Talk:Main Page/Archive 80

message: Should it read that the table bridge appears 'monstrous' when open? Nicolharper 16:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears some has taken your suggestion, and changed the spelling. Does it read correctly now?  --  Zanimum 17:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Table bridge appears monstrous

message: Please add add as anniversary. It is today.--Michkalas 17:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also the 40th anniversary of Star Trek. The Wookieepedian 22:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the former. The latter should wait for the 50th anniversary, if at all. —Cuiviénen 23:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  September 8 - Today - [[International Literacy Day]] 

message: "Tony Blair announces that he will stand down" sounds strange; the phrase "step down" is more familiar and suitable for the context, as the idiomatic definition of stand down is "Withdraw, as from a political contest or a game or race", and the position of Prime Minister is not a contest/game. On the other hand, the definition of step down is "Resign from office", which is more fitting. --Schzmo 01:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term is correct. When the Cold War ended and the Missile Silos were deactivated, the order given was to "stand down". The PM, in the sense of service to the Queen, is acting like any other member of the Services. --Ancheta Wis 01:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it to resign, so there shouldn't be a problem. —Mets501 (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect to which of these terms is used with respect to a resignation from office, the difference between "step down" and "stand down" is more a British/American usage issue than anything else, I believe. "Stand down" in this sense is more common in the UK and Canada, while "step down" is idiomatic in the US. Newyorkbrad 01:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of y'all are prob'ly too young to know this, but there was the song "Stand Down Margaret" by the The Beat back in the '80s. howcheng  {chat} 06:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "stand down" --> "step down" 

message: The link for Simon Byrne is to bare-knuckle. It should probably be to Bare-knuckle boxing. --Eyrian 04:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed.  —David Levy 04:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silly FAotD Link 

message: I would like to suggest that the 10 most popular articles of the day are listed on the main page. That list may be updated on a daily basis. Bondkaka 09:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you accompany your suggestion with the benefit of such? It's fair enough to make suggestions, but please back them up with reasons why such a suggestion should be adopted. --Monotonehell 11:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The list doesn't really seem to show anything positive about the encyclopedia.  It's all articles that are in the news (which are linked in ITN anyway) and sex related articles (which people would complain about). Jellypuzzle | Talk 12:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And if you only include Wikipedia articles (rather than special pages/WP pages), you'll get about 2/3 of the top articles list being sex-related. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 13:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I didn't know there was already a list like that. My suggestion was mainly based on the fact that popular websites like The New York Times have featured lists like that on the homepages, and that doesn't seem to cause any problems. But after reading the list, I'd agree about the cons. Bondkaka 15:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (EDIT: Comment removed per WP:LIVING, even if it was a quote it wasn't in good spirit Ansell 01:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Steve Irwin has just passed away days ago. Don't bring his name up in a joke like that. Let's show a little more respect to the dead, please. -- 199.71.174.100 00:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The New York Times (and BBC News) are okay, since they don't usually have articles like List of sex positions. -- Mithent 10:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most popular articles of the day

message: Tell me if I am seeing things or if it is because the Tfa is being refreshed in UTC, but it seems to me that more than one article is being featured in a day. If that is true can we call it Today's featured articles? The other one/s can be listed at the bottom of the featured article, but on top of the recently featured and be titled Soon to be featured. If more than one article is not being featured in a day, should we have something like Soon to be featured? 
This and the aforementioned probably should be discussed at the village pump but I see no reason why I can't discuss it here: since sex related articles are so popular, does anyone think that it would be a good idea to create a portal dedicated to sex and have it up there with our 8 portals? Also maybe someone could created a wiki dedicated to sex and drugs, like wikisexpedia the free sex encyclopedia that anyone can edit(unless you are under 18). A wiki city like that could start up pretty quickly if vandals don't ruin it. Pseudoanonymous 00:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One featured article per day changed at 00:00 UTC--Clawed 01:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: See WikiAfterDark Raul654 01:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's Portal:Sexuality that covers sex. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 01:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And those portals directly linked in the Main Page are there for their encyclopedic content, not their popularity.--cloviz 01:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  We already have a sex portal and a soon to be featured list, as for the other, Wikipedia is meant to contain the whole of human knowledge, so you're already looking at it (less any how-to articles you may have in mind, in which case look at wikibooks) --Monotonehell 07:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Pseudo, there are (fortunately) more articles than just one per day being promoted to FA on average. Only one, however, is featured on the main page each day, selected by Raul654. There's no real status for them, they just didn't get lucky (or weren't as interesting or were too similar to something recently or whatnot). As for your other interest, try Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality in addition to the portal. (Stick your neck out around here, and we tell you to get to work!) --Dhartung | Talk 05:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tfa + Soon to be featured + Sex portal 

