Talk:Main Page/Archive 103

message: What is the correct form (in English), and if the accents are not always included, should they be?
:Please take a look at the top of this page and find a more appropriate place to ask this question and other similar ones like your previous one on renaming pages. Also do remember to sign with four tildes ~~~~ Nil Einne 06:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martina Navratilova/Navrátilová 

message: Since today 8 July 2007, Greek Wikipedia has more than 25.000 articles. Please add the "el" link to the appropriate "More than 25,000 articles:" section. Thanks. --FocalPoint 15:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations on the milestone. I have added the link. Picaroon (Talk) 16:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek Wikipedia has more than 25.000 articles 

message: Looking at Tomorrow's Main Page, it seems the short FA blurb and fairly lengthy right side are going to make for a somewhat unbalanced page. Unless admins are going to use 12 or so DYK blurbs, it might be an idea to cut an item from the July 7 Selected Anniversaries box for now. 84.71.1.34 10:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What they will do is remove a heading from 'In The News' as they usually do. --AxG @ ►talk 12:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Tomorrow" is now today.  Please trim ITN.  Thanks. --74.13.129.82 01:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The 7/7 bombings aren't news... maybe 2 years ago, but not now. --Howard the Duck 04:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the anon was talking about "On this day" for July 7th. --Dreaded Walrus  t c 12:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tomorrow's (July 7th) edition 

message: I was thinking that we could like rebuild the entire home page.Our old home page is getting old and we could, like all come up with a new page design for wikipedia's anniversary thing.TaylorLTD 18:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I don't know. I'd tend towards the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" side of things. We have a design that works, why spend time/effort making a new one to do the same things?--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any proposed redesign of the main page requires a lengthy discussion by the community. The current version, dating from March 2006, was implemented after this several month long discussion. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note that if you are getting bored with the standard Main Page, there are numerous alternate versions already available. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Fyre2387 "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Theres not really a need for a new home page. Oysterguitarist 23:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the original author, at least partially - the mainpage, especially the banner/header is boooring. How about adding at least a long search field (like google's), so it's more "inviting" to search? I think there are a few people out there who're just users, not editors. - Alsandro · T · w:ka: Th · T 21:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about a *new* Home page 

message: WRT: Ebionites featured article, what Bible translation was used for this?  "Congratulations to the poor?"  What a distortion of "Blessed are the poor"
:Try asking on Talk:Ebionites, that'd be the better place to ask about the article.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Changing it on that page wouldn't fix the Main Page, afaik.  But seriously, if it's going to be billed as a "best known quotation", it ought to be taken from a mainstream translation rather than the current odd (and frankly childish-sounding) rendering.  I suggest that a better translation would be something like the NIV, KJV, NASB, or NRSV.  The current one is awful - and not used in the Beatitudes article, I might add.  The reference is Luke 6:20, available in numerous translations in the link. Vonspringer 03:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The best way to handle things like this is usually to change it in the article first and once this has been done and accepted by other editors, make an error report (in the error report section at the top), not try and deal with it here where editors of the article may not read any of the discussion & even if they do, may not respond since it's not the place to discuss issues concerning the article. BTW, the phrase is sourced in the article Nil Einne 07:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Bible Translation 

message: Is there any link to yesterday's main page that will still work tomorrow? Thanks in advance Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 14:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the way that the Main PAge is set up, I'm afraid not. You can grab the templates for the day's Featured Article, Featured Picture and Selected Anniversary sections, but Did you know and In the news don't keep copies of oolder templates (WP:DYKA aside). The only way to do this would be to take a screenshot on the day, and just link to the screenshot. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 14:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thank you anyway. I'd better take that screenshot today then, or it will be gone forever! Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 14:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's none of my business, but what do you want it for? I won't be offended if you choose to tell me where to stick my noseyness. ;-) Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 22:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yesterday's main page tomorrow 

message: This seems like it would be the next logical step after 250,000. Two Wikipedias have it. I think another row should be added listing Français and Deutsch. Atropos 20:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been asked and answered many times. Short answer, the general agreement is there's no point having a seperate cat for 2 or even 3 languages. Long answer check the archives including Template talk:Wikipedialang or Google for it Nil Einne 20:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More than 500,000 articles 

