Talk:Main Page/Archive 122

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.

Archive 115

←

Archive 120

Archive 121

Archive 122

Archive 123

Archive 124

Archive 125

Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive.

001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207

The Today's featured picture section is a little narrower than the rest of the sections. Who can fix this please? ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 20:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me (latest Firefox, 17" LCD, 1280×1024). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, too. Could you perhaps show us what your alternative is in the userspace, or something? J Milburn (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe he/she's referring to this Image:En.wikipedia.org.Main Page.showing FP issue.2008.04.08.png‎ which occurs in IE7 (but not FireFox 2). To be honest, I don't think I would have noticed this before, so I have no idea how long it's been like that. Nil Einne (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Copied to Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely the template or some right and left margins set on it, not the particular daily picture itself. I've tested it with IE 6 and 7 and it still shows the problem in both. And, yes, I mean the issue pictured in the link provided by Nil Einne. The featured picture section is narrower than the rest of the content. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 13:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I found what the problem is. It can be viewed from different angles. It's either that the featured picture section is narrower, or that the featured articles, did you know, news, and on this day are too wide. I would say the latter. This is the code that is currently being used:

-------------------------Today's featured article, Did you know------------------------>
{|style="border-spacing:8px; margin:0px -8px;"
|class="MainPageBG" style="width:55%; border:1px solid #cef2e0; background:#f5fffa; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"|
{|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5fffa;"
...

Notice the

{|style="border-spacing:8px; margin:0px -8px;"

instead of

{|style="border-spacing:8px; margin:0px 0px;"

That makes the upper section wider. You could either edit it to be 0px, which I suggest, or changing the featured picture's section to be -8px instead of 0px. The last option would make the featured content to be wider (4px to each side) than the rest of the content. The result can be viewed in my Main Page sandbox.

There you have it. The dirty work is done. Someone please fix it? ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 13:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, I think you need to test that more since it's now screwed up in FireFox 2 (as I mentioned, it's normally fine in FireFox). I don't think this solution would be acceptable, especially since I will have to say your version in FireFox looks worse then the current version in IE. Either you'd have to make it work in FireFox and IE or do something so IE does uses one version and FireFox the other (if this is possible). Nil Einne (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

N.B. It appears the problem originates from the fact that FireFox has white space between the two columns whereas IE does not Nil Einne (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2) Your fix causes the reverse issue in Firefox 2.0.0.13. [1] APL (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I nailed it for both Firefox and IE. Please check it out and let me know. If you find it good enough please fix the Main Page! ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 20:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I also made a version for tomorrow's page available here. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 20:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Works here on firefox 2.0.0.13 APL (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Implemented on Main Page now. Perhaps you'd also like to tackle the problem of the right edge not going all the way to the right margin when the caption is too short (as is the case with today's FP)? howcheng {chat} 21:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that I'm home I'm able to check more browsers. I noticed the spacing between the green section was narrower than the space between the green and purple sections. I made better versions for the Main Page - here and Main Page/Tomorrow - here. I guess today's doesn't matter too much anymore, but tomorrow's does. Admins please update as desired. The right caption problem must be addressed in the templates. I'll try to see what I can do. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 22:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the good work. BTW, it sounds like your still not aware, today's code and tomorrows code does matter since it's always the same code. We don't create new main pages every day, the server simply chooses what's shown automatically based on the day. The only thing we do have is seperate daily templates for certain things like TFA Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 11, 2008 but these don't use much code. Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I realize they are templates with transclusions of content that is updated somewhere else. Tomorrow's page has (everything)+1day though. So it's not exactly the same code. But the templates definitely are. I just made the two pages (with their respective transclusion variables) so that it is easier for the admins to just copy and past the code in the corresponding pages. If you go check the pages I made, you will note that they are automatically updated with today's and tomorrow's content too. I just wanted to straighten the templates out for as many different browsers as possible. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 13:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was that the same code is used every day. It sounded to me like you were still under the impression we re-code the page every day (since you said 'I guess today's doesn't matter too much anymore'), which we don't so I just wanted to clear that up, but perhaps I was mistaken... BTW, if you're going to continue to work on improvements, you may also want to remember Wikipedia:Main Page/Yesterday. While I'm sure it'll be easy for most admins to transfer your code to the yesterday version, it'll probably be easier if you just give the code for all Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I said "I guess today's doesn't matter too much anymore" because they had already fixed the code somewhat and didn't look too bad compared to the "yesterday" page. Not because the day was almost over. I've seen different main page code somewhere else (some kind of queue) from which some editors [annoyingly] copy and paste into the Main Page code. It seems someone already updated the yesterday template. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 23:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In the first item, the sentence reads, "...a main shopping street Cyprus' divided capital of Nicosia."

In any dictionary you care to reference, whether it's the O.E.D. or Webster's, the rule dealing with the formation of the possessive in English states "add an apostrophe and the letter 's' to singular nouns and names". A few exceptions are commonly made for Biblical and mythological names (Jesus' or Zeus'), but the vast majority of words in English should be handled accordingly. This rule reflects the way the genitive case in English changed between the time of Chaucer and Shakespeare (Chaucer's 'my lordes warre' became 'my lord's war'), and the way most people pronounce the possessive even today.

I realise that a so-called 'convention' has crept into the copy-editing protocols of many publications that eliminates the final 's' for the possessive of singular nouns ending in 's'. This lunacy has infected even such august rags as Time Magazine and The Wall Street Journal. To me, the lone apostrophe just doesn't 'read' correctly, because it doesn't reflect how one actually says the word in question!

All I can say is: there's no justification for the perpetuation of ignorance, whatever the source. If all the periodicals in the English-speaking world were to adopt this bogus practice (and I'm happy to say, not all of them have), it still doesn't make it right. Cbrodersen (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wanna have something changed? See #Main Page error reports above. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! Spot on! Darn the torpedos and full steam ahead!!! I for one agree that this linguistically cognitive crap consists of nothing but communication conundrums and should be corrected. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"Linguistically cognitive crap consist[ing] of nothing but communication conundrums" that should be "corrected"--unbridled alliteration at its finest! Love it!! Cbrodersen (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Cbroderson and 68.143.88.2, my new heroes! May the 's always be used! I already requested a change, but someone ignorant in punctuation said either way is acceptable. Reywas92^Talk 19:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If the manual of style says it's okay then it's okay. Either reach consensus to change the manual of style (which should take place there not here), or accept that it is okay. We are not going to fix an 'error' when our own manual of style says it's not an error. The MOS is there for a reason and that reason isn't so it can be arbirarily ignored Nil Einne (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you're correct--this talk page is not the place to make the correction. But the MOS is flat-out wrong, and I believe the history of English grammar (and the dictionaries) are the irrefutable authorities on the matter. It should be noted that Wikipedia contains many far more serious errors than this waiting to be fixed. Most people don't give a rat's ass about grammar, and when confronted with their mistake, will defend their error to the death, or accuse the person who pointed out the mistake of being an 'anal-retentive pedant'. Cbrodersen (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have no personal opinion on this 'error' except to note the MOS doesn't agree with you it is an error. If you were to try to change the MOS, I probably wouldn't be involved in that. As you have already acknowledged, this is not the place to change the MOS and if the MOS is flat out wrong, then it has to be changed. Adhoc changing 'errors' resulting from a flawed MOS is clearly not the way to go and having long arguments on irrelevant places which will achieve nothing, whenever this comes up, is also pointless. Since you seem to be a bit of an expert on this matter, I don't personally get why you don't just try to reach consensus to change the MOS. If you do, then it will be simple to fix this error in the future and ultimately this error will be removed from the whole of wikipedia over time. If you try but fail, then you just have to accept that despite your opinion, there is no consensus for your views of English grammar in this particular matter. Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"This rule reflects the way the genitive case in English changed between the time of Chaucer and Shakespeare (Chaucer's 'my lordes warre' became 'my lord's war')"... "If [everyone] were to adopt this bogus practice... it still doesn't make it right."

