Talk:Main Page/Archive 87

message: Why don't we just keep the "this donation will by matched by Virgin Unite" text but remove the logo?  I think this is a reasonable compromise between most parties.  66.108.66.125 21:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The agreement involved using the logo. --Cherry blossom tree 22:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did it?  I didn't see that tidbit in the FAQ.  Where was that mentioned?  --Connel MacKenzie -  wikt 22:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seemed implicit to be based on this. Dar-Ape 23:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read it stated somewhere amidst all the discussion that's gone on about it. Possibly by Danny but maybe not. The implication was that we made the offer, rather than virgin, and that the offer involved using the logo. I can't find it again, so I'd check with someone higher up if it's important to you. --Cherry blossom tree 23:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, please.  --Connel MacKenzie -  wikt 23:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As I recall, Danny did say this on IRC. Why, however, should such an offer be made to provide a logo? If the logo or similar was necessary in order to secure the donation, then that is exactly a paid advertisement. The FAQ is not compelling: many advertisements are for establishing brand recognition; an advertisement does not need to be a car salesman hawking goods to be an advertisement. —Centrx→talk • 02:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  That section indeed has enough ambiguity under it to drive an aircraft carrier, unnoticed.  It does not say that the logo (nor the company mention) is required for that agreement.  Where is the public record of the board's internal vote on all this?  --Connel MacKenzie -  wikt 23:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Last thing we want to see is Google ads in lieu of a matching donations (Uncyclopedia looks real cool with the google ads though)--Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 07:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: Somebody just messed up the links on the donation header. Just thought I would point that out, if anybody hasn't noticed. PTO 01:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a temporary breakage of all interwiki links, and the issue has been fixed. Thanks for pointing it out, though! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, nice section heading. "Owned?". Nishkid64 02:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrmz yes, but it is traditional to spell it with a P. ;) --Monotonehell 10:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Owned? 

message: :Moved to Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/December 29 (Should have been on WP:ERRORS first.) --10:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On This Day ... An Error

message: While looking through the upcoming selected anniversaries sections at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January, I noticed that a number of the daily pages for next month are currently unprotected.  I'd like to suggest that all of the Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/date pages be permanently protected as they are automagically transcluded onto the main page and receive very few edits (For the pages for 1-7 Jan, I count a total of 7 content (as opposed to formatting) edits in the almost-year since those dates in 2006.)
IMO the unwikiness of this suggestion is outweighed by the fact that it is cutting off a potential avenue for major high profile vandalism if a daily page is missed (as happened on December 15 where the page was vandalised by User:Earthofsprit.) -- AJR | Talk 17:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a fair proposal, but may now be superceded.  Largely prompted by the recent vandalism, Shadowbot2 was created to check Main Page templates for protected status, including those in Main Page/Tomorrow, and alert admins who sign up. It should also soon be able to check the text in Template:Did you know/Next update to warn of situations like that of the most recent vandalism. Thanks, BanyanTree 18:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also added a massive great big warning notice to the templates that don't change daily (Template:In the news and Template:Did you know), which should help prevent such oversights as forgetting to protect images there (the other source of Main Page vandalism) from occuring in the first place. The bot should also catch this if it does happen – Gurch 21:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually it doesn't. Though there is another bot being proposed that would actually protect stuff (including images) itself – Gurch 23:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to help preventmain page vandalism 

