Talk:Main Page/Archive 155

Archive 150

←

Archive 153

Archive 154

Archive 155

Archive 156

Archive 157

→

Archive 160

Talk pages by size

Please see the new page Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk pages by size (to be updated weekly). This talk page ranks 13th, with 14148 kilobytes. Perhaps this will motivate greater efficiency in the use of kilobytes.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It won't. Most discussion pages are exactly as efficient as they need to be, and most of the rest are as efficient as they can be made to be, with the size being due to many one-off comments from the outside world. In any case, spamming a large number of pages with this message is the opposite of efficiency. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

In any case, the statistics are way off. T:MP is currently quoted as 83k in the editing window. WT:DYK, on the other hand, which is listed at #38 on Wavelength's list, is obviously much longer than this one and comes out at 423k in the editing window. Physchim62 (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

These stats include subpages, which in this case means the archives. Modest Genius ^talk 22:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Are we running out kilobytes? Or are they contributing to Global Warming? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

18 November OTD: US bias and recentism

Only four events, of which three are to do with the US? None of which is earlier than 1978? Seriously? Where's the balance? Where's the reporting of important events (a cartoon and a fatal bonfire collapse?) Where's the historical spread? Where's the geographical spread? It's hard to swallow Wikipedia's claim to be a serious encyclopaedia with this kind of selection. 86.134.26.42 (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

86.134.26.42, what would you select for this day? --70.31.11.54 (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done, but it was actually pretty difficult to find good articles to put for November 18. Some of the ones listed on November 18 did not actually happen today, and others are stubs or of poor quality. The best I could do was get two North American ones (one US/Canada and one Canada), but I believe that temporally speaking there is now a bit more diversity. howcheng {chat} 17:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the WP equivalent of Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells? It is a platitude that most peopel will be occasionally annoyed/dislike certain entries on the main page - or 'repeated appearance of items in certain categories' (and filtering devices rather more so). Given that 'some people in some situations' are more flexible in what they view is there some way of having 'unfiltered access' and 'filtered so as not to annoy by subject/frequency of appearance of "the usual topics" and so on'? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Selected anniversaries should not be featuring poorly sourced and low quality articles on the Main Page. High quality WP:GA and WP:FA articles should not be removed and replaced with poor quality improperly sourced pages. -- Cirt (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries#Criteria for listing items on this set of pages says nothing about FA and GA articles taking precedence over others. Only stubs and articles with red and orange-level maintenance tags are prohibited. In fact, going by the criteria there, both Calvin & Hobbes and the Aggie Bonfire should definitely be excluded because neither are "of moderate to great historical significance". As such, I respectfully request that revert your last edit. howcheng {chat} 20:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There's nothing in the criteria about FAs or GAs. Whilst it's nice to have a good article, and all other things being equal we should use them, there's also a need to have a balance of items. The items listed should (IMO) be of historical importance, cover a range of time periods, a range of topics (not all items about battles, for example) and a range of geographic locations. Modest Genius ^talk 20:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

People who want a more brilliant toilet exhibit should go to Dharavi, not the main page YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 02:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yellowmonkey, did you actually read the recent discussion about this? Modest Genius ^talk 02:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

While we're at it, let's not forget that OTD generates more than 50% more click-throughs to articles each day than TFA. So fewer comments that only deserve to be flushed down the toilet, please, YellowMonkey. Physchim62 (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Just wanna add that Wikipedia's strength is not only its depth in selected topics such as military history and recent stuffs, but also its breadth. While problematic pages should be avoided, we really should be able to select items for SA/OTD to showcase articles, FA or otherwise. Making the quality standard sky high also mean shutting out under-serviced areas and underrepresenting what we have on the wide variety of topics/fields that are available in the wiki. Let's have some balance and diversity. --PFHLai (talk) 02:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. We should expect a high standard of quality for material selected for featured presentation in sects on the Main Page. -- Cirt (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

For TFA, yes. But we apply different standards to each section of the MP - DYK articles are hardly of a high standard, for example. The primary point in TFA is to showcase top quality articles, for ITN it's articles of timely relevance, for DYK it's recently created articles, and for OTD it's depth and breadth of historical coverage. Article quality does not trump historical coverage when it comes to OTD. Modest Genius ^talk 05:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but I don't think Wikipedia is there yet. Maybe 2018? 2020? Hopefully sooner. For now, there are too many underserviced areas. We should avoid bad pages for SA/OTD, but we should not exclusively use FAs and GAs. Maintaining a high standard is good, but we don't have enough FAs and GAs in wide enough variety of topics. It's part of systemic bias. --PFHLai (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, but no. The overwhealming majority of our readers couldn't give an aerial accouplement for the WikiProcesses which determine FA or GA quality, which would presumably be those applied by Cirt and are explicitly those applied by YellowMonkey in his comments above. We have four sections that apply different criteria so as to appeal to a wide spectrum of readers. FA status is no guarantee of "quality" in any meaningful sense of the word, but it is traditional to have a "featured article" on the Main Page: that doesn't mean that the same criteria should apply for the other three sections. Physchim62 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not say we should only use GAs and FAs. But I did say that GAs and FAs should not be removed, and replaced with poorer quality material. -- Cirt (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

And that's where we disagree ;) The quality of the material is relative to the section where it appears, not absolute. An FA which is bad for OTD should not appear in that section. Physchim62 (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

We do not currently have any such consensus to say that FA and GA articles automatically trump the others. Until such time as you get such a consensus at Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries, we need to continue with the guidelines that we currently have written. howcheng {chat} 03:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If we only have articles in the few topics that Wikipedia is strong in, but not have a variety of topics, then we'll end up with poorer quality SA/OTD templates. Having said that, I do like to see more FAs & GAs on SA/OTD. We just can't ignore the need for diversity. --PFHLai (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That would lead to controversy such as has been seen previously at WT:DYK, leading to possible unsourced, unreferenced, poorly sourced, material appearing on the Main Page. That is simply inappropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK we already exclude extremely poor quality articles for SA/OTD, even for significant events. Very poor is usually take to mean articles with any cleanup tags Nil Einne (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant by "problematic pages should be avoided" for SA/OTD yesterday. Ignoring the need for diversity and balance is also inappropriate. --PFHLai (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.(Ca)

Appeal complaint

Is there somewhere I can go to complain about wikipedia's fundraising tactics? It seems odd there is not already stuff on the main page. I guess I'll be moved on soon. IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.204.5 (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyway the substance of my complaint is that the appeal does not make clear the difference between wikipedia and wikimedia, infact the wording of the appeal suggests that they are the same , i.e. it mentions wikipedia in an appeal for wikimedia. The appeal link has no way to comment on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.204.5 (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

A few questions. Can I donate to wikipedia without donating to wikimedia?

Does wikipedia have the ability to separate itself from wikimedia?

If wikipedia is a separate entity from wikimedia why does it allow appeals from wikimedia to appear on it's main page? Why not appeal directly?

78.143.204.5 (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys. As Wikipedia's article on itself states, Wikipedia is owned and run by the Wikimedia Foundation. Therefore, by donating to Wikimedia, you're funding Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a product, not an organisation.  f o x  01:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. the assumption 'donating to Wikimedia, you're funding Wikipedia' is false. Thats like saying all cats are mammals, therefore all mammals are cats. It does not follow. 78.143.204.5 (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The way wikimedia's accounts are structured it is not possible to see what is spent on wikipedia and what is spent on other projects. The separation is probably hard but to accounr for, but when wikipedia is sutch a cruicial part of wikimedia it should be acounted for .See this for account info http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/4f/FINAL_08_09From_KPMG.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.204.5 (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I do mean thanks for that info, it does confirm that wikipedia and wikimedia are not the same in finacial terms. Operating something does not make it the same organisation. If I carry on here I will probably become very tedious, there must be other folk who have raise similar concerns. Please point me to them. 78.143.204.5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC).

I should also say there are not 'Guys' complaining. It is just me. 78.143.204.5 (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You could try asking at meta:Talk:Fundraising 2010, I think that's the right place to ask these sorts of questions. Modest Genius ^talk 21:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

By far the vast majority of Wikimedia work and money is devoted to Wikipedia. The other projects that are also supported by the Foundation, like Wikisource, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, Commons, etc. are also educational free culture projects like Wikipedia. Currently there is no way to donate money specifically to one of the projects and not to the Foundation in general. This is more of an issue for the smaller projects, however, as Wikipedia definitely gets the lion's share of attention from the Foundation. Kaldari (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

TFA pics

I just looked up the TFA queue for November and noticed that quite a few TFAs in the next week or so have no pics. I have no suggestions for Nov. 26th and 27th. But, does anyone want to pick the TFA pic for use on Nov. 24th? Candidates are here. --PFHLai (talk) 07:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia size: Implementation of proposed changes

In the previous discussion (now archived) there was significant support for two changes:

1. Remove number of English Wikipedia articles from the top of the page, as it is duplicated in the bottom section.
2. Display top size category of other language Wikipedias as a range (i.e. 500,000 to 1,200,000), given that current display is misleading and counter-productive.

I am in favour of these changes to be implemented. --Elekhh (talk) 08:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I fully support the proposed changes and hope they can be implemented without further delay. - Ipigott (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd call the support for these changes "significant." But I suppose we'll find out.

I disagree with both proposals. We should look at the purpose behind these sections. For the first, the number of articles the English Wikipedia has is advertising. We are showing off a sexy fact about Wikipedia, and indeed one of the most distinctive things Wikipedia is known for is its vast size. It should absolutely go "above the fold." I don't see what's wrong with duplication, either; we duplicate the list of foreign language Wikipedias, too, in both the left sidebar and the bottom navbox. Should we remove one on the basis that people can surely use the other? If people still did find the two separate page counts undesirable, it'd probably be better to remove the count from the bottom section rather than the top notice.

As for the second proposal, this also misses the point of what exactly the bottom section is for. If the count on top is "advertising," the list of foreign language Wikipedias is utilitarian. It is there for those who want to look something up in what is probably their native language who ended up at the English Wikipedia, or at least a language they have an interest in. While casual visitors to the English Wikipedia may well find the number of articles in English Wikipedia a cool fact and a selling point, that doesn't describe at all the intended audience for the Wikipedia languages section. See David Levy's points in the archived discussion, basically; if you want the Hebrew Wikipedia, it really doesn't matter at all how many articles are in it. The reason why the number of articles is listed / used at all is simply to sort the Wikipedias most likely to be relevant to the top of the list. It would be no great harm to have, say, organized the section alphabetically and then bolded the most visited Wikipedias as an alternative method of showing other Wikipedias while highlighting "relevant" ones. What matters is screen layout and real estate, and this proposal would distract viewers with numbers entirely beside the point. (Unnecessary numbers, too, with the exception of the highest tier - it's already clear that "more than 100,000 articles" means 100,000 - 150,000 on the current display.) SnowFire (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the proposed removal of the article count from the top of the page, you're quite correct that this serves as advertising. And in the days before Wikipedia was well known, its presence made sense.

But Wikipedia has become one of the most popular websites, so we no longer need to worry that the public is unaware of its comprehensive nature. By continuing to display our article count so prominently, we proclaim to the world that we value quantity above quality. We else would we boast that the site contains 6,926,170 articles (many of which are poorly written)? —David Levy 03:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I oppose the proposals, per SnowFire. The number of articles of Wikipedia is relevant, and that it values quantity over quality is only a paranoid interpretation. It's a wow. It's a hell of a lot. It's impressive. It blows all other encyclopedias away. Leave it up there.

As SnowFire pointed out, the range is already implicit in the scale. I think we should have a new level added at 1,000,000 articles since that is a significant milestone, and waiting for other Wikipedias to reach it before such a level is created is plain silly. "Over 1,000,000" is twice as impressive as over "500,000", in more ways than one.

The Transhumanist 22:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Seeking to "impress" readers with the sheer number of articles — advertised at the top of the main page — literally is placing quantity before quality. Many of those articles are very poorly written, and we're bragging about them.

2. 1,000,000 articles (as we define it) "is a significant milestone" because we happen to use a decimal numeral system. The section is designed with a practical layout (not an assortment of arbitrary "milestones") in mind.

3. I explained in the previous discussion why double the quantity of articles isn't "twice as impressive" at this scale. But again, the section's purpose isn't to impress. —David Levy 02:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much into it. An emphasis on quality is admirable. That doesn't take away from the fact that quantity is undeniably a selling point as well. We can, in fact, have our cake and eat it too - I'd argue that "Today's Featured Article" is fulfilling the role of emphasizing well-written Wikipedia content. I'm also not quite in the Wikipedia chest-beaters crowd about how "bad" some of our articles are - as noted, Britannica Micropedia articles are often the equivalent of stubs. They were still useful. The same with short / choppy Wikipedia articles. SnowFire (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, we feature some of our best articles on the main page...below the article count (the first thing that we display after the welcome message). Hence my statement that we literally place quantity before quality.

You've stated that you wouldn't mind removing the article count from the Wikipedia languages section, but it was inserted there as part of a plan to relocate it from the top of the page (which was postponed due to the excitement surrounding the 2,000,000th article). No one has advocated eliminating the article count from the page, but its placement should reflect an emphasis on quality. —David Levy 06:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with removing the count from the top (for the reason articulated by David Levy) and disagree with the ranges (because the range is understood). --Khajidha (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

My sentiments echo Khajidha's, for the most part: I oppose the ranges and am neutral about removing the count from the top. Also, it seems to me that the two proposals pursue opposite goals. Removing the count from the top could de-emphasize the size (in terms of quantity) of the English Wikipedia, but adding ranges at the bottom does nothing except to emphasize the size (in terms of quantity) of other Wikipedias. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The goals are not opposite, but distinct. The first goal is to eliminate overemphasis on numbers through repetition and placement. The second goal is to simply correct the present misleading appearance of a huge quantitative gap between the English Wiki with 3,400,000+ articles and the next largest Wikipedias shown as 500,000+... As far size matters, this is under-representing Wikimedia projects as a whole, and is remarkably inaccurate for an encyclopaedia, as many have noted. It is strange to see complicated arguments in favour of no change by stating that the same kind of numbers at the top of the page would be beneficial marketing while at the bottom utilitarian aesthetics. I also note that 1,000,000 is double of 500,000 in any numeral system. Elekhh (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. Do you deny that there is not a gigantic quantitative gap between English Wikipedia and other Wikipedias? Because there is. Now I agree that bringing this up is irrelevant, which is why I've noted that I'd be fine with removing the "English Wikipedia has X articles" from the bottom section which emphasizes that section as some kind of count. I have no idea what you're getting at with "1M is double 500K" either.