So which one is it? English is allowed to change or it isn't? Maybe it should be "Cypruses". ;) Cigarette (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You're basically talking through your hat. Dictionaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster's are the authorities governing grammar and usage in English (despite what the MOS may say). Currently, the primary rule for the formation of the possessive in both these reference works is as I have stated above--there are no 'changes' underfoot that I am aware of, unless one feels that the preponderance of errors made by illiterate, uneducated users of English on the Internet and elsewhere is justification for making a 'change'.

I, for one, feel that if these grammatical dunces can't get with the program, then they should just 'get out of the way'. There are a lot more pressing problems in the world to solve, and I've already expended more energy on this subject than I care to.Cbrodersen (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You are arguing, in essence, for prescription over description, and toward the proposition that certain long-standing grammatical rules, at least as codified by two chosen (although prominent) reference works, are immutable. One may very reasonably so argue—I, in fact, was once exceedingly sympathetic to the argument you advance—but it is the consensus of the community that our MoS properly reflects what the community, in their considered judgment, understand to be "proper English", and one, even if he/she is unquestionably correct, does well to quibble with that understanding at WT:MOS (or perhaps WP:RD/L) and not at an insular page. Joe (I can has barnstar?) 22:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather then accusing people of being 'grammatical dunces' who can't 'get with the program' and giving long off-topic arguments here, I suggest again you take it to the MOS. So far, from what I can tell, no one has defended the way the MOS is written in this particular matter, simply pointed out that it is the way it is written, so you are basically arguing with no one. If you had diverted your energy wasted here to actually trying to change the MOS, for all we know it might have been changed by now. Or perhaps not... At least you would have achieved more then going on a long off-topic rant about an issue no one has tried to debate with you Nil Einne (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If you see here - http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50010512?query_type=word&queryword=apostrophe&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=2&search_id=SHad-jOMw2B-17911&hilite=50010512 (you need a subscription, however the contents of the web page should be available in any full OED under the second sense of apostrophe), you will see that Moses' uses only an apostrophe. It is widely accepted that Greco-Roman names of people and places of historical notability ending in 's' use a single hanging apostrophe: Socrates', Jesus', Cyprus', Zeus'. I really take exception to the fact that you've hidden behind the OED to make yourself look all-knowing, when in fact you are wrong. Joy.discovery.invention (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe this punctuation issue can drag on for so long. The blurb on ITN now says "...Nicosia, the divided capital of Cyprus", hopefully avoiding the punctuation issue completely. I hope everyone is happy and can get back to writing encyclopedic articles (and more DYK candidates to nominate....) --PFHLai (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should all check the OED more often on other topics, too, such as the pronunciation guide for "aluminium", and you'll see how wrong Americans have been saying it all these years..... With respect to the usage of the 's termination, may I point out that it is a general rule, and, as such, is affected by a number of exceptions. Again, if you check either OED or Collins Dictionary in their entirety, maybe you'll get to see that, in fact, nouns ended in s only need to have an apostrophe added in order to denote posession, and only in the case of persons' names can an "s" be, optionally, added after the punctuation sign. So, enough of gratuitously insulting the rest of us, thank you very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.37.39.161 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We respect many local variations of English in English Wikipedia. The use of American English is okay here. --74.13.130.186 (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• So it's okay for language to evolve as long as it's not happening right before our eyes? The changes in the genitive case between Middle English and Modern is okay, but Modern English has to remain static? Where is that written? -- Qaddosh|^talk|contribs 22:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Written? Actually, the development of printing stabilized things. Dictionaries and grammar textbooks are cheap. Read them. ... Mind you, languages are still changing before our eyes. Only stable "intermediates" should be used, or too many new things that don't last will get people confused. --74.14.16.227 (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Printed dictionaries are far from cheap. If I wanted to buy an English dictionary (a full one, not some pocket sized) I'd pay between 600 CZK and 1100 CZK. That's about the price of two or three hard cover novels.
Grammar textbook of my native language could be at an affordable price (some 300 CZK), but an English one will be double of that.
That of course doesn't mean that English dictionaries and grammar textbooks are unavailable-they can be borrowed from libraries or read on-line. Puchiko (Talk-email) 10:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we ever have featured sounds or video? I know this isn't Commons, but isn't it a bit biased just to have pictures? We could call it 'featured media' instead and have the occasional audio or even video file. We could also just have a featured audio/video as well as an image (perhaps only every few days or so).

The only objection I can imagine is that images can be viewed from the main page whereas audio cannot, and the OGG file is much less accessible to most people. I would counter that it would raise awareness about the non 2D-visual-only forms of media and get more people downloading the OGG patch. If enough people want to listen to our audio we might even see the major media players start making it a standard. Richard001 (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, media other than pictures is much harder to evaluate. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 01:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're interested in starting a Featured Media page, then be bold and start one. Once you get some good clips selected, then come back here and suggest that we add it to the front page. Lovelac7 02:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're looking forPortal:Featured_content. To avoid clutter, and to avoid detracting from articles, not all types of 'Featured' stuff makes the main page. (Though what should go on the main page and what shouldn't, has certainly been debated before.) APL (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) We do, in fact, have featured sounds, although at present only 14, of which 10 were featured in the three months following FS's implementation. We don't, if we elect not to use sounds that are featured at Commons only (or at least those featured at Commons that did not originate here), seem to have enough FS to permit any useful sort of rotation, but I don't know that there'd be any grand objection to the inclusion of a "featured sounds" section had we enough material with which to work (the proposal to add a "featured list" section encountered some significant opposition, but that, AFAIK, was due mainly to the section's probable intrusiveness). We generally do permit video files or animations to be featured as pictures, and a good many have appeared on the main page. To be sure, though, we might marry our featured videos/animations with our featured sounds to create "featured media", but the frequency of addition of "featured media" still might be insufficient to permit the daily changing of the item without repetition. In the absence of logistical issues, though, the idea would, IMHO, be a fine one, and one might do well to create a proposal if there is some support for the idea in the abstract. Joe 03:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't featured sounds have similar issues to featured lists, in particular it's almost impossible to summarise a featured sound? Unlike with a feature picture or video where you can put a thumbnail. Nil Einne (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. Personally I won't object to TFP being expanded to TFM covering all media. However in the absence of simple alternative I would suggest we keep the current system going largely by order of promotion without any special consideration given to sounds Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember several videos that have appeared as FPs. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 11:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Links to these portals to other featured content can also be added to the purple section in the main page with a link, something like: Other featured media..., or something. I'm pretty comfortable with having only featured pictures on the main page though. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 13:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

