Talk:Main Page/Archive 116

message: I guess WP has changed its server time over the past 24 hours or something, as yesterday when I visited past 00:00 I was given that days featured article etc, however today at 00:44 it is still 'yesterdays'.  I'm on GMT here.  Has the server date/time changed? 82.28.19.131 (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: or, is it a manual thing?  And if so, why aren't whoever is responsible doing their duty?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.19.131 (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Purge your cache. That should do the trick. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timing? 

message: I have noticed on several pages directing back to this one references to "The game". Is this vandalsim? Wikipedia does have an artilce regarding this and it seems to be such a trivial thing on many important articles H.M.S Me  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.15.224 (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. Could you give an example of what you're talking about? Nil Einne (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: For something called "The game" there certainly seem to be a lot of them.  violet/riga (t) 18:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I remember an article on that was deleted at AfD months ago. Actually, there seem to have been a few... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game (Life), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game (game), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game (game) (2 nomination)... J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this is what anon was talk about. It appears we became the primary source for information about this supposed game so many people were linking to us but the article was eventually deleted as it should be because no one reliable sourcee appears to have covered the game. N.B. The funniest thing I find about the AFD is how so many of the 'keep' supporters have come across the game in multiple communities and in multiple cities. I never realise your average anon wikipedian was so widely travelled... There also some other funny comments like the claim the game is played throughout Nottingham City. The game may be one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while but hey at least the AFD is funny :-) Nil Einne (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is anyone gonna point out that this has nothing to do with the main page? lol Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 17:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: While an article on this game should in no way be started before there is a reliable source discussing it, this non-anon user would like to point out that the game is widely played throughout many communities and cities. I find it's quite common to come across people saying/writing 'you've just lost the game' or to encounter people exchanging looks and cursing after certain topics/words are brought up. Or did I miss the point? Skittle (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The game? 

message: It's not letting me edit the main page for some odd reason, so can someone change the link to Oil price increases since 2003 from Oil price increases of 2004-2008. Thanks! Cyclonenim (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:ERRORS & WP:R2D. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done ... I there's no real reason not to bypass the redirect. The item will probably be on the Main Page for a while. Graham87 02:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. CycloneNimrod (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oil price increase 

message: There seems to be a horrible case of vandalism on the Iowa Caucus page; an obscene picture is floating above the page. Somebody help. BirdValiant (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it should be good now. BirdValiant (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iowa Caucus 

message: What on earth is the point of Main Page/1 thru Main Page/10? If they have a purpose it should be documented here... 86.146.134.249 (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a deterrent against vandalism. Please see Talk:Main Page/Archive 99#Cascading protection backup subpages & Talk:Main Page/Archive 102#Main page/1-10. Perhaps an explanation should be placed at the top of those subpages. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cascading parents 

message: on the back of the dollor bill it says "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" and i looked it up and it translates to either 
to nod, approve of a new order of the ages
or
to begin, undertake of a new order of the ages
now what does it mean i think i have an idea of what it means i was just lookin for your opion on this thanks DJ831415
:See Annuit Cœptis and Novus Ordo Seclorum. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ok Help 

message: Just noticed in the paper, today is the Earth's perihelion- it is the closest to the sun it gets all year. Is this worth mentioning? J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we don't currently have any events for OTD so it should be fine and the article seems decent enough. But it's getting a little late for this year, maybe next year Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to add it now that the date is unprotected but someone already has so it should be there next year Nil Einne (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worth mentioning? 

message: Wikipedia's insect photographers must be highly commended for the astonishing string of high-quality insect photographs that have graced the Main Page so often within the past few days. Well done! 70.17.194.247 (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you on behalf of all, check out Wikipedia Commons for a lot more. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 03:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Man, I wonder how our insect photographers hold those cameras, being so tiny and all (except the praying mantises, but they're still small relative to the cameras). howcheng  {chat} 03:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Compared to the problem of figureing out the copyright status of the resulting pics that was a farily minor problem.Geni 14:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insects 