message: I am in the process of creating a new character info box for characters in the Dune Universe. All has been well and good and I currently have a infobox in the new page. But I still am not sure about the bit which people have to copy and paste onto the page they want the infobox to be. How is the actual template thing, and I try to express my question as best I can, created.
:
--Eddie 13:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be a dick. If you use that template, at least provide a link to the correct location. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 14:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the problem. I don't know the answer to the question. I was pointing him to a place where he could get his question answered. No need to be a dick. Eddie 14:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally any question containing the word "infobox" is going to be more appropriate on the Help Desk. This isn't an exception. I just really detest that template, as it's essentially an incredibly brusque way of pointing to WP:QUESTIONS. If you want them to go there, say so. Don't put up an intimidating (to a newbie) box telling them they've done wrong and don't belong on this page. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 15:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, man. The template's there for a reason. Eddie 15:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, to stop people posting the questions in the first place. Once they have, they should at least get a helping hand beyond what's already said at the top of the page. If you (general "you", not you specifically) aren't able to do that, leave the question for a bit. This is the most highly-frequented talk page on Wikipedia – someone's going to come along fairly shortly who is able to give more specific directions (or an actual answer). GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 15:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. My mistake. I'd never edited this talk page before. Now I know how things work here. People ignore the template and we still answer their questions. That's what I love about Wikipedia :-) Eddie 15:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eddie, the consensus for this matter was that no matter how helpful the header we still get around the same number of people asking questions, so we've abandoned the header and decided to help people by giving them a quick answer and point them directly to a helpful resource. Although since then others have added the template you used to the top of the page. --Monotonehell 01:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Helpful? That was the most horrible and daunting header we ever had. 89.120.193.125 14:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creating an Infobox 

message: July 10th, 2009, two years from now, will be the 500th birthday of John Calvin. Are anniversaries like this worthy of inclusion in On This Day? What did we do on Mozart's 250th? 70.17.207.95 04:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think so. We did Euler's 300th a while back. Borisblue 04:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yup, see the SA on that day. As long as someone remembers to add it...  - BanyanTree 06:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say probably, but I would be careful about speculating on things so far in the future. Things may have changed significantly by then in how we choose things for SA, if we still have an SA Nil Einne 13:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about On This Day notability 

message: A bigger template would be more obvious to those with a question.Tourskin 00:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By bigger do you just mean bigger in size or do you mean more detailed? We used to have a detailed template but after some discussion it was decided it didn't help and may have just made things worse as it could have been too confusing or too much to read. So we settled on the current one (actually we got rid of the template for a while first). If you just mean bigger in size (bigger fonts, bigger icon) then that's a different issue although it's a bit unstandard practice AFAIK and some may feel we risk frightening newbies (that was also an objection to the older one IIRC). Nil Einne 00:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair point - then place a more obvious link in the main page - when new users goto wikipedia, they think that the main page "discussion" is a great place to "discuss" their question, so if we made a more obvious link in the main page this would help, I believe. Not more detail, but bigger font etc. in agreement with your latter suggestion.Tourskin 04:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This kind of thing comes up occasionally, as I've stated before, half the problem is having the |page|discussion|edit|+|history| buttons at the top. If they were at the bottom for those not logged in then the urge for readers(*) to hit them would be quelled. Also, Tour's idea of having a link to the desks on mainpage is a good point. (* readers as opposed to editors - the two kinds of user) --Monotonehell 07:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't suppose it'd be possible to use a CSS hack to redirect those clicking on the discussion tab for the Main Page to a WP:QUESTIONS-like page? If a prominent link were added to the top of said page linking back to the actual Talk:Main Page, it'd probably solve most of the issues. I suppose it's a slightly drastic step, though. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q's ad A's template 

message: In case no-one has seen the error report I filed for the PotD (the eye anatomy), I've asked for the list at Template:POTD/2007-07-12 (note the 'small' tags) to be put in Template:POTD protected/2007-07-12. I feel that a list to read is more reader-friendly than hovering to find out what each number is. It is also easier to scan a list and get a feel for what is there, rather than trying to remember what number '5' was when you hovered over it. If you agree, please say so here. Carcharoth 00:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added to full list for now. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. For others arriving at this discussion, the non-list version is here. Hopefully there will more images like this being featured in the future, so some feedback on which is preferable: (1) a list + hover-click, or (2) just hover-click - would be good. Carcharoth 00:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Always with a list version - hover-only requires a mouse; keyboard tabbing will activate the link but not show the hover-text. Bazza 13:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hover and click or list? 