we've had least one featured video there. Just don't have many featured videos so it doesn't happen very often.Geni 13:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There are currently 7 featured videos in the queue for POTD. I might as well point to my recent Signpost piece (the FP and FS sections are the relevant bits). MER-C 12:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious the torch relay is going to be disrupted everywhere it goes so maybe the locations should be dropped altogether in the line. Simply south (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The item is soon going to disappear so it's somewhat moot. But you are mistaken, I suggest you check out the linked article. The torch was not disrupted much in (of course China), Kazakhstan, Turkey and Russia (some protests in both, most of who were arrested apparently but minimal disruption). There were protests, but minimal disruptions in Buenos Aeres and few protests or disruptions in Tanzania from what I can tell. That is why we don't mention any of these in the blurb. If you want to discuss this further, I suggest WT:ITN Nil Einne (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This just in: Silvio Berlusconi's won a third term in the Italian general elections. I'll be adding this snippet right now.--Alasdair 20:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be discussed at WP:ITN/C instead of here? --199.71.174.100 (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey is it just my computer but sometimes, in the search box, the line has a small horizontal bar extending to the right of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainboqer (talk • contribs) 23:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved to WP:VPT#misc. ffm 00:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently using Firefox 3 Beta 5 and it is almost impossible to click the Persian language link on the bottom of the main page in the Wikipedia languages section (More than 20,000 articles). The text uncontrollably shifts left and right with the rapid switching of the positions of Norsk and Persian. This is likely a problem with the right to left reading of Persian and some weird problem that I believe only applies to Firefox 3 Beta 5 since Internet Explorer and Firefox 2 allow clicking of Persian. 128.227.143.178 (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. I'm using 3.0pre from April 11th. nneonneo ^talk 16:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Works fine here to, and I'm on 3b5 too. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 19:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, it's a known problem of Firefox 3 Beta 5. Don't know why you don't have the problem. 128.227.104.129 (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We're not experiencing the issue because it says the issue is fixed on that page, are you sure your on Beta 5? ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 19:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely on Firefox 3 Beta 5 with last update dated April 2. Clicking on update Firefox indicates that I have there is no update. Also should note that the line above it with the Hebrew language is also impossible to click for me. Also I am not the only one running Beta 5 that has this prolem. 128.227.104.129 (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[2] and the bug discussion seem to suggest this bug wasn't fixed in the b5 release Nil Einne (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Does it strike anyone as a bit odd that on the anniversary of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the assassin--not Abe Lincoln--is pictured? I realise that most visitors to the Main Page will be more familiar with Lincoln's image than Boothe's, but this makes it look like Wikipedia supports the assassination. Webbbbbbber (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Support????? That's stretching quite a bit. --74.13.125.50 (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So putting Abe's picture would mean Wikipedia supports his death then? Sounds like nonsense to me. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 03:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, quite the opposite: Putting Boothe's picture supports Lincoln's death, if you want to view it in simple terms. See below for more discussion. Webbbbbbber (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Boothe was just as important to the event as Lincon, and Wikipedia isn't censored. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 03:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I'm surprised that there is so much objection to my comment. In general, I have found that on anniversaries of assassinations, more space (including, but not limited to, images) is given to the person assassinated. For example, on the anniversaries of the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK, their photos will be featured more prominently than those of Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, or James Earl Ray. This is not because of censorship, but because people prefer to remember the acts of the assassinated to those of the assassin, at least in general.

It's easy to imagine someone who, on the anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination prefers to gaze upon the image of James Earl Ray, than that of Martin Luther King, Jr.; but most publications I encountered featured MLK's images far more prominently than JER's. Again, I don't think most people would construe this as censorship, but you do have me wondering if Wikipedia featured James Earl Ray's photo, and not Martin Luther King's on April Fourth. Webbbbbbber (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does it matter? We're not "supporting" anyone here, just providing encyclopedic information. Both figures are very relevant to the event in question (as would be a picture of Ford's Theater or something), so it's perfectly appropriate to show either, regardless of which is "more often featured." -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems somewhat moot now that the picture has been removed. In any case, as Elmer Clark says, the picture is primarily intented for informational purposes, wikipedia is not a WP:memorial after all so who or what people prefer to gaze over or remember seems somewhat irrelevant. The most noteable days connected with rememberance of people who are assasinated tend to be their birthdays anyway Nil Einne (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Kind of ironic that Booth actually wanted to be remember as a Hero for the South: maybe this was a belated compromise? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The sheer cluelessness of this comment is unbelievable. I can't believe we actually changed the Main Page because someone said that a picture of John Wilkes Booth means that we support the assassination of Lincoln, and are likely to favor James Earl Ray over Martin Luther King Jr. Since when did we start pandering to commentators who call us racists? Webbbbbbber, why aren't you expressing your outrage that the replacement picture of Edward IV relating to the Wars of the Roses is a gross example of Wikipedia's obvious hatred for the House of Lancaster? Sheesh. - BanyanTree 09:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well Zz didn't give a reason for the change. Maybe it was to avoid further discussion on this (which unfortunately failed), maybe it was because the JWB image had been around for a while (at least 2 years) and was due for a change anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You have to link to sarcasm when you do that, Nil Einne, I've found, or else people get confused. You could have done this: maybe it was because the JWB image had been around for a while (at least 2 years) and was due for a change anyway. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 21:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I was more thinking of "we have a image that finally aligned next to the relevant entry". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping to conclusions, Zzyzx11. My outrage got the better of me. - BanyanTree 01:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't link to sarcasm, and I wouldn't have, because no sarcasm had been intended. The image had indeed been on the OTD entry for two years. I didn't look further so maybe it had been longer. I don't spend much time on OTD so I'm not sure but I would presume it's reasonable to turn over images every one in a while but on the other hand, it isn't essential either (since they only appear every year). And I genuinely had no idea why Zzy removed the image (as the above discussion shows, I was wrong) so I was genuinely uncertain as to why this image was changed. So my comment was intended to convey the fact that there are multiple reasons why this may have been changed, and it was pointless to jump to conclusions as to the reason without asking zzy first. Nil Einne (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there some one person that had the main influence on the design on this main page. I'm asking because I'm trying to find someone that wants to design a new homepage for en.wikiquote. --Steinninn 23:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

me.--24.109.218.172 (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The current design of the main page is based on the discussion archived on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I found something wrong in "In the news" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.135.244 (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Report that mistake to WP:ERRORS asap and suggest changes there, please. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Quote Steve Colbert: "together we can define a world we can all agree on." That's his comment on wikipedia. Yes, there can be error, and then we correct them 10,000 times. Lightblade (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to quote Steve Colbert. Our own Wikipedia:General disclaimer says "However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields." and other stuff to indicate that wikipedia does definitely contain errors. Nil Einne (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

is wikihow and wikipedia related? Also why cant i post messages in topics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winkytinky (talk • contribs) 04:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC) nvm i found out how to lol its different but are yall related? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winkytinky (talk • contribs) 04:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikihow and Wikipedia are not managed under the same companies. Wikihow is entirely seperate from Wikipedia. The only thing in common is that they both run wiki software. --Hdt83 ^Chat 07:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As the name implies, wikiHow is a wiki, just like Wikipedia. It also uses the same software: MediaWiki. But it is an individual site, not in any way affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. All projects by the Wikimedia Foundation can be found here. Cheers, Face 08:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the worst tram disasters in europe. http://www.novinky.cz/clanek/137461-v-ostrave-se-celne-stretly-tramvaje-tri-lide-zemreli.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The correct place to suggest news items would be WP:ITN/C. However, I don't think this is internationally significant (three dead people so far). Puchiko (Talk-email) 18:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Significance does not depend on the amount of dead people. A building bombing can be really significant internationally even if no one is killed. Terrorist activities against trains, trams, buses, and buildings are relatively significant. Relative to many things. This specific event might not be significant but by other reasons. Just to make clear there shouldn't be a link between significance and the amount of dead people. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 18:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

