Talk:Main Page

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 08:35 on 8 November 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Errors with "In the news"

• US Senate Donald Trump (pictured) wins the United States presidential election and Republicans take control of the Senate.: The bolded presidential election link doesn't cover the Senate results. 2024 United States Senate elections should be included, but that page does not have updated sourced prose on the results. Recommend pulling the Senate results from the blurb until that page is improved.—Bagumba (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Strictly speaking, the Republicans won't "take control of the Senate" until 3 January 2025. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  I noticed this too and agree with all the points that Bagumba makes. Note that the blurb now reads: "Donald Trump (pictured) wins the United States presidential election and Republicans are set to take control of the Senate." which makes the Senate bit sound even more tentative and inappropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  It's not tentative at all. The results of the election will put Republicans in control of the Senate on 3 January 2025. That is as definite as election results can be. It's just that most of the world seems unfamiliar with the multimonth waiting periods for many American election results to go into effect. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Be that as it may, none of the linked articles verify this and so the claim fails core policy. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Should this say "In the 2024 United States elections, Donald Trump.... " or some sort? The blurb seems to have no context, and the Senate mention seems awkward with context. Natg 19 (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  No, we don't include election years ITN as it should be clear from context that we are talking about the present election. I can't quite understand the second part of your concern, Natg 19. Could you please clarify what you mean? Schwede66 03:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I suppose my 2nd concern is the same as the above ones, in that the wording for the Senate victory should include the election article for clarity. The current blurb doesn't flow well, as it is discussing two separate (but related) elections. Natg 19 (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I see. Can you (or anyone) make a specific suggestion what the blurb should be? Schwede66 03:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

My issue above is that 2024 United States Senate elections does not even meet WP:ITNQUALITY with a sufficient prose update covering the results. Perhaps it's IAR-worthy as a US election, but mentioning the Senate is treating the presidential blurb as a WP:COATRACK without the ITN norm of requiring the related Senate page be up to par before mentioning it in the blurb. My suggestion remains: Donald Trump (pictured) wins the United States presidential election and the Republican Party is set to take control of the Senate. —Bagumba (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the senate elections from the Trump blurb. Bagumba, as you are an admin, feel free to action these things yourself. When you edit the main page boldly, you sometimes get reverted, but that's life. Nobody will chop your head off, though. Give it a go, my friend. Schwede66 07:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Admittedly, I lean more towards strength in numbers when it comes to fully-protected pages, and then moreso when broadly construing WP:INVOLVED. —Bagumba (talk) 07:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I see. Schwede66 07:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• the blurb now reads "Donald Trump (pictured) wins the United States presidential election."

The Presidential and Senate elections were just some of the many elections held on this day. We have an article 2024 United States elections which covers them all and that might be worth considering if we want to help readers find all the details. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

• Intersex Day of Remembrance should be bolded? JennyOz (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

   Done – Schwede66 07:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• 1932 – The Australian military withdrew from their "war against emus" in - Emu War appeared at OTD last week, on November 2. JennyOz (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  Too right. I've swapped it out. Schwede66 07:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 8, today)

• Parentheses around "(pictured)" should also be italicized. Also, the caption shouldn't be linked as already present in the blurb. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 23:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Monday's FL

(November 11)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

How to remove the donation notice

Logged-in users: Go to 'my preferences', select the 'Gadgets' tab, check the box labelled 'Suppress display of the fundraiser site notice', click 'Save', then bypass your browser cache (Ctrl + F5 on Internet Explorer, Ctrl + Shift + R on Firefox) to see changes.

Not logged in: Create an account (this takes very little time, all you have to do is pick a username and password), then follow the above instructions. It is beyond the control of the English language Wikipedia to remove the donation notice for users not logged in. Alternatively disabling javascript may be used to prevent the article from being displayed, although this may have affect other script based browsing.

General discussion

Rod Blagojevich

Where did the reference to Governor Rod Blagojevich go? It was on the front page and now it is gone...Illinois2011 (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is here.-Wafulz (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

President? 91.110.101.234 (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It was comment vandalism. I put it back. APL (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

what a horrible thing to happenn. 193.172.170.26 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC).