message: Should we add a link to Commons, as we do with the Wikinews project, for TFP? Richard001 04:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I may not be understanding your question, but are you talking about a link to :Commons:Main page or a link to the image description page of the current TFP? We normally do the latter, but the picture for this day is a special one – it is a diagram so we programmed the image using the ImageMap extension so users can click on each number to go to that associated article. Clicking on the blue "i" icon in the corner of the image links to the image page. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think what he means is that just as ITN has a link at the bottom to Wikinews, the featured picture should include a link to the Commons as a huge repository of images, alongside the Archive and More featured pictures... links.-gadfium 06:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One concern I have is that not every featured picture here on the English Wikipedia is stored on Commons. A number of en.wikipedia FP image files are still locally stored here. In other words, images are nominated on WP:FPC, promoted, and eventually selected on WP:POTD regardless of whether the files themselves reside on Commons or here on Wikipedia. Having a Wikinews link at the bottom of ITN is understandable because there almost always will be a Wikinews article related to each item on ITN. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Commons also has its own set of featured pictures, as well as its own seperate featured picture of the day. I am concerned that new users to both web sites would be confused with a Commons link there, expecting to find a en.wikipedia TFP image file on Commons, and then not realise that each web site has its own seperate FP system. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's featured picture 

message: It seems to have been replaced by the letters "td". T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 20:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, it's been fixed. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 20:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're sure it happened?  There's nothing in the log.  17Drew 22:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the hell is going on with the main page right now!? 

message: Is it really appropriate to have such a disgusting picture of a cut-open eye right there on the main page?  Won't someone think of the children?! Cigarette 16:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you won't want to see the June 5 2006 FA then... Laïka 16:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is roughly the same as any diagram you might see in a doctor's office, and it's nothing compared to the eye surgery picture. howcheng  {chat} 16:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every time you think of the children, God kills another one of them.  17Drew 20:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: For the background on the above, see this cache on google. ffm ✎talk 23:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not far enough back.  See Raul654's original comment.  17Drew 00:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A month later and it's still obnoxious... --Elliskev 17:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a diagram. The eye was not cut open: it was designed open :) GracenotesT § 04:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I hope so.  It's a good picture.  17Drew 17:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disgusting Picture of the Day 

message: Can someone explain it in simple words? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.49.94.106 (talk • contribs).
:The introduction to our article on wikis summarises it pretty well: "A wiki is a piece of software that allows multiple authors to edit web page content."
:If you mean Wikipedia in particular, then Wikipedia is, to put it in its simplest terms, an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. To learn more from a beginner's perspective, you may find the introduction helpful. :) --Dreaded Walrus  t c 20:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you edit them
On a more technical level, there is a table that contains a lot of rows. Each row represents a specific edit, and it contains a lot of information: the username of the user who edited the page, the user's edit summary, an id of the page to which the edit was made, a reference to another table that contains the text of the page, etc. When you edit a page, a new row is created. When you access a page, an existing row is retrieved from the table of edits, and the server formats the text and sends it to you. That is more or less the basic idea, but to the end user, a wiki works by a mix of both collaboration and individual initiative. I'm not sure if you want to know how it functions technically or in practice. GracenotesT § 04:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, this will be more likely to be seen by devs if you post it to mediazilla. ffm ✎talk 13:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Does Wiki work? 

