Talk:Main Page/Archive 111

This is an archive of past discussions about Main Page. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 105

←

Archive 109

→

Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive.

002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009
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
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

New Article

I just added Palladium Plaza Shopping Mall article. Do you like it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NicolasLord (talk • contribs) 16:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very nicely done. 38.112.225.84 18:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

And... it's been deleted. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 02:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing about Equal Rights Amendment for today?

Representative Martha W. Griffiths of Michigan, however, achieved success on Capitol Hill with her House Joint Resolution No. 208, which was adopted by the House on October 12, 1971, with a vote of 354 yeas, 24 nays and 51 not voting (117 Congressional Record 35815). Griffiths' joint resolution was then adopted by the Senate on March 22, 1972, with a vote of 84 yeas, 8 nays and 7 not voting (118 Congressional Record 9598). And with that, the ERA was finally presented by the 92nd Congress to the state legislatures for ratification, as Article V of the Constitution prescribes, with a seven-year deadline for ratification by the required three-quarters of the legislatures (38 legislatures).

I'm totally strange to this thing of discussing the front page, my apologies if somehow I did something wrong. --Extremophile 18:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

According to OTD guidelines (Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries) there should only be 5 events. There are already 5 items all of which seem fairly noteable. Given that this amendment, while noteable was as far as I'm aware neither groundbreaking nor unique particularly since it failed (other countries have similiar constitiounal guarantees now, some of them may have already had them either written or implied before then) it's not clear to me which, if any, item you feel this should displace. Perhaps on the 50th anniversy or if it ever succeeds. Also the article has a 'need sources' tag and we generally only want resonable quality articles as primary links on the main page given it's primary purpose os to highlight wikipedia Nil Einne 01:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture knights templar

I noticed a strange image in the place of a Knights templar image....IT says in the image that "Please upload something..."...whats up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyoraish (talk • contribs) 07:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Main_Page_image_incident. WjBscribe 07:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:)

Thanks to all wikipedians for all good articles! 80.217.65.124 14:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) Καροτ Μαν 20:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Knight's Templar

How awesome is it that the Knight's Templar is the main article the same time as the Vatican releases transcripts of the trials. Cool, eh? -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 03:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a coincidence - today is the 700th anniversary of the massacre. Raul654 04:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

----Shouldn't that be part of 'On This Day' then?

No, we often have featured articles on certain days when they are relevent. April Folls Day has odd ones, and sports and music event featured articles often coincide with the event of the year after. J Milburn 14:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW: per the article the arrests began in 1307, but Jacques de Molay and some of the others were executed 7 years later, in 1314. Shir-El too 23:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Dyk Picture

The picture in DYK today is disgusting. Marlith ^T/C 15:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it becomes necessary, the image could be replaced by one of the dozen or so illustrating the Marie de' Medici cycle. Though I'm sure there'll be someone along shortly to squawk "Not censored!! not censored!!". GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It does seem to stick out as an eyesore. Xizer 17:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If you think there are calls for removing the current picture, imagine the comments if we used The Education of the Princess or The Disembarkation at Marseilles from the Medici cycle instead. -- 20:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.112.200 (talk)

I agree, today's DYK picture is quite disturbing, I think they could picture another photo relating to a different DYK Fact. (♠Taifarious1♠) 21:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was the one who updated the template with the picture in the first place. I've no real objection to it, I just find that a lot of people like to shout WP:CENSOREDZOMG!!!11! even when it's not applicable to the situation (though I suppose, at least in this case, it would be.) In any case, we've a nice pretty Rembrandt painting decorating the section now. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the image has been changed, for anyone interested, the image is Image:Food bolus obstruction.jpg

"Endoscopic image of patient with esophageal food bolus obstruction due to a grape in the setting of eosinophilic esophagitis."

Evil Monkey - Hello 23:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

NOT CENSORED, NOT CENSORED! Amit@Talk 13:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Village pump discussion on Featured lists

Some of you may be aware of the proposal for today's featured list, which is crashing and burning its way into the land of the rejected. However, it appears that some support existed for the general idea of featured lists on the Main Page. As such, I, and some other editors, thought that this, more general discussion deserved its own time. You can contribute to the discussion at this subsection of the Village Pump. Thanks. IvoShandor 04:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hindi Wikipedia mention

The Hindi Wikipedia doesn't appear in the "Wikipedia in other languages" list at the left. Is there any way to add it? Amit@Talk 12:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would be there, but does it have over 25,000 articles? Your Grace Lord Sir Dreamy of Buckland ^tm 12:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You see, the bit on the mainpage only goes as low as 25,000 articles, while the Hindi Wikipedia has only 13,000+ articles. Your Grace Lord Sir Dreamy of Buckland ^tm 12:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

OK I understand now, but that makes me curious how the "nepal bhasha" wikipedia already has that many articles when the hindi one deosn't; I'd reckon there are far more people working on the hindi one. But anyway, thanks for answering my query. Amit@Talk 13:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Many medium-sized Wikipedias of less common languages (the biggest offender being Volapuk) consist mostly of translated articles about places. I don't know if that's the case on the Nepal Bhasa Wikipedia, which may simply have a few very dedicated editors who have created tons of pages—I can't read the script to even get an idea of what it's saying—but I wouldn't be surprised to learn otherwise. —Verrai 17:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

Hi how about we add a review part on pages about media and toys/models. eg. films/music/formats/computer and bord games/toys/figers/tv shows , and so one. if you have seen/got the thing in qustion then you add to the review secshon your opinium. Anyone up for it? JosephK19 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT 128.227.61.77 18:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling that user reviews would lead to a lot of worthless content. Reviews of things like movies and music change along with popular culture, while an encyclopedia (with regard to popular culture) is really meant to reflect the total public opinion of something at the time. 007patrick 23:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Public opinion? IIRC, an encyclopedia supposed to represent facts? ff m 23:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this Controversy day?

We have a lead on Intelligent design, and then a headline mentioning the Armenian Genocide. Yikes! Hires an editor 01:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick - someone change the featured picture to nazis or mosquito sex or something... Raul654 02:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose everything is controversial to everyone to some extent. Tourskin 02:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I take exception to that !! -Elmer Clark 02:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? -- !! ?? 09:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol the image today looks like the Turkish amabassador is an old lady. Controversial, would you all not say so? Tourskin 02:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No need, the IPCC and Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize so controversy day continues... Nil Einne 11:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any connection between this and the fact that Truthiness is scheduled for the main page on October 17,... Maybe it's "truthiness week", or something? Editors might want to be on the lookout for another round of vandalism by Stephen Colbert (hint: PROTECT THE ELEPHANT ARTICLE!) Dr. Cash 04:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Elephant is not a featured article; nor are African elephant (or African Bush Elephant and African Forest Elephant if you prefer) or Asian Elephant, or mammoth or mastodon; and the featured article on Crushing by elephant has already been on the Main Page. But the articles on some charismatic megafauna are still eligible for the main page - Hippopotamus, for example. -- !! ?? 09:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think pre-emptive protection of an article because we're featuring truthiness is necessary. If it is, every time I type the word "Colbert" the entire Spanish Wikipedia should be protected. Still, a lookout or an sprotect may be in order tomorrow. -- Chris is me _{(user/review/talk)} 05:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I heard that Stephen Colbert actually speaks Swahili, so we should protect the entire contents of the Swahili Wikipedia instead, just as a precaution. You never know what kind of vandalism Mr. Colbert will insert into THAT language! ;-) Dr. Cash 06:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The bleeding hearts that control Wikipedia couldn't stand to see Battleship and Knights Templar as featured articles so they lasted about 10 minutes each. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this sarcasm? Battleship and Knights Templar lasted approximately 24 hours, just like all the rest. 69.95.50.15 14:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he/she's referring to the vandalism. But every article is vandalised, even articles which 'bleeding hearts' like. Indeed they're probably vandalised more if anything Nil Einne 16:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Selection of Featured Article for Main Page