I agree with the anon. 91.110.101.234 (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Me to. :) 193.172.170.26 (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please put this on the Main Page in the current events section. Thank you. Jonathan321 (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for that should go to T:ITN/C. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Pls see WP:ITN/C#ITN candidates for December 9. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why elections on a little tiny island few have heard of are considered notable but the arrest of the Governor of Illinois is considered non notable. It's like the anti-American people are trying to invent news stories just because they don't want to see too many articles on America. 76.77.225.169 (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Pls see discussions regarding individual ITN items at WP:ITN/C. --74.13.129.214 (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

iPhone compatibility

I didn't really know where to raise this question, but I have a proposal for an addition to the Main Page code for better compatibility with iPhones. Though Wikipedia on iPhones is a small market, the code doesn't hinder any accessibility with other platforms, so there's no harm done to anything else - only benefits for iPhone users. When viewing the Main Page (and others) on an iPhone, the left column's text(TFA, DYK) is much larger than the right column's text(ITN, OTD); this causes massive whitespace under OTD that looks ugly; also, the bottom section (licensing) is mis-sized, and the text in the tabs ("edit this page," "watch," etc.) and user links ("Username," "my watchlist," etc.) at the top are too big as well. Apple proposes a fix for this by modifying the "-webkit-text-size-adjust" parameter in the body tag's CSS of the page. Apple suggests "-webkit-text-size-adjust:none", which works for the iPhone but prohibits zooming in and out on Safari (and Google Chrome, I expect, since it uses webkit too). After experimentation on User:Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox2, I've found that changing "none" to "100%" ("-webkit-text-size-adjust:100%") fixes the problem. Zooming in and out in Safari works, and the iPhone displays the page correctly (except for the text at the bottom and top because I have no control over it; CSS is needed for it. I propose adding "-webkit-text-size-adjust:100%" to the body tag's CSS of Wikipedia. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen Wikipedia:Mobile access? Algebraist 22:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yea I know there are iPhone-only versions out there, but you can also view just the regular Wikipedia site on an iPhone too. In this screenshot (though small.. sorry), you can see the difference in text size. The text in the left column is much bigger than the right. In this screenshot, the patch is applied, although to a different page, you can still see the result of the patch. The text in both columns is the same size. Like I said, the patch wouldn't interfere with any other platform, but it would make things better for people accessing the full version of Wikipedia from their iPhones. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be up to iPhone to sort their browser out, rather than every website on the internet to modify their CSS? Modest Genius ^talk 04:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I mean I agree with you, but the reason Apple uses this parameter is to increase text size to increase readability of pages without having to constantly zoom in and out, etc. It helps on most pages, but on some pages (such as Wikipedia - which is actually the only site I've come across so far with this problem), something about like fixed-width fonts or something to do with something above my head makes the parameter apply to some text but not others.. The error actually doesn't even appear on article text on Wikipedia; it handles it fine.. it's only the main page and the 2 sections I mentioned that are affected. Adding the code to this minimal number of sites corrects the problem, so I don't see much of a hassel. It's only one line of code. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally I have no problem with the change (we do for better or worse do this stuff resonably often) provided it doesn't make our CSS invalid or break compability on other platforms. You say "doesn't hinder any accessibility with other platforms" so I presume you've tested this on Safari for Windows and Mac OS X, Google Chrome, Epiphany & Web Browser for S60 (normally I wouldn't suggest the later two but since this is for Webkit based browsers in particular it should be tested on several particularly other mobile ones). Also although this should in theory only affect webkit based browsers that's no guarantee other browsers won't do something odd so I presume you've either tested it on the obvious candidates i.e. Firefox 1, 2 and 3 as well as IE 6, 7 and 8 and Opera (perhaps including mobile versions) 8.5, 9 (perhaps multiple versions) and 10 or confirmed from one or more extremely reliable source that the tags don't affect these browsers at all. If you haven't done such a minimum level of testing (which still doesn't guarantee it won't break accessibility on other platforms) I don't see how you can make the bold claim "doesn't hinder any accessibility with other platforms". (Perhaps it would be better to say, I don't think it will cause problems on other platforms but I haven't looked into it or tested enough to say for sure. Nil Einne (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The parameter starts with "-webkit", it is ignored by any non-webkit browsers -- 144.32.177.167 (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've tested it firsthand on FF3 (Mac OS X/Win XP), Safari 3.2 (Mac OS X/Win XP), and on IE 7 (Win XP). Using Browsershots.org I've tested it on the following platforms:

Windows Chrome 1.0 Firefox 2.0 MSIE 6.0 MSIE 7.0 MSIE 8.0 Opera 8.53 Opera 9.25 Opera 9.27 Opera 9.51 Opera 9.60 Opera 9.62

Mac OS X Camino 1.6 Firefox 2.0 Opera 9.24

Linux Epiphany 2.22 Firefox 2.0 Firefox 3.0 Opera 9.27 Opera 9.62

BSD Epiphany 2.22 Firefox 2.0 Firefox 3.0 Opera 9.52

This website allows you to see what the page will look like in the browsers, and none of them looked unlike they were supposed to, so I know at least on the visual end that no CSS or code breakage occurs; The only possible thing that could be wrong would be with zooming in and out on the pages, and I'm only partly able to test that.. I can test everything on Mac and Windows (which I plan to do shortly), but BSD and Linux I don't have access to. Also, I haven't tested on any other mobile browsers (I only have one phone haha.. and I actually didn't know that any other mobile browsers delivered the full site. I thought all others redirected Wikipedia to the mobile site), so I'm not exactly sure about them, but I don't think anything should be wrong. We probably need to get someone that has access to them to test it out on the page on which this is implemented. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I just downloaded and tested the zoom functions of all the browsers in the Mac and Windows columns, and they all work perfectly fine. The only ones I don't know about now are the Linux, BSD, and mobile browsers. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Though I lack the technological savvy some may have in regards to coding CSS and testing different browsers, I have no philosophical objection to the changes you have suggested. As long as the modifications do not hinder browsing for any other users, I would support the changes. Random89 10:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have properly test the change so I would support this addition. I'm a bit confused whether your change needs to occur to the main page only or the whole of wikipedia but regardless you may want to take your change to the [[WP:VPT}] since even if it's for the main page only I don't think this page would necessarily have the sort of admins confident enough to make the change. If your change needs to be made to the whole of wikipedia, you should also try in the appropriate place (the monobook skin?) Nil Einne (talk) 10:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

But is this the correct place for this discussion? Shouldn't it be at Village Pump?121.55.196.124 (talk) 06:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a suitable place to discuss Main Page alternatives. Discussions on accessing Wikipedia in general using an iPhone would probably be better held elsewhere, such as the Village Pump. --74.13.129.214 (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Albert speer selected article

Second time this month this has been a selected article, are they randomly selected or is it manual. Lrodilg (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a nazi conspiracyJanderVK (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Please specify when this month besides today this has been a selected article. Don't lie. --74.13.130.73 (talk) 07:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

See this month's archive, or last month's. Not been selected in either month. The article was only promoted to featured status in late October... –  LATICS  talk  07:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

FAs only get to be on the main page for a day... unless you're Barack Obama. –Howard the Duck 14:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights violation in main page.

Resolved

There is a picture in your main page that violates human rights [1]. It is a cropped copy of a picture [2] that has been replaced in commons. I'm not aware if there is another copy. Please replace it.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