message: Though I haven't seen anything wrong with the Main Page myself, I've noticed that lately some other pages (such as the Bionicle and Creatures of Primeval TV Seires pages) have been edited to where the make no sence, and at least I (though I bet others have been affected in similar ways) can't edite them back.
I'm not sure if it's my computer, if it's someone doeing this, or if something is happening to the site itself, but I just wanted someone to know so something can be done (if there is actually something wrong of course).  
- Toa of Gravity July 12, 2007
:BTW, this will be more likely to be seen by devs if you post it to mediazilla. ffm ✎talk 13:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors

message: Shouldn't the guilty verdicts of Conrad Black be on the News on the Main Page? Acceptable 17:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ITN/C.  17Drew 18:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, that discussion should take place on WP:ITN/C. ffm 21:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conrad Black 

message: Can anyone verify this?  Have there been any couples that met through WikiPedia and got married?  If so, can an article be created?  Thanks.--Inetpup 05:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea on that but an article can't be created unless it's noteable enough which is unlikely. In any case, your question doesn't have anything to do with the mainpage, try the village pump instead Nil Einne 06:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be so funny if that actually happened:
"How did you two meet?"
"Oh, we're both Wikipedians"
"You're both WHAT??"
DAVID CAT 13:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But that's likely to have already happened ... two geeks falling in love, right?  I'm not excluding gay civil unions either.  Since Wikipedia is predominantly male, maybe it's more likely that gay partners found each other here.  --Inetpup 00:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily, it depends on the percentage of males who are gay. I've read estimates before between 10-20%, although this is for the general population. Nil Einne 21:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard 10% as a rough guess, but Wikipedia is, as Conservapedia points out, more liberal than your average group of people, probably leading to more homosexuals. I am honestly not sure how many women there are on Wikipedia, in terms of proportions. J Milburn 11:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would question every single 'fact' in the posts above :-) Skittle 15:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As would I. Strongly. Atropos 18:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Chances are that it (a Wikimarriage) would be SO notable that it would almost certainly make its way into mainstream media.--Inetpup 06:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Two of my friends have just got married, who originally met via their blogs. It's not that different. PeteVerdon 21:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aren't Tim and Angela married? I don't think they met on-wiki, though. Sr13 03:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We did meet on Wikipedia, but we're not yet married. Angela. 23:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  I would agree. In the early days of the internet (well early days when the internet began to get some mainstream coverage, I'm thinking 1995-1997), these sort of 'we met thru the internet' got some press coverage because it was still an oddity. Nowadays, I don't think it's likely to get much, if any because it not really that unusual. No matter whether it's via blogs, chatrooms, forums, usenet, MSN, wikipedia, MMOs or whatever it's not really that different Nil Einne 17:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriages on WikiPedia? 

message: I've decided it would be a good idea to create "question articles" and redirect them to "answer articles". For example: someone searches for
 Who sings "Grace Kelly" (2007 song)?
they will be redirected to the MIKA article. 124.176.173.164 02:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't; it is much appreciated, but is not in line with Wiki policy. --MosheA 03:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting idea - but it falls over pretty quickly, particularly if there are more than one answer to a question!   And as it is, all you have go do is search Grace Kelly and then follow the link: For the Mika song, see Grace Kelly (song). PseudoEdit (yak) (track) 03:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: How would you redirect Where's the beef? ? :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 06:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ....Beeferly Hills? I can't have been the first person with such an awful sense of humour to come up with that, surely? :P --Dreaded Walrus  t c 07:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It is an intersting idea but you would run into many problems. Oysterguitarist 21:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New feature on Wikipedia! 

message: Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia, and besides a few minor edits I haven't done much. I've been looking around trying to figure out how to start a new article, and I haven't found a way to do that. Will someone please send me a tell explaining how to start it?  Much appreciated. Thank you.
Лёха Фурсов: Sacrublood 17:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Help:Starting a new page. :) --Dreaded Walrus  t c 17:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can also check out Wikipedia:Your first article. --Boricuaeddie hábleme 17:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Answered on the user's talk page. --ais523 17:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I create a new article? 

