Talk:Main Page/Archive 104

message: Erm, half Britain is underwater, and that's not news?!? :-S Neddyseagoon - talk 13:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The place for this discussion is WP:ITN/C (I think) Algebraist 13:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think here is good discussion ground for that topic TaylorLTD 02:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not.  The list of candidates to be included in the In the news section is a good place to discuss candidates to be included in the In the news section.  17Drew 05:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There's no link from Portal:Current events or List of notable floods, so I would guess no.  - BanyanTree 05:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Floods 

message: The main page says that they are 6 Bulgarian nurses. In fact, the HIV trial/Libya nurses are composed of 5 Bulgarian nurses and 1 Palestinian doctor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elakhna (talk • contribs) 
:Fixed. Evil Monkey - Hello 03:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the future, you might get best results raising errors found in the In the news section (or, really, any section) of the main page at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, the contents of which transclude at the top of this page; although EM took care of this one rather quickly, posts about errors made to the more general main page talk page are less likely than those made to WP:ERRORS to be seen and acted upon with celerity.  Joe 05:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong number of Bulgarian nurses 

message: User:Art LaPella/Proposed Main Page proofreading bot Art LaPella 23:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like the bot is a great idea, it makes sure that common errors are fixed and increases the quality of the page. --Credema 01:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, do you have any code or are you looking for a programmer? --ST47Talk·Desk 20:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I tested most of the stuff you have there with a script and got no warnings, perhaps I'll finish writing it to your specifications and see what we get. --ST47Talk·Desk 21:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed proofreading bot 

message: What's with all the symbols on the main page? (The funny à and the € sign) --Pezzar 00:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: à is for an accented "a"; € = Euro the currency of the Eurozone. --Howard the Duck 03:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: More importantly, where are you seeing them on the mainpage? Atropos 03:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's with the symbols? 

message: Is it purposely now left-aligned instead of centre-aligned, or is that just a problem with my browser/cache/hairdresser/etc? If it is on purpose, what are we about to do with all that free space? X.spasitel 18:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen that before -- sometimes the CSS files aren't being read correctly by your browser. A force-reload (Ctrl-F5 for IE or FF) should take care of it. howcheng  {chat} 18:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of the Day 

message: What do you think? I like it, and personally I want it extended to OTD and DYK pictures as well. Borisblue 20:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's quite unattractive to be honest.  Worse though it would mean a lot of extra work to add captions whenever you want to use an image on the Main Page.  violet/riga (t) 20:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: These images already have html title attribute, which suffices as a caption, in my opinion. GracenotesT § 01:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captions on ITN pictures 

message: What's wrong with this picture?--58.104.66.42 19:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an absolute 100% no exception ban on using fair use images on the main page, which includes basically anything from any work of art or entertainment since the great depression. I can't say that I agree with that, but its the project's position. Atropos 18:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See, uh, this is the thing - there isn't. Some users enforce that, but it's a nonexistant ban. Copyright paranoia. 81.79.97.140 20:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, those users the people who decide what goes on the main page. Atropos 20:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Jimbo Wales personally removed a fair use image from the featured article blurb once, since then there has been a de facto ban.  Dragons flight 02:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Policy ultimately works by implementation. Just because it is not explicitly spelled out somewhere does not mean it is not policy. Quite a number of editors feel that current policy prohibits the fair use images on the main page, especially if there is something remotely related that fills the bill and this is shown in the way the main page is handled by admins. BTW, in case any editors are unaware a very long discussion took place Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions#Removing exception in policy for "Main_Page". You should read it if you haven't already Nil Einne 09:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sigh.  It's called "fair use" for a reason.  Besides, I hardly think Fox and Groening would object to Wikipedia plugging their movie for them.  --Nricardo 01:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... maybe Mr. Waters gave use a better offer?--Pharos 01:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If anything, you seem to be making an argument against fair use. If we don't have to worry about copyvios because we're plugging the movie so the copyright owners aren't going to sue us, then why shouldn't we expect that the copyright owners release a suitable image for our article, and if not, refuse to have anything not free? I'm sure some editors are going to jump in and say "THEY'D NEVER TO THAT, anyone could make derivative works then", do note I never said anything about releasing an image containing Homer. The character John only appeared in one episode so really there seems little harm if they were to release an image containing him and nothing else of substance. Who cares if someone decided to make a cartoon with a character that looks exactly like the John from Simpsons (even more so since John was basically a 'derivative work' of John Waters anyway). Or heck, even a sketch of John from their collection. Or whatever. The reality is, there is bound to be something they can release under a free license, without any significant compromise of their intellectual property if they so desired Nil Einne 09:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that they can't sue because fair use is legal and it would not be a violation of fair use to illustrate the main page blurb with a non-free image. The only argument against it that people seem to have is the moralistic argument that the main page is supposed to show the best of Wikipedia, and fair use is not that. I sometimes wonder how illustrating a blurb with a tangentially related image is really the best of Wikipedia, but whatever, I just have no motivation to nominate anything produced in the past 80 years for TFA. Atropos 21:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are here to make a free-content encyclopedia, not to make the main page pretty. It doesn't have anything to do with legality. Zocky | picture popups 20:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tomorrow's featured article photo 

