Talk:Main Page/Archive 125

Archive 120

←

Archive 123

Archive 124

Archive 125

Archive 126

Archive 127

→

Archive 130

Redirect to fix

At the top of the Main Page it says "Welcome to wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", the word encyclopedia links to "Wikipeda:Mainpage/Encyclopedia", which is a redirect to the wikipedia article on encyclopedias. Can someone please fix this. Thanks. Five Years 17:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The same can be said for the word English in "2,446,217 articles in English". Thanks. Five Years 17:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

These redirects are intentional. --- RockMFR 17:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Either ive missed something, because all of the links to portals are also via redirects. Five Years 17:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for solving the problem. Five Years 17:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Other comments on this page suggest that the redirects were added intentionally for data-collection/traffic monitoring purposes. APL (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia logo is not accessible route to Main Page without images

If you have images turned on, you can click on the logo and it takes you to the Main Page. If you have images turned off, there is nothing to indicate the presence of a valid navigation element. If you know it is there, you can use it but that does not seem right to me. What do others think? Lightmouse (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, there's still a Main page link. ffm 21:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the first link under "navigation." Hey, why aren't those headings capitalized? --Maxamegalon2000 21:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, good question... Modest Genius ^talk 23:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Aesthetics. If you don't like it, you can add (I think) .portlet h5 {text-transform:none;} to your user CSS file, which should restore normal capitalisation. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is not aesthetics. As I understand it, the navigation title should match the destination page title and I think that is the case in that list. And I further understand it that Wikipedia generally uses Sentence case for its pages. Thanks for pointing out where the 'Main Page' navigation can be seen. That gives me another question: should the image have an alt tag as per W3C guidelines for accessibility? Lightmouse (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I say it is aesthetics because the source code has it in upper case and it is then changed by CSS to be lower case. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 01:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It does have an alt tag - it just doesn't appear when there aren't images (probably due to positioning). Ian¹³/t 19:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect TFA picture

I'm pretty sure the image for To Kill a Mockingbird isn't supposed to be Bush giving a Medal of Freedom. Can someone change it please? Paragon12321 (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

In the article the caption is "Harper Lee and President George W. Bush at the November 5, 2007 ceremony awarding Lee the Presidential Medal of Freedom for To Kill a Mockingbird" so it is probably correct.Geni 00:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing better to change it to, really. All pictures on the Main Page must be free images, so we can't put the cover of the book there. The medal of freedom image isn't ideal, but it's related to the subject, and it's better than nothing. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My bad. I didn't see that it was Harper Lee. Paragon12321 (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

For those wondering about this discussion note that the version at the time [1] had not been cropped so it wasn't that clear the image was intending to show Harper Lee Nil Einne (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Color attribute on first portal list

There's not a reason for the color attribute on the left-hand portal list, is there? --- RockMFR 14:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

to kill a mockingbird

Well someone has very badly vandalised this featured ]article - I can't even see the edit button to revert it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Template vandalism. Reverted, all templates protected through cascading protection. J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please ensure the Main Page meets W3C guidelines: images and alt text

The Wikipedia logo should have a short text alternative according to W3C. Perhaps new designs should be assessed for accessibility. Lightmouse (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Talking about the logo... Can anyone tell me why the English version (and most national ones, from the looks of it) has a spiritus lenis on the left of the omega but the international portal's logo has an omega with no diacritical marks? Waltham, The Duke of 14:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The new logo was introduced at 23:42, 13 August 2007 135×155 (12 KB) Prodego (Talk | contribs | block) (Current logo, note minor differences, such as "N -> Ñ"). Not quite sure why - especially given the portal doesn't have it. Ian¹³/t 19:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

We are not in the minority... Out of the 50 Wikipedias listed in the Main Page (with more than 20,000 articles), these two symbols are present in the logos of 39, a majority of 78%. The exceptions are Arabic, Bishnupriya Manipuri, Hindi, Hungarian, Icelandic, Lithuanian, Norwegian (both versions), Persian, Romanian, and Swedish (Romanian even has a different letter in the place of Ñ). This discrepancy does not make me happy... Perhaps we should take this to Meta. Waltham, The Duke of 20:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal links in Main Page header

At featured portal candidates, both the nominations for featured portals and the lack of reviews for them seems to be becoming an increasing problem. After consultation between the other 'directors' of the featured portal co-ordination, it is believed that with more publicity, so to speak, it will help draw attention and bring much needed participation to the area. Thoughts? Rudget (logs) 13:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Better at Wikipedia:Community Portal? --74.13.130.112 (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that, but then again, that doesn't get much attention either... Rudget (logs) 13:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the lack of attention tells you everything you need to know about the necessity for having featured portals? It seems hardly anyone even uses portals in the first place. Modest Genius ^talk 17:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, it probably doesn't help that over 20% of portals are already 'featured'. Compare to < 0.1% of articles. Modest Genius ^talk 17:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Portals account for collective knowledge. Articles talk about one subject solely. Rudget (logs) 17:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The four most visited content portals (science, arts, history, biography) had around 150,000-200,000 visits last month. Portals that aren't linked from the main page get less views, but they still seem to number in the thousands (eg. 6,000 for archaeology, 14,000 for film). I'd say that's more than 'hardly anyone'. - Bobet 09:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Main Page links to articles

Today's page featuring a link to conservatorship is a good example of Main Page links that point to articles that need cleanup, sources, etc ...(in this case, neutrality is the issue). I wonder if there shouldn't be a threshold that an article could reach before having a Main Page link. I really wanted to know about conservatorship, but I stopped reading after seeing the neutrality warning. Another thought would be a 3rd color (green) for links to articles needing improvement (complementing blue - article, and red - no article). Thoughts? NeWDaC (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

In "Did you know", "Selected anniversaries", and "In the news", it is the bolded links that lead to articles fulfilling certain quality requirements for the main page (I don't know about "Today's featured picture", but it may be so there as well). The rest of the links are given in order to clarify, explain, encourage browsing and exploration of the site, etc. I cannot see the benefit of discriminating between articles before a reader will even see them; after all, Wikipedia is still a project under construction and it is in its very nature that people will often pass from un(der)developed corners—not to mention that we rely on people's contributions towards the encyclopaedia's improvement. Why scare potential editors off certain articles, especially based on debatable criteria?

