Talk:Main Page/Archive 89

message: Maybe an admin should put up a "Happy Wikipedia Day" notice at  --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 20:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above discussion. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki' Day Notice 

message: ...making it one of the most successful independent film in American movie history. should be films. 141.163.51.1 11:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thanks for reporting it. WP:ERRORS may get a faster response, by the way. — TKD::Talk 11:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Typo in featured article section

message: It states "Anemonefish are born as males and only become females if they rise to the top of the hierarchy?" but the article says they are born sexless and become males if they rise to the top.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.132.76.4 (talk • contribs).
: Actually, according to the article, they are born sexless, develop into males, and turn into females if they rise to the top. DYK is now fixed. Thanks for pointing out the error. Next time, please make use of WP:ERRORS. Service may be quicker there. --PFHLai 14:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DYK does not match article

message: I introduce a wikilink inter-language between (en) and (haw) on the wiki-(haw) Main page.
Would you do the same therefore the hawaian main page would be linked on (and towards) every main page in any language thanks to the Thijs!bot
it's on :haw:Ka papa kinohi so type haw:Ka papa kinohi
--BETA-kwAn 13:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue of interwiki links for the main page has been discussed in the past (see Talk:Main_Page/Archive_82#Language_template).  Due to the large space that listing all 250 different languages would consume, only languages with at least 20,000 articles are currently granted direct links from the English language Main Page. --Allen3 talk 14:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HAWAIAN Main Page 

message: There are four photos on the main page with the option to upload a new version.  Suppose this was done.  What if the image was something very, very wrong (may I remind you of the mutilated...erm...you know).  Would this be possible? If so, can we stop it? DoomsDay349 06:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All images on the Main Page are protected for precisely that reason; see :Category:Protected main page images. If a non-admin attempts to upload a file with the same name as a protected image, the upload will fail. --Slowking Man 08:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm pretty sure a bot auto-protects templates and images on the front page these days making such vandalism (in theory) impossible-137.222.10.67 15:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought as much, it's just that the upload link was there and I was worried it might work.  Just trying to look for any holes in the system.  DoomsDay349 17:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, iirc, this particular feature has been on MediaWiki for years: Any non-sysop who tries to upload a file with the same name as a protected image will always get an error message. If this was not the case, the main page would have vandalism-only images every second. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If in doubt, you can always try it (with a harmless image obviously). Nil Einne 12:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it possible? 

message: Any guesses as to when the first "front page topic to cause a long discussion as to why the topic was so chosen" will be? (Some articles will not normally be included, and some won't be "caught" on clicking random article - and there will always be a grey area of topics which cause debate. How easy would it be to set up "an opt in" program - though I cna see there would alost propmtly be an "opt me out of medical/political/contortionist etc categories" squawkfest. The point is that you know what you are letting yourself in for (and don't look at it in the library etc) Jackiespeel 18:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what the above paragraph is saying... Raul654 20:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm lost too. Tennis DyNamiTe (sign here) 23:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he's talking about having some porn article as FA. I could be completely wrong, though. Nishkid64 02:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Er what article? You mean the one about a month ago that had a picture some people called porn? There have already been a lot of featured articles with a lot of discussion. Pokemon articles tend to get a lot of attention, as have mathematical concepts which people don't understabd (0.999...) and anything remotely political at a time when Americans are politically sensitive... Nil Einne 09:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Front page discussion

message: In my opinion, "In the News" is too biased toward political events, and under-represents space,science, and other events. --Ineffable3000 04:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To counter this perceived bias, please update wikiarticles in underrepresented fields and then suggest new news headlines on WP:ITN/C. Thanks. --PFHLai 04:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  One of the troubles IMHO (I'm a biologist) is science rarely has events which are significant at the time. Often, only with the benefit of hindsight do we realise how important one event was. And of course, a lot of the time it isn't even single events but multiple events Nil Einne 09:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In the News" bias 

message: Is there a way to havea background image  on a table, I 've posted this in the new commers page and I don't think there is, but I don't want to risk there being a way and I ignore it. --Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 19:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Background Image