message: Maybe put some links to WikiNews articles? Just a thought, I know they are seperate projects, but in the news section, links to wikinews wouldn't hurt. Tomazzr 01:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The most important thing is to link to the Wikipedia articles; that's what people come to Wikipedia for.  If there are corresponding articles on Wikinews, there'll be links to them in the Wikipedia articles.  17Drew 02:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: in the news section, the first item on the bottommost line is indeed a link to Wikinews. --74.14.19.190 03:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Tomazzr, pls see also Wikipedia:Sister projects#Wikinews. Maybe useful. --74.14.19.190 03:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to WikiNews Articles 

message: Hurmf! Not a word about wikimania on the whole Main Page.
:Where do you think we should mention it, bearing in mind Wikipedia:Avoid self-references and given that there is nothing particularly noteable about wikimania (which AFAIK hasn't even started yet)? Only place I can think of is the MediaWiki:Sitenotice. That might be okay but we should at least wait until it begins IMHO. Nil Einne 08:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For all its glory, Wikimania is not going to be very interesting to the reader population in general.  Since it is probably too late for anyone to go who wasn't planning to already, it probably makes more sense to simply discuss it in the Signpost.  Dragons flight 10:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mention Wikimania somewhere 

message: Hello peoples from en.wikipedia.org !!! 
 
I shall buy tomorrow notebook. What there to install? Win or Linux? 
What is exact assembly? Advise pls, tnx
:Ask at the computing reference desk. This is not the right place to ask questions which are not about the main page of Wikipedia.-gadfium 09:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Win or Linux? 

message: Eeek! We have a vandal on the main page! Someone go block him! Quick!
Oh, I see the Kriegsmarine already did, indefinitely. Daniel Case 16:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was in bad taste. Jokes are supposed to be funny, but this isn't a suitable place anyhow. 84.67.72.236 18:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah, lighten up. I thought it was funny, at least :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Users are supposed to be helpful, 84.67.72.236. TaylorLTD 02:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Mindman1 00:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Lol..., but this is really not the place for jokes. Marco Alfarrobinha  {chat}contributions 10:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, thanks for the joke, but couldnt you have put it somewhere else? ACBestMy ContributionsAutograph Book 18:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm a considerate driver: when I run someone over, I back over them to make sure they're dead. HalfShadow 00:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal on the front page 

message: Does anyone know why these guys keep appearing on the front page? Is anyone else seeing this? 66.81.154.188 07:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Testudinocentrism. 89.120.193.125 07:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a troll on the Commons, replacing images that we transclude on the main page here with TMNT images over at the commons, which, in turn, affects the main page. See this admin noticeboard report. Sebi [talk] 07:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn it!  Don't they know they're supposed to use penises, not TMNTs? --Nricardo 21:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They should use April O'Neil not these pizza-eating freaks. --Howard the Duck 01:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ninja Turtles 

