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

The sentence "Beginning in the 7th millennium BC, human populations moved into the Chadian basin in great numbers." in the featured article seems to be in a very odd location. The sentence before is about present-day religion in Chad, and the sentence after is about present-day politics in Chad. These seem to flow well together. The early migration of humans into Chad seems like it would be better discussed either immediately after the discussion of the geographical features of the country, or perhaps at the end. Xargque 02:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

My fault - in shortening it for the main page, I deleted some sentences around it, turning it into a non-sequitor. I've removed it entirely now. Raul654 03:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"killed ... due to mismanagement" seems an utterly bizarre way to describe the Cambodian genocide! Sdedeo (tips) 03:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Pls go to WP:ERRORS above to suggest alternate wording. --74.14.20.83 05:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute... This is not on the main page at all! What is this about, Sdedeo? Are you sure you're posting on the right talk page? --74.14.20.83 05:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It was on the page - unless I was seeing things the main page featured a news item about a UN led group or something about a Cambodian genocide and I specifically remember seeing the words mismangement. Tourskin 07:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sdedeo references this item about the detainment of Nuon Chea; in view of its being a stub and to balance out the main page, it was removed around ninety minutes after its posting. It is, IMHO, a not-bad candidate to return to ITN, though, and so it would be entirely appropriate to take the issue of wording to the article's ITN candidacy section. (On the substantive issue, I gather the item means to suggest that not all of those who died under the Khmer Rouge died as a result of the regime's willful and active undertakings—some, for instance, died of starvation in part because of the government's dereliction —but I appreciate that the wording might be a bit confusing/imprecise.) Joe 07:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with the news section of the main page. It seems like it is updated every week, with stories coming out in clusters. It should be updated over time as apposed to clusters, or renamed 'recent history'. Contralya 11:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There is often confusion over the purpose of ITN. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and therefore ITN is not intended to be a news service whatever the name may suggest to you. (Wikinews:Main Page is a newspaper.) Template:In the news describes briefly what ITN is and Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page goes in more detail. There have been suggestions to rename ITN but for a variety of reasons these haven't got far. You may want to check out and/or continue the discussion here Template talk:In the news#Proposal to rename In the news to Current events. Cheers Nil Einne 12:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes there are no obvious (or even any) links in the summary to the actual article in Wikinews. There may be a number of links to Wikipedia articles about various topics but no hint as to which goes to the news article - it may take a lot of hovering to search this out and then find no link to the article. Would it be possible to put a specific link at an uniform spot, start or end? W#hile I have been able several times to simply go to Wikinews and see the story on other occassions, if it is an older story, I have not been able to quickly find it there. s-slater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.75.95.127 (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia and Wikinews are two separate online operations. Some people take part in both projects, but the two are independent. If you want to complain that Wikinews doesn't have the news or the hyperlinks you are looking for, you should go there to do so. --199.71.174.100 20:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Normally I'd fix it myself, but it's protected, so ...

In the In The News section, right at the top, some people participate in some protests "lead" by some group. I'm pretty sure this should be past-tense, so "led" with no "a"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.134.27 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 24 September 2007

See WP:ERRORS. --74.14.17.200 16:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the main page should load in your browser with the cursor default position in the search box. 142.59.85.208 21:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)mdm

That's been discussed previously discussed. I think the consensus is not to do that. --Agüeybaná 21:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why doesn't the cursor appear in the search box, like with Google? - BanyanTree 23:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone put this photo on czech airlines please. CSA airplane in new livery! http://www.flightsim.cz/forum_prispevek.php?id=184264&lan=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You should go ask this at the discussion page in the Czech Airlines page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tourskin (talk • contribs) 18:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to stop this. This is at least the third time you've posted this here. You've been told it's not appropriate, and where you should bring it up. Harassing people on the main page won't get things done faster. -Elmer Clark 02:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? It wasn't me who posted this, only the response the first time. Just to clarify. Tourskin 06:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

