Talk:Main Page/Archive 117

message: Does the styling of the main page really original to wikipedia, 'cause There seems to be clones like this  across the web, is it wikipedia, or just a general display format. Rodrigue (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, we made it up... the styling of the sidebar and background comes packaged with every installation of the wiki software we use. And then people figure out how to make it look neat, and other people see that they can copy the format and do so.~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 01:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The sidebar on the left, logo in the top-right, grey background, footer containing the last-modified date, and so on, are part of the monobook skin of MediaWiki software, as orngjce223 mentioned. The actual look and feel of the Main Page, however, with the light green box with a green header, light blue box with a blue header, white header at the top with an article count, etc., was designed here. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page for more details – there is a lot of discussion linked from there. In the final March 2006 poll, 687 Wikipedians supported changing the main page, and 213 opposed. The Main Page before the redesign looked like this. GracenotesT § 15:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format 

message: When I go to Wikipedia, I go to the initial screen with the languages and everything. Even if I don't immediately type something in to search for it and bring it up, I just hit enter on the search to bring up the search page and go from there to my watchlist or whatever. So I never see the main page, even thought I think I would like to see the featured article most days. Is there a way to more easily make the main page accessible than clicking on English? - Bagel7T's 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just use the URL http://en.wikipedia.org instead -Halo (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a Small Suggestion... 

message: That template saying when the next update is... its colors are giving me a headache.  Also, is it necessary to have it in such bold colors?  Is that information so critical to someone visiting this discussion page that it needs to stand out as boldly as it is? Cigarette (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why the colors are like is to alert the people at WP:DYK, if they were of the same bland and boring colors, the people at WP:DYK will take a longer time to update it. --Howard the Duck 14:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. A much better colour would be my personal favourite: safety orange (That wasn't sarcasm, it would really be a better choice). 206.252.74.48 (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: We had this discussion before Template talk:DYK-Refresh and made some changes but seemed to settle on the current system for now. Bear in mind in theory the template should never be red since we have an intermediate colour for the first 2 hours after DYK is ready for update Nil Einne (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: But I think the point is we want all admins to notice it, not just the ones dedicated to updating it (they're probably the least of our worries). It's even useful if non-admins notice it since they may get around to bugging admins to update it e.g. via IRC (I have twice, once successful, once not so) and also making sure DYK next update is ready so admins are more conducive to updating it. But I guess your suggestion may be useful, if you don't fit into either category, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to disable it for yourself Nil Einne (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is there are LOTS of DYK candidates so it's not that hard to pick. Admins should like a second and even third batch waiting in the wings to prevent that red colored-DYK warning box. --Howard the Duck 13:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: To what extent are admins who are not regular DYK updaters concerned about updating DYK, though? Do they need to see bleeding red? Can admins who are regularly DYK updaters read the text of the notice, or are they trained to respond to color (making switching to safety orange a dangerous measure that make cause spontaneous deletion of the Main Page)? <serious>I don't see the color as essential to the functioning of this system. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.</serious> GracenotesT § 17:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the point though isn't it? We want admins who are not regular DYK updates to be bugged into updating it by seeing the urgency expressed by the template. Regular DYK updaters probably don't need the notice so much it's the other people we want to bug into doing something about DYK not being updated. Note as I mentioned [earlier we only see] red after 2 hours of seeing the intermediate yellow Nil Einne (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, but you also have to consider the fact that this talk page is the welcome mat of Wikipedia: if someone wants to get involved, clicking the "discuss" button from the Main Page seems like a good idea (even if they get directed to other places, such as the help desk, from the top notice). Talk:Main Page has to have utility, but also needs to be reasonably aesthetic (especially see the header a year or two ago).Why don't we try changing the color system for a couple of days, and seeing if this has any effect on the rate of update for the DYK? The color doesn't even need to be less noticeable: just less garish. GracenotesT § 14:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's mainly for a way to get the admins to update the DYK template... the red color will alert them to change it already while the yellow color should at least warn them to make preparations. (DYK updating is a long process). --Howard the Duck 03:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Next update" template 

message: Someone triple bracketed a link in the POTD on the main page. Can an Admin please fix it? Paragon12321 (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From the code: "NOTE: The exact title of the drawing did not specify which war, which is why "Franco-Prussian" is in square brackets"_Wafulz (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For greater clarity, I switched to the exact title and placed the Franco-Prussian War link elsewhere in the text.  —David Levy 01:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messed up POTD link 

