Talk:Main Page/Archive 96

message: 
I am requesting that the text in the headers (Today's featured article, Did you know ..., etc.) be aligned in the center of their respective headers.  ~Steptrip 14:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A change of that nature would require community consensus.  Feel free to discuss the possibility.  —David Levy 16:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where can I discuss it?  ~Steptrip 16:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right here would be fine.  :-)  —David Levy 17:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Damn that's a long signature. (Oh, and I like the text at left.) Picaroon 20:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen worse signatures. (I also prefer the text at the left.) · AO Talk 20:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Trust me, mine looked 3x as worse as it does now before I condensed it.  ~Steptrip 20:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No, thanks. Looks nice as is. Don't change. The main page undergoes a 'renovation' once every 2 years or so. Let's talk about changes then. --199.71.174.100 20:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. So, when is the two years up? :-) (I participated in the last redesign, and please, someone shake me hard if I go anywhere near the next one...) Carcharoth 00:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm lazy, can I just shake you hard now and be done with it? - Centred titles is so 1990's I prefer them left aligned. --Monotonehell 01:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alignment of Header Texts 

message: I need to gain consensus (or lack thereof) about whether or not the text inside of the main page headers (Today's Featured article, Did You Know?, etc.) should be aligned in the center of their respective headers, instead of the left.  ~Steptrip 20:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn that's a long signature. (Oh, and I like the text at left.) Picaroon 20:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen worse signatures. (I also prefer the text at the left.) · AO Talk 20:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Trust me, mine looked 3x as worse as it does now before I condensed it.  ~Steptrip 20:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No, thanks. Looks nice as is. Don't change. The main page undergoes a 'renovation' once every 2 years or so. Let's talk about changes then. --199.71.174.100 20:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. So, when is the two years up? :-) (I participated in the last redesign, and please, someone shake me hard if I go anywhere near the next one...) Carcharoth 00:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm lazy, can I just shake you hard now and be done with it? - Centred titles is so 1990's I prefer them left aligned. --Monotonehell 01:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: The Wikimedia foundation are such hypocrites! There's absolutely no reason why they shouldn't release the wikipedia logo under the GNU FDL...and yet they selfishly keep it to themselves. Can anyone here give one good reason why they won't put on the FDL?? — The Last User Name Ever (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't think of a good reason why you'd need it under a free license. What's the desire stemming from? Leebo T/C 16:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not necessarily that I want it under a free license, it's that it's wrong for Wikimedia Foundation to say they support open content, and then use obviously closed content.  I'm also hesitant to submit logos to any wikimedia projects, for fear that my copyright will become the property of the Wikimedia. — The Last User Name Ever (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What logos do you mean? Usually logos are put into articles as FairUse images with the  tag. Copyright is protected. --74.14.22.20 19:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I'd support such a move, but I'll give it a go. One of the common objections to fair use images on the Main Page is that they prevent other organizations from using the Wikipedia Main Page without committing a copyright violation. (This is because the fair use image is then not being used to illustrate its subject.) However, by not releasing the Wikipedia logo, as well as the Wikibooks, Wiktionary, Commons, etc., logos under free licenses, copies of the Main Page shown elsewhere are still copyright violations even if they contain no fair use images: they use copyrighted images (the logos) outside of Wikimedia and in a position where they do not qualify for fair use. (The Wikipedia logo would qualify for fair use, but the Wiktionary logo, for example, would not, as an image of the Main Page illustrates Wikipedia, not Wiktionary.) That's a potential argument for the images being released under a free license. —Cuiviénen 16:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Having the Wikipedia logos under a non-free license doesn't make Wikipedia's encyclopedic content less distributable in any significant way, right? GracenotesT § 18:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: But wikipedia could GFDL the logos and still assert trademark protections against misrepresentation.  Frankly, :Category:CopyrightByWikimedia is a mess largely because the WMF has failed to set any policy regarding most uses of the Wikipedia logos.  Dragons flight 23:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The Last User Name Ever, if you really want to tell "The Wikimedia foundation" that they "are such hypocrites!", you may want to bring this up at  Wikimedia's Meta-Wiki. You will probably get a better response there then here, where we discuss MainPage issues. Hope this helps. --PFHLai 12:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypocrites!!! 