I don't see what's so complicated about what I said, either. As you put it yourself: the top number is advertising, the bottom interwiki section is utilitarian. Number of articles is a fluffy but not terribly useful fact, so it works as advertising but isn't necessary for utility. Do you deny this? Hopefully you at least understand my point. It's really not complicated at all. SnowFire (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You kind of avoid addressing the raised issues: if the quantitative gap is "gigantic" anyway, why creating the impression is double as much as it actually is? If the bottom section is "utilitarian", why is so difficult to present the real numbers? If the number is not so relevant, why displaying it starting at the very top? And what do you mean with "number of articles is a fluffy but not terribly useful fact, so it works as advertising", does this mean that the majority of our readers are unable to make the difference? --Elekhh (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not disagree with your first point about reducing overemphasis on numbers by removing the count at the top of the page (though I do kind of see SnowFire's point about "fluffy" advertising). On the second point, however, I think that adding ranges increases emphasis on numbers. It is, after all, no more or less accurate to say that de.wikipedia contains "500,000–1,200,000 articles" versus "more than 500,000 articles". -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

So to the question "What do you think is the size of de.wiki (x) knowing that" (a) 500,000< x , or (b) 500,000<x<1,200,000, the accuracy of responses would be the same... On the other point, I of course have no arguments against "fluffy"-ness, if that's what the community wants. --Elekhh (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right, the accuracy of the responses likely would not be the same. "500,000 < x" and "500,000 < x < 1,200,000" are both accurate, but the latter is more informative. The key question is, I suppose, whether we need or want (from an aesthetic or other standpoint) to be more informative regarding the numerical size of other Wikipedias. As for the count at the top ... well, I'm mostly neutral on that, leaning toward removal, but ultimately it is (as you say) partly a matter of personal preference and perspective. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but then 3,466,070 repeated twice could be also seen as overly informative. I can imagine many "milder" solutions to the raised issues: the article count at the top of the page could be replaced with something like "the largest encyclopedia" to solve the duplication issue and slightly reduce emphasis on numbers. Another alternative would be, in the bottom section to simply pace the English wiki in the row with the top category, with a similar effect. --Elekhh (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If anything, "the largest encyclopedia" places more emphasis on quantity (because it stresses the encyclopedia's sheer size without even the pretense of conveying useful data).

Also keep in mind that we already display "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" directly above (rightly so, as that is what we need to promulgate). Wikipedia's size is well known nowadays, so there simply is no need to continue advertising it at the top of the page. Doing so, especially in proximity to the aforementioned encouragement to edit, makes it seem that our top priority is creating as many articles as possible.

By the way, I realize that you support the top article count's removal and merely noted a possible alternative. :) —David Levy 16:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I've said before I don't really consider the categorisation a big problem. Even if people are really silly enough to think when you have 4 cats that are 50k, 100k, 150k and 500k it's resonable to expect a cat for 1 million (if the cat was 250k then perhaps but with the 150k and then jump to 500k this hardly seems like a series to me so I don't see any reason anyone will expect 1 million), ultimately it's questionable if it matters. Anything with over 500k is surely good enough that from the readers POV, it doesn't really matter if it's 500k or 1.2 million and if they aren't interested in it when it is only 500k, they are likely to be interested in it with 1.2 million (and a primary reason is just so we have some way of seperating the listings anyway). (Between 1000 and 500k there's quite a resonable change the difference in size will matter.) But if people care that much, I'm not going to oppose including a range. I agree that removing the number of articles at the top is fine. BTW while it's true that 0xF4240 is double 0x7A120, I'm not sure why this is relevant. Definitely if we were using hexadecimal I doubt people would be so desperate to have a seperate cat for F4240 Nil Einne (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hexadecimal would be an improvement indeed :) and I wouldn't mind removing numbers altogether. Is just if numbers are displayed they should reflect the facts. Is puzzling why is so hard to achieve simple accuracy here, instead repeated statements implying that 1.2 million is about the same as 500k. Surely there must be an aesthetic-utilitarian solution which is also accurate, or at least not misleading. --Elekhh (talk) 11:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I support removing the article count. As David Levy said, it puts quantity above quality, and at this point Wikipedia has nothing to prove to the world as far as quantity goes. At this point it has become like the old running tally on the McDonald's sign; eventually, you just change it to "billions and billions served" and move on with your life. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(de-indent) Sorry about the slow reply. Sticking my responses down here because they'd likely be lost above.

David Levy: " Indeed, we feature some of our best articles on the main page...below the article count (the first thing that we display after the welcome message). Hence my statement that we literally place quantity before quality."

Literally is not figuratively, though. We literally place the "view source" tab above everything too, which means... nothing. Now wanting to adjust the prominence is fair enough, but I don't feel we're overemphasizing quantity. We advertise quantity, yes (and I think we should), but we give far more space to the Featured Article and In The News. TFA in particular is an emphasis on quality. So I feel that the current page successfully sells both, and further I don't think that mentioning quantity prominently degrades Wikipedia's mission of improving quality as well. SnowFire (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, prominence is the relevant issue. We advertise the sheer quantity of articles in the page's most prominent location (at the top, paired with the "welcome" message). That we assign more space to other elements doesn't change the fact that the article count is one of the first things that a reader sees. By all appearances, it's what we're proudest of and most eager to promulgate (apart from the fact that Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit").

Also keep in mind that many casual readers have no understanding of what a "featured article" is. A common misconception is that "today's featured article" is simply an article that we're "featuring" on the main page today. So the fact that we value quality isn't necessarily conveyed.

As noted above, it's widely known that Wikipedia contains an enormous number of articles. By displaying a running tally at the top of the page, we imply that our main goal is to drive that number higher and higher. Conversely, the Wikipedia languages section provides a suitable context. (There's a valid reason, apart from boasting, to mention the article count.) —David Levy 18:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Elekhh: "You kind of avoid addressing the raised issues: if the quantitative gap is "gigantic" anyway, why creating the impression is double as much as it actually is? If the bottom section is "utilitarian", why is so difficult to present the real numbers? If the number is not so relevant, why displaying it starting at the very top? And what do you mean with "number of articles is a fluffy but not terribly useful fact, so it works as advertising", does this mean that the majority of our readers are unable to make the difference?"

I'm not sure we're on the same page here. As already stated, the reason why the gap appears a mere "double" the size (which is Not A Big Deal) is because we don't want to either create a 2-Wikipedia sized section, or to waste even more space on irrelevant-in-this-context article counts to show the range. That's all that's "difficult" about it. The primary goal of that section are the Wikipedia language links, so we shouldn't waste space or lay it out poorly. The article counts are incidental. As for your last point, I don't understand what you mean by "make the difference." All I'm saying is that number of articles is a cool factoid, and yes, I trust readers to know that this is just a cool factoid. SnowFire (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

We need to keep the article count at the top of the Main Page

We're approaching the 4,000,000 article milestone pretty fast. There's going to be just as much excitement around that as there was for passing the 2,000,000th article mark.

And the excitement will grow as our $upporter$ see that number getting closer to 4 million. We need to remain positioned for this, because it is a promotional opportunity we $hould not mi$$. Promoting Wikipedia is our responsibility. It helps bring in the dollars that keep all the Wikipedias running and made available for free to everyone worldwide. That number posted up there is a major selling feature of Wikipedia, because...

Quantity does matter — it is synonymous with coverage. More articles on more things. More chance of finding something on what you are looking for.

Wikipedia's scope is expanding, from major subjects in general to major subjects for smaller and smaller localities. What's major for someone planning to visit or move to Hershey, Pennsylvania USA is different for someone living in Wagga Wagga in New South Wales, Australia. So for the former we have articles like Hershey Public Library, and for the latter, there's Wagga Wagga Botanic Gardens. Wikipedia's scope is represented in that number at the top of the Main Page.

Also relevant to our fund-raising imperative, our running total allows quantitative comparison with other informational resources, such as other encyclopedias (Britannica springs to mind) and other websites. And maybe someday, the Library of Congress!

We should keep our most notable and promotable feature (coverage) right at the top of the main page where everyone can see it.

The Transhumanist 17:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The 2,000,000th article's creation generated substantially less excitement than that of the 1,000,000th article. The 3,000,000th article's creation generated less excitement still. We've long since reached the point at which Wikipedia's tremendous size and scope became obvious and well known, so we're basically beating a dead horse.

No one is asserting that quantity doesn't matter, but it isn't what we need to promote nowadays. The Internet-using public already is aware that the site contains an enormous quantity of articles on a vast array of subjects (to the extent that this is frequently referenced in popular media, such as print, film and television). The other common belief (also frequently referenced in popular media) is that Wikipedia's quality is highly questionable. Readers know that they probably can find something on what they're looking for, but they're reluctant to trust what they find. By advertising the site's sheer size (of which people already are aware) at the top of the main page, we convey that we value it (and seek to increase it) above all else. This impacts not only the site's perception among readers, but also the participation of some editors (who are led to believe that our prime directive is to create as many articles as possible, rather than improving existing articles). —David Levy 17:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You wish Wikipedia to stop asserting that quantity does matter, and that's just not good marketing. One of the main reasons everybody is aware of Wikipedia's greatest selling feature (coverage, due to its size) is because we have the article count posted at the top of our Main Page. We have it up there for a very good reason. William Wrigley was asked why he continued to advertise so heavily when his chewing gum products were already well known: His answer: "A plane goes about 300 MPH. Why doesn't the pilot just turn off the engines and let the plane fly on its own momentum?" The Transhumanist 17:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I wish to stop asserting that quantity matters more than quality does, even after we've reached 6,926,170 articles.

The article count's presence at the top of the main page undoubtedly played a significant role in bolstering Wikipedia's popularity, but it's long since outlived its usefulness.

The Wrigley analogy is inapplicable for several reasons:

1. Wrigley didn't receive customers via search engines (undoubtedly our primary source of traffic).

2. Wrigley had competitors offering similar products. No website comes close to matching what Wikipedia offers, and if one ever does, that will be good (because our goal is to spread free knowledge).

3. It's generally agreed that Wrigley's advertising was effective. I assert that the article count's placement in the header sends a counterproductive message that lowers the public's confidence in Wikipedia. —David Levy 19:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering we always promote the milestone number seperately I would say this whole 4 million thing falls flat on its face anyway. If anything, by removing the count, we give more prominence to the number when it's a milestone like 4 million so we get a better promotional/advertising effect out of it rather then continually having the number on the main page so no one is surprised when we reach 4 million. Also we're still quite far from the 4 million mark, we're less then half way there from 3 million. And as DL said, 3 million didn't really get that much attention. There's no reason to expect 4 million to get more, it's likely to get less. If we're lucky 5 million may but that's even longer. Nil Einne (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Approaching 4 million pretty fast?? Really??? its taken over a year and still going to gain 500,000 articles. It will be early 2012 at current rate in which we reach 4 million which, given the potential contributors to wikipedia and sheer amount of very notable content missing is actually very slow. The article count is neither bragging about our size nor it is causing any harm. Its a rough insight to the scope of wikipedia currently which is very useful. The problem is that is doesn't measure quality (which is most important), it paints short stubs or long, poorly written unsourced articles as the same as articles like the Ming Dynasty.. But anybody who is an active reader/contributor to wikipedia is fully aware of how many articles are lacking...♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, when someone becomes an "active reader/contributor," he/she realizes that many of our articles are of poor quality. Our layout implies that we don't particularly care (because our top priority is to create as many articles as possible). For readers, this dampens confidence. For editors, it actively encourages such prioritization.

You noted that the problem isn't the article count's presence, but the lack of context. Okay, so let's pursue a compromise in which the missing context is added.

Until 30 May, we displayed links directly below the grey box. I suggest that we transplant the portal links to this newly vacated area, thereby freeing up the right-hand side of the box for the article count and related information (in a style of prose similar to that contained in our previous main page design).

Here's a mock-up.

In this example, I relocated text from Wikipedia languages (some of which appeared in the header to begin with) and added a link to that section. I included the featured article count, thereby conveying that we value quality. I also restored the longstanding "Categories" and "A–Z index" links, which we might have been a bit hasty to remove.

Opinions? —David Levy 04:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I like the simplification of the layout and removal of some repetition (Not sure however why Portal Arts has been removed). Regarding the right-upper corner, I would include GAs as well, which are quality articles. --Elekhh (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The omission of Portal:Arts was accidental. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

I like the idea of including the good articles, and I've done so in my second mock-up (linked below). —David Levy 02:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I like the placement of the Portal links, but not the mass of text on the right. How about a simpler 'Currently: XXX articles, of which <br />XXX are featured articles<br />XXX are good articles' or similar? Modest Genius ^talk 02:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see my second mock-up. —David Levy 02:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that the article counts' text is very small in Google Chrome (but not in my other browsers), presumably due to the use of a monospaced font. Obviously, that would need to be fixed. —David Levy 03:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, though it would be best to lose the colours on the numbers, capitalise each line, and use a normal font (ie not monospaced). Presumably some technical fix would be needed to make the FA and GA numbers updated? Modest Genius ^talk 03:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed the colors.

Do you mean that "featured articles" should become "Featured articles", "good articles" should become "Good articles" and "articles in total" should become "Articles in total"? That looks odd to me, as the numerals (not the words) begin each line.

I'd much prefer using a non-monospaced font, but I need someone whose coding skills are better than mine to implement an alternative method of aligning the values.