message: The page Conversion_to_Christianity has been vandalized by someone moving it. I cannot move it back because I am not logged in. 87.194.51.44 (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. In the future, you may want to post this at WP:ANI.-Wafulz (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Somebody should put that Heath Ledger died. :( — Enter Movie (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page/Candidates#January 22 128.227.97.130 (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I put the link there for a reason, this talk page is only for stuff having to do with the general main page not specific parts of it. 128.227.97.130 (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "In the news" Section 

message: I recommend the use of this photo on the front page, since Ledger's death is the top story. The photo is under a suitable free license. The existing photo references two stories down. *** Crotalus *** 00:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ...On second thought, maybe not. That uploader's history is a bit sketchy. The image should be checked out further. *** Crotalus *** 00:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo for 'In the news' 

message: I've had a go at turning the main page into inline CSS rather than the current version that uses tables - please see the results at User:OliverRigby/CSS Main Page. The main improvement, compared to the old version, is accessibility for any device with CSS turned off, including accessibility with screen readers, as well as my personal preference for site design driven by CSS rather than tables. I've tested in in FireFox 2, Opera, Konquerer and IE6 and it seems to work great.
Any comments, improvements, compatibility issues or suggestions are appreciated and apologies to anyone who looks at the source - some of the code is a bit scruffy. -OliverRigby (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice. There are a few alignment issues though, mostly with the header box (Welcome to Wikipedia etc.) —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The regular main page looks all wrong to me in Firefox (XP2, Firefox 2.0.0.11), but okay in I.E. 6. With Firefox, most of the content is in a column on the left, just to the right of and a little wider than the sidebar. The page looks like it's infinite in width. The CSS version looks normal in Firefox. -Eric talk 15:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  I've fixed the bug in the header box (I missed a semi-colon) - any other alignment issues I'd be happy to hear about (it's the thing that took the longest to do). There are some IE5 issues to be worked out regarding the header.Fixed IE5. Should work fine in all major browsers now. -OliverRigby (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a generic comment for the moment: Changing the Main Page code is a kind of a big deal. Any major code updates will have to be thoroughly tested on a lot of different browsers and systems and the layout cannot in any way change significantly. I always thought we used tables rather than CSS for browser / user compatibility issues, but frankly, I'm unsure. It may be helpful to checkout the reasons tables were used in the old Main Page discussions. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a quick look in the archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page and can find no reason why tables were used instead of CSS aside from a couple of comments asking for it to be converted to CSS. I was assuming it was due to the fact it's easier rather than than compatibility issues. I'm trying my best to make this work in all major browsers. -OliverRigby (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've aalso dded IDs to all the CSS. This potentially allowed customisation of the main page using CSS and JS - another advantage of using inline CSS rather than tables -OliverRigby (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the main reasons for using tables and not CSS was that the boxes around the two sections (TFA/DYK and ITN/OTD) should be the same height.  On this proposed version this is not the case, and several others attempted to workaround the problem without success.  violet/riga (t) 14:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could this not be achieved with some javascript? Set the height of the smaller box to that of the larger? Although, having said that, not everyone enables javascript. --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 15:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: We could really use a similar design on our wiki. Thanks in advance.  —BoL 23:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Looks very, very nice in IE7.  Nice job OliverRigby! ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 15:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The main page rewritten in inline CSS 

message: The In The News bulletin states that the recent cut in interest rates by the US Federal Reserve is the largest cut since August 1982. January 2008 stock market downturn states, however, that it's the largest cut since October 1984, as stated in "Fed Cuts Rate 0.75% and Stocks Swing" New York Times, January 22, 2008. Which is it? -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 82' had a bigger I believe, so it is the equal second biggest since 82.--155.144.251.120 (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interest rates cut: biggest since when? 