message: why not let everyone change the main page!?!??!?!?!?!--Alex Vogt (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: because someone will replace it with "OMG! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL" every 2 minutes or so. --Howard the Duck 09:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an underestimate. Remember when Robdubar unprotected it? He did so at 10:04. After 28 revisions (some were reverts of vandalism, but most were vandalism), at 10:12, Deckiller restored the protection. Robdubar unprotected it again, and there were three more vandalism edits until 10:14. That's a lot of vandalism, and it's something we really don't want.Furthermore, there's not really much to edit anyway, most of the stuff is transcluded. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well to be fair, a short term unprotection may not demonstrate what things will be like if we permanently unprotect the main page. It may be more (since not everyone may realise the main page is unprotected) or less (since people tend to get very 'excited' when they can do something they can't normally do especially when they know it's likely to be time-limited). And the transcluded argument only goes to a point since clear we can unprotected the ITN templates etc. But you're right that the level of vandalism, whatever it may be will not be pleasant and also vandalism aside can you imagine the edit wars of things like the Iowa caucas results, American football etc that will probably resulton places like ITN? Nil Einne (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The transclusion argument was more like-it's pretty useless to protect Main Page; if we want to make it open to editing, we should unprotect the templates.Perhaps it's more reasonable to compare this to the protection of TFAs, those are never protected even though few of the IP edits are constructive. Still, I'm against unprotection, I simply can't see the potential benefits. Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just vandalism that would be a problem. Well meaning editors that don't understand Main Page protocol, don't understand the relatively complex coding and who simply can't write so well would edit it, and that would not look good on the Main Page. Also, imagine the number of people who would be keen to add their own elements- their own pages to DYK, their own tiny piece of trivia to ITN, their own little made up holidays to SA. As everything would have to be discussed anyway (people would get tired of others being bold on the Main Page very quickly) and so there would actually be no advantage for everyone being able to edit it. Can anyone name one? I know I can't. J Milburn (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm definitely not advocating it but there are definitely some editors who are not currently admins or not yet admins yet will have a net positive effect, for example fixing errors etc without screwing things up, getting involved in edit wars or adding Britney Spears latest dramas to ITN. But you're right that the number of people who will inadvertently or purposely do damage will far outnumber them and it is therefore very unlikely there will be a net positive effect Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Said people will probably end up as admins in due course anyway, and I have no doubt would appreciate the fact that it is in the best interests of the encyclopedia for the Main Page to be edited only by admins. Back to the original poster- Alex Vogt, was there something in particular you wanted to do or change when you started this section? J Milburn (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hate to ask, how is an NFL story worthy of being part of the ITN section? Timmah86 (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  High profile sports records are often shown on ITN. Try WP:ITN/C, Archive for December 2007. --74.13.127.147 (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  editing 

message: No picture for the Featured Article eh?  :) Jmlk17 10:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have a free image of the subject.Geni 11:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate the no-fair-use-images-on-the-main-page rule. If we are using the image to illustrate the subject in question, it falls under fair use. It doesn't matter if it is on the main page, it still qualifies as fair use. Puchiko (Talk-email) 12:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: that is legaly questionable.Geni 14:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some previous discussion Art LaPella (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I can provide laws on that case if you wish. I am a lawyer, and a member of the CIC. Dreamafter ⇔ 19:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Our fair use rules are more stringent than the law anyway. We are not looking to toe the line- we are looking to create a free encyclopedia. J Milburn (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  We could have used a plant or something. Tourskin (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that. I prefer generic pictures to no pictures. J Milburn (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmmm 

message: Dear Wikipedia, I have just came to say that I am sorry for the vandalism I have performed in the past. From now on I shall not vandalize anything on this Wiki ever again. Sorry! Please look at my talk page to see how much I have vandalized. :( --Jasper1066 (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your apology. I've given you a proper welcome notice to hopefully help you become a valuable editor in the future. Just so you know, this isn't really the place for stuff like this - as the big box at the top says, this page is for discussing the content of the Main Page only - if you want to chat to other editors/apologise/ask questions, you can do it at the Village pump. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 21:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, another one gives up. --Kaizer13 (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Message for Wikipedia 

message: I cannot read the words in the image at its current state.  Could we get a crop of just one map instead of trying to fit both in.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Try WP:ERRORS. --74.14.23.69 (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chicxulub Crater picture 

message: in that "on this day in history" bulitin it always changes to the next day at like 7 or 8 a clock p.m. for me but not even ussually the same time why is this do i perhaps live in a different time zone than the guy who writes that because sometimes i'll come on here at like 7 p.m. and it says the next day--Charlieh7337 (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its based on GMT 128.227.137.12 (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To take precision to the point of pedantry, Wikipedia runs on UTC. Algebraist 01:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It does always change at the same time of day (only DYK doesn't and ITN only changes by events) by design (it's completely automatic). But if you have daylight saving time or something then obviously the time will vary depending on whether you are currently on DST. However because of caching, you may not notice the change. If you purge the servers and your cache at 0:00 UTC every day then you'll find it does change at the same time Nil Einne (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  time for on this day 