message: It seems that Nilfanion's suggestion of putting the "Main Page" at http://en.wikipedia.org/ makes the most sense.  It just "redirects" (silently) to the current Main Page anyway.  It is in all probability the most referenced external link into Wikipedia (or would that be http://www.wikipedia.org/?).  --Nelson Ricardo 11:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it can be done quite easily. I know how to do it with some simple URL rewriting tricks. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title= already redirects to the main page. Jeltz talk 00:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not what I said. Lots of things redirect to the Main Page: "en.wikipedia.org", "en.wikipedia.org/wiki", "en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php", "en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=". The point is you can't "put the Main Page at en.wikipedia.org". All pages are returned by requests to index.php; MediaWiki can't work any other way. The page has to have a title, in order for it to exist in the database, it can't be blank – Gurch 01:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure it can be blank. The title argument can be the empty String. Both HTTP, Apache and PHP allows that as far as I know. "en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title="doesn't have to be a redirect, that is just a choice made by the developers. There is no technical reason for why the main page can't be at "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/". Of course another name would have to be used in the DB like "Portal:Main Page". I'm not saying that this is a good thing, just something which is technically possible to implement with the platform used for WikiMedia (and that I also know it would be done). Jeltz talk 10:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: So the God-King wants to break rules?  Just like breaking the rules to keep himself in power? Tell the WikiTruth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.216.133 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 14 January 2007
The main argument here seems to be whether this move would be disruptive or not. I don't think there are compelling usability reasons to make the move; the move would only be a slight improvement. However, I don't think the move would be disruptive, so there's no reason not to do it. As this seems to be the issue, it's probably worth gathering statistics somehow on how disruptive a move is likely to be. --ais523 16:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia: is for things about wikipedia, the mainpage is about the content. FirefoxMan 17:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: But what if it isn't disruptive at all and gives a slight improvement? Why not do it then. I have not seen any convincing arguments for why it should be a major disruption. Why not simply fix things that are slightly broken? If the Main Page would have been created today it would have been in portal name space so why not simply move it there and fix the redirects. Can't bee too hard, Swedish Wikipedia has already done it. A slight improvement is still an improvement and the disruptiveness wont matter in the long run. We don't plan to move our main page every fortnight. Jeltz talk 21:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't mind such a move, but it's a lot of work for rather little gain.  I'd rather see people apply their talents and spend their time and energy working on improving wikiarticles instead of executing this 'arduous' pagemove. --PFHLai 22:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: How will this require much work? FirefoxMan 22:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Probably fixing numerous redirects after the move? --64.229.35.245 01:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, and also moving this talkpage and all the talk archives. --PFHLai 00:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (edit break) 

message: People are complaining about all this work. What work? Moving the page would create a redirect to the new one. This means the [en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org] and everything would still go to the new page. What problems are there? --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 22:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably fixing numerous redirects after the move? --64.229.35.245 01:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost all incoming links are from the "Did you know?" template. Jeltz talk 16:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, yes, 74.255.97.139. On this note, I'll make this edit my final edit on this topic here. --PFHLai 00:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: On one hand, I must commend you for cleaning the redirecting up, ais523. On the other hand, I wish some actual encyclopedic entries had gotten cleaned up. You seem to really want to make this pagemove. I ain't stopping you from doing things you really want to, but I wish something more constructive and useful gets done. Maybe something else at Wikipedia:Community Portal/Opentask would be next ? --PFHLai 00:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The only way this will end is with a vote. There is no middle ground between moving and not moving, and there are few if any arguments based on actual policy that would guide us in getting to consensus. All technical issues are fairly trivial, so there is nothing there to guide us one way or another. The only way "consensus" will be determined is by counting heads, and any such vote will result in not moving. So this whole discussion is fairly pointless. --- RockMFR 18:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, that is not how Wikipedia works. A poll would instantly be closed since Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Voting about this kind of issue wont work. Actually I have no idea how to resolve this kind of issues, I only know how it is not done. :) Jeltz talk 19:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia work by consensus, as long as everyone dont seems to agree on one statement (move it to xxxx). It won't be done.-- Esurnir 22:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, but it is more complicated than that. See Wikipedia:Consensus for cases like this everyone doesn't have to agree. I'm not claiming there is a supermajority any side (the result of the last poll was really poor since people from both sides didn't care about discussion and motivating their votes – it was starting to become and experiment in democracy), but I hope that more people will join this debate so we can try to reach a consensus (or fail doing that).  Jeltz talk 23:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we have mostly reached consensus; all the pro-move points are fairly valid, and none all of the anti-move points have not been sucsessfully rebuted. I think we should begin looking toward closing the discussion.--Tom 03:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol would you care to remove some of those double negatives so we can understand your point better? --Monotonehell 15:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (edit break 2) 

