Jump to content

Talk:Main Page

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 84.179.39.189 (talk) at 19:58, 30 August 2007 (vandalism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Main Page discussion footer

15:00, Thursday, November 7, 2024 (UTC)

Sections of this page older than three days are automatically archived.

Shortcuts

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 15:00 on 7 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)[reply]

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

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)[reply]
I see. Can you (or anyone) make a specific suggestion what the blurb should be? Schwede66 03:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
I see. Schwede66 07:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Nov. 6, 2024 DYK states Vivian Stranders is a "British-born Jew" who became an officer in the SS ,,, nothing in the main article suggests this Nazi was born a Jew or ever practiced Judaism. This person was an officer in the RAF who became a German intelligence asset and then a German and a Nazi officer. Again, the DYK is wrong. Better might be DYK " Vivian Stranders was a British -born RAF officer who became a German spy and a Nazi officer." —68.129.185.93 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you won't mind I added an "a" before "German" in that suggestion. Art LaPella (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per article "Stranders was Jewish and some of his SS colleagues suspected him of being a British spy." The ref 31 supporting has "Vivian Stranders, an Englishman who had served in the British Army [...] Astonishingly enough, this long-standing British member of the NSDAP and SS was also Jewish — a fact known to at least some of his colleagues" (no page numbers available) JennyOz (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I do find difficult to understand is why somebody thought this topic met WP:QUIRKY. RoySmith (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that the embassy of the Philippines in Bucharest is the country's first mission in the Eastern Bloc?

"Was" is more grammatical here: the embassy still exists, but the Eastern Bloc doesn't, and we tend to talk about "firsts" in the past tense, even when the subject is alive (e.g. "Barack Obama was the first black person elected president".) UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Friday's FL

(November 8, tomorrow)

Monday's FL

(November 11)
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.

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD



Main page general discussion

10 million pages

The English-language Wikipedia now contains 10,006,232 pages in total, including articles (1,973,184), redirects, discussion pages, image description pages, user profile pages, templates, help pages, portals, articles without links to other articles, and pages for Wikipedia administration. ---Majestic- 08:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should be on the Signpost, not this talkpage for the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.126.83 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ten million? That's OVER 9000!!!! --- RockMFR 19:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

????Tourskin 05:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? Nine thousand? --Maxamegalon2000 21:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's right. It is, after all, over 9,000. 67.41.178.66 22:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary, I did not realize. But did ever coem to you that theres an infinite amount of numbers less than 10 million?Tourskin 08:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing that was the point. There's nothing special about 10 million just as there's nothing special about 9000 Nil Einne 12:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but choosing 9,999,999 is, to me, more to the point since the difference is one.Tourskin 07:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, unlike the 2 million article, which kinda makes a little sense cos its articles (and every article has at least one interested user, the creator!), alot of pages on wikipedia seem meaningless or uninteresting to some users. We could have 10 million pages and 9 million of those could be disambiguation pages or redirects. Tourskin 07:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malvinas