While an event can be significant with few deaths, the numbers of deaths is definitely a big component of significance in many cases. In any case, this discussion should take place in ITN/C as mentioned above and we need an article before it can even be considered Nil Einne (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

So why did we have the Heathrow crash thing on forever? Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 20:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Template talk:In the news#Czech Disaster (since no one else would) Nil Einne (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

85.71.211.66, you know the place to make suggestions for ITN is WP:ITN/C. So please stop posting news on this talkpage.[3] [4] [5] Thanks. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to put it here but i would like to ask someone to put the czech car pile up on main news. Thanks http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=czech+crash+pile+up&spell=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You should discuss this at WP:ITN/C instead Lympathy ^Talk 18:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As you have been told on several occasions. If you had done so 5 days ago, as you knew you should have, on the 12th, if would more then likely be there by now. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 19:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, there is absolutely no use bringing something either here or on ITN/C if no article exists. (There is also no point bringing something that happened 26+ days ago either). Of course, WP:ITN/C does address both these points Nil Einne (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If only a headline is to be posted, the place should be Portal: Current events, not ITN. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikinews is a better place for news like that. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It is so serious. 900 people need psychological help http://www.novinky.cz/clanek/137882-policie-odlozila-vyslech-zraneneho-ridice-ostravske-tramvaje.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What the article actually says is that "It is estimated that it could be up to 900 people". But the seriousness of the situation is not for us to judge. What's important is that the incident has an article, is recent and is suggested at WP:ITN/C. The is recent part is quite important, considering the fact that the trams crashed a week ago, I believe it no longer belongs at ITN. If an article is created though, it could stand a chance for DYK. Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

85.71.211.66, please do not edit comments not posted by you, as you did here, removing the word 'not' from my previous comment. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when did Wikipedia become a memorial service? What a pathetic and transparent choice of FA.Joy.discovery.invention (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Transparent: 2 a: free from pretense or deceit : frank b: easily detected or seen through : obvious c: readily understood

Sounds like a good thing to me. 128.227.104.129 (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You know I kinda think its useless when people ask theses questions "Why is Bulbasaur on the main page".."why is Halo on the main page". Because their featured articles! -- Coasttocoast (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just correcting your grammar there Coasttocoast, its "they are", so they're not their. Tourskin (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Bulbasaur was on the main page? Awesome! Go pokemon!Tourskin (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit curious as to why the shooter's name isn't mentioned. We do have an article about him. --Maxamegalon2000 03:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I believe that was a conscious decision, so as not to give more notability to the shooter. Ral315 (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh crud - I didn't realize that suggested writeup omitted his name. That was an oversight on my part. Raul654 (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've adjusted the main page blurb accordingly. Raul654 (talk) 04:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To Ral - With respect, it's not Wikipedia's business to pretend that someone is more obscure than in fact he is. Our notability criteria are essentially populist, and I don't see how they could be otherwise. Let's leave normative judgments about what people want to know to the critical social theorists. — Dan | talk 04:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said on Talk:Virginia Tech massacre, it is not our job to worry about people who want herostratian fame or to practice Damnatio memoriae. Raul654 (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not our job to not worry about them either. 19:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Also: National Instant Criminal Background Check System is overlinked. indopug (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 07:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

On the main Wikipedia page for the airline crash the number of fatalities has been updated to 42, apparently because two more bodies were discovered this morning. Shouldn't the Wikipedia Main Page In the News section be updated accordingly? Kr5t (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This should probably be reported at Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors#Errors in In the news. I'll copy it there for you, thanks for letting us know :) Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, see WP:ITN/C. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No. WP:ITN/C stands for Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Because the plane crash is already there, it is not a candidate, and therefore doesn't belong at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh right, sorry, just a suggestion. ^^; weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Alexa, WP is currently the 7th most visited website in the world. --Camptown (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hoorah! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks to me.--24.109.218.172 (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Today's featured article about Emma Goldman claims she and Alexander Birkman together planned to assassinate Henry Clay Frick. Can't find that allegation in the Goldman, Birkman or Frick articles. Is there a reference for this? 222.153.73.194 (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This should probably be moved to Talk:Emma Goldman, but according to the "Homestead plot" section of Goldman's article the reference appears to be Alice Wexler's Emma Goldman: An Intimate Life, pages 63–65. Nufy8 (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as an add: Put some more stuff about anarchy, but not just "anarchist assassins" The last articles have been about senseless BS, focused on western culture. Where's the great diversity of Wikipedia? Iulian28ti (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Bring Anarchy up to featured status. Bring Anarchism in China, Anarchism in Japan, Anarchism in India, Anarchism in Korea, Anarchism in Ukraine or Anarchism in Vietnam up to featured status. The point is, WP:Be bold! Instead of complaining about WP:Systemic bias, counter it! Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In the "on this day" section the following appears:

1943 – Nazi German troops entered the Warsaw Ghetto to round up the remaining Jews (pictured), sparking the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the first mass uprising in Poland against the Nazi occupation during the Holocaust.

But is this really the first mass uprising against the Nazis? What about the Zamość Uprising, which started in 1942? selfworm^Talk) 03:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The Warsaw Ghetto article currently reads, "the Warsaw Ghetto was the scene of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the first urban mass rebellion against the Nazi occupation of Europe." So maybe the blurb on the main page has to be worded differently to be more clearer. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not the name of the alliance, but the name of Berlusconi party. In the alliance there are Lega Nord and Movimento per l'Autonomia, too. Paolotacchi (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed that's a mistake: the victory was not of Berlusconi alone, but also of Lega Nord, which was decisive for his victory. --Checco (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Pls bring this up at #Main Page error reports near the top of this talkpage. --74.14.21.22 (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This was fixed a few hours ago. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 03:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me, oh Wikigods.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.19.13.168 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Because no-one's yet written much in the Battle of North Borneo article. Feel free to rectify this at your leisure. :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Wikipedia's articles are written by volunteers, and those write what they're interested in. But you can make the difference, just hit the "edit this page" button on the top of the page and contribute! Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to write the article. In any case, this isn't what the main page is here for discussing. ffm 16:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that length≠quality. The Kid's choice article is mostly a long list of nominees and winners, and the lead is terribly promotional and POV. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Jessica Alba was involved in the Kids' Choice Awards. She did not participate in the Battle of North Borneo. One need not inquire further into why the former topic merits broader (or, at least, more pictorial) coverage (see also WP:HOTTIE). Joe 00:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps we can encourage more celebrities to take part in military actions. I for one would be ecstatic if Paris Hilton were to take it upon herself to walk into an erupting conflict in Somalia or the like. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The Columbine Highschool massacre was today, and that's not worth on this day?? '''[[User:KC109|<span style="background:black;color:red">K</span>]][[User talk:KC109|<span style="background:black;color:red">C</span>]][[Special:Contributions/KC109|<span style="background:black;color:red">109</span>]]''' (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC).