The FA and GA counts would be inserted via templates, which also would be transcluded on (and be updated instead of) Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles. —David Levy 03:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I support David's efforts here and agree that this mock-up represents a step forward, and in the right direction. Good work! I would however also prefer 'Featured articles' and 'Good articles' capitalised, or maybe capitalising 'Articles' too, to make it a little clearer that these are official counts and not overly subjective. Capitalising would make the text match the link, too. As it stands, they do look a little like opinions. Or, the numerals could be moved to the end of each line, as in Featured articles: 3,091. Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 10:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. I've incorporated your suggestion to move the numerals to the end of each line. Thank you! —David Levy 17:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I just got rid of the monospaced font in the sandbox, instead using a subtable to get the alignments right. Is that better? Modest Genius ^talk 19:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a big improvement. Thank you! —David Levy 20:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice! I wonder if it would be better with the FA/GA/T numbers right aligned and reduced line spacing. --Elekhh (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(rest indent) One MASSIVE caveat w.r.t. David Levy's layout: "good article" on WP means an article that has passed WP:GA. "Good article" in the English language means "so the other 3 million articles are rubbish?" Think of what message we are conveying to our readers. Zunaid 08:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree; we should avoid using Wikipedia jargon. Either a count without disclaimers, or no count at all. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 08:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, the likelihood of such confusion was the first thing that went through my mind when I learned of the Wikipedia:Good articles concept years ago. It's a strong argument for changing the name, and I believe that we should.

Apart from that, our choices are to not mention "good articles" on the main page, to mention them in a manner that either explicitly specifies their nature (via a lengthy description) or implies it (e.g. articles designated "good"), or to hope that readers follow the link. —David Levy 08:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree that "Good articles" is confusing. GAs are actually very good articles (VGAs). As an intermediary solution, how about a cryptic "GA articles", almost forcing readers to follow the link, yet by positioning and numbers evident that is something better than most articles but less good than FAs. Or something less confusing like "Promoted good articles"? --Elekhh (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"GA articles" is redundant, and as you noted, cryptic (which largely defeats the purpose). "Promoted good articles" makes more sense, but it falls even further into the area of Wikipedia jargon.

In my opinion, "good articles" is an inherently problematic name (irrespective of whether it appears on the main page). Therefore, the ideal solution is to come up with a better name. The trickiest part is thinking of one that doesn't come across as a step above "featured articles." —David Levy 15:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Gold, Silver & Bronze standard? Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 15:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That would entail renaming Wikipedia:Featured articles, for which I doubt we could reach consensus (especially given the fact that "gold articles" is one letter off from "good articles" and would be referred to by the same initials). —David Levy 17:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"Featured" articles, in the sense that WP:FA uses it, is already WikiJargon. "Today's featured article" is OK in the sort of English that normal people use, because it is featured on the Main Page. Anyway, absolutely oppose anymore creep of these purely editor-based processes onto the Main Page: it's bad enough with DYK being incapable of providing a set of hooks which actually fit into a section entitled "Did you know?" Physchim62 (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, are you saying that you oppose placing any qualitative article measurements alongside the purely quantitative one? —David Levy 00:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Any further comments? Should this proposal be worked on elsewhere? —David Levy 14:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Starting a new section on T:MP would probably lead to some more comments, since most people are probably skipping over this section. Modest Genius ^talk 00:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Start a new section, (archive-template-box this one), summarize what the suggestion actually is at this point, and link to the various sandboxes. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Is empty space better than fund-raising efforts?

Something we've overlooked is that if we remove the article count from its spot at the top of the Main Page, it will leave a hole up there.

Is empty space better than that spot's current use for promoting Wikipedia?

Do we have something better than the article count to place up there, that will promote Wikipedia more effectively?

If so, then I'd be all for it.

The Transhumanist 18:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Removing that count doesn't create any unsightly white space. If anything the header looks better without it (see Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox). Also, I don't see what the article count does to solicit donations - there's no link there or anything to suggest readers should donate if they're impressed with the article count. Modest Genius ^talk 18:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a great idea! The Transhumanist 18:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Err, there was no idea presented in my post. If you are suggesting adding a 'donate' link there, that's actually a stupid idea which I would strongly oppose. Modest Genius ^talk 18:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

We already display a "Donate" link on every page. —David Levy 19:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the header looks much better without the article count included. This is because the header box was designed without the article count (which we'd relocated to the bottom). It was tacked on as a temporary measure (due to the aforementioned excitement surrounding the 2,000,000th article), with the intent of removing it shortly thereafter. —David Levy 19:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Dude, how many discussion forks are you going to make? We get it - you support keeping the count. Why couldn't all this have been added to the original discussion, instead of forcing people to follow three different threads and repeat themselves? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Transhumanist, please stop creating a new sub-thread for every point that occurs to you. —David Levy 19:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That argument is based on the assuption that the article count's presence in the header is a positive marketing tool. As I've explained above, this point is contested. I believe that it sends a counterproductive message that lowers the public's confidence in Wikipedia. —David Levy 19:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

military response from South Korea?

I am not sure this assertion is correct. I can find no news of a military response from South Korea. On the contrary, all the news stations seem to talk about the unlikelihood of a military response. Richard Avery (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

How hard did you look? [1] --Step hen 11:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

They fired back with a 155mm howitzer, I think that can be classified as a military response. Physchim62 (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like North Korea needs a personal appeal from Jimmy Wales :) Kaldari (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that would fit with our NPOV on the Korean conflict... Physchim62 (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Good article of the day

Shouldn't we have a Good article of the day on the front page too? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Why? Physchim62 (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's this logic: There's a major league baseball player of the day, and there are a lot more minor league baseball players than major league ones. Therefore the major league player should share the spotlight. Flawed logic.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(Yes, strawman is flawed logic.) Having a Good Article of the Day might have possibly made sense (or perhaps not) if GA was restricted to its original goal of having an "award"-type status for articles that wouldn't qualify for FA status for other-than-quality reasons. However, the current proceedure is to have GA be a stepping stone through which articles pass on their way to FA status. It therefore doesn't make much sense to feature most good articles, as, given enough time, they will be improved even further and hit the main page with FA status. (So if you want any particular GA to be on the main page, the recommendation is to improve it to FA status.) This, of course, leaves out the FA-ineligible-for-other-than-quality articles, but I don't believe there are enough of them which are interesting enough for the main page to make a regular feature worth-while. -- 174.24.198.158 (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What about DYKs? They appear on the main page. In fact multiple articles appear on the main page at once, usually at least 6 times as many FA articles which appear on the main page. Is that right?. So why no mention at all of good articles?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I hate baseball (being British). Seriously poor analogy..Of course your view has nothing to do with your unusually high FA count that you view good articles as second-rate... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that is true, though I think your proposal will be hit for six. I do look at GA as a place for article's I've put effort into but there is some reason I don't feel it can go on to FA. But yes, I do not feel that they are in the same ground. GA are definitely second eleven.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think my count of FAs or GAs is unusually high ;) But I can certainly think of better things to do with the space than a GA of the day. The vast majority of our readers have no idea of the huge bureaucracy that goes into filling the TFA slot: they see it as Today's featured article because it is literally featured on the Main Page. Why should we confuse them even further by having a "featured" article and a "good" article, with the added implication that most of Wikipedia is 'not good' (when it is usually those 'not good' parts they're actually looking for). Physchim62 (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to see what people thought about the idea of having a good article also featuring on the main page or changing say every 12 hours or so...Maybe then there should at least be some mention of good articles then? Amazing work BTW.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I've never understood why short, Did You Know entries, often created with minimal effort, are given pride of place on the main page, when GAs never get any exposure. But, like every other time this is proposed, it's not going to happen. AD 16:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

TFA and DYK have different purposes. TFA is to showcase the best that Wikipedia has to offer. DYK is intentionally limited to very new articles, and is intended to show that Wikipedia is continuously expanding with interesting infromation, as well as to highlight new articles that reader-editors may wish to help expand. GAs in their current form are boggy middle ground: neither polished enough to be highlighted as best-of-the-best, nor new enough to be exciting or expandable-by-casual-editors. -- 174.24.198.158 (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, point taken. But if no article at least should there not be how many featured/good articles we have appearing on the main page? We happily reveal we have nearly 3.5 million articles but mention nothing of the recognized content on the main page. We are intentionally hiding it because the figures are an embarrasingly low percentage perhaps?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, featured articles aren't always so great (Grace Sherwood springs to mind here). Plus, they're often shown months or even years after they were promoted, which means that they may have deteriorated. Showing the figure of whatever for how many FAs we have is a bit pointless, when readers have no idea what the other articles are. I can remember looking at the main page, and thinking FAs were just picked at random out of every article. I think the feeling should be that every article has potential to become a featured article - even if it cannot. AD 16:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I recall David Levy proposing something like 3.5 million articles in english of which ... is featured/recognized content or something. I fully agree with him.The thing is certain articles of "recognized content" are not always the greatest articles on here as Aiken suggests. I know of many B class articles I consider superior articles to several of our FAs in terms of knowledge/comprehension but have some minor issues impeding them from being promoted. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"Featured articles" only really means "on the main page". It doesn't actually reflect their quality. A term like "High quality" or "Excellent" or even "Brilliant prose" would be more appropriate. AD 17:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That idea would open the possibility of decoupling WP:TFA from WP:FAC, so maybe allowing GAs to compete for the TFA slot. Physchim62 (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. All it is doing now is highlighting the article, but doesn't explicitly say this is supposed to be our best work. There's no real reason GAs could not compete for a spot - that's quite a good idea I don't think I've heard yet. AD 18:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps half of featured articles have appeared on main page. And I think you would find strong resistance to the idea, not only for the standard reasons, but because of the plagiarism problem. A GA is reviewed a lot less than a FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

House "Pilot" image

I posted on the talk page Talk:Pilot (House) about the image for this article, but it applies here too. I think the juxtaposition of a trademarked logo with an amateur photo is questionable, and I also think it's a poor identifier for the pilot episode. —Noisalt (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's been removed from the article. (After your comment there.)

For what it's worth, I agree that it implies that the image is somehow an official publicity piece for the show. APL (talk) 08:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. We could get an actual publicity photo, and use it with a Fair Use Criterion. We couldn't have it on the main page, but it's time is almost up anyway. Buddy431 (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This offending image has just been removed. --PFHLai (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Pike River Mine disaster

29 miners in new zealand have been confirmed dead after an explosion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.135.162 (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure at what the above edit is trying to hint but I'm a little surprised the Pike River Mine disaster has not appeared on the main page yet. I know, we are not a news network but NZ's worst mining disaster in 96 years is surely as noteworthy as some kid in the UK marrying his girlfriend, and we did have that on the main page last week! Calistemon (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

see WP:ITN/C. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone added it to 2010 and it was reverted soon after with the Edit summary "Not really internationally notable,happens frequently in other countries." Not sure how true that is. HiLo48 (talk) 07:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm shocked that this has been deliberately omitted. It has been rectified, per the unanimous consensus on ITN/C. Daniel (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

pic for featured article

looks really bad, real amateurish. thumbs down guys. this makes wiki look really, really childish.24.109.231.174 (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

it looks like a mugshot LOL!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jujuy8 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep! —Noisalt (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This offending image has just been removed. --PFHLai (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Main page

Is the consensus still to not place the main page in this category? (see Talk:Main Page/Archive 136#Category) Because the intro at Category:Main page currently still reads as if the main page is supposed to be categorized. I suppose that text just hasn't been noticed for a while and hence not updated, but maybe consensus can change, so: Should we add the main page to Category:Main page or not?

Note, I'm in support of adding it, with my justification being that having the link there is beneficial because it would introduce readers to the category system much earlier than they would otherwise discover it. -- œ ^™ 02:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

What's the use of a category with only one page? Nil Einne (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

From the info on the category page and its history, the purpose is to stop User:Rich Farmbrough from tagging the Main Page as uncategorised. I think there are rather better ways of doing that than misusing the category system in this way. Modest Genius ^talk 12:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this would provide an extremely misleading introduction to our category system. —David Levy 07:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering we have Category:Main Page, what purpose does Category:Main page (lowercase P) serve? Looks like a CFD nomination to me. howcheng {chat} 18:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 27 for merge nomination. Nyttend (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: Despite this discussion and the ongoing merger proposal, Rich has gone ahead and added the category. (Apparently, it's too much to expect him to actually monitor his automated/semi-automated edits and refrain from making poor ones on his own.) —David Levy 15:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Er.. it's on the basis that any error one person makes is an error someone else is likely to make. Maybe my level of stupidity is unique in the universe, but again maybe not. It seems a trivial defence against what is admittedly a fairly trivial problem. My experience is also that any exceptions generally lead to problems "make things as simple as possible but no simpler". Having one uncategorised page is basically not a great idea. I'll have a quick look at the archive too. Rich Farmbrough, 16:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC).

1. No one attributed the error to stupidity, so please step away from that straw man.

Your mistake stemmed from carelessness. You obviously used AWB without paying attention to what you were editing. I don't believe that we should encourage such behavior by creating safeguards intended to accommodate it.

2. From top to bottom, Main Page is a giant exception to the usual mainspace rules. —David Levy 17:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec w/David) Respectfully, Rich, you're the only person I've ever seen make this particular mistake. Perhaps it would be better if you could modify your AWB code to skip fully protected pages or something? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems like the Main Page is used for administration of the Wikipedia project, making it a giant exception to the usual mainspace rules as David points out. It contains information that does not amount to an article and is not part of the encyclopedia. {{Uncategorized}} only is for articles ("This article has not been added to any categories."). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The archive refers back to an earlier archive, and the decision was on the basis that a category "spoiled the look of the page". This is a hidden cat, which we probably didn't have at the time of the original discussion, and Category:Main Page is not. Rich Farmbrough, 17:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC).

Indeed, that rationale doesn't apply to a hidden category. The applicable rationale is that we shouldn't accommodate and encourage careless editing. —David Levy 17:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

On that basis you will be advocating removal of all page protection tools, as "encouraging and accommodating" vandalism? Rich Farmbrough, 17:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

That's a nonsensical analogy. Page protection tools counter vandalism. You seek to implement a setup that would accommodate your abuse (i.e. unattended/poorly monitored use) of AWB, of which bad edits are an unintended consequence.