message: Could whoever is in charge put the death notice for Ingmar Bergman on the main page news section? He is the greatest Swedish film director of all time and made dozens of award winning films. --Ted-m 11:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:ITNMP particularly criteria #5. --Howard the Duck 11:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Please see also WP:ITN/C#July 30. --PFHLai 01:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: IMO, while the criteria should be slightly expanded, no one is/was important enough to warrant an exception.  If a person's importance alone were sufficient justification, it would be a criterion (and we wouldn't need to make an exception).  —David Levy 08:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main page news article request 

message: Hey guys, what say you to this idea: You know where it says the catagories up at the top? Howabout we make them into pictures instead, each representing the respective catagory, lie 2 rows of four, and 1 large one for "all portals", just to give the main page a little colour and make it more interesting at first glance. I know that it would prob make making the box its in a little larger, but I think it would be worth it, what do you think? Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 00:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try a Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives. MP has had a recent redesign. ffm 01:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Icons would take up considerably more space than words. Also icons rely on semiotics for recognition which are not interpreted the same way by everyone. While words speak "volumes", at least to an english speaker. --Monotonehell 07:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what about the blind? ffm 14:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, text readers read the comments behind pictures so it wouldnt make the slightest difference to the blind, bar the fact that clicking the link would prob be easier if anything.Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 17:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Can someone put a page improvement blog in because [http:http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page] the star wars wiki has one and I think it improves the overall site.
:Please only post your message once. I don't see any page improvement blog on the Star Wars wiki. There is a page improvement drive. Many wikiprojects on wikipedia's have their own page improvement drives and there are also some without a specific subject e.g. Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive but I doubt you'd find much support for mentioning any of these on the main page. For starters there is unlikely to be any agreement which Template:COTWs to choose and I suspect many will feel choosing one give undue focus to it. Secondly, our main page is predominantly for our readers, highlighting our wikipedia and our articles to them. We hope they will choose to edit, but it is not the focus of the main page; whereas the purpose of COTW by definition is on getting editors. There is no real reason to highlight our COTW to our readers. If editors are interested in COTW, there are a variety of ways they can stay informed. In any case, a change such as introducing a COTW to the main page will require extensive discussion and is not something that any admin should just add Nil Einne 11:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement in main page 

message: Coincidence that a featured Simpsons article coincides with the opening of the movie? 139.80.7.95 02:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 100% Atropos 02:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No coincidence. It was specifically requested for that reason. --- RockMFR 02:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the movie was already released in quite a number of countries before this date (not talking timezone differences here, check the article under release dates) Nil Einne 03:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like this - it's not wikiadvertising. 139.80.7.95 03:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, if it were advertising, some of us would be getting paid.  17Drew 03:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, in the past, some people have been paid to edit Wikipedia, not that I approve. --Dreaded Walrus  t c 06:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The foundation is sometimes paid when we edit wikipedia Wikipedia:Bounty board Nil Einne 17:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Raul, I expect my 10% of the kickback ;) --Monotonehell 04:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Please, won't someone think of the children?!  MarphyBlack 05:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmmm..... --Howard the Duck 06:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: ¡Ay, caramba! --74.13.125.202 05:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, 139.80.7.95, I didn't know that movie is out today till you brought it up. Thanks for letting me know. --74.13.125.202 05:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what they pay us for.  I said nothing.  17Drew 07:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not the first hurricane TFA. Not even the second I'm pretty sure Nil Einne 06:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Mexicocentrism, that's what it is! --Dreaded Walrus  t c 06:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rubbish, it's a clear case of cyclocentrism! --Monotonehell 06:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Followed by Sinocentrism, and then Anglocentrism! When will the Main Page ever be unbiased!!!??? 69.86.16.159 03:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When we just show random FAs, ITNs, etc. --Howard the Duck 07:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, play right in to the Randocentric agenda...--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nooooooooooooooo. lol --Howard the Duck 03:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simpsons 