By indenting at the same level as you, Elmer Clark was too responding to the original poster. If Elmer had indented further, as I have with this post, he'd have been talking to you. Have a read of Wikipedia:Guide to good indentation. Hammer Raccoon 09:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Have you read everything in Wikipedia? Can you assume that everyone out there knows the rules about indenting? Don't assume everyone knows what you know. Tourskin 00:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry? You seemed to be confused about who Elmer was replying to, so I sought to clarify the situation, and provided a useful essay to further explain indentation. I don't assume everyone knows the "rules", which is why I directed you towards the supplement. I'm sorry if I somehow offended you; my intentions were only to clarify who was talking to who. Hammer Raccoon 10:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sep1. You did post on the talk page, so why post it here? And stop posting here. AxG ^{@ ►talk} 19:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont mean th logo. I mean th photo of a real aircraft in the new livery

Talk:Main Page is still the wrong place to ask. Try Talk:Czech Airlines. --Howard the Duck 14:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

In today's TFA, it has a transwiki link to "shambolic". Besides the fact that there is probably a better word (or at least one that sounds better) than shambolic, is it standard form to have transwiki links in main page content? Mbisanz 03:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen it before, but it can't hurt to give wiktionary a bit of prime-time advertising. —METS501 (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Or to provide a definition for a word most users are unlikely to know. Atropos 05:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia even use words that the average reader is unlikely to know when an alternative is available, especially in such a high-profile location? Why not just change it to "chaotic?" This does seem silly. -Elmer Clark 06:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why dumb down Wikipedia? When you read an article are you just supposed to be learning about the subject alone? Or is it possible to learn a new word at the same time? Dismas|^(talk) 06:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point - you beat me to it at an edit conflict. As an encyclopedia it does its job by teaching others "words that the average reader is unlikely to know", quoting from you. Besides, my arguments with the word Plurality, a word never used in the British or the American media taught me that you can't say things like "the average reader" - because you do not and will not ever know what the average read knows. So you can't argue that shambolic is unknown, only to yourself and others who post a response.Tourskin 06:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the OED says its been in use since 1958, I don't have a problem using difficult words, it just seemed awkward in the article and the link to wikitionary threw me. Mbisanz 07:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

We might not be able to argue that shambolic is unknown, but we can argue that it's less known than chaotic or disorderly—words that almost any English speaker will understand. There's no good reason to use British slang introduced in 1958 when plainer, more widely known alternatives are available. Teaching words is not the job of the encyclopedia. Punctured Bicycle 14:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on whether or not the word shambolic is appropriate. My message was more a polite reminder that the transwiki link is far more important as a method of education than a method of advertisement. Atropos 01:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the word and would've thought it fairly well-known, but it's probably not as internationally known as it is in the UK. If there is a direct replacement that is more readily understood we should always look at using that instead, but we should also be wary of repetitive wording (which is not a problem in this case, I don't think). violet/riga (t) 11:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a simple matter. It's true that as an encylopaedia we should aim to make our content accessible. However most people would probably agree we shouldn't aim to be the simple English wikipedia. While we probably would lose content if we go that far there are a lot of words which are perhaps less known then some alternatives but in many cases IMHO they should not be replaced even if it doesn't lead to repetition. While it's not an encylopaedia's job to teach words it's also not an encylopaedia's to assume all readers are stupid and incapable of looking up a word they don't know. Where to draw the line between being unnecessarily inaccesible and allowing less known but valid words ultimately comes down to personal opinions IMHO and I'm not convinced either way. Also, if the article has a clear WP:ENGVAR preference (as in this case), and one word is equally understood in this ENGVAR (not sure if this is the case here) then IMHO there is definitely no justification for changing it even if an alternative word is understood much better in other areas. In more neutral articles where we're going by first author's preference that's a different matter Nil Einne 15:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

good point —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.148.122.100 (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi what would cause me to get this message? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.164.221.196 (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are experiencing a bug, you can report it. ffm 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Why can't this image be used: Image:Clark2-Pilot.jpg? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's unfree. Regardless of how relevant, I can't remember the last time a fair use image was allowed on the Main Page. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There use to be an exemption on the main page, but after the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions#Removing exception in policy for "Main Page", and this edit by Jimbo, it has been removed from policy. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Mostly after the edit by Jimbo, anyway. The debate didn't really have any sort of consensus. 69.95.50.15 19:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I would just get rid of this image. It is not discussed in the short summary and seems completely out of place. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-27 16:02Z