Why I see every next day featured article about American pop group? I wounder whether there is really such big demand to read about pop groups pruthvi 02:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

People write about what they like, and lots of people like to write about American pop groups. As long as the articles meet FA standards, they deserve to show up on the front page. If you'd prefer more variety, pick a topic of interest to you and see if you can help get it to Featured status. Zagalejo^^^ 06:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)See Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#I think that the articles listed on the Main Page are awful. Isn't the Main Page biased towards certain topics? What can be done about it? - Banyan Tree 06:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Bravo pruthvi! It seems to mee too that every other day is about unknown pop groups or cult video games. Really, if these games or groups vanished tomorrow, a few hundred teenage fans would be sad for a day or two but that would be it. I think featured articles should pass a "Posterity" test; Would someone (other than a student of early-21st century video games) reading this in the future, find this article interesting? If no, it's not a featured article. Otherwise, Wikipedia just becomes a playground for fancruft.--Oscar Bravo 07:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured articles are decided on the quality of the article only. The quality of the subject is irrelevant provided it meets the notability test Nil Einne 14:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't discriminate on FAs. --Howard the Duck 15:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, are you honestly calling "Donkey Kong" a "cult video game"? It's one of the best known and most influential titles of its generation, helped establish Nintendo of America, brought about a lawsuit with Universal over King Kong, introduced both the characters Donkey Kong and Mario who would be in an endless amount of games, the first game designed by the legendary Shigeru Miyamoto and has been released on over a dozen platforms. It's hardly an obscure topic. -Halo 18:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Reading FAQ, I realized I am not alone to complain on Main Page FA selection process. I am not sure to carry on this discussion here or is there already user forum discussing it somewhere else? Though I see question well described in FAQ, I do not see a good answer to it. One reply most common I encounters over Wikipedia is if one wants to see/object quality of an article, one should contribute himself/herself. This reply implies that people want to read articles of their expertise only. This is not correct assumption. People want to see articles that are worth spending time to read them irrespective of their expertise. Second reply for above question came was FA status does not account for subject matter. This would have ideally resulted in random selection of subject, which doesn't seems to be happening as subject is not random (or at least doesn't seem to me). Let me put my question in this way. Is it OK to show an article over main page after second or third day of its display on main page? If no, then why it is happening for the subject of article? It appears to me that current selection process is not adequate and should be improved which can encompass variety in subjects. pruthvi 21:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You know what I love about these discussions? Someone comes on, they complain about a topic that they dont like, and then they claim that other people are stopping topics they don't like from appearing on the main page. And yet somehow, they don't see the inherent flaw in that arguement.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 21:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Is it OK to show an article over main page after second or third day of its display on main page?" Featured Articles rotate every 24 hours. News items as they happen.--APL 23:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

i have a question about the "today's featured articles question": in the section when they say "today's featured articles", do they mean it is a new featured article, or a featured article long ago? Jimblack 22:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)jimblack

The latter - articles are typically promoted to featured status weeks or months (or years) before appearing on the main page. Raul654 00:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

We should toss up another Banksia FA. Those are the least controversial main page articles possible.-Wafulz 03:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As was said before; FAs aren't just chosen by a random selection from all 6,926,168 articles on Wikipedia. There is really nothing to "discuss;" the main page FA is just chosen from the group of FAs, if a large percentage of FAs are of "pop culture" topics, then a large percentage of main page FAs will be pop culture. "One reply most common I encounters over Wikipedia is if one wants to see/object quality of an article, one should contribute himself/herself. This reply implies that people want to read articles of their expertise only. This is not correct assumption." No, this means that people aren't going to do things to create equilibrium in FA topics because some other people think it should be done (unless they are properly compensated, see my post in the above section), they will contribute how they want. The reply means that if you want to see more FAs of a certain topic that you should do the work. Mr.Z-man 03:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Nazism/Holocaust

Why has there been so much stuff regarding Nazism and the Holocaust on the main page recently? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.67.144 (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Random clumping. By random chance, articles on a subject will appear at close to the same time on the Main Page sometimes. Our FA director and de facto FP director try to cut down on this, but it still happens from time to time. —Verrai 04:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

In the first ten months of 2007, we've had exactly one featured article related to Naziism (Night of the long Knives). We've also had two more that mentioned it in passing (Hovhannes Bagramyan, Soviet General, and Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)). One daily FA in over 300 isn't exactly huge. Raul654 18:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured article determination

~~Is the article featured on the main page chosen at random?~~ It seems kind of fishy that Truthiness has a place of honour today when Stephen Colbert has just released a new book. ... discospinster _talk 12:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The word was chosen for today, 17th October, because the first use of the word was on the inaugural episode of the Colbert Report, which aired on the 17th October 2005. Laïka 13:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

People can request that a featured article be placed on the main page on a certin date, but it is never hopefuly done for promotional reasons. ff m 20:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought the better coincidence was that it was the FA the day that he announced his candidacy for 2008 US Presidential elections. Evil Monkey - Hello 09:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Heaven forbid we add any more bureaucracy, and forgive me for suggesting this, but maybe we need greater oversight of the FA selection to prevent the appearance of impropriety. We don't need people questioning the independence and impartiality of Wikipedia. —Nricardo 10:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can oppose a FA appearing on a given date at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests (if it is specifically requested) or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article (if it is randomly chosen for that day). You'll need a strong rationale, though - most complaints are either that a subject is too trivial/dry/unimportant or that putting a commercial product on the main page implies advertising, and neither is considered a good reason to oppose TFA. Laïka 11:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page

Anyone know what's going on with Wikipedia:Main Page? I have my browser set to Main Page/Tomorrow, and that's been moved to Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow. But when I go back from there to Wikipedia:Main Page, and click on history and talk, I still get the Talk:Main Page and 'Main Page' history. What's going on? From what I can tell Wikipedia:Main Page has the tabs pointing at Main Page. Does that sound right? Carcharoth 15:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, here we go. The subpage got moved. Still feels strange and inconsistent when the Main Page is still in article space. Carcharoth 15:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of the arguments for keeping MP as MP don't hold up for the tomorrow page. Other pages like Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors and Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives (and all the alternatives) are also in the WP name space. Arguably consistency is irrelevant in this case since MP/T is a completely different beast from MP (although I personally still think MP shouldn't be here). BTW, I'm pretty sure that WP:MP has been transparently redirecting to MP for quite a long while Nil Einne 16:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Is there any way to find out when the transparent redirection took place? I tried to look up the history, and found this, but I don't know where to look to find the "transparent" bit you refer to. Carcharoth 17:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that statement was slightly inaccurate. It's been redirected to the MP for a long while (since 2005 from the history). The redirect is transparent by virtue of the MP design (try User:Nil Einne/Sandbox). I'm not sure precisely what it is but I've seemed it referred to numerous times before, I believe either as a javascript or CSS hack, the archives might help Nil Einne 09:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably the same hack that removes "Main Page" from the beginning of the page. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 23:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Where to report vandalism?