message: (moved to Errors in ITN above) --Ouro (blah blah) 13:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Euro currency" 

message: I think that someone is playing silly games or is very anti-christian.  Could someone sort this silly behavior out.  We all know that the 25th is the celebrated day for the birth of Christ (because the actual day is not known).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.32.49 (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the 7th January is Christmas day for the Old Calendar.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xicsies (talk • contribs) 08:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Christmas was also listed "On this day" on the 25th,  Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries/December 25.  However, the main source of your confusion appears to be not knowing that the ~250 million members of the Eastern Orthodox churches celebrate Christmas on January 7th.  Merry Christmas.  Dragons flight (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although if you had follow the links on the main page you would know. BTW, in case you still have doubts, here is the version that was on 25th December 2007, as a look through the history will confirm. Nil Einne (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I remember checking Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries/December 25 on the 25th December and it did indeed have "Christmas day" listed, but the home page did not list "Christmas day".  I still think that some editor is trying to be a smart-alec.  Can someone give me a link to what the actual home page looked like on Christmas day.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.38.71 (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is all based around templates, so we can only link you to what specific parts looked like. I can assure you that, at the beginning of December 25 this year, the 'on this day' section looked like this. Check the revision history here- the last edit made before Christmas day changed the page to look like the one I linked to above. J Milburn (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict with above)The Main Page is composed mostly of templates, and as such showing what the entire page looked like at a given point in the past isn't possible. You must be mistaken, however, as what you're describing is impossible. The relevant raw content here on the Main Page is . That will mean the SA page for whatever day the server's clock is on will automatically transclude. What may have happened is, it may not have actually been the 25 by the server's clock when you saw it. Wikipedia's servers use UTC time, so if you're in a different timezone, it could have been the 25th where you were, but not according to the server. I can say that the Main Page absolutely did say Christmas on Dec 25, UTC.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was Christmas omitted on the 25th December but included on the 7th January for "On this day..." 

message: Would the first tornado in 35 years in Oregon or Washington be news-worthy?
RJRocket53 (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, Make the suggestion at WP:ITN/C and find out! ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 06:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the twister happened in the border of Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Austria, it can be considered, but since it's on the States, you'll encounter an uphill climb. --Howard the Duck 06:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So much for the idea of saying where to post the invalid statement and leaving it at that. :) ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 06:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just saving RJRocket53 precious time, since more than likely, his suggestion will be thumbed down since it's American news.  --Howard the Duck 07:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I know, but still, we're all just trying to be nice when we answer the invalid questions, I've done it too, but if we're thinking of doing this thing we might as well do it right. ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 07:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was nothing "mean" about what I said. I said "you'll encounter an uphill climb", that's a lot nicer with the "mean" people at ITN/C who'd shout "U.S. story! Not international! aaaaaaah." --Howard the Duck 07:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, I think were talking about two totally separate things right now. Nice, indifferent, mean, or just out right spiteful, the content of your comment to the guy isn't what I'm talking about, that fact that you helped him at all goes against the general idea of the conversation two blocks above, that we should just say: "Hey, this belongs at <insert correct place here>, and say nothing else. ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 07:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At least we spared him from the mean people at ITN/C...  --Howard the Duck 08:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think 'mean people' has anything to do with it nor does anti-Americanism. An article on this tornado doesn't even appear to exist nor is it mentioned on current events. I would suggest when people are directed to ITN/C they are reminded to read the criteria. Also the claim it's the first tornado in 35 years is dubious, see  (first big tornado maybe but not the first tornado). BTW, I'm somewhat doubtful RJpocket is going to read any of this which is one of the reasons why I think a strong reminder at the top is good. Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how that obnoxious "reminder" applies here.  Obviously, the OP was discussing the Main Page. —Nricardo (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point. The current big wording doesn't make it clear that this isn't the best place to discuss issues specific to one area of the main page (although the small wording does mean ITN/C). However I'm not sure if we can word it in a way which doesn't defeat the purpose (i.e. keeping it short and simple so a resonable number of people actually read at least the headline). Nil Einne (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 
BTW, I'm somewhat doubtful RJpocket is going to read any of this which is one of the reasons why I think a strong reminder at the top is good.
 