message: I think that once the Wikipedia main page loads, the blinking text cursor should automatically be in the search box for quick input. This is like when you load Google. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Digitalapocalypse (talk • contribs) 00:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But Wikipedia isn't a search engine. --Howard the Duck 01:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But does that mean that we should discard useful modifications to Wikipedia simply because the most well-known instance appears on a search engine?  Such a feature is hardly limited to search engines, and I think it would be a handy change.  Correct me if I'm wrong here, but as far as I know, it wouldn't affect anything else.  You'd still only have to click once on links, for example.  --DonES 04:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would. If you are looking at an article, giving focus to the search bar would automatically disable keyboard-based scrolling, which is going to make a lot of people unhappy. This has been brought up before, and if I recall correctly, our lead developer summarily dismissed the idea. Titoxd(?!?) 04:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot about that.  In which case, it is a bad idea.  --DonES 05:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: When you load the Wikipedia first page (at www.wikipedia.org) the cursor is blinking in the Search box. Once you have chosen to click through to the Main Page of the English Wikipedia, it is not, because that would make it harder to navigate the page. If you are just visiting Wikipedia to look something specific up, aren't you more likely to be at wikipedia.org first than en.wikipedia.org? Skittle 15:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic Search Input 

message: I can't see any real reason why it should be moved: this is a clear case of ignore all rules.
It's equivalent to index.htm on most websites: and 'Main Page' describes what it is, after all, it is the site's main page.
I realize this may be a controversial viewpoint, but I'm expressing my opinion. Feel free to comment. --SunStar Nettalk 01:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the results of the move poll above, that's definitely not controversial.  I (as the proposer of the move) still support Wikipedia:Main page, but I understand the viewpoints of others. —Mets501 (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're entitled to your opinion as much as I am. I still think moving it might be a bad idea.. --SunStar Nettalk 02:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like Wikipedia:Main page but I find Wikipedia:Main Page or even Portal:Main Page acceptable. Somehow the normal page naming conventions don't seem to fit to me. --WikiSlasher 03:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Wikipedia:Main Page was the right choice, but now that it has been Main Page for so long, it is not be worth the effort to move it, since this page would pretty much be forced into a redirect for all the external sites linking here, it can't be used for its true meaning (synonym of Front Page). Prodego talk 04:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't see why people assume we're going to have to redirect for ever. Perhaps for a year or two, but probably not forever. Sure there may still be one or two links to the old name out there but I doubt it'll be enough that we have to worry. (and we still don't even know how many people link to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_page as opposed to en.wikipedia.org). As far as I know, companies like Microsoft and the like don't spend hours worrying everytime they change the layout and index of their page (which isn't that uncommon) Nil Einne 17:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW have you tried going to http://www.microsoft.com/index.htm or http://www.microsoft.com/index.html. I'm pretty sure one of these were the Microsoft index/front page at one stage but shock & horror, they're no longer valid links. What about all the old external links goddamnit??? Nil Einne 17:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The index.htm thing was a metaphor. I agree with WikiSlasher's point above. Nil Einne's made some good points too. --SunStar Nettalk 02:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the proposed move 

message: The Main Page is blatantly biased toward articles beginning with "G". I count SIX of them! That's far more than any other letter has. This is clearly evidence of a conspiracy by pro-letter-G administrators. 
Seriously, stop it – Gurch 11:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (The username of the user who said "stop it" starts with a letter "G".) --Howard the Duck 12:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then I'm obviously part of the conspiracy, aren't I? Sssssh! – Gurch 13:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever is responsible for this atrocity will be blocked indefinitely. Nishkid64 17:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for a good laugh there.  Though of course I wouldn't be surprised to find some people pissed off at you for mocking their accusations of bias. DoomsDay349 18:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ZOMG BIAS!!!! 

message: Should this not be "in the news"?    Codu    talk    contribs    email   14:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ITN is not a news ticker, so we will wait and see before actually deciding if this should be on ITN. By the way, can you cut down your signature? It's like 10 lines long. Nishkid64 14:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated ITN anyway.  It fits the criteria: it's important and it has an updated encyclopedia article about the subject. —Mets501 (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that was very quickly done, and painless. thanks to everyone involved.    Codu    talk    contribs    email   15:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi there. It says that there have been two people killed. Now, this has not yet been confirmed. There are two people missing (most likely dead I agree), but until they are found and their deaths confirmed I suggest changing kills two and injures 26 for 26 injured and two missing, or something like that. At least for now. Cheers Raystorm 16:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I reworded it. Hopefully, it's better now, and isn't misleading. Nishkid64 17:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. :) Thanks Raystorm 17:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ETA bomb in Madrid Airport