message: I stumbled across the above page months ago and didn't think about it. After becoming more understanding of wiki-philosophy, I wondered why all the pages listed were articles. Would it just be O-Kay to move them straight to the Wikipedia namespace because they don't meet any article qualifications and inflate the article count by 20? The Placebo Effect 22:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the number of links to them first. Might mess some things up if you move. They've been there a while, so I'd advertise this widely before carrying out any moves. Some are also subpages of Main Page (I know, they aren't really, but they are intended to look like it). Carcharoth 23:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hm. If you really want to, you could replace  with , although I'm not sure how good that would do in long run (since some of those articles may be in CAT:CSD, etc. GracenotesT § 23:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main Page itself is considered in the mainspace (even though it isn't an article it's still part of the encyclopedia as a whole). Main Page alternatives should probably be the same. --YbborTalkSurvey! 01:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not for deleting them, just moving them. Do you real want 21 main pages in article mainspace? The Placebo Effect 01:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never though you wanted to delete them, I was just saying that the mainspace is for pages that are part of the encyclopedia itself, as opposed to the Wikipedia (or Talk:, or Help:, etc.) namespace, which are about the encyclopedia. --YbborTalkSurvey! 01:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But they all have the same content, more or less, and would work just as well in Wikipedia namespace. You don't mind if they are moved do you. The Placebo Effect 01:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I wouldn't mind. --YbborTalkSurvey! 01:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  moved all except Main Page/Tomorrow & Main Page/In two days. They are protected. The Placebo Effect 01:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hm, can't say I'm too fond of the moves. It also changes the background color, which messes with some decors. Have you read WP:IAR? GracenotesT § 04:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Not like there's much to read :) GracenotesT § 04:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've read that, the thing is, they all work just the same in the new locations, so I don't see why they should stay in the article space. The Placebo Effect 12:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives]] 

message: Hey, take a look at the tenth item here :) Unlike last year, could this be a permanent thing? GracenotesT § 23:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This really is not the right place to discuss this. (Secondly, are you refering to the top 500 most visited sites of which Wikipedia is 10, or Bosnia and Herzegovina?). Simply south 23:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... are we talking about Bosnia, or Wikipedia? I give up. Otherwise, though, the top ten is a bit of a milestone. We've reached it before, but perhaps this time, it will last. Considering that the Main Page is the most viewed one, I thought that it might a good idea to bring it up here. GracenotesT § 00:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apropos of nothing,  is a better link Grace, since it'll keep up with the calendar. The version you linked was for August 2006. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 01:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Goodness. Blame Google, or me, for not looking at the link. The Main Page is still pretty popular, though. GracenotesT § 01:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its unfair as it is the first page people visit and so the results are VERY skewed. Simply south 15:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why is the Alexa ranking unfair?  What are the results skewed towards? --74.14.22.20 18:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, this is not the Alexa rank i was refering to but the Wikicharts mentioned later. Simply south 18:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see. Many people put in time and effort to have something new on Main Page every single day. It's commendable. Let them have the glory. Visitors do read what's on the Main Page, I hope. At least I do. :-)  --74.14.22.20 19:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexa rank 

message: We have to remove the picture of Ahmadinejad and replace it with one with the detainees. 80.43.144.11 17:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no free images available of the detainees. —Cuiviénen 17:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: hi.  i am not sure how to record the information, although i am sure there is a list of publications where wikipedia has been cited, i just cant find it.  the book in question is, macroeconomics:european edition, 4th edition, by Burda & Wyplosz, published by oxford university press.  the book cites wikipedia's article on Charles Ponzi on page 121.  can someone upload this info to the relavent place?  --Greg.loutsenko 18:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to go to Wikipedia:Wikipedia as an academic source and Wikipedia:Village pump (news). Hope this helps. --PFHLai 19:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikipedia cited in a major economics textbook 

message: Why cant we just lock today's FA, every day.  come on, it makes sense?  we do it with featured pictures?  of course, one could argue that today's FA gets massive amount of readership, who not only correct the article but also add more stuff to it, but all one has to do is be logged in to by pass the lock...--Greg.loutsenko 18:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed many times, but the main issue is that the Main Page invites anyone to edit. It would be very poor form to not allow everyone to edit the article featured on the Main Page. Leebo T/C 18:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  People (anonymous or not) can improve the featured article of the day; however, it's unlikely that they can or will improve the featured picture (and if they do, it should be uploaded under a different filename anyway).  ShadowHalo 19:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is that cascading protection doesn't cascade over to the Commons…--HereToHelp 02:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's persistent. I need a Commons admin to block the guy, and quick!--HereToHelp 02:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No but about a week ago, I had to ask for it to be transferred (Then I was told  could do it myself). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rock2e (talk • contribs) 18:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should be able to upload it to wikipedia yourself. You obviously can't protect it but since cascading protection should carry over to wikipedia images, it should be fine. You would have to ask for help to delete it Nil Einne 18:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could he really do it himself? Wouldn't cascading protection prevent a user from uploading an image locally? -- tariqabjotu 20:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I thought I said, You can upload it then it will be protected, if it was vandalism though then the vandalism would be fully protected, we need a new system.--User:Rock2e  Talk - Contribs  22:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOCK THE TODAY'S FA 