Besides, although the rationale behind using green for such links is sound, the colour choice is rather poor for this purpose, considering its normally positive connotations. Waltham, The Duke of 20:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, POTD does not follow this rule, otherwise some images might never make it to main page because their associated articles are in need of improvement. howcheng {chat} 18:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the red/green thing would be too hard to implement, and is too editorially based- remember that we are for the reader first and foremost. The idea of removing poor links from the main page is a bad one, as The Duke explains above- if we're going to remove poor links from the main page, said articles will never get the attention they need, and the main page will end up being annoyingly uninformative, as the context that people need will not be provided. Furthermore, if we remove the links from the main page, why not remove them from featured articles under the same rationale? That would not be a good thing, as that would imply that related links are a bad thing. We're under construction, and always will be- it's silly to pretend otherwise. J Milburn (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality warnings and other tags decorate (disfigure?) many articles long and short. If we have to design a warning colour for their links it could create article segregation and article avoidance as well as link avoidance based on colour. I don't think this would be very productive. Dr.K. (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that there would have to be some arbitrary place we draw the line- I've seen featured articles that could use serious work and cleanup, but then I've seen awful (often legally questionable on various levels) articles that don't feature a single maintenance tag. J Milburn (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Also criteria for such classification, if they were ever developed, would be so complex and arbitrary as to be meaningless. In addition going to all this trouble just to develop (unworkable) criteria which would enable article segregation and isolation is not a happy task in a developing encyclopedia. Dr.K. (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

A more significant problem is that the article has no relevant content whatsoever - it only addresses the term as it applies to individuals and sheds no light on what it means for a business. It should be delinked, for the same reason that the Main Page never links to a redlink. --86.131.67.16 (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Palpatine?

I am pretty sure that the main image for the TFA article isn't of Palpatine, but that of Ian McDiarmid. In fact the image currently in place isn't even one of the images featured in the Palpatine article. What's up? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing they needed a free image, so they used that one.-Wafulz (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, explain this "needed a free image thing," please. The article is FA. IF the mainspace needs a free image, then it shouldn't have been used for TFA, right? As it is, we are misrepresenting the actual article, and committing a BLP faux pas by identifying a living subject of another article as a fictional character. Who is the "they" that needed a free image. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep this discussion here. Grandmasterka 05:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we change the caption to "Palpatine disguised as an actor from Earth". --- RockMFR 05:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol. I sense that someone is going to stroke out while trying the same thing when/if Darth Vader ever makes TFA. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Obligatory RRRRRAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEE!!!!!!! meme. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK fact

Did you know currently states that The hogarth painting was originally that of a dog urinating on some paintings -- the reference for this is "The national gallery" -- To me that seems *very* un-specfic. I can't seem to track down any corroboration for this in my brief search; can anyone actually verify this source or this statement? It is somewhat suspicious in my opinion. User A1 (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

According to this list there was some X-Ray analysis performed by "Maccubbin, Robert" published in September 1995. User A1 (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to notify both Anonymous Dissident (talk · contribs) and Wikipedia talk:Did you know of this. The former being the nominator of the page for DYK. Rudget (logs) 13:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Found and fixed the problem. Referencing on page wasn't linked properly. User A1 (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Garden of Earthly Delights image

I created a sharpened version (as the original seemed to be suffering softness as if it had been downsized without resharpening). It's switched in the article, if anyone wants to change the version on the main page, the sharpened version is commons:Image:GardenED edit1.jpg Mfield (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:GardenED.jpg

Image:GardenED edit1.jpg

At 100px, they appear to be the same to me. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If you really want to switch, post a request at WP:ERRORS. You may get a quicker response from an admin there. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well sure you aren't going to see a difference in the thumbnail, the point was rather that people are likely to be clicking on the thumbnail to view the full size with something like a painting and if they do this they will not be viewing the improved version. The difference at full size is very apparent. Mfield (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

At full size, your version is much better. You may want to post your request at WP:ERRORS instead of down here. Don't forget to explain why over there. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I put in a request there, thanks. Mfield (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Main page?

What is main about this page? Should it not be called the Front page or Cover page instead?--ProperFraction (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if "Front" and "Cover" are any better. The page is not in front of nor covering anything, besides what's inside your monitor. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

A load of electronic bits I think!--ProperFraction (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Front page would cause a lot of disambiguation issues with Frontpage, and wiki is not paper. ffm 19:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "First Page"? --Howard the Duck 09:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there some talk of moving it out of the WP:main namespace entirely? I can't find it under perenniel proposals. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Its never really been put forward as a serious proposal, but there has been many, many, short discussions on the topic, the three major ones that occured are in archives 87, 89 and 90.

All this is easily found in the information box at the top of the page btw :) ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont really see whats so bad about "main page" anyway. It links too all the portals witch links to basically the whole encyclopedia--68.205.238.207 (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

As you are or should be well aware of the first page in any internet site is comainly refered to as the main page..a newspaper would be refered to as the front page...wikipedia is electronic not written in an ink based form...Ryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryncrndll (talk • contribs) 21:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• I believe that the topic regarding the Main Page's name, or it's being in the article namespace, comes up often, and the discussions don't normally go anywhere. To be honest, and I think that this has been said before, changing the name or namespace of the Main Page would cause more trouble than it's really worth: for starters, we'd have countless Wikilinks to fix, and many external websites that link to the Main Page would have to update themselves accordingly. It's better off as it is. Acalamari 21:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia is currently moving the Main Page out of the article namespace (more precicely, several admins currently have an edit war about it). --Sven Eberhardt (talk) 08:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I use the german Wikipedia nearly every day, I haven't notice until I read it here :-) I'm glad we have some "brave" admins there who did this on the de.wiki.x.io. So for me it seems, that there are no problems at all doing this. Since there is a redirect from the old main page, I can't see that there will be problems with links to the old main page. And it's just a matter of time until the new main page name is used exclusivly by external sites. Anyway it does make a lot of sense moving the main page out of the article space. I hope the german decision will be an example for the english wikipedia! --Omit (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the previous response - the only other description I can consider would be "starting page" (since other suggestions have already been addressed), but then the rest of the site would have to be updated with any change, so, as Acalamari said, it's better to leave it as is. Allstargeneral (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Allstargeneral

Well I think 'Front Page' would be a lot better that main page. its mor descriptive--ProperFraction (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

How descriptive? It's not really in front of the rest of the wiki. Do you mean deceptive? --199.71.174.100 (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Deceptive , descriptive... who cares? Obvously not you!--ProperFraction (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion should be merged with the redesign proposal here as it might be a good idea to do both together. I'll make a section there about the renaming. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Title page?? Awien (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If there was a "front page" to Wikipedia is this not it? Should the "Main Page" not be called the Home Page or First Page? Gavin Scott (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Why should the Main Page not be called the Main Page? It welcomes you, it has an article count, it provides links to portals, it has all those featured sections like In the news, and Today's featured article and Picture etc, it has links to other Wiki projects... Basically it gives people who are not deeply involved with Wikipedia a convenient introduction to the website. It also acts like a little pulse of the site, in a way. To me all of this seems pretty "main". MrPMonday (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet another copyvio which was on the main page

Please see the log for commons:Image:Morgan_Tsvangirai.jpg, it has been deleted as a copyvio (it can be seen here amongst other websites), yet it was used on the main page on the 5th of June rev. Adding to the previous 2 this makes quite a lot in one month. Please be cautious if you find a low resolution press looking photo. Especially if it was uploaded by a user with many copyvio warnings as it was in this case. Jackaranga (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

GH3?

OK, I know that half of Wikipedia users are nerds or computer geeks, but this has completely gone out of control. Guitar Hero 3 is featured?! Oh my god, this is outrageous! Have you ever seen an encyclopedia covering video games? That's what gamespot is for, but an encyclopedia is not the place to post video game reviews. Please, go read gamespot and stop posting video game content in Wikipedia! Oh, and here's the link: [2]  J.C.(talk) 00:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC).

