don't need to be "responsible" towards anyone. The information is free. The website has to be visited to see. If people think it can be offensive, they should not read it. If people think it can be offensive to children, they should censor it before delivering to children. If they think their children are sheep and internet is wolf, they should use filtering devices to block wikipedia. Wikipedia is not here to work according to personal or social prejudices. I mean come on! Don't you guys ever have a photo of hot women in the newspaper? If you are not in Afganistan I am sure you do.--ÆN↑Þƺ§®»Ŧ 07:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In a way I must agree with ThisMonkey. I do believe that we could put up other things besides sex. There are other things you can put up there, such as positive things, and other political views. I do not believe the main page should be censured, but there are better things you can put up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aragornrox (talk • contribs) 16:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... interesting idea. Currently we put up stuff based on quality not subject topic. Question is: Do we want to put a subject topic criteria there too? Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
If you say "Oh no, we can't have sex, there's better things to discuss than sex" then you open the door to us creating a hierarchy of what's worthy of being on the main page, and what's not. And quite frankly, allowing anything on the front page is far better than attempting to argue over what is "worthy". Featured article of the day is not for positive things, or political things, or things you might like for that matter. I'm fairly certain sex has been studied, known about, and in existance for far longer than most any "positive things" you could suggest in its place, and can be viewed as much more important than plenty of "political things" when it comes to human knowledge. Why we should somehow ignore that sex exists, on an Encyclopedia, is beyond me.
Featured article of the day is for "Featured articles that are well written and can inform the public". This article was written, it's informative on the issues involved which did receive national attention in some countries, and has as much reason to be on our main page as an article on Mozart. Mozart, however, is not possible at the moment because the article is apparently not very well written. The359 (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Please read my arguments before suggesting that I want to censor every article that even thinks of mentioning the word sex. How bout we just avoid links to, or images of pornography on the main page? Anyways, I concede defeat on this matter, I don't think we should have it up there, but freedom of info is more important I now realize so its up to whoever reads it. Tourskin (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Define pornography. Are we going to use middle east standards, or more liberal ones?
The video game itself wasn't pornographic. It linked to a mini game that was a bit more controversial-yet still it isn't clear cut pornography: None of the six possible sex scenes involve any nudity, Third-party additions were later incorporated in the Hot Coffee modification which replace the girlfriend's clothes with alternate, nude models also originally from the game disc. These models, like most nude patches, do not incorporate visible genitalia. So it does depend on what you consider pornography. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Heavy American Bias

What is it that four of five anniversaries, three of five ‘did you knows’ and the main page article are America? The idea that wikipedia is not American bias is laughable. Seriously, who gets to pick these things? --SSman07 (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The last time this happened an admin replaced one OTD entry with an animé one. --Howard the Duck 01:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
At least there won't be any complaints today about the main page being heavy Australian bias.[1][2][3] :-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's fair to say that there's a heavy bias bias on the main page. Some days it's biased to Brits, some days to Americans, some days to South Asian cricket competitions. Alas! --Sean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.115.242 (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well The US has a large control over the Internet. Most english-speaking internet users are in the US I think. Personally I'd like more British and Australian representation.--ZaderZadernet|et 08:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Write a Zimbabwe-related new article, nominate it for DYK, and it will appear there. Write an Antarctica-related blurb for OTD and it will appear there. Write a Laos-related FA, and it will appear on the Main Page. You can't expect WP:CSB to disappear if you don't play your part to counter it. Puchiko (Talk-email) 09:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The Main Page has a decided bias against the !Kung. 69.129.145.210 (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Zadernet, what on Earth are you basing that upon? In any case, that has no bearing- we are an international encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia for people who surf the web. J Milburn (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"Not an encyclopedia for people who surf the web"? *confused* 203.97.51.149 (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we do eventually aim to release Wikipedia in other media (and, to an extent, we have already) so that the information is accessible to all. However, what I meant specifically is that it should be written from a worldwide perspective, rather than be about issues of interest to those who surf the web. We're an encyclopedia, not Digg or Slashdot. J Milburn (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The Main Page is specifically designed for people who surf the web :) even if the actual encyclopedia is meant for multiple mediums. GracenotesT § 23:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
What he means is that the English Wikipedia is written by English speaking internet users, the majority of these are in the US and are likely to prefer to write about US-related topics. Its not a conscious decision to target an American audience, its systemic bias due to the locations of editors. Mr.Z-man 04:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Guess what, today's OTD has a heavy French bias... --Howard the Duck 02:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, I see pro-moon bias is showing its face on the front page yet again (ITN). AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
No one cares about bias not involving countries, at least not as much. --Howard the Duck 11:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Um cough, football, cricket, fish, Eurovision songs, can't remember what else, cough..... Okay I guess you could argue most of those have some geographical involvement but not fish. Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, since when we had a fish-bias? Was that the one on DYK? Maybe it's the way DYK works were one guy mass produces a lot of articles (we also had a Michigan "wave" of sorts, too). But mostly the complaints are on the American bias on ITN and OTD were the selections are planned beforehand. --Howard the Duck 17:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
ITN isn't planned ahead. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Some items are, especially scheduled events like elections and sporting events. --Howard the Duck 03:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Clearly when the forefathers of the US nation established the constitution, they timed the elections so that they would cause a heavy amount of American bias on the front page of wikipedia two hundred years later. Tourskin (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Goodness!, and look at the news today, what a serious space bias. :) Basser g (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is to all of you, not just Basser g. Joke = dead. :) ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 20:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Good call, next time I will read all the messages instead of just the title.. :) Basser g (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