message: :The problem is that cascading protection doesn't cascade over to the Commons…--HereToHelp 02:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's persistent. I need a Commons admin to block the guy, and quick!--HereToHelp 02:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No but about a week ago, I had to ask for it to be transferred (Then I was told  could do it myself). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rock2e (talk • contribs) 18:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should be able to upload it to wikipedia yourself. You obviously can't protect it but since cascading protection should carry over to wikipedia images, it should be fine. You would have to ask for help to delete it Nil Einne 18:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could he really do it himself? Wouldn't cascading protection prevent a user from uploading an image locally? -- tariqabjotu 20:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I thought I said, You can upload it then it will be protected, if it was vandalism though then the vandalism would be fully protected, we need a new system.--User:Rock2e  Talk - Contribs  22:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism on Today's featured picture

message: I think the idea that Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia is something that should be better exemplified, especially to the layperson.  How can we do this? Dylan Knight Rogers 18:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We linked "free encyclopedia" to Wikipedia:Free encyclopedia for a while, but that page was judged somewhat ill-suited to the purpose.  Perhaps we could write another page, that could serve as a more general introduction to free content and its role at Wikipedia.--Pharos 18:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia, the _free content_ encyclopedia 

message: Just a heads up - four out of five of the topics on the next DYK update are on US subjects. There are plenty of topics from other parts of the world on the April 3 page that could be chosen instead. I'm getting a bit fed up with the US-centrism on the front page, and then when people complain, they're told it's down to systemic bias. I would add that it's not just that - editors choosing the DYK are showing preferences too, and ignoring what the rules and regulations state about not choosing too many topics from one country.  86.140.130.145 17:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next DYK update 

message: I am proposing that in every  section there be the code margin:+0.3em +0.05em; placed somewhere in the style declarations. See this page for what the result will do (it should only increase the margin of the headers by an epsilonic amount). Thanks,  ~Steptrip 17:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok so you mentioned it doesn't do much. So why then do you want it at all? Nil Einne 12:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want it because the header sections (e.g. Today's Featured Article) of the main page are too close to the edges of the sections (e.g. the column containing Today's FA and Did you know... section).  ~Steptrip 15:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Formatting Proposal 

message: Does cascading protection on the main page only cascade to transclusions on the page, or will it also cover a transculsion on the transclusion. (ex. Template:POTD protected is transcluded on the main page, and Template:POTD protected/--}} is transcluded on Template:POTD protected. Does Template:POTD protected/--}} automatically get protected through cascading or no since it's more than one level transcluded?) --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 18:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not an admin, so you may want to double-check my answer, but I think that cascading protection only applies to transclusions directly associated with the protected page, unless, that is, the page transculded onto the protected page is, in turn, protected with the cascading option enabled, then page(s) transcluded onto that template would be protected.  ~Steptrip 18:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It includes transclusions, transclusions within transclusions, etc. I'm not sure if it goes to an infinite level or just a very far level, but for our purposes it goes down forever. That is why images are protected even though they are within templates (such as Template:In the news). -- tariqabjotu 19:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But don't admins have to individually protect those images per the hidden directions on those templates?  ~Steptrip 19:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, cascading protection will automatically protect those images — unless these files are actually stored on the Wikimedia Commons. Then, admins should temporarily upload a copy here and tag it with . Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh...pardon my ignorance.  ~Steptrip 20:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, the hidden directions are obsolete. They probably have not been changed since cascading protection was implemented. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, why doesn't somebody change the directions, since cascading protection renders them obselete?  ~Steptrip 20:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They actually aren't entirely obsolete. We DO still individually protect the images in the various sub-sections. If we didn't then someone could transclude a bunch of pages onto one of those image description pages just before they fell under cascading protection and thereby cause all of those pages to be cascade protected for no good reason. --CBD 11:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, so admins protect those images before they fall onto the main page so vandalism (or unneeded cascading protection) does not occur?  ~Steptrip 15:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's always a good idea to protect the image before adding it to a MainPage template. Vandals might find new images uploaded for use on MainPage listed on 'Recent Changes'. I don't want them messing up the image file while I'm editing ITN etc., going thru' previews with the new pic not really on MainPage yet, i.e., no cascading protection yet. We can never be too careful. The two minutes of lack of oversight from image uploading to getting the cascading protection onto the image may be long enough for any vandal to ruin the image. To me, cascading protection should only be taken as a safety net, just in case someone forgets to protect an image. Every image, including those in Wikipedia and not from WCommons, should be protected beforehand. --PFHLai 17:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much does cascading protection go? 