The Olaudah Equiano page is blank, I assume it's vandalism. I can't fix it myself I'm too new... so that needs to be fixed. Anyway, is there a place to report vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.149.14 (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC) 64.191.210.200 11:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

http://wiki.eso.workers.dev/wiki/Victoria,_Texas The Education section has been vandalized with "which is composed primarily of suck and lose. The school district is so terrible, that students such as Ryan Ladner withdraw from it and homeschool themselves, leaving ample free time to vandalize Wikipedia pages." and I am too new to this on how to report properly or correct actions to follow. It took me almost 20 minutes to find this area for posting so I hope it works. 64.191.210.200 11:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can revert vandalism, even if you're not logged in, unless the page in question is semi-protected—see Help:Reverting for instructions. It is also useful to warn editors who have made unconstructive edits; this is usually done with standardized templates. If an editor continues to behave inappropriately after being warned several times, they may be reported to administrators here. An admin may then choose to block the user, warn them further/try to engage them in discussion, or do something else :) (whatever is most appropriate). As for the Olaudah Equiano page, a recent edit (apparently in good faith) removed a closing "hidden comment" tag. It's now fixed. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Not An Error, but a Question

I'm a serious Pirates of the Caribbean addict, as you can probably tell. I was wondering, if we'd like to make a request for the "featured article" can we do so? If so, I'd like Jack Sparrow to be the main article. BlackPearl14 —Preceding comment was added at 01:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured articles need to meet the criteria outlined here; when they do, you may nominate them here here. No one is going to write an article for you - be bold and do it yourself. Picaroon (t) 01:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh hang on, people will write articles for you, if you request it. But its better to do it yourself. 132.239.90.236 15:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No they won't. Watch: Please write me an article about granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptors. See, nobody has written it – Gurch 16:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, yes they have: Granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

They spelt it wrong – Gurch 16:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Also that entire article consists of the text "The granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor is a receptor for granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor." That tells me sod all – Gurch 16:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you didn't specify that the article had to be particularly illuminating :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they are still doing the research? Carcharoth 17:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I added about 20 characters to it! (Yay!) Now can someone help? ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 00:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I found that rather amusing. Gurch's variation is not a redirect too. violet/riga (t) 16:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Gah! Now you've gone and ruined my essay :( – Gurch 01:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not your essay... oh well. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 23:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is; I wrote it. Whether or not I "own" it, it's my work – Gurch 00:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll write a featured article for you. My current rate starts at US$20 per hour with a US$50 deposit to be paid before I start. I accept checks and money order. Contact me by email if you are interested. Technical and obscure topics may have additional charges. No guarantee can be made for FA completion date. Bribes to the FA director to get the article on the main page not included. Mr.Z-man 17:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 00:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Not if someone is actually willing to pay that. I could use the extra money. Mr.Z-man 03:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Technical and obscure topics may have additional charges." Systemic bias - one can't get rid of it even by bringing money into the equation. <sigh> - Banyan Tree 08:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Technical and obscure articles require more difficult research. Mr.Z-man 18:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you show the actual article on the main page. For example, Jack Sparrows page. This didn't really get anywhere near the answer to my question, sorry. But thanks for the info. Oh, and, User:Mr.Z-man, that's a bit obsurd, no offense meant. BlackPearl14 00:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're still confused about. The only way Jack Sparrow has any chance of being the Today's Featured Article on the Main Page is if it is a Wikipedia:Featured Article. The only way it will become a feature article is is someone such as you improves it until it meets the criteria. Nil Einne 10:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, great, I think i get it now, will do! Thanks! BlackPearl14 23:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured article = current event

Is it wise to have England national rugby union team as the featured article on the same day that England plays in the Rugby Union World Cup final - regular updating, especially this evening, when the match begins, will mean that the article will be very unstable, even for a main page FA. Additionally, with the entry Scrum (rugby union) in DYK, we will probably end up with TFA, DYK and ITN all referencing rugby union today - something specifically advised against in Main Page guidelines. Laïka 10:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK'll be updated before the match is over, so there'll only be two sections referencing the game, and the TFA was specifically chosen for today:

"Generally speaking, preference will be given to requests [...] that are particularly relevant to a given date (especially major anniversaries)." - WP:TFA/R

The policy does tend to mean that there is occasional overlap between the two top sections. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Look I support England fully today and of course naturally want them to win but this featured article for england is a POV. It is contrary to the fundamental principles of wikipedia. If it was an article on rugby union or the world cup fine but it is actions like this which make wikipedia look a laughing stock when it extresses so often that "neutrality" is one of the major goals 81.102.25.233 13:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently no one objected when it was requested to appear today so it did appear today. The article itself is pretty neutral enough for me. --Howard the Duck 14:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the only way it'd've been particularly partisan would've been if our article on the Springboks had been passed up in favour of England. But for better or for worse, it hasn't received as much loving attention. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia jinxed England. Bwahahaha. Prince William will now sue Jimbo... --Howard the Duck 07:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Champion photo

File:Kimi Raikkonen 2007 2b.jpg

Raikkonen looks pensative on the photo. I think instead a photo of somebody who has just become world champion should convey more happiness. How about this one instead? --Ben ^T/_C 19:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions are best posted at WP:ITN/C. --74.13.131.41 21:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

At any rate, thanks for adding "pensative" to my vocabulary :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 23:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Request to add InterWiki Link to Ido Main Page

Hello, I'm sorry if this is not the place to request this. Could the caretakers of this page please add an 'InterWiki' link on the English main page to the Ido language 'Main Page'? That page may be found at http://io.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontispico Thank you. AnFu 18:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ido only has 15000 articles. The cutoff is 25000 which according to this means vi wiki(Vietnamese) should be on the front page. 128.227.50.158 19:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

So it is. Vi added. Thanks, Banyan Tree 01:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

128.227.50.158, Thank you for your reply. I was not aware of the cutoff. Sorry to bother you. AnFu 04:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Lame PoD cation

I've edited the lead section of the article at Kiwifruit and suggest the caption be changed accordingly. The final sentence here is a bit lame. Suggested final sentence: Originally known as the "Chinese Gooseberry" or "Melonette", the fruit was renamed for marketing reasons after the country's national symbol due a passing similarity to the small, furry-looking creature. --mikaul^talk 00:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggested edits are best posted at WP:ERRORS. --74.13.125.102 17:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone get the San Diego fires on the news?