Try again next year for the 10th anniversary of the Columbine High School massacre. The other 20th century events on the mainpage today are at the 30th and 40th anniversaries this year. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait, why does it have to be on the 10th anniversary and not the 9th? I've heard that birth/death dates of significant people are put on the main page on 100 year multiples, but nothing about other anniversaries. So Awesome (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There are 5 slots. And we have to save some for other centuries. The 30th and the 40th anniversaries would be preferred over the 9th, I guess. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ludlow massacre (94th anniversary this year) didn't make it, either. Maybe next year? --199.71.174.100 (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see anyone whining yet so I thought I would be the first. This is worse than the time Newtonmas was up on Dec 25 :/ So Awesome (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not for holidays specifically, it just happens to be on this day. And remember (if this is your point) that Wikipedia is not censored. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Soawesome talking about censorship. I think they're pointing out that this 'holiday' is little more than an excuse to smoke cannabis. However, having said that, I'll take any excuse I can get...once a year is enough for me though....Happy 4/20! Antimatter--talk-- 20:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the New Section tag in discussion pages new itself? Or have I never noticed it before. -24.149.198.53 (talk) 11:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's formerly known as the "+" sign beside "Edit this page." 119.95.17.214 (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It got changed and changed back a few months ago too, if I remember correctly. I like the + personally. In any case, this isn't the place- if this discussion is to be continued, I reccomend the village pump. J Milburn (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it happens that a discussion about this very issue is ongoing at VPP, viz. here. Joe 17:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"French physiologist Louis Pasteur (pictured) and physiologist Claude Bernard completed the first test on pasteurization." Surely it should be "French physiologists Louis Pasteur (pictured) and Claude Bernard completed the first test on pasteurization". the second "physiologist" is kind of unneeded. Ironholds (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that error out. You are likely to get a better response at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors instead, so I'll move it there for you :) Puchiko (Talk-email) 12:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for the report. In future, WP:ERRORS would be better, but no harm done. J Milburn (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

We have to know that the children are on line now and the computer is grooming the chilren.Some of the messages are just monkey talk..My pleasure to chat...Raven_123

What's the difference between Culture and culture ?

One has an uppercase beginning; the similarities: they both have nothing to do with the main page and should not be here. 79.66.118.148 (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be helpful if you link to or make a copy of what you're talking about. I don't see either on the main page at the moment Nil Einne (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like to see more bacterial cultures on the main page. Maybe some yeast culture also. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You can effect the content of the main page! Write an article about bacteria cultures, and nominate it for FA or DYK. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

All the news is set in present sense, this makes reading it confusing. To be gramatically correct it should be in past tense. Can someone please fix this up.

This is in accordance to the ITN guidelines, see Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates and Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Style Nil Einne (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if you want that changing, it would be best to bring it up there. J Milburn (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish to address this complain to those responsible with the daily featured article. I absolutely disagree with the display of this kind of materials on the main page. Keep in mind that censorship has nothing to do and does not harm liberty and democracy. Anybody shares my opinion? Planck (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Negative. crassic!^[talk] 23:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm amazed we had to wait so long for a complaint, to be honest. And, for the record, I don't agree with you, at all, and I doubt many here will. Wikipedia is not censored, no matter how much you believe censorship has to do with liberty or democracy. J Milburn (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much agree. I figured it would happen. crassic!^[talk] 00:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't agree with me.. at all?! Well I guess Wikipedia has some policies about censure but I didn't read them yet. I mean I am quite sure a big porn picture would not be allowed on the front page.. even if it illustrates the subject. Right? so how about dropping the at all and explain why you think Cannibal Holocaust is tolerable on the main page. I totally agree with any kind of materials within articles but the front page is immediately accessible by anybody and if you think Cannibal Holocaust is right for children then don't even bother to reply.Planck (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the main page (or any of wikipedia) is not intended to be accessed by children without parental supervision. I suggest you check out our Wikipedia:Content disclaimer if you are unsure about that. Also, I don't see any reason to presume a big porn picture wouldn't be allowed on the main page, if it was necessary to illustrate the subject and available under a free license. Since there are virtually no large porn pictures available under a free license, and since it is almost never necessary to use a big porn picture to illustrate any subject it seems a somewhat pointless discussion in any case... P.S. Having said all that, it looks like it's been decided Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg isn't going on the main page for now despite being a FP and being up for TFP last year. Nil Einne (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The concern wasn't that it was too risqué, but just that having a "cheesecakey" image as the POTD casts Wikipedia in a bad light. howcheng {chat} 04:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the main page didn't even feature an image for Cannibal Holocaust, so I hardly think the analogy to a pornographic image is valid. Nufy8 (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's probably worthwhile to keep in mind that in most forms of debate, the default option is the status quo - that is, the person who wants to effect a change is the one who needs to put forward the convincing case. (The whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.) As the status quo is "Cannibal Holocaust is on the main page", it is up to you to convince others that Cannibal Holocaust is an inappropriate article to feature on the main page, rather than it being others' responsibility to "... explain why [they] think [something] is tolerable on the main page." (And while I agree with you that there is an unwritten understanding about what is main page material, "think of the children" isn't part of the current version.) -- 128.104.112.104 (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures displaying nudity (and even child nudity) have featured on the main page before. Would you agree with not displaying material about the real Holocaust? I would say that that was far more disturbing and offensive than this film. J Milburn (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the article was very interesting, and provoked some discussion amongst me and a friend. It's something I never could have thought about looking up, which I'm guessing is the point of an article of the day. Like others said, a provocative image might be of concern, but not the printed word. MMetro (talk) 08:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I see each section of the main page like FA, FP, DYK, ITN have there individual archives. But is the whole of main page not archived? DYK is updated every 6 hours. So for each day we should have minimum 4 versions of the main page. Is this done? --gppande «talk» 13:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no archive of the main page as a whole. People often say "whate did the main page look like at [time] on [date]', but there is no way I know of of setting all the templates to show the whole page, short of manually recreating it by viewing the template page histories, and placing them in a 'main page' copied from the main page history. That said, I don't really see any point in archiving the whole main page. J Milburn (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As you pointed out - people remember the main page as of "date" and "time". This is true for all people - I guess. Because, when a thing is 'dynamic' people remember the 'snapshots' they want. I think, this alone justifies why main page as whole should be archived. --gppande «talk» 15:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, there is no reason that the main page as a whole should be archived. It would take a lot of work for little benefit, and the sections are archived individually. ffm 16:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with pande in some extend. In my opinion the history of every page should generate the look of templates as they were at that given time. So the problem would be in MediaWiki, not at en.wiki. This actually exists at www.archive.org --Steinninn 16:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think it's useful, make a bot that looks at the main page every 6 hours or so and transclude that somewhere, then recursively substs every template used on the subpages. Or go to Wikipedia:Bot requests and ask someone to make one for you, it shouldn't be too much effort. - Bobet 22:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't DYK fall under trivia? Trivia sections are disencouraged, aren't they? Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 14:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think about it, everything is trivia. The FA is an extended version on one of the DYK's hooks. It's how information that's presented makes it not trivia. If information about one subject is presented in a bulleted form under one section that makes it trivial. --Howard the Duck 14:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit of a stretch to call that "trivia." It's more like a miniature introduction, formatted to maximize interest.-Wafulz (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} In the section "Did you know..." under Sheenboro, Quebec there is a spacing error, "trading post onthe Ottawa River" - "onthe" is glueing together. --Rudolf Pohl (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is likely to get a better and quicker response at WP:ERRORS, I'll copy it there for you. Thanks for the report. Puchiko (Talk-email) 10:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Oh, sorry already there. My bad. Puchiko (Talk-email) 10:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if this has been brought up before, but having looked for info on TFA earlier, I thought it would be useful if Today's Featured Article?, Did You Know?, etc etc were hyperlinked to the various pages about these sections. Making it easier to get 'into' Wikipedia (rather than merely browsing articles) can't be a bad thing, can it? MickO'Bants (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing you mean wikilinked, as opposed to hyperlinked, but correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know. The sections already have archive links, and archives are clear in their presentation as collections of past articles in the sections. It might be confusing to some if we wikilink the actual section name to the Wikipedia namespace page about it, giving them the impression that a Wikipedia article exists about it. Leebo ^T/C 17:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A wikilink is a type of hyperlink - "A hyperlink is a reference or navigation element in a document to another section of the same document or to another document." -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but thanks for the clarification. Leebo ^T/C 18:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fellow editors. Two days ago, a discussion took place on WP:ERRORS about the punctuation of the top line of the Selected anniversaries section of the Main Page. It transpired during this discussion (see diff) that there is a general inconsistency with regards to the punctuation used in that line. On seeing one of the pages where several days' anniversaries can be viewed (more specifically, the page for April), it became perfectly clear that there is no standard, and that the usage of punctuation is completely haphazard and unregulated. Although the proper anniversaries are quite straight-forward, following the simple guidelines of the Anniversaries page and the Manual of Style, the top line (listing holidays and observances) is more complex. Either commas or semicolons are used as separators, and semicolons, full stops, or nothing at all can be found at the end of the line; one can find all of their combinations with relatively little effort. On the Main Page, it is unacceptable to still have such deficiencies, and even if this is not something obvious when one only sees an isolated version of the page, it becomes so when one starts comparing different versions thereof. For the sake of professionalism, clarity, and good style, I suggest adopting a specific style for the top line of the section.

