Talk:Main Page/Archive 109

message: ... as it creates an appearance of advertising, and provides incentives for people to actually use Wikipedia for advertising. Anyone who has something they want to sell can write a featured article quality article about it, and providing that it got mainly positive reviews, they now have a strong incentive to do so. Only articles about mainstream, no-commercial topics should be featured. Those are actually the articles we should be looking to incentivise people to write in any case. Postlebury 19:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're here to write an encyclopedia, and the front page is to show off our best articles. If a company manages to write about one of it's products with NPOV, citations, and everything else that an article needs to become featured, I see no reason not to have it on the front page. However, I think commercial TFAs should have a review to check that the article hasn't become unbalanced since being awarded FA before it goes up. I don't think there's any reason to go as far as not putting up any commercial TFAs. Capuchin 19:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a company manages to write about one of it's products with NPOV, citations, and everything else that an article needs to become featured, I see no reason not to have it on the front page - I agree with this. Raul654 19:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As do I.  Part of what sets Wikipedia apart from paper encyclopedias is our ability to cover topics that they cannot.  I see no valid reason to place artificial restrictions on the types of content that we feature on the main page.  —David Levy 19:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Capuchin, Raul and David.  (COI disclaimer: I'm the primary author of the Fun Home article, and have no affiliation with the book or its author other than being a fan.)  I'd go further and say that recent publications and media are something that Wikipedia has the potential to cover well, in an encyclopedic fashion.  As long as the article itself and the TFA summary are neutrally presented, with an accurate summary of what reliable sources have said about the subject, what does it matter if as a side effect the TFA promotes its subject?  Should we refrain from featuring Hey Jude, because its reviews are positive and putting it on TFA could possibly be construed as promotion for Paul McCartney?  I don't think so. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exactly the point I was going to make. If we stretch the OP's concerns a little further (perhaps to absurdity, perhaps not), most TFAs (that have an accurately positive article) will produce some additional income for the subject of the TFA, just because people will become aware that it exists and some people will like it and buy it or go to see it or study it deeper or whatever. Are we to refuse TFA to any featured article about a subject that anybody in the world is making a profit from? I think not. Capuchin 20:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And additionally, OP, why are you only concerned with positive articles? Surely featuring accurately negative articles is just as bad as it would perhaps reduce the profit that a company (or individual, charity, political party, nation, etc.) was making? Or is that OK in your book? (If slightly bitey, I apologise, I don't intend it to be). Capuchin 20:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Putting self-promotion by Wikipedia aside, I don't see why participation by the subject of an article should preclude that article being featured on the front page — as long as the article is neutral, well-sourced and everything else required of a featured article.  Why not harness vanity as a potential incentive for article improvement? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think there would be a problem if the person just happens to have edited wikipedia even their own article. For example I don't see a problem if we TFA Richard Dawkins or even John Quiggin just because they happened to have edited their article and in JQ's case an active wikipedian. However if the person is predominantly known for his or her association with wikipedia or if it's otherwise a significant part of their identity then it's liable to be more controversial (similar to Jimbo Wales). Nil Einne 18:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent publications/media should not be featured on the main page 

message: If I am not mistaken, Wikipedia states that articles should give more weight to the scholarly consensus rather than minority opinions. However, I could not easily find out about this matter in regards to Wikipedia.  Can someone please direct me to the appropriate page. Needhelp777 21:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. — TKD::Talk 21:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No Original Research are relevant as well. 138.237.165.140 21:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:WEIGHT.  Corvus cornix 17:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sourcing and point of view 