message: I've created an article, hopefully we could build it up till it can be added to ITN... Kaushik twin 17:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please make use of WP:ITN/C. Thanks. --PFHLai 19:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006 Bangkok Bombings

message: In the did you know section Image:Alexexterior3.jpg is not protected. --Banana04131 19:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's unprotected as it leaves MainPage. Thank you for pointing this out. A new pic is now on DYK. --PFHLai 19:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: o sorry. --Banana04131 19:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's okay, Banana04131. There's no need to apologize. We could always use an extra pair of helpful eyes. In future, please consider reporting sth like this at WP:AN or WP:ERRORS for a quicker response. We don't want to tip off the vandals, eh? :-) --PFHLai 19:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected Image 

message: can we have a notice on the main page that wishes people happy new year?
:New Year's Day is mentioned in Today's Anniversaries. It isn't the New Year everywhere, and, even if it was, Wikipedia's purpose is not to celebrate even secular holidays. —Cuiviénen 01:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new year notice? 

message: Andrej Nadrah (born June 27, 1968) is Slovenian citizen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Si05400 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any drive by admins want to SpeedyD (G1 A1?) this guy's contributions? --Monotonehell 10:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put a speedy tag on the article. AxG</font>  (talk)   (sign here)  10:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrej Nadrah 

message: I think the main page is biased towards the Wikipedia and its sister projects only. It makes no reference to the other Wiki projects around the world (It may look like it but they are all sister projects). The Wikipedia talk about a neutral POV, but the main page points to internal links only. Even the second level pages do the same. 
For the Wikipedia to loose its bias I think it need to address external wiki issue.
I just visited a great wiki called -- Removed spam Monotonehell 10:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia articles are not a collection of external links or Internet directories That's Google and similar's job. The links to the sister projects are because they and Wikipedia are all under the same Wikimeta umbrella. Many marketers would love to get their promotions onto wikipedia simply because of the high google ranking. If we put one link on the main page, we'd have to let EVERYONE onto the main page, that would be bias. --Monotonehell 10:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You say, "It makes no reference to the other Wiki projects around the world (It may look like it but they are all sister projects)." This is not true. The term "sister" in this context – for example "sister project" or "sister publication" – has a particular meaning; it refers to a project (or publication, or whatever), operated, managed or administered by the same organization. So Wikipedia's "sister projects" comprise the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, all of which are listed at the bottom of the Main Page. Other wikis on the Internet are very definitely not sister projects, even if they look the same (this means they just happen to use the same wiki software – MediaWiki – which is open-source and can be used by anyone) – Gurch 11:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikia is a commercial, for-profit organization; the Wikimedia foundation is a non-profit organization. Linking to Wikia is a bad idea – it would be almost as bad as advertising – Gurch 15:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Wiki indexes. 

message: At the top of the "in other languages" bar, there's a link to :eu:Txantiloi:Urtarrila 1. What's all that about? --AdamSommerton 18:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that an interwiki link on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January 1 was not enclosed within the <noinclude> tag. This has been fixed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained Basque link 

message: Hello, please help to change all image links of :Image:Wiki letter w.png to the .svg version :Image:Wiki letter w.svg. After all links are changed, the .png version can be deleted on commons. Thank you. --GeorgHH 19:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Getting to it with MetsBot. —Mets501 (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually, I don't think there are any uses except in the template , which has been changed, but I'll wait for the image file links to update before I'm certain about that. —Mets501 (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: For the record, :Image:Wiki letter w.png is not a speedily deletion candidate at the Commons (and I've noted this in a message on GeorgHH's talk page there).  Quoth Erik Möller (now a member of Wikimedia's Board of Trustees) regarding Commons policy: "'Obsolete' images should indeed no longer be deleted except where they're orphaned and there's clearly no opposition."  There doesn't appear to have been a deletion discussion, and some users generally oppose the deletion of "superseded" images.  —David Levy 22:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin help needed 