d harte boi

And yet it has been ignored. The fact is, whilst Argentina recognizes them as their Islands, the rest of the world (more or less) recognizes them as British territory, including Britain. What other people think of the Island is largely wishful thinking. Tourskin 05:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Errr... yeah it can. Do we say, "Taiwan, a province of the People's Republic of China..."? —Verrai 05:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.*Puts down 10 foot barge pole* --Monotonehell 06:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your arguments. We don't say Taiwan is part of China any more than we say Falklands is part of Argentina. Neither of these two is true. Tourskin 07:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was refering to the comment about how it can't be ignored by cloviz. Hence the "yeah it can" and his indenting at the same level as you. Atropos 11:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we do say Taiwan is part of China. See Taiwan "territories administered by the Republic of China (ROC), which governs the island of Taiwan". We don't however say Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China so Verrai was quite... Nil Einne 11:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was obviously talking about the PRC too. Don't be a pedant. Atropos 18:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't resist given how worked up about things he tends to get and how he himself likes to nitpick. Plus the fact that he appears to be incapable of following a thread... Also I think it is important people unnderstand there is a big difference between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China. Both claim to be the true China which is what makes the whole thing so ridiculous. Failing to differentiate between the 2 can lead to silly statements (even when the meaning is clear) such as "Taiwan isn't a part of China" whereas as I've already said this simply isn't true since both the ROC and the PRC generally consider Taiwan to be a part of China. Nil Einne 12:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should really know better than to say that. Its a bit uncivil. Atropos 22:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Atropos, thats what I meant. Taiwan is claimed by PRC but its not owned by PRC. Falklands is claimed by Argentina but its not. Its owned by the UK and governed by itself. Tourskin 18:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But this is completely irrelevant which you would have know if you could follow a thread... Nil Einne 12:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't know what u r on about Nil. My point is clear. Taiwan is de facto recognized by the world, even by the PRC as independent. The Falklands Island is recognized by the world, even by Argentina as de facto UK territory. I'm using a comparison here to show that there is no need to say what a minority believe in. Furthermoore, I would like to add that the link on the picture "Falkland Island" had a section about the War in the 80's so it can be known from there what Argentina's views on the Island are.Tourskin 01:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're all agreeing with each other! Tourskin, you are just saying exactly what Verrai said right at the top. Everything else has been people agreeing with each other in an argumentative fashion :) Why not agree to agree and leave it at that? Skittle 13:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never! I will immediately march back to my HQ and prepare a pre-pre-emptive defensive measure against any potential pre-emptive strike against the Falklands - HAIL RULE BRITANNIA!Tourskin 02:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because Nil Einne is being unnecessarily rude towards Tourskin. Atropos 03:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nil, I didn't see teh comment above , and good thing too because I would not have given the humorous reply that some users on this page have been asking me to give. I'll do my best not to let your comment get to me. Tourskin 21:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan does not consider itself a part of the PRC, if thats what you meant. When I say China, I mean the real China of the PRC, the one that is recognized by the vast majority of the world. The ROC is more commonly known as Taiwan, I know this from personal experience from personal experience in England. No one entertains any plans of Taiwan being annexed by the PRC. Thats why the US maintains a presence in the region, to stop China from getting a little to excited. Tourskin 21:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disasters

I see that 5 of the current 6 "in the news" items are about disasters. Floods, forest fires, hurricanes, earthquakes. I realise that these events are tragedies for those involved, but the history of such events can be very interesting. Without wanting to detract from the current events, if any editors are interested in similar articles, have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management, and Category:Natural disasters. Carcharoth 16:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC) For many of those who dont knoe ther world is changing as we go on with our daily lives many changes will be seen over the years —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.48.203.30 (talk) 17:11, August 30, 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now 3 of 6. Still too many but at least a bit better. --mav 04:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This imbalance is being discussed at Template talk:In the news#Disasters in the news?. Everyone's welcome to join in. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can edit

Why does Wikipedia have this rediculas feature of being able to edit information. For a long time now i have used this site (in directly) for facts etc on various things. Only yesterday did i find out that this information is not always correct and can in fact be edited by anyone at anytime, which of course is not true at all for a true Encyclopedia. This site will go down very soon as no one will trust is anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.56.112 (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That so-called ridiculous feature is the very basis of Wikipedia. I'm surprised you didn't know about the editing ability before, considering that the main page has a big banner with the text Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit., and the fact that just about every page has an edit link on it. Wikipedia is a new way to write an encyclopedia, and is one of the largest collaborative projects, but of course there is always the possibility of inaccuracies. This is true for any encyclopedia, though. The trust issue has been discussed many times, and studies have shown Wikipedia to be of comparable quality to a so-called true Encyclopedia. But of course, before using Wikipedia for anything serious, you should have started by reading the disclaimer, which is also located on every page. --Pekaje 23:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ease of which Wikipedia can be editted means that incorrect information has the potential to be removed almost immediately after its added. Tourskin 01:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a tag on today's

featured pic

featured picture asking for someone to copy it to the commons. As I have performed this move already, could a sysop please remove the tag to avoid others trying to do it and the confusion that will ensue? I know this really isn't the place to ask, but it will get dealt to quickly here - thanks in advance :-) --Ben 02:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Zzyzx11 (talk · contribs). Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Default Cursor Position