In what way does the image violate human rights? Nufy8 (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm informing you on the matter with a discussion that took place in the original source of the uploading, in Commons at Please_delete_older_pic_-_human_rights--Dimorsitanos (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the original complaint (which has now popped up lots of places) is that because the guys who covered most of their faces in public didn't cover all of their faces in public, this might violate German personality rights laws (yes, German !?). So far as enwiki goes, that means nothing - there are no restrictions on public photography that apply here. I also don't think anybody's usefully identifiable in the quality image regardless, so there's no real ethical issue in my opinion. Given that this is a useful free image of an actual event that's on the Main Page, it ought to stay. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the legal issue, but not on the practical or moral ones, I think that some figures are identifiable. So if there is a law on public assembly during riots, or if say, the figure at the back is shown in another picture throwing a stone, then this picture might provide evidence against them Or they might simply not want their family to know that they were there.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Would it be inappropriate to say "If you don't want your family to know you took part in a riot, don't take part in a riot?" or "If you don't want pictures of you firebombing police cars all over the Internet, refrain from firebombing police cars?" Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This matter is not about distinguishing whether the action and critisism is appropriate or not. I think I highlighted the legal part of the participation (of anyone on the planet) in a possible action of filing in Greece (or elsewhere). --Dimorsitanos (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no firebombs in the picture. I see four people there only one of which is carrying out a violent act.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That's like saying, "If you don't want the police to shoot and kill you, don't throw bombs at them." Which apparantly is a radical idea in Greece. --71.163.75.92 (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Notice that I never talked about personality rights or german law. I think I was clear at the original place the file was uploaded in Commons.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of what you were asking at Commons is based on my reading of what you wrote at Commons. Decide for yourself if that makes the original "clear" or not. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no clue what human rights were violated. But anyway, a 1/5-reduced version has been uploaded. Faces were already unidentifiable before and should be more unidentifiable now. Hope this helps. --PFHLai (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Also note we don't care about German law. Prodego ^talk 21:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No, Dimorsitanos, you are not being clear - at least not clear enough for a situation where someone might disagree with you. You keep repeating that our posting of the photo is a violation of human rights, but you never specify which codification of human rights you refer to (the UN version, the EU version, the USA version? Not everyone agrees what constitutes human rights, let alone how they should be protected.). Nor do you ever clearly articulate which particular principle you believe is being violated. Even if you have, you haven't clarified how the codex and principle you have in mind is specifically applicable to this particular photo, or how the Wikimedia foundation (specifically the English Wikipedia), being headquartered in the USA, is bound (either legally or morally) to follow these particular principles. In this and other things, you are more likely to get the desired effect by fully explaining yourself, rather than making strident demands (which is how your first message above comes off). Accusing someone of a human rights violations is a serious accusation - you should be prepared to back up such an accusation with evidence. -- 128.104.112.113 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I should be prepared to do so if I had made an accusation against a spesific person or entity and one reading the discussion would probably find it difficult to prove so. There are spesific articles in the greek constitution I am prepared to explain if called to do so within a legal context (and not a discussion and first warning context) for a possible moral firing (even not consciously) of the intense conditions right now in Greece, after a possible case of filing people (or participating in the act by keeping copies of filed people) in a small town. --Dimorsitanos (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Also notice that I do not practice law myself but may hire a professional for a possible legal case and explain the case in detail if called to do so.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It's strange but although resolution is low, when i click on the image it opens in full resolution. I don't know if it is my computer or your system. Also, in commons, an original file of the uncropped image is kept at the bottom. I asked for the deletion of the history files that could be retrieved by someone too. Keeping these files may considered an act of filing itself. (in US law too)--Dimorsitanos (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Clicking the image opens the low res image. That image has a link to the high resolution version. The reason we use low res is only to save bandwith, so that everyone visiting the main page doesn't have to download huge files. Prodego ^talk 21:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Dimorsitanos, if you want things done at WCommons, please ask at WCommons. The only version of the image in question we still have in English Wikipedia is a cropped, reduced copy used as a thumbnail. It's a temporary image file meant to be used on MainPage briefly, and will be deleted soon after. There is NO clear violation of any human rights, and German laws don't apply. Can we get back to building this encyclopedia? No legal threats, please! --PFHLai (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

When did I ever talk about german laws? When did I ever say that if not taken away, legal action on my behalf will take place? When did I say that I am their representative? (I think I cannot communicate in here' I feel like talking to martians).--Dimorsitanos (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because Wikipedia has some certain policies (like the one you mention) or procedure rules, doesn't mean that anyone (user of visitor) making an ethical precautionary warning is bound by them and obliged to be aware and follow all of them before making a statement. Wikipedia policies are not god's word, neither legislated by UN legislators.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