message: I'm not sure if this is a good place to report this, but this is about a page that is linked from the main page and this is a pretty busy page. Recent deaths should redirect to Deaths in 2007 now, and I changed the redirect, yet it still redirects to Deaths in 2006. Why could this be? Thanks. Academic Challenger 23:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you needed to bypass your cache, but it certainly redirects properly now. -- tariqabjotu 23:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: problem with Recent deaths

message: I am looking for information about cartilage related issues to teh knee
Nbaldanz 11:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles Knee, Cartilage and Knee cartilage replacement therapy may be of help --Melburnian 11:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the future, such questions are answered at the Wikipedia:Reference desk, not here. —Cuiviénen 17:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although even at the reference desk, we expect question askers to try and find information themselves first. Nil Einne 16:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Knee Cartilage

message: Is anyone else being redirected to Charitable organizations if he/she clicks within the search bar?
This problem seems to be persisting even if I purge my cache and reload. Any ideas as to cause? Kaushik twin 15:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible vandalism / Forced Redirect

message: Does all vandalism have to be marked as minor? Simply south 20:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you reckon that vandalism is a minor problem, then doing such would be appropriate. Vranak 21:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Vandalism should generally be marked as a major edit and summarized with "blanked the page" so that it can be reverted easily. Vandals can save time all round by issuing themselves with a final warning and then reporting themselves to WP:AIV so they can be blocked – Gurch 21:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also put this q on the help desk. Simply south 21:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, you meant reverting vandalism. Completely different thing. Consensus leans toward doing so: 55% of all vandalism reverts are marked as minor – Gurch 21:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait,where did you get those stats from? I had trouble finding them on Wikipedia:Statistics. Simply south 22:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Wouldn't that cause problems for anyone who chooses to ignore minor edits if the vandalism is is marked as major? Not that I know anyone who ignores minor edits, seeing how some vandals mark their edits as minor in the hope of not being noticed. Actually in today's climate I don't see the point in a minor edit checkbox. Back when we were civilised maybe. Having said that, I do use the minor check box... --Monotonehell 22:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I use the minor check in a vain attempt to get my last 150 ones up to 100% edit summary. Doesn't seem to be working though. Do edit summaries like "typo" get ignored? (I know, I know, use spellcheckers and the preview button...) Carcharoth 01:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: All of my edits can be classed as one of two things: minor, or very minor. I don't select "minor" for minor edits, but I do select it for very minor edits – Gurch 16:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor question 