Can we default the cursor position to the search box? I've noticed that Google does this on their site. Thanks. Synesthetic 07:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why doesn't the cursor appear in the search box, like with Google? for the explanation. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be good to default to the search box even though the arrows wouldn't be immediately available for scrolling the page. I think a lot of people use their mouse's wheel for scrolling these days, at least non-mobile phone users. It would encourage people to update their mice. Plus, I've seen the cursor default to the search page in other places on Wikipedia. Synesthetic 08:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If something like that is in an FAQ, I'm guessing the issue has been discussed many times before and there is consensus that allowing people to scroll is more important. 17Drew 08:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I figure the same Drew. One of the places I saw alternate behavior is when comparing the changes made in a revision with the previous version of a page. The cursor gets defaulted to the search box. The arrows don't scroll but the mouse wheel scrolls fine. Oh well, I guess there's a reason for it all. It would be nice if it was done consistently... my way. Just kidding.  :-) Synesthetic 08:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want it, you can have it. Check the FAQ entry above for how to turn it on. --Monotonehell 08:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Monotonehell, I did see that before. I didn't feel the urge to 'turn it on'... maybe I will though. I don't think most users would go through the effort to change it or even know they can do such a thing. Synesthetic 09:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't the keyboard people 'turn it off'? Sorry, had to get that out of my system.  :-) Synesthetic 09:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly it's an accessability thing. Defaulting to being in the search box makes it difficult to use for people accessing the Web with disabilities or whatever the PC term is these days. Not everyone has scroll wheel functionality. The original discussion about this was a long time ago now, so my memory is a bit fuzzy. --Monotonehell 09:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That could be. Still, making everybody press Alt-F or move the mouse over seems like a waste of time with the default set to the exceptional case. Also, even without scroll wheel functionality, the scroll bar can be used for scrolling if you have a mouse. Rarr. It's okay. Don't worry about it. I'm fine. Synesthetic 09:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many people actually ever use the search bar anyway? I suspect the answer is not many. Most people either Google or try to get the refdesk people to find articles. Nil Einne 12:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I should mention that even though I predominantly use the mouse scroll wheel I do occasionally use keyboard both cursor and page up/down for a variety of reasons's e.g. if I'm on my PVR and I don't have the mouse with me, if both hands are on the keyboard. I suspect many others would be similar which is why IMHO it's quite significant if most people never use the search Nil Einne 19:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually a fair number of non-editors use the search bar. I can at least speak for the high school and university students who shouldn't but use (for research) or sometimes plagiarise Wikipedia. They often search "Wikipedia" and will find themselves on the main page. Then they will find they specifically want in the search bar. There are those however, who come to an article directly through Google. GizzaDiscuss © 06:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you search for wikipedia on Google the first result you get is actually www.wikipedia.org Nil Einne 10:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews Quiz