message: I fully accept that Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of minors or anyone else.  Nonetheless, I question the wisdom of including the item about Frantisek Kotzwara on the main page. Comments? Newyorkbrad 02:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing wrong with it. It's an interesting, well-written, well-referenced article — Precisely the sort we should be presenting to the public.--SB | T 03:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's an ideal cautionary tale to warn the kiddies of the dangers of classical music. </flippant> Self censorship is a slippery slope, as long as an article is presented in an adult, scholarly and NPOV manner I see no problem with it regardless of the subject matter. It's about education and information unfettered by any emotional reaction. --Monotonehell 07:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frantisek Kotzwara in "Did You Know?" 

message: Just thought I'd note that I had no idea what the FA picture was before I looked at its page.. it's a bit blurred in full (though that's not to say it's bad, it was obviously not taken in ideal photography conditions!) but when reduced to 1/4 of the size it's even harder to make out. Equally I'm not entirely sure what else could be used, though, so I guess it's moot. -- Mithent 10:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actuary FA picture 

message: This is not our best. As noted above, the picture is completely unrecognizable on the Main Page, and the article in general is not representative of our most "brilliant prose." Sentence two: "The future is full of uncertain events, some of which are undesirable." Yikes. I guess I should stop complaining and start participating in the FA process. Or else clean up this "Featured Article" —Nate Scheffey 12:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, you could help clean it up... and you could also participate in the FA candidacy process to prevent articles you don't feel are suited as FAs from being voted in as such. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 17:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noting that people don't have to participate before being entitled to give opinions. Zocky | picture popups 19:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weak FA

message: The featured article summary on the main page contains the following unfortunate sentence: "Actuaries are highly trained experts with a deep understanding of financial security systems, their reasons for being, their complexity, their mathematics, and the way they work".  This text is not contained in the article itself, the phrases "highly trained" and "deep understanding" have been added, and this gushing text makes the summary intro POV and unencylopedic.  Doesn't belong in the main page.  Whoever can edit the main page, should.  --Xyzzyplugh 22:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the FA is due to be updated in less than an hour, I'm not sure that it's worth the effort, to be honest. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 23:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Note that they weren't added to the FA summary; rather they were initially in the article but recently removed (by me) but the copied text on the main page wasn't updated accordingly. Redquark 23:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These things happen -- the admins putting together the blurbs (is it just Raul?) have a hard time squeezing out the salient points as it is. In any case, please use Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors in future. --Dhartung | Talk 05:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article summary needs rewriting