When you edit in Wikipedia, you are expected to observe the rules in Wikipedia. Who wrote up the rules is not relevant. Just don't bring in lawyers, please. That's not cool. --PFHLai (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You didn't talk about German laws. But since you never mentioned which laws you were talking about, User:abf at Wikimedia Commons tried to be helpful and pointed to a German page which he thought may have been applicable. You never corrected him, or provided an alternate page describing what you actually were talking about. You made legal threats when you said that you "may hire a professional for a possible legal case". The implication that I (and probably PFHLai) took away was that the legal case would be against the Wikimedia foundation and/or the uploader for posting the picture. I admit that in retrospect your phrasing is unclear, but that's why you feel like you're talking to martians: you never clearly explain yourself, so the rest of us are left trying to read your mind. In fact, you seem opposed to clear communication, as when I point-blanked asked you to specify what particular human rights are being violated, you refused to. At this point I want to assume good faith, but I have a sneaking suspicion that we are being trolled. (BTW, if you are not their representatives, you may want to read up on Legal standing before you hire that lawyer.) -- 128.104.112.113 (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well anyways the action captured doesn't qualify as riot. Some kids are standing right outside Komitini university campus. Presumably they are on protest or something. The police is standing by, and has just thrown a tear gas canister at them (visible is the smoke and also their irritated expression). Three of them obviously decided they have the right to stand on their grounds, one of them that he has the right to throw back o rock, while the girl at the back is kind of thinking about it.--Vanakaris (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any reason presented as to why that image should be removed. The only thing presented is a vague suggestion that there might be some possible legal action in Greece by persons unidentified under some unspecified law. If there's some particular legal or moral reason why the pic shouldn't be used, please state it (you're not the only one who feels like they're talking to Martians). Better yet, nominate the picture for deletion and cogently explain your reasons there. And bear in mind WP:LEGAL, including WP:NPLT. Modest Genius ^talk 22:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Dimorsitanos, the image you have a problem with is Commons:File:Dec2008-riot-komotini-2.jpg. Please post your complaints at WCommons, not here. That image is not on our MainPage. The image on MainPage is File:Dec2008-riot-komotini-2 M-cropped - ITN.jpg, a temporary thumbnail on ITN. Please clearly explain what human rights have been violated in this image. I don't see any. I can't even see those faces that clearly. --PFHLai (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks PFHLai. I brought the subject here because there was a cropped picture of the same file in the main page of the english wikipedia. But since the file was modified, there isn't much to talk about in here. Notice though that I didn't ask for the file to be reduced in size but just having the faces blurred in order for the picture not to lose its encyclopeadic value.

As for 128.... you can't assume good faith and accuse someone of trolling at the same time, so I turn the accusations back. I specified that a professional lawyer may be hired in order to offer legal advise on how to justify in legal words what I have in mind as a moral firing of negative events in an eruptive atmosphear in Greece, after rumours circulating that there may be cases of secret filing of educators that take part in protests, in order for them to face the consequencies. I did not state that I would hire the lawyer to take legal actions against wikipedia or spesific users. I made that statement because you warned me that I have to be prepared to justify an accusation of human rights violation and I responded that I might hire a professional If called to do so. So instead of misinterpretating my words, you could focus on more productive things. Just because US citizens may be safe from getting charged with accusations from a law that applies in Germany of Greece, doesn't mean they should not consider the moral duty of thinking of the harm that may be caused to another person or organization in another country.

As for Modest, yes this is what that's all about... a vague suggestion before turning irrevocably into a real problem for the people taking part in the protests and making things more eruptive right now in Greece. I do not think that the file should be deleted. I just said that the people indicated should be protected.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – The image on MainPage has been modified and does not pose a problem. This issue is considered resolved. --PFHLai (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for the accusation of trolling. Voicing my suspicions served no useful purpose, and only served to make me look like an ass now that it has become clear that you weren't. Regarding making accusations of human rights violations, you already did so in your initial post: "There is a picture in your main page that violates human rights" - it was this statement which I was asking you to justify. The productive goal to which I applied (and with this comment still apply) myself to was to encourage you clarify and strengthen your position, so that we could resolve the situation to the satisfaction of all. In the future, when asking for someone to do something, I would strongly encourage you to be more forthcoming in why you think that that something should be done. By my reading, a number of the respondents of this discussion were not convinced that even the original picture violated human rights. I will agree with you - if the picture can be shown to violate human rights in the relevant jurisdiction, it should be removed. However, I haven't seen that evidence, and encourage you to provide it in the relevant locations (which, now that the discussion here is marked as resolved, would be here) -- 128.104.112.113 (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I should probably say "Fears of possible human rights violation", but after posting the same message at many relevant pages, it was a mistake out of momentum. My wish is to avert a problem before it happens, even though greek wikipedians think that I am overreacting since such content has been circulating around the net for a long time. I believe that means with such publicity as wikipedia should be more cautious in order to prevent a negative reaction. I did take the matter up to the commons administrators, after my wish was reverted at the village pump.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Article count