message: I recall reading something at Wikipedia regarding their rules stating that certain pictures that are "racy" (for lack of a better term at the moment) are allowable for articles such as penis and pornography.  Can someone direct me to the appropriate rule page? Needhelp777 22:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Content disclaimer - "Wikipedia contains spoilers and material you may find objectionable". Evil Monkey - Hello 22:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EvilMonkey, I appreciate the help but that was not the page that I just read about 15 minutes ago that I cannot find now.  Does anyone know the rule page that mentions explicit photos/depictions in regards to articles such as penis or pornography. Needhelp777 22:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe WP:NOT#Censored? Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And in response to the recent IP edits posting swear words here, just because policy says there can be articles about that, and WP:NOT#Censored, doesn't mean you can say f*** b**** mother**** like you've been doing.  It's been reverted thrice, so stop. Yamakiri on Firefox 23:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline that Yamakiri is possibly referring to is WP:CIVIL. Bottom line, articles can contain objectional content in context, editors on the other hand are expected to remain civil in all their actions. --Monotonehell 08:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW there are better places to get help, try the link at the top Nil Einne 18:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  second question 

message: I think there is an NPOV problem in saying "the fourth plane" in the "on this day..." section. Should read "a plane" or "another plane". Sean 09:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What point of view is being forwarded by the use of "fourth", exactly? The359 09:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The tinfoil hats think it was an unrelated aircraft piloted by the CIA/NSA/ATF/Whatever. 69.95.50.15 12:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia does not change its wording because of some crazy conspiracy theories. Tourskin 20:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I didn't know where to place this, so here it goes.
The title of every article has gone from being big and bold to being just like the rest of the text. Is this intentional? --The monkeyhate 17:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: look one above. Same cause. --Poupée de chaussette Demand satisfaction? 17:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The title? 

message: On the Main page, when I click view source the following appear:
*Main Page/1
*Main Page/2
*Main Page/3
*Main Page/4
*Main Page/5
*Main Page/6
*Main Page/7
*Main Page/8
*Main Page/9
*Main Page/10
I know it has something to do with the Main page being cascading, which I think means it has a .css.  Could someone tell me why it says all of that though?  Just wondering... Yamakiri 21:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are page mirrors incase rouge admins delete the main page. Cascading protection, (not cascading style sheets, css) means that all pages transcluded on it are fully protected. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, thanks then. Yamakiri 22:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is really stupid, they could easily all be deleted in less then a second. Prodego talk 01:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it does mean that admins dont get undeletion conflicts. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 03:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes but that's assuming the admin is prepared. Many admins or people who take over admin accounts may not be Nil Einne 17:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, a rouge admin could do much more damage than deleting the number two most viewed page. (Number one most viewed page is a Special: page and cant be deleted). Just delete the sandbox or something :p Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it helps, most rogue admins and/or compromised admin accounts so far have in fact just deleted the main page and sometimes blocked a bunch of people I think Nil Einne 15:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Page source question 

message: The current news list contains an item on Powell breaking the 100m spring record at the IAAF Grand Prix at Rieti, Italy. I can't find a WP article on that event. Is that the correct name for the event?
Ordinary Person 09:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't a page on the event at the moment. The IAAF page has links to the tournaments that have wikipedia pages. Recurring dreams 10:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IAAF Grand Prix 

message: Please see the thread(s) at Talk:Thou. --Dweller 10:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unverified section in [[Thou]] 

message: Just want to say.. thanks a lot for making such an interesting main page :) The 'in the news' section always has things which are important and yet often neglected in mainstream media, and imo represents a fairly worldwide view (more worldwide than most anyway). 86.137.123.74 17:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome. :) --mav 00:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The main page 

message: Hi. This stuff was on the news! Why isn't in the mainpage? It's mag. 8.4 and triggered a tsunami warning as far away as Kenya! You put it on the main page when a strong quake struck the Solomon Islands, and also when one struck Peru. Why isn't this on the main page??? Does wikinews have an article on it yet, so I could perhaps edit it? Help! Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 00:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have certain criteria that need to be in place for both the event and article quality before that happens. However, in this case, this article and event were eligible for at least several hours (possibly as long as 8). It was simply an oversight no admin acted on the request at the request page. I therefore placed this item on ITN. Apologies on not doing so sooner. --mav 00:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 Indian Ocean Earthquake and tsunami, shouldn't it be in the main page? 