BTW, It's RJRocket, and I did read it. I don't really think it would be included though.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.130.174 (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Ooops guess I was wrong :-P Nil Einne (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  News inclusion 

message: Shouldn't the passing of Sir Edmund Hillary be noted on the main page of wikipedia? I'm probably biased as a New Zealander, but if he's on the main page of wikinews shouldn't he also be mentioned on wikipedia? I'd say he's certainly more important than a cricket sportsmanship row  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.52.237 (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, as you can see from the information box at the top of this page, this suggestion should be made at Wikipedia:In The News/Candidates. ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 03:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sir Edmund Hillary? 

message: has posted the advert  at the top of this page, at Wikipedia:Community Portal, and several other portals.  Without making a judgment about the other usages, I don't think this is appropriate to Talk:Main page.  This page is not really intended as a community page, and we want to discourage random surfers from thinking of it that way.
I'd suggest removing it from this page.  Other thoughts?  Dragons flight (talk) 05:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I say get rid of it immediately, this is NOT a community portal, which several of the above discussions will attest. ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 06:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention that it kind of nullifies the giant red warning. I removed it. Nufy8 (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with its removal - certainly shouldn't be on here.  violet/riga (t) 12:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons Picture of the Year Advert 

message: Source: Article in  WIRED Magazine  Bernd in Japan (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! It's amazing that, even for its own birthday, Wikipedia requries a source! 72.95.199.168 (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL Definition of "LOL 76.248.33.151 (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Happy Birthday, Wikipedia! 

message: Hi, I have noticed that a few administrators unprotect the main page, just for fun or to mess around... when this happens, random editors can do things such as this. This is obviously not acceptable, so can I just remind admins not to do so, or there will probably be some serious consequences...
Thanks!
 The Helpful One   (Talk)  (Contributions) (Review Me!) 11:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, that was around 9 months ago and was dealt with at the time.  violet/riga (t) 11:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You can read the article about it in the signpost. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, just wanted to remind the admins. Thanks!  The Helpful One   (Talk)  (Contributions) (Review Me!) 13:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your name is ever so fitting :) -Elmer Clark (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: One, any admin who unprotects the main page is rogue, two, you think they don't know that?, three, since then a system of Main Page alternatives with cascading protection has been implemented so a rouge admin would have to unprotect 11 pages at the same time without being noticed. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In one or two cases it's been unclear if the person who carried out the actions was the actual admin. In one case related to vandalism not unprotection, an admin left his account logged on when a stupid friend came over. And a while back an admins account was hacked because it had a weak password. In any case, admins unprotecting or deleting the main page are usually desysoped and the only way they are likely to get adminship back other then going thru RfA again would be if they didn't do it (not sure what happened to the admin with the weak password). Definitely no admin that I'm aware of has ever accidentally unprotected the main page or thinks it's okay to fool around in that manner. Nil Einne (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been both accidentially deleted and accidentially moved in the past. Both people apologised, explained how they had made the mistake, and that was the end of it- no desysopping or anything, everyone makes mistakes. I remember one of them (I think the deleter) was a brand new admin at the time. The person who moved it was showing a friend how to move pages, and then, rather than moving the page they meant to, moved the Main Page. J Milburn (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There's quite a history, really. You can trace most of the stories by looking through the extensive page log. Admins who unintentionally delete the page are generally "emergency desysoped" asap, but I've never heard of someone having to go through another RfA. If a password is stolen, there are various ways of identifying the true owner. — xDanielx T/C\R 03:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I was wrong then I wasn't aware some admins had really done it accidentally. I was under the impression that most admins who'd done it had either had their accounts misused or were inactive when it occured (indicating that they either really did it or had had their account misused but didn't realise). As far as I'm aware when admins didn't do it accidentally and didn't have their accounts misused, these admins don't usually get their adminship back Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Page Protection 