message: 200px|thumb|Take a look
The timestamp on this talk page is overlapping with the "Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running!" that appears when not logged in. It has "display:none" in the style attribute, so I'm a bit confused about why this even appears at all... 164.107.166.227 18:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I see this as well. It really looks rather ugly... but I don't know how to fix it. Help? Goldfritter 16:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does this only appear when one is not logged in ? I don't see it now. I have seen it before and it disappears when I reload/refresh the page. Rather odd.... --PFHLai 19:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a conflict between the style class "metadata topicon" which is used to locate the date on this page and the wiki-wide begging message that is only shown when logged out. The begging message is shown with javascript with a style of "text-align:right;" in the div id="siteNotice". The result is they slap on top of each other. One or the other element needs to be rethought. --Monotonehell 19:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can we move the clock a little bit down to avoid this conflict ? --PFHLai 19:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If we move the clock down (only on this page as it's a wiki-wide style class) it will conflict with the horizontal rule when people are logged in. The div that is visible for those not logged in adds extra space. I'm not sure what to do as everyone's browser renders a little different depending on what browser they have and how it handles fonts, not to mention personal font settings. --Monotonehell 19:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps this should be discussed at Wikipedia: Village pump (technical) #Timestamp overlap. --PFHLai 20:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timestamp overlap 

message: The path from the main page to the very extensive network of medicine-related pages is somewhat awkward - is there a reason that "Health" is not listed among the major portals that appear on the main page? (there is not a good pathway from either "science" or "technology")-Rustavo 12:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's only so much room on MainPage to accommodate the many portals we have.  You may want to bring this up at Portal talk:Health (or re-activate Wikipedia:WikiProject Health) to discuss how to make 'health' more prominent in Wikipedia.  People at Portal:Science, Portal:Medicine, Portal:Society and Portal:Personal life might also be able to help, if you want links over there to set up a path.  BTW, Portal:Health is right at the top on Portal:List of portals (click "All portals" and you'll get there).  Hope this helps. --PFHLai 13:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Health]] 

message: I've had to put a Copyvio tag on Herbert Dyce Murphy (currently linked from this page) as I think it is copied from the Australian Dictionary of Biography Biography by S. Murray-Smith. I'm not sure what the correct procedure is if a copyvio is linked from the Main Page- can we unlink it? Kaid100 14:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update:  THe offending page has been deleted, but there is still a link here (now red).  Can it be removed? Kaid100 14:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The redlink was removed from MainPage by Savidan the minute following Kaid100's last post here.  --PFHLai 17:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of the "Did you know" pages has a Copyvio tag 

message: I realize it's near the bottom now, but the link to "unconstitutional" in the bit about the Ukraine parliament should probably be to Constitutionality instead of Constitution.  It makes more sense that way, I think.—Kbolino 08:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fixed now. Thank you for pointing this out. Next time, please post error reports at WP:ERRORS (near the top of this talkpage).  Response is usually quicker there. Thanks. --PFHLai 14:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukraine/Unconstitutional 