Wikinews has introduced a weekly news Quiz, This is composed on a Sunday morning (CET) - hopefully - and should be a question from each day of the preceding week. I'd love to see this linked to from Wikipedia, as well as get some input on how to persuade people to share their scores and discuss it. As you can probably tell this is just starting up, but we'd love people from Wikipedia to also be involved. It would be nice to - at times - have the quiz set by a 3rd party so all the wikinewsies can compare scores. --Brianmc 10:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other than "not here" I'm unsure where you should post this. This page is for discussing how to improve the Main Page only. Maybe try Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)? Wikipedia doesn't really have a "community" as such. We're all business here ;) --Monotonehell 11:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main page has an "in the news" section which already links to Wikinews. I'd just like some conditional code so on a Sunday PM and Monday AM next to the Wikinews link there is a Weekly Quiz link. --Brianmc 14:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I see. Well I doubt that's going to gain any consensus here. Wikinews is the only Sister Project to get special mention on the Main Page like this. I wouldn't hold any hope to getting more space to link to a trivia quiz off site. --Monotonehell 15:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really do not think that Wikipedia is the place for a quiz section, either on current events or indeed on anything else. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 15:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a response but somehow I never submitted it. Anyway I was going to suggest Wikipedia:Community Portal and/or the signpost in particular might be places where this should be mentioned. And I agree support for the quiz is doubtful Nil Einne 19:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you write an article for the Signpost it will almost certainly get published. You might want to ask first though. —METS501 (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops that didn't come out right. I meant support for mentioning the quiz on the main page is unlikely Nil Einne 10:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzales has resigned...

According http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/gonzales_resigns AG Gonzales resigned from his office. Would be great if this could be added in to In the News section on the mainpage. xeryus 12:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved to the candidates' page not sure if it will get up]] --Monotonehell 15:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion has continued here Wikipedia talk:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates#Alberto Gonzales Nil Einne 21:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can the layout be changed for a liquid layout on Wikipedia?

I was wondering if we can have a more liquid design for Wikipedia without sacrificing the simplicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanjsingh (talk • contribs) 15:48, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

There is already a large number of alternatives here Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives. If none of these suit you, you're welcome to design your own. Actually changing the default design is likely to be a very long and complicated debate and you would at least need an alternative proposal to get started Nil Einne 20:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socom3ELITE, tourskin & badgerpatrol

Im sorry but tourskin and badgerpotroll need to both be quite... its not a big deal.. you dont even know eachother... just get over it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socom3ELITE (talk • contribs) 21:55, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Um they stopped discussing the matter several days ago... Nil Einne 22:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
eh mister mystery guest, who the hell are you and what are you on about? Socom3Elite I don't know who you r but lol I can disucss whatever I want to discuss and put forward my opinion within reason. What the hell is this discussion about changing the layout got to do with me and badgerpatrol, we're not at war or anything and all misunderstandings have been cleared up.Tourskin 03:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh who created another talk section? I don't even know why my user name was dragged here, but I'm outta this one. Tourskin 02:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the link that reads "permanent base" in the Moon article, you will see that something is wrong.

74.14.105.108 00:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything major wrong. Maybe it was fixed between the time you reported this and the time I checked. The link leads to Colonization of the Moon via a redirect. I did fix a broken citation in that article while I was there.-gadfium 01:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the above anonymous user what hinting to, but isn't it somewhat unfortunate that the FA blurb says "NASA outlined plans for a permanent base" while the first line of the linked article says "For NASA's plan ... see Lunar outpost (NASA)"? Maybe the link should be to that article instead? --DBrane 11:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed now Nil Einne 20:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What has happened to the Link-International Airways wiki page??? it seems to have gone. Regards Newcastleegnt 11:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove your hyphen and you'll find it. --74.14.17.150 11:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading and protecting images from Commons not being done all the time