message: ...is the death of a king of a country of 100,000 people really worth putting on the main page.--Moonlight Mile 10:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it is. Even if it is a small country, 'tis a king none the less. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. — ceejayoz talk 12:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tonga has no political importance in the World and could be ignored, But there are very few kings in the world left, hence we have to feature it. --Ageo020 22:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia needs more stuff from small countries, IMHO.  Far too much of the time the same-stuff you get on the front page of Wikipedia is the **SAME** stuff you may have already read on the front page of Yahoo.com, Excite.com, MSNBC.com, CNN.com, FT.com, (your ISP's startpage), etc, etc...  The variety which Wikipedia brings is refreshing. Use-it to take the chance on learning something new and different every once in a while. CaribDigita 23:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Noting the death anywhere less than the mainpage could be interpreted as systematic bias. After all, the Pope is monarch of a country of less than 1,000 people, but John Paul II's death was surely there. How about the Prime Minister of Grenada? How about the King of Swaziland?  Lets not judge the importance of national leaders, and the notability of their deaths, based on Western, or size-based, or any other, perceptions. Picaroon9288 02:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No offence to Tonga but... 

message: It's getting really slow in the peak hours could we please just have ads or have volunteer hosting or something.Mike92591 20:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia's slowness 

message: I think that adding a link to the sandbox (in a prominent place, not in the small print) will help new users to find a right place to experiment, and not carry out trial edits on actual pages. My hypothesis is that this will noticeably reduce unconstructive edits falling under the new user test category. Any for my theory? 218.186.9.1 05:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly I think it's a good thing that random tests can occur in main space. It rams home the fact that wikipedia can be edited by anyone. The only way for some people to believe this is to try it. Secondly, even after the header redesign for this page with the "red flashing lights" many people still don't notice it. But even after my disparigment I'm not against including a link to the sandbox somewhere more prominent, where do you suggest? --Monotonehell 11:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest with the Overview - Searching - Editing - Questions - Help part, the one under the 'Welcome to Wikipedia' box. With a brief explanation of what it's for in brackets, so new users know what it's for and don't get perplexed by what they see as yet another confusing feature of Wikipedia. 218.186.9.1 12:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment, at 800x600 pixel resolution, there is no room for any more links in that area. Carcharoth 13:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK...how about including it in either the navigation or the toolbox boxes on the left side of the window instead of on the Main Page? That way, the sandbox is accessible anywhere without having to know what to type into the search field or having to go back to the Main Page, which might achieve my aim better since it's less troublesome to go to the sandbox. 218.186.8.12 13:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW I'm still the same user! My IP has changed again for some strange reason I'm unaware of. 218.186.8.12 13:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Or how about under 'Other parts of Wikipedia'? 218.186.9.2 12:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, any support? Perhaps there is room there... --218.186.9.2 11:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To me the most logical way of doing this would be to put the link to the Sandbox is a less clearly subordinate place on the edit page. After all, every user making test edits will have to use this page. As for your IP, you probably have a dynamic IP address. To avoid confusion you may want to create an account. --IntrigueBlue 16:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your suggestion sounds good, thanks! --218.186.9.3 13:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: Why is it called Main Page? I feel the word Main suggests a hierarchy in which this page stands highest as the most important. I see the Main Page more as an utility; a gate to Wikipedia with an introduction, an example of a good article, one of our many beautiful pics of Australia, links to our ecyclopedic coverage of some important current events, to some portals, etc. Thus I wouldn't label it as more important that the pages with own content; perhaps I'd name it "Index Page", "Start Page", "Its Majesty Main Page". Just a comment.--cloviz 00:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mostly a matter of tradition, but I don't really see any need to change it. I'd disagree about naming it "Index Page" though; since it doesnt function as an index, this'd be a tad misleading. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 01:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Front Page" or "Welcome Page" would probably be more descriptive. But it's too late to change now. Newyorkbrad 02:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm... FrontPage sounds a tad MS-ish. "Welcome Page" should refer to Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers. "Main Page" is fine. It's the Main Street where internet traffic comes to Wikipedia. --199.71.174.100 13:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To follow that analogy through how about "driveway"? ;) --130.220.79.99 05:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Driveway ? That's probably your userpage, I suppose. :-)  -- 199.71.174.100 18:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, newspapers have front pages, and the fact that Microsof uses that as a name of one of its programs is somewhat irrelevant. Zocky | picture popups 13:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still think I'd have to agree with Front Page. That, or Index Page. --68.47.41.252 21:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Today's featured article on the T. Rex is being heavily vandalized. Please lock the article for today. Evertype 09:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, if the article was locked, it wouldn't benefit from being an FA.  Most articles improve greatly after being featured on the front page, and protecting the article would totally eliminate that benefit. Even if it was protected, vandals would just edit the templates. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 10:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of them do not get improved. I have had three articles go through, and the only improvements are small (gramatical and spelling). The good edits are mostly done by registered users. --liquidGhoul 12:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with LG. The improvement thing is a myth; it may have applied in the days when FAs were of a much lower standard - but now editors just spend the day reverting bad changes to very good articles.--Peta 12:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree, as well. I've seen several FAs end up at WP:FAR after being on the Main Page. Dmoon1 14:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Silly question expecting an obvious answer. If the articles were FA quality a few days ago, and have deteriorated to FAR quality in that time, can't people just revert them to their FA state? Skittle 14:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. If you just compare the differences between pre main page and post main page, you can clean up the bad edits. However, this still shouldn't occur. It took me ages to clean up frog after its appearance. Complete reverting doesn't work, as there are some good edits which need to be retained. --liquidGhoul 14:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah right. I wasn't meaning it isn't annoying, and the way it should be, just wondering why people would nominate such a relatively easy fix for FAR. Skittle 14:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it seems like a weak argument. --liquidGhoul 14:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have read that many times, and it is always displayed as be all and end all when this argument comes up. However, I only agree with one point, and I don't think that it is particularly important. Point one is out of date, and just not true. Those examples are from a year ago. A lot of work has since gone into improving the quality of featured articles, and most aren't as low quality as they were back then. Also, if you look at the history, I bet the improvements were made by registered users. I agree with point two, but I also think that people understand, and if we semi-protect, and have a banner saying that the article is protected for being on the main page, and will be editable tomorrow, it won't make a difference. I'm more worried about driving people off, because they show their kids an article about Bulbasaur, and it is full of penises. I don't agree with the protection policy statement. I have been watching two articles recently, which were either semi-protected or protected. British Shorthair was semi-protected because of continual vandalism, yet there is so much more vandalism on a main page article, and they are not protected? I just don't think the risk of losing a user because of vandalism on an article is worth the benefit of not gaining an editor because they can't edit an article, which I think is a silly reason really, they should be able to understand that the integrity of the article is important. --liquidGhoul 15:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Global warming, an undoubtedly controversial topic subject to vandalism on a good day, was improved by being featured (in my opinion).  