How about the Eurovision-bias that went on at DYK for months last year? That was the worst. --Howard the Duck 05:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You think that's bad: what about the featured article for St Patrick's Day being Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, the tale of an English hero? Sin cic sna fiacla, nach ea? EamonnPKeane (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The Arthurian knights were ancient Britons and predate the English. In fact, he is identified with a Welsh hero and so he is very suitable for St Patrick' day, which celebrates another Welshman. MAG1 (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

KIng Arthur, if he existed, did not predate the English because he was supposedly in conflict with them. However, you are quite correct in suggesting that St Patrick was Welsh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.242.42 (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, quite right, sloppy writing on my part- Arthur's knights were members of the pre-English population of Britain (assuming they existed at all). However, it makes the point even more strongly that Gawain is not an English hero. The real point is, of course, nationalistic promotion or carping rarely bears examination. MAG1 (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you absolutely on that point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.242.42 (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture Caption

My logic may be failing me, but how can a star travel 13 light years in 30,000 years? Is this a mistake, or am I just not thinking right?

--Falconusp t c 13:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

By moving at 0.04% of the speed of light? That's not particularly fast for a star. Algebraist 14:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Our own sun travels over 7% the speed of light about the galaxy's center, so that's not unreasonable at all. Unless you're asking why it's going so slow? Beats me :p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.186.233 (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
A light year is a measurement of distance, not time. If you really wanted to, you could travel 13 miles in 30,000 years; the principle is the same. Either way, you'd be dead. I'll stop now. 161.73.55.137 (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, my logic must failed me; now I see that I was just being stupid... Sorry, Falconusp t c 10:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you thought of the star's light? The star's light and the star's mass travel at very different speeds. Tourskin (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this what they call relative motion? --Howard the Duck 11:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ireland picture

If only we had saved that for monday! It would have been perfect. Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was requested for today -- Saint Patrick's Day was supposed to be moved to the 15th because it overlaps with Holy Week, but I don't see it listed on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/March 15. I think a lot of people (in the US anyway) are still celebrating it on Monday -- I know my daughter is planning to wear green that day. howcheng {chat} 06:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Update: Now added to WP:SA. howcheng {chat} 07:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

All events are still on March 17th except for St Patrick's Day Mass. EamonnPKeane (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Tibet Deaths?

CNN is reporting that at least 100 are dead in Tibet due to the protests. [4] Just a heads up. --Sharkface217 05:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

how about 2008 Atlanta tornado outbreak? for current events —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pensil (talk • contribs) 14:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Go to WP:ITN/C. --74.13.127.129 (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

New York Governor Centric

The main page is, at this time, very New York Governor Centric. Not only do we have a lead on Eliot Spitzer, but we also have a DYK about Grover Cleveland dedicating something as Governor of New York. I suggest we remove both, and replace with something more London-ish... Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 01:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you build a bridge and get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.144.251.120 (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
more like under it, amirite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.186.233 (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:BIAS. Honestly, if sarcasm was intended, it doesn't help. If it wasn't, feel free to submit to WP:ITN/C and WP:DYK. We feature what has been written, so it needs to be written first! ffm 03:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The -centric joke is getting somewhat old now. Jmount (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Further, jokes on the main page discussion only serve to dilute the efforts of those who try to keep this page on-topic. It gives a bit of a "do as I say, not as I do" feeling to this page. Perhaps we could have a section like the Errors page that we can move all "-centric" edits to. Cigarette (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There used to be a WP:BJAODN... 141.157.115.80 (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Except these "bias" jokes ceased to be amusing or worth archiving quite some time ago. -Elmer Clark (talk) 08:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh really now, that's enough of that. 69.143.226.129 (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If they are going to mention he is the fist black NY governor, then they certainly should mention he is the first blind governor.--Steven X (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Legally blind. Try WP:ITN/C. --74.13.125.74 (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Trapped in the Closet