message: Shouldn't this be on the front page? If the Japanese PM resigning was on the front page, I don't see why this (with further reaching consequences) shouldn't be.
:WP:ITN/C. —METS501 (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian PM 

message: Why is tomorrow's featured article going to be EXACTLY the same as today's? Simply south 15:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dungeons & Dragons is a type of fungi? Nil Einne 17:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is if you've left the game in a dark corner of your room. Tourskin 19:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am now going to ask, what the...? When i went to the tomorrow link before, it clearly showed today's article and now it is showing the proper one (I suppose). So what is going on? Did someone mess with the main page template? Simply south 20:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know..Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 14, 2007's page history shows its always been D&D, and Main Page/Tomorrow hasn't had any edits since February. A cache error, perhaps?--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Bypass your cache (Or use the archive) Raul654 20:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can also use the toolbox at the top. If you click on TFA it will take you directly to the correctly dated TFA article (and you can also check the date to make sure it's the right on). Incidentally, don't forget to try purging as well (this is mentioned in the bypass your cache but in case you don't read it). When I visited the tomorrow's main page a few minutes ago it was indeed the fungi. It became D&D when I purged although I forgot to clear my browser cache so I don't know for sure if it was browser cache related which was cleared when I purged (although I very rarely visit the tomorrow link) Nil Einne 20:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fungi fungi fungi 

message: I think it looks too big. I prefer the old size. __earth (Talk) 15:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - I'm viewing with Firefox on WinXP and I really dislike the change - which also appears to have been changed on article heading titles. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 16:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same problem in German and French Wikipedia. sy, --Petar Marjanovic 16:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eek, what is this madness? Far too flashy. Sections names in articles don't look like this, why are we bringing these out? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, they look absolutely horrible to me (in Firefox and IE,anyway) Is this a mistake or a new look? 217.122.83.79 16:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe the issue has been introduced inadvertently by a new Mediawiki revision and is being looked into now. It should be fixed soon hopefully. Will (aka Wimt) 16:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And indeed it should now be fixed. If it still looks broken, try flushing your cache of your browser. Will (aka Wimt) 17:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely back to normal now. Thanks. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 17:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bolded headlines 

message: Has anybody ever thought about using bolder and more attractive colors and fonts on the main page. A strong main page makes the site look more attractive I think.   ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"?  11:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it has been discussed to death at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page. The conclusion was that usability trumps aesthetics and hence, it should use a clearly readable, preferably core typeface while pastel colours keep Wikipedia from looking to gaudy, and to tie in with Wikipedia's relatively minimalist style. Of course, if you don't like the main page, we have a variety of Main Page alternatives, which you can use instead of our normal one. Laïka 12:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the default is highly attractive as it is. Maybe usability just turns me on? Capuchin 12:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Usability doesn't trump aesthetics! Usability and aesthetics are one. Doops |  talk 12:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh God no. I did a design degree. Please don't start that one. Next you'll be quoting Loos saying that ornament is crime! :) --Monotonehell 13:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. I guess like most quotations it means different things to different people. For me, it certainly doesn't mean aesthetics are unimportant — quite the reverse! Doops |  talk 21:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If your signature and userpage is any indication, i'm glad you can't have your way with the front page design. :) Capuchin 14:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't insult you, I'm just saying it isn't my style. Apologies if you took it the wrong way. My user page is as interesting as I wish it to be :) Capuchin 14:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Since you feel you understand design well and feel you can design a main page which looks better but isn't less usable, why don't you get started on creating another Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives. Should you succeed in this goal, then it may very well be adopted after extensive discussion. I should warn you though that you'll likely find you won't succeed in  your goal. People have vastly different opinions on what looks good and is easy to use. Of course there's nothing stopping you setting whichever page you want as your default mainpage Nil Einne 15:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Judging by the simultaneously attractive and easy-to-use userpage he's made, I'd like Blofeld to personally create a new mainpage for immediate use.  On April Fool's Day. 172.209.158.180 19:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if he includes that picture of Mr. Bigglesworth that's on his userpage. That would make it epic. Capuchin 07:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bolder and more attractive colors and fonts on the main page 