Here follows my proposal, copied from the above linked to conversation in ERRORS (there's no reason to repeat myself if I still believe the same things, don't you think?):

First of all, I am more annoyed by the empty top lines, where there is a plain "April 5:". What is the colon for, if there are no festivals? If it is for the anniversaries, then there is a consistency problem, because when there are festivals, there is no colon for the anniversaries.

About the rest... Considering aesthetics alone, I should rather go with the guideline for captions: if there is no proper sentence, don't put a full stop. Full stops in festivals do seem a little redundant to me, and sometimes even unsightly, especially when there is just one festival (and the dot is almost lost next to the bold blue letters). For days without festivals, I'd leave the day without any punctuation at all. Generally speaking, I find no reason to show any connection (or separation) between the festivals and the anniversaries; they are distinct elements, both logically and visually.

Semicolons would remain as separators, but two or three festivals in the top line would still not make a complete sentence, so there would be no exceptions to the exclusion of full stops.

What is your opinion on this? Waltham, The Duke of 23:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is some sort of standard, or at least there was one for the past couple of years: The holidays and observances line should end with a period. If you compare all 366 templates on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/All, most of them follow this.

The reason that there was a hanging semi-colon on April 19 instead of a full stop was that it was accidentally hidden when the last holidays on the line was hidden.[6] As for the colon at the end of each date, even when there is no holidays or observances on some days, that practice has been followed since 2004 when it use to say "On April 19:", etc.[7] How about reverting to that?

Of course, I noticed there may be inconsistent formatting with the non-Gregorian Calender based holidays. Compare Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/March 2 with Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/March 20. What do you prefer? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, the style guidelines have been much refined since 2004; one will notice that there are hyphens in your second diff where today there are en dashes (a significant improvement). Consensus does change, and one should perhaps consider reviewing the practice based on the latest facts. Even if we disregard that unfortunate semicolon, the fact remains that many top lines have no punctuation mark in the end, which indicates an inconsistency; its presence means that the practice of using full stops is neither clear nor fully accepted, therefore there are grounds for a discussion to be held on the matter.

My arguments in favour of not using punctuation at the end are the following:

• The top line does not constitute a proper sentence, therefore it is neither particularly accurate and nor especially intuitive to use full stops. If you will look at the guideline on captions, you will see that full stops are discouraged when captions only comprise what is termed as "sentence fragments". This is what we have here: sentence fragments; in a way, there is already a precedent (and I am referring to a guideline which has been discussed extensively, and most regulars at MoS will recognise this—how much was the full stop in anniversaries discussed?).
• The full stop may look ugly, especially if the sentence fragment is very short and/or exclusively consists of a bolded phrase, which will make the full stop look strangely small; for an example, see April 22.
• Much like the line which succeeds the anniversaries (listing the day in question and the previous and following one), the top line does not have any particular visual or logical connection with the anniversaries. As the top line gives the day and a sentence fragment constituting a brief list of holidays and observances, while below it there is a bulleted list of years and complete sentences describing historical events in a past tense, the logical connection is quite feeble; the visual differences are also perceptible.

As I have shown, not only are there valid arguments for a discussion to begin on the subject, but that the current practice has multiple flaws, which could be better addressed with a different formatting.

Now, to address the rest of the points:

• No, I do not believe we should revert to the "On April 19:" format, as it does not really fit either with the format in which the holidays are written (they would have to be replaced by proper sentences, which are much longer and more awkward) or with the format of the list below.
• Although I had not given it much thought until now, I should say that my preferences lie with the March 20 specimen, as I find it important that the different holidays and observances should be well-separated. In the March 2 example, it is somewhat hard to apply the year to the entire string, and confusion should be avoided. Waltham, The Duke of 00:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree entirely with the Duke's points. The main page needs an audit to ensure consistency in all respects, including punctuation and formatting. Hanging punctuation at the end of a stand-alone line is nowadays not standard (some would see it as sloppy). The cleaner the page looks to our visitors, the more authority it will carry. I encourage diligence in this respect. TONY (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Over the weekend, I am planning to run through the 366 templates to attach a documentation template on all of them, so I might as well do an audit. So let me verify the changes:

1. Remove colons on days where there is no holidays or observances
2. Remove all full stops at the end of the line
3. Make sure semicolons, and not commas, are separators
4. Format the line to resemble the March 20 example instead of the March 2 example

Thanks Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Right you are. Waiting until the weekend is a good thing too, because I have posted a message at the Village Pump asking for feedback. If nothing crops up until then, I think it is fair to proceed with the change. Waltham, The Duke of 00:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Just to be on the safe side, I have fixed Sunday's top line (which will be protected on that day); Saturday was fine already.