Nice work, very timely considering the 15th of March is Anonymous second protest. Good to see Wiki editors support. - 60.241.95.42 (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's purely not a coincidence, but it's not an endorsement either. And of course, from an not-really-all-that-anonymous user. BTW, creating an account gives you _more_ anonymity. ffm 02:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure it's not a coincidence? I see no evidence that a request was made Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Perhaps Raul was aware that today is Hubbard's birthday, perhaps not, I've asked him to clarify Nil Einne (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC) Wait today isn't Hubbard's birthday, the anon in errors was wrong Nil Einne (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It's an enormous coincidence, that is all. It's on the main page today because it's: 2 years to the date since the controversial day that the episode was scheduled to be rebroadcast, but did not. It was decided back in October 2007-see archived discussion. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it strike anyone else as slightly sinister that this article is missing from the "Recently featured" list? It should come between Oxygen and Storm botnet. SeanWillard (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I posted it at errors above. Thanks! --Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Fixed by User:Art LaPella. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

april fools day plans

i recomend that for april fools day we lock the main page and save a copy of some of the longest/most important pages81.108.233.59 (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The main page is already protected. All versions of every page are already saved in the edit histories. Don't worry too much. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
We should transclude the Uncyclopedia Main page. Imagine the hilarity. 81.149.224.21 (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Wikipedians are capable of being funny and humorous without outside help. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Ugh.. not more lame "jokes".. why is their a full committee for this crap. - Boochan (talk) 10:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Raul, the FA director, said that if Uncyclopedia is up to FA status by April Fool's day, he'll feature it. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uncyclopedia for the exact quote. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for discussion

I've noticed that many templates include view, discuss and edit links at the top (e.g.). Since many/most of the sections on this Talk page deal with things that have more appropriate Talk pages elsewhere, would it be possible and desirable to have "v.d.e" links on the sections on the main page? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

We're all scared of Wikipedia turning into a forum. Having a discuss link on things on the main page? Also, I think edit and view would be unhelpful. Mac Davis (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
However, we already have a discussion link on the front page and it mostly points people in the wrong direction. I admit "edit" would be unhelpful (and would only allow most users to "view source"), but wasn't sure if it's an unchangeable standard set of links. "View" would be informative for people who don't realise that ITN doesn't look the same everywhere.
The main point (and I should have made this clearer) was not that "v.d.e" would be ideal, but that something along those lines might be helpful. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
By "we're all scared of wikipedia turning into a forum," looking back, I guess I was thinking of conflicts at the Reference desks, and what happened with WP:Esperanza. What do you mean about the "view?" Mac Davis (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Currently, the "v" or "view" links on a template in an article take you to the template's page. The example above, Template:Anderlecht Squad, appears in Franky Vercauteren, and I reached it by clicking on the "v" where the template appears in the player's article. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
You want to try putting together a working model for the idea?

Today's featured article
FNS and Puerto Rico representatives inspect a marketplace in San Juan
FNS and Puerto Rico representatives inspect a marketplace in San Juan
Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico is a federal assistance nutritional program provided by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) solely to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a territory of the United States. It provides over $1.5 billion in supplemental economic resources to help just over 1 million impoverished residents cope with their nutritional needs. Since its inception in 1982, the program has been providing low-income families living in Puerto Rico with cash benefits used for food purchases. It is a collaborative effort between the USDA and the island's government, where the former provides annual federal appropriations for the Puerto Rico government to distribute individually among eligible participants. Although the methods of providing such benefits have changed over the years, the program's basic objective of helping low-income families meet their nutritional needs has remained constant. It has, however, been controversial throughout its existence. Federal reviews and assessments have revealed deficiencies in its operations and management, requiring the implementation of various changes, including increased scrutiny. It has also attracted both criticism and advocacy from Puerto Rico and the United States over its effectiveness in helping poor families and its impact on Puerto Rico's social classes and economy. (more...)

Recently featured: Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll – Sir Gawain and the Green Knight – Storm botnet

Not sure how to get the v d e inside the green but right aligned. We could also put it in the footer. Mac Davis (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Creepy coincidence

Since people are always speculating on coincidences on this page: the HMAS Sydnes and HSK Komoran were mentioned two weeks ago as the daily FA - Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 27, 2008. They had been missing for 60+ years. Today they were found. Yes, this is in fact a coincidence. Raul654 (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You think it's a coincidence? I think that we caused them to be found. Jk. Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 03:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Seeing how they took part in the same battle and therefore likely sank near each other, and that whenever you mention one you more than often than not need to mention the other, the only co-incidence is that wikipedia mentioned the event, and the two vessels were found. I can't imagine those searching for the Sydney would call off their search after they found the Kormoran! :-P would you? Supposed (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

For my part, I saw the word "wreckage" and the pic of the Bear Sterns building, and for a second or two I thought it said something about how JPMorgan Chase acquired the wreckage of Bear Sterns ... Daniel Case (talk) 05:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Main Page Discussion cleanup

Let's say I were to, for example, take the discussion about American bias above and move it to the discussion page of WP:BIAS. Would that be about as appropriate as moving someone's comment about an error on the main page to WP:ERRORS? Cigarette (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's alright to move an error post to errors, because admins check WP:ERRORS on a regular basis. So putting a error discussion in errors increases its chances of being seen by the target audience (=someone who can fix it). Furthermore, WP:ERRORS is transcluded here, so you can still see it. But if you moved the bias discussion to WT:BIAS, people interested in issues concerning the main page wouldn't see it. I wouldn't worry about the bias post though, if nobody else responds, it should be archived shortly by a bot. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I occasionally move or more commonly copy discussion which are best held elsewhere to other sections when they are likely to achieve something, particularly when they are either going on way too long but haven't yet disgressed into pointless ramblings (although I would usually use subtle nudgings there unless I am responding myself in which case I am just as entilted to copy/move the discussion as anyone else IMHO) or when whatever it is may be missed (e.g. if someone complains about a problem with an article and I don't have the time or knowledge to fix it. However most or all of the bias discussions here are pretty pointless so I see no merit to moving them, particularly if it leads to complaints, cries of censorship and whatever else. Nil Einne (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, moving a bias discussion, irrelevant of how much more appropriate the move-to location would be, and irrelevant of how irrelevant the discussion itself is; would just lead to more problems then it ever solved. I only stick my 2c in when its gets ridiculous (usually around the time someone overreacts and breaks out the word "Nazi". When none of the major contributors to this talk page involve themselves in bias discussion its usually only a complaint and a single response. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 03:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Huge gap in main page