message: Your photos every day for e.g., "in the news", "on this day" are always
on the top of the section --- whereas the related words might be
buried much deeper. The user has to poke around for the matching
story! How frustrating. If one doesn't know who the important person
is pictured, he can't even guess which story the image refers to. Fix
your template or whatever, please! Jidanni 22:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're supposed to be that way, so there isn't anything to fix.  The item relevant to the the picture will have a caption, along the lines of (pictured) or some-such.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I just checked, DYK, ITN, and SA all have the proper captions, so I'm not sure what the problem is there. Unless you're talking about the featured article, wherein the image is quite obviously the subject of the article. And honestly, I just don't see what you think of as "teasing". What's wrong with expecting a reader will, well, read?--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is talking about the picture of Shinzo Abe in ITN, people might confuse him for someone else in the news section like Vladimir Putin. --Hdt83    Chat 00:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Everything makes sense. The pictures are at the top because they look far better there. ITN pages are listed by most recent. OTD pages are listed chronologically. The DYK pictured item is usually at the top anyway. Its really not that hard to find the word pictured, and your tone is rather intense for something so superficial. Atropos 01:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jidanni, I hear you, but my plan to have the word "pictured" made bold like this: (potrait pictured) was crushed by a discussion a few days ago. So no. (Hey that rhymes!).Tourskin 02:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not just because they look better there. See the Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ Nil Einne 13:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Has anyone ever told you you're extremely boring? --86.133.28.227 11:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you addressing anyone in particular? —METS501 (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos always on subsection tops: wrong! 

message: hello every one we in fa.wikipedia.org (persian wikipedia) are near 25000 articles please give us a link in your main page thank every one--213.207.251.64 14:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: fa is 13 articles short, as of my last check.  Here is the raw count for those who want to check the progress. - BanyanTree 14:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: And when you reach 25,000... then we can give you that little link!!Tourskin 18:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yup. I've been watching the Persian Wikipedia inching closer to 25,000 for a few weeks now. As of this writing it's three articles short, so it will probably pass the mark today. —Verrai 19:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's there now. (25,004 at the moment.) GracenotesT § 02:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice if someone would update it then :) Grats to the Persian wiki ;D 86.137.28.211 11:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  we are near 25000 articles 

message: Contrary to the picture on the front page about "Ensay" - IOSA (pronounced "eesuh") is the Gaelic for Jesus. "Ensay" has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus. Please remedy this, this is the kind of thing that makes wikipedia a laughing stock. --MacRusgail 15:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Howcheng was the admin who created that PotD setup. I'm not sure if he's the one who wrote the caption, but perhaps you should contact him. Leebo T/C 15:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It originates from the article itself, I think. Beautiful picture, wrong etymology. Thanks for the tip. --MacRusgail 15:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you have corrected it in the article. It didn't have a source before, so it's irresponsible to put unsourced info on the Main Page. Hopefully there's a reason for the mixup. Leebo T/C 15:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Next time, please use WP:ERRORS near the top of this talkpage.  Response is usually quicker there. Thanks. --PFHLai 05:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BS - alert 

message: Greeting. I'm a new user and I have some doubts. I know this isn't the appropiate page for this question, but I can't find any other place for this: Which is the difference between the English Wikipedia and the Simple English Wikipedia? Twicemost 00:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is posted on the "What to do" section of the Main Page of the Simple English Wikipedia: "Use easy words and shorter sentences. This allows people with little English to read them". In other words, the Simple English Wikipedia is for non-native English speakers who are still learning the language – a very important language in the business world and the Internet. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple:Wikipedia:Simple_English_Wikipedia should reveal all. --Rehcsif 00:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Simple English is English thats, well, simple. Were else Wikipedia en. is just English. Tourskin 03:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple English? 