I'd say get rid of it since it's not Lana Lang. hahaha --Howard the Duck 16:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of Michael Rosenbaum's picture! 92.80.16.56 16:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Normally I would object since I think ignoring our female and gay male is systemic bias but he's hardly a hunk so I guess there's no harm :-P Nil Einne 19:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Just thought it interesting that the day "Smallville" has its premiere, the featured article is for a "Smallville" episode. I'd find it extremely hard to believe if that's just a coincidence. 216.146.94.235 17:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. --Howard the Duck 17:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, this request Raul654 18:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Collapse kill 56 and 132 missing. Should be in main news http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20986875/ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298068,00.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7013711.stm http://www.novinky.cz/zahranicni/svet/zriceny-most-ve-vietnamu-zabil-nejmene-60-lidi_123421_7g3sd.html http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-09-26-voa38.cfm--85.71.211.66 20:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding comment added by 85.71.211.66 (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:ITN/C. Since you went through all the trouble of finding the news reports, you are undoubtedly the most qualified person on the wiki right now to start the article. You can create an account, required for creating pages, using the link in the top right of the screen. We look forward to your contribution, BanyanTree 22:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm so sick of people with this attitude, the one shown in BanyanTree's comment. You know what I'm talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.110.207 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 27 September 2007

What's wrong with BanyanTree's comment? --199.71.174.100 05:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking if you want an article the best thing to do is to create it yourself. If you do want to ask others for help in creating articles, there are various ways to request it. The Main Page talk page isn't the proper place. There is no harm in pointing either of these out to people. 85.71... has repeatedly posted off topic 'requests' to the main page and has previously been directed at more appropriate places so frankly BanyanTree's comment is extremely polite given this Nil Einne 06:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that he was polite but would just like to note that the anon's post, while not in the "correct place" could still prove beneficial and inspire people to create the article, giving them appropriate sources. As things stand on this page such things are not welcomed, but I think we should be more accepting of people posting things here - it gets quite frustrating seeing people moan that an error has not been reported in the correct place when a person may be making their first, inexperienced edit in a good faith attempt to help fix a problem. violet/riga (t) 12:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well as I've said, this is not the first time the anon has posted offtopic stuff to the main page talk page and said anon has been told multiple times there are better places to do this. More importantly, you see moaning, I see a helpful comment informing people about the best way to do things in the future. If someone replies to a comment with 'fuck you, you fucking idiot learn to fucking read before you post' then when have a major problem. If someone says 'The best way to do this is to go to XYZ' how is harmful to anyone? Especially when it's the first response... Isn't it better to politely tell people the best way to do things rather then to ignore them and hope they learn themselves (and if they don't get annoyed at them)? Speaking of error reports, personally if I see an error report I usually just move it (along with a mention of that) if it hasn't been dealt with yet. If it has and no one's already mentioned it, I just politely mention it might be best to report it to the error report in the future. I'm not saying this is what everyone should do, I'm a strong believer in lettign people deal with things in their own way to a degree but I don't see anything wrong with this approach and IMHO getting to worked up about which approach is better is usually more harmful. It's not as if we remove comments. Nil Einne 12:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

When someone comes here trying to help some people moan. Others might be nice and friendly (as in this case) but some people aren't particularly helpful. violet/riga (t) 21:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the news links should be on Portal:Current events, not here. I've moved the BBC link over there. If there isn't an article about this news story, this shouldn't go to ITN/C yet. --199.71.174.100 05:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Genghiskhanviet started the article Collapse of Can Tho Bridge of 2007 earlier today, and it's now featured on ITN. How nice. --199.71.174.100 23:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying BanyanTree wasn't helpful, but it's sounds like such an automatic repsonse. It's also how he/she makes it sound like this anon user is now obliged to start an article - instead of thanking the anon for the links which could be to some use to someone who does have the time to start an article. The comment was polite, but it was "forced" politeness - kind of like how people at supermarkets tell you to "have a nice day". It is also was a bit sarcastic, using phrases like "Since you went through all the trouble" and "you are undoubtedly the most qualified person". I'm sorry to pick on BanyanTree like this, but many other comments on talk pages are like this to new users, so it's just a bit of an example. 203.208.110.207 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