There's a massive gap between the main part of the page and the "Overview", "Editing" etc. sections. Can someone please fix this? May I remind administrators of the obvious fact that changing the Main Page is extremely visible and as such playing around with it, especially without discussion, should be minimised? -62.172.143.205 (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. I've had a play trying to add an inputbox to the main page, but it can't be done without abusing tables horribly since the code used and HTML generated by the inputbox extension is completely and utterly brain-damaged and completely incoherent, making the thing practically useless for general use. -62.172.143.205 (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Clutter-free Main Page?

Could we have a clutter-free main page for mobile devices, or has this already been asked and rejected? By 'mobile devices' I'm referring to the too-small displays on PDA's and the like. I sure would like to be able to get to Wikipedia on my mobile phone without having to navigate through myriad articles just to get to Search. N6gn (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives. BTW, the main page is not primarily intended to be a search space. If you are looking solely for a search space, you should head to Special:Search or [5] or alternative just add wikipedia to your browser's built in search function (which most modern full featured browsers have), whether you are using a mobile device or a full featured browser on a PC Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
You may also want to try http://wapedia.mobi/en/ Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

wapedia.mobi/en/ is exactly what I wanted. Thanks for the patient response to a basic question. N6gn (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, wapedia is mentioned at Main Page alternatives Nil Einne (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to change the coding of Main Page

Hey y'all, I just want to propose that we change the coding of the main page to that of this proposal. It uses two template: {{Main Page Body}} and {{Main Page Header}} . They basically replace the coding currently used on the main page, essentially giving the edit page a cleaner look. Plus it reduces the size of the page. nat.utoronto 20:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well... it actually increases the size of the page because you have to download your two template headers, and the code that was origionally there, as there being transcluded onto it. 64.236.217.23 (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The size from a user download point of view is the fully substed forms of every template on the page, so it has no efficiency gain. Also, make proposals, certainly, but it's generally a good idea to wait for responses before making the changes. Orderinchaos 20:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
64.236.217.23 the size of the page actually reduces, look at the history it was 4,712 bytes, with the modifications it is reduced to 1,912 bytes. nat.utoronto 20:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly. It's 18,072 in the original and 17,303 in your version - a 769 byte saving, and 5 extra processes to handle the templates. The raw size is what we measure from user efficiency point of view Orderinchaos 20:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The IP was talking about user download I believe, that is what's more important in the long term. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 00:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any benefits to this. It obfuscates the coding of the main page. There is no reason to modularize a page into templates if the templates are not being used on multiple pages. If there are specific changes that can be made to decrease the final html output of the main page without breaking it into templates, explain them here. --- RockMFR 03:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't this adversly effect the cascading protection also? ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 09:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
what do you mean by "adversly effect the cascading protection"? nat.utoronto 14:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It won't, as the templates would be protected just like everything else on the main page, as would anything linked in the templates. ffm 14:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Main Page balance

Right now, the main page looks like crap. The ITN is way too long and it's offsetting the entire page. I suggest that someone takes down the bottom 2 news stories, that'll even things up, I think. Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 01:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You can propose some trimming at WP:ERRORS. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 06:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK picture

I know Wikipedia is not censored...but do we purposefully pick the most provocative picture for the DYK -- I mean, was the current picture the highest quality license-free illustrative item, or was it merely picked to make people squawk? 199.89.180.65 (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A 100 pixel naked lady made you squawk? It's art, dude. 144.137.197.167 (talk) 04:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I picked the image of the Courbet because it was the highest-quality image available for that day's submissions (excluding one that's been earmarked for the Easter weekend), and also because it accompanies an interesting hook. As I recall, the only competition was: , which is not only a poor-quality image, it also lacks information on the author. I don't think it can possibly be considered provocative at 100x100 pixels; despite the caption of erotic art, it's not exactly what I'd call provocative even at full size. To be honest, it never even crossed my mind that it might cause people to squawk. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It looks fine to me. Mac Davis (talk) 07:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


Two Major Omissions for "On This Day"

Today, Friday March 21st, 2008, is not just Good Friday. It's also Holi, the Indian festival of colors which celebrates Krishna's divine play with Radha, and the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad! Why haven't these major religious festivals also been mentioned alongside Good Friday? That's over 2 billion people's professed religious observance ignored! --59.93.222.16 (talk) 06:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

As stated in the Holi article (to which you linked), it's tomorrow. —David Levy 06:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Holi's being celebrated all across Bengal and elsewhere in India. Much has been made of the fact that the Parsi new year, Navroz, Good Friday, Holi, and Muhammad's birthday are all taking place on the same day. Holi celebrations are spread out over several days, but it began today on the 21st. Also, it's extremely odd that an extremely young religion like Bah'ai is mentioned as celebrating Navroz/Nawruz while Parsis/Zoroastrians are ignored when Bah'aists in fact co-opted said celebration from the far older Zoroastrian religion. See the following link for a newstory from a respected paper, Chicago Tribune, confirming what I'm saying.