message: For God's sake, would someone please get rid of that stupid news item about that stupid test match. Its been around for days - surely there are more important things going on in the world than this. For "allegations" and controversy, plus the error that this series has been temporarily suspended (they are in Perth now, for the 3rd test), surely denies it world-calibre news status. Also, there have been dozens of matches with more controversial happenings in cricket, football, hockey, that haven't made front page. 71.191.100.252 (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Once a news item goes on, it stays on until it is bumped off by other stories, not after a predetermined amount of time. If you wish to propose other stories, please see this page. For what it's worth, I'm with you, but I am not usually a fan of sports items on the Main Page anyway. J Milburn (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, the Indian car item is muchgoogol worse. --Howard the Duck 03:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  India-Australia Test match 

message: I just have to say, it was really difficult to restrain myself from making the POTD caption "O RLY?" ... howcheng  {chat} 07:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: NO WAI! I agree, I've edited the image for personal use now. The head's at the perfect angle of tilt... —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Owl pic 

message: It is annoying that unlike Google etc etc the focus isn't automatically put into the search window when you visit the page. 85.227.226.235 (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This had been discussed time and time again - basically if the cursor would automatically focus in the search box then one cannot scroll down the Main Page simply by pressing the down arrow. This is just a brief summary of a multitude of discussions and hundreds of edits already devoted to this issue. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 15:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the quick reply. Is there any way to arrive at a bookmark that 1) displays the top part of the main page and 2) is focused to allow search text input directly? 85.227.226.235 (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe if you did some thingamagic to your monobook.js, but you'd have to wait for an answer from someone who's better-versed in this, as I am not. Oh, and you'd have to register for that (which is always a good thing). Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 15:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, register and you can set up a script to do it. Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why doesn't the cursor appear in the search box, like with Google? explains.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You could also use a bookmark in your browser to search directly. For example, in Firefox I have a bookmark with the keyword 'wp' and the url http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/%s. thus 'wp foo' in the address bar takes me to foo. Algebraist 17:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I checked that FAQ. I have to say, neither workaround given is especially use/newb/anon-friendly. Using the www.wikipedia.org page is the cleanest, but of course misses the entire point as the nice "newsish" info isn't there. Having to register would be as bad as if Google started requiring registration, the point is to have a free, ad-less, not-agreeing-to-anything search service. And I'm using wikipedia about as often as google. 85.227.226.235 (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with 85.227.226.235 that it would be a good idea to create a main page alternative.  However, I don't think that you can compare Wikipedia and Google. Google is a search engine, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Google's users just use Google. Wikipedia users use, write, develop, and maintain Wikipedia. That's why we need more users, and asking you to WP:Register, is one way to achieve that.Of course, it doesn't mean we shouldn't care about unregistered users, maybe we could use cookies to make Wikipedia (to some extent) customisable without an account. I'm not saying give them a monobook.js, I'm saying give them an option to focus the search box. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually quite a good idea. Perhaps you should bring it up at the technical corner of the village pump? J Milburn (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's already possible to customize Wikipedia, or indeed any other website, in any way you like with the appropriate browser settings. Firefox has extensions such as Greasemonkey (for JavaScript) and Stylish (for CSS) that make the process easier – Gurch 01:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And if you're using bookmarks []. BTW on both IE7 and FireFox and probably many other modern browsers besides you can add wikipedia to your browser's search selection Nil Einne (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That's an absurd accusation, and frankly very rude to the people who have been trying to help you.  It's the way it is because the majority of the users - registered and otherwise - prefer it that way.  If you want it differently than the majority, of course you're going to have to go to extra effort - only one option can be the default.  This has absolutely nothing to do with whether you're registered. -Elmer Clark (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's also absurd to assume that the Main Page should adhere to an alternative use rather then its actual use... as a display area of Wikipedia's best content. You want to search, use Special:Search. ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 13:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worth pointing out that Special:Search does now put the focus in the searchbox if you use a direct link like the above. There's no navigation issue on that page, so it's likely to stay that way. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also worth pointing out that I never said it did :) And I just realised you were agreeing with me, I hate abbreviation's, lol. ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 04:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Look, it has been decided through consensus that autofocus won't be the default. I have proposed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Cusomisation_for_the_unregistered, asking for some degree of customisation for unregistered users. But you have to realise that making such a big change is going to take longer than 18 hours. So please,  register and customise it, or don't register and use alt+shift+f. But as Elmer Clark pointed out, if the majority doesn't want it autofocused it isn't going to be autofocused. Check the discussion from October, there have been numerous before that of course. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  autofocus the search box, please 