In other words, you want us to create a safeguard to mitigate the damage stemming from your refusal to edit responsibly. Yes, that also describes page protection tools, but the situations obviously aren't comparable (unless you wish to equate your bad edits with vandalism). —David Levy 17:32/17:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• On a related note, for easier navigation to the Main Page from Category:Main Page, I have added the redirect Main page as the main page.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah well that settles it for me then. There's really not much point in keeping around Category:Main page when we already have Category:Main Page. -- œ ^™ 00:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

From Category:Main Page, it looks like the Main Page now appears in Category:Main Page as the lead entry and the look of the Main Page has not been altered. I'd say tht PrimeHunter resolved this issue. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Main Page doesn't appear. Main page does. However I agree this issue is dead, no one cares that Main Page doesn't appear other then RF and no one I've seen has given a good enough argument why it should. Nil Einne (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Haryana Cuisine Article

The article here is licensed as CC-BY-SA. Is it legal for this article to be transferred to Wikipedia? It has a large deal of information that we could use. --92.3.150.185 (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It's legal, but it's in such a wildly different format that full-on transfer would be strongly discouraged.  f o x  18:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Not that while legal, you still need to make sure you comply with the license and wikipedia's expectations for content copied from other sources (i.e. ensure the attribution is done properly). There must be a guideline on this somewhere although I can't find it but this question has nothing to do with the main page anyway I suggest you try a more appropriate place, as suggested in the header like WP:Help desk if you want to carry out any copying Nil Einne (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

focus on the search field

please add an focus to the search field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.100.58.79 (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This has been suggested many times and the proposal seems to fail each time to gain consensus. 85.210.98.220 (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why doesn't the cursor appear in the search box, like with Google? PrimeHunter (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks logo

Is there any reason why we shouldn't put the wikileaks logo up as the ITN picture? The licensing seems fine but I just wanted to check there was no quaint rule about putting up logos of organisations or something. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

In general there's nothing wrong with putting logos up (though most aren't free so they can't be). But the wikileaks logo has weird proportions which probably wouldn't work on T:ITN. We could possibly run with File:Julian Assange (Norway, March 2010).jpg. DC T•C 08:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Leslie Nielsen

I'd rather have File:Leslie Nielsen.jpg (pictured) on ITN. --174.93.82.160 (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Background color

Main page is bland and white like any other Wikipedia page, which makes it read like a paper encyclopedia instead. Suggest some coloring scheme such as this in my sandbox. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 08:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm somewhat sick of beating around the bush to avoid offending people whenever these perenial proposals come up that don't appear to have looked in to the history at all so I'll just say it, man that's ugly! Nil Einne (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then, what color would you suggest? Surely something more than just white? (And no, I haven't looked at the history, so please forgive me.) :P :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 15:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

White.  f o x  16:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Concur. — Edokter • Talk • 19:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. —David Levy 20:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

White --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 02:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Pea green and imperial purple stripes. Modest Genius ^talk 00:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for giving the main page a fresh, up to date look that doesn't look so drab, but your suggested change is awful. AD 20:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The good thing about white is, it works well with the many images on the main page, which can be all sorts of random colors. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 09:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Glad that most agree with me on the proposed change and yes white works best Nil Einne (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Too much of a good thing isn't! Go into your preferences, click on appearance and then click on whichever one you want. Then you can change the look without offending anyone. Dusty777 18:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusty777 (talk • contribs)

This is a better idea --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 02:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Updates

Couldn't the mian page be updated more often? Things seem to stay on it for a long long time.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The Featured Article, Featured Picture and On This Day sections update every 24 hours. Did You Know updates every 6 hours. And In The News just posted 3 new items in 4 hours (admittedly there was a couple of days' gap before that). I don't see the problem. Modest Genius ^talk 22:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

In theory ITN is suppose to be updated every 24 hours I believe. In reality we don't always meet that, more often we get bursts of new enteries then a lull for a variety of reasons. I suspect we do have an average greater then 1/24 hours though so if we really wanted to we could just delay enteries so it doesn't seem like we have such big gaps sometimes but that seems a little silly IMHO. Nil Einne (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Grammys

Not the place for this post in the first place, and it's really not the place to make less-than-pleasant comments about each other, either. Bencherlite Talk 12:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, I'm very sorry if this is not the right place to post this, but apparently nobody has read the talk page so far, and I find it unlikely. The problem is that Lady Gaga's album, The Fame Monster, was nominated for 6 Grammys this year, not 2, as the article states. I'll leave my message below. I'd appreciate any type of help. This album was nominated for 6 Grammies, not only 2. According to the Grammy's official nominations page, this are Gaga's following nominations: Album of the Year, The Fame Monster Best Female Pop Vocal Performance, Bad Romance Best Pop Collaboration With Vocals, Telephone ft. Beyonce Best Pop Vocal Album, The Fame Monster Best Dance Recording, Dance in the Dark Best Pop Vocal Album, The Fame Monster Please update this information. Thanks in advance, --201.230.12.129 (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC) This is the talk page for the Main Page of Wikipedia. It is not relevant to any articles or any content that is not currently on the Main Page. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC) You could at least point them in the right direction, especially as they admitted knowing this wasn't the best place to put it. - See Wikipedia:New contributors' help page for assistance on getting started with Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Help for general questions about using Wikipedia. (By the way, both links are in the header at the top of the page, and on the submission page.) For your particular issue, see Wikipedia:Bold for the relevant guideline. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Whoops. Just noticed that the article in question is semi-protected. See Template:Edit semi-protected and Wikipedia:Template. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC) The person already said they left a note on that article's talk page, so this notice is redundant and irrelevant. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Don't be a butthead. Be Civil--Degen Earthfast (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC) I don't know how stating fact makes me a butthead. I'm pointing out this is the wrong page for this - and I'm letting the previous commenter know that this notice was placed on the album article's talk page before it was placed here. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC) I largely agree. If you aren't receiving attention from the talk page and you are sure changes are needed, try {{editsemiprotected}}. If you aren't try one of the links above. Do note however it's not unresonable to wait more then 1:30 hours for changes or feedback which isn't urgent such as mundane changes to articles like this. In any case, Talk:Main Page is indeed completely the wrong place to get extra attention. Nil Einne (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC) I'm so sorry I posted this in a wrong place, but this is the first time I've edited here, so I'm still learning. Please be nice. --190.43.178.227 (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Well people have provided you plenty of links suggesting more appropriate places which I would consider 'nice'. Of course the big header at the top which says "Please note: The purpose of this page is to discuss improvements relating only to the Main Page. It is not a place to ask general questions or submit content" also provides plenty of links suggesting other places if your stuck in the future. Nil Einne (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC) LOL, someone is on a bad mood, huh? Chill, buddie. I find really funny geeks trying to follow the "Wikipedia Rules". What of you get a life, Nil? [I hear a geekrage comming from the distance] --200.106.17.220 (talk) 03:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Bad mood? No. You may want to see WP:NPA however. And it's not a matter of following rules, it's a matter of courtesy to fellow editors not posting random irrelevant suggestions in random irrelevant places particularly when there's a big header which tells you not to. Given that you apparently come from Peru, I originally wondered if perhaps a limited understanding of English explained the inability to read and follow simple, clear and obvious instructions. But this doesn't seem to be the case. In that case, from your messagge I wonder if perhaps your lack of what you told other people to get explains the lack of understanding of simple things like courtesy or reading clear instructions as these are things which people with lives generally find an expected and easy to obey part of everyday life but I guess those without are perhaps not aware. It does seem to be the case that often people tell people to 'get something' because they are embarassed and trying to hide their own shortcomings. Of course only you can answer that, it's not up to any of us here to judge. Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Donation Ads

The frequency of the donation banners was mildly irritating, but I understood it as a necessary evil. However, the one for Lilaroja can't even be closed (for me, at any rate - using Firefox). For the first time I am using Adblock Plus on anything on Wikipedia to block this. I understand that this is a once a year thing, I understand it gets complaints, and I hate to be "that guy" but this really is getting out of hand. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 19:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well as discussed in the earlier thread that's still on this page, there's nothing we can do about it. If you have bugs, you're welcome to go to Meta:Fundraiser 2010 and find where to report them. If you want to block the ads, as I understand it the gadget available in preferences works well and should in theory ensure you never see them again now or for any future fundraisers as long as you're logged in. Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured article requests

If anyone is interested in requesting featured articles for the main page, the requests page has been awfully quiet lately. Raul654 (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is looking for old FAs that have never made it to MainPage as a TFA, please consider the followings:

• Representative peer, promoted as FA in 2004
• Privy Council of the United Kingdom, promoted in 2004
• Quatermass and the Pit, promoted in 2004 -- Dec.22nd is the anniversary of the first broadcast on BBC
• Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve, promoted in 2005
• Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway, promoted in 2005
• Music of Maryland, promoted in 2005
• Dietrich v The Queen, promoted in 2005 -- Dec.17th is the anniversary of Dietrich's flight into Australia with the illegal stuffs
• History of the Australian Capital Territory, promoted in 2005 -- the area became Federal Capital Territory on 1 January 1911, 100th anniversary coming up

I don't feel strongly about any of these old FAs to put in a request, but I thought that they should be featured on MainPage before they start to deteriorate. I don't know. Maybe they already need to go thru' FAR ..... --PFHLai (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

1,000,000 +

Why not make a "More than a Million Articles" section at the bottom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.180.39.164 (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is a fairly recent conversation about this subject, Talk:Main Page/Archive 155#Wikipedia size: Implementation of proposed changes ~~ GB  fan ~~ 15:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a comment at the top of the talk page that this is not the place for discussing '1 million (or any multiples thereof) articles - or a list of perennial topics (million articles, too many things on the front page dealing with sport/America/other pet annoyance of choice, things which upset Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells, etc). Until the WP equivalent of those magazine isses with several different covers is developed (so we can choose vanilla/sports-centric/country-centric/high article count in given languages displayed/other varieties of choice) we will have to put up with these discussions on occasion. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The top of this page already mentions the FAQ. The FAQ should be kept more up to date, but one of mine was removed. The million articles issue is covered here, though that could also be more current. Art LaPella (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales' photo

Am I the only one that's starting to get fed up with Jimmy Wales staring out at me every time I go to Wikipedia? I've already donated money, so enough! Or, is Jimmy Wales trying to compete with Bono? Anyway, let's curtail the personality cult and get back to business - drop the pictures. Otherwise, thanks to Jimmy and everyone for Wikipedia, a great service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.124.135.29 (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe you only see the banner if you're not logged in, but, anyway, this isn't the place to discuss it (because this page is for discussion of the Main Page) and there's not much we can do about it because any admin who removed the banner from whatever MediaWiki page is generating it probably wouldn't keep their bit for very long. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

it is on main page this is the place! 02:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.204.5 (talk)

I share the discussion-starter's opinion. Why not instead bring on the ads for 2 months; they have the same annoying, distracting effect and would maybe have raised more money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.76.27 (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not part of the English Wikipedia Main Page. It's generated (I believe) by meta:Special:CentralNotice (which isn't even on the English Wikipedia, so even if I was willing to lose my bit, I couldn't do anything about it), which displays the same thing on all WMF wikis. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

so WMF is forcing unwanted media on wikipedia? Does wikipedia have a say in this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.204.5 (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. The Wikimedia Foundation owns and operates Wikipedia (and all the other Wikimedia projects) so they can do as they please, basically. If you create an account and log into it, you can set a preference to hide the banner by default, but that's the best I can offer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that 'Wikimedia Foundation owns and operates Wikipedia' does not mean that they are not forcing unwanted media on wikipedia, seems to me they are. Anyway do you like it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.204.5 (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess the appropriate response there would be "no comment". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I would think that the appropriate response would be "Yes, of course, we need the fundraiser so that the website can stay up, and so that the foundation can keep advancing the Wikimedia movement". Does the community have a say in how the fundraiser is done? Yes. Do the Jimbo appeals do far better than any other banner tested? Yes. Is Wikipedia part of the Wikimedia movement and does it benefit hugely from these banners? Yes. I don't see what the problem could be. Anyway, that's what I would answer :) --Yair rand (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(And BTW, there's a little "X" at the top-right corner of the banner that gets rid of it.) --Yair rand (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

There's little point, three days later it comes back again with a new picture. --86.185.250.141 (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one who complained re the photos - thanks for pointing out the little "X". I really greatly respect Wales and the whole WMF crew and their achievements, just got tired of him staring out at me, think it a bit too much. The "X" solved that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.124.135.29 (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the appeals for money, but the head shots on the black banner and on the bronze banner with the closeup of a bug-eyed Wales looking toward the right of the screen look like stills from an audition to play Gollum in Jackson's Hobbit. Real turnoffs.μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This is something regular contributors don't notice, because the vast majority of them will hide the banner immediately. You could try raising your concerns at meta:Talk:Fundraiser 2010, but as HJ pointed out we have no control over the banners here. Modest Genius ^talk 22:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, you'll be getting some relief from Jimmy this week. Stay tuned. Kaldari (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I do believe that, like last year as well (I think) years before, that will only be there for a total of a month or two. GameSlayerGS (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The fund raiser is running for 2 months. I for one consider 17% of the year to be rather too long. Modest Genius ^talk 23:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It would not be so bad if Jimmy was a lot better looking. Or if there was more in the photograph than just his bearded face. Thank goodness for the 'x'. I wonder what nationality Jimmy is... he obviously likes looking at himself. I would look him up but do not want to be confronted by his features any more than necessary. :-) B. Fairbairn (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

In all honesty I'd say Wales is a lot better looking that Sanger and a lot of the Wayne's World look alike four-eyed web geeks with the "my gosh he really needs to go to Specsavers look" or slobby looking trolls with greasy long hair who seems to roam the Internet these days.. At least we have somebody who looks relatively normal pictured in the campaigns....Sure the side photo is one of his least flattering photos, the one of him in the blue shirt looks decent. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I bet Wales will be running for office later on, using his pic here to build recognition. You can bet Wikipedia won't get a dime from me under these circumstances.-Richard Peterson24.7.28.186 (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that the foundation will allow Jimbo Wales to use foundation resources to run for office. I don't even think that's legal in the US, see [3]. He can of course use any pictures in accordance to the license they were released under with on his own servers, the same as you or I can.