message: Could someone be so kind as to give me the citation to a concept having to do with “the one who opposed the most” as being guilty . . . Some said it has to do with a writing by Shakespeare.  Chailai 18:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Chailai, you already know where the Wikipedia:Reference desk is, that would be the appropriate place to ask this, not here. --Monotonehell 19:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: I heard that if you spread sulfur around your house it will keep snakes away from your house
:But what are you to do if you are on a plane? Lots of people fly every day but there's only so much Samuel Jackson to go around... Raul654 21:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Psh. Samuel Jackson is Morgan Freeman Lite. Atropos 22:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way to deal with snakes on a plane, is the same way you deal with all such matters. Rather then only letting the criminals possibly taking snakes on a plane, you let everyone bring snakes Nil Einne 22:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: What kind of snakes? Pythons? Cobras? Sea snakes? This snake? Nil Einne 21:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sea snakes? I hear that Sulphuric acid takes care of them pretty well. --Dreaded Walrus  t c 22:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Is this what you're looking for? --Dreaded Walrus  t c 02:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank-you. Carcharoth 03:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you sure?   Nil Einne 11:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! I take it all back. :-) Carcharoth 20:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snakes 

message: I'm hearing an explosion has occured causing injuries and structural damage in a 'breaking news' part of Newsnight. I've also found this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19837147/  This may be front page stuff. Anymore info? Articles made? Jeff24 22:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Current events articles are generally quickly linked from Portal:Current events, while likely candidates go to WP:ITN/C. - BanyanTree 22:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NY Explosion 

message: Exactly what would make an image "fair use"? I just want to know for future references. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Megagents (talk • contribs).
:See Fair Use and WP:FAIR. ffm 14:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's this "fair use" thing? 

message: There is a camp in Massachusetts for disabled people called Camp Arrowhead. Can we add that? --71.174.109.96 20:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly, depending on its notability. Try reading Wikipedia:Your first article.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Camp Arrowhead 

message: Best FA.
Ever.
--Howard the Duck 01:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always liked how there's an article on fighting in ice hockey, and one on violence in ice hockey. --Dreaded Walrus  t c 01:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wish the NHL would pay WP:HOCKEY (most importantly, it includes me) to write Main Page FA's to boost the popularity of the sport in the U.S.. It might just work, but it's unlikely. :D Maxim 01:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only wish that could happen.  I would totally hit up Interscope.  17Drew 01:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but Gary Bettman is too busy running the NHL into the ground. Crassic 01:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a template at User:Atropos/Importance that kind of addresses your concerns. As it suggests, we choose featured articles based on the quality of an article, not on its subject. Having this particular article as FA doesn't glorify violence, just like having a military battle as an FA doesn't glorify battles. Whether fighting in ice hockey itself glorifies violence, however, is a different matter entirely. ;) --Dreaded Walrus  t c 04:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a degree of disassociation with 'war' compared with sport, in which we can watch on telly, go see live, or partake in. Thanks for your concerns, i'm not a prude - i'm all for 'bringing back the biff' occasionally, its just that wikipedia is quite influential. i think. maybe. excuse me i gotta go smack someone now. .) Boomshanka 05:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not censored, and it's unlikely that it will be any time in the near future.  You're far from the first person to raise an issue with something "objectionable" on the Main Page.  17Drew 06:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ok... didn't think i was in a race to be the first at anything but thanks for the certificate. Humans have morals and/or a conscience apparently and wikipedia is governed by 'fact' so i'm sure there is a degree of self-censorship Boomshanka 22:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone please think of the domo-kun! (They're really not big fans of hockey.) 89.120.193.125 07:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it matter if they're not big fans of hockey? The article in question is not about hockey but ice hockey Nil Einne 10:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Everytime a hockey fight breaks out, God kills a Domo-Kun. Please spread the love on hockey games. --Howard the Duck 12:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeepee!!! I asked before how I could kill Domo-Kun's without killing babies but never received a response. I can't believe I'm saying this but thank god for ice hockey! Nil Einne 22:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This would be a good thing to bring up on the article's talk page where more editors to the article are likely to see it. ffm 14:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe its because I follow the game it makes sense. They tollerate it by letting the players fight and when the fighting is done they asess penalties to those who did it unlike other sports where officials immediately try to split the players up. And as far as teh fighting discouraging fighting. It's just like the nuke arms race. You have to have a guy that fights the other tough guy so that their tough guy doesn't go after your skilled players. Just like the Cold War when the US and USSR went hard core into nukes just so that neither could go after other countries. --Djsasso 17:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fighting in ice hockey]] 