message: Sort of like the "yesterday" link but for an arbitrary date.  Clicking in the page history doesn't do it, since most of the contents are served from today's edition.  Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.241.238.233 (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's tricky -- you can get an "old version" by clicking relevant links in the page history tab, but it's important to remember that template calls will grab the current template version, rather than the version which existed at the timestamp of the page version being viewed. In many cases, this isn't much of a problem, but the main page in particular is mostly built from templates. I'm not sure if there's any perfect solution. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can always look through the archive pages for Today's featured article, Selected anniversaries and Picture of the day, plus the page histories for In the news and Did you know. It might take a bit of searching but you'll be able to find what was in each section an any particular day. Raven4x4x (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, you could copy the source of the main page (click View Source at the top) to the sandbox, then change all the date references in the templates to be yesterday's date, or last week, or whenever. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny that this thread is already here—I just came to this page to report that 2 months ago I had saved a permalink to the Main Page. I got it by clicking "Permanent link" in the left-hand  "toolbox" pane. Tonight I tried it out and it doesn't work in the slightest. Just brings up today's version pretty much. Perhaps this "Permanent link" tool should simply be removed from the Main Page's toolbox so that people don't try to use it. Vanderdecken's workaround, mentioned above, sounds clever. I may not bother to try it tonight but good idea. — ¾-10 01:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S.—"Vanderdecken's workaround" sounds like something that ought to be a controversial theory in the field of hyperbolic topology. — ¾-10 03:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  is there a way to see old editions of the main page? 

message: It would be nice when you added a link to stq:Haudsiede, the language nearest to English at the contintent. --Pytk (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there are a very large number of languages and deciding importance or interest to English speaker is fraught with problems, we have a simple criteria of only accepting wikis larger then a certain size which at this time is 20k articles which the language you mention is quite far off. (We also don't list wiki's below a certain depth to try and avoid wikis with a lot of bot created stubs which is why certain wikis like Volapuk? are not there). Further discussion on this should take place at Template talk:Wikipedialang Nil Einne (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is 'depth'? Prodego talk 01:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like the author ment Article length (ooh, nasty mainspace to projectspace redirect) ffm 01:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 'Depth' is explained at m:List_of_Wikipedias, in the Notes section just before the list begins.-gadfium 04:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New neighbours, old relatives! 

message: I'm wondering, why do we have in the 'navigation' box 'Contents' in plural but 'Featured content' in singular? Randomblue (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there are the contents, and you can look at featured content.  It makes sense. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 21:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Contents" is a semi-frozen usage in that it is just "the way people say" the heading at the start of a book that tells the reader a summary of what's inside, most especially in the set phrase "table of contents". You could very well say "content", but it's just not the standard way. There is a lot of this type of thing in language. Click through to set phrase and Idiom for elaboration. Meanwhile, the content in featured content is being used in its conventional mass noun sense. The short answer to your question is, language can sometimes have more than one possibility for how to say something, and the option that's most commonly used may not be the one that seems most logical upon analysis from a certain angle. — ¾-10 02:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content(s) 

message: Just bringing this up. My feeling is that on a screen of normal height (this one is 1050px, which is probably more than some people have), I should be able to see at least the top of the "Today's featured picture", otherwise how do I know it's there? Having any more than six bullet points for either DYK or OTD is excessive (I'd recommend five), can we please exercise more constructive minimalism? Separa (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My observation, since I have frequently worked on the OTD side, is that it all seems to start with those admins working DYK, who want to get as many items on there from T:TDYK as much as possible ... which then leads them to add every backup item on OTD, and restore old items on ITN to "balance the main page". Normally, I just leave OTD at five items a day, but during the day, I have seen admins immediately add more stuff to that side just after they have updated DYK. Just my two cents. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was planning to mention this based on the comment a few days ago. OTD rules say no more then 5 items but we often seem to have more then that nowadays. While balance is more important then the rules, we either should relax the rules or get stricter with DYK IMHO. Since this concerns both DYK and OTD, this is probably the best place to discuss it Nil Einne (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From my perspective, it's been the opposite. I haven't updated DYK recently, but when I was doing it regularly, I frequently found that I had to keep sticking more DYK items in because ITN and OTD were too long. howcheng  {chat} 17:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the problem is since DYK doesn't necessarily get updated at midnight UTC the left over DYK items may be fairly long so even if OTD starts off with only 5 items it quickly changes to 6 or 7 for balance. This will then stay throughout the day and with each DYK update, it will stay long since OTD is long. Then when the next day rolls over, this repeat ad nauseum...? Nil Einne (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So insert a little IF too long REMOVE 1 or 2 from both...or are the projects not coordinated enough to do that? 199.89.180.65 (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a fairly frequent DYK updater, I've always picked DYK hooks based off the size of OTD and ITN.  I've never once edited either of the other templates.  I was unaware that DYK admins were ever stretching the other templates; are we sure that this is common behavior? --JayHenry (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've been padding up the RHS regularly. Alternatively, we could start enforcing the "unusual" requierment of hooks but a few people did star boycotting DYK when their stuff was rejected. Most of the hooks don't show anything non-normal. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 00:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  My mistake about the padding.  I didn't know this.  As for "enforcing the unusual requirement".  As User:Blnguyen already knows, there's a miniature riot about once a month at WT:DYK when a hook doesn't get selected.  I cringe to imagine what would happen if the number of hooks were reduced to the point that this became a regular occurrence.   How would we have a remotely objective criteria for "interesting"? --JayHenry (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Did you know" and "On this day" are getting too long 