message: Has anyone else noticed that some templates look a lot different? Like they once had color in the background but don't anymore? -Sox207 19:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, see Template:Ambox. — Malcolm (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you guys changing the templates??? They are ugly now!--Edgesales1 21:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you discuss this in the appropriate place where it's already being discussed Wikipedia talk:Article templates. Also you might want to read why first as it's explained in Wikipedia:Article templates as well as in all the discussions that have already taken place Nil Einne 22:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates look different 

message: do you think there will be a new design for this page ? ever. just wondering looks good though. Isfaner 21:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed many, many times, including right now on this very page. -Elmer Clark 21:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a new design for this page 

message: === Note ===
Chya! No kidding! Don't you the red "x"s where images used to be? :-p--Angel David 19:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to the pump, if you like. --199.71.174.100 03:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Flags are invisible. Would the problem persist for a long time? --Howard the Duck 12:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory the problem is supposed to be already fixed. Trying clearing your cache and if that doesn't help, try purging (remember to purge on commons if the image is from the commons). For further info, check out WP:VPT (multiple discussions) and :Commons:Commons:VP Nil Einne 14:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  technical difficulties with images 

message: Chya! No kidding! Don't you the red "x"s where images used to be? :-p--Angel David 19:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: "The Wikimedia servers encountered technical difficulties earlier this week, and as a result, some images may not display properly. To correct this, click the image to see the description page, and purge the cache"
HOw do you get rid of this? I only need to see it once but now its stuck at the stop of every article and its getting annoying. 71.112.230.231 00:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Message at top 

message: Would someone please try tell me what is going on with images on English wikipedia. A large number aren't showing up, and the editing toolbar doesn't work at all. This is a serious problem which is not just affecting my computer, as an earlier post on this page of a few days earlier claimed such problems as well. User:R-41 (sorry I can't sign my post properly as the toolbar doesn't work at all)
: Go to the pump, if you like. --199.71.174.100 03:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major errors with English wikipedia, images are not showing up, where can I report this or what should I do? 

message: I cannot see SVG images in the Wikipedia pages. --HybridBoy 08:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Flags are invisible. Would the problem persist for a long time? --Howard the Duck 12:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory the problem is supposed to be already fixed. Trying clearing your cache and if that doesn't help, try purging (remember to purge on commons if the image is from the commons). For further info, check out WP:VPT (multiple discussions) and :Commons:Commons:VP Nil Einne 14:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVG 

message: Is there a reason that only battles and military conflicts are mentioned in this section (with one exception)? Surely human history has been more varied than this, and Wikipedia should give examples of how interesting and diverse it has been?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.57.231.147 (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 3 out of 5 of them are about battles; there are two exceptions.  It just so happens that several significant battles took place on this date (and 3 out of 5 isn't really that overwhelming anyway).  Not much to be done about it, really, unless you think some of the battles aren't important enough for the section. -Elmer Clark 02:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively if you can think of something more important that happened on this day with an existing article of resonable standard then you're welcome to tell us so we can consider it. However from a brief look at other events there doesn't seem to be anything that major Nil Einne 08:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Surely human history has been more varied than this, but who keeps a record of what happened when?  Winners of wars write history and the date of their glorious moments get recorded in official documents.  Centuries later, these are the moments -- with confirmed dates -- get to appear on OTD.  Many milestones in history have to be left out of OTD because the date cannot be confirmed.  If you don't like battles on OTD, blame the military historians over the centuries for doing such a good job.  Also blame people in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history for their job well done in wikipedia. --74.14.22.10 18:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On this day monotony 

message: Why doesnt anybody adding the saigon inferno article....
http://vietnamnews.vnanet.vn/2004-06/12/Stories/06.htm
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2798725_ITM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2372201.stm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you? Nil Einne 12:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lol, dont bite the newcombers . Tourskin 00:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't biting. Nil Einne 06:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm. It was just nibbling. Tourskin 07:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Instead of posting requests for article creation here (a wrong place), please go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation.  You may also want to leave a note of the usertalkpage of members on Wikipedia:WikiProject Vietnam to discuss articles about Vietnam.  Hope this helps. --PFHLai 18:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia:Your first article. Do note that if you register it will be somewhat easier as remarked on that page. Also try checking out the links at the top as this is not the place for general help Nil Einne 19:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add an article 