When I first read BanyanTree's response I didn't feel the politeness came across as forced. I especially didn't think the reply was sarcastic... just honest. I feel a lot of people who read this talk page don't necessarily assume good faith, which in itself is a problem (and that wasn't sarcasm). Fakelvis 12:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I came to this talk page wondering why the article about this news event, is totally uncited. But, now that I have found the list of citations above, I am going to take the initiative and copy them to the article... In general, I find that by using the pronoun "I" instead of "you", people rarely take offense to my comments. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 18:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Has anybody ever stopped to think that this encyclopedia could be getting too big? Its mind numbing knowing how huge it is and how many articles it will have in the future. Is there any maximum limit it could have? The Wild West guy 16:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, owing to technical limitations, the title of each article has to be under 256 characters (though ones of a similar length to A Dissertation on the American Justice System by People Who Have Never Been Inside a Courtroom, Let Alone Know Anything About the Law, but Have Seen Way Too Many Legal Thrillers or Stereophonic Musical Listenings That Have Been Origin in Moving Film "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan" start to display uncomfortably), there is a practical upper limit to the number of potential article titles for the English Wikipedia. I suspect we may run out of topics to describe before we hit that limit, though :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

And of course, that limit could be removed with a bit of work in the future, if it became necessary. The next practical limit would be something akin to The Library of Babel, with the maximum article length set at ~300kb (The only article currently over that limit is the monstrous List of Unicode characters WARNING: Clicking that link may cause your browser to crash.). GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol thats at AFD. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've come across larger stuff before especially unarchived talk pages. I think one was like 800k or something. It didn't cause any problems with my browsers altho on slow internet connections and mobile phones and the like I guess it may be problematic. Editing it was very annoying especially when you had an edit conflict or had to edit the whole page for some reason Nil Einne 17:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks to an edit by User:Violetriga clearing a goodly portion of the dross, the article's now down to a somewhat reasonable 104kb, meaning that every article in Wikipedia is now <300kb in length :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As long a Wikimedia continues to be supported by public and private contributions, the only real limit to the quantity of articles will be proportinal to actual harddrive space on the servers. Rsrblm1 17:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's focus on quality, instead of quantity, shall we ? --74.13.131.37 05:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Improving existing articles generally involves making them longer, better reference, etc, which still takes up more hard drive space... -Elmer Clark 09:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but as noted above, there is no limit to hard drive space potentially available as long as the Foundation has enough funds. However, lovely Mr Anon above is correct - let the number of articles steadily increase, but at the same time let's focus on improving the current articles as much as we can, whether this involves cutting out the crap or adding in material. To a thousand more years! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Vanderdecken, you are lovely, too. :-) --74.14.17.200 17:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

When improving Wikipedia's quality, don't forget to delete the junk. Anyways, size doesn't matter in this case. Quality is more important. --74.14.17.200 16:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol, a look at http://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Special:Longpages Shows that, apparently the page updated just as 2 pages were vandalized, showing them to be 800,000+ long. 76.84.12.144 23:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That's weird. Special:Longpages doesn't seem to work properly. APL 01:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with it? Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 01:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I missunderstand how its supposed to work, but why is it listing stubs and other short articles and listing numbers like 288,466 bytes next to them? 24.2.176.64 01:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's gone now, but yesterday, someone vandalized a few pages (one was the E-mail pages. don't remember the others) and increased there size by a few hundred thousend bytes. Before they were reverted, about a minute later, the Long pages page updated itself, and so it read pages like the E-mail page as being really huge. Tesfan 17:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, wasn't the E-mail page =/ 76.84.12.144 03:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it was E-mail_address. 69.95.50.15 19:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's say someone wants to make an article on something called Main Page. How can they make that article if there is already a page titled "Main Page" -- the main page. If this page is moved to the Wikipedia namespace, then somebody can create an article on Main Page if they want to. Someone the Person 16:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What is this "main page?" Is it a band? A book? Something else? Then the page would be named Main_Page_(band) or Main_Page_(book) or the like. We'd probably need some sort of disamb at the top of this main page if such a thing happened, though... which might mar the way it looks... that is an excellent question, that I don't know the answer to. Gscshoyru 16:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't heard of anything actually existing that is called "Main Page," but just in case... Someone the Person 16:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