message: http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page its like a parody of wikipedia is it related to wikipedia at all?? is it a real language???--Coogamonga 00:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Scots language is a real language.  17Drew 00:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And yes, that site is related to the English language Wikipedia as are all these other-language Wikipedias. See also Scots Wikipedia.--Melburnian 01:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This page is focused on discussion relating to the main page, but if you ask the question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language I'm sure the friendly and knowledgeable people there will have plenty of opinions to offer --Melburnian 11:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: See Mutual intelligibility. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 13:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks --203.208.110.207 11:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Not only is it Britocentric, it's also anti-Welsh.  There's never any reference to Wales on the front page - won't someone please think of the Welsh children? Fakelvis 10:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you want me to bring out Domo-Kun again? --Howard the Duck 10:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm? *cough* 3 November 2006 *cough* Slate industry in Wales *cough* 19 March 2005 *cough* John Dee *cough* Nil Einne 20:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and it just occured to me, given how often Wales comes up in wikipedia, is there really any reason to have to include a mention on the main page too? Nil Einne 07:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, the general Britocentric trend masks a strong systemic bias against certain regions of this island. For example, there are at least six Kent-related featured articles, but not one has appeared on the main page! Remember Otford! Algebraist 01:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on people, even ITN is infested with Britocentrism. Harry Potter? WTF? --Howard the Duck 03:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: All of this thanks to increased Scottish Nationalism! Lol.Tourskin 06:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Atropos 20:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scottish National Party? --Dreaded Walrus  t c 20:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand about Scottish nationalism, it just doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand. I guess Tourskin thinks that anyone who would write in Scots must be doing it because of an increased amount of Scottish nationalism. Atropos 20:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The scots wikipedia has existed since "23rd Juin 2005" BTW Nil Einne 22:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  what the hell is this 

message: Not sure where the appropriate place to put this is, so here goes.  Just heard a trail for a half hour programme on BBC Radio 4, next Tuesday (24 July) 11.30 am UK time, called The Wikipedia Story, presented by Clive Anderson.  Programmes can be heard for up to a week after their broadcast on the BBC website via the Listen Again facility (link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/ and click on the Listen Again button.  Please feel free to move this post/copy it to a more appropriate place in Wikipedia if you can think of one! 81.156.127.5 15:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can tell the editors of the WP:POST at the Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks, will do 81.156.127.5 15:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably worth a post on the Community bulletin board once it's broadcast, as well. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upcoming programme on BBC Radio 4 about Wikipedia 

message: Seems main page worthy: . Arrow740 22:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To add something to the "In the news..." section, please go here. Atropos 22:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First woman president of India just elected 

message: I just decided to randomly browse the history and the main page goes back to January 2002, then jumps to August 4 2002 the further you go back and finally finishes on a temporary page on the 5th August.
2 queries. How old is the main page so has it been here since 2001? If not, what was here before?
What exactly is going on with the History? 
*here
*here
and
*here
Simply south 00:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Wikipedia should have met the notability requirements in 2002. Just saying. Atropos 01:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: To answer your question about how old the main page is: it has existed since they day that MediaWiki software was installed, because they must have created a main page. --Credema 02:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once I heard that the main page used to be open for everyone to edit, but it was vandalized so much that they decided to remove its history and protect it (they did not want the vandalism to be archived in the page history). Tim Q. Wells 05:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's the Main Page from 28 February 2001, via the Internet Wayback Machine.  (Looks like they were still transitioning from CamelCase.) - BanyanTree 06:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia wasn't as organized back in the day.  A lot of the older history was lost around 2002 when they first changed servers, and started moving out of the forced mixed case (see UuU).  I think the very first article was on the United States of America, but I'm sure they got to a main page pretty quickly. --T-rex 00:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is obviously best discussed elsewhere but isn't the loss of history a problem under the GFDL. Or do you mean the content was lost as well and not just the history? Nil Einne 11:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Loss of history is a GFDL problem, but it kindof still happened anyways...  wikipedia was a much smaller place at the time, and I guess everyone just assumed that it wasn't too big a deal.  Part of this though was also copy/paste page moves in getting rid of a lot of the cammelCase hacks used at the time.  History wasn't always maintained as well as it should have been... although I think some of the history was kept seperate for a while, and then the server died or somthing... --T-rex 21:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bizarre - [''Insert title here''] 