message: Moved to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Thanks! --Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor grammatical error - news 

message: <moved back left> OK, that's unnecessarily huge; it fills my entire browser window. Sure, make it big, but not THIS big! Modest Genius talk 20:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mentioning your browser window, which may have nothing to do with the main page - please take your complaints to another discussion page please  - gees i thought the template was clear enough. lol.Tourskin (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can tell, he/she's complaining about the size of the messagebox which probably fills most browswer windows and was even larger when he/she made the comment . This is definitely the best and only place to discuss the size of the messagebox. Personally I still feel the template is good but people are welcome to comment if they feel it is too large. Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's only because there's no Talk talk:Main Page. howcheng  {chat} 22:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, it was suppose to be a joke - you know, ha ha, go away dont discuss here? Get it? ahh geeess...Tourskin (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The template fills up my whole screen, you guys want a screenshot? It's even more whoa than yesterday morning  --Ouro (blah blah) 11:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:   << new Wikipedia mascot. --Howard the Duck 11:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good idea. But how would it be the new mascot? We don't have a current mascot! The "oh no" face is a perfect candidate, because that is what I think most of time when I find people acting silly. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While there is no official mascot, we have Wikipe-tan, who could be considered a mascot. Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to say something about Wikipe-tan in my previous post. This is an international encyclopedia, why do we have an mascot (albeit unofficial) based on a Japanese concept? Granted, the smiley face and it derivitives started in the US, but it's basically international now. Of course, I jest about seriously making it a mascot! 206.252.74.48 (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Someone needs to draw Wikipe-tan doing the :O face – Gurch 17:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: << Wikipe-tan after seeing Jimmy Wales naked. --Howard the Duck 07:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Anyway, the first thing I thought after seeing that notice? "Well then, where DO I ask questions, make comments, etc.?"  The second thing? "Make the "main page only" less noticeable and the FAQ, Wikipedia:Questions, etc. more noticeable."  The third thing? "I had better edit it."  And the fourth thing? "Shoot, the school's IP is blocked.  Now I need to log in." ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 17:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I just did. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 17:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted it. I believe the longer version is better and still gets the point across - too much unnecessarily huge text is /incredibly/ ugly - and gives more details about where directly to go rather than to just another page. I also think that it shouldn't be 100% width. -Halo (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a tinker - I've tried to make it big and stand-out without making it overly ugly and try to be as useful as possible. Comments? -Halo (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ...really, guys?  We get, what, one off-topic question every day or two?  Is it really necessary to put this gigantic thing up there?  Much better would just be to start removing inappropriately-placed questions and making a template to put on the user's talk page informing why it was removed and where to post future questions.  This seems very silly. -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ....Or do bothFerdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 05:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Ferdia. Instead of making the user go  when he opens this talk page, let's do something like 
	Glad you made it to Wikipedia. However, your question was inappropriate for the talk page of the Main Page. Next time, kindly go to the Reference Desk to get the response you are looking for.
 for their talk pages. Right? --Ouro (blah blah) 12:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I mean, the text can still be edited. And for fans of  I have created  :) --Ouro (blah blah) 14:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't we put the warning sign at a separate template? Like Template:Main Page talk header? And I gotta use that new userbox.  
--Howard the Duck 14:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Template:Main Page talk info? Cos it's not a header for the main page but an info template regarding Main Page talk? --Ouro (blah blah) 15:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 206.252.74.48, I agree that Wikipe-tan is not international. I suppose she is used because many people (including me)       like her,  and consider her to be cute. If you don't want to use her, pick one of the other ones instead. The template is great, Ouro! Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We all have something for cute girls working their heads off, wearing miniskirts at that :) about the template: yeah, so I'm thinking, put this as a separate template so it can be substed and its contents adjusted according to a specific need (like, to point someone to the RD, HD, VP or everywhere at once). Then you slap something to the effect of  on an IP's/newbie's talk page and they can be off. Huh? --Ouro (blah blah) 15:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  this is a section edit link so that I can edit this thing later 