We'd cross that bridge when we got to it. 17Drew 16:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before quite a number of times. Many people agree that having Main Page in the article space is a bad idea for many reasons including the one you mention. Many people have pointed out that crossing the bridge when we come to it is a bad idea because amongst other things it means that we will have to carry out the change much faster then we would like and we may not be able to have a simple redirect which we could do at the moment. Unfortunately (IMHO anyway) many other people disagree for a variety of reasons so there is no consensus either way. It has been a while since we've had a serious discussion (it's brought up every so often but usually by people who aren't aware of the previous discussions so usually people just recommend they check the archives and it ends there) so you're welcome to try and resurrect the discussion but you should familiarise yourself with the previous discussions in the archives first. The last major discussion occured some time in December last year I believe (it we definitely either late last year or early this year anyway): Nil Einne 18:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why is Main Page in the main namespace? The latest proposal was in February 2007. - BanyanTree 07:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Simple. We just put a dablink at the top. "This article is not actually an article but is in article space for reasons too complex to explain here at the top of the Main Page. For other uses of Main Page, see Main Page (disambiguation)." :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 01:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, and against what I intended to do, the link I just provided was deleted once before, in December, so Nil Einne is probably right with his dating of the last major discussion. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 01:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If there are any namespace diehards out there, now's your opportunity to write the perhaps-not-bestselling-but-nonetheless-notable book Main Page: A novel receiving reviews in several major newspapers and force the issue.--Pharos 02:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There probably is something out there called Main Page, but just you try searching for it on Google... Lots of chaff. Carcharoth 16:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There are several encyclopedic meanings for "main page", actually; Homepage is thae sense that we use it in, and it can also be used as a synonym for the Front Page of a newspaper, or the main body of the page as opposed to the footnotes. But these uses are probably not specific enough.--Pharos 17:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Aren't we lucky the Main Page wasn't called Front Page... I see we have a hatnote there pointing at our Front Page. Silly. Carcharoth 17:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, if it had actually been called Front Page, it would have been moved out of the article space years ago, and there would be no issue at all today.--Pharos 20:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have just noticed that on Wiktionary, the main page is titled Wiktionary:Main Page. This is probably because there would be a dictionary entry for "main page." Also, if we make the change, we could, instead of a redirect, make a page under the title "Main Page" that says, "The main page has been moved to the Wikipedia namespace," leave it there for long enough to get rid of most ot the confusion, and then delete it. I noticed that Wikipedia:Main Page redirects here. Someone the Person 22:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont think it redirects here, I think its a mirror of the page, because the URL remains on the Wikipedia name space. The problem with moving the page would be the many, many pages out there that link in, those would all have to be update, an article about mainpages would be one of the highest hitted ones on Wikipedia for no real reason, lol.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 16:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Just as an aside, Wikipedia:Main Page does indeed redirect to Main Page. (Link with redirect suppressed.) The URL's staying the same is how all redirects work.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

All good, my main point was the external links bit, I had a quick look at your main page and I'm totally the same with Avatar btw :)
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 16:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

the main page should indeed be in Wikipedia: namespace. The fact that it is not serves as an excellent reminder that we will always make exceptions to any policy if it strikes everybody as the common-sensical thing to do :) --dab (𒁳) 19:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Moved from WP:ERRORS

I notice that when I come to the home page that you have no search box up-top for words or articles - such as Find: ? It would be a real help if someone would introduce this to the Main page. Otherwise a person is at his wits end trying to find a topic on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.109.188 (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be because the searchbox is on the left of any page, and this really isnt that place for this kind of query
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 21:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

For better places see Wikipedia:Questions, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. Art LaPella 01:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What are the consequences if someone deliberatly adds bad information to a page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.227.207 (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If a person repeatedly adds bad information to a page they may be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Blocking policy for some more information. Raven4x4x 11:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Not only bad information, but deliberate attempts to degrade the encyclopedia, Vandalism is not tolerated, and neither is spamming or harassment, among other things. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