Okay, I'll go first: Guitar Hero is featured, not Guitar Hero 3. Now the next person will point out a flaw in your reasoning, then another person will have a crack at it, and so on. It's an interesting routine, to be sure. Nufy8 (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Free encyclopedia, it's notable, yada yada. —Animum (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Any topic that is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia is notable enough to be a featured article and therefore to be on the Main Page. (There are some very small exceptions; Wikipedia was at one point a featured article and was classed among FAs that would never be on the Main Page, but that was to avoid self-aggrandizement.) —Verrai 01:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia can cover anything notable. The demographic is also interested in games. That's just a coincidence.  Marlith (Talk)  04:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea. GET INVOLVED. Go and comment about featured article candidates! Ɔrassic ^(talk) 04:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely MXER is being sarcastic here? At least, I hope so... Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Video games are a notable part of our culture, many individual video games are notable, and Wikipedia should not limit itself to topics that existed in 1911. Tempshill (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I see from your userpage you like U2, so remember the following sentence if you add anything about them: Go read NME and stop posting U2 content in Wikipedia. Or maybe you could learn to realise that not everyone has the same tastes as you? Jetekus (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so Dreaded Walrus, you're right. I'm being sarcastic. When I saw the Guitar Hero on the Main Page, I was going to write telling you that you should be ready for criticism, but then I decided to complain. But I was really close to taking my complaint seriously.--190.137.224.112 (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK Bird eye image

Is it just me, or is that picture really freakin' creepy? Can we change it to Image:Hawk eye.jpg? And yes, I'm fully aware of that "not censored" stuff, I just wanted to ask if it could be changed. bibliomaniac15 17:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the DYK text is talking about the eyelids which are not illustrated by your suggested image. And the image currently there, I find excellent. Tempshill (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured template?

Just an idea to have templates featured on the main page to show the diversity of work that is done on Wikipedia. I don't know what the criteria would be, but as a person who does a lot of work on templates, they could be shown some small appreciation. - LA @ 09:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Before it goes live on the main page, perhaps the work might be mentioned in the community portal, first. There are probably dozens, if not hundreds of separate projects of the type and scale you mention. If the mentions of these projects start as a trickle, and then swell into a flood, your efforts might then be seen for what they are, which might then build support for their appearance on the main page. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't support it on the main page, as it is not very useful to the reader. ffm 12:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't support it on the main page, as it is not useful at all to the reader. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't support it on the main page, as it is not even understandable to the reader. —David Levy 13:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

{{oppose-because-not-for-readers}} -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(but it may be a good idea for the Community portal.) -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Good thought. Might be worth a shot there. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Daily Kitten

I wouldn't support it on the main page, as it contains insuffecient cats. Suggest we create a daily kitten feature () instead. Ceiling Cat (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Kitten of the Day proposal. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Support with change - How about a main page subpage with all the funny features. :) -[[Ryan]] ^{(me) (talk)} 17:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Support I like the kitten idea, just hope we have enough kitten pictures! And oppose the template on the main page idea. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-9-2008 • 18:20:42

Domestic cats breeding

Support Of course we have enough media for a featured kitten content. Like this one for instance:

Oh, no. Kitty porn! --Nricardo (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Support.  :) Raul654 (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: User:Raul654 is a sockpuppet of User:Ceiling Cat; this is a violation of WP:SOCK. howcheng {chat} 21:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Meow MessedCat 20:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - Mow. 86.144.151.47 (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Meow. Now it's just time to wait for Kitty and all the have cats shown up. EvilCat (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Try Portal:Cats.Geni 00:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't stray out of topic. :-D (Support, by the way.) Waltham, The Duke of 17:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I support Geni's suggestion to redirect the Main Page to Portal:Cats. - BanyanTree 06:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It should include those adorable hairless cats:

The ugliest rat ever found

How could anyone say no to a face like that? Raul654 (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait! Shouldn't a proposal like this be made at Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal? Spencer^T♦C 23:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Done! Ceiling Cat (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Cute blinking Support
  --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!^Talk 23:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Agree Partially I think that there should be a "animal of the day" instead of a "cat of the day". Imagine all the cat lovers, dog lovers , and (put your favorite animal here)lovers would think about that. It also could have another page, showing the 10's of today animals. or it can be divided into the 10 more popular animal pictures. Raupi (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support: As long as basement and other subterranean cats are well represented. Lucifer Cat (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

  On the condition that this doesn't happen at the expense of upper-class cats... Waltham, The Duke of 15:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What about the bird lovers?

A pair of boobies

While I have no problem with a daily kitten, a cursory inspection of the Main Page history shows that the true demand is for images of cocks, tits, and boobies. Why not respond to the real demands of the community? --Allen3 ^talk 23:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That made me laugh quite heartily. Again, please see Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal. Spencer^T♦C 02:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In the news picture

Pardon me if this has been brought up before, but I have to say that I find the picture placement for the "In the News" section disconcerting. It seems that the picture is rarely placed next to the news item it accompanies. I realize that news item that accompanies the picture has the "(pictured)" caption, but I still don't like the aesthetics of it. Usually I just bite my lip, but I had to say something after I momentarily thought we were saying that Salman Rushdie had been crowned Miss Universe.

My suggestion is that the news item with the picture should always be on top.--Kubigula (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why are the images on "In the news" and "On this day" not aligned next to each relevant entry?. Please also note that items at ITN are listed chronologically. If you want this policy regarding the order of the news headlines on ITN changed (I don't like it, either), please go to Template talk:In the news and start a discussion there with the ITN crowd. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - very helpful response. I'll take a stab at it.--Kubigula (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't be surprised if the reaction is somewhat negative. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 12:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Or completely negative. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-07-15 20:53Z

Kubigula is correct, we look collectively stupid every time the headline associated with the picture slips, and the lazy counterargument is that there are several infrequently-seen pages that would be affected in some way by fixing it; and no editor has the energy (including me) to get off their ass and fix it. I'll give you $1.00 US if you do. I'll note that the French Wikipedia handles this correctly. Tempshill (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that I've asked for a defense of this last assertion at Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Main Page#French Wikipedia image alignment against evidence to the contrary, and have yet to receive a response. - BanyanTree 07:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Link to Wikipedia

On the Welcome to Wikipedia the Wikipedia is a redirect, can this not be changed to a direct link, or is there a reason for it going through the redirect? Darrenhusted (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be going through the redirect so that it can be protected. J Milburn (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Set up to track internet traffic? ... Can someone put this in the Main Page FAQ, pls? The question keeps getting asked. --76.64.77.19 (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The redirect has only existed since 8 July. And the redirect isn't protected. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. 76.64... is right- it was created so that it could be judged how much traffic was going to the article on Wikipedia from the main page. It's part of the main page redesign proposal- links used a lot are more likely to stay, links barely used will probably be axed. I forgot about that. J Milburn (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, I couldn't see a lock. Makes sense now. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Locks are added manually after the protection- it's not an automatic thing. J Milburn (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

See the conversation at Talk:Main_Page/Archive_124#Changing_links_on_main_page for more information about the link changes. Spencer^T♦C 20:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be automatic, though. I've often come across protected pages which were not marked as such; it is at least confusing and at most misleading. I've had half a mind to propose such an automation, but haven't acted on it yet. I posted a thread in the Village Pump some weeks ago, but there was very little feedback. Waltham, The Duke of 15:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian (Magyar) Wikipedia

The 100,000th article has just written in the Hungarian Wikipedia. Please move it to the correct section. Thanks! Quisczicza (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 14:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia

The 300,000th article was just written in the Russian Wikipedia. Please move it to the correct section. Thanks! Mhym (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 03:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move

A discussion about moving this page to the Wikipedia namespace is underway at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Proposal: Move main page to Wikipedia namespace. This will be primarily a technical change, the transition will be smooth, and it will fix some issues like the top-left tab reading "article" when the main page is clearly not an article. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect verb in sentence #5: "were" is plural; subject "string" is singular, requires "was".