By the way, it might be better if a discussion did take place; that way we could write something at Selected anniversaries and people would thus not change the format of any anniversaries without knowing that there is a standard. Although... What is that documentation you were talking about? Waltham, The Duke of 08:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't created it yet. It would be similar to Template:In the news/doc. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Really quite a nice main page under [8]

DarkestMoonlight (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I don't like that. A lot of white space, no dyk?, no ITN, too many portals... I think that style favours Wikipedia's with fewer articles. J Milburn (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the established procedure (from what I have observed in the past - I don't know of any formal declarations of such) when Today's Featured Picture was a video was to make the image on the Main Page a still from the video, with appropriate links to the full video. With today's method of embedding the actual video, while I can get the video to play eventually, the first thing I see when I come to the Main Page is an empty white square - not all that interesting or inviting. -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's only when the FP is an animated GIF and we do that in order to decrease the load time of the Main Page. An OGG video is different and the MediaWiki already creates its own still from the first frame; the rest of the video is not loaded until someone actually tries to play it. howcheng {chat} 16:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a fair point though- a still from elsewhere in the video would be far more inviting. J Milburn (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, apparently you can do that. See [9] (done with only 28 min left for this guy on the Main Page, but good to know). howcheng {chat} 23:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point of linking the word 'rivet' on the front page. It bears no useful meaning in context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Racooon (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to? The word "rivet" doesn't seem to be on the main page anywhere, in text or as a link... -Elmer Clark (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Old DYK? Should've reported to WP:ERRORS instead. --74.14.16.229 (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This I guess [10] and he/she was right, there was little point linking to rivet Nil Einne (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

With recent events the "In the News" section should include Sean Bell and the acquital of the NYPD officers involved. Queerbubbles | ^{Leave me Some Love} 14:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please make suggestions on WP:ITN/C, not here. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Woops, thanky much for pointing me in the right direction. Guess I didnt do enough homework.  ;) Queerbubbles | ^{Leave me Some Love} 15:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is it Great Friday? This is the English wikipedia so shouldn't it be Good Friday as that is what English speakers call it. Great Friday is what it is called in other languages.

Have a nice one, what ever it's called. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.184.251 (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want that changed, please post your request at #Main Page error reports above. Thanks. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's referring to the Eastern calendar, so Great Friday is appropriate. The Western 'Good' Friday was a few weeks ago. -- Vary | Talk 18:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to include an RSS feed link on the main page so that user can customize the contents? 198.62.10.11 (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

While it is possible, it is not currently implemented in a way that we would want to put it on the main page. It is subject to breakage, and is not hosted by us. Please see Wikipedia:RSS#Externally_hosted_RSS_Feeds_of_Wikipedia_pages for details. ffm 12:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You can however make your own version of the main page as a user sub page (or if you think your version will be useful Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives). Then you can follow the guide on Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives to make it your default main page. Of course, you need to be a logged in user for this to work. This is semi discussed on the FAQ btw. If you are really desperate to have it tied to your browser, but are unable to trust people using your computer not to misuse any account you may create, you could try creating an account and asking an admin to block you. I've never heard of it before but I guess in theory it would work and provided you explain properly what you are doing and why, may be acceptable Nil Einne (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This should be removed from the main page because it is a clever rewrite of another page.[11] This is essentially a copyright violation, no matter how well disguised, and article should be a synthesis of various articles and their conclusions, not a half-baked rewrite of an entire web page. Maybe I'm wrong and the other web page is copied from Wikipedia. I don't know. However, this should be immediately removed from the main page. I would do it myself, put apparently anyone can't edit the main page. --Blechnic (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know is where this should go. --74.13.127.63 (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The final result is nearly announced on London Elects and I believe placing the winner on the Main Page section's In the news would be okay. xeryus (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Heads of government, yes, leaders of cities, no. Corvus cornix_talk 22:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, saw it also on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page/Candidates. xeryus (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Despite having followed the story, I don't think it's worthy of ITN. J Milburn (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it was the biggest story in the UK today (3rd May) and the biggest political event here since the last general election. Non-UK readers may not appreciate that in the UK it is a bit more signifcant than just a municipal election. From the UK point of view ignoring it in ITN is rather like ignoring an Elephant in the room.(Goldmanuk (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

Yes but ITN is for internationally important events, city heads only counts as nationally important. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 07:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

We had the governor of New York last month!...... Dendodge.Talk^Help 19:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If I'd noticed that I might have objected, having said that I usually let stuff like that slide because I can't be bothered complaining, so probably not. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 23:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that was because he was the first black governor of New York, and the first blind governor of New York (second country wide). It was also an effect of the Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well that just demonstrates my point that some "local" elections have implications that are newsworthy on a national and international level. That was exactly the case with Boris Johnson's remarkable win. I think it was certainly at least as newsworthy in the Anglophone world as say the Nepalese assembly elections. (Goldmanuk (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

Not really, as Boris gets no international power or recognition from it. In fact, on an international level, he could have been argued to have more power in his old job. On another note- remarkable? Come on, everyone saw it coming. J Milburn (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In the section where it says "Today's featured article" why not put featured lists in there too? If you don't want to because theres not enough content in a list, why not put an article like List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season since its not just a table. It looks like an article, yet it will never be on the front page? -- 70.134.94.54 (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As stated on WP:LOTD, a featured list of the day is currently in an experimental mode. It may be several months before such an item would be featured on the main page. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The news section is usually several days delayed or even bears odd news that are not "in the news" elsewhere. I love Wikipedia, but the news section is far from indicative of Wikipedia's quality. Wikipedia should decide how this section could be made more attractive for editors. 85.178.38.152 (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you are suggesting. If it is to list good, new article from wikipedia, you may be looking for Did You Know? If you have a news item you believe should be listed, please suggested it at the ITN candidates page. Thanks. Random89 07:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news site. If you are looking for up to the minute, check out a news site like [12] or [13]. ITN, despite the poor choice in name, is not about news. Therefore it is not surprising that things are usually only added after a few days. Finally the intention of ITN, as with all of the main page is to highlight quality articles for our readers. Editors are irrelevant when it comes to ITN Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news site - so why have a "In The News" section on the front page of a website that claims not to be a news site? Lugnuts (talk) 10:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Pls see Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In example, instead of putting news like the London election, Zimbabwe's election outcome or the Dalai Lama's envoys to the main page (as other Wikipedia language versions do!) the english Wikipedia has a train collision on its main page that happened one week ago. Of course, this is a noteworthy incident, but this doesn't match my expectations about this section, because "Wikipedia is not a news site". A bit of timeliness and especially a bit of international importance is good even for Wikipedia, since that will attract a group of users Wikipedia won't have otherwise: political interested people searching for important information on current occasions. 85.178.51.32 (talk) 05:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should cut ITN down (half?) and not keep old news there for too long. This may free up some MainPage space for "Biography of the Day". BOTD can be used for obituaries of famous people the day after their death and we can stop arguing about the ITN death criteria over and over and over and ..... --PFHLai (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it. The "In The News" section on the main page is broken. Whereas all of the other sections, like Featured Articles, get updated every day, ITN gets two or three new news items a week. As mentioned above, the same picture of Fernando Lugo has been on ITN since April 20, almost two weeks. In addition, deaths like Arthur C. Clarke don't make it to the main page, nor items of "local" interest like the London mayoral election. I think a lot of editors would support something more open and dynamic. If you would like to help me in this reform proposal, please see Wikipedia:In The News 2.0. Thanks. Lovelac7 23:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be updated more frequently. Alternatively, it could be called "In the Olds". --Kaizer13 (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is finding "qualifying" items per current ITN guidelines. I see a revolution is brewing. Good.  :-) Please be encouraged to publicise at the village pump. --PFHLai (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Whose picture has spent more time on ITN, Nancy Pelosi or Fernando Lugo? :-) --199.71.174.100 (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