message: Closed as WP:NOT democracy
----
Look, this is frankly ridiculous. We do not vote on matters like this; per WP:NOT, 
Wikipedia is not a democracy
Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding.
I am now closing this debate because of this. I hope this gets the message through that we are a consensus-building community, not voters in a Senate chamber. Yuser31415 20:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
====Survey - Support votes====
* Support - Per the suggestion. Article space is for articles. Main Page is obviously not an article. All the oppose votes seem to be about the links being broken. As far as I am aware, not many pages redirect to the main page so double redirects wouldn't be an issue. Bots and a task force could then fix the redirecting links. Links being broken isn't an issue. And besides, the main page is less than 5% of Wikipedia's traffic (which granted is still a lot) so this isn't as big a deal as it is being made out to be.--HamedogTalk|@ 07:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers for using my thoughts in your vote!--HamedogTalk|@ 01:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We would likely leave Main Page as a redirect until we ever have use for the other page. If there is ever something called Main Page, we will probably turn it into a disambig Nil Einne 13:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I strongly disagree with this idea. I don't think the reason should have anything to do with whether there should be an article called main page but what is the most consistent, makes the most sense and is simpliest. Wikipedia:Main Page or perhaps Portal:Main Page are that not Main Page. More importantly as others have pointed out who oppose, if we do change it we will need to leave the redirect for quite a while. If we suddenly find we need an article and we still have Main Page as Main Page we will have a right royal mess. What do we do? Suddenly change it and turn Main Page into a disambig? We need to anticipate problems before they arise, not pray to God they don't arise and then when they do run around in a mass panic Nil Einne 13:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Who said it isn't broke? Nil Einne 14:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: But it is broke, so surely we should fix it? Nil Einne 14:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: But it is broken. That's why people want to change it... Nil Einne 14:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: But Skyraider said it isn't broken and it is broken... Nil Einne 14:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, not to me it isn't. 'sides, it's just simpler for newcomers/for the bulk of users, if the Main page stays in the main namespace, because the're basically going to be mostly interested in the main namespace anyway when looking up information, or am I wrong? It's always been this way, it's definitely not broken. Still oppose :) --Ouro 15:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As others have explained, there is no MediaWiki standard and it doesn't affect the Foundation or Meta. Other wikis already do it. Portal:Main Page is also an idea. This isn't wikilawyering. It's about doing what makes the most sense, is most consistent and is simpliest and easiest to understand. The fact remains, Main Page clear isn't an encylopaedic article no matter how much encyclopaedic content it may have Nil Einne 14:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This isn't supposed to be a simple vote. Could you explain why it's a bad idea? Nil Einne 14:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: But does that mean we shouldn't change it if the alternative is better? Nil Einne 14:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Who said it isn't broke? Nil Einne 14:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whats wrong with it as it is? It changes dynamically every day, its entire content. What is we have a band/political party/famous person called Main Page? We stick a disambig link at the top? RHB 00:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh mamma mia, mamma mia, mamma mia, let me go! Couldn't help myself, sorry... --Ouro 11:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: * Support - Per the suggestion. Article space is for articles. Main Page is obviously not an article. All the oppose votes seem to be about the links being broken. As far as I am aware, not many pages redirect to the main page so double redirects wouldn't be an issue. Bots and a task force could then fix the redirecting links. Links being broken isn't an issue. And besides, the main page is less than 5% of Wikipedia's traffic (which granted is still a lot) so this isn't as big a deal as it is being made out to be.--HamedogTalk|@ 07:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers for using my thoughts in your vote!--HamedogTalk|@ 01:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Support votes

message: *Oppose because this page has been here forever. If this were to move to Wikipedia:Main page, it would have to be a considerable amount of time – certainly years – before it would be safe to break the cross-namespace redirect as there have been so many pages linked to Main Page from all over the Internet. And then what would we do with that former redirect? Make it a blank, useless page until someone directs a featured film entitled "Main Page". I can already see it now... in a world... where Britannica ruled... there was one page that dared to dream... the MAIN PAGE. -- tariqabjotu 03:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We would likely leave Main Page as a redirect until we ever have use for the other page. If there is ever something called Main Page, we will probably turn it into a disambig Nil Einne 13:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I strongly disagree with this idea. I don't think the reason should have anything to do with whether there should be an article called main page but what is the most consistent, makes the most sense and is simpliest. Wikipedia:Main Page or perhaps Portal:Main Page are that not Main Page. More importantly as others have pointed out who oppose, if we do change it we will need to leave the redirect for quite a while. If we suddenly find we need an article and we still have Main Page as Main Page we will have a right royal mess. What do we do? Suddenly change it and turn Main Page into a disambig? We need to anticipate problems before they arise, not pray to God they don't arise and then when they do run around in a mass panic Nil Einne 13:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Who said it isn't broke? Nil Einne 14:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: But it is broke, so surely we should fix it? Nil Einne 14:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: But it is broken. That's why people want to change it... Nil Einne 14:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: But Skyraider said it isn't broken and it is broken... Nil Einne 14:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, not to me it isn't. 'sides, it's just simpler for newcomers/for the bulk of users, if the Main page stays in the main namespace, because the're basically going to be mostly interested in the main namespace anyway when looking up information, or am I wrong? It's always been this way, it's definitely not broken. Still oppose :) --Ouro 15:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As others have explained, there is no MediaWiki standard and it doesn't affect the Foundation or Meta. Other wikis already do it. Portal:Main Page is also an idea. This isn't wikilawyering. It's about doing what makes the most sense, is most consistent and is simpliest and easiest to understand. The fact remains, Main Page clear isn't an encylopaedic article no matter how much encyclopaedic content it may have Nil Einne 14:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This isn't supposed to be a simple vote. Could you explain why it's a bad idea? Nil Einne 14:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: But does that mean we shouldn't change it if the alternative is better? Nil Einne 14:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Who said it isn't broke? Nil Einne 14:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whats wrong with it as it is? It changes dynamically every day, its entire content. What is we have a band/political party/famous person called Main Page? We stick a disambig link at the top? RHB 00:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh mamma mia, mamma mia, mamma mia, let me go! Couldn't help myself, sorry... --Ouro 11:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Oppose votes