Please? I know theres an article but I don't know how to get it up there. Tourskin 18:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please make your suggestion at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Thank you. Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 18:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Main Page suggestion on Village Pump

Over at the Village Pump, I have raised the idea of adding a box about the 2008 Summer Olympics to the Main Page next year. I would like to ask all of you to join the discussion and share your thought about this, on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Olympics on the Main Page. A ecis^Brievenbus 20:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem logging on

I was going to ask this at the help desk, but it is not a question about using wikipedia, so I will ask it here. I once was Chipka, but I stopped using Wikipedia for a very long time (it might have been a year or more), Now I want to start up again, but when I tried to log in it would not let me. I am almost positive I have the right passward, so I'm wondering if wikipedia will get rid of an user if he stopes editing for a long time or something. Thanks for any responce.76.189.123.239 22:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:CHU. But they won't simply get rid of User:Chipka; we need to attribute every edit to an editor for GFDL compliance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my question, I don't want to change my user name. I'm asking if wikipedia will get rid of a user if he/she does not edit wikipedia for a long time. I have not edited for a year, and when I tried to long in it would not let me. The only other possibility I can think of is if I did not have the right password, but I think I did. Sorry for any confusion. 76.189.123.239 00:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No, passwords are not automatically scrambled or anything, nor is access to an account revoked. Maybe ask at WP:VPT, where your question will be seen by people knowledgeable about the MediaWiki software. Picaroon (t) 00:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That annoying Wikipedia Money advertisement

Hoe do you get rid of it? Ive cleared my cache several times but it is still staring at me. It is annoying and distracting. I can't even read whatever language they're saying. Please remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.227.133 (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't do anything about it. You'd have to register to "dismiss" it. --Howard the Duck 05:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're using Firefox, install the Adblock extension and block the following:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NoticeLoader&action=raw

which will stop it showing up at all (once you've refreshed the page) even if the CSS is changed – Gurch 05:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

At least could the languages be identified - might as well "learn a factoid". Jackiespeel 17:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, translate them or omit them, its very silly. Brando130 17:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The quotes totally threw me until I realised they weren't in English - the worst bit is the fund raising page they link to has no mention or explanation of them! 86.147.148.96 19:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way to read all the different things people have said when they contributed?71.56.155.117 00:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there is... Lord Dreamy ^§ 00:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There really should be. Some of these comments are really worth looking at. "You iz da most best guy, all Hungarian people love you! :)" I'm sure Jimbo is happy about being the "da most best guy". Pacific Coast Highway ^{{Trick • or treat!}} 01:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha, ya my favorite so far is "I donate these money in my father's name to honor my father." Too bad his father's name isn't given. Thanks dad! Brando130 19:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Try here to view the contribution notes. ➪HiDrNick! 03:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

How do I edit it? The line in spanish has 3 spelling mistakes.--84.108.69.102 13:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Anticipated vandalism

Given the inherent heat that surrounds anything remotely to do with Israel on Wikipedia, I anticipate an increased volume of vandalism on tomorrow's Main Page article. --Dweller 11:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In related news, water found to be wet – Gurch 12:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol. I'm going to bookmark that gem somewhere in my userspace. Perhaps I was predicting that some types of water are wetter than others. --Dweller 12:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well if heavy water is denser than normal water, perhaps its "wetter", since theres more mass of wetness that your touching lol? Tourskin 20:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I just did. See my userpage! ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 22:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

stop the scrolling

~~I get we need to raise funds, but the animated text in the "ad banner" what you don't know about us is incredibly, incredibly distracting. It needs to go. Sdedeo (tips) 22:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)~~ Problem solved with a "dismiss". Thanks team! Sdedeo (tips) 23:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't know where to go to complain about this but what on earth happened? It needs to stop whatever it is. Paliku 22:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, if there must be something animated, at least make it cross-fade instead of scroll. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 22:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a dismiss option like every time before? -Oreo Priest 22:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree, there needs to be an option to hide this, as there was before. It is highly distracting to have this text scrolling. Ariel♥Gold 22:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Just wait until someone donates and adds cuss filled/racist/sexual comments

I've just added "div#siteNotice {display:none}" to my monobook style file. Eugène van der Pijll 22:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That worked, thanks loads Eugène! Ariel♥Gold 23:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Better use the code by GraceNotes, below, if you want to see any future sitenotices, though. His code only turns of this fundraiser box. Eugène van der Pijll 23:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, am I the only one who has problems playing the video? Maybe it's from the high amount of traffic. Paliku 22:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Who the heck thought putting an animated, scrolling piece of crap on the main page -- no wait, on every page -- was a good idea? The way it jitters nauseates me if I try to read it. --FOo 23:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I also can't play the video after a certain point. To whom it may concern, please take down this ill-conceived banner ad. Thanks, JHMM13^(Disc) 23:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether this is actually the right forum for discussion, since this box appears on all pages, not just the Main Page. The only thing I could find on the Village Pump, though, was this short query, unanswered as I type. I certainly agree that the box as it is now is awfully distracting. I certainly have not the slightest intention of making a donation if this type of non-turn-off-able advertising remains. It's simply unacceptable not to have a "dismiss" button. Loganberry (Talk) 23:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A couple of comments: 1. The code is here. 2. It uses a <marquee> tag. (Help!) 3. It can be hidden with table.fundraiser-box {display : none; }. Gracenotes^T § 23:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict: Doesn't look like the administrators will be able to help... the banner is loaded from m:Special:NoticeLoader, powered by an extension that was installed at Meta. In other words, it's hard-coded into the site now. Well, at least Jason Calacanis can't say we don't know about advertising. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 23:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What a pathetic thing to do. Try to encourage donations yes, but people are now going to be adding the hide option to their personal CSS in droves. violet/riga (t) 23:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It makes the site completely unusable. Where do we protest? Also, the monobook fix doesn't seem to work for me. Espresso Addict 23:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone mentioned objectionable comments above, I'm particularly fond of the bit saying thank you for telling me the truth about 9/11 scrolling across the main page. Narco 23:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with all- the scrolling is a nightmare. Will be implementing the fix asap. Badgerpatrol 23:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've suggested a way for the administrators here to add an opt-out link or something using JavaScript. At least we should be able to turn off the ticker. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 23:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How do we get rid of it? Its incredibly distracting. Why do we need ads? A little link is enough. This is pretty much like adware.

Wikipedia was one of the very few sites where I never needed to use AdBlock+. Until now. I fully understand you pursue a very noble goal, but the kind of advertising method you chose to employ is simply NOT acceptable for any reason whatsoever. Please consider the the fact that annoying visitors is simply not a good way to plea for their help. 24.83.195.130 23:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

So bringing a complaint here yields "sorry, it's hard coded" and bringing a complain here yields "this is about wikipedia, not us". Wikipedia really has been taken over by corporate interests, they've got customer support pat!