message: You know guys, if you are tired of everyone and his brother coming here, one could consider deleting or renaming the "discussion" tab that appears on the main page.  Simply seeing a prominent link to "discussion" probably does foster the wrong idea for some web visitors.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I wouldn't mind turning this page into a WP:QUESTIONS-style disambiguation page and shifting discussion on the Main Page itself slightly farther away. At least if everyone had to come through the interface, there'd be a better chance of having them end up at the right place. But then, I've currently got enough alcohol in my system to power a generator for a few hours, so it's not necessarily a good idea to listen to me :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Everybody knows that the consumption of massive quantities of alcohol makes one's opinions much more interesting to others. Works for me, at least. ;) --Elliskev 22:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay then, you're the defacto question answerer. Be aware that if a question goes unanswered for more then 12 hours the foundation is going to sue you for breach of contract! :-P (In case this isn't obvious this isn't a legal threat since I don't represent the foundation) Nil Einne (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'question' template above is good. I'd be for placing it. But (as always) the WP:QUESTIONS page has to be made simpler - I'm seeing something like the front page of WP:RD - a few words, a few links - very, very simple style. What do you all think? --Ouro (blah blah) 08:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay, how's about something like (example is just the thing from WP:RD, just edited) this for WP:QUESTIONS...
 Image:Face-surprise.svg|70x70px
rect 0 0 400 360 Knowledge reference desk
desc none	
 Image:Wikitanface.png|70x70px
rect 0 0 400 360 Wikipedia Help
desc none	
 Image:Meccanismo di Antikytera.jpg|70x70px
rect 0 0 400 360 Village pump
desc none	
 Image:Rubber duck.jpg|70x70px
rect 0 0 400 360 Main page errors
desc none
Knowledge reference desk            	Help                             	The Village Pump                              	Errors on Main Page
Encyclopedic knowledge on all topics	Help on contributing to Wikipedia	Discussions on the inner workings of Wikipedia	To report an error on the Main Page of Wikipedia
...huh? --Ouro (blah blah) 08:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: To be honest Ouro, my eyes are much more easily drawn to the banner at the top then to yours, although yours is much less threatening it seem much more ignorable, which we definatly dont want. 64.236.217.23 (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just a suggestion, and it's definitely not a suggestion for a header for this page - but for WP:QUESTIONS. I wanted this to be simple and definitely not threatening :) --Ouro (blah blah) 15:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just like to say that the above templates are hilarious and I wouldn't mind seeing anyone of them. Tourskin (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. First my new best friend  then my old buddy . This'll be great! --Howard the Duck 06:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've implemented the above, if you don't like it feel free to take it away, just reply here while you're at it. ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 13:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  this is a section edit link so that I can edit this thing later (3) 

message: I'd be all for protecting this page and forcing people to go down one route; this would become something of a discussion portal that leads you to where you ought to go.  violet/riga (t) 12:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. And it wouldn't stop people from talking legitimately about MP, since they could post on Talk:Main_Page/TMP or something similar. ffm 17:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And the point in this would be??? Modest Genius talk 22:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If people were forced to a more specific page in order to make a comment we would remove the constant "you should've posted that [here]" and much of the irrelevant rubbish that is written here.  violet/riga (t) 22:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that every one of those specific pages would be full of "You should have posted that in [name of other specific page]" comments – Gurch 01:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: OK, this new version (as of this revison) just plain stinks. Can anyone explain to me how its better to be less helpful? Because I just don't see it.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed it, it was done by an anonymous IP who clearly didn't read the conversation here. Just while I'm thinking of it, would anyone object if I made it a template to make it harder for inexperianced users to vandalise? ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 18:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New version