message: *Right Here Just H 03:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't Care

message: Somehow I don't think this is the best place for this move request. They normally appear on the talk pages for their associated articles so that those interested in the respective articles will take a look at the move request. But everybody reads the Main Page. We are polling nearly every visitor that chooses to come by... longtime editors and one-time readers alike. I understand that nearly everyone is allowed to !vote, but the idea behind the move request (Wikipedia-space vs. mainspace) is not a trivial concept the average fly-by reader would understand. I predict us getting an exceptionally large amount of !votes from uninformed visitors. That would not be helpful in resolving this issue. -- tariqabjotu 03:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might not be helpful because there would be a large volume of such !votes that would make this discussion quite long, but the outcome of this discussion will be based on consensus and not the number of !votes, so I don't think it can really be that detrimental.  Dar-Ape 16:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Its ironic that they may not even understand the logic behind the whole idea in the first place. Especially this nonsense about "!vote" (ie, not-vote). It is clear that votes happen, much to the disgust of some it seems. If the average reader wants the page to stay here who are you to say they should be ignored? It all comes down to the number of votes in the end. Consensus is just another word for super-majority after all. Of course, campaigning for your "cause" could make all the difference. Keep up the effort and dont you dare look at improving an encyclopedia article :-O... 59.167.118.99 08:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus does not mean super-majority, it means agreement. The way we (attempt to) reach agreement is through discussion and argument. Consensus is reached when the discussion reaches a conclusion. Sometimes this doesn't happen and no-concensus is reached. It's not about weight of votes, it's about weight of argument. --Monotonehell 12:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well it's looks like we haven't actually been getting that many votes from the uninformed and new users. But extremely sad to say, we have been getting a lot of no votes from experiences users :-( Nil Einne 14:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Location of move request

message: I can understand the meta/theoretical argument for this proposed change, but apart from serving perfect consistency, is it anticipated that it would have any practical effects on the site or on users, good or bad? (The only effect I can think of is that edits to mainpage talk would be in a different category for the edit counter, but that is hardly a big deal.) Newyorkbrad 04:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think it will be easier for users to understand the purpose and intention of the Main Page and also how wikipedia works if we use Portal:Main Page/Wikipedia:Main Page Nil Einne 13:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Practical implications?'''