message: Why doesn't the Search box have focus after the page loads?  Could someone add the appropriate javascript to the page header?  
<script type="text/javascript">
    function focusSearchBox() {
        document.getElementById("searchInput").focus();
    }
    function addLoadEvent(fn) {
        if (window.addEventListener) window.addEventListener("load", fn, false);
        else if (window.attachEvent) window.attachEvent("onload", fn);
    }
    addLoadEvent(focusSearchBox)
</script>
++Arx Fortis 06:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the FAQ.-gadfium 06:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK...so how about putting focus on the item (or some other "placeholder") just prior to the Search box.  This would allow the arrow keys to function as expected, and would only require a single 'TAB' to move it to the search box.  (Indcidentally, if the focus were in the Search box, the same action would allow the arrow keys to work.) ++Arx Fortis 07:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, Wikipedia has its own onload function, called addOnloadHook. Great job with the javascript, though :) GracenotesT § 16:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a good question for WP:VP (technical). --74.14.22.20 18:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You could set the tab index for the box to a custom value. However, most browsers recognize the first tab to point to the browser's address bar - do we want to mess with that behavior? Either way, it is doable server-side (which is faster), so the question now is whether it should be done... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would only enhance the experience of those who find out about it. So the question would be; since it only helps a few, would it harm any? --Monotonehell 04:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one think the search is too hard to find for someone who hasn't been on Wikipedia before.  If the focus is in that box, people might not realize where the focus is at all.  But then again, what difference does that make?  I don't know: ignore my comments, except for my suggestion that the search box should be big and front and center on our main page. —METS501 (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an alternative main page that is just a search box. See Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (Simple Search Box). Carcharoth 13:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also the search box at www.wikipedia.org. Carcharoth 13:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I've found useful is to just highlight the search box in the skin I use. See User:EvilCat/monobook.css. Maybe something more subtle can be done for the entire site? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I love this idea.  I always wanted the focus to go straight to the search box.  Ostrolphant 04:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find this terrible. I'll gladly personally stay in control of what my browser does. Using the onLoad function to direct the user to a text box is annoying; just because it's possible doesn't mean it should be done. —msikma (user, talk) 20:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is hurt by this.  If you don't like being in the text both right away because you type to find the you just press tab, if it is because you like to be in the address bar, you have your hand on the mouse big deal.  But if one wants to search there is no one button to get into the seach field as there is one to get out of it.  I like to load the front page and begin a search. It hurts almost no one and helps those who enjoy this feature.  It is in the end a positive improvement Ostrolphant 18:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Big Deal???  how about if you want to search you just get YOUR hand on YOUR mouse.  What about people who have the main page as their home page?  They will often want to go straight to the address bar - not the search box.  This bugs the hell out of me about Google - I'd rather it DIDN'T focus. 203.97.51.149 21:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus on Page Load 

message: I have three outstanding articles that must be put as the featured article
1. Triple H
2. Stephen Colbert
3. CM Punk 
PLEASE! consider my articles to be put as the featured article Cowboy Rocco22:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Featured articles are promoted based on quality, as outlined in Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. If you want to have these articles or another appear on the main page, they'll need to be worked to that standard of quality and then approved through the featured article candidacy process. — TKD::Talk 22:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Triple H in particular seems suspect quality wise. It's rated B class and has a 'lacks source' tag. The talk page also mentions editors often add week by week details. All in all sounds like it has a long way to go to become FA Nil Einne 22:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree those are good articles --Susan Walton 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suzie, it's amazing how similar your sig. is to Rocco's.  Fascinating, really.  70.23.169.146 00:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really that amazing since they both got it from User talk:The Hybrid and have been talking about it amongst themselves. However I've still yet to see any explaination of how a B class article with a need's references tag can be a good article (which is somewhat irrelevant anyway since we're talking about featured articles) Nil Einne 06:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sweet with the sigs, as if there was some more WikiLove 'tween the two. Anyhoo, maybe the first thing to do is to run those articles through peer review? Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 07:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Stephen Colbert is sprotected because of the repeated vandalism.  Hardly FA-worthy.  And there aren't a lot of reliable sources at CM Punk, mostly forums, WWE pages and user pages.  Corvus cornix 17:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: From what I can tell, that was only on your talk page so please don't bring that here. Also, I think 70. was assuming your a sockpuppet of Rocco. It appears you're not, just a close friend. Nil Einne 15:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I suppose it would look like I was one of his account, after knowing each other since second grade, we think similarly.  But just to clarify, Cowboy Rocco wouldn't extensively talk about wrestling, and then switch accounts, and do a little science work.  Plus I should, but don't, write things in the edit summary box. --Susan Walton 19:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I didn't think you were a sockpuppet because it would be an incredibly stupid sockpuppet (or one that wants to get caught) to use the same sig. Mind you, we do get stupid sockpuppets... Nil Einne 19:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for Featured Aritcle 

message: Please, add br:Degemer on Main Page. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.1.194.115 (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there are so many different Wikipedias and in order to avoid clutter, we limit the number of Wikipedias that appear on the Main Page. In order to appear on the English Wikipedia Main Page, a Wikipedia must have at least 50,000 articles (recently raised from 25,000 articles). Breton does not have 50,000 articles, so it would be giving undue attention to include it. —Cuiviénen 16:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly we should have a section for the newest of the new Wikipedia languages - the Wikipedia Main Page is, I think, one way for them to get exposure. There are other ways, but Main Page links could be important. Anyone up for working out how to have links to the 3 or 4 newest and fastest growing language Wikipedias? Carcharoth 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea but we'd need VERY objective rules for inclusion otherwise it would be a bun fight. --Monotonehell 11:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breton link 