message: ...isn't listed on the news? It is a wake-up call to the world. I needs to be there. It was bumped, while the death of a racer is left? Not right.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.149.136 (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ITN/C -Elmer Clark 01:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused.  The Northwest Passage item was added at 18:45 UTC, but the IP comments about it not being there at 23:25.  Is the comment about the placement?  Items on ITN are placed in the order that the events they describe occurred.  The ESA made the announcement about the Northwest Passage on Sept. 15, so the item about it is placed below the Thai plane crash and the Greek election results, which took place on the 16th.  What's the problem here? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I didn't see it. Sorry. 72.161.149.136 13:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Northwest Passage... 

message: What are the consequences for deliberately defacing articles on Wikipedia? Is there a way to stop users from mis-using Wikipedia? Can you be sued for defametory stuff or tracked down?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.230.242 (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to WP:VANDAL, if you like. --199.71.174.100 08:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see Seigenthaler controversy#Anonymous editor identified and Chris Benoit murder-suicide#Wikipedia controversy for the two most extreme consequences for Wikipedia vandals - one lost his job and the other had his computer seized by the police. Of course, replacing a page with "WIKIPEDIA SUCKS!!!!!!!!" is unlikely to get you into any offline trouble, but it's really kind of pointless. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't assume for sure though. For example, if you do it from work or school or something of that sort, there is a (fairly small) chance your boss or IT admin might decide to track you down and you could find yourself at the very least receiving a warning, depending on your companies/school's internet usage policy. The point is vandalism is clearly against wikipedia's policies and particularly if it is repeated after warnings it's rather likely it will be against many companies and schools policies (most likely ISP policies too but I don't think any will act unless it's extreme or they receive a complaint). While it's somewhat unlikely, you could potentially get in trouble for it even if what your doing is only minor (maybe someone in the IT admin or your principal or boss is part of the wikipedia vandalism patrol for example). It's always a dumb idea to assume you won't get in trouble because it's 'just the internet'. Nil Einne 18:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Why doesnt anybody adding the saigon inferno article?
http://vietnamnews.vnanet.vn/2004-06/12/Stories/06.htm
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2798725_ITM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2372201.stm  
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200211/02/eng20021102_106131.shtml
http://english.people.com.cn/200210/30/eng20021030_105915.shtml
http://www.theage.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popupPrintArticle.pl?path=/articles/2002/10/29/1035683417143.html
http://www.cathnews.com/news/211/19.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/10/30/vietnam.fire/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2447013.stm
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you start adding? Why don't you read #Add an article above and the instructions at the top of this page? --74.14.16.254 18:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saigon Inferno 

message: http://www.csa.cz/en/news/news_tz_data/tz_14092007.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mentioned this two days ago - feel free to update the logo yourself... remember, this is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Also, Talk:Czech Airlines would be the most appropriate place to discuss this. Fakelvis 14:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new czech airlines logo 

message: Hi I am mostly happy with the front page but is there anyway we could boost the header a little more like Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (executive) ? but of course change it to 2,013,561 articles in english   ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"?  14:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ug, I doubt you'd find much support for using an executive style header Nil Einne 23:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main page header 

message: A bomb just exploded in Prague! 215 people were seriously injured! Why isnt it in main news?
http://www.novinky.cz/krimi/z-autobusu-mhd-v-praze-vyslehly-plameny_122782_9krrd.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ITN isn't updated by magic. Feel free to make suggestions at WP:ITN/C.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Also wikipedia isn't about news. You might want to check out :Wikinews:Main Page which is about news Nil Einne 23:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't find anything about this Prague 'bomb' on the news. From the look of the picture on that website link, it looks like the engine of a 'bendy bus' caught fire. See a similar story here. I don't understand Czech at all, but the "215" bit is only mentioned at the start of the article, so it is unlikely to be a casualty count. Carcharoth 21:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried a machine translation  which didn't really shed any light on the 215 bit but it seems to suggest no one was wounded Nil Einne 21:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess it is the bus number, or the number of passengers. Reviewing the contribs of the IP who posted this, they are working on disaster articles. Quite why they thought this was a bomb that injured 215 people, I don't know. I'm going to assume good faith and point them at :Category:Disasters and Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management. Reviewing those contribs also led me to do a few edits as well, so that's good. Carcharoth 22:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bomb in prague 