Jimbo Wales has been the public face of wikipedia for a long time and many people will probably ignore the campaign appeals after seeing them once or twice so it's not clear how much these pictures are increasing recognition (there's obviously some) nor for that matter how much this is going to help any hypothetical future political campaign (while I don't know about the US, often what the candidate has done can be just as important as does he look familiar?).

BTW, I would like some evidence for the claim the 'vast majority' of 'regular contributors' turn off the ads. Some obviously do, but I'm not aware there are any stats to show it's the 'vast majority'. I myself don't generally bother, I'm rarely looking at the top of a page anyway and I've never been that concerned about ads when they don't get in my way.

P.S. AFAIK Jimbo Wales has had limited involvement in the design of this campaign. The decision to use his face was made by the campaign team based on their stats it gained the most donors. I've seen some criticism of those stats, but I haven't see any evidence JW influenced them. In other words, blaming him for this, or suggesting he's using it for some hypothetical future political campaign seems a bit silly. I can't help wondering if he'd prefer they weren't using his face so external sources aren't mocking him and people aren't continuously complaining to his user page about stuff he has little involvement in and apparently little desire to be involved in

Nil Einne (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no stats, it's purely speculation on my part, albeit based upon a handful of anecdotal examples. Everyone I've spoken to about them (both registered and unregistered, you'd be surprised how often I end up in such real-life conversations) has complained about the pics and wanted to remove them - I think it's safe to assume that the majority of people who could & knew how will have done so. Modest Genius ^talk 22:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Anecdotally everyone I've spoken to hasn't so I don't. Perhaps the reason why most people ask for actual evidence when bold claims are made? To be honest, I'm not even sure if we can safely assume most people you know have turned them off or don't like them. To state the obvious, it seems possible that perhaps one of the reasons they came up is because the people involved didn't like them or wanted to turn them off. Nil Einne (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course. I freely admit that I'm speculating. Modest Genius ^talk 00:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

in prior years I recall having to go into settings to turn off the donation ads, but this year, after clicking the X on the box, it hasn't come back. So I imagine anyone who has clicked the X has effectively blocked the ad. I use AdBlock/Ad Muncher while browsing, so anything that's not blocked by either catches me by surprise. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

So we can have a banner ad from Mr. Wales, but we can't have normal banner ads like every other website? I know it's annoying, but you scroll down and ignore it like every other webiste... Seems ironic that we're using a banner ad to promote our fundraising so we don't have to have banner ads... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.153.84.10 (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Honestly - how obnoxious are these ads? If I click the X, I have decided not to donate. I should not see the banners again. It should be the equivalent of opting-out. Yet, visiting a new page or refreshing shows them again. I downloaded the AdBlock extension just so I could avoid seeing these banner ads on every page. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a gadget available in preferences which in theory blocks the ads now and forever (including future campaigns) Nil Einne (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. Realised I forgot to specify obviously it only works as long as you're logged in and on en.wikipedia and other wikis where you turn it on where available. Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, "generous donor"! And I think Jimmy, either looks like O'Brien or Winston Smith from Nineteen Eighty Four. Buggie111 (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

today's picture Anthophora

the caption says "of the Anthophora species" but it should read "of the Anthophora genus".μηδείς (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Typo under "recently featured" FA

Louis Lambert, not Lous Lambert. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

3,500,000 ARTICLES!!!

Any forecast for when this will going to happen? How many articles where added since yesterday? Cannot wait! X-D 202.190.153.69 (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It should happen some time in the following hours. Is there a plan to put a banner on the Main page or is 3.5 M not such a big mark? --Tone 14:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It has just ticked over. Not sure it's worth commemorating though. Can't we wait until 4 million? - Dumelow (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably. Extrapolating from the previous milestones, when do we expect that to happen? --Tone 16:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I oppose the use of a banner in this instance. 3.5 million isn't a particularly noteworthy number, and the Internet-accessing public is well aware of the site's large size nowadays.

On top of that, the timing is far from ideal, as the fundraising banners have been the objects of much derision (as usual). Those are extremely important and do far more good than harm, of course, but let's not fuel further criticism by adding yet another banner to the site's most visible page. —David Levy 16:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It has been common practice at least to put a banner on the milestone article's talk page (see Talk:Joe Connor). If we can track down the right article we can do that at least. Lampman (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The article in question almost certainly was created by Dr. Blofeld (who saved numerous pages in rapid succession, perhaps with the 3.5 million mark in mind). —David Levy 16:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Are misleading news allowed?

In this case "The PCRM receives the most votes in the Moldovan parliamentary election, while the Alliance for European Integration wins a majority of seats."

IMHO this suggests misrepresentation, with the two statements being connected like that. The first statement is only true if you consider parties, not political alliances, and the second only if you consider political alliances, not parties.Ambi Valent (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The statement is 'perfectly reasonable' to anyone in a parliamentary election system - there are several examples in which 'Labour/Tory' and 'Tory/Labour' (or vice versa) and 'the UK' could be substituted. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Even in USA we get similar situations. In 2000 Al Gore received the most votes, but George W. Bush won the most electoral votes. 72.10.110.109 (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

-Irrelevant - Algore conceded, twice. IE, He quit, twice. AND in the final count conducted by Time Magazine, Bush won, barely, but he won. So get your facts straight.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't really the same as those two examples though: as I understand it, the PCRM won the most votes and the most seats of any individual party, but if you group the parties in the Alliance for European Integration (the ruling coalition) together, they won a majority of both votes and seats. The line does seem a little misleading (though I suppose it won't be on the main page for much longer). 81.98.38.48 (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Degen sorry but what are you talking about? Our United States presidential election, 2000 says Al Gore won the popular vote (by over 540k votes). If you have sources which say otherwise, please add them to the article rather then making OT and unsupported claims here. And it is relevant to this discussion because the issue here is that in many electoral systems it is possible for someone or a party to effectively win the election even if someone else wins the popular vote. From what I can tell, in the Moldovan case this didn't even happen but the claim was made so people responded accordingly pointing out it is likely to be something many reader would understand if that actually happened. Note in particular, no one made any comments on the fairness or whatever of such an occurence which is indeed irrelevant because our opinions on things not affecting wikipedia always are on wikipedia. Nor did anyone dispute whether Bush won the electoral vote so I'm not sure what the relevance of Gore conceding is to this discussion nor why you repeated what people had already said, i.e. Bush won the electoral vote. (Whether who won the popular vote has any relevance in general is moot in this discussion.) Nil Einne (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Well,,, Your Right. And that's exaclty why out of random thoughts,,, I think we should recognize the GHPPBA or The Grand Hopeless, Poor and Pathetic Bastards of America organization right here on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.155.199 (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an aid agency, and the Yanks should be able to sort themselves out without our help. Rodhull andemu 03:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

One would think ... Corvus cornix_talk 08:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Main page statistics

There seem to be a 'sufficiently high number' of items on the main page involving animals to justify a discussion on the subject. ;) Jackiespeel (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you know

Could "... that a turning enthusiast built the most elaborate commercial building (pictured) in New Ulm, Minnesota?" be better phrased with "New Ulm's most elaborate commercial building" because otherwise it somehow looks like it features as one of the most elaborate commercial buildings anywhere and that has its own problems of objectivity??Eugene-elgato (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

People have given up on Wikipedia's front page.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It's obvious the last couple of years Wikipedia front page lost its appeal to the people (nobody cares to even debate it anymore, with so few visitors about it) because it refuses to allow democratic procedures other than "we'll take into consideration your petty suggestions, peasant". If you want to improve it, stop putting Directors, "Arbitrators" and Know-it-alls in general on any section of the front page sub-themes and start learning from websites like reddit.com. Let people submit whatever and the best news, 'did you know', whatever, even page will go top *by simple visitor 'upvoting'*. Because your Elitism of having "enlightened" or only regular visitors with the process of writing in a wiki format with lengthy reasonings is not justified. You will never replace Democracy with "Enlightened Elites". This was the vision of every fascist regime in the history of the world and it failed. --Leladax (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

To submit and vote on "Did you Know" Items, Click Here

To submit and vote on "In the News" items, Click Here

To submit and vote on "Featured Articles" Click Here (To request that they appear on a particular day Click Here.

To submit and vote on "Featured Pictures" click here. (They appear in order, and there's a long queue, so be patient.)

Sorry that the selection process isn't exactly the same as Digg or something, but in most things Wikipedia prefers intelligent debate over mindless voting. So be prepared to back up your opinions with a brief argument.

Ultimately, though, the end result is similar, our users choose and "vote" on the articles that go up on the main page.

The only un-democratic step is the Featured Article selection process. It's moderated by a single editor to avoid unseemly "clumping" of topics, but he's usually pretty open to suggestions and requests. 72.10.110.109 (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Leladax's screed above, I've been complaining for almost two weeks that there haven't been enough main page featured article requests. See this thread. I'll give you guys a tip - if there's a featured article you want on the main page, request it in the non-specific date slot. That almost guarantees I'll use it the next time I schedule some featured articles. Raul654 (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Leladax, you are aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy, right? Corvus cornix_talk 19:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Have I been in a coma for a few years? When did debate on the main page stop? Nil Einne (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps at the same time pageviews fell from about sixty a second to near-zero? Algebraist 21:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Leladax would care to explain how 4-6 million views a day qualifies as "so few visitors"? Last time I checked, those were pretty big numbers.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Leladax, I remember your last post on this page. It was titled The Front Page is slowly turning to a propaganda leaflet of the US State Department. and you went on to state all of the editors who worked on putting the main page together were "trolls belonging to stormfront.org. --Banana (talk) 05:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You are a propagandist troll. If you don't provide evidence of the lie you just said remove your comment. I never said all wikipedians are fascists because, moron, I'm one of them. --Leladax (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA. I'm sure it's not the first time that page has been pointed out to you. Corvus cornix_talk 20:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Revision made at 17:33, September 13, 2010 by User:Leladax. Will that do as evidence? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:DFTT. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 11:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's just all move on, shall we? I think the past few comments make it clear nothing will be gained from continuing this particular discussion.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Million milestones

Does anyone know which the 3,500,000th article was? We might want to update Wikipedia:Million milestones, for the sake of its completeness. --Theurgist (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Bottom Section

Haven't you noticed that Korean has passed the 150,000 articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.180.39.164 (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have updated {{Wikipedia languages}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Great! - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.180.39.164 (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Voyager 1 has NOT reached the heliopause

The incorrect "In the news" item should be dropped. WolfmanSF (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

As the reference in the article does not confirm this (that Voyager reached heliopause), I have withdrawn that ITN item. I should also remove that line from the article, but am waiting for reaction. Materialscientist (talk) 10:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This wasn't a copyvio or anything urgent, so should not have been removed from the template before discussion. The blurb made no mention of it actually reaching it—just states the fact the scientists say it has shown signs of doing so. As there was consensus (albeit with limited discussion) to list it at ITN and the removal was unilateral and without discussion, it should be restored. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 11:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

With pleasure, after a reference is provided for the stated fact. Materialscientist (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

make changes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.61.70 (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Main Page archiving

Many people wonder what the main page looked like on a given day. I suggest archiving the main page daily by getting a bot to use Special:ExpandTemplates on the source and save the result in a dated page. I just created Wikipedia:Main Page history/2010 December 16 as an example. All templates and parser functions are recursively expanded by Special:ExpandTemplates so the result should look almost constant except for some details like sitenotices, deleted or changed images, and design changes in the software. It could also be done every 4 or 6 hours to capture DYK changes but daily seems enough to me. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that this would better be fleshed out and placed on Wikipedia:Bot requests. You don't need our approval to set this up as it doesn't affect the Main Page itself. - Banyan Tree 07:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to hear what people think before going to bot requests. I don't think anything like this has been done before. Is there interest in such an archive which would grow to thousands of pages in a decade? It would make lots of bot generated pages meant to never be edited again. I don't want to watch them all for vandalism or unwanted changes, which would be nearly all changes including corrections. Would it be acceptable to fully protect all of them? Are there license problems if contributors to the substituted templates are hard to track down? And for something affecting the Main Page, should such an archive be linked directly from there or only from the talk page? Without a Main Page link, the archive would have lower profile and there would be less reason to make it. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the wrong place for this kind of debate. Go to WP:VP - and get an advert on WP:CENT (and the Signpost may be interested, too). --Dweller (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Concern of fanaticism on Urdu Wikipedia

Hello, I would like an admin to take a look at some articles on the Urdu wikipedia, especially this one.

They clearly spell hatred for others by extremists, and should be deleted immediately.

Kind Regards.

--184.171.168.202 15:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.171.168.202 (talk)

An administrator on the English Wikipedia cannot assist you there. Perhaps make your request at this page on Meta-Wiki instead. Thanks!  f o x  15:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Today's featured article, The Simpsons Game, has wrong image

Instead of an image of the game itself, it shows a picture of a sign in front of a game studio that makes thousands of games. The article is about the game, not the company that distributed it. Can someone change that? Dream Focus 01:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I imagine that was because it is the only non fair use rationale image there was in the article. Fair use images are not allowed on the main page. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It would look better without an image at all. That image is jarringly off-topic. Zagalejo^^^ 07:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't argue with that. ;) − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. LFaraone 16:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. This game is not only made by Electronic Arts, it is about Electronic Arts. The game makes fun of the company consistently throughout the plot and the game's antagonist is Will Wright, who was, at the time, an employee of Electronic Arts. The image is an appropriate one. Neelix (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If the featured article were Electronic Arts, the image would be reasonably illustrative. But for a video game produced by Electronic Arts (and even spoofing it in its story), it was a desperate stretch to include anything remotely relevant to the article's subject, purely for the sake of having an image. I support the image's removal. —David Levy 17:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If the image of the EA sign is not to be readded, surely an image of the game's head writer would be acceptable. Neelix (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

While that would be less bad, it still doesn't strike me as preferable to no image at all. Even the display of a book's author (for which the video game equivalent would be, for example, a photograph of David Crane alongside a blurb about Pitfall!) is less than ideal.