While I would agree that there are some issues with ITN as it operates now, I would claim that it is better off being tinkered with and "fixed" than having it removed or completely changed. There is a current proposal to change the death inclusion criteria, which would have led to Clarke being included, and a fairly new guideline is helping end the constant debates over which sports events are being included. The solution to fix ITN is for everyone to suggest more items: For example, the Dalai Lama envoy never even reached ITN candidates. Random89 22:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Dating! Wouldn't you think that news item lines would begin with the date the event happened? Besides giving salient information, this might also help to point up items that have become overripe and are begging for removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.160.20.30 (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The margin-top in the first <table> on the Main Page is causing some quite unseemly whitespace in Firefox when logged out. Removing margin-top entirely causes too little whitespace. Perhaps some CSS gurus could take a look? A screenshot of the problem is available here (though the screenshot does not include the recently-re-added donation banner and anon tip). --MZMcBride (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

okay, that picture has been there forever, somebody please change it, it's drivin' me crazy! (Well, not literally of course, but you get the point) [LukeTheSpook] | ^{[t c r]} 04:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sick of it too. Any alternatives? J Milburn (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup.

Ditto. Please, make him go away. BobAmnertiopsis (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Maoists win a plurality of seats in the Nepalese Constituent Assembly election, the first election in Nepal in nine years (pictured, Maoist-controlled area, Nepal, 2005).

86.44.28.186 (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That picture has some sourcing issues, and isn't directly related to the story. I don't feel comfortable adding that, but maybe someone else will. I thought I was onto a winner with Image:Cpnm-electionsymbol2064.PNG, but it's fair use, and the free-use alternative, Image:South Asian Communist Banner.png, is not specifically tied to that party. J Milburn (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as they haven't had elections in nine years, I think it's pretty related. Also Lugo is driving everyone batshit. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

How much longer is Fernando Lugo going to be the picture. How long?--208.102.189.190 (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

How about Image:Danica Patrick by David Shankbone.jpg? Corvus cornix_talk 20:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I like that. Any opposition? J Milburn (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

much better on the eyes.... [LukeTheSpook] | ^{[t c r]} 05:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't exactly object, but it's less than ideal, since that is an older story, and one which was illustrated by Image:Danica-r.JPG for several days prior to Lugo. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, put that picture up, anything but LLLLUUUGGGGOOOO--UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that that somewhat crappy picture has been up for like a week is making wikipedi look bush league.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Morgan Tsvangirai

• How'zabout this guy. It's Morgan Tsvangirai, Robert Mugabe's opponent. It pertains to the most recent article. And, it's public domain. BobAmnertiopsis (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Even my love of all things lug-related is being tested. Lugnuts (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Please post your suggestions for new ITN pics at WP:ITN/C. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

An admin specifically asked for suggestions here at a point when ITN/C had nothing. Thanks. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the request for suggestions was posted here. That's fine. I'm asking for responses to that request to be posted at ITN/C, which is on the watchlist of admins monitoring ITN. I guess you don't have one, 86.44.28.186. Please get an account, and you'll get a watchlist, too. --PFHLai (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that such a suggestion has already been made on my talk page (the correct place for such a suggestion) and that further entreaties have the effect (to me, at least) of a rather hostile sort of badgering. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"a rather hostile sort of badgering"? Take it as a compliment. Most anon editors in WP get yelled at and their contributions are blindly reverted quite often. --74.13.130.63 (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Just to make a note of what's probably obvious now - Lugo is gone. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Much better now.[LukeTheSpook] | ^{[t c r]} 04:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to change the Main Page section backgrounds to clear. It's extremely tough to read in Black Wikipedia as Black Wikipedia automatically changes all text to light green. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 18:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure this isn't a flaw in the black wikipedia skin? Nil Einne (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Most skins have flaws. I tried one skin and I wasn't notified on new messages. --Howard the Duck 03:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure. It does that so text on most pages doesn't blend in with the background. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 17:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In my experience the default skin is the only one that works properly. People just don't take the other skins into account when making stylistic changes. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I know. As I said above, it could easily be fixed by changing it from "white" to "clear". --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 17:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Racists. Cigarette (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol (if that was a joke) :). ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 01:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

But seriously. Switch Black WP on and you'll see what I mean. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 10:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is this skin anyway? It doesn't seem to be one of the default skins and your myskin doesn't seem to have anything Nil Einne (talk) 09:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) It's accessible in Special:Preferences under Gadgets, User interface gadgets - "Use a black background with green text on the Monobook skin". Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 04:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I found it but I admit I'm not sure what Gp75 is referring to. The black background thing does look ugly, on the main page and other places. But this is mostly related to the fact we have a number of coloured background which remain the same and they tend to contrast with the black. I don't see any green text on white background either. Has it already been fixed somewhere that I'm missing? Nil Einne (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, it's been fixed. :) --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 19:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Why there is a thin white line running under the globe in the logo? Vinni3 (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's something that has been noted before—I don't recall what the issue is that it cannot be corrected, as on [14] et al.

Damn, the one you've linked to looks so much better, not just saying that or anything, somehow looks more toned. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 23:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Some rather bad cropping, I believe. That's how it looks to me anyway. Also, please don't swear. Look at WP:TALK. Lunakeet 14:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you even read the guideline you cited? The closest it has are comments regarding our civility guidelines, but as Wikipedia is not censored, that swearing wasn't directed at anyone and that is perhaps the least offensive 'swearing' out there, I can't see any problem with it. J Milburn (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'm going to need a citation on what stops me from saying damn. I'm very familiar with Wikipedia policys and guidelines, including the one you put forward, and I see none that stop me from doing the following: Fuck, shit, bolloxs. ☯Ferdia O'Brien^(T)/_(C) 17:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

are these allowed also? bugger, democrat, liberal? 98.208.33.94 (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry 98.208.33.94, you're under arrest for crimes against humanity. ;) CompuHacker (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

98: They wouldn't be too much of a problem unless they are used to discredit a specific editor or editors. Per WP:NPA, someone's personal affiliations and beliefs should not be used to discredit or attack them or their comments and are generally of no relevance to any discussion. On the other hand, if you are simply innocently asking another editor who you have a friendship with of their political affiliations that would usually be okay although the other editor is obviously free not to answer. Asking Democracts to bugger off may not necessarily be a violation of WP:NPA but would likely be a violation of WP:Civility Nil Einne (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry. Lunakeet 21:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Also the cropping in the logo seems fine to me, the logo is identicle in size to the one without the white outline, and the greyscale looks far more vivid too. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 17:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

just from looking at the images i'd say it's poor anti-aliasing or poor matting - selecting to anti alias an image against a white background and using it on a gray background causes fringes. 10:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.114.76 (talk)

At this late date I'm gonna throw in that this has nothing to do with the Main Page :). ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 15:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia logo improvement for a related just-started discussion in a slightly more appropriate place. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)