"His string of election wins was assisted by a system ..." Steve Edgel (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see American and British English differences#Nouns and WP:ENGVAR. Art LaPella (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is this not at WP:ERRORS? --74.13.129.166 (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Art, "string . . . were" is incorrect on either side of the pond. The sction you referenced deals with collective nouns like team and committee. Anon IP, more people ignore that section than use it (conjecture). Maybe whoever is in charge of errors should just keep an eye at the bottom of this page. --Nricardo (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe American and British English differences#Nouns should explain why "string were" is any different than "team were"; both collective noun phrases sound US-centrically wrong to me. For now, it doesn't matter because the phrase is off the Main Page. Art LaPella (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Not that it matters here any more, but "string of events" is not the same kind of thing as "police" and "team" (hint: events are not persons), and it would need a verb in singular in any English. Zocky | picture popups 11:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Trying to make a verb ("was/were") agree with a plural noun ("wins") that is the object of a preposition intervening between said verb and the singular subject of a sentence is certainly not "pond-side specific". I believe the British English REQUIRES number matching between subject and predicate just as we Americans do. I am unwilling to concede that this error is committed as often as conjectured by Mr. Lapella--I think 75-80% of English-speaking people still get it right. However, it is distressing when one hears it (yesterday evening) from a young (and beautiful) reporter on the prestigious and conservative Fox News--people who really know better and should "focus," as Mr. Miagi was wont to say.

This is not at WP:ERRORS for two reasons: (a) it is not a factual/content error,merely a minor grammatical one, and (b) it is my first time daring to enter realm of editing the Wikipedia. I didn't want to make time to do several days' research on HOW to do it, and the instructions tell you to just jump right in and "do it"; the administrators will clean up any messes. Steve Edgel (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The next time you see either "a factual/content error" or "merely a minor grammatical one", please make use of WP:ERRORS. It's good for requesting any small changes in the text on the Main Page. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Link to disambiguation page in DYK

In the DYK for Neafie & Levy, the the link to "first submarine" goes to USS Alligator, a disambiguation page. It should go to USS Alligator (1862). Mycroft7 (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. In future, please put reports like this in WP:ERRORS which will (theoretically) have a faster response. J Milburn (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Hacking Attempt?

See the Saudi Arabia page. Somebody will fix it fast i'm sure. It is (plainly) not realy, but an extreme edit. I do not know where to put this, and I can't put it on that page. please do not penalise me, as this is a legitimate request —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.206.93 (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Try Talk:Saudi Arabia. Or check out the box at the very top of this talkpage, where it says "If your question is not directly related to the Main Page, consider the following locations:..." --199.71.174.100 (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, somethings up with the Kosovo page as well... —Preceding unsigned comment added by RaviC (talk • contribs) 13:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody else have this problem?

[3]. It happened with 4 or 5 pages. Is there a hacker on Wikipedia? Looks the zodiac killed striked again. --Fixman (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Something similar, but with a different picture and a text offensive to people of the Islamic faith happened with the page Copenhagen a few days ago. I reported it here (although it wasnt the proper place to report it as I now know). The problem you have noticed has been discussed here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's template vandalism, the current vandal tool of choice. There is code that will block off the top of the screen like that- someone did it on my talk page once. J Milburn (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

someone has vandalized the "chrysler 300" page, and it says "vandalized by hitler" on top, anyone know how to fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.14.23 (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone hit Template:Convert/ftlbf which was transcluded there. I've protected the page so this can't happen again. Hut 8.5 15:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Guadalete.

Why must we make a link from the main page to an article that is not even half finished? This article is in serious need of help; but enough about the article - my point here is that we shouldn't make links to articles that are so poorly written.Tourskin (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This must've somehow got thru' by mistake. Try WP:ERRORS if you want to remove such a link. --74.13.129.166 (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

See a related discussion archived at Talk:Main Page/Archive 125#Main Page links to articles. There seems to consensus that only the bolded links should not be stubs, tagged for cleanup, etc. The other links are given for more clarification and explanation, regardless if they have cleanup tags, like the Battle of Guadalete article which is not currently bolded. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

ITN guidelines currently don't even go that far, only recommending strongly against emboldening links to articles with yellow or red level tags. It may be worth noting that Conservatorship, the link to which prompted the previous complaint and discussion, was updated in response to being on the Main Page and now includes a brief description of how it relates to corporations. - BanyanTree 05:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Whilst the issue raised is similar to the one raised at ITN, it has nothing to do with ITN guidelines themselves. A Today's anniversary article will usually have more time to be made up to scratch, where else most ITN articles aren't much better than "Start" level and so can and must get away with poorer quality. Tourskin (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

...especially with the many historical events and milestones related to core biographies, most referenced topics, vital articles, and other core topics. As such, these types of articles should be relatively complete, while the average ITN featured article is usually only hours old. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Extra space below "Other areas" section

There is currently approximately 3 pixels of whitespace below the "Other areas of Wikipedia" section that is being caused by an empty table created by Template:WikipediaOther. This is the HTML being generated:

<table align="center" width="100%" style="background:none;">
<tr>
<td></td>
</tr>
</table>

Obviously it does nothing. User:David Levy believes that this whitespace should be there, apparently for aesthetic reasons; however, I see no reason for this. I am proposing that it be removed. --- RockMFR 06:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you believe that there should be less space (by my count, seven fewer pixels in Firefox 3) between the Other areas of Wikipedia section and the Wikipedia's sister projects section than there is between the Wikipedia's sister projects section and the Wikipedia languages section? —David Levy 06:40/07:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Instead of debating about minor tweaks of a few pixels of whitespace, why not put your time and energy in Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal? --199.71.174.100 (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Because that "proposal" is the most chaotic free-for-all I've seen outside of a Wikipedia Drama of the Week pile-on, which will as a result probably take months to come up with a subset of ideas over which a manageable discussion can take place, and has a significant chance of resulting in no change at all? Just saying... - BanyanTree 02:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Reducing "3 pixels of whitespace" would be a significant change!!! --199.71.174.100 (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It depends on what you call "significant". 137.164.79.11 (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Most visited articles