message: tariqabjotu's hypothetical, though intended in jest, touches on something important. Given all of the really strange and odd things people name books, films, music, etc., I'm actually pretty surprised that no one has ever used such a fairly common phrase for anything else. And what if someone did? Would the main page have a dab link? –  Anþony  talk  08:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In the hypothetical

message: An interesting proposal but one must ask what implications for the foundation such a move would entail, I remember it was a significant effort to alter the side bar recently. I dont think that consideration to mirrors, or other sites that just feed off our efforts is a valid reason to not consider the move. As for internal changes a bot could be run to correct redirects, though it would consume a few resources for a couple of days and produce significant increases in watchlist sizes while it was occuring. Gnangarra 09:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Meta / Foundation

message: Considering what User:Midnighttonight said above, shouldn't this move be to something like Portal:Wikipedia?  The Wikipedia namespace is usually for policy, help, and meta processes, but the Main Page much more like a portal into the encyclopedia.  Dar-Ape 16:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought of this too.  Though having Portal:Wikipedia be about Wikipedia itself (kind of like where it leads to now) is also not a bad idea. Jason McHuff 02:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Target namespace

message: Do most people (not users) come via http://en.wikipedia.org or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page ?  Are there any statistics for how many people get here via http://www.wikipedia.org ?  Because if people are going via http://en.wikipedia.org or http://www.wikipedia.org they are already being redirected so it wouldn't hurt bookmarks (or typing in the address) so much. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 22:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From my personal experience, I would say most non-editors don't know Wikipedia's URL and hence come via Google. The first link when "Wikipedia" is typed should be where most people go to. GizzaChat © 08:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I would guess people who do type in would type in en.wikipedia.org or www.wikipedia.org. Bookmarks would probably be en.wikipedia.org/Main_Page since thats what you would get whn you click add to bookmarks/favourites. Of course, booksmarks can easily be updated. I don't know about the load on the servers cause of the temporary redirects but I presume it won't be that great Nil Einne 14:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I always type in en.wikipedia.org on my address bar. But there are other ways to access Wikipedia:
*Directly going to a specific page on the address bar (example: to go to my userpage, I type http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ed skipping the Main Page altogether). This is useful if you want to check your messages/watchlist right away
*Typing in wikipedia.org and clicking on English
*Typing in en.wikipedia.org
*Going to a search engine (Google, Yahoo, etc.) and typing in Wikipedia
--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 18:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How do most people come to Wikipedia?

message: I'm pretty sure it isn't uncommon that sites change their layout so the main or front page address changes. But when this happens, the people who own the site don't seem to panic or go into crisis simply because some external links will now point to the wrong address (and we still don't really know how many external links actually direct to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page anyway). All of them seem to handle it fine. For example, I believe Microsoft changes it resonably often. I'm pretty sure that one of http://www.microsoft.com/index.htm or http://www.microsoft.com/index.html was a valid link at one stage and the main Microsoft page. But guess what? It's no longer a valid link. What does this say to all those convinced we will have to maintain en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page in perpetuity as a redirect to whatever we decide on in perpuity because of external links? I would actually think it a good either to maintain en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page as a redirect until and unless we have a reason to make the page a disambig of something but not because of external links. Simply because it makes sense! Nil Einne 18:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The New Zealand Parliament changed its site from being http://www.parliament.govt.nz to http://www.parliament.nz with little problems (and that was far more than just the main page).  As long as you keep a working redirect (for a while), there won't be much problem. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 22:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting examples

message: If we acknowledge that the main page is just another portal like all others, then how will Raul654 be able to continue using fair use images for his featured articles. Currently the only reason we allow the fair use images is because of this little cheating where we claim that since the main page is in the article namespace allowing fair use was ok. If it was a portal that would become a problem, just see Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals, which is clearly not going to be adopted any time soon. Personally I feel this is a hypocritical situation (Why would it be ok here, but not on Portal:Computer and video games). The fair use images are actually already in Wikipedia namespace, but are transcluded here. For example:
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 23, 2004
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 19, 2006
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 12, 2005
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 12, 2006
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 26, 2006
*Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 31, 2005 
Sigh, this is one of discussions that's bound to go on forever and never actually see any action because people here never agree about anything. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-2 19:49
:That's a clintcher for me. Before this point was put forward I hadn't seen any argument that swayed me either way. --Monotonehell
:We're still just lying anyway, since it isn't a real page. Won't change anything. 84.64.226.4 19:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use