[6] --59.93.222.16 (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I should mention that there are two days being cited by some Indians for the start of Holi... "Bihari Holi" is on the 22nd whereas many tens of millions of other Indians have claimed the 21st... major newspapers in India, like the Telegraph, have also reported the 21st as the date for Holi this year. --59.93.222.16 (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that the main page usually defers to supporting pages. So please refer/edit/modify/discuss/cite those relevant holiday articles before requesting a change to the main page templates Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/March 20, Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/March 21, and Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/March 22. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of the holidays you mentioned are in fact on one of those three templates – they have not been completely ignored – so the problem is which articles need the dates corrected. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Surfer Rosa on the Main Page

Today's Main Page summary of the featured article is confusing. It refers to "either country" without having clearly indicated what those countries might be. This edit in the article itself appears to fix things. Can some do the same for the Main Page summary? Cheers.--86.149.55.198 (talk) 08:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe I've clarified it somewhat. Thanks for pointing it out. CloudNine (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. You know, I've seen a number of errors in Main Page summaries of featured articles in the past few months. It makes me wonder how closely they are checked. Cheers.--86.147.200.135 (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore...I've just realised someone highlighted the same problem earlier today - in "Errors in the summary of Today's featured article on the Main Page". So it took over four hours to fix an obvious problem. I am quite supportive of the Wikipedia project, so I'm not happy that errors in such a prominent place (a) slip through and (b) hang around for some time.--86.147.200.135 (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Blame the Easter long weekend. Many admins are away for fun / family / religious reasons. --74.14.16.124 (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want to help out, you can always monitor Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (Tomorrow and Next DYK) and WP:ITN/Candidates and try to catch errors early. -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

%s holds out of date copy

Does anyone purge %s after main page updates? I realise this is probably a nuisance, but I came to Wikipedia by that route today, while logged out, and got yesterday's page (3 hours after it should have updated). When I realised what had happened and purged the redirect page the new featured article and anniversary and news stories suddenly appeared. • Anakin (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a redirect -- most likely it's your browser cache that needs updating. See WP:CACHE for help. (BTW, what is this redirect even for??) howcheng {chat} 05:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Apparently a bug/feature in the way the firefox search engine works Talk:%s Nil Einne (talk) 06:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Purging %s would do absolutely nothing. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's the browser cache because that's empty, and repeatedly Ctrl+F5'ing the page at %s doesn't bring in the new featured article. It's not until you purge it that the new one appears. • Anakin (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Pixies picture

Joey Santiago.

The image used to illustrate the Pixies on the main page today is unfortunate. It's a Flickr photo taken of the band's guitarist in 2005, hardly contemporaneous with the main page article which was their 1988 debut album. Why wasn't an image of the album used? Tempshill (talk) 06:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is that images tagged as fair use are not allowed on the main page. See also [7] and Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why is a Main Page section missing an illustrative image? Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

--86.147.200.135 (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Or at least a photo of the band like on the Pixies pageMjpresson (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no photo of the band on the Pixies band beyond media used under fair use Nil Einne (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-cat bias (or: I can haz bias?)

The main page has far too few cats. This is clearly sign of an anti-cat bias. It needs MOAR CATZ! Ceiling Cat (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't been funny in months, today is no exception, no offence intended, simply stating the fact. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 20:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I would say that's primarily the fault of the dude who manages the main page's featured article section. Ceiling Cat should probably pee in his shoes. Joe 01:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm scared of cats. • Anakin (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the 'search' box should be moved higher up and be placed right under the Wikipedia logo. It would be an act of user-friendliness, as this box is often the first feature to be used when people visit the Main Page. Jean de Beaumont (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Who added a SECOND search box on main page??? It also seems to boasting - "Search Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". The place is very unusual....just below the all portal.... --gppande «talk» 12:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It was User:Nat, and it's kind of bugging me too. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 12:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
If it's bugging you then I will remove it... nat.utoronto 12:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm probably just so used to it on the side, it might actually be good for new readers. Random thought: How about a la google, and center it with the go button underneath? --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 12:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I see it is removed now, my concern is there should not two search boxes as it confuses everybody. My initial thought was the search box is for different portals of WP. But it wasn't that. --gppande «talk» 13:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, this subject has been occasionally been discussed from time to time for the past couple of years, but there never ever has been a consensus to add one. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. Many users (including me) have opined that the addition of a redundant search box to the top of the main page would be bad for readers; they might be confused regarding its purpose (as Gppande noted above) or expect its presence on every page (and become frustrated when it vanishes after their first search).
Additionally, it's entirely illogical in the Classic and Cologne Blue skins (which already feature a search box at the top of every page). —David Levy 15:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want a search box on the main page, use Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (Search Box) (feel free to fix/update it too), or one of the other Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyone gets so anal when a new change is proposed. Tourskin (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Some people would prefer that the main page looked like Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (Italian-style). Not everyone can be satisfied. How was your comment helpful again? -- Quiddity (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
How was yours, other than a snide counter comment, which has incited me to reciprocate? My point was for everyone to be a little less conservative.Tourskin (talk) 05:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