I remember there being a little link in Special:Statistics (this edit removed it) that brought users to a page that showed the most viewed articles for each month, though it was taken down because it stopped working. Will that ever come back again??--Newcloud1 (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The village pump would be the best place to ask this, though I can point you towards this page which does just the same thing. That site also has a great tool for checking how many times any page has been viewed. J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Move main page to Wikipedia namespace

Copied from Wikipedia Talk:Village pump (technical):

I would like to propose that we move the Main Page to Wikipedia:Main Page. This would offer a number of benefits, including:

• Causing the top-left tab to read "project page" instead of "article"
• Making it easier to make a mass-copy of Wikipedia's articles without picking up project-specific pages like the main page

There would of course be a redirect from Main Page to Wikipedia:Main Page, and we could even hide the "redirected from Main Page" notice using CSS, making the transition virtually seamless. The German Wikipedia has actually already moved their main page to the Wikipedia namespace and it is working great for them. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I find illogical that the Main Page be in the article namespace, too, but wouldn't this proposal belong to Talk:Main Page? --A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! !  09:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

--A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! !  09:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The Main Page is at the Main Page namespace. --Howard the Duck 09:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Been proposed many times the answer is no.Geni 11:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I see no harm in discussing it again. I've been hanging around this talk page for a long time, and, personally, I've never really seen a great argument either way. J Milburn (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused why Wikipedia: would be proposed. Main page is a Portal:, the main one.. but a Portal: none the less. It's no big deal at the moment, but it could help bring some more attention to the many other useful portals. ... There is, however, talk of no-indexing the Wikipedia: namespace (to keep all the weird sausage making going on there from inappropriately showing up in google searches), if that happens we really wouldn't want the main page in that namespace. --Gmaxwell (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Argument Summary

Here's a summary of one of the "for" arguments from last time:

• If someone writes a book/movie/play/etc called Main Page, will we have to put a disambig? People are already confused that they cannot get to Homepage by typing in Main Page, we should start the transition now so we can avoid namespace conflicts in the future.

Against (I'm biased, someone else want to write a better one?):

• It will cause everyone to have to update their bookmarks. ffm 17:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it won't, since a redirect from Main Page to Wikipedia:Main Page can be created. --A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! !  19:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

But...if its just going to be a redirect anyway, won't that pretty much defy the whole point of moving it?--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

A soft redirect could be created alerting users to update their bookmarks during a transition period. Lympathy ^Talk 15:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• It isn't broke and doens't need fixing. ffm 17:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Better point... :-) (See also Why is Main Page in the main namespace?.) --A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! !  19:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The Main Page is on its on mainspace. As for Talk:Main Page... --Howard the Duck 03:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In the German WP is was moved several days ago. --213.155.231.26 (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yay women

This is the first time I've seen two pictures of women on the main page. It's usually a bunch of dudes. It shocked me. Way to go. — jwillbur 01:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. At least we had one shining six hour period of glory. - BanyanTree 06:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There's a couple of birds on the main page right now. Lampman (talk) 05:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's gonna get that slang reference.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's purely sad when the "women" on the main page are "known" for being on pay-per-view.--66.245.217.171 (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We had a couple of feminists who decided on their own to remove it, without consulting others. I reverted both times, as it was discussed on the Template Talk page and there were no objections there. It'll be gone in a hour or two, anyways.--Bedford ^Pray 09:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone wonders, it was User:Seraphim Whipp who chose to censor Wikipedia without seeking consensus. Messages of complaint should go to her, and tell her she's not Jimbo.--Bedford ^Pray 10:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was me, and yes, I know I'm not Jimbo. *cough*. I asked a male friend for his opinion of the hook before I removed it and he said, "it's dodgy as hell," so I don't think you can dismiss it as hairy armed feminists on a rampage. Regardless, it's not appropriate for you to nominate, approve and then edit war over your own hooks. Sarah 14:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove it :), though I'm very glad Sarah did. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I was fighting against censorship, against a bunch of feminists who don't bother to discuss things on DYK's suggestion page, but feel their world view must be enforced. So sad on your part. It is only due to confines of 3RR and the fact its due to be updated again that your censorship/vandalism was victorious against the spirit of Wikipedia.--Bedford ^Pray 11:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground. Interested parties may be interested in conversation ^permalink. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record I'm male, and completely support the action taken. This is an encyclopaedia, not Page 3. Orderinchaos 11:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I thought Angela was our token female admin. How did we end up with "a bunch", very quickly upgraded from "a couple", of "feminists" with admin rights? When will it end? Will female users eventually demand to be allowed to edit Wikipedia without a male guardian present? This is a shocking turn of events! - BanyanTree 12:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's even worse than I thought. They're not only feminists, but feminazis! - BanyanTree 14:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Check yourself, Bedford. Differing tastes and sexual organs does not censorship make. First, you could've had a better hook (for example, "...that John "Bradshaw" Layfield won the World Heavyweight Championship match against Batista at The Great American Bash (2005) but did not win the title?") - while Wikipedia is not censored, it is not tasteless either - and promoting your own hooks is a clear conflict of interest and inappropriate, even if the hook itself wasd. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins who place hooks on DYK suggest alternative hooks, and use those, all the time, so nothing I did was unusual. Several people were OK with the hook. The hook had more general interest than the JBL one. It was censorship by a bunch of extremists.--Bedford ^Pray 17:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The circus has moved on to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bedford and misogyny, if anyone wants to follow along. - BanyanTree 02:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Olympics on ITN

A proposal to add a link from Template:In the news to an Olympics highlights page for the course of the 2008 Summer Olympics is currently up at Template talk:In the news. The highlights page will presumably be 2008 Summer Olympics highlights, which follows the format of similar pages from previous Olympics. Comments, and editors interested in maintaining such a highlights page, are welcome. - BanyanTree 09:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing the Main Page

{{Editprotected}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stub12718696 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

 Not done No reason given. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the template shows that there was a reason but it was a bad one: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. :-D Waltham, The Duke of 13:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Stub12718696, this is not the first time you have made such a request. Please stop. If there are specific minor changes that need to be made on the main page, please use WP:ERRORS. --PFHLai (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Two separate main pages - an Editor Main Page

Just a thought, we have a main-page that is dedicated to providing encyclopedic content to visitors and users but why not have a secondary main-page that is similar but more devoted to those who are more inclined to edit pages. So by-default the main-page is uncluttered and easy to navigate to different areas of reasearch, news etc. whilst a link is placed to the secondary main-page which is designed for regular editors with easy navigation to articles in need of attention and community areas. Just an idea. Lympathy ^Talk 17:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The ratio of regulars to visitors is severely unbalanced. We should direct the Main Page at our visitors, and not our regulars, because the vast majority of visitors won't have an interest in the stuff regulars get up to. Just my 2p. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is why the main page is completely designed for new people to wiki and the secondary page (linked to the main-page) is not as simple and is more powerful to an editor. Lympathy ^Talk 18:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what the Community portal is supposed to be. A rather unfortunate name, if you ask me. Zocky | picture popups 19:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I knew someone would bring that up. My vision of it would be that it is similarly gui friendly and not overly linked like the community portal and that it still contains ITN etc. Just a more advance version of the main userpage. Lympathy ^Talk 19:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What purpose would such a page serve that isn't already served by the community portal or the main page? J Milburn (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A useful feature that we're failing to provide is a non-overwhelming portal for people who would like to become editors, or just find out about how Wikipedia works. I would personally prefer if things like NPOV, BLP, MOS, and some pages with advice for new editors were linked from the main page. IMO, that would save us a lot of pain. Zocky | picture popups 21:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