I personally agree the scrolling needs to stop, but at least there is a dismiss option (I can definitely see how it would be unbearable without one). Where is the proper place to discuss the content of the banner? I would like to weigh in, as first impressions are important on a behemoth project like wiki. Halond 23:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please bypass your cache (usually Ctrl+F5) to view a temporary dismiss button. Gracenotes^T § 23:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Whose idea was this? It was a terrible one. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{Trick • or treat!}} 23:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidently it was the decision of the Wikimedia Foundation. Lord Dreamy ^tm 23:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Troubleshooting Fix

Does anyone else find that the codes above don't work? (I'm assuming they should be in monobook). I'm using Camino (ie, Mac-ized Firefox) on a Mac OS X 10.4. Any help would place me in your eternal debt. --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you clear your cache? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 23:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Command-Opt-E on a mac. Also tried quitting and restarting the browswer. :-\ --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you using this, or this? You should put the code:

div#siteNotice {display:none}

in your monobook.css. Lord Dreamy ^tm 23:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The marquee code needs to go. I'm all in favor of contributing to Wikipedia by any means possible, including donations, but this is more likely to annoy people than anything. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A bit of a disclaimer about that code: it will hide all future site notices, not just the donation notice now. Gracenotes^T § 23:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know anything about the marquee code, I just used the one above. Lord Dreamy ^tm 23:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been resolved. Apparently, I'm a bit of an idiot :) Many thanks all. --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems to work! Espresso Addict 23:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The box at the top is really annoying, and I noticed the lack of a "[dismiss]" button, like always. Additionally, it's making my computer go even slower when editing. I can barely even see the edit cursor on my computer. This should be modified. 166.129.150.188 23:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, it cannot be edited, unless you are a programmer. Lord Dreamy ^tm 23:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This is now a dismiss link, only as a stopgap solution for complaints. Bypass your cache (usually Ctrl+R) to view it. Gracenotes^T § 23:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't help mentioning: this is not only about scrolling, the presentation is tasteless - the yellow polo over black t-shirt... the beard... the close-up of his eyes and hands, ugh, and then it abruptly goes back to reply this over and over. With so many volunteers around, could someone do a better job? it looks like a mock-up of a Steve Jobs' keynote presentation. - Alsandro · T · w:ka: Th · T 23:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please tell me where to find the monobook.css file (or equivalent)? (I'm using Firefox on a W2000 system.) Thanks. (I wasn't planning to make a donation anytime soon, but that annoying scroll makes it official.) Thanks, Wanderer57 23:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Try User:Wanderer57/monobook.css. --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! That opens a whole new dimension of Wikipedia to me. I probably won't do any editing for months. :o) Wanderer57 00:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have even looked at that ad, naturally tuning it out, if not for the fact that I was so disgusted with the idea of Wikipedia having ads. Then I thought "They must be in dire straights to put in ads, maybe I'll click it" then I realised what it was. Surely a better idea could have been found than this? --69.138.69.107 00:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikibake sales? Wanderer57 00:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What? Lord Dreamy ^tm 00:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lord. It was just a joke in answer to the previous comment. "Wiki" plus "bake sale". Maybe they don't have bake sales where you are. Cheers, Wanderer57 06:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would cheerfully contribute the ONLY sure-fire cake recipe I know! Shir-El too 23:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

English wikipedia

If this is the english wikipedia, why do we have messages from people who donate funds in different languages; surely they should be translated? Is it time for another fundraising event?--Hadseys 23:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is a lot of programming work to make one for every language. Lord Dreamy ^tm 23:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In which case, just omit the foreign language statements. I don't like the whole idea anyway, it feels to me as if I'm being pressured to raise funds, which isn't right --Hadseys 23:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you really want it changed, you could go to the village pump, and ask there, or poke a programmer, though, they may be a little grouchy. Lord Dreamy ^tm 23:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Plus it's really ugly.. :/ — jacĸrм (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Make it better

Fundraising is unfortunately necessary, but the ugly banner is not. If we can design a better banner, we can replace it. Please contribute to Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign. Dragons flight 05:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That page is totally worth a visit just for the image. Heh. - Banyan Tree 22:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Donations

I personally don't like that message up there and wish it were gone but for some reason the link takes you to a blank page in IE6?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abpfs (talk • contribs) 06:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Go to User:yourusername/monobook.css and add in these lines:

- - table.fundraiser-box {display:none}
  - div#siteNotice {display:none}

Guroadrunner 11:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

At a guess, you are taken to a blank IE page because IE is your default browser, and it is blank probably because of a Javascript problem. But yeah, you can remove the notice by following the instructions above. J Milburn 12:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm having problems with the donate page as well, though it was working yesterday. The minimal number of donations received today suggests I'm not the only one. Anyone know where we should be reporting this? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There were two issues today:

PayPal had some trouble with its page localization functionality (or our use was buggy, I don't know), which led to PayPal donations being routed to an obscure error page. We temp-fixed this by turning off the PayPal page localization
The donate.wikimedia.org does not render in IE6. This is a known issue, and is being worked on; meanwhile, the banner link has been changed to point to the old fundraising page, which works in all browsers.

We now have a "Report a problem" link on the new donation site so these things will be more traceable.--Eloquence * 14:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)...

Josh: I actually love it, especially the random quote every time!

"the rest of the library"

I think "Wikipedia's sister projects" on the main page should read "Wikipedia's sister projects (the rest of the library)". WAS 4.250 17:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? We're talking about the press room, the very very large reference dictionary database, the Capitol, the free university, and the museum. The only real library around here is Wikisource! ;-) ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 19:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am serious. All large libraries have multiple dictionaries, newspapers, administrative offices, univerity text books, image collections, and under-glass museum-like displays. WAS 4.250 23:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What's the point? To give it a "cutesy" feel? That doesn't really seem appropriate for a project of this type, and certainly doesn't seem beneficial... -Elmer Clark 04:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The for-profit Wikia is being sold as "the rest the library" by Jimmy Wales when he sells both Wikia and WikiMedia in his talks. I don't object to his efforts to put food on the table for his daughter, but I would like WikiMedia to act like it had a spine. WAS 4.250 05:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats an interesting position. Not really on topic.. Atropos 05:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Header suggestion

I think that the header should be changed from "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." to "The free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit." --Coaster geekperson 04 00:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this to make it a full opposite of Uncyclopedia? Dreamy ^§ 00:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah but Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, or at least I think it should be added. --Coaster geekperson 04 02:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, the way it is is fine. Dreamy ^§ 02:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, the current header is designed to match up with the project's strapline. How far would you want to take the change? Even if we changed the English-language strapline to match, there're still 200+ other projects to get through. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

But many other languages have a different word for the concept of free content, and are already using it e.g. the Spanish Wikipedia uses gratis instead of libre. We should improve the article free-content first, or link to a different page in Wikipedia: space that explains it. I wouldn't be opposed to changing the strapline too. the wub "?!" 12:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing's going to be changed. Wikipedia is free in every sense of the word. --Agüeybaná 21:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Shocking and Unbelievable Images?