The article isn't about Matt Selman, so it once again comes down to including an image purely for the sake of including an image.

Two questions that are helpful to ask are:

• Will the image's general nature be readily apparent to most readers seeing the blurb (before they read the caption)?
• Would we seriously consider including the image in the article's infobox?

If the answer to both questions is "no," the image probably isn't particularly suitable. —David Levy 17:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

On September 6, Night (book) was on the Main Page with a photo of Elie Wiesel. Was this a collective brain-fart, or is there another excuse for this inconsistency? –MuZemike 01:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This probably passes the first question David included above. A book's author is better-connected to his work in the public eye than a primary writer of a video game. LFaraone 02:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that a book is widely acknowledged and marketed as the work of one or more authors, and as such, having a picture of the author makes sense. We've also done this for other similar works (a Nine Inch Nails album comes to mind). But the video game is a product of Electronic Arts and the branding is mostly about the game itself, not any particular individual. howcheng {chat} 02:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

[replying to both LFaraone and Howcheng]

Exactly. Even if I've never heard of a book/album or its author[s]/recording artist[s], I'll automatically assume that the photograph depicts the latter.

Conversely, I'm familiar with The Simpsons Game, but if I'd seen the photograph of Matt Selman alongside its blurb, my reaction would have been "Who's that guy?". —David Levy 02:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So basically there is a bias here against video games, which is what I am gathering (and which is no surprise). To further point out such inconsistency, on August 15, Chrono Cross was featured, which had an image of producer Hiromichi Tanaka. –MuZemike 04:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Recognizing material differences between video games and other media ≠ being biased against the former.

Indeed, you've spotted an inconsistency; I disagree with the Hiromichi Tanaka photograph's use. —David Levy 05:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, inferring that there is somehow a bias against video game articles here is frankly ridiculous. In fact, one of the most frequent complaints we see here is that there are too many video game articles showing up as TFA. howcheng {chat} 05:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it pretty impossible to find a free pic solely about the video game per se? This is not like paintings which had been created centuries ago. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 22:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Video Game Images in General

Maybe this discussion should go on the TFA page, but this is an issue that has come up before and will come up again, and should be resolved. Personally, I think the embargo on non-free images on the MP is foolish, but that's not getting changed anytime soon and is not really worth the effort even bringing up. I understand the rationale behind not putting the game producer's photo as the TFA image, as most readers will be unaware of the link between the photo and and article/blurb. However, I feel a good compromise is to include an image of the studio, where possible, as most people can clearly appreciate "hey, this is a videogame, and that's a videogame company, I bet they're related"; as Howcheng said above "a book is widely acknowledged and marketed as the work of one or more authors ... the video game is a product of Electronic Arts". In the same way that author pics are relevant to a book article, an EA image would be relevant to a game they have produce or released. Readers have come to generally expect an image alongside the blurb, and generally it looks good visually to provide one. Random89 17:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Howcheng's point (with which I agree) is that most video games lack anything contextually comparable to a book's author[s] or an album's recording artist[s]. (There are some notable exceptions, but this wasn't one of them.)

A video game's association with its studio is no greater than a motion picture's association with its studio. Can you imagine displaying an exterior photograph of the Paramount Pictures lot for The Godfather (as a random example)?

It's unfortunate that our current procedures prevent us from maintaining the visual style to which readers are accustomed, but including a decorative, tangential image is not a good solution. —David Levy 18:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No love for the Wright Brothers?!?

On Dec. 17th (today) I was surprised to find no mention anywhere -- "Did you know.." "On this day..", Featured article, nor photo -- of the Wright Brothersn historic first flight. Dec. 17, 1903 is generally accepted as the first human flight in a heavier-than-air powered vehicle. Just wondering why such an Earth changing event wasn't highlighted. Sector001 (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Now you can see a relevant item in the "On this day..." column. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I had originally swapped out the Wright Brothers item because they'd been on for several years consecutively and other articles should get their shot on OTD as well. Today also was the 75th anniversary of the Douglas DC-3, and I felt one airplane item was enough. Remember that OTD doesn't highlight every event every year. howcheng {chat} 16:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Coolness. Much thanks for the change and the explanation. Honest, I wasn't trying to be a troublemaker. =) Sector001 (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I do like how the invention of a new ridiculous neologism "earth-changing" was necessary to present your point.  f o x  19:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Glad I could help Fox. Consider it your Christmas prezzie. Actually, the event was more "sky-changing" than "earth-changing".lol Sector001 (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I much prefer old neologisms to new ones, Fox. --Dweller (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Elvis and Nixon?

Why a photo of Presley and Nixon on "On this day..."? NandO ^ta_lk! 02:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Today happens to be the anniversary of their oddball meeting in the White House. howcheng {chat} 02:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute, are you calling Elvis an oddball? Sca (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think he's calling the meeting odd. LFaraone 21:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

...Shit. I might have taken that item out for balance but hadn't seen the image. Oh God. :P  f o x  02:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Undone myself but someone might have to revisit and make some kind of change to get rid of that whitespace.  f o x  02:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It is the most often-requested picture from the Nixon Library.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I swapped out a long one for a short one, and tried to shorten a few others. howcheng {chat} 03:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. It happens... NandO ^ta_lk! 05:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to be the one

advocating for censorship, but I don't think it is tactful to feature a nude image on the main page...File:Satyavati.jpg Mono (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. It's not like we're the German Wikipedia putting up a picture of someone's vagina on the MP. This is barely anything. /ƒETCH COMMS / 04:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hardly nude. Topless maybe, and discretely topless at that. I'm not a fan of gratuitous nudity, but removing that pic would be censorship. HiLo48 (talk) 04:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, as someone else has mentioned, this is not gratuitous. It's more artistic than anything, and if textbooks let that slide, so can an online encyclopedia.--WaltCip (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Again Vietnam?

there are so many otd about vietnam again. nice there are many FA's about that but they shouldn't appear otd 3 times a month. there should be a rule prohibiting users from pushing there articles too much even if they are good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.61.19.99 (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles in On this day are not FAs, and one story about Vietnam is hardly too many.  f o x  22:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

We get like three of those weekly so... –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You realize that US and UK have 1+ items appearing in OTD daily, right? So you're going to complain about Vietnam showing up a few times a month?? Seems a little out-of-whack there. howcheng {chat} 01:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Going to beat HTD to the "but at least they speak English" punch here. Not getting why a little extra knowledge on Vietnamese history is hurting anyone.  ƒox  01:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I remembered several months ago, all of the OTD entries were U.S.-related, then they can't find anything good enough that is not U.S. related, so they got an anime item. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

There was a problem recently involving huge numbers 1960s Vietnamese politics stories showing up. However, this item was entirely unrelated Vietnamese history from the 1920s, which seems rather reasonable in comparison to the other possibilities for that day. Modest Genius ^talk 17:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

More than 1,000,000 articles

Since both French and German Wikipedia now have more than 1,000,000 articles, why not add an appropriate line in the list of other Wikipedias.--Wetman (talk) 07:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed a lot. I can't remember the reasons for not doing it, but the consensus is not to at this moment (I believe they're waiting for more to reach 1m). I for one would also favor creating a new group for those above a million. D C 07:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Quoth the instructions at the top of the page, "if your question is related to the Main Page, please search the archives first to make sure it hasn't been answered before."

• Talk:Main Page/Archive 147#More than 1,000,000 articles: Deutsch
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 148#Wikipedia Languages
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 149#German Wikipedia over 1 million articles
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 150#Wikipedia Language
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 151#1,000,000 articles
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 153#Sister Project: German Wikipedia
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 153#Over one million articles
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 154#Proposal: Add million-article level to Wikipedia Languages section
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 155#1,000,000 +

This excludes numerous earlier discussions in which the community rejected proposals to add a new tier for a small number of Wikipedias (based upon whatever arbitrary milestone had been reached at the time). —David Levy 17:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be simpler to just make a new category for Wikipedias with more than 1,000,000 articles, rather than have this discussion over and over again? 87.114.184.255 (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Simpler yes, but every one of those discussions has concluded that it would be a bad idea. Simpler != better. Modest Genius ^talk 19:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That is simply not true. Several of them have ended with somebody opposed to the proposal calling the poster names, such as Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells, instead of producing an actual argument (see just below for an example. Nice attitude, people!). A few of them have "concluded that it would be a bad idea", but not every one. Are you perhaps exaggerating because you are short of arguments to support the appearance of en-wiki being 7 times larger than any other, instead of just 3? I know that's not what it actually says, but it's how it obviously appears, considering the number of times this is brought up. If it is so important to you to preserve the status quo, can't you at least have the decency to add it to some FAQ, instead of just being rude when a change is suggested? This discussion will appear over and over until the change inevitably happens, and you'll get more and more tired of it each time, and will likely be ruder and ruder. Instead, shouldn't there be a link somewhere that explains why the "consensus" has decided that a 2-item 1,000,000 category looks bad? (and by you, I don't mean any individual, but the collective of Talk:Main_Page regulars) /Coffeeshivers (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I succumbed to some hyperbole, sorry. Amend that to 'every one which actually reached any conclusion'. And it already is in the FAQ, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Shouldn't the "Wikipedia languages" section be categorized differently?. Modest Genius ^talk 01:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Besides, it is 'one of the (ten) standard Main Page talk page discussions' (the others including over-representation of the US, of sport, of wildlife, topics which annoy various filters, those which annoy Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells...' (Any further suggestions?) Jackiespeel (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You forgot "Picture X/Article Q" will hurt the children. D C 04:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

And "Not Fernando Ribeiro Lugo on the front page again".--WaltCip (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That's Fernando Lugo. howcheng {chat} 21:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the proposal to put ranges anwyay? As I remarked when it came up it never seemed necessary to me but it also seems like a resonable compromise to avoid these needless discussions Nil Einne (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales' Mug

Any chance of losing that bizzare, psycopathic-seeming gaze on the banner?!? It really freaks me out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.77.97 (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Shame, when I read the heading I thought maybe some entrepreneurial soul had begun selling coffee mugs with Jimbo's terrifying stare plastered over it. So he can watch you while you sleep. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I also thought you ment mugs as in tea and coffee mugs; but it Caught your attention didn't it? mission acomplished woudln't you say seeing as it's a fundraising banner? :) --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As someone who's had a hand in fundraising in the past, I'll point out for the sake of argument, that catching people's attention can be a useful aspect of fundraising, but if a line is crossed into irritation, it's not a good thing. Whether the Jimbo banner is irritating or not seems to be the OP's point, not whether it's eye-catching. If I came to an office as a one man band and suddenly began playing, with the aim of prompting donations, I'm sure I'd get noticed, but I'm not sure I'd get much money (or goodwill). --Dweller (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Me, I found it so irritating that I looked in the source files to find the filename of the Jimbo photo used, and add it to my browser's content filter. Whenever a new image was used, I'd add it to the blocklist. Now that it's no longuer Jimbo, I don't mind as much. Still, they could make the banner not so huge. 76.10.140.44 (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I for one enjoy being greeted by his lovely visage while perusing wikipedia. Perhaps him and Andy Shclafay and do a callander —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.22.16.52 (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we all agree that Lilaroja was hot and she should be the official spokesgirl of Wikipedia?184.190.207.21 (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there #should# be official WP mugs (which can be right or left handled - ie which hand you use to hold the mug to see the image).

Would Uncyclopedia have a hot potato? Jackiespeel (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I would much rather have ads on Wikipedia than this desperate cry for donations. Targeted ads would easily raise what Wikimedia needs and would help a lot of businesses reach their potential clients. And yes, the ugly mug is creepy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.210.249 (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This "urgent" appeal is embarrassing. The Wikipedia fundraiser has been wildly successful; it is not good PR to seem desperate to milk every penny out of your users. Wikipedia is not in dire financial straights. --64.53.233.71 (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

And it would be better PR to say "please donate but don't feel too obliged to, we've got plenty money either way"? Nah.  f o x  12:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It depends -- are you sending the message that the goal is to get as much money as you can, or to get as much as you need. The former is offensive. 86.26.60.18 (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This banner is extremely obnoxious and irritating. Please someone get rid of it. This is like some really bad joke... Can't be serious. Genjix (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, the fundraising target was set long before the fundraiser started [4]. Similarly the deadline was I presume set (the fundraisers always seem to end about the same time anyway). Whether or not the current campaign was 'wildly successful' the fact remained the fundraiser was still quite a bit off the target. I presume donations have dropped off as they are liable to do over time so from that POV, as 'wildly successful' as the current campaign allegedly was, there was some urgency since it's possible the target may not have been met. In any case, I'm not aware of many charities with broad purposes who only really try to get as much as 'they need', since most charities can always find something to do with any extra (if they really find they have too much, stopping donations is far easier then getting them). In any case, it's irrelevant for logged in users since the banners have been turned off for them until the final push in January. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The only problem I have with the banner is the word "urgent". I don't think its use is ethical. —Pie4all88 ^{T C} 05:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how the word 'urgent' is unethical. I presume from the WMF's POV, it is urgent since they have a target to meet and it's not clear if they will meet it. From a donators POV, it may or may not be urgent. It's up to each donator to decide for themselves whether it's urgent or not. The target and amount collected so far is even shown in the banner itself and I'm pretty sure from the links you can find out why such a target was set and what they intend to do with the money. If people don't think it's urgent, that's up to them, but it's odd to claim that it's unethical to call it urgent (when one presumes the foundation does consider it urgent) just because not everyone agrees, even more so when you've provided the info for people to decide for themselves whether they consider it urgent. Ultimately the banner is primarily intended to convey the impression the foundation has an appeal they consider urgent, not to dictate to other people whether or not they should consider the foundations needs urgent. Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