But note you are only blocked from editing. You can still view the articles on the site. You just can't touch them. I imagine vandalism would almost come to a halt if they were punished by being blocked from the site altogether. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 11:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a slightly controversial fact as basically both the City & South London Railway and the Tower Subway are seen as the world's first. Simply south 12:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify - first what? What DYK are you specifically referring to? And in the future please add any potential error reports to the top where it says "Errors in Todays Did you know" Thanks Tourskin 23:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the DYK I think you are referring to (1890 subway?) and the article of the DYK clearly says that the tube was built after Tower Subway. The DYK does not say the first tube but the first major tube. So there is nothing controversial unless you contest how "major" it was. Tourskin 23:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

So we finally decided to use non-free images on the Main Page. The FA write up on the Main Page does look good with the Image:Ernest Emerson.jpg. -- Jreferee t/c 01:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The image description page is kinda of confusing with {{GFDL}}, {{ConfirmationImageOTRS}} and {{Non-free fair use rationale}} all on there. Someone who has access to the OTRS system and can look up OTRS number 2007010410021786 would be appreciated. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My best guess is that the image was orginally used under fair use, but was subsequently released and confirmed under GFDL, and the rationale template just got left on there. Hard to be totally sure, though.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have verified that that ticket does in fact license that image under the GFDL. – ABCD✉ 11:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that if this has not been a free image, I don't think there is much support for it to be allowed. While there have been calls for fair use images on the main page, most of these have concentrated on cases when a free image is unlikely or not possible and said image is allowed in the article. However fair use images to simply show what a living person looks like, particularly when said person is from an English speaking developed country like the US, and who regularly makes public apperances, is a completely different matter and is generally not allowed on articles either Nil Einne 13:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the rationale template. --- RockMFR 03:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This is probably quite random, but why is the main page layout (and, to some extent, the Wikipedia UI) not standardized across languages? 143.195.202.18

Well, each language sort of does its own thing. The Wikimedia Foundation oversees the projects, but it doesn't demand a certain layout, and I imagine trying to gather a consensus among the different projects would be pretty hard. 17Drew 05:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Two people I greatly admire had a very good day. Viswanathan Anand won the world chess championship and Haile Gebrselassie set a new world record in the marathon. I found out about Anand's achievement through Wikipedia but I found out about Haile's record elsewhere. I'd like to nominate the marathon record for the news section but I'm not sure where the best place to do that is. Thanks! Synesthetic 05:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates, which has the shortcut WP:ITN/C. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 05:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks like there's a whole discussion going on on over there about this. Synesthetic 06:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, if this has been raised some where in the 101 archives, but why are other Wikipedias listed on the front page as >250K, >75K, >50K, >25K entries? Meanwhile the listing by size is by order of magnitude, base 10. Which means it breaks at 100K which the front page list ignores. I know the numbers are abitrary, but I would have expected something like >500K, >250K, >100K, >50K, >25K, giving a roughly gemetrical progression with increments of x2, or x2.5.--Peter cohen 19:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a tad early to create a 500K+ section, but I've no objection to shifting the 75K to 100K. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I also have no objection to shifting the 75K limit to 100K. feydey 21:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The limits have been chosen such that there are approximately the same number of items in each section of the list. Your best bet is to contribute 25,000 articles to each of the wikis in the 75K section, thereby allowing us to change the limit without affecting the layout – – Gurch 22:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That's nice, but they won't always be so evenly distributed. As they grow, we will either have to adapt by changing the limits or we'll have some lopsided listings. I like the geometrical progression idea. So what if it's a little uneven? Antimatter--talk-- 01:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes that's been done before, there's nothing wrong with it. It's not just a matter of being a little uneven. If we were to change 75k back to 100k (I believe it was 100k for a while but this was changed because people realised it look bad) we would have 5 items in 100k and 9 (existing) + 6 (under 100k) = 15 items in 50k. Edit: here's what it used to look like before 100k was changed to 75k. 2 It would still look fairly similar Nil Einne 02:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind lop-sided listings. So what if only two languages will be in the 500K plus category? 2m+ compared with 250K+ makes it look as if the English wiki is an order of magnitude bigger than the others. Some in the 500+ and we're only three or four times bigger than our nearest rival. I think it's good for Wikipedia to say that the German and French wikis aren't that far behind the English. And 75K is such a strange number, it looks as if none of those wikis are bigger than 100K when six are.