Why have shocking pictures been featured recently on the main page? First there was the one showing the hideously scarred back of a black slave, and now we have one of a pit of Holocaust victims (with one more about to be shot.) These are NOT the kind of images most people want to see in the "cover" of an encyclopedia; I'm not saying they articles, where people would find them only if they're intentionally looking for them. Is this part of some agenda? How are featured images decided on anyway? -Wilfredo Martinez 01:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The order of images is usually determined by the featured picture time frame. The fact that they are "shocking" is just coincidence. Your Grace Lord Sir Dreamy of Buckland ^tm 01:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:Howcheng#POTD for an explaination of the order from the defacto POTD director. Also see Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria for the criteria featured pictures must meet. (Any picture which meets these criteria can be a featured picture after going through the process here Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates) Nil Einne 01:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That still doesn't justify the use of shocking pictures as featured images. I have the Main Page set as my default homepage, because I enjoy reading news and facts as soon as I log in every day. Pictures of mayhem are NOT what I want to see here, and I'm reasonably sure most people don't either. If anything, this shows very poor judgment. Just write me down as opposing this -Wilfredo Martinez 13:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That they're "shocking" is POV. What you want to see may differ from what others do. And frankly, that's a pretty tame Holocaust image, as Holocaust images go. --Dweller 13:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't want Wikipedia to reflect a skewed POV. If images were excluded on the basis that they might be considered shocking, then that's not reflecting the world we all live in. Cuddly guinea pigs are great but there's more to the world than fluffy cuteness. MorganaFiolett 15:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should reflect its contents - all of it. Besides, we humans need the reminders of just how in-human we can be. Genocides are not a thing of the past, nor is slavery, which is back in business not only in the third world but in Europe and the US... God help us all. Which is the more shocking? Shir-El too 22:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Chubbles 23:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I knew that, but why don't we include in the "10 things you may not know about Wikipedia" that it isn't censored, since I'd think a lot of newcomers don't know that? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 00:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

'cause then there'd be eleven. Macbi 18:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be 100% behind that. Chubbles 05:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it can be added under one of the existing headings. BTW, I read the article after commenting. The ease with which a band of bullies brutally took over a supposedly civilized nation, to the point where the judicial system sanctioned murder after-the-fact, is VERY frightening. I'm glad I read it. Shir-El too 21:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you don't get it: WP:NOT#CENSORED. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 11:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There are some other shocking pictures lurking in the Featured Picture pool that haven't made it to the front page yet. Have a look at Image:DeadchinesesoldierEdit.jpg and Image:V-2victimAntwerp1944.jpg. Do I need to warn you they are shocking? Carcharoth 09:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I am with Wilfredo.. Nobody is disputing that terrible things happen or arguing that Wikipedia, et al, should shy away from them. The argument is that "shocking" images should not be posted on the Main Page. The reason is that there is no warning or preview or choice involved when a user accesses the Main Page. Put it another way, if you type "holocaust" into the search bar, you cannot complain if you read about and see photos of atrocious things. But if you come to the homepage, you have no prior warning of what it might contain. No news site would do this and neither should we. There are children accessing this site, for goodness sake... --Oscar Bravo 10:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Come up with a definition of "shocking" that most people accept and take it from there. Bazza 13:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's ironic that a "shocking" image is the best of Wikipedia. These pictures can be way out of context when they are on the main page. But that's the point, isn't it? It gets your attention, and allows you to get the context if you want. That they are out of context can be dangerous. In spite of that, our readers are smart enough to understand that they are going to be faced with unpleasantness from time to time. It's inevitable. Hires an editor 13:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, guinea pigs bite. More like cute little hamsters, if you really wanted something more harmless. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 14:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Section Edit Break 1

In my opinion, the current criteria for featured images is good. Suppose we accept that we're basically going to censor Wikipedia by by only displaying non-shocking images, which I disagree with. However, you still have what Bazza pointed out- the term shocking is not clearly defined. Some people will find a sketch of a skeleton offensive, others will object to a picture of child labour. In my opinion, not featuring images simply because they display unpleasant truth is censorship. Anyways, this is a wiki. You can participate in the decision making process. Cheers! Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 12:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is essentially already user censored; we submit the content; we nominate the best material to be featured periodically on the main page. If you feel an image is too shocking for the main page, you have every opportunity to express that before a picture is featured. But a lot of people must have felt otherwise for a "shocking" picture to make it as far as the main page. 007patrick 22:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

To Bazza, Re: definition of "shocking": Stop playing the smug Philadelphia Lawyer and put yourself in the position of an educated 12-year-old. We all know what's shocking and a picture of dead bodies and someone with a gun to his head is one of them.--Oscar Bravo 07:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You must know different 12-year olds than I do. APL 18:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I knew these sorts of pictures existed as a 12-year-old, and I saw them, and I was not psychologically wounded by them. But most of my classmates, who did not read books about the human reproductive system and the inner workings of guns and minds, and who did not reason for themselves about why people were cruel to each other, would be psychologically wounded by these pictures if they were younger. Their parents really should've explained this to them - I only knew this all because I was gifted enough to have to read novels generally reserved for "older teenagers" at age 8. But given that Wikipedia is not in the least censored for the other people, this sort of wrangling is useless. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 23:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes guidelines and policies are linked, but the content is not quoted. Wikipedia is not censored. contains this statement: "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content" (my italics). Some images placed in isolation on the main page may not be "relevant to the content", and if such images may reasonably be expected to have a shock effect then due consideration to their value in relation to the negative impact should be considered. Wiki is not censored is not an absolute statement, we have and do exclude text and images we consider unwise. A deliberate use of a shocking image on the main page could appear to be rather provocative. It would certainly be worth reviewing Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria, and I'll be going over there to have a look at what it says. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 10:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've started a discussion here. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