I’ve been seeing a few images each day on the Main Page that are from the Commons but have not been uploaded to en.wiki and protected. Does MediaWiki now prevent reuploads or the display of any newly uploaded images displayed on the Main Page? Or are we setting ourselves up for some image replacement vandalism? If we still need to do the upload to en.wiki and protect thing, then I think that would best be done by a bot; humans are too inconsistent given the need to plug this security hole. --mav 16:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the commons images are protected automatically when transcluded on our main page. —METS501 (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? About 2 month ago I said I thought a feature like that had been implemented but I was wrong Talk:Main Page/Archive 103#Featured picture of US statehood. So it would have to be a recent change. The ITN template still tells admins to upload images. Admitedly it also tells them to protect the image but it's not necessary once the image has been uploaded to en.wikipedia and is on the main page as it's cascade protected Nil Einne 19:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the test I just ran, I cascade-protected a user subpage of mine, added a picture from Commons, and then was able to overwrite the image on Commons with a different one. This would lead me to believe that images are not protected if they reside on Commons. However, it is my understanding that images are automatically protected if they reside on the same wiki and are used on a cascade-protected page. As for a bot protecting and unprotecting images, that would require granting sysop rights to the bot, which has never happened before (to my knowledge). Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Commons images are not cascade-protected here. Last month, this resulted in the repeated replacement of a turtle photograph (displayed in the DYK section) with a picture of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (which easily could have been a pornographic or racist image instead). It should be noted, however, that this prompted Zzyzx11 to begin cascade-protecting our TFA, OTD and TFP images at the Commons. —David Levy 19:52/19:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:User:Zzyzx11/En main page, which is cascade-protected. And from what I know, non-admins cannot upload an image to the local wiki that has the same name as a file on Commons. Even if they could, the local page is cascade-protected anyway. howcheng {chat} 20:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka! I think I got a perfect solution; simply have a bot constantly check to make sure that any image linked from the Main Page has a corresponding image description page on en.wiki. If it doesn’t then have the bot create one by adding a blank space to the edit page. Turns out, that simply creating an image description page here that has the exact same name as the image description page on Commons, let’s the cascading protection thingy work. Using a non-Admin account, I tested this on Image:Klaipėda Castle1.jpg, which is linked from the Main Page, is not under normal protection here and not protected on Commons by either normal protection or cascading protection. Please test to make sure I’m right. --Mougie149 22:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait - this only works for images uploads to en.wiki. Nevermind... --Mougie149 22:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have an idea that may work, although I don't know enough about bot coding to say for sure if its possible. The idea comes from one that got tossed around a little while ago for general MP stuff before we had cascade protection. Anyway, somebody makes a bot. That bot examines the main page (and, to be proactive, also Main Page/Tomorrow) and checks the images. It then determines the where they're located (either locally or on Commons). If locally, great, cascading protection will deal with it. If they're on Commons, have it drop messages on a group of admins listed somewhere (on a totally op-in basis, of course) that basically says "Yo! Have an image that needs to be taken care of!" Now, ideally, this bot would, before making the notification, check if the Commons image is protected, but a lowly laymen like myself doesn't know if that's possible.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK image was up for four hours tonight without being protected and no vandalism was done? Thank goodness so few people can recognize when images are unprotected on the main page :) --- RockMFR 01:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments:

  1. As previously mentioned, anything that is cascaded protected here is not automatically protected on Commons. However it does prevent normal users from uploading a local image with the same filename here.
  2. As I detail on Commons:User talk:Zzyzx11/En main page, my cascading protected page on Commons is not a perfect solution because it is operated by me (or anybody who is an admin on Commons) instead of a 24/7 bot. I cannot adequately use that page to protect images on ITN and DYK because those templates can change at anytime. It does not work effectively when somebody else unexpectedly changes the TFA, OTD and TFP templates. And it definitely does not work if they are not updated until the very last minute before the clock strikes 00:00 (UTC).
  3. If anybody is still interested in a bot doing this work, you may want to contact User:Dragons flight if he still has the code for User:ProtectionBot. It was a bot intended to protect and unprotect templates and images on the main page, as well as protect images hosted on Commons by uploading local copies of those images here onto Wikipedia. However, Dragons flight withdrew the RFA request for the bot as soon as the cascading protection feature was implemented. Unfortunately, the Commons image problem still is not automatic yet.