As a concerned bystander, I'd say Jimbo's urgent appeal is in need of a . It can't be so goddamn urgent that there's not time to explain why you're using the term. 173.177.236.43 (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This is extremely crucial that you resolve this issue. Will explain later.173.177.236.43 (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I favor having Jimbo's head on a mug as in the banner, but if you pour hot liquid into it, horns and a pitchfork become visible.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If Wikimedia needs to raise funds then so be it, but the photos of Jimmy Wales they are using to help publicise this are, shall we say, unfortunate. They aren't exactly his best, and he looks a little smug in some. Just one of him looking a little less pleased with himself would be much better - but nevermind: Merry Christmas everyone! Hugahoody (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

If everybody reading this donated $5 our fundraiser would be over today. Please donate to keep Wikipedia free. Ha, ha, ha. Now that's sad. --200.121.195.245 (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I just had the misfortune to visit WP whilst logged out, and wow that's an annoying advert. Worse, it's incredibly misleading - if everyone did donate £5 as it asks (and I note in passing it's asking for more from UK users than US users, thanks to currency differences), there's no way the fundraiser would end. They'd keep it running and milk people for everything they could - we've already raised plenty of money. Modest Genius ^talk 20:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I clear my cache every five minutes or so, and therefore I have to click the stupid x every five minutes or so. It's been two months already, when is the banner coming down? 80.123.210.172 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Christmas

So why isn't Christmas the main article on the main page as it is the most celebrated Holiday/Holiday in the Western/English speaking world? Is political correctness creeping its way into wikipedia?--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Because Christmas isn't a featured article yet. Perhaps you'd like to help make it an FA so it can appear on the main page next year? Acroterion _(talk) 17:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

In addition to misunderstanding the nature of our Today's featured article section, Degen Earthfast apparently didn't notice today's featured image. —David Levy 23:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You say it's the most celebrated. Do you have a source for that? Wouldn't New Years Eve/Day be more universal? (I don't have a source either.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

instead of a christmas/holiday themed FA we get a preserved bog body, poor choice. LazyMapleSunday (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

A what, sorry? I don't follow. Wikipedia is in UTC, and it's been the 26th for at least sixteen minutes now.  f o x  00:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Our article on Christmas was featured quite prominently at the top of the On This Day section, in the area specifically set aside for holidays. Christmas Eve and Boxing Day have all been featured there over the last 3 days - I can think of no other holiday that we cover not only the day itself, but the days before and after. That seems perfectly sufficient to me. Modest Genius ^talk 00:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas is the most celebrated day in the western/English speaking world, whose wikipedia this is. --Degen Earthfast (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Everybody's. Did you read the comments above? If you want it to be a featured article, it needs to get back to featured article status; it hasn't been for four years and has some obvious issues. Feel free to help out. Acroterion _(talk) 14:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe the "Whose wikipedia this" is was a statement not a question. It stated that this being the English wikipedia so Christmas should be the Featured article no matter it bureaucratically imposed lack of status..--209.213.220.227 (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Even if Christmas were to become a Featured Article, it still would only get one appearance on the Main Page. howcheng {chat} 20:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is that? another "bureaucratically imposed" rule?--71.162.161.175 (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviously you haven't thought this through. To start with, Featured Article status is reserved for the best of the best. It's not bestowed upon just any article for arbitrary reasons. Those that qualify have to be well-researched, well-documented, and well-written. These criteria have been decided by the community as a whole -- it's not a decision that was imposed by any one person or small committee of people. If any article could potentially appear on the Main Page in the TFA section, that would include those that are full of {{citation needed}} or {{unreferenced}} or {{original research}} tags as well, and for Main Page, we like to show off our quality content. As to why each Featured Article only gets one shot at the Main Page, well there are (as of right now) 1,343 articles that haven't appeared yet. Each one of those is the result of a lot of effort by one or more editors. Are YOU going to tell them, you'll just have to wait a bit longer because Christmas is always going to appear on the Main Page on Dec 25, leaving only 364 days when other articles get to appear? And actually, why limit it to this one holiday? Why not New Year's Day, Valentine's Day, St Patrick's Day, etc. And then if you open it to major holidays celebrated in English-speaking countries, that's still the US, UK, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and India (apologies if I've missed anyone), so the available slots open to non-holiday ones is getting limited. And now that you've opened the floodgates, is there any reason why Pearl Harbor Day, 9/11, 3/11, Armistice Day, or any other day that's significant to people shouldn't get the same treatment? So if by "bureaucratically imposed", you mean, "Do you guys have a good reason why this rule exists", then yes, I would say that is true. howcheng {chat} 04:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Today (26.12.2010) the Western Christian Churches (incl. the Catholic Church) DO NOT celebrate St. Stephen's Day, because the feast of the Holy Family takes precedence. It should be corrected... Second, it's just a thought, but puzzling: Many Christian feast days have the modifier "Christianity" or "Eastern/Western Christianity" added in brackets. But Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and Easter do not have. I fail to see the difference. Granted, many atheists/agnostics now say they celebrate Christmas (what they actually do is not that important), but would they do so without the Western Christian heritage? Very likely no. Jancikotuc (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Very likely yes, but perhaps with a different name. Family and community feast days at or near the Winter solstice have been very common from way before Christianity. Should it be the featured article? HiLo48 (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Why very likely? Yes I know about celebrating winter solstice in pre-Christian times, but do we globally celebrate summer solstice these days? Why should we suppose that winter solstice celebrations would have survived, if summer solstice celebrations have not? Anyway, Christmas would never have reached global popularity without presents-giving (which was not common until the 1940s). And until that time, the "western" world was still predominantly Christian. Jancikotuc (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Some "Western Christian churches" did celebrate St Stephen on 26 December this year. The Church of England, for example, allows Festivals to displace Sundays (except in Advent, Lent, and Easter, or if the Sunday is a Principal Feast), or to be celebrated on the next available day. For 26 to 29 December my lectionary allowed either <Christmas 1, John, Holy Innocents, Stephen> or <Stephen, John, Holy Innocents, Thomas Becket>. DTOx (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably won't happen

Those of us with long enough tenure here remember that, for two years running (2004 and 2005, I think). Christmas was indeed once an FA, with those responsible intending for it to have a Main Page turn on December 25.

However ... both years, as the holiday approached, the editors found themselves working overtime to revert or lessen the impact of innumerable well-meaning edits to maintain something like what they had gotten to FA. Both years, it was such that other articles had to be substituted a few days before Christmas. The second year they got wise and realized this would always recur. So, with sadness, they had it defeatured. Daniel Case (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

i'm wondering whether we are too narrow in our discussion. couldn't we simply have a satisfactory article that has a christmas theme? this would also allow a decentralization of the christian-christmas as it would cover a different narrative of the holiday each year. how feasible is this? wouldn't this only give a potential FA editor(ial staff 2.0) a deadline to work toward? LazyMapleSunday (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Certainly; much as we have had Main Page FAs on other holidays thematically related to them (i.e. Canadian-themed articles like John Diefenbaker on July 1; Barack Obama and John McCain on U.S. Election Day 2008, and Night of the Living Dead on Halloween. If you'd like to develop a Christmas-themed article to that level, you've got a year, an eon in Wikipedia time. Daniel Case (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

i just find it odd that lemur was the best there could be, thematically speaking. and no, Merry Madagascar doesn't count. LazyMapleSunday (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly why we have WP:TFAR. Modest Genius ^talk 01:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

i see...am i correct in reading that the points system would only give a chrismas relevant article one point for that fact? this might also be a reason for lemurs LazyMapleSunday (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

For the date, yes. But it would also get other points (widely covered, lack of other 'holiday' articles on the MP and in FAs). But the points only come into it if there is competition over which article gets which date (and total number of requests); since TFAR has been rather quiet recently almost anything that's proposed gets used. Modest Genius ^talk 17:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for the info. LazyMapleSunday (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

What the 'L

Lemur, Lindow Man, Lincoln cent, Lince, Laurence of Canterbury Laplace–Runge–Lenz vector. Maybe it's just apophenia, but it's an amusing coincidence all the same (especially since, other than Lemur, the TFAs reverse alphabetically): I'm not in screaming "bias" or anything, just thought that maybe someone should pay attention to Raul's requests for more activity on the Requests page - I think he's getting bored. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 02:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

In related news, anyone else notice the double Archbishop of Canterbury? I found it wonderfully interesting, lol. ResMar 05:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not apophenia...I noticed the same and thought, even if only half of the letters were as common an initial as "L"....well, do the math. It's a big coincidence or someone is trying to be noticed. Archbishop of Canterbury is less intriguing since choices of featured articles are often related to anniversaries and holidays.--71.232.14.151 (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering whether it was building up to some "first no-'L'" joke. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) (logged on as Pek) 10:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not have alphabet-themed days? Having all entries on the MP exclude a given letter might be more of a challenge. (What was the e-less book?) Or will alphabetism be added to the list of topics mentioned above? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you thinking of Gadsby (novel)? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 19:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It was either that or the French novel mentioned - it is easier to remember the 'particular aspect' than the specific example.

Should such Main Page events be discussed on the 92nd/93rd day of the year (depending upon whether it is a leap year)? Jackiespeel (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the elk, the 2 Lamberts, and ... but hey, where's Lugo? --70.31.11.146 (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

He's on the talk page. Buddy431 (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Here I am

Plotting his return to the main page. (e • nn • en!) 10:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that that picture isn't even used in his article any more. Obviously it considers the MP home now, and refuses to be used elsewhere. Modest Genius ^talk 18:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank God for the German, Japanese, Latin and Portuguese Wikipedias! The traditional Lugo image is File:Fernando Lugo - ITN.jpg which crops up on 8 different archives of this page... - Dumelow (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Geejo, you got me. After I had scheduled lemur, lindow man, and lincoln cent, I saw the pattern and decided to run with it. So no, not an accident - more like a small joke to see if anyone was paying attention :) Raul654 (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

So what would the main page for 'Day X' cover - X-Men, the X-Ray of the 'hand with a ring', Xerxes, Xenophon and what/who else?

Front-page by letter or absence thereof is an addition to the 'Wikipedia Xmas Games.' Jackiespeel (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Gta 4

People the awards that have been listed in Grand Theft Auto IV main page are all "Game of the Year" awards rather than "Action game of the year". Then why after several times editing that page, the awards change back to "Action game of the year".

There is one other issue too. The reviews are mostly of PC version rather than PS3/X360. The game is the highest rated game of all time and that rating is represented by its PS3 and Xbox 360 version.

So its a request to wikipedia to solve this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gta4best (talk • contribs) 07:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia and for your attempts to improve these videogame articles. This is, however, not the forum for discussing the Grand Theft Auto IV page specifically; this area is intended for discussing the Main Page only. When editing this Talk Page you should be presented with a whole host of links to suggested areas that you may find useful and I would direct you to the New Contributors' Help Page in the first instance. To discuss GTA4, please post your comments on the Talk Page of that article. Happy editing! Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 10:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Man, Eugene, that has got to the politest "re-direct the newbie" post I have ever seen!! Maybe we should keep it as a template somewhere and just modify it with new topics each time it's needed! Most excellent!! Keep up the good work! :) Rhodesisland (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

International Interwiki Links

some are missing.--PeterTrompeter (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#How are interwiki links in the left-hand column chosen?. The other languages are available from the 'complete list' link at the bottom of the interwikis. Modest Genius ^talk 17:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent deaths

Clicking on the "recent deaths" link on the main page goes to Deaths in 2010. Should that be changed to Deaths in 2011 for the new year now that the new year has begun? Bcperson89 (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This has been fixed by Allen3. A solution using {{CURRENTYEAR}} would avoid the need to update. Modest Genius ^talk 15:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless something has changed in the past year or so, {{CURRENTYEAR}} within wikilinks doesn't work for some technical reason beyond my ability to understand. See my old bugzilla request. - Banyan Tree 00:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It's only in redirects it doesn't work. It works fine in Recent deaths but I think a yearly manual update is better than an automatic link to a page which may have no deaths yet. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

For anyone else who was confused by this comment, the code for that link is [[Deaths in {{CURRENTYEAR}}|Recent deaths]] Modest Genius ^talk 02:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Now all we need is a means to insure the appropriate new page is in place at the start of each coming new year (decreeing that an unnamed somebody will take care of a problem that only appears once a year is a good way to ensure the task is forgotten between now and the next occurrence of January 1). Otherwise the traditional avoidance of WP:REDLINKs on the Main Page will be violated. --Allen3 ^talk 20:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Adapting the fallback code we already use for TFP should work for that, and ensure (;)) there's no redlink. I reckon:

{{#ifexist:Deaths in {{CURRENTYEAR}}|[[Deaths in {{CURRENTYEAR}}|Recent deaths]]|[[Deaths in {{#time:Y|-1 years}}|Recent deaths]]}}

The two links render as: Recent deaths and Recent deaths, which work provided last year's article exists. Modest Genius ^talk 20:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone care to implement this? Modest Genius ^talk 17:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done LFaraone 21:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

We really need to sort this out

it's always annoying when i see there is a Christian festival and then it's followed by western Christianity and not also eastern when they are in fact both celebrating on that day. The reason i think this needs changing is two-fold

• on article pages for saints and Christian festivals, in the info-box it has a "observed by" column which will list the churches which do celebrate, e.g. Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Some Anglicans etc....so if it just says western Christianity, on the main-page it may be misleading
• secondly, although the main rationale i presume for exclusing eastern Christianity for say, the epiphany today, is because numerically the greater portion of us keep a 13 day behind calendar, e.g. Russia, Serbia, Jerusalem,... Greece, Cyprus, Albania, Bulgaria, almost all the Greeks outside the home countries, e.g., millions in the Americas, Europe, Oceania, celebrate today and the Russians ARE celebrating on the 6th of January anyway it's just they cannot count properly!! they think 6th January is the correct date for the epiphany too, it's just they think 6th of January is when it's 19th January.Eugene-elgato (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

What? All those nations are using gregorian calendar, just the holidays fall on different days, so it is perfectly fine as it is. Regarding the first point, it would be better to address it to a dedicated wikiproject. --Tone 10:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, but i still would argue that essentially they hold Xmas on 25th December, and their calendar is out of synch- apparently in a few years they will be celebrating Xmas on our 8th December and no longer 7th even, which indicates not that their Xmas is simply on the 7th January, but that their 25th December is way out of synch and not even linearly. If that makes any sense??Eugene-elgato (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh, wouldn't we then place their Christmas on the 8th?  狐 FOX  12:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

We would, the same as we do for other holidays which change. We use the gregorian calendar on wikipedia, and it's also what a lot of the world uses in a variety of circumstances. The fact that some events are based on a calendar related to the gregorian one which therefore has the same month names doesn't change the fact it's a different calendar. More importantly, ultimately whatever you want to call the date the events fall whenever they fall (sometimes it depends on where you live or what system you use), the fact that Chinese New Year falls on the first day of the first month of the year of the Chinese lunar calendar or Eid ul-Fitr on 1 Shawwal doesn't change that. Those who follow the different practices were not celebrating Christmas several days ago whatever you want to call the date. The will be soon, whatever you want to call the date Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Would "Epiphany (Gregorian calendar)" be better then? We do that for Christmas (and you'll see it there on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January 7). howcheng {chat} 16:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be not bad idea at allEugene-elgato (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Done, and "Theophany (Julian calendar)" added to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January 19. howcheng {chat} 22:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That is excellent; it really clarifies things better- thank youEugene-elgato (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Where is the information about the latest letter bomb terrorist attacks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.186.126 (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You could try Wikinews via the link at the bottom of the Main Page... Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 13:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Wakefield's study linking autism...