message: The current "in the news" item on the British hostages reads poorly. It states: 
The 15 Royal Navy personnel accused of trespassing into Iranian waters return to the United Kingdom after a two-week detention.  They were seized, not just accused. If the result was that they were released, then the cause should be that they were seized. If they just had been accused, then they would have have had charges dismissed.  Barney Gumble 13:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What charges? They were simply detained for two week while the two governments yapped at each other. --74.13.126.99 14:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The part "The 15 Royal Navy personnel accused of trespassing into Iranian waters..." is the subject of the sentence and why they were in "a two-week detention". "[They]...return to the United Kingdom after a two-week detention." is what has occurred. One or the other would be half the story. --Monotonehell 14:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that they weren't accused, they were seized. Barney Gumble 23:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If they weren't accused of trespassing, why were they seized ?  I suppose we can say "seized for allegedly trespassing..."  Is there a simpler way of saying the same thing ? --PFHLai 01:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Hostages 

message: I'm not seeing an image of Scooby Doo with the Featured Article blurb. Don't tell me the ultra-paranoid copyright doomsayers have won!? Zeality 03:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like you should really complain    about this edit summary made by Jimbo Wales himself. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Policy is not made on the spot by Jimbo Wales. I wasn't aware that no copyrighted images on the main page is now policy, considering we had one on just days ago. --Zeality 03:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've been scouring the Wikimedia Commons and Flickr for a free image related to Scooby-Doo.  Aside from some Flickr images with CC licenses that appear to be invalid (because the primary subjects are depictions of a copyrighted character), the best that I've been able to come up with is a mediocre photograph of Casey Kasem (the original voice of "Shaggy").  Frankly, I think that we're better off with no image at all.  —David Levy 03:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just curious when this became policy, and why. Fair use provisions exist exactly for this sort of thing. I just hope one of those whacked-out "copyrighted images aren't our very best content :(" reasons isn't what tipped the scales in favor of this. A grand total of 0 of my 5 featured articles will have images here (if they ever make the main page). Zeality 03:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a recent large debate at Wikipedia talk:Fair use exemptions#Removing exception in policy for "Main Page" starting in mid-March. But with Jimbo's edit, and this message from the Wikipedia foundation board clarifying the licencing policies, it seems that the powers that be want the main page to be free of fair use images. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "want the main page to be free of fair use images" is inaccurate. "Want the main page free of content which is not freely licensed" would probably be more accurate. --Gmaxwell 04:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected. How about something more positive, modeled after :Commons:COM:PS: "want every single content, including any text or images, on the main page be available under some free license, meaning that anything on there may be used by anyone for any purpose." iirc, one of the reasons mentioned had to deal with screenshots of the main page, and how other publications use these screenshots when describing Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikimedia statement tells us that, "Because of our commitment to free content, this non-free media should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace with free media that would serve the same educational purpose." That strikes me as not barring fair use images when there is no acceptable alternative (as in this case). The question becomes whether we are first free or first an encyclopedia; leaving vital information off of the Main Page is surely an uninformative and unencyclopedic way of doing things, but it is free. —Cuiviénen 05:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a picture of a cartoon dog on the MainPage is hardly a "vital" mission of the encyclopedia.  The image belongs in the article, sure, but on the front door of the free encyclopedia we need only hang free pictures.  Our function as an information resource is not reduced one iota by avoiding copyrighted cartoon dogs on the MainPage.--Pharos 06:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a portrayal of information, it is. As an encyclopedia, it is our duty to impart as much information as possible. The image imparts more information about the series -- its artistic style, its characters, its audience -- than all of the blurb provided on the Main Page. We are expected to showcase our status as an encyclopedia on the Main Page as much as our status of being free. if we are an encyclopedia, we should not reduce the amount of information available one iota. —Cuiviénen 16:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the information is available in the article. —Centrx→talk • 19:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet there is no compelling reason why the image, which is a better summation of the information than the entire blurb could hope to be, should not be there. It is not as if using the image is illegal or a copyright violation in any way. —Cuiviénen 22:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You'd think featured articles, proudly "hanged" in places of prominence, would be committed to this inflexible free-content-only ideology. Or any article. Evidently only one page is. Punctured Bicycle 08:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's just make sure this never happens again. OK?  I'm a proponent of fair use, but if we have to follow policy, it shouldn't be too much of a problem.  What bothers me more than anything is how naked the main page looks without a picture for the FA.Antimatter---talk--- 18:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself." Scooby Doo is a significant modern artwork that we cannot realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that is hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. The cartoon has a distinctive animation style that cannot be conveyed by random pictures of real dogs. Including a sample of the cartoon in the FA description and the article itself helps readers learn and identify its distinctive animation style. The statement by the Foundation makes it very clear that unfree content is acceptable under certain circumstances; we clearly are in such circumstances at the moment. Punctured Bicycle 21:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Policy, Wikipedia:Fair use exemptions, does allow fair use images on the main page. There's further discussion going on here at at the exemptions' talk page where I encourage everyone to make their voice heard so we can put and end to this. The Scooby-Doo article has been listed for display on the main page for at least 2 weeks and it's unprofessional to repeatedly take it down, put it back, and replace it with actual or cartoon Great Dane photos on the day it's featured.   Doctor Sunshine talk 21:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No image for the FA? 