message: This discussion is very confused as there is no clear course of action proposed. I suggest that the proponents of a move sit down and work out exactly what they are proposing. Then provide detailed arguments as to why they are proposing that particular action over all the other actions suggested above, while considering all the comments above. A lot of this discussion is at cross purposes. A vote will not resolve this at all. --Monotonehell 06:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I think that only one or two actions ("Portal:Main Page" and "") have been proposed by several users, but otherwsie you are correct. The debate is confused. Please fill me in if there were any suggestions I missed. Jeltz talk 21:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Main Page and Portal:Main have each been suggested by at least 2 users. (I'd favour them in the order "", "Portal:Main", "Portal:Main Page", "Wikipedia:Main Page", and then "Main Page", but clearly other people will have different views on this, and we want to avoid making this into a vote.) --ais523 09:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I was the one who sugjested Portal:Main. Althogh someone else might have beat me to it. FirefoxMan 12:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You suggested it on 14 January: . I beat you to it by 5 days: . --ais523 13:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Something doesn't have to be broken for it to be worth fixing. Bad spelling isn't necessarily broken either as long as the article can be understood. The discussion is about where the main page should be and if it is worth the effort to move it if it should be moved. The alternatives have to be weighted against each other and the effort to move it has to be estimated (which seems small compared to some things I have been involved in). I have not yet seen any good argument for why it would take a lot of effort or be disruptive. Jeltz talk 15:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time out 

message: I don't trust myself to represent both sides of the arguments without bias, so I'll summarize the arguments in favour, and let someone else give the arguments against. Note that I think even some of the arguments in favour aren't particularly strong, but I'll summarize them anyway. --ais523 18:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've refactored both lists of arguments by grouping them into categories, to facilitate talking about them.  I think this discussion is ready to reach some kind of conclusion, and this outline could help, it seems.  If anybody thinks the organizing could be done better, please feel free to improve it. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summarizing the arguments

message: This argument is getting so long that a new page will have to be created soon so that browsers won't start crashing!  Anyway, we've now heard the arguments for and against but what are we going to do?  I agree with Jimbo Wales about what the real question is.  The real question is: Are there compelling usability reasons to do something extremely disruptive against nearly 6 years of tradition?  Personally, I think that the move to Portal:Main Page is a good idea.  For the reason, we need to look at what a namespace is.  A namespace separates the wiki into different sections as these pages have different purposes.  So which namespace does the Main Page belong to?  We need to know what each namespace is for.  Here is a list of namespaces (excluding talk namespaces (the purposes for those are simple to work out), Special and Media): 
Namespace	Reason
(main)   	Articles
User     	Pages for the users
Wikipedia	The running of Wikipedia as a project
Image    	For files
MediaWiki	System messages
Template 	Pages that can be copied into other pages using a special code
Help     	For people who need help with editing
Category 	To sort pages
Portal   	Pages that are dedicated to show people other pages
Looking at this, it seems that Main Page should become Portal:Main Page.  Also, I think that some tools (such as those on the toolserver) require this.  I haven't got any examples, but I will probably give one later.  But does this answer Jimbo's question?  The debate goes on.  P.S. Thanks to Smurrayinchester for showing me how to do make tables here.  P.P.S. Evidence of my support for this can be found at wikia:nwn.  See, the page name is Neverwinter:Main Page.  --Leon (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (edit break 3) 

message: Okay, so the question that remains is, is the main page going to be moved to Portal:Main page, or will it stay as is? Simply south 12:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno but I would hope so! After all this certainly contradicts Wikipedia policy - what an outrage considering the Main page is the "face" of Wikipedia!--HamedogTalk|@ 01:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhat true, Hamedog, but it's always been this way and there's nothing wrong with it the way it is; besides, it's simple, clear-cut and in the article space, taking new visitors into account it just simplifies things for them, I'd say, because they aren't instantly confused with the idea of portals or namespaces. And, to repeat again a point made a few times during this discussion already - it ain't broken, so don't fix it. --Ouro 16:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Agreed. Calling it a portal confuses the average visitor with a piece of lingo.  --  Zanimum 19:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree. It is broken, so we need to fix it, there are a lot of things wrong with it (like what happens if we ever have an article called main page, do you really want to have a disambig link? And as I've pointed out before, a sudden change without a redirect for a few months is not a good idea so crossing this bridge when we come to it is an incredibly bad idea (as is often the case)). Also, it's much simpler, clear-cut etc to use Portal:Main Page, visitors are less likely to be confused and IMHO you insult our visitors to suggest they would be whatever the case. 203.109.240.93 15:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Decision q