Dragons flight 18:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon looking at that article, I agree. However, I just went through the history, and only a few of the anon edits were kept, and only one of these was the addition of information (rest were grammar, and there were also a few reverts). I can't see the harm in semi-protecting it. As long as we explain that the creation of an account, waiting a day or asking on the talk page will result in the ability to change the information, information should still be able to be added, and it would encourage people to create accounts. --liquidGhoul 01:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Creating an account won't help anyone who is trying to edit a semi-protected article, as semi-protection also locks out accounts from the newest 1% of users (about 4 days). Therefore, semi-protection on featured articles is a bad idea unless there is an extreme amount of vandalism. Graham87 09:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is four days. They might not be able to edit the article on the featured day (talk page is there for a reason), but if they create an account, they will be able to do it in the future. How is that not encouraging it. Also, have you watched a TFA? It is an "extreme" amount of vandalism. They don't stop all day, and I have seen it not be reverted for a long time. In fact, after frog was on the main page, it said they were found in Antarctica for about a month! --liquidGhoul 09:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow that's bad, and should have been caught earlier, but those changes can be hard to track.  I was thinking about the time an anon updated the population status of the kakapo while it was on the main page with the edit suggesting that he/she worked for the Kakapo Recovery Group; those very good edits seem to be increasingly rare though. It'd be nice when the feature to approve changes or a time delay is added, but it would reduce the gratification of "Wow! My correction of that spelling error worked!" However, there are over a million other articles on wikipedia that need improvement, and new users can always start on those. Graham87 10:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Piet, a technical solution isn't really needed here. Maybe we just need somebody to start an FA Patrol, to coordinate the efforts already undertaken daily by other editors & admins. I rarely see true vandalism last for more than a couple of minutes, for example. --Dhartung | Talk 21:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, now that I think of it, it wouldn't really work. If I recall correctly Bulbasaur was vandalised mainly through the templates. Piet | Talk 07:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Templates are now protected since that episode aren't they? --liquidGhoul 14:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: * Here's the article history - looking at today's edits it seems that the article has been reverted some 150 times during its time as FAotD. Also, it seems to me that the most of the improvements have indeed been made by registered users. --KFP 22:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Many registered users started out in Wikipedia as anonymous contributors. --199.71.174.100 18:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *We know that, but the improvements are basically rarely coming from them. --liquidGhoul 22:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Let them learn by doing. FAs should not be more protected than other articles in Wikipedia  just to keep inexperienced contributers away from supposedly better articles. -- 199.71.174.100 23:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The problem is that they are not learning. People are taking advantage of our willingness to allow them to edit articles on the main page, and there are very few people who are learning from the featured article. They can learn on other pages (I did), I am sure this will not drive them off. It is understandable that we protect something on the main page. However, the experienced editors are left having to clean up an article, and revert almost 200 strikes of vandalism a day! They could be creating a new article, or using their time improving Wikipedia elsewhere. There is a very simple solution, which I don't think will drive off anyone. The current system does drive off people. --liquidGhoul 23:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks MonotoneHell, that is a pretty valid reason.--liquidGhoul 01:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try to take a step back here, guys.  You stumble upon this website touting itself as an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit."  Wow, awesome!  What a concept!  So you follow the large, prominent link to today's "featured article," try to see if this is really the case and...no, it's not.  I would guess that a large number of vandalous featured article of the day edits are not bad-faith, but are people testing out this concept on the most immediately available article.  I think this alone makes the effort of cleaning up the vandalism worth it, and the improvements to the articles are not negligible either. -Elmer Clark 02:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  T. Rex being vandalized 