Currently, the Main Page says that we have 6,907,606 articles, meaning that we have 6,907,606 pages in the main namespace that are not redirects and contain at least one wikilink. Now that Template:dmbox has been deployed, we can reliably determine the number of disambiguation pages we have and subtract these from the article count. I made {{Number of actual articles}} to do this; it shows that we have 6,545,677 pages in the main namespace that contain at least one wikilink, are not redirects, are not disambiguation pages, and are not the main page.

So, which count would you prefer to use? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The main page reflects the count on Special:Statistics. I suggest you ask on WP:VPT to see if they're prepared to update the methodology. As an aside, how confident are you that Template:dmbox is transcluded in ALL disambig pages? Modest Genius ^talk 22:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It's used on all disambiguation templates listed at MediaWiki:Disambiguationspage. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't mean all of the disambiguation pages use those templates. --Teggles (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No, and not all pages in the mainspace with at least one wikilink could really be called "articles". With any count like this, there are going to be issues- the count without the dab pages is closer to accurate than the one we currently have. J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want a really accurate count, you'll also want to subtract anything in mainspace that uses {{softredirect}} as well - such pages will contain at least one wikilink but not transclude {{dmbox}}. Of course, even so, we will never be able to obtain some Platonic ideal of an accurate count, because new good and bad pages are being created and deleted constantly. Bear in mind, I support a more accurate count nonetheless; I just don't want us to spend effort trying to get it "perfect" when that isn't actually possible. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinks in templates transcluded onto the page are not counted, so most soft redirects and pages that contain only {{wi}} are not counted. The exact definition is any article that contains the text [[ and is not a redirect -- Gurch (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

When?

When will the main page be redesigned?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 11:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

According to this, not very soon. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 11:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

When it needs to be? Modest Genius ^talk 12:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Which is never? –Howard the Duck 13:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

A minor issue

Recently I've noticed that whenever I go on to Wikipedia and the "New Messages" box pops up, all the links in the little orange box are completely unselectable. They just seem to act as ordinary text, meaning I have to actually go to different page to click it or click the tiny links at the top of the page. This doesn't occur on any other page, and I was wondering if there is some sort of code that's been implemented recently that's conflicting and causing this? It's not a huge deal, more of a nuisance really. Still, I am curious as to why this is suddenly happening. --.:Alex:. 18:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Happens to me too, in Internet Explorer. I suspect it's a symptom of the code that hides the title of the Main Page. - Mark 15:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Electoral College

Obama will be elected today (though not certified until January). No mention? 69.141.189.251 (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Pls read the instructions at the top of this talkpage and then go to WP:ITN/C, if you really think this should be mentioned on ITN. --74.13.129.214 (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sark Election

The election in Sark was not the first in nearly 450 years, it was the first ever. The blurb and the article imply that almost 450 years ago Sark had an election. Not true according to the referenced article. –Shoaler (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Pls read the instructions at the top of this talkpage, or go to WP:ERRORS directly. --74.13.129.214 (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Trivia Section?

I've noticed with a lot of articles there is no section about trivia. With my experiences on Wikia, trivia sections are filled with interesting facts that make the articles more interesting, just a thought, but maybe they could be added? 156.34.192.112 (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Main Page is already packed, and has no space for a "Trivia Section" or anything like that. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know is pretty much a trivia section, isn't it? --Maxamegalon2000 03:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the original poster was talking about trivia sections in Wikipedia articles, not the Main Page. For guidelines on trivia sections in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Trivia sections. Graham87 05:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If this has nothing to do with Main Page, this discussion should not be here on Talk:Main Page. --74.14.20.98 (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

See ya!

okay man, i've had it with you and wikipedia - i left, don't bother banning me but if you can't resist, then go ahead and bring it on! you guys gave me a hard time, i'm done with this shit. see ya! Jouke Bersma _{Contributions} 11:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)