black governor

some people, may find offensive the use of the term "black". it would be better to say: the first African american". thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.20.255.193 (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... some blacks don't like the term African American because it implies that they're not 100% American.
There's alot of discussion over the term "African American", does it include whites who were born in Africa an then moved to the US? Is it just for the descendants of slaves? In his 1963 "I Have a Dream" speech,[40] Martin Luther King, Jr. uses the terms Negro 15 times and black 4 times. Each time he uses black it is in parallel construction with white (e.g., black men and white men). He, a key figure in the African American civil rights movement, obviously had no problem with the word black.
I find the term black better, but perhaps this should be in errors above? Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually he's Caribbean-American.... Like Colin Powell (They both have at least one parent from Jamaica.) All of the Caribbean Media is buzzing about his roots actually.
CaribDigita (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It's Paterson's ethnicity (not his nationality) that's relevant. "Black" isn't an ethnic slur; it's a mainstream term throughout the English-speaking world (and therefore has far greater international recognition than "African American" does). The term "black" is used self-descriptively by many civil rights groups and leaders, and we even have a Black History Month.
Note, however, that "black" is linked to the African American article, so that's covered. —David Levy 22:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
But as stated above, he's Caribbean-American. So should it not link to that instead? crassic![talk] 22:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
To what? —David Levy 09:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Indo-Caribbean American, though I'm not sure if that would be 100% correct since I'm not aware of his full background. crassic![talk] 16:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe that Paterson is of Afro-Caribbean descent, but we don't seem to have articles covering the relatively broad subjects of Afro-Caribbean or Afro-Caribbean American people. (And we have a Jamaican American article, but we don't have a Grenadian American article.)
Also, the blurb isn't about Paterson's Caribbean heritage; it's (partially) about him being black. We could link to Black people, but that would provide less relevant context. —David Levy 16:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The legal blindness issue is a bit tricky to cover in an ITN blurb. We could refer to him as the nation's second legally blind governor, but this wouldn't convey the fact that the first instance was practically a technicality. —David Levy 04:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I am curious to ask which Black people did not come from Africa? I was under the impression that people from the Carribean were from Africa. Tourskin (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Indigenous Australians and people from Papua New Guinea 69.129.145.210 (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, according to a very accepted theory, all humans originate from Africa. The key is how recent your African ancenstors must be to qualify as African American. Nobody knows. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 06:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I might be acting particularly dense, but how does one become legally blind? Is this just something that occurs in the USA? Either way, I don't think it's particularly good terminology. User:joy.discovery.invention —Preceding comment was added at 00:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Not its not a USA thing. Some people find it hard to believe but Americans aren't dumb people who do dumb stuff. Legally blind means that according to the law, he is classified as disabled and his disability is with his eyesight - how clearer can one get with this term? He is blind and the law recognizes this for various administrative and legal reasons. Tourskin (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I think your paranoia that my picking up on one phrase is an indication that citizens of the USA are dumb is a bit unfounded. I'm quite offended and even bewildered as to how you jumped to this conclusion. 'Registered'blind sounds better than 'legally' blind; the latter implies, in my opinion, that anyone who is blind and does not have this fact recorded is somehow committing a crime. Get off your high horse - it was a simple observation. Unless I'm mistaken, I admitted that I might be in the wrong. Jeeeezus. User:joy.discovery.invention —Preceding comment was added at 00:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not censor to avoid offending particular groups. That is all. Mac Davis (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't think calling him African American would be censorship. It just wouldn't be a very descriptive term. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
His skin color IS noteworthy - why? Is it because we're racist bigots and are shocked to see such a skin color? No, its because its great that African Americans are given opportunities in government, and its great that we have another African American or Black governor. If you losers out there find those terms offensives thats too bad, because believe me black people are real and equal, as real and equal as white people. I'm not black nor really caucasian but I don't give a damn, what is being given a damn here at wikipedia is reliable noteworthy information, such is that the imbalance with race and society is slowly being balanced out, at least it is hoped that social inbalances are being undone. Tourskin (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Chinese bias on the Main Page? Taiwan Go Bragh!