message: "On this Day...
1793 – Two days after becoming the first Euro-American to complete a transcontinental crossing north of Mexico, Scottish-Canadian explorer Alexander MacKenzie reached the westernmost point of his journey and inscribed his name on a rock using a reddish paint made of vermilion and bear grease."
What is bear grease? It doesn't link to anything and there isn't an article for it here. Arthurian Legend 14:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess that it would be grease made from rendered bear fat. Should be enough links there :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 15:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I was going to put the same thing. You beat me to it. --Ancheta Wis 15:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to "rendered bear fat". Keeping this here for now in case I've made some grievous error and bear grease is some non-ursine patented gunk. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 15:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Google suggests you're right Nil Einne 19:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bear Grease 

message: turkey 's election has made today.it should be put in main page news.
:To add something to the "In the news..." section, please go here. Atropos 18:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When full results are known, it will go up. Not before then. —Cuiviénen 22:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Mindman1 00:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  turkey 's election has made today.it should be put in main page news. 

message: The BBC have a radio programme on Wikipedia here:  under 'Listen Again Choice of the Day' The Wikipedia Story if anyone's interested. Ian Dunster 21:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC Radio Programme about Wikipedia 

message: Okay, I know that HP is big, and I kind of expected it to be on the news part of Wikipedia... But come on. It is not the #1 news story. The winner of the Stanley Cup was not even put onto the news for days after the last game if I remember correctly... It just kind of demeans WP imho. Hazelorb 05:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The news stories, if my memory serves me well, are not in order of importance. --Dreaded Walrus  t c 05:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, they are sorted by date, with the most recent at the top. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the fact still stands that it is ridiculous that the release of this book is supposed to be important world news come on wikipedia don't fail me Agoodguyiswear 06:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The final entry in one of the most successful book series of all time? I think that's pretty notable. --MarcK 07:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree, not important enough an event for front page. Fine in current events page. yalbik 07:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Largest book release in history.  Works for me.  Dragons flight 07:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, I don't think that the release a book should be placed on the front page news, at least not at the top on the first day. --Credema 08:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As people have already stated, there is no 'top'. The items are sorted by date and the release of the book is the most recent event we currently have. Also ITN isn't front page news so to speak... See Template:In the news for more info about what ITN is actually about Nil Einne 11:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure when people began to think ITN was only for politics and catastrophes. Whenever we deviate from that, there are always a few complaints. -- tariqabjotu 14:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to have been in the news a hell of a lot, so it does seem to be news. Or there just isn't any other news to report, so it is notable enough.Davie4264 13:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's confusing is that the newly-elected president of India is named Patil, since the Patil twins are somewhat significant characters in Harry Potter; I definitely did a doubletake upon looking at ITN just now :-)  Nyttend 16:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Howard the Duck, how is one person killing him or herself a matter of international importance?  17Drew 00:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on the circumstances. --Howard the Duck 02:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Cough* When Adolf Hitler committed suicide, was it not of 'international importance'? I heard he did it because he had a dream which spoilt the end of the final HP book - 100% fact. Fakelvis 10:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If my neighbor killed herself, would that be of "international importance"? Note that all suicides are by default newsworthy. --Howard the Duck 12:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If a kid (not living in a cave for 10 years) from Sierra Leone knows about HP, I'd be impressed. I actually didn't know the FA Cup existed until we had cable 5 years ago. --Howard the Duck 00:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry Potter