For User:Oscar Bravo's benefit, I am neither a lawyer nor from Phildelphia. Whether a picture shocks or not is subjective, and it is not for you or anyone else here to decide on another person's behalf. "We all know what's shocking..." — apparently not, otherwise this discussion would not be taking place. My point was to suggest that a definition of unacceptability is needed — which of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 would "pass" or "fail"? As the archives show, there are lots of excellent pictures in Wikipedia, and it is not surprising that some people find one or two uncomfortable — sometimes even distressing — to view, but I do not think that that is a reason to hide them away. Life's like this, and I'm glad that my children (who are all now past 12) have had access to information like this to see what the world's like in reality, as opposed to the censored comfort of the middle of the last century which I grew up in. I hope that wasn't too smug. Bazza 13:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Who's talking about "hiding them away"? I've absolutely no objection to the pictures appearing on pages that relate to them. That's in context and the user has passed a disclaimer page by then. I'm talking about the Main Page - no pre-defined context and no disclaimer. Regarding your list of pictures - the ones with dead or dying people shocked me, didn't they you? BTW, "Philadelphia Lawyer" is an idiom - I wasn't claiming to be psychic :-) --Oscar Bravo 16:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The PoTD pictures all relate to the main page: they're ones which have been voted "excellent pictures" regardless of their content and are shown on the main page because of that, not because they relate to any other content there. And no, none of the ones I picked shocked me to the extent that I would not want to see them on the Main Page (I chose them because I recall most of them stimulating a similar conversation to this one at the time they appeared on the main page). Which is why I made my point: you can only come up with a policy on not showing shocking pictures on the main page if you can get a general concensus on what it means. Also: there is no disclaimer page a user must pass on leaving the main page; there's a link to one at the bottom of every page, but I doubt many people read it before selecting the page they want to visit. Bazza 09:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but there's absolutley no way the community will agree to censor the main page. Our contributors have chosen to allow even the most shocking FAs to be on the front page, and have defended vigorously our right to do so. Wikipedia is not consored; this will not change. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 02:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Content disclaimer is an essential read. If you haven't read it already, do so. I'm not going to throttle the rate of FPC promotions just because someone thinks the image I am about to promote may be offensive. That way, nothing will be promoted. Featured Pictures aren't politically correct and will never be (at least while I am there). MER-C 09:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Images are just a representation. They can not be shocking in and of themselves. People feel shocked when confronted with ideas they would prefer to suppress. When children eat dead bodies (eg chicken) they feel and touch and taste those murdered dead bodies. Once I saw children acting grossed out at a cat eating a bird so I reminded them that they eat chickens which are birds too and they were immediately non-grossed out now that they could relate. Children see what some would call child porn when they look in the mirror naked; it's all about context and meaning and ideas. Taboos and emotional response to images are all defined by the ideas one holds in their mind. There can be no objective determination of which images are shocking. WAS 4.250 19:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Bravo Bazza, RyanGerbil10 and MER-C!

The problem with censoring is that once it starts, there's no end to it. So given a choice, I'd rather be occasionally shocked than protected for my own good. Besides, we all have a choice: we can refrain from viewing WP. Shir-El too 01:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

'cause then there'd be eleven. Macbi 18:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol thats funny... we are human and that is our history. If you don't like it then you can't even watch the news, turn it on right now and you'll see 10 stories of shootings or car accident related deaths guaranteed, your parents were to sheltering to you as a child.Catherine the Great does not deserve her title 23:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, for anyone, It's simple - dont look at the pictures. Discussion closed. This is Zanusi 07:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Im 15 and I use Wikipedia all the time for homework and such like. Persionally I dont find these sort of images offencive, but thats just me, i know and advise children of 12 and younger to use this source, and am quite sure that they get upset by these pictures, there 12 for christs sake! They will have nightmares! Something needs to be done, censoring, as some have mentioned, seems a bad idea as it is too time consuming, I think that the page where the pictures that are going to be shown on the main page had options, for example boxes form 1-5 where each person looking at them could say weather they though the picture sutiable or not, then tehy would get censored quickley and easily. However, i also think that there needs to be a definition for shocking, as theres a picture of a big spider on the main page atm, and many adults would find it "horrible" or "grotesque" there for some order needs to be sorted out. Soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katie-yippedy (talk • contribs) 20:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

75 000 articles

ukrainian wiki has got already more than 75 000 articles --Riwnodennyk 09:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So has Volapuk and their entries missing from the 50K and 25K levels too. (Numbers should be 12, 8 and 14.) Time to consider re-drawing the boundaries?--Peter cohen 12:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the Ukranian link up to the next level. As for the missing entries - the Volapük, Lombard, Newar / Nepal Bhasa, Cebuano, and Telugu Wikipedias were removed from the list a few weeks ago due to mostly being bot-created and not really having much quality/depth (for example, check out a random Volapük's page). --- RockMFR 14:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Really? I've seen discussion on this page about removing some of the low-depth wikipedias, but the discussion always favored keeping them. Was there another discussion somewhere about changing the main page? Was it linked here? If there was no discussion, why was the previous discussion ignored? For the record, I favor linking any wikipedia that has more than the current minimum number of entries. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There was some discussion at Template talk:Wikipedialang. I haven't read over all of it, though, so I don't know how much agreement there was. --- RockMFR 17:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I can change any content in this page???

I can change any content in this page??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.18.79.211 (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Technically, yes. However, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, to see what is allowed. You can change most things at Wikipedia. However, for obvious reasons, you can't edit the main page, and other protected pages. Anyways, welcome to Wikipedia! Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 13:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

On this day

2002 - Ho Chi Minh City ITC Inferno, a fire destroys a luxurious department store with 1500 people shopping. Over 60 people died and over 100 are missing. It is the deadliest disaster in Vietnam during peacetime. Why isnt it in on this day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Because people from WP:OTD weren't notified before hand. --Howard the Duck 15:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Also day of the Dead

Clam

That should be an ocean quahog clam. 139.62.127.95 16:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please go to WP:ERRORS for faster responses. --Howard the Duck 16:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK - number of US islands over 3,000 sq.miles.

According to Long Island, it too is over 3,000 sq.miles - it's not listed anywhere in the List of islands of the United States by area article either?!? SteveBaker 16:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Number 11. --Howard the Duck 16:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The two islands lists give it as over 3,000 sq. kilometers while the Long Island article gives it as over 3,000 sq. miles. Which is correct? Rmhermen 17:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Both List of islands of the United States by area and List of islands by area have Long Island at 1,401 square miles, however the Long Island article itself states it is 3,567 square miles. Naturally none of the three articles have any citations for the island's area. Let me see if I can dig up some references for either number. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Suffolk County, New York that covers about 2/3 of the island is listed at 2,373 mi², uncited. Also, I think this should either go to WP:ERRORS or the talk pages of the respective articles. --Howard the Duck 17:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, a quick inspection at Google Earth will show Long Island is longer than PR, but PR is wider. --Howard the Duck 17:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that the Long Island article lists the wrong area. Encyclopædia Britannica states [1] that Long Island, "is 118 mi (190 km) long, 12–23 mi (19–37 km) wide, and has an area of 1,401 sq mi (3,629 sq km)." Using this information, I added citations to both List of islands of the United States by area and Long Island. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history for Long Island shows a chain of mistakes:

On 8/30 an anonymous user changed [2] the area from "1,377" to "10,3777" sq mi.
The next day an editor removed [3] one of the two extra numbers, so the article stated "10,377" square miles.
On 9/6 an anonymous editor noticed that the mi² number (10,377) was larger than the km² (3567), and switched them [4] without checking the math. (One may wish to note that 3567 mi² = 9238 km², while 10,377 mi² = 26,880 km²).