message: I don't like the way that templates have been reorganised so that they dont have their boxes and colors anymore; its hard to differentiate between article text and templates --Hadseys 18:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is for discussing the Main Page. Your comment might be more constructive at a talk page for the new templates. See Template talk:Ambox. Leebo T/C 18:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No it was a Wikipedia-wide thing, remember "MediaWiki is encountering some problems, templates may not appear correctly." or something like that. I noticed it before the notice went up. -Sox207 19:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing any problems with templates right now. The only thing I could think of is the article template standardization project. If such a problem existed with MediaWiki, it's fixed. Hadseys, can you clarify? Leebo T/C 19:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure he meant them using Template:Ambox. I agree, I hate the way templates look now. They're very dull and stupid looking.--Boatgoodso1 19:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There is already extensive discussion in Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes. I believe the reason the background colour was removed because it's difficult for people with low visibility to read and because it's been argued they look horrible when you have multiple templates. Nil Einne 23:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it's supposed to look horrible. It usually means that the article is horrible. --dab (𒁳) 10:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: In the Armed Forces Day page, Chile is not mentioned, but it shows up on the main page?  That's a little odd. Cww 03:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pls see Public holidays in Chile. It's there. --74.13.124.95 04:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No but if u wanna add it in to the other article than do so. Tourskin 19:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chile's Armed Forces Day 

message: According to DYK's guidlines, 5-8 entries are permitted per day, and I'm seeing 9 right now.  SA says a max of 5 is allowed and there are 6.  It makes the main page look rather cluttered when both of those sections are soo long. Mbisanz 04:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The TFA paragraph today is also very, very long. --74.13.124.95 04:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very frequent problem in trying to "balance the main page" so the overall text on both the right and left columns "balance out" so there is no excessive empty spacing. This especially happens when some admins use a wide screen 1280×1024 monitor display resolution setting or higher while other users use an 800x600 setting or lower. Which do you use on your computer monitor? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, you are not the first to mention this before. iirc, the last time it was discussed, someone proposed that there should be the same size limit on all four main page boxes, but with the usual historical inertia regarding any major changes on the main page, nothing got done (see the archived discussion). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It's very neat & tidy now. Thank you. --74.14.18.168 13:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, much better today.  I remember seeing the debate on set boxes, and I think the solution is more limiting the number of DYK/OTDs put on the page, rather than the space they take up. Mbisanz 01:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK/SA 

message: I find it hard to believe that Wikipedia isn't commemorating International Talk Like a Pirate Day today... where's that shopped picture of Jimbo in a pirate outfit on the helm of the good ship 'Pedia (hint hint)? Yes, I do realise that it's ineligible for OTD but can't we do something? :D —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 08:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you carry out an action which is ITN worthy (e.g. commit mass murder) which somehow is related to Talk Like a Pirate Day you may make it but hurry, you're running out of time Nil Einne 11:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It be time for a keelhaulin'! Capuchin 11:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it more likely that Vanderdecken is referring to the fact that it is not listed at 'On this Day' as one of the holidays, although it is at the 19th September page itself. Ygoloxelfer 12:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so since Vanderdecken specifically said he's aware it doesn't qualify for OTD. My suggestion is really the only option that won't violate policy IMHO. There's only about 4.5 hours left so hurry Nil Einne 19:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Try expanding the page 5X with happenings on TLaP Days in previous years.  This might be good for DYK.  But you should have done this 4 days ago.  Maybe too late now.  Try again on September 15, 2008. --74.14.18.168 13:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the page is far too long and old to ever qualify for DYK. Leebo T/C 19:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then start working it into a featured article for an appearance on the main page on 19 September 2008. --74.14.20.83 05:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  YARR!