BTW, it's interesting to look at the list from 2.5 months ago and see that 7 wikis (Swedish, Lithuanian, Slovenian, Serb, Persian, Newar and Nynorsk) have gone up a size category in that time and one (Volapuk) has gone up two. --Peter cohen 15:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't see why anyone should assume we have no wiki's bigger then 100k but smaller then 250k any more then they should assume we have no wiki's bigger then 150k but smaller then 250k or with 63,791 articles or whatever. It seems fairly clear to me that any wiki's in the 50k cat have less then 75k articles but 50k or more. Whether that's 74999 or 50000 is indeterminate and the cat doesn't imply either way. Similarly any wiki in the 75k cat has between 75000 and 249999 articles. In particular, I don't think there will be much support for a 500k cat since one of the whole reasons we have a 25k minimum is to keep the list shortish. By adding another cat, you're going to make it unnecessarily longer. Nil Einne 16:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Should be discussed at Template:Wikipedialang. --Quiddity 19:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Did Wikipedia change the font or is something wrong with my computer? Why the change? 65.2.68.60 22:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has not changed its font. You may have changed the default font size for your browser, which will affect font size on Wikipedia. —Verrai 22:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see also #Still all in Arial Black with IE7! above. --PFHLai 03:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried it on AOL explorer and changed my default font on IE and the font is still weird. Arigont 19:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears others have had this problem before Talk:Main Page/Archive 107. Upgrading to IE7 may help. If you don't want to, you can try asking on WP:VPT to see if there's a way to fix this Nil Einne 12:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Many people mistakenly believe the ship shown exploding is USS Arizona, whose destruction during the attack accounted for over half of the men killed in action during the battle.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I was always under the impression that a battle was a fight between two sides.3

Whereas the event in Pearl Harbor is commonly referred to as the Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor. Why? Because Uncle Sam took it in the bum without response.

In fact, the clause "during the battle" strikes me as superfluous given that the reader is made aware that this was "during the attack" earlier in the sentence. So get it fixed. --220.86.152.103 03:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken:

• A battle, as you yourself described it is a fight between two sides, more or less. This was a fight, a fight which was one-sided due to the surprise achieved by the Japanese. Whether or not it was one-sided does not make it any less of a battle - you can call it an ambush, treachery etc but its still a battle.

• The United States managed to shoot 29 planes so it was not totally without loss for the Japanese. If you had read the article, you would know that it was one of the reasons why a third wave was avoided by the Imperial forces of Japan.

Next time please report possible errors at the top where it says "Errors in picture of the Day/Today's Featured Picture" Tourskin 05:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So, if I walk up to a stranger on the street an beat him about the head, you call that a battle? I'd call that an attack. That's why it is called the Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor. --220.86.152.103 11:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet that's not what happened - taking on your poor analogy, the stranger retaliated and broke your arm --> battle. 172.202.161.119 11:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps before arguing over word choice, you should consider style. The word "attack" is used twice in the blurb, so using it a third time (and second in the last sentence) would sound redundant. Sasha Callahan 15:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Two people constitute a battle? Don't you need at least a small army or naval fleet for that? --199.71.174.100

Battle fits fine. They did shoot back at the attackers. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Funny you should give such a poor analogy because battle comes from the word batuere which means ‘to strike, beat’. So yes if you were to beat someone on the street, that would be a battle. Or more like a bateure. Tourskin 22:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

...ok buddy. Anyway, I agree with this post - Pearl Harbor isn't generally referred to as a battle. The stylistic complaints are valid too. -Elmer Clark 09:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It may not be referred to as a battle but then again how many people call the 1st Iraq War Operation Desertstorm? Few if any, theyc all it the Gulf War. You see theres a difference between what something is (a battle) and what something is called. Any military or aggressive attack in war is a battle, no matter how small or how one-sided or how sneaky. Full-stop. Tourskin 20:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

^{citation needed} 87.244.73.107 21:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Dude a lot of people around here call it Desertstorm...ownt nublet.