We already link to Wikipedia:Overview, Wikipedia:Editing, Wikipedia:Questions and Wikipedia:Help- they cover absolutely everything you mentioned. I strongly oppose linking to specific policy pages. Not only will people not understand/not care what they are about, but, inevitably, people will choose to link to completely irrelevant pages- MOS? J Milburn (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure they will understand. It's not exactly rocket science. The point is, the Main Page now tries to pretend that we're a finished encyclopedia, and works hard on not displaying "under construction" signs anywhere. IMO, that ensures that most of the new editors that we get are web-savvy teenagers. Zocky | picture popups 10:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• As a frequent editor, I like the Main Page because it lets me know what people are seeing when they come to Wikipedia. It displays the articles that we want to show to the non-editing public to get them involved in the project. You're welcome to make a new portal for editors, but honestly, I'll probably stick to the Main Page. Lovelac7 06:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that no Editor Main Page is needed; the Main Page is for readers (including editors in their capacity as readers), and the Community Portal for the community, namely editors new and old (and wannabes). If you'll look at the sidebar, the first box is purely for navigational purposes (which mostly pertains to reading) and the second one is for interaction (mostly editing). This is a good configuration, which is quite obvious to newcomers (it is also why I didn't want the search bar to move up, and why I have used a script to return it to where it's always been, but that's another issue entirely). And another thing: DYK, which is on the Main Page, does offer some insight into Wikipedia's nature as a project perpetually and by definition under construction. It presents new articles (emphasis on new), which are generally fertile ground for further expansion and improvement. Waltham, The Duke of 13:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
    • To further that point, ITN shows the way that we are constantly updating to reflect the goings-on in the world. J Milburn (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd note that you don't need approval of the denizen of "Talk:Main_Page" to start such a thing. I would recommend that a person so interested should first make a mock-up at a sub-page of their own user page, showing what they envision an "Editor's Main Page" to be. If others find that such a page would be useful, it can likely be moved to the Wikipedia: space as an "unofficial" resource. Once there, if there is wide consensus as to its usefulness (probably in several months time), someone can come back here ("Talk:Main_Page") and propose adding a link from the regular Main Page to the new "Editor's Main Page." Even if such official support never materializes, this "Wikipedia:Editor's Main Page" could still be an unofficial resource for its loyal followers, much like the other numerous project pages in the Wikipedia space. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well said. Lovelac7 02:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Eyes on

Can I have a few eyes with a variety of browsers to make sure that Main Page/1 still looks right? As you can see, the only thing I'm trying to do is add ids for easy skinning... but I have too many (ie more than 0) trouts for screwing the Main Page :D Happy‑melon 16:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine in Firefox 3 on Windows XP. "More events" at the bottom of On This Day is indented on Main Page/1, and not Main Page. Main Page also seems to have a bit more whitespace than Main Page/1. But that's all. --Herald Alberich (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Barring the "This page was last modified on" bit at the bottom on Main Page/1 and the differences with the "Help us" tag at the top (both intentional?), looks good in FF3 on WinXP, IE7 on WinXP, and Safari 3.1.2 on WinXP. JPG-GR (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing other than that as far as I can see on IE7 and Firefox 3; just the time for On This Day and the article count are off, but I gather that's because you haven't used auto-updating templates? Is this subpage to be used as a copy of the current main page for the redesign process? -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 07:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's an exact clone of the Main Page, so anything that's different shouldn't be. I want to make these changes to the live page since they're trivial - they add hooks to allow customisation using personal css, which should have been done a long time ago - but wanted to make sure the changes wouldn't muck up in some obscure browser/OS/display combination. Happy‑melon 19:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes? Try Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal. --74.13.127.194 (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

In the news

Shouldn't there be headlines covering the events in Turkey, that the AK Parti has survived from a ban by the constitutional court? M Miah (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be discussed at WP:ITN/C instead of here? --74.13.127.194 (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but please read the brief instructions at the top of that page before nominating a candidate. It will likely save you some time later on. - BanyanTree 22:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Kadima leadership election, 2008

I think the words "primary election" in the news item regarding Olmert's decision not to run in the Kadima party primary election in September should link to that article. -- Nudve (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. In the future, please post items like this to WP:ERRORS above, which theoretically has faster reactions. - BanyanTree 07:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Results of main page traffic experiment

For about two weeks this month, many of the links on the main page were changed to redirects following this discussion in order to figure out how the main page is actually used. Hits listed are for a period of approximately 7 days. During this time period, it seems there were about 60 million hits on the main page itself. --- RockMFR 19:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Page	Stats	Hits
Banner
Wikipedia	[4]	18436
Encyclopedia	[5]	6573
Wikipedia:Introduction	[6]	9478
English language (banner and bottom)	[7]	4817
Portal:Arts	[8]	25430
Portal:Biography	[9]	24239
Portal:Geography	[10]	19847
Portal:History	[11]	32150
Portal:Mathematics	[12]	19882
Portal:Science	[13]	34362
Portal:Society	[14]	10484
Portal:Technology and applied sciences	[15]	21641
Portal:Contents/Portals	[16]	34877
Below banner
Wikipedia:About	[17]	3411
Wikipedia:Tutorial	[18]	4155
Wikipedia:Questions	[19]	6993
Help:Contents	[20]	2361
Portal:Contents	[21]	3710
Portal:Contents/Categorical index	[22]	7268
Portal:Featured content	[23]	2876
Portal:Contents/Quick index	[24]	16807
Bottom
Wikipedia:Help desk	[25]	3387
Wikipedia:Reference desk	[26]	5626
Wikipedia:Village pump	[27]	1948
Wikipedia:Community Portal	[28]	1719
Wikipedia:News	[29]	1387
Wikipedia:Local Embassy	[30]	1515
Wikimedia Foundation	[31]	1331