Do we really want photos of TWO Presidents of the Republic of China on the Main Page, a newly elected one on ITN, and an old one on OTD, at the same time? --199.71.174.100 (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol, why the hell not!Tourskin (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The joke died ages ago. It is no longer funny. ffm 16:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The Joke dies when people are no longer amused, not when you say so. Tourskin (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't meant as a joke. It was a minor complaint, made with a smile, so to speak. One of the two pics was removed from the Main Page soon after. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, your complaint was legitimate. This sort of thing happens from time to time (and I recall removing one of two British prime ministers not too long ago), and it's something that we try to avoid. —David Levy 19:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
A group of truly random numbers in places may appear to bias towards 3, to avoid that you need to arrange them to avoid such natural groupings which contrarily makes them less random. Apply this short story to this situation as you choose to. (1 == 2)Until 19:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll keep that in mind the next time I get a sense of dejavu. lol. Tourskin (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Aesthetic changes

Anyone think that the links after the main page FA sample should be enclosed in something like this, below?

Today's featured article
Reese Witherspoon in October 2006
Reese Witherspoon in October 2006
Reese Witherspoon is an American actress who has established herself as one of the highest-paid Hollywood actresses in recent years. Witherspoon landed her first feature role as the female lead in the movie The Man in the Moon in 1991; later that year she made her television acting debut, in the cable movie Wildflower. In 1996, Witherspoon's performance in Freeway established her as a rising star and led to roles in three major 1998 movies: Overnight Delivery, Pleasantville, and Twilight. The following year, Witherspoon appeared in the critically acclaimed Election, which earned her a Golden Globe nomination. 2001 marked her career's turning point with the breakout role as Elle Woods in the box office hit Legally Blonde, and in 2002 she starred in Sweet Home Alabama, which became her biggest commercial film success to date. 2003 saw her return as lead actress and executive producer of Legally Blonde 2. In 2005, Witherspoon received worldwide attention and praise for her portrayal of June Carter Cash in Walk the Line, which earned her an Academy Award, a Golden Globe and a Screen Actors Guild Award for Best Actress. Witherspoon owns a production company named Type A Films. (more...)



Featured article links: Archive – By email – More featured articles...

I think it looks better. Any comments? Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 08:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe this:
Today's featured article
Reese Witherspoon in October 2006
Reese Witherspoon in October 2006
Reese Witherspoon is an American actress who has established herself as one of the highest-paid Hollywood actresses in recent years. Witherspoon landed her first feature role as the female lead in the movie The Man in the Moon in 1991; later that year she made her television acting debut, in the cable movie Wildflower. In 1996, Witherspoon's performance in Freeway established her as a rising star and led to roles in three major 1998 movies: Overnight Delivery, Pleasantville, and Twilight. The following year, Witherspoon appeared in the critically acclaimed Election, which earned her a Golden Globe nomination. 2001 marked her career's turning point with the breakout role as Elle Woods in the box office hit Legally Blonde, and in 2002 she starred in Sweet Home Alabama, which became her biggest commercial film success to date. 2003 saw her return as lead actress and executive producer of Legally Blonde 2. In 2005, Witherspoon received worldwide attention and praise for her portrayal of June Carter Cash in Walk the Line, which earned her an Academy Award, a Golden Globe and a Screen Actors Guild Award for Best Actress. Witherspoon owns a production company named Type A Films. (more...)


That version looks even better to me. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 08:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I would rather object that. Even if we don't take deprecated ugly <br />s into account (that is up to the implementation, not to the apperance), enclosing these in such bright frames will distract readers. Making font smaller is good, but I don't like this frame. (And please be more accurate this time: <h2>s get their entry in TOC). — Kalan ? 08:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Think making the frames less striking would help? By lightening the colours, perhaps? Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 08:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I've tried this in preview before posting my opinion ;) No, four edges look worse than current version, whatever brightness they have. But a single line (border-top or border-bottom in CSS) with light colors may be useful. — Kalan ? 08:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
My main goal is to distinguish that text from that of the FA preview. How would this line you suggest look? Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 09:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Or, alternately, could I keep that last format I suggested and move the second and bottom text sections to the far right side? That way, they'd be out of the way and it shouldn't be unobtrusive. I'd try doing this but I suck at wikicode. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 09:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Something like this:
Today's featured article
Reese Witherspoon in October 2006
Reese Witherspoon in October 2006

Reese Witherspoon is an American actress who has established herself as one of the highest-paid Hollywood actresses in recent years. Witherspoon landed her first feature role as the female lead in the movie The Man in the Moon in 1991; later that year she made her television acting debut, in the cable movie Wildflower. In 1996, Witherspoon's performance in Freeway established her as a rising star and led to roles in three major 1998 movies: Overnight Delivery, Pleasantville, and Twilight. The following year, Witherspoon appeared in the critically acclaimed Election, which earned her a Golden Globe nomination. 2001 marked her career's turning point with the breakout role as Elle Woods in the box office hit Legally Blonde, and in 2002 she starred in Sweet Home Alabama, which became her biggest commercial film success to date. 2003 saw her return as lead actress and executive producer of Legally Blonde 2. In 2005, Witherspoon received worldwide attention and praise for her portrayal of June Carter Cash in Walk the Line, which earned her an Academy Award, a Golden Globe and a Screen Actors Guild Award for Best Actress. Witherspoon owns a production company named Type A Films. (more...)