message: Is it me, or is the last sentence of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 14, 2006,
:"The battle also apparently exhibited Japan's willingness to sacrifice large numbers of its people in desperate and suicidal tactics in an attempt to slow or stop the Allied advance on the Japanese homeland."
a little inflammatory? If it's meant to summarize the opinions cited at Operation Ten-Go#Aftermath, it should also incorporate the more positive viewpoint
:"The story of Operation Ten-Go is revered to some degree in modern Japan as evidenced by appearances of the story in popular Japanese culture which usually portray the event as a brave, selfless, but futile, symbolic effort by the participating Japanese sailors to defend their homeland"
somehow. Melchoir 00:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ten-Go blurb POV 

message: Should the term "godfather" in the first DYK point (Austin Leslie=godfather of fried chicken) be linked to the Wikipedia definition?  Many people (such as myself) aren't very familiar with this word.
--Whiteknox 18:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What article do you want it linked to precisely? Borisblue 23:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At a guess, I'd say godparent. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 07:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My brain is going, "The godfather of fried chicken." It's making me laugh and laugh. --Masamage 04:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement: Link a word in the "Newest Article" section 

message: Caffiene! Whoever chose this for today is a good person. Wikipedia is great. NIRVANA2764 12:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awesome featured article! 

message: I wonder if it would be a good idea if the ITN items mentioned the dates.  Some items can be there for some time. -- Beardo 19:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the news - dates 

message: Why did the Main Page just not exist for a few moments? I cleared my cache and it was still gone. Now it's back. What was up? Hyenaste (tell) 09:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: happened with the pillows article too 80.41.194.129 09:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: shouldnt the spelling be Tsar as this is held to be the correct spelling of the word (the wikipedia page on the title itself is spelt Tsar) and Czar is a less common spelling of the word
BritBoy 13:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "correct spelling" could be царь ;) but try Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors for this. --Monotonehell 14:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already fixed it, citing the third paragraph of Tsar#Etymology and spelling. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander I 

message: There is a typo at the featured picture section: reponse to cholera epidemics.
:Fixed.  In the future, please report errors at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors.  Thank you!  —David Levy 06:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo 

message: I know it's probably no good trying to fix this now, but the Main Page shouldn't really be in the article namespace, as it isn't an article, it's a Portal. Clearly if it is moved we should leave a redirect behind, and we may need to change the software so that it loads the portal by default; it just seems wrong at the moment that we have a portal in article space (especially as an encyclopedia article probably could be written at main page if the space were free (for some reason, the software seems to disregard the lowercase p in this special case)). I also know that this suggestion is impractical and will never happen, but I may as well make it to see what the community's response is. --ais523 12:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Main_Page_FAQ#Why_is_Main_Page_in_the_main_namespace.3F Rafy 12:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Historical reasons" seems to go against Wikipedia:No binding decisions, and I am aware of why the Main Page is currently at :Main Page. Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion is now a redirect, so there is precedent for radical changes of historically-entrenched pages. Even the historical redirects were getting deleted in large quantities at WP:RFD a while ago. --ais523 12:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The FAQ mentions other pages that are in main namespace for historical reasons, but I as a Wikipedian that have been around for some time can't think of which pages they could be. Jeltz talk 14:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides the main page, the other big one is the page Transwiki, which requires a page at exactly that location (a redirect is sufficient) in order for the process to work. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 16:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong namespace? 

message: Is anyone else having this error? It is only happening in Firefox for me. The page loads fine in IE Tab. This is the first time this has ever happened to me, and it has only been happening for the last 15 minutes or so.--Dreaded Walrus 01:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It happened to me too (#deletion). It's also been reported at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Hyenaste (tell) 01:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It now seems to be working. Thanks for the assistance. I don't personally use the Main Page much, but I just noticed it myself.--Dreaded Walrus 01:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Happening again. JoshuaZ 03:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Page not showing in Firefox? 

message: ::Hi, I've spotted a mistake on the Main Page, the "In the news" says the ISS is pictured, however it is the flag of Thailand. Thank You. | AndonicO 16:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, The picture im seeing is the ISS. Have you refreshed or Hard refreshed lately? --Actown e 16:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have, but it's fine now; the Thai flag says (pictured). | AndonicO 17:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, currently it says that it implies that the picture is the flag of Bangkok, when its actually the flag of Thailand Bwithh 17:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error on Main Page 

message: The correct spelling of neapolitan in the original language is Nnapulitano. Nnapulitana is the female adjective. --Twilight 15:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this about something on the Main Page? If not, please post it elsewhere. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If it is, try WP:ERRORS. --64.229.231.231 15:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's about the "other languages section" that is not included in WP:ERRORS. --Twilight 15:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neapolitan 

message: I forgot to bookmark Wikimedia Foundation Board election pages. Now the election has closed, the sitewide notice has been removed. Can anyone provide the links? I am sure others will also be looking for this. Can something be suggested at the sitenotice page to leave the notice up (suitable amended) for just one more day. I know some people want it gone as soon as possible, but one more day after over 20 days won't make that much difference. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Meta:Main_Page - where they still have the link there, but saying that the election is closed. Remember that people will want to go and read about it over the next few days, and when the result is announced. Carcharoth 00:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the result has been announced on the mailing list. Will there be an announcement on the sitewide notice? Carcharoth 22:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Wikimedia Foundation Board election pages 

message: Is using military time on wikipedia a standard? dposse 19:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the 24-h clock time in UTC is used by default when ~~~~ or ~~~~~ is used. --199.71.174.100 19:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  military time 