The most surprising one there is Portal:Contents/Quick index, which is getting far more hits than those around it. It's also a bit surprising how lower the hits are for items below the banner than those in it, since they're separated by very little on the page. Modest Genius ^talk 18:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Seven days. Enough to decide what to keep, or what not to keep, in Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal? --199.71.174.100 (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia traffic tends to roll on a weekly cycle, so a multiple of seven days is appropriate. Given the enormous sample size (60 million), I think the results can be considered statistically significant. Great work, RockMFR!! Happy‑melon 20:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Good work researching this. Conclusive indeed! Rudget 12:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A couple of the most popular clicks, Portal:Arts, and Portal:Geography are lacking in content where I would think it would be most useful. Geography's picture this week is a redlink, and nothing is ready for the future. Same with the next months featured article. The arts portal is just a mess, the columns don't align, there is no "Featured article", and it's overall pretty useless. These types of links need to be fixed up, or taken off the main page. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 13:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Very nice work, impressive! ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 15:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to add about Portal:Geography...it had no selected article for about two weeks into July, until I happened to see there was none. Spencer^T♦C 17:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. I'm kind of sad about the small number for Portal:Featured content, however... Teemu08 (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that most people who visit the 'Featured content' page do so from the link in the sidebar. Note that according to this page it was the 64th most visited page on enWiki with an average of 20,752 viewers per day in the first 14 days of July... the various specific topic portals which scored well in the 'from the Main Page' stats above don't even make it onto that 'overall traffic' list. Portal:Contents also shows low usage in the stats above, but was the 38th most visited page on the other list... again likely because people get to it from the sidebar. This might argue for removing or reducing the prominence of things which are already in the sidebar... since that is effectively part of the Main Page, and every other page, they are already getting more significant promotion than most of the items on the Main Page proper and may not need a highly placed second link there. --CBD 23:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Great work. We still need to be careful not to conclude simply that things with less clicks shouldn't be on the main page. It's quite possible that it just means that the links need better names or that they should be positioned better. I'd say that the links in the "other areas of Wikipedia" are positioned way too low. Another idea could be renaming "Featured Content" (which sounds somewhat marketroidy) to something like "Best of Wikipedia". Zocky | picture popups 16:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, any redesign should place Wikipedia:Introduction and/or Wikipedia:Tutorial more prominently, or at least make the link text explicitly state what the links are. We also need to cut out pages that are not updated or have been abandoned (i.e., Wikipedia:Local Embassy). --- RockMFR 17:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got a question about the counts ... according to that, Cristiano Ronaldo gets more visitors than does the Main Page? I'm lost about that... – 'Latics ^(talk) 23:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Cristiano_Ronaldo has been viewed 694377 times in 200806" → "Main_Page has been viewed 481086716 times in 200806" - The second number looks a lot bigger to me... Mr.Z-man 00:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wow. Yeah ... I look stupid, don't I? :( I was looking at the graph rather than the numbers above it. – 'Latics ^(talk) 00:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I keep digging myself in a hole. Ha. I really didn't pay much attention before talking. Sorry. :D – 'Latics ^(talk) 06:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I find this deeply interesting.. but the numbers perhaps deserve a little most context, for example comparing them to the total number of hits. Consider, for example, the traffic for Portal:Arts (which is decimated to 10% once the main page link is taken away), and Portal:Quick_index (which is reduced to about 30%) and Portal:Featured content (where over 95% of the hits don't come from the main page link).

These percentages give more context and a better understanding of what people us the main page for. Perhaps someone who knows how to get more exact numbers could add them to the table? 82.6.96.66 (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin around?

Is there an admin around to copy the hooks from Template:Did you know/Next update to Template:Did you know? I can do all the other technical stuff if said admin is unsure of the details, or guide him or her through the process. Thanks, CB (ö) 22:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm here. Just copy and paste, now? You'll do everything else? J Milburn (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I need to get to bed, apologies I didn't update (I wouldn't want to do it wrong in any way, and I am somewhat sleep deprived). I recommend now/in future you try an {{editprotect}}, post at WP:ERRORS and, if it's over an hour late, post at one of the admins' noticeboards (AN is more appropriate, but ANI would probably have a faster response). J Milburn (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; I had stepped out for dinner after waiting so long; thanks for the advice. The page has been updated. CB (ö) 23:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Done, but there aren't any credits. Please remember to add them to the credits section next time, as not doing so creates problems - who nominated, for example. Just a note for the future. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that's because Rudget already updated it. From a random scan through the list, all creators, noms, and articles had received respective credits. CB (ö) 23:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes. It was a surprise when I went to find the authors and credit the articles - they'd already been done! Thanks for your help, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, they were done 4.5 hours before the update; a half hour before it was scheduled to be updated.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 00:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of Free

(If this has already been discussed before, please point me to the discussion.)

The main page doesn't explain the meaning of "free" in "The free encyclopedia".

For comparison, on the main pages of Hebrew and Russian Wikipedias the word "free" is a link to their respective language versions of free content.

Although it is better than nothing, i don't think that it's an excellent solution.

There should be a page in the Wikipedia namespace where the "free"-ness of Wikipedia is properly explained in plain language. It's a core policy, even a meta-policy. Links to the GFDL that appear on every page are certainly far from enough: GFDL is too legalese. WP:FAQ and WP:ABOUT are also very thin on explaining what does it mean that Wikipedia is free.

If such a page indeed does not exist, i can write it myself. If it does exist, then it is probably quite hard to find it. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean like Gratis versus Libre? Modest Genius ^talk 20:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an encyclopedic article, like Free content. I am thinking about a page in the Wikipedia namespace that explains how the free content ideology applies to Wikipedia and what "Free" in "The Free Encyclopedia" stands for.

I understand the concepts of free software, free content, free culture, free-as-in-beer/speech very well. The problem is that a lot of beginner editors misunderstand them and think that "free" refers to price or to their freedom to write anything they want. Both of these are right to a certain limit, but "free" in "The Free Encyclopedia" refers first and foremost to licensing. The current wording "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" definitely contributes to that misunderstanding - i often see both trolls and good-faith editors using this phrase mockingly, such as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit as long as they agree with the cabal".

I would expect that the shortcut WP:FREE would lead to such a page, but it leads to Wikipedia:Free speech; i agree with the content of that page, but it has a pretty misleading title and somewhat hostile tone. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like an open task in Wikipedia space. Go for it!  :) --74.13.130.4 (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, i wrote something: User:Amire80/The Free Encyclopedia.

I'll be glad to hear comments on it and to see it moved to the Wikipedia namespace and linked from the main page. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Does free "first and foremost to the licensing terms of Wikipedia's content"? I always thought it had several deliberately ambiguous equally true meanings. I think you've chosen your own interpretation and are trying to push it as the primary one. -93.96.212.203 (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That's my understanding of it. The closest thing that supports this understanding can be found in the main page FAQ, in a question about the different translations of "free".

This ultra-important core meta-concept of Wikipedia must be properly defined. If it's ambiguous, then it should be explicitly written somewhere, because it is a frequent point of debate. Today i saw it on an AfD and i often see it on talk pages of frustrated users that keep getting their edits reverted.