message: Wow guys, so a bridge and an incident with the Taliban is up there but the Russian submarine story isn't? Even when the latter's importance is greater in both scientific and international interest than either of the two? I mean, I even remember a story about an old museum boat that burned down a few months ago being on the wikinews. Think about it: An old boat and bridge that an amazingly tiny percentage of the world care/know about vs. a controversial land-grab by a country with already shoddy relations with other world powers that is getting people all over the world in a fit. And if your delicious American bias still isn't sated enough: This is the White House's #1 short-term alarming issue. So do put it up there,  it's ridiculous what does goes up and what doesn't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.93.44.114 (talk • contribs).)
:ITN is not just links to news. There must be a corresponding article that goes along with it. See WP:ITN and its related pages for more info. --Howard the Duck 14:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 2007 Russian North Pole expedition - 82.16.7.63 14:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd have to post this on WP:ITN/C. But the article is still rather short so unless something is added you won't see this at the Main Page on its condition right now (well, except for some notable exceptions...). And not to mention, is that even news? I last saw CNN a while ago and they didn't mention it. --Howard the Duck 14:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly news (it's the NY Times top story in the international section), but there's not enough info in the article (and maybe not enough info available to write a real article) to add it to the main page. —METS501 (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News 

message: Could one of the administrators please add Norwegian (Nynorsk) to the "In other languages" section on the Main page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page)? 
http://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hovudside
--Sigmundg 05:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest we wait a few more days. Currently, it went back down to 24,765 articles, below the minimum 25,000 required to be listed. It will probably fluctuate for the next day or two above and below the 25,000 mark before the rate of article creation exceeds the rate of page deletion. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding nn.wikipedia 

message: who makes this Main page? Just curious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.16.153 (talk • contribs) 
The Main Page is made up mostly of templates (Did you Know, Featured Article, In the News) which are edited by administrators. ShadowUltra 03:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the basics, but there are ways the general public can get involved. The most direct is probably T:DYK/N, where any editor can put together the template to be used on Did you know at the next update, using suggestions from the pool at T:TDYK. Slightly less direct, candidates for In the news can be proposed and discussed on WP:ITN/C. Further down the chain, you can get involved in which pieces will become Featured Articles or Pictures at WP:FAC and WP:FPC respectively. Finally, you can just start writing articles. Timely pieces may end up on In the news, other solid pieces may end up on Did you know through the work of other editors, and the very best may get selected as Featured Articles. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making of Main Page 

message: The photograph illustrating Mauna Loa is a bit blah. can't we have one of the more interesting ones from further down in the article? Totnesmartin 11:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I like this one: :Image:Aa channel flow from Mauna Loa.jpg. Jared (t)  00:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Too late now... That was yesterday's pic. --74.14.18.103 02:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can still get it change for the TFA blurb. It won't change history but at least people visiting the TFA this month etc will see the new picture. Try Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 5, 2007 or perhaps contact Raul Nil Einne 11:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mauna Loa photo 

message: I usually see Holy Days listed here on the main page (major ones, anyway). As the Transfiguration is one of the 12 Great Feasts, and it is celebrated today by both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, should it not be listed here (compare the listing of a civic holiday)? I'm proposing adding it in.--C.Logan 09:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion. "Feast of the Transfiguration in Christianity" is now on MainPage. --PFHLai 18:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transfiguration 