We would have to introduce similar lines to other blocks (In the news, Featured picture, etc) to make it look not so lonely there.
— Kalan ? 09:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that looks a bit "wonky". -Halo (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean free space between "recently featured" and rightmost links? — Kalan ? 19:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite fond of the idea if not the actual implementation, but remove the br tags and change the margin instead. The other parts of the page would need to be changed to look similar. Perhaps a project should begin on a main page refresh, since there seems to be interest in it. -Halo (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps using the colour #e1f8ed would be useful, as that's the average colour between the background and the title. -Halo (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Kalan's version looks great to me, and I guess an overhaul would be good, though I was mainly looking at the FA section for now. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 11:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Stray div

Is there a stray <div> somewhere in the above TFA mock-ups? Why is there an indent on the left? --199.71.174.100 (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. — Kalan ? 04:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Cursor

Hi, I just wanted to say that, although a small change, it would be great that when you get to the Wikipedia main page (ie. en.wikipedia.org) that the Cursor is already activated in the search box so that all you have to do is just type in whatever you want to search, instead of having to use ur mouse/touchpad to click on the search box etc etc. A small thing, but just makes the website that little more user friendly.

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.168.133 (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi,
we've thought about it but decided not to, because then you wouldn't be able to scroll with the arrow keys. Basically, we prefer making it easier to read the Main Page to making it easier to start a search at the main page. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is Flag of Armenia a featured-article? I took a look at it and the article is very small, with only internet sources and some of the sources appear to be self-published.

Did the standards for FA suddenly get lowered?

More likely, I'm going to guess that this was some kind of strategic effort by obscure nationalist POV-pushers (i.e., "Long live Armenia! Down with Kazakhstan! They are like horrible country!"). So in any case, if anyone from the frontpage cabal reads this, please fix it. If there aren't enough FAs to keep the front-page full, I suggest re-using past FAs, if they haven't yet been vandalized in which case they can be cleaned up and "re-featured." ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's happening: Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page. Most FA's have never appeared on the Main Page. SpencerT♦C 00:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
(EC) We have A LOT of featured articles which have not been on the main page yet- they are getting promoted faster than we are using them. I admit, that looks like a bloody awful featured article to me. It's happened before- something promoted years ago is shown on the main page, and it's been demoted a few weeks afterwards. (It was a Beatles song or something last time, I think.) This particular one was promoted over a year ago, and the promoted version looks no better. Generous promotion if you ask me, the standards weren't much lower back then, but complaining about it here isn't going to achieve anything. I reccomend waiting until it's off the main page (including the link underneath that day's featured article) then nominate for featured article review. J Milburn (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I wasn't aware that we had so many FAs. Sorry for the undue cynicism.
I'll follow your advice, J Milburn. Thanks. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
There is also a featured article review process for re-reviewing articles that may no longer meet the FA criteria. I would suggest waiting until it is no longer on the main page before nominating it, if you choose to do so. Mr.Z-man 05:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that was said already. -- tariqabjotu 05:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio

There appear to be copyright violations in today's featured article (Flag of Armenia). See talk:Flag of Armenia. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, unless there is a concern about the main page blurb, your best bet is to bring it up on the article talk page, as you already have done. See above- this really is a poor featured article. J Milburn (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
If I were Wikipedia I'd feel a little more strongly than that about <hyperbole>stolen</hyperbole> material being linked to from the front page. Anyway, I'll get back to what I didn't have time to do this morning and remove any remaining thievery of words. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
If you feel an issue needs attention beyond the talk page of an article, you should raise it in the WP:Village pump or WP:Copyright problems or somewhere else. Ultimately, it has nothing to do with the main page Nil Einne (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, but I'm dealing with the article elsewhere. Thanks for your help. 4u1e (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Let me put it a different way. This page is only really intended for discussing issues with the main page. Anything which does not concern the main page, is best discussed elsewhere. In particular, this page is not the best place to get the attention of other editors for issues not concering the main page since only a tiny number of editors actually check it for that purpose and any comments not concerning the main page may not receive any attention at all. Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Alfred P. Sloan Foundation

The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation board of directors voted to award the Wikimedia Foundation USD 1 million annually for the coming three years. A total of USD 3 million, spread over three years.

Could we have this information on the main page? In "In the news"? Or a thank you notice at the top? The newly hired staff at the Foundation just earned their paychecks. Three cheers for everyone that helped make this happen! WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that this classifies as "international importance or at least interest". Furthermore, it would surely violate WP:Avoid self references. Thanks for the suggestion, but no. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
If you insist, try WP:ITN/C. --74.14.19.55 (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
They donated to keep Wikipedia the same, not to add pat-on-the-back self-masturbatory semi-advertising nonsense to the pages -62.172.143.205 (talk) 09:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it, at least, be appropriate to have a link on the front page to a list of non-profit organizations which have donated funds to Wikipedia? --Camptown (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be a little bit close to advertising for comfort? -62.172.143.205 (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. There is NO way that we can have this on the main page. J Milburn (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. It's definitely too close to advertising for my tastes. Lovelac7 13:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
This is probably SIGNPOST material, not the Main Page. Try their tip-line. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It's there already. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page/Archive_120&oldid=1149991765"