message: Nobody cares —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.188.225.245 (talk) 09:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then again, since the title is not shown on the main page, people won't see "portal:" and be confused. Besides, it's already called a portal. -- Chris is me (u/c/t) 23:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is, in fact, something wrong with it, to quote User:ais523: "Main Page is included in database dumps of articles, which means that various software features (such as Special:Contributions and 'cite this article') and external websites (such as Wikiseek and the top-100-articles list) consider it to be an article when it isn't." Besides, it IS broken. It's wrong.--Tom 00:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You gave no argument supporting the fact that it's broken. Does it not function? Does it not perform its function well? Are the inner workings screwed up? No. It's always been like this, it's fine as it is. I was tempted to put a  tag by your comment. --Ouro 07:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a teeny weeny thingie why it's broken (some guy brought it up before), the cite article function. 11:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument "it's not broken" should be removed. Anything not following policy or guidelines is broken and needs to be fixed. If we don't accept that, we might as well stop working here altogether. If we cannot use non-compliance to the guidelines as a reason to change something, we have nothing left to do any more changes. So there has to be a good reason to leave the page where it is. But, again, the argument "it's not broken" is invalid. Piet | Talk 13:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. FirefoxMan 13:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not concur. How come then did it happen that the situation went unnoticed for all those years? This discussion will yet again turn into a pointless back and forth of proponents and opponents of the move, so let's just keep things the way they are and not waste time, there are probably trolls and vandals about. --Ouro 14:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was noticed (see the Main Page FAQ). According to that FAQ, it wasn't changed for tradition reasons; this argument does not seem to a be sufficient reason to block the move to me (WP:CCC). --ais523 18:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.  Policy has to exist for a reason beyond just having policy.  Policy exists to make it easier to create and maintain an encyclopedia.  Pointing at policy and saying "That is reason enough" is not enough.  Pointing at WP:CCC is not enough, either, because, by the same rule, policy can be changed.  There may well be reasons why MP should be moved, but saying "Policy!  Policy!  Policy!" is not sufficient. —DragonHawk (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm well aware of that. WP:CCC is not a reason to do anything (otherwise we'd be changing policy at random simply because it had stayed the same too long), but there are other reasons to do the move; I brought it up as a rebuttal to one oppose argument that I don't feel is correct. (The move, obviously, should only take place if the support arguments outweight the oppose arguments, so in this sense the link tends to support moving the Main Page.) I think we're agreeing with each other here, but I'm not sure; I apologise for being unclear. --ais523 10:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Come on DragonHawk, that doesn't make sense. If I move a page Barbed Wire to Barbed wire to make the name conform to policy, I need no reason to do this other than policy. IAR states "if the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia". It is up to you to prove that following the guideline in this case will prevent you from improving and maintaining Wikipedia. Piet | Talk 13:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's odd.  If I move Barbed Wire to Barbed wire, it would be because it's a common noun, and not a proper noun.  I would do that regardless of whether I knew we had a written guideline on the topic — in the early days, we didn't.  Completing the move would still be improving Wikipedia, because we would no longer be representing a common noun as a proper noun.  Simply following rules without knowing why isn't a reason to do anything, and that's precisely what "WP:NOT a bureaucracy" means.  Any reason to moving the main page must hinge on the idea that the encyclopedia is somehow worse for having it where it currently is. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Several people must care (including me), or we wouldn't have generated this much debate. --ais523 10:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If nobody cares, then we should just move the thing and be done with it. Many people including me have argued strongly for it so clearly some of us do care. It seems unfortunately that the other side cares as well but if they don't then just move it 203.109.240.93 15:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly, Royalguard11, and the anonymous contributor who contributed in quadruple-big font, you both care. If you didn't care, you wouldn't bother to oppose the move and you would just let us do it.--Tom 17:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, obviously the point was on the second part of my comment. So I'll repeat it for you that missed: So can we just go back to not caring why the main page is in mainspace after it has been there for several years and is in most of the 701 other WMF wikis? Then we can all go work on Wikipedia:How to use process so that we can all follow a process about the correct way to following a process. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important point that seems to have been missed 