Citation? Oh You want citation? How bout every single recorded encounter in history? Thats called a battle? Hmm? Tourskin 06:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be taking this a little personally Fourskin. I suggest you chill out. And for what it's worth, it wasn't a battle. It was an attack. --JohnO 09:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Great Freudian slip - or were you calling him a dick? Either way - kudos.64.37.159.196 00:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh gees. The only dicks around here are people who leave such immature nonesense. If you check out Pacific Ocean theater of World War II#Major campaigns and battles, it has Pearl Harbour beneath. Hmmm, looks like it was a battle. Tourskin 00:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr mystery guest - yes, user 64.37.159.196. We at wikipedia don't normally call each other dicks. And we try not too. So understand that there is no room here for immature cuss matches. Tourskin 02:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Not meaning to patronize you, but it's quite clear that you are not a native speaker; English is obviously not your first language. So trust me on this, you are wrong. --JohnO 08:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It was a joke guys - lighten up. And still - it wasn't me who first wrote "Fourskin", so get off of my case - all I was doing was making a comical observation.

Also - "Mr mystery guest"? - give me a break, I can't possibly be the first WP user to feel lazy and not log in properly just to leave a Talk comment.

Finally, "we at Wikipedia"? Get off of your high horse, I have just as much cause to speak for WP as you do. I am no stranger here and I have seen much more vulgar, much less civil behavior displayed at WP.Drewson99 15:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fourskin? Aha! It all becomes clear. I must have made a typo. I didn't realize. So sorry. Tourskin, I may not agree with your opinion and I think your supercilious attitude is a disgraceful advertisement for the Wikipedia project, but had I wished to pun on your name, I would have gone with Foreskin. Why? Because I can spell and I know the meaning of words. Thanks. --JohnO 03:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

My high horse? I was addressing the person who hadn't signed in - and I didn't notice that it was you at the time. You knew this. Nice contradiction to yourself. Now my advice to you, as an over-reacting and high-horsed wikipedian is that you stop the personal attacks. Some users here can be on wikipeda for a long time but they still can't get th hang of the game, just as your talk page does with its comments about incivility. No English is not my first language. Aramaic is. Do you know what that is? Can you speak more than one language? I wouldn't believe that you would answer yes to these questions. I don't give damn if my first language is not English. It means that I, unlike native users, have an excuse to mispell once in a while. Tourskin 03:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think his point is that someone who speaks English as a second language shouldn't act like they're intimately familiar with its workings. higasi

You argue it should be referred to as a "battle", not because of the actual definition, but because it's commonly referred to as a battle. Words shouldn't be used by their popular meaning, especially not in an encyclopedia. 87.244.73.107 18:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the above in which I used the definition of Battle. You are mistaken - why are you making stuff up? I never argued that battle was the more commonly used word. In fact the word "Attack" is more commonly used (as the first user argued) and the word Battle, for a battle did take place indeed, is the correct wording that should be used since it fits with the convention of all other engagements in World War 2. Like the Battle of Taranto - which was Britains' pearl harbour to Italy. Tourskin 18:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing Drewson99 with me. But I can guess which comments are aimed at me, so allow me to respond.

1. I have made no personal attacks on you.
2. I keep the "warning" from P.B.Pilhet on my talk page because it reminds me of just how many wankers are patrolling these pages as self-elected policemen.
3. I do know what Aramaic is.
4. I speak three languages. (One Romance, one West Germanic and one possibly Altaic.)
5. I don't care what you believe.
6. The poor syntax of your sentences and your atrocious spelling (mispell!! sic) leads me to question your expertise on the meaning of words such as attack and battle.
7. But most importantly, while the original poster (User:220.86.152.103) was being a little provocative with the phrase Uncle Sam took it in the bum, his point that "the clause "during the battle" is superfluous given that the reader is made aware that this was "during the attack" earlier in the sentence" is wholly valid. What is wrong with the reading "Many people mistakenly believe the ship shown exploding is USS Arizona, whose destruction during the attack accounted for over half of the men killed in action."?

• The final phrase is superfluous. (That means extra, if you didn't know...)

--JohnO 10:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I never stated my beliefs so i dont know what u r on about. I think that this argument is "superfluous". Tourskin 04:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, let me see...

"I wouldn't believe that you would answer yes to these questions."

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Talk:Main_Page/Archive_110
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.

---