message: The Swedish-Norwegian Union Jack of 1844 was called Sillesalaten, not Sillsalaten ;) Alexanderkg 13:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 14:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The author of the article disagrees. Pls revert. See WP:ERRORS. --74.14.18.181 14:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And reverted. Hash it out here before any other changes to the item. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 15:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Sillesalaten possibly might be Norwegian, and Sillsalaten Swedish. Many nearly similar variants between the languages. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 15:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you certain the Swedish-Norwegian flag is ever referred to as Union Jack? The Jack strikes me as particularly British. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 15:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A jack is a specific type of flag used by the navy. —Cuiviénen 15:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Union Jack 

message: Seems appropriate for main page.  Billbrock 03:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. There a bunch of cleanup tags on there, and currently details about his death is only covered in one simple sentence. And most importantly, it does not really qualify under rule #5 of WP:ITN/C#ITN Criteria. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rule 5 was made to be broken.  Vonnegut was perhaps the most popular of US novelists circa 1970; one might have to be over 40 to appreciate his pervasive influence on American culture.  Compare the NY Times homepage. Agree that the article needs cleanup.  Billbrock 04:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also featured article on Chicago Tribune  Billbrock 04:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want, you can suggest it at WP:ITN/C. I still think the article needs some more cleanup. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Agree on need for cleanup: it's a poor article as it stands. Billbrock 05:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: the news section of the main page is a let down when it comes to reporting deaths. not mentioning vonnegut's passing is disrespectful of the highly significant author. it should have been breaking news within our community, the ny times homepage, the chicago tribune homepage confirms the importance. Candymoan 10:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: So a tiny insignificant island nation holding an election is worthy of the front page, but the passing of one of the most important authors in the past 100 years is not? The pedantry of this group never ceases to amaze me. --24.86.214.71 10:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: okay, ITN does not list obituaries.. except for those who are notable experts in their field.. i agree, but if vonnegut doesn't qualify, who does? if it had been norman mailer or noam chomsky, i'm pretty sure the elite intellectuals running wikipedia would spend no time to turn the entire main page into a shrine.. the "free encyclopedia anyone can edit"?? i have been around for a long time, but i've never been nauseated until today by the policies and bureaucracy.. what a shame.. so it goes.. Candymoan 15:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "i agree, but if vonnegut doesn't qualify, who does?" - Couldn't have been said better. I won't say that he deserves it - WE, Wikipedians deserve it. SalvNaut 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Vonnegut's passing was removed from ITN not because he doesn't qualify, but because his article doesn't qualify.  Only articles well updated with current news materials qualify for ITN. See WP:ITN/C. --74.13.130.186 18:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of [[Kurt Vonnegut]] 

message: Someone should add the death of Kurt Vonnegut to current events.
I agree, Kurt Vonnegut is a world-renown author
:We do not typicly cover deaths and births on ITN. However, you may add it to 2007, or April 2007. ffm ✎talk 19:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vonnegut's passing was removed from ITN because his article doesn't qualify. Only articles well updated with current news materials qualify for ITN. See WP:ITN/C for more discussion. --74.13.130.186 18:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of Kurt Vonnegut 