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Start a Wikipedia in another language

Why is there a link to "Start a Wikipedia in another language" on the Main Page? This seems ridiculously obscure... the Main Page presents content to visitors; exactly how often is your average visitor going to want to start a new language Wikipedia? Especially given the number of other things that must be vying for a spot on that page (most of which would be more useful) -- 217.44.232.252 20:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's unlikely that we'd miss many (if any) opportunities to start new Wikipedias without the link. 17Drew 20:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree but don't want to argue that point. However I don't feel the start wikipedia in another language is necessary given that people should surely check out the complete list to find out if one already exists before considering starting a wikipedia in another language. P.S. Although I'm thinking the start wikipedia in another language link is more for balance then anything. You can only really add something related to multilingual wikipedias in that line and only having complete list and multilingual coordination means it would be rather short Nil Einne 21:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its not taking much space and besides someone might wanna start a "simple french" wikipedia for example just lik how they started simple english. Its not of any harm being there. Tourskin 02:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they are keen to create a whole new language Wikipedia then they would be looking further than just the main page. violet/riga (t) 09:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But if they want to start a simple french wikipedia then surely they should check the complete list and make sure one doesn't already exist from the complete list. Just as someone proposing a simple English wikipedia should Nil Einne 11:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the link was to encourage creation of new language encyclopedias. I agree with your previous comments illustrating the nonusefulness of this link. However, it increases the chance of a new language wikipedia being started. Therefore, it fulfills the reason behind Wikipedia as a whole. Wikipedia can only be called a encyclopedia available to the world when every language has an encyclopedia as large or larger than the benchmark (Brittanica) User:Wikijjc 19:24, 29 August 2007 (PST)
Am I missing something here? I can't see that link anywhere on the main page, and nor should it be there. Having one on the complete list of languages makes sense; having one on the main page does not. Modest Genius talk 14:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2.000.000 articles

Any forecast for when this will happen? How many articles where added since yesterday?--88.82.47.45 01:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing a week. When we got to the one million mark a large amount of articles were created right at the end by people trying to create the one millionth article. --Banana 02:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last thing we need is an army of unverified stubs ruining our day. Tourskin 02:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only way to stop the deluge is to abolish DYK and replace it with FLs hahaha --Howard the Duck 06:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where's that page with people betting on what will be the 2000000th article? Capuchin 08:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Two-millionth topic pool.-gadfium 10:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hijack this thread, I was planning to wait a while longer but since someone brought this up. Do we have an agreement yet on what, if anything we will post when we reach 2 million? It would be better to reach consensus now rather then have an edit war on that day. The last discussion fissled out without any real consensus Talk:Main Page/Archive 105#2 million article Nil Einne 11:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - we need to decide on something a little while before the 2 million point's reached. Also, would it be put up as soon as 200000 is passed, or when there is a consistent count never falling below 2 million (the same policy which stands for moving Wikipedias around in the "Wikipedia languages" section). I'm totally up for sticking my proverbial oar of opinion in. Benedictwest 12:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been discussed at least 3 times in the past couple of weeks but nothing has come of it. It's not really that big a deal considering the actual stats regarding the quality and content of the vast majority of those articles. Wake me when we reach 1,000,000 FAs ;) - Oh I know, when we reach 2,000,000 articles, let's change the main page banner to read "Welcome to Wikipedia,

the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 1,555 quality articles and lots of stubs." ;)