message: How comes this keeps dominating the news area? Last time i checked, it was just above the highway bridge accident. Now, it is just above 2007 foot-and-mouth. 86.134.162.149 23:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Template:In the news section is order chronologically, not by importance. Phoenix launched 4 August, while the foot-and-mouth outbreak was confirmed 3 August and the I-35W bridge collapsed 1 August. Evil Monkey - Hello 01:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, we have a sharp, striking, public domain image of the rocket; the pictured news article is almost always placed at the top of the section to line up with the image, so that's one reason Phoenix is at the top. Laïka 09:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to the latter, often the picture is there long after the news item has gone. 86.134.162.149 09:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in reality the picture on top often lags behind the newest item due to the availability of pictures with compatible copyright licences. --Monotonehell 12:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify what others have already said, as far as I'm aware we follow the chronological order no matter what. If the blurb is moved down, so be it, it doesn't matter. We still keep the picture at the top for compatibility reasons. We do try to use the most recent picture when we have one. However as far as I'm aware, we've never kept a picture when the item is no longer on ITN. I think we've always managed to find something before it got that far. Nil Einne 13:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pheonix Spacecraft launch 

message: i'm sensing some galaxocentricism going on here. -Violask81976 21:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the joke is just dead now.  17Drew 21:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to remark on the spacecentricism but never got round to it. I don't think it's fair to call it galaxocentricism tho since a supernova isn't a galaxy :-P BTW, I believe it was a conincidence, no special request was put in for either that I've found unless Howcheng and/or Raul654 noticed one was scheduled and decided to schedule the other for fun Nil Einne 10:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want, maybe you should give Robert E. Lee's article some attention. KyuuA4 07:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: And this is a problem because... why? Thanks for making me laugh! Gscshoyru 13:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Pschaw, Raul where's the money in that? Let's get back to the real money spinners, like advertising fair trade coffee organisations on the main page! --Monotonehell 13:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you probably don't want to see what tomorrow's FA is... Raul654 20:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh good grief.  Dragons flight 21:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  another bias 

message: This isn't exactly an error with the Main Page, and I did not want to report it as one, but the Banner of Poland (featured in the Did You Know section)  is indeed a national symbol. The article says itself it is used in the nation's Presidential Jack and in its Coat of Arms. This leads me to wonder if Admins read the articles they select for the DYK section. I understand that Admins select from an extremely large volume of articles for the DYK section, but it is unfortunate that mistakes like this slip through. Notecardforfree 05:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the final sentence of the article's lead provides that a banner of Poland is not mentioned in the current regulations on Polish national symbols, from which I infer that the banner is not a de jure national symbol at present; indeed, the Third Republic section of the article suggests that whilst the banner serves essentially as the Presidential Jack and significantly as the Coat of Arms, it (qua banner, rather than qua assemblage) it is not itself such a symbol (the article indicates that the jack is identical in its design to the former banner, rather than, for instance, the banner is the jack).  It is quite possible that the Banner of Poland is nevertheless generally understood as a national symbol (it seems undisputed that it was a national symbol for some time), however we are to construe that term, and that the article's sources go toward the proposition that it is in effect a national symbol, but the text of the article does not seem plainly inconsistent with the DYK item. Joe 05:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banner of Poland 

message: ::Last time I checked (many months ago) we deleted one article for every three that were created.  Dragons flight 09:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On That day, can we put a little party-hat on the wikipedia logo? TaylorLTD 04:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which sadly doesn't appear to be enough :-P Nil Einne 13:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 Million articles 