message: I would like to propose that a caption be added to the Today's Featured Article box, of the type used in the lead section at Animation.  It has recently been suggested that images of anything but the direct subject of the article are "misleading", but of course it can be very difficult to find direct images of certain subjects, and free images from the article may need some context.  Fortunately, Today's Featured Article happens to be the only section of the MainPage that is formatted so that a caption would be possible, as it's just a large block of test rather than a bulleted list.--Pharos 19:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally the images will have alt text. Is there anything that would go into a caption that wouldn't work there? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 04:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm aware of that.  But the alt text isn't terribly obvious if you're not looking for it.  I'm afraid next time we have an FA without a free image of the direct subject, we will get more complaints about a "misleading" image.  My point is that the image could not be seen as misleading if there were a readily visible caption, or at least a use of (pictured), like in the other sections.  Possibly we would only employ such a visible caption in such relatively unusual circumstances.--Pharos 05:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add caption to Today's Featured Article 

message: Maybe it's just me, but it seems that within the past few weeks, there have been increasing problems with getting a picture in the TFA to be free use/non-licensed. There are at least 4 instances that I can think of recently, but I'm sure there are more. Is this a someone's problem, or is it just a coincidence, because it seems like someone is not properly handling this whole TFA thing. These things should be sorted out well in advance, and if an article doesn't have a good picture, it shouldn't be chosen, so I think there is a problem here and I'm wondering how we can resolve it. └Jared┘┌talk┐  20:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised by suggestions that articles without free images be barred from appearing as TFA.  What's the big deal about not having a thumbnail?  —David Levy 20:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well in reality, I'm not suggesting we bar them, but I think it is aesthetically pleasing to have a picture, and it's like there's an ugly gap if there is not one. It's always been a tradition to put an image there, and lately it seems to be a lesser priority. It's not the end of the world, but I just thought I'd bring it up. └Jared┘┌talk┐  20:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very often it's difficult to have a picture that is both free and suitable enough, and I don't really think people's hard work to bring an article to FA shouldn't be rewarded with a Main Page display just because there isn't a proper picture for the Main Page. I mean, it's a minor thing really. Todor→Bozhinov 21:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why not simply allow for a non-free thumbnail when the TFA has no alternative? I'm having a hard time rationalizing this. There's just as much (or little) fair use justification for it being on the front page, illustrating the article, as there is for it being in the article.... -Harmil 21:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an issue best discussed in the fair use page, when it has been discussed extensively already. Not here... BTW, your argument is definitely flawed. Fair use images may be justified to show a specific portion of an article e.g. in Ian Thorpe but there is definitely no justification to use a fair use image to illustrate Ian Thorpe as a whole. This argument may not necessarily hold true for some stuff like Scooby-Doo but that's best left for discussion elsewhere Nil Einne 21:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I move not to open that can o' worms again. The previous comment is hereby virtually struck from the record! Haha. └Jared┘┌talk┐  22:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The location of the main page has nothing to do with this. Why would a decision be made based on a technicality? --- RockMFR 00:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  We have WP:IAR for a reason.  The name of the Main Page should be based on what makes most sense, not because a rule is ill-equipped to deal with an exception.  ShadowHalo 01:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue here is that Main Page is flawed name, and always real be. Regardless of the name, the Main Page is clearly not article space and should not have fair use images. Despite this, some people are trying to argue it is article space, simply because it is the wrong name. While this is obviously a flawed argument, the fact remains if it were not wrongly named then this sort of confusion would not arise. This was one of the key reasons why having the Main Page wrongly named is a big flaw as was pointed out when the debate arose. The fact that the argument of those who say the Main Page is an article is flawed and not supported by policy doesn't mean that there is not legitimate confusion. There obviously is confusion... This is not a mere technicality since there is a very good reason why only articles can use fair use images. The Main Page is clearly not an article so it should not use fair use images. There might be other reasons why the Main Page should not have fair use images, but this is the most convincing. Calling this a technicality, is frankly a little silly. Also, there appears to be a bit of a midunderstanding of IAR. IAR doesn't mean we should always ignore all rules unless we can be convinced there is a reason to follow them. Rather it means we should follow all rules unless there is a good reason to ignore them. 10:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current guideline states (and stated at the time of the last major discussion) that fair use images are indeed allowed on the Main Page.  Moving the Main Page so that fair use images all of the sudden won't be included is pretty silly; the debate about the issue will rage on no matter what namespace the Main Page is in.  ShadowHalo 12:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TFA picture problems 

message: I think that the featured picture box should show recently featured pictures, like the featured article box. Possibly, we can show a name for a picture or show thumbnails. Doppelganger 01:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good idea! For both continuity & for days when you miss out on the main page picture so you can add it to your desk top screensaver (Erm, yes... I don't do that.... ;)... :) Spawn Man 03:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. howcheng  {chat} 06:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This is not the place for this! There is a section at the top of the page specifically for this. Please post there. ffm ✎talk 16:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Picture