But seriously the best idea so far has been the wording on User:Nil Einne/Wikipedia:Main Page test --Monotonehell 14:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, but I clicked "existing articles" and got an album by Donny Osmond. If you can fix that then i'm all for it. :p Capuchin 14:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My guess it will happen in one or two days from now, so we need some message to display then. Is some news article prepared for wikinews? A press release? The wording of User:Nil Einne/Wikipedia:Main Page test seems ok, design also more or less. I find the link for existing articles confusing and the linking from contributions to the actual contribution page should be faster. If anyone wants to read more, there is lot of information available, if not, just let him/her contribute. --Ben T/C 18:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of two days from now? One or two weeks more likely IMHO. Also what do you mean "linking from contributions to the actual contribution page should be faster"? Nil Einne 10:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to relaize that not all articles are destined to become the best FA's ever. Some of these articles are very specific or are short because there simply is no material. Therefore 2 million is a big deal, just not that big a deal. I suggest what others before have suggested, just leave a not at the top like " wikipedia thanks its contributors for over 2 million articles". Someon has laready suggested this, its not boasting but its nice to know.Tourskin 23:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat reluctant to respond but hopefully you won't take offense since none was intended. No one said we want all articles to be the best FA ever. However the vast majority of articles should be able to reach FA status. If not, they may need to be merged with other articles. Bear in mind there's nothing wrong with an FA being short provided it is well written, comprehensive & meets the other FA requirements. Also, I think the bigger issue is not that we expect every article to be an FA but that many people including me feel there is currently too much emphasis on quantity rather then quality and that if we are going to mention the 2 million articles (a quantity statistic), we should at least encourage editors to think about quality. Note that we currently have around 1600 FAs and 2800 GA. And it's not just the small number of FA and GA but that most articles don't even come close to being resonable quality. Also I originally copied the "wikiepdia thanks..." part in the test on my page but it was changed because some editors pointed out that wikipedia doesn't thank anyone, it can't it's not a sentient entity. Nil Einne 10:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just place it at the bottom to appease the quality over quantity hawks. --Howard the Duck 02:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I thought 1 million was significant, but 2 million isn't really. 5 might be, 10 certainly will be, but 2 million isn't even much of a round number Modest Genius talk 14:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess its just no big deal. We're just part of a culture who enjoy celebrating reaching such large and "round" or should I say "nice" numbers. I mean, how many of you huys felt a difference between 1999 Dec 31st and 1998 Dec 31st? It was all in the mind. Tourskin 19:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nil, I aint offended anymore, I'm over it for now.Tourskin 19:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jiffs/Indian Army

The did you know question about jiffs being a term used for the Indian Army is misleading. It should state the Indian National Army to distinguish it from the Indian Army fighting on the side of the Allies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.191.182 (talk) 05:13, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Please post any errors regarding DYK in the "Errors in DYK" section at the very top.Tourskin 21:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the sister projects

Is there any big thought on why the Wikipedia's sister project are displayed in this order? I see that other wikipedia languages have it in a different order. --Steinninn 15:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I applied the following criteria (in this order):
  • Place the Commons and Meta-Wiki last.
  • Place Wiktionary and Wikinews first (because those projects contain the content that people mistakenly seek at Wikipedia most often).
  • Place Wikiversity immediately before the Commons and Meta-Wiki (because it's the "new" project).
(All of the above assumes the perception of three horizontal rows.)
Should we make this the official order on all projects:
  1. Wikipedia
  2. Wiktionary
  3. Wikinews
  4. Wikiquote
  5. Wikibooks
  6. Wikispecies
  7. Wikisource
  8. Wikiversity
  9. Commons
  10. Meta-Wiki
That is, all syster projects, all languages? At least all english projects. In my opinion, these templates should always look the same, with the same order. And the same text above. Currently, this is not the case. --Steinninn 18:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not actually possible. Each sister project lists all the projects except itself – so they'd all be in different positions on different projects anyway 217.42.78.92 19:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, Wikipedia dosn't list itself so Wiktionary would be first. On Wiktionary, Wikinews would be second... --Steinninn 19:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I can understand why Meta is last, why is Commons second-to-last? It is quite large and active, and has a higher level of integration with Wikipedia. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the question, do we put them in the order left to right, or up and down. Currently I see Wikiquote a bit unimportantly put on the right, but Wikiversity beeing identified as important because it's at the left. But I agree with Titoxd about having Commons upper on the list. --Steinninn 19:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When scrolling down, the links are revealed one horizontal row at a time. This is especially relevant at lower resolutions. —David Levy 19:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The logic is that the Commons and Meta-Wiki are the two meta-projects (projects that exist for the benefit of the other projects). It also would make sense to put them first, but I definitely believe that they should be paired. —David Levy 19:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But Commons is not used only to serve Wikimedia projects. Its purpose is to create a free image repository, and that is independent of being an image dump for Wikipedia et al. Besides, they're being quite successful at that, and they're one of the more active projects outside of the Wikipedias. Perhaps they can be placed in the same column, but Commons placed in the top row? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point and a good idea (which I believe would work well with a slightly different layout). Let me put together an example. —David Levy 19:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put up a string of ugly parse functions at test.wikipedia that could work on all sisterprojects. --Steinninn 19:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we really want a universal order throughout the projects then surely we need to discuss this on meta rather then here? Nil Einne 20:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking around on meta, and honestly, I just couldn't find any place to discuss this. Can you bring it up and give us a link? --Steinninn 12:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed redesign