message: User:Pharos reverted the change which I felt was supported by consensus on this page.  His edit summary was "you're misreading it; there has to be a consensus to -change the policy on MainPage images- not a majority of opinion in a parrticular instance".  I don't see that in the current wording of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions, which says "Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus and so long as doing so is not in direct conflict with the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy."  "Case-by-case basis" would seem to refer to exactly this sort of situation: in this case there was a consensus to keep the image.  "Case-by-case" doesn't refer to broad categories of articles or namespaces — it means case-by-case.  Policy is formed by practice; this is the sort of case which causes policies to be altered. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording of the policy is clear, and it has always been understood in one way—that there are certain classes of use that are approved by consensus as exemptions, viz. :Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions. It was proposed in the past in add the TFA to one of those classes, and consensus did not support that. The policy is not about specific exceptions.--Pharos 18:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why does Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions say "on a case-by-case basis"?  What is a "case-by-case basis" if not a framework allowing for specific exceptions? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A "case-by-case basis" refers to the specifically exempted classes of :Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions, as I explained.  The wording of the policy has always been understood in this way—look at the talk page archives.--Pharos 18:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That just doesn't make any sense. What your describing is the exact opposite of a "case-by-case basis".--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Each class or category is considered a case and each is decided on a case by case basis. While perhaps it should be re-worded, if you read the whole text carefully, it seems clear to me. All exemptions must be listed in the :Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions and the implied intention is that we only consider classes for exemption, not distinct images Nil Einne 19:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The Main Page FA was exempted for a long time, as I recall, and that was changed not through consensus, but through Jimbo's edit summary. I don't know where the page was pre-4/07 but I'm pretty sure this is the case. --W.marsh 18:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this was the version for a very long time, listing templates transcluded to the main page as one of those case-by-case situations that had been agreed upon as an exemption. --W.marsh 18:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This debate is fascinating -- I'm making popcorn! Zidel333 18:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes -- and also an eye-opener. On the one hand there is a wide consensus, and on the other hand there is a single, contextless sentence in an edit summary by Jimbo half a year ago. Sheesh. I need a wikibreak. --Zvika 18:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Last time the issue was debated, there was no consensus either way Nil Einne 18:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Um what? You're telling me we've reached consensus for the image in this instance when the discussion has only been going on for 18 hours with a several people opposed? Nil Einne 18:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: One way or another, we have to get the repeated reversion of this image away from the front page - no matter whether you are on the side of fair use - or against fair use, we should all be able to agree that repeatedly swapping the image in and out in this most prominent place is doing nothing for our reputation.  I would ask that we simply grab the next FA from the queue - stick it up there right now and debate this whole sorry mess somewhere other than the front page. SteveBaker 20:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant. We'll just ditch it so. Are we now saying that any article on a contemporaty artwork is excluded from being considered for the front page. Ceoil 20:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No - I'm actually in favor of fair-use where appropriate (and this was surely appropriate) - I just felt that we should not 'debate-by-revert-war' - and certainly not on the front page!  Take a look at the German Wikipedia article on Andy Warhol.  They couldn't find a free-use image of the campbells soup can - so they they took a photo of a couple of soup cans and used that to illustrate the article instead.  The photo of the artist has him lurking in the background of a photo of Jimmy Carter - and the other picture is of a really poor statue of him.  The entire article contains not one picture of his work.  Pathetic - just pathetic!  We have fair use laws for a reason - we should take advantage of them. SteveBaker 21:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Steve; I'd just assumed at the end of a long, lousy day. It was more than a revert war though, only admins can edit the template. Dissapointed that today had to be the test case. If Jimbo's every action is law, fine, but it should be enacted in the statutes, and not left hanging until a public humiliation. Ceoil 21:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No need, given that there is only about 3 hours left and the edit warring appears to have died down, hopefully for good. There is currently no future scheduled articles which have fair use images Nil Einne 21:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: About consensus

message: rightSince the issue of a fair-use image on the main page seems to be causing so much trouble, I've gone ahead and created a derivative work based on the painting in question: :Image:Three studies interpretation.PNG.  I've released this work into the public domain, and I propose that, as the only free image that resembles the painting in question in any way, it should accompany the blurb on the front page.  Sure, it may lack some of the subtlety and power of the actual work, but it's free! -- Super Aardvark 22:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: some of the subtlety and power, eh. Its a nice joke though, Aardvark, I salute you. Ceoil 22:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *Really?  I mean, I know next to nothing about copyright law, but... did Andy Warhol need permission from Campbell's?  And if not, surely he could have released his paintings into the public domain if he'd wanted.  So, yes, you're right, it's a joke, but I'd also like to get clear about the copyright status of derivative works.  -- Super Aardvark 00:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I grinned, and then deleted this.  Uploading an image to determine the boundaries of derivative work copyright is a bit point-ish, mitigated only by the wit involved.  - BanyanTree 00:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *Warhol's use of Campbell soup cans was almost certainly legitimate fair use. WilyD 13:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free alternative