Indeed, Wikipedia's close relation with the GNU-style Free software and Lawrence Lessig-style free culture was one of the things that attracted me to it in the first place, so it is natural for me to emphasize this, but i also believe that that was the intention of the creators of the site. If you genuinely think that what i wrote goes against the consensus, then, by all means be bold and correct it. One user already improved the page i wrote and i hope that there will be more. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Both [Wikipedia] and [Wikipedia:About] link to [Free content] in their introductions, indicating the rights-oriented term as opposed to the cost-oriented. As Amire80 notes above, Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page says that "[having few restrictions on what may be modified or replicated elsewhere] is ... more fundamental to the character of Wikipedia." This is why Wikipedias in languages that maintain a distinction between gratis and libre use the latter word in their slogans. While Wikipedia is certainly intended to be available free of charge, it is not limited to that method of distribution. In fact, Wikipedia's licensing allows people to sell copies, while the rights to reuse and modification are irrevocable. I think that Amire80 is justified in saying that the understanding of "free" as "libre" is the primary one.66.227.190.143 (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeing some support here i decided to be bold and moved it to the Wikipedia namespace, still with the essay tag, of course: Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia. Feel free to improve it further. Even the title can be changed. Be bold. Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In-the-meantime idea

In the interim, would anyone object to the linking of "free" to free content? If no objections are voiced within 4 days, I'll make the change. ffm 16:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• I support such an idea. It may mean free content could do with a few more eyes, but it will help people understand what we're all about. J Milburn (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Name change

Wasn´t it going to change its name like two months ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.165.114 (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There has been no discussion in favor of changing the name that I know of. From the discussions I've seen, there has either been no consensus or consensus against changing the name. Acalamari 01:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should call it 'Fred'. Less impersonal. :] --CBD 11:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that is a name we can all agree on. :D Acalamari 15:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No! I utterly dispute that, it would be far better as 'Nigel' Modest Genius ^talk 02:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's male? I always thought of the Main Page as a 'Bertha' or 'Mildred', with its soft pastels and constant fussiness to make sure everything is just right and in its right place. I'm pretty sure that the Main Page crochets in its free time. - BanyanTree 02:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's just call it Pat. – 'Latics ^(talk) 03:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

How about "Lady Paige Main"?  :-) --PFHLai (talk)03:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You Anglophiles. Why not Mustafa? 69.19.14.30 (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

'Mustafa'? That's as unrelated to the Main Page as 'Fred.' --74.13.130.4 (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

MAOR KATZ

YOU CAN NEVER HAZ TOO MANY

Less chit-chat about renaming the main page. Less food on the main page. MAOR KATZ! Ceiling Cat (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Those are hideous, I must say. –  LATICS  talk  04:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What?! How can you say that? They're so cute and snuggly looking. Ceiling Cat (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No, far from it. THESE are. –  LATICS  talk  01:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You've forgotten the Fundemental Rule of Cuteness: Things that are hairless are cuter than things that are hairy. That's why people get Bikini waxes. Ceiling Cat (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess another demonstration is in order:

Very cute. Very huggable

Not quite so cute. Definitely not hugable

Conclusion - less hair = more cute. Clearly we MAOR KATZ on the main page (the daily kitten feature I suggested earlier) and they need to be of the huggable hairless variety. Ceiling Cat (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire, mon frère... Maybe not that cat, but I wouldn't touch one of those hairless 'cats'. –  LATICS  talk  19:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's compromise. How about we have hairless pussies on the main page on Sunday through Friday, but on Caturday, we can have hairy ones. Ceiling Cat (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hahahaha. Alright. –  LATICS  talk  00:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's death

Uh... how is this newsworthy??--Dramawoes00 (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't. Danthemankhan 16:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Then why is it in Template:In the News?--24.109.218.172 (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I would consider his nobel prize worthy but not his death unless it ITN is attempting to create a varied news article. Probably best discussed there though. Lympathy ^Talk 16:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You may want to complain/argue/support... at WP:ITN/C#August 3. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be the unfortunate by-product of the new system of trying to force news onto the main page. J Milburn (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Or users who don't have the literally seconds per day it takes to scan new suggestions at ITN/C find it easier to complain about the consensus reached by those users who do comment, after the fact. Almost certainly one of those two alternatives... - BanyanTree 00:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Or admins who think silence means enthusiastic support. --Howard the Duck 03:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"Takes silence as", not "thinks silence means". One is a choice, and the other is a fallacy. - BanyanTree 03:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Or admins who skirt around in semantics? --Howard the Duck 03:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think Banyan has taken enough flak for this, which was really just a standard admin action. Many of the complainers are users who did not check ITN/c before voicing their complaints. Consensus there (in the sense which is often used to little disagreement on ITN) seemed to be in favour of inclusion. Another user is angry at the fully protected ITN template, and specifically at what he perceives as Banyan taking advantage of it. I think that the edits that Banyan makes to the template almost always reflect consensus, as befits the actions of an admin. Another user is unhappy about the new(-ish) system of trying to force more ITN updates. I think most people agree that more updates are a good thing, even if occasionally obscure items appear. Whether one agrees with this entry or not, ITN/c is the place to discuss it, after having read the ITN criteria. I think Banyan acted correctly in this case, and should be commended for the work he puts into keeping the template fresh. Random89 07:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me your missing the point... "I think most people agree that more updates are a good thing, even if occasionally obscure items appear." While some may disagree with more updates I think the bigger issue people have with the new system and expect this includes HtD and J Milburn (and it includes me) is that they feel the new system is so focused on getting more updates that it encourages the posting of crappy articles (or articles with crappy updates) and articles which are as you say 'obscure'. (I personally cringe everytime I see comments on ITN which seem to me to amount to "this article is a POS but we have a deadline so let's just post it anyway".) I see no reason to presume, as you apparently do, that the only way we can get more updates is if we encourage such a trend. Now you (and others) are obviously entitled to disagree with this view of the way ITN is currently working but it remains a valid discussion point and something I've never really seen discussed. Indeed I've never even seen any discussion which shows the new system is preferred to the old system (we used to get occasional complaints about a lack of updates, we now get complaints when problematic updates appear on ITN) i.e. I don't think it's fair to shut down a discussion based on the premise that the new system is working better then the old system when the new system is creating new problems in the opinion of a number of editors just as the old system created problems in the opinion of a number of editors. Consensus ITN needs more updates doesn't imply there is consensus the new system to do so works or at least better then the previous. (Personally I don't want to go back completely to the old system but it's a valid discussion point.) While Banyan may have done some good work, that doesn't mean people don't have the right to criticise any of his/her actions that they disagree with. In particular, the issue of 'what is a consensus' is always a tricky one but there is clear agreement that 'lack of opposition' does not automatically equal consensus when there is only limited discussion. (If you don't believe me on this point, try making a significant change to policy based on the lack of opposition to a proposal and see what happens & just to be clear I'm not suggesting that the same level of discussion is needed simply illustrating the point in a way hopefully no one will disagree with.) I'm not suggesting Banyan is a rogue admin here, simply that HtD and others are entitled to their opinion about the lack of consensus for some candidates and Banyan's perception thereof. The one thing I do agree with you is that this isn't the place to discuss the matter but since you appear to be dismissing the comments offhand, I feel it's only fair I can respond here. Nil Einne (talk) 08:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if I came off as dismissing these complaints. While I disagree with the claims that this article shouldn't have been put up, that should not be discussed here. Likewise for debate about the "structure" and updates of ITN. What I took offense to was the use of this thread to take shots at the admins who do take the time to update ITN. I also don't think the new system is perfect, but I think it is better than before, and I personally can't think of how it could easily be improved. Random89 19:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not feel BanyanTree has does anything wrong at all- there was consensus for the change and for the update. I just feel that there is a problem with the new system. I support more updates at ITN than there were before, I just don't support forcing items on when there isn't really any worthy news, which this death seems to be. If ITN needs more admin eyes, then I guess I could help out. J Milburn (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)