In response to the above comments, I created this proposed layout, which I adapted from the one used at the Indonesian Wikipedia (and probably others). It includes four project links on the first line and five on the second line (conveniently enabling the future addition of a tenth project link by having two rows of five). As requested, the Commons link is on the first line (with the Meta-Wiki link below it on the second line). Here is what the main page would look like (except the background would be white and the standard header would be suppressed). —David Levy 21:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I liked the 3x3 row. When the time comes, it's easy enough to change it into 2x5. --Steinninn 21:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the 3x3 looks "better". The 2 x 5 looks too spacious to me. Tourskin 21:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gaaah, please think of us poor souls who are forced to use small screens... five in a row is too many, it doesn't fit. stick with three 86.140.176.147 22:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When i moved back to england for short holiday in the christmas, I also had to use my small screen. I FEEL YOU!! User 86.140.176.147. I feel you!Tourskin 23:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the lack of consensus for my proposed redesign, I've reorganized the links within the existing layout. Per the above comments, the Commons now comes first. Wikinews, Wikisource and Meta-Wiki retain the same positions. Wiktionary remains in the top row (now on the right instead of the left). Wikiquote and Wikispecies now reside at the beginning of the second and third rows (respectively), with Wikibooks and Wikiversity both sliding one spot to the right. As before, each column contains one image with a width of 51px, and each row contains one image with a height of 41px (thereby ensuring uniform distribution). —David Levy 01:05/01:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK errors

May I ask, what stops an incorrect statement being put up on the Main page for DYK? I understand that a review process takes place. However, one DYK was not confirmed from its references (it was about the oldest park west of the Mississipi or something like that). And there was a small error in wording in a DYK about the Indian army recently as well. Tourskin 21:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potential "hooks" are listed for review for four days or so at T:TDYK. If no objections are raised, the editor(s) preparing the updates at T:DYK/N will give the article a once-over while preparing the template, and the updating admin will check again before the hooks are placed on the main page. Factual errors are fairly rare, considering there are around two dozen hooks per day, but some do slip through the cracks, which is why WP:ERRORS was created. The system generally gets it right in the end :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 21:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is everything in BOLD TEXT with IE6?

Yesterday Wikipedia was fine. Today I go to Wikipedia with IE6 on Windows XP with SP2 and all current updates and ALL the text is bold. It's fine with Firefox 2.0.0.6, Netscape 8.1.2 and Netscape 7.2. The text is bold ONLY in IE6 and it is ONLY Wikipedia displaying all bold text. IE's font size is set to MEDIUM, which is the default. Far as I know, IE6 has no way to set all text to display as bold and certainly does not have site-specific font setting capability. I WILL NOT INSTALL IE7 ON THIS COMPUTER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 09:42, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

JUST USE FIREFOX INSTEAD. IT'S BETTER -- 81.155.70.18 14:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HAHAHAHA, that's a little to the point, but funny none the less... -seconded KeineLust90 15:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's normal. Maybe it's fixed or I don't install all of the updates. --Howard the Duck 17:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nvm, I had an image to show (Image:Bold IE6.png) but it was just my IE6's font size set to large for some reason.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 19:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;

  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;   &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;   &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;   &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;   &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;   &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;   &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;

  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;   &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;   &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;   &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;   &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;   &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;

  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;   &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;   &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;   &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;  &nsbp;

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=154662389"