What's the source for this? I only ask because it is not mentioned here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science_and_environment/ . Is this an example of WP breaking a story? --FormerIP (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

PS: Yes, I know it has happened and that it has had coverage. I guess my real question is about why this is WP's main headline if the BBC don't even appear to have a story on it. --FormerIP (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This and This, for example, as included in Andrew Wakefield. See Wikipedia:ITNC#MMR vaccine controversy. And the answer to your question is, therefore, no! Bencherlite ^Talk 12:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply to your PS: "In the news" doesn't have a main headline, it just has a most recent headline at the top. See the ITN discussion for more, well, discussion of reasons for inclusion. Bencherlite ^Talk 12:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but Wakefield was struck off by the General Medical Council some time last year over this research. The BMJ calling him a fraud now is obvious extremely significant to his biography, but it doesn't seem like an earth shattering event, particularly if major news outlets are ignoring altogether. --FormerIP (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit it's lost a lot of impact in terms of newsworthiness since he was struck off so long ago, but we didn't report on it then. It's a big story, both with the striking off and the fraud announcement, and covering it now is better than never. (Also, a good amount of news outlets have covered BMJ's announcement, a lot of them not giving it premier placement.)  狐 FOX  13:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was a bit surprised by the timing of this as well - the wider picture has been known for quite a while, and this doesn't seem hugely surprising in that context. But if we didn't cover it last time, then I guess it's good to get it out there. Trebor (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The breaking news aspect is the revelation that he faked data in the original study, this is what prompted the BMJ labelling him a fraud, and it only happened in the last couple of days. cyclosarin (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is allowed to be ahead of the BBC and other news broadcasters - and sometimes it is appropriate to make use of 'an event' even if minor, to remind people of a developing story that is intermittently in the news. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure we are so much "ahead" of the BBC. Is it not more likely simply that we have deemed something to be newsworthy when they haven't? --FormerIP (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia languages section

Now that we have more than a million articles in both German and French we should have a section of "More that a million article" at the bottom to give them he credit they deserve.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised to be typing (mostly copying and pasting, actually) this response to an administrator, but...

Quoth the instructions at the top of the page, "if your question is related to the Main Page, please search the archives first to make sure it hasn't been answered before."

• Talk:Main Page/Archive 147#More than 1,000,000 articles: Deutsch
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 148#Wikipedia Languages
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 149#German Wikipedia over 1 million articles
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 150#Wikipedia Language
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 151#1,000,000 articles
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 153#Sister Project: German Wikipedia
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 153#Over one million articles
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 154#Proposal: Add million-article level to Wikipedia Languages section
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 155#1,000,000 +
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 155#More than 1,000,000 articles

This excludes numerous earlier discussions in which the community rejected proposals to add a new tier for a small number of Wikipedias (based upon whatever arbitrary milestone had been reached at the time). —David Levy 07:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess it is such a good idea and this is why it keeps coming up. I do not know how many times the little green plus sign was suggested before it was added to articles but it must have been dozens. Remember consensus can and does change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

On reviewing past comments I guess it would be reasonable to wait until four wikis reached this mark. But I do agree with others that it would also be reasonable to add it now and maybe remove / merge one of the smaller categories if we wish to save on space. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

News about spy to Renault-Nissan about the electric vehicle

I have read and listen news about the spy of Renault-Nissan by the Chinese, to obtain industrial secrets related to the electric vehicle, where this automotive group is the world leader. The revelation has also affected the production of the electric vehicle in Spain (Twizzy model and so on). I suggest include this relevant information in the Wikipedia news headlines.--Diamondland (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest this at the nomination page, WP:ITN/C. --Tone 09:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Is picture placement a problem for anybody else?

I am constantly confused by the pictures used with In the news and On this day blurbs. Nice picture of a old guy in a shirt and tie next to Andrew Wakefield's blurb -- but it's not Mr Wakefield, it's the assassinated Pakistani governor. This catches me every time, and I've been around long enough to know better.

Same thing in OTD: old guy with handlebar mustache and wing collar probably isn't Bonnie Prince Charlie -- but you can't find out who it really is unless you read through ALL the rest of the blurbs.

We're really not doing our casual readers a service with this misleading picture placement; and even an experienced reader such as myself still finds it annoying that I have to slog through each and every bullet to find "(pictured)".

Can this be easily fixed? Or am I the only person who's bothered by it? (And, apologies if this is beating a dead horse; I'm not up to speed on restricting searches to just certain pagesets.)

DaHorsesMouth (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why are the images on "In the news" and "On this day" not aligned next to each relevant entry? —David Levy 03:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Crap; didn't find that earlier. Still, one thing isn't clear to me, since the French seem to be able to do it "sometimes": is it impossible, or is it merely difficult, to float the picture to its appropriate bullet? Thanks! DaHorsesMouth (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It isn't particularly difficult, but it purportedly would cause layout problems on other pages on which the templates are transcluded. And if I recall correctly, some people expressed a preference for the current aesthetics. —David Levy 04:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if it would look horrible if we put a caption under the image... howcheng {chat} 06:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe they use rollover text for a caption. wacky wace 18:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Newest articles or newest content?

For DYK we currently have: "From Wikipedia's newest articles:". As both expanded (but pre-existing articles) as well as genuinely new articles are featured, wouldn't it be more accurate to have "From Wikipedia's newest content:"? Greenshed (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the current phrasing doesn't cover expanded articles. But 'newest content' would include small amounts (paragraphs) of new material added to existing large articles, which are not eligible for DYK. Perhaps WT:DYK might have some ideas? Modest Genius ^talk 23:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we should maintain status quo, Dipannita —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.66.7 (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The use of the modifier 'although' in the first sentence of the featured article, 'John Helm', is misplaced

The use of the modifier 'although' in the first sentence of the featured article, 'John Helm', is inappropriate. The fact that he was the 18th and 24th Governor of Kentucky is in no way diminished by the total amount of time he spent serving in that office. Perhaps it should read "John L. Helm (1802–1867) was the 18th and 24th governor of Kentucky. In contrast to other Governors of Kentucky of the era, his aggregate service in that office was, in total, less than fourteen months." 174.58.42.212 (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The word "although" refers to the disparity between the likely assumption that a two-time governor served more than 14 months in office and the fact that he didn't, not the disparity between his time in office and that of other governors. —David Levy 00:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Why would an assumption be made that having served 14 months in office is more exceptional for a one-term Governor than a two-term Governor, regardless of whether it was sequential or non-sequential? A lack of attention to the non-sequentiality of his terms in office is negated by the use of the word 'aggregate'. Its use draws attention of that Helm's terms in office were not continuous.

It would be similar or analogous to stating "Jerry Brown is and was 39th and 34th Governor of California, although 27 years elapsed between his two terms in office." The fact that 27 years elapsed between Brown's two terms as Governor of California does not diminish the significance and the exceptionality of the fact. The only rational assumption that ought to be made is that the use of the modifier "although" somehow makes the fact of the the statement made by second clause diminish the significance of the statement made by the first clause. It doesn't--Jerry Brown is and was 39th and 34th Governor of California, and the fact that 27 years elapsed between Brown's terms in office is irrelevant to the fact or to the significance that Jerry Brown is and was 39th and 34th Governor of California.

It might be appropriate to write "Richard Nixon was 37th President of the United States, although he was the only President ever to resign the office." Or it might be (arguably less) appropriate to write "Bill Clinton was 42nd President of the United States, although he was only one of two Presidents to be impeached" (it's arguably less appropriate because although Clinton was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, Clinton was not convicted by the U.S. Senate, nor was Clinton thereby removed from office). The fact that Clinton was impeached but not convicted and removed from office did not diminish the significance of the fact of his Presidency, i.e., the duration of time Clinton was in office, or the significance of the policies for which his was responsible for having made in office.

By contrast, to say "Richard Nixon was 37th President of the United States, although he was the only President ever to resign the office" would be inappropriate, because of the exceptionality of the fact of his resignation does not diminish the fact that Nixon was 37th President. Whether or not Nixon's resignation diminished the amount of time he spent in office does not diminish the fact that Nixon was 37th President of the United States, but the fact that he was the only President to resign is of significance, although not to the fact that Nixon was 37th President.

It would be appropriate to state "Gerald Ford was 38th President of the United States, although Ford was never elected to that office or to the office of Vice President." The use of the word "although" is appropriate there, because the essence of being President of the United States, as envisaged by the U.S. Constitution, is the quality of having been elected President or Vice President. The fact of that missing quality from the fact of Ford's Presidency would, therefore, definitely warrant the use of the modifier "although". 174.58.42.212 (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would an assumption be made that having served 14 months in office is more exceptional for a one-term Governor than a two-term Governor, regardless of whether it was sequential or non-sequential?

No one is claiming any such thing. You're badly misunderstanding the statement, which is entirely unrelated to the fact that the two terms were nonconsecutive.

The term of office is four years, so a likely assumption is that someone who served in said office (particularly twice, irrespective of chronology) did so for a total of significantly more than 14 months. —David Levy 01:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Why should that be an assumption? Simply because the U.S. Constitution specified a limitation of the Presidential term to four years--and the States, in adopting a "republican form of government", followed suit for their Chief Executives? In the Westminster System utilized in Canada (where there is a "fusion" of the executive and legislative branches in that the Ministry is comprised of Members of Parliament who are also elected legislators) for example, as to the term of a chief executive, the maximum duration of one term of office for the Prime Minister (through a limitation on the maximum time a Parliament can remain constituted) is limited to five years. However, governments in the Westminster System often fall on non-confidence votes, mostly on national budgets. Also, since the Prime Minister is also the titular leader of the political party which is elected in the most Parliamentary seats, if that Member of Parliament is voted out as Leader of the Party, by very strong position, it also means that Member of Parliament is no longer Prime Minister, because such a departure would lead to a non-confidence vote. 174.58.42.212 (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Most people will assume it, it is an assumption - the phrasing is fine. Trebor (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it is "fine", but it remains misleading. 174.58.42.212 (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Your [mis]interpretation is unusual. Nothing about the statement is inherently misleading. —David Levy 04:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The statement turns on an issue of the duration of time spent on office during two non-sequential terms in office. It does not diminish the fact that Helm was both 18th and 24th Governor of Kentucky. The use of the modifier "although" implies that Helm was somehow "less" the 18th and 24th Governor of Kentucky for having served in that office an aggregate fourteen months. 174.58.42.212 (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't imply that. You mistakenly infer that. (See above.) —David Levy 04:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand the article, it's this conversation I can't follow. 81.139.135.66 (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"I watched two baseball games, although not full games."

"I went to school during spring and fall semesters, although only for two weeks total."

This is entirely reasonable and normal English. It doesn't "diminish" anything, it clarifies that while these things were done, they were not done with the completeness that they normally imply. APL (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-Americans probably won't be immediately familiar with term-lengths of US Governers, while they would with seasons/school semesters. --Kurr 12:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a country in which two terms in an equivalent office typically total less than fourteen months? —David Levy 17:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but knowing that two terms are 8 years total puts the 14-month total term into (a meaningful) context. -Kurr 22:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The context seems fine to me. Even if an average term length was 2 years, saying although for 14 months would still be fine. If people are interested in precisely what is normal they are welcome to check out the articles. Nil Einne (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Increase in account creation or number of editors?

Hi. I would be interrested in statistics regarding the current banners displayed (those that encourage editing Wikipedia). Are we seeing an immediate effect on the editing? Cheers, 131.111.28.35 (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to the 10th anniversary banners? If so I don't think their primary intention is to encourage editing Nil Einne (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No, after the fundraising banners and the fundraising thank you banners, but before the anniversary banners, there was a banner encouraging editing. I clicked it, and there were choices such as WP:GOCE. Art LaPella (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Saw those too. Statistics would be interesting. (e • nn • en!) 23:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah ok, not sure then. I may have seen those but if I did, didn't pay much attention. If they were foundation banners. Meta:Main Page may be a better place to ask. Nil Einne (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm wondering why I haven't seen any of these banners... I enabled the gadget that hid the fundraising banners, which presumably hid these too. Anyway, what does this have to do with the Main Page? Modest Genius ^talk 23:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether it's useful or not to put banners encouraging editing in the main page, even though the current main page doesn't have them. 187.107.0.168 (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Everyone should install User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js

Hi all. Just dropping by to suggest that Main Page patrollers and error reporters install the above script to their Monobook/Vector skin as appropriate. What is does is to highlight links to redirect pages, pages that are up for deletion and disambiguation pages by changing the colour of the displayed links from the standard blue. The last one is most useful, it identifies where a link does not go to the intended target and will help us to pre-emptively clean these up in TFA, OTD, TFP and DYK blurbs. I've suggested this to all editors involved in the FA and Main Page content processes. Regards. Zunaid 12:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)