message: Here we go again.... Come on. We don't need this to displace ancient ITN items today. Where's the global interest?  Don't admins read ITN guidelines anymore?  Please at least apply boldface to the internal link to the updated article and m-protect the image. -- 199.71.174.100 19:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: subsequent scandal dominate political discussion in the United States ahead of the 2006 House elections. This is a blatant liberal injection - this isn't dominating the news and the American people don't care about the story. What a crock. Haizum 22:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only heard about this through Wikipedia. I read news headlines in the UK everyday, and this isn't being mentioned. Again though, I can't really complain, as firstly "In the news" is not a news ticker, and secondly, I found the article interesting to read. Carcharoth 21:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mark Foley scandal

message: I believe this is the third time its done so, according to this page.  --Tom 07:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to be okay now.  I wonder why this keeps occurring.  —David Levy 07:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia links turn red on occation on wikiversity as well.  It's like the database splits.--Rayc 01:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiversity is Redlinked... Again 

message: For Wikiversity, it is a red link again. What is the problem? At least the 4th time! — [Mac Davis](talk) (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)19:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Appears fine to me; perhaps the problem originates from not clearing your cache? Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet Again 

message: It links to the page V: on Wikipedia rather than to the Wikiversity. Strange thing is that when I open underlying templtate Template:WikipediaSister it correctly links to the wikiversity. Is it possible it is a sofware problem? E.g. one of the servers might not be able to interpret V: prefix for Wikiversity articles. Maybe various versions of Wiki software on the servers?  --Jan Smolik 15:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea!  I've changed it to a full hyperlink. —Mets501 (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  And yet again 

message: The German version has links to all other Wikipedia projects. Why doesn't the English version? --66.111.51.110 13:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are there not links to Wikipedia in other languages on the main page 

message: Should we let our readers know that today is the 100th anniversary of the composer's birth? Check Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/September 25 for details. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shostakovich is now on MainPage, Ghirla. Please consider adding a bit on the celebrations and other commemorative activities to his article. Thanks. --PFHLai 12:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Dmitri Shostakovich]]

message: Again, the wikiversity link appears red. The broken link applies also to the image. The link in  works fine. No relevant recent changes in both the Main Page and the above template namespace. --Dead3y3 Talk page 15:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's temporary. Don't worry about it. -- 64.229.177.211 15:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error report: Wikiversity redlink issue #2 

message: Is there a specific page to report general Main Page errors? In WP:ERRORS there are only sections about specific parts (In the News, Today's featured article, etc). If it is not, can it be created so that this talk page doesn't flood by error reports? --Dead3y3 Talk page 15:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try talk pages such as Template talk:Wikipedialang. -- 64.229.177.211 15:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even better, comment at Talk:Main Page/errors.  --hydnjo talk 01:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A special location for general Main Page errors 

message: Um - this shouldn't be a red link, right? Bwithh 15:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See #Error report: Wikiversity redlink issue #2 above. --64.229.177.211 15:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiversity link on main page 

message: Snowflake link on today's page needs disambig. JanSuchy 08:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out. Raven4x4x 09:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snowflake disambig 

message: Doesn't the alleged "suicide attempt" deserve to be a "current event"? Thanks Soxrock 00:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can suggest it in WP:ITN, but I honestly don't think it does.Borisblue 01:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe Portal:Current events/Sports, but most definitely not ITN. -- 199.71.174.100 01:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, it is not a significant enough global news story to put on ITN. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't rate even he had actually committed suicide. Global view, please. --Dhartung | Talk 09:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not even news. Only good for tabloids. -- 64.229.221.217 10:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If he *did* actually commit suicide, I think it just might - cf. Steve Irwin. See Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page#Criteria for adding entries, criterion 5b. zafiroblue05 | Talk 20:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, Steve Irwin was an international figure. Terrell Owens isn't even universally known in the US. 130.64.130.18 00:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrell Owens