message: Why is this on every page, was it decided by the marketing department? I don't like it at all, it looks very unprofessional. People keep adding messages like that for promoting whatever, I completely hate it. Imagine a paper encyclopedia putting a message at the top of every page. And where is this discussed, I've never seen a discussion about it? Piet | Talk 11:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL yes it has Piet .. go back to bed ^_^ --Monotonehell 17:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

message: Where is the code that makes "Complete list" show up as an interwiki language link in the left margin of the Main Page, at the end of the language list? I can't seem to find it in the code or transcluded pages. Dovi 15:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The code is JavaScript. It's located in Common.js; search for "complete list." --Slowking Man 16:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Dovi 16:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete list 

message: :Cross-posted from the village pump Zunaid©®
I think it would be a good idea to have a "Collaboration of the Week" on the Main Page. This is a quick way to introduce visitors to collaborative editing and shows them how Wikipedia works. In addition, if there is a topic that grabs the readers' attention, we might gain a few good contributors to the project. Nominations for the Main Page could come from the various Wikiprojects which already organise CotW's amongst themselves. Zunaid©® 07:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been brought up a few times (and added once or twice if I remember correctly), but the counter-argument has always been that the main page is primarily for the readers, not the editors. We don't want to give the impression that you "have" to contribute or anything. The community portal is for the editors. Besides, it's not like we have a shortage of editors or anything ;) Oskar 15:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is something relatively similar at WP:AID. Simply south 16:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which isn't nearly-visible enough. Ideally, we want to turn readers into editors, so I think having a format similar to the Spanish, French, or Italian Wikipedias. Remember that consensus can change... Titoxd(?!?) 04:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be on Wikipedia:Community Portal for sure which is the main page for contributors. But Wikipedia:Main page is for readers. At least as the current main page design philosophy stands. Who knows what the next main page redesign review will bring. --Monotonehell 04:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Surely we want readers to become editors. Think about it, how did any of us start out here anyway? A collaborative project on the very first page readers see will draw them in much more quickly, show them that Wikipedia truly is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, introduce them to collaborative editing, introduce them to WikiProjects (which has other benefits such an introducing them to policies and guidelines such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:MOS) and increase the number of useful contributors to the project. That is a good thing no? I cannot see any drawbacks.Zunaid©® 08:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, definitely something to bring up at the next main page redesign. --Monotonehell 12:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CotW on Main Page 

message: Barzan Ibrahim has been on the front page for like 3 days now.  somebody please change the photo.
:You aren't even kidding!!!  I WAS JUST going to comment on this.  I am getting really tired of a picture of someone who was executed (especially since his head was severed in the process... no need to have a constant reminder that it was once attached to his body...  and no need to have a humorous point of showing only a headshot of the guy--even though no humor is intended) remaining on the front page.  Take it down please. --Marsbound2024 00:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then please suggest what should be put on there instead, following the guidelines that the image should be free, not fair use. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am just agreeing with what was pointed out.  It shouldn't be hard to figure out that something needs to replace it.  ANY image from a decent news story would work.  I am not an Administrator but it should be obvious that after a few days, the image needs to be updated.  Thankfully it has now.  I wouldn't recommend a picture because it is ultimately up to the Administrators and I don't want to intervene with the regular process, but instead want to make sure the regular process happens at an acceptable rate.  :)  --Marsbound2024 07:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While the problem has been fixed for a few hours now, I did make a suggestion, on  12:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 'Tis the dreaded Nancy Pelosi effect. 58.178.66.136 02:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha. At least, Nancy Pelosi is better to look at than Barzan Ibrahim. Nishkid64 03:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stagnation

message: In the Today's featured picture on pi, is the diagram accurate? It seems to suggest that pi = perimeter. __earth (Talk) 11:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: actually, i take that back. __earth (Talk) 11:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphical & Mathematical error?