How embarrassing for all of us that such obviously wrong information was added to the article 59 days ago, and it would never have been caught were it not for a WP:DYK entry. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That means Suffolk County MUST be wrong too... --Howard the Duck 18:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Suffolk County (NY) article is correct. The total area includes a substantial portion of water (roughly 60% of the county). The land area of Suffolk County is consistent with the corrected island area. --Polaron | Talk 20:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Girl Scouts of the USA appearing on tomorrow's main page

I'm sorry people but I really must object to this article appearing on tomorrow's main page. It's just a group of unsourced stubs, for the most part, linked into one article. If this is the standard wikipedia is setting itself in 2007, then we're going to face speedy criticism. I understand this standard was acceptable until about mid-2004 but come on people, the criteria for featureship has become much more concrete since then. This article should be de-listed as a featured article, and I object in the strongest possible terms to it appearing on tomorrow's main page --Hadseys 01:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously not, or it would not have been made a Featured Article. Dreamy ^§ 01:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps only the contributors voted; all I'm saying is, it mighta looked good in 2006, but it ent looking to great now --Hadseys 02:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

3 parts of the history section are uncited, there's really no reason for that, you must have read the history somewhere, so cite the source —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadseys (talk • contribs) 02:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And if you object to this being a featured article, you should have brought it up in the Featured Article nomination process. Dreamy ^§ 01:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it looks like it was promoted on 11 November 2006.[5] We can always go to the page history and examine the version when it was promoted.[6] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not omniscient on Wikipedia, how am I supposed to know if its been nominated for featureship. All I'm saying is looks like a group of unreferenced stubs merged together, and the fact that it was promoted in 2006 is even worse, Wikipedia was very much established by then and should have had more stringent guidelines.

Well, there's always Wikipedia:Featured article review if you really feel it's not worthy of FA status, but obviously that process wouldn't be complete until after the article's appearance on the main page. -Elmer Clark 05:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to be 'omniscient'. The Wikipedia:Featured articles nomination process is well documented and every article will appear as a Wikipedia:Featured article candidates before being promoted. Nil Einne 11:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Another example of why having one person unilaterally decide anything on Wikipedia is a bad idea. I am sure this thought is not popular, as Raul is well-liked. This comment is not an affront to him, but to the idea that one person should be deciding anything in a supposed community, especially about the Main Page's content. IvoShandor 05:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Raul simply decides what appears on the main page. I'm pretty sure he does not, and should not consider the 'quality' of the article since all FA are decided by the community already and should meet the FA standard. If they don't it is up to the community not Raul to fix such problems. Even if we were to use a community process for chosing TFA, it should not change this, it's a recipe for disaster... There are existing ways to raise problems with the community driven process of promoting articles and keeping articles as FA including FAR. If you do feel there are significant quality problems with the chosen article you are welcome to raise objections preferably sometime before the day before. As long as an article is FA then it should be eligible for TFA until and unless it's demoted (or looks likely to be demoted). Neither Raul, nor your or me, not the community should arbitarily decide that an article is FA but not eligible for TFA because of alleged quality concerns. Nil Einne 11:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Many refs have been added, we'll keep working. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned the problem on the talk page Talk:Girl Scouts of the USA. This is usually the best way to highlight specific problems with an article as very often, the people who are most involved with the article and so can actually help don't check out the main page talk page. Nil Einne 12:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, the fact of the matter is, TFA is done by one person and with more community input on what hits the front page (which not all FAs do based on some discussion in the past on the page) then these problems can be avoided. Just my two cents, I was certain my comment would be immediately dismissed, I was right. Quoting the numerous processes that exist to reevaluate the article helps no one, on top of this those processes require foreknowledge of what is already FA, and what is to appear on the main page (often not posted until a week or even a few days before-not enough time for a review to be certain), unless one searches through the many FAs on a regular basis, many of us haven't the time nor energy for such an endeavour. Thus, I stand by statement that more community input at TFA could only help.IvoShandor 17:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, some Wikipedians haven't been around that long and for those of us who haven't been, an article that reached FA in November 2006 might indeed require omniscience to know about. IvoShandor 17:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I also believe, at present, the process is completely arbitrary. The present number of featured articles and promotion rate pretty much guarantees that not every FA will appear on the main page, thus selectivity should be okay, especially when considering front paging older FAs. Again my opinion, feel free to go back to your chastising. IvoShandor 17:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

While I agree, having a longer lead time between being selected for TFA and appaearing on the main page is ideal, there is a simple way to fix that and it doesn't require anything complicated. Just suggest it and if there is consensus I'm sure we will have no problem convincing Raul to increase the lead time. Having said that, this article was made TFA on the 22nd October. There was more then enough time for people to raise points and get it through FA review, at least to an extent if it had major problems these would have either been fixed or it would be much clearer it may not been FA (if the FAR had been going for 5 days without the problems resolved I'm sure we could have put something else instead). However the community did NOT do any of this so I fail to see how a community driven TFA process is going to change that. Can you explain how it will? Furthermore, if someone is not aware of the TFA que and FA process because they are new then how is that person going to be aware of the community driven TFA selection process? It makes no sense... Finally at best, quality selection of FA for TFA will mean that we will hide the fact some of our FAs are less then satisfactory. I fail to see how this improves things. We need to prevent poor quality articles being FA rather then hiding the fact we have them. Indeed, it seems likely that quality selection for TFA will mean that FAs which are poor quality are NOT improved or removed because they're just ignored by TFA instead of now where they are usually improved or removed (although I don't think there has ever been an article which has FARed immedietly after being TFA). Nil Einne 21:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the reason why selection would be a disaster has already been explained every time such a suggestion comes up. It's almost definitely going to result in an increase in systematic bias and in a lot more unnecessarily heated discussion and ill feeling. The simple fact is there is no way a community can choose a TFA other then by voting but voting tends to be a bad idea on wikipedia. We operate by consensus. Nil Einne 21:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that we operate by consensus, stop acting like this is my first day, please, it is insulting. Your argument is flawed in several ways. If we operate by consensus why is TFA unilateral, how is not operating by consensus at TFA likely to decrease systemic bias? As for making suggestions at the FA pages, no thanks, I have no interest, they don't like to hear suggestions in my experience, or even questions for that matter. A community driven process at TFA would most certainly help, a listing of articles that haven't been TFA and the regulars in the area to comment on them couldn't hurt. Articles that have been FA for over a year are far more likely to not be up to the current criteria. A small amount of discussion could initiate the process for a review. You seem intent on it staying selected by one person, but this seems to be antithetical to your essential point that we operate by consensus. Keeping articles off the main page that don't meet the current criteria should be able to happen without a full review, especially if not every article is going to the front page, which seems to be the case. Blindly saying all FAs are up to FA so they are good enough for the front page unless they get reviewed and delisted is a bit absurd in light of that. Not to mention that the review process is absurdly long, there is a pre-review review process if I recall correctly, this takes weeks and weeks. All of these things take time, and we need a simpler way to ensure that Today's Featured Article is really Wikipedia's best work. If no one closely involved with the Main Page content cares that much, I am certainly not going to take away the time I devote to what I do on Wikipedia, writing articles, to expend even more energy for something that has pointed (and imo pointless) opposition. IvoShandor 09:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The referencing seems poor for an FA, but we're featuring it tomorrow. There's no way we could reach a valid consensus in that time. If anyone's interested, here's a link to the FA discussion, and the peer review. Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 16:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen worse articles so stop complaining and start donating!!Tourskin 21:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No thanks, if you mean monetary donations, I donate enough of my time. IvoShandor 09:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)