message: How comes tomorrow's featured article is exactly the same as today's? (Stede Bonnet [please correct if name is spelt wrong]) Simply south (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At the risk of stating the obvious - it's not. Raul654 (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, now it has been removed but it was today's tomorrow when i first wrote this message. I suppose you already know this but in case nobody doesn't, now there isn't a Tomorrow's FA. Simply south (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Raul hadn't got around to scheduling it at the time. In future, The first issue would have been a caching one. In future, remember to purge both your browser's and wikipedia's cache (WP:PURGE) or alternatively check out the TFA directly, e.g. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 23, 2008 and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 24, 2008 Nil Einne (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tomorrow's FA 

message: Correct it to point to the article! Presently it goes to the edit page!
Go-in (talk) 08:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, just a bit of run of the mill vandalism masquerading as a system message.  Already reverted and the vandal blocked. - BanyanTree 08:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flight 38 Link 

message: Okay, I've got an idea that I think would solve a problem here. I've noticed that on some days, we don't have pictures for the TFA. This really blows, and it makes the front page look like crap. Of course, this is due to non-free images not being allowed on the front page. I think that articles should only be allowed to become featured if there is a free image available. Any thoughts?  Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 02:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about this... how about prohibiting FAs from appearing in the Main Page until a free image is found? They can still be FAs even if they don't have free images they just won't make it to the Main Page. --Howard the Duck 03:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that! Very nice, very nice.  Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 03:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I hope this entire thread is sarcastic. The entire "fair use is okay on millions of pages except the main page becuz JIMBO SAID SO" thing is already enough punishment on editors who promote copyrighted topics. Zeality (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: By far the best course of action would be to allow fair use images on this page - after all, they're being used to illustrate the text. However, every time I've attempted to reinstate this at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions (it was removed as a 'phrasing' issue without consensus) people jump all over me. Oh and one edit by Jimbo (who isn't a god, nor does he own wikipedia) isn't grounds for policy. Modest Genius talk 21:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Jimbo...isn't a god" Cite?  Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  From Jimmy Wales: 'Jimmy "Jimbo" Donal Wales (born 7 August 1966) is an American Internet entrepreneur'. Our article on God doesn't mention anything about Him being American or the internet, although I suppose it's possible ;-) Modest Genius talk 21:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's a reliable source? :-) Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: cite. via  Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem. ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea 

message: Croatian Wikipedia now has over 40,000 posts and should be sorted in its new, appropriate section at the bottom of the page. OettingerCroat (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Thanks, BanyanTree 07:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Croatian Wikipedia 

message: "...that William Larkin was identified as the Jacobean era portraitist formerly known as "The Curtain Master" by art historian Roy Strong?"
Bit of a dangling modifier? Could be rephrased to be more clear. Isopropyl (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: Heavy metal albums, video games...there are plenty of better more notable articles that would represent the encyclopedic values of the wikipedia.  The Pirate one was good. --Pensil (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've decided to resist the urge to respond to this and instead am simply going to point out this has nothing to do with the main page as a whole. I suggest WT:TFA instead if you really want to have this discussion but you might want to check the many, many similar discussions in the archives first. Nil Einne (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Let's face it; only a few will write articles that are really needed in an encyclopedia. The multitude will write about items they use daily, like heavy metal albums, video games and starlets. 122.2.87.95 (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's called systemic bias. If you write an FA on a different topic, that FA will be featured. We're a volunteer project, so chances are that if you won't do something yourself, it might not get done at all. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In the last 3 days, we've had a famous pirate (famous enough to make the Jury of the damned), a geography geology article, and a british literary critic. Hardly all pop culture oriented. Raul654 (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tomorrow's article is about multiple sclerosis. I think Pensil might just have a selective memory for pop culture FAs.-Wafulz (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the heavy metal album article was on the front page 9 days ago. Before that the only pop culture and/or "dubious" ones have been on December 29 and 31, over 3 weeks ago. 128.227.97.130 (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: January 12 and 13 are arguably pop culture. They certainly show up in TRASH. Raul654 (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: So when will we be seeing FAs that were edited heavily by you, Pensil? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continually Crappy FA 

message: As you know the thousands of Palestinians has passed through border and enter Egypt. I think this issue deserves to be on the main page.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree but those editors are smart and sometimes have reasoning one might not think of right off the bat. It was suggested at news candidates. Adding a note there might help if you'd like to try. -Susanlesch (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a link at the top of this page to that effect.--Blinadrange (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[2008 Gaza crisis]] 

message: Could the Australian Open Women's singles tennis results be included in the news section? I've seen gridiron and baseball results published, and they are only notable in America, whereas one could argue this is more notable in the wider world. Maria Sharapova beat Ana Ivanovic 7-5 6-3. BalkanFever 01:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Waiting for the Tsonga-Djokovic result, it's sure to be added. For more info, see WP:ITN/C. --Howard the Duck 05:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's already been announced. It should be added. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 22:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Check WP:ITN/C, this is not the place for this discussion. J Milburn (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian Open 

message: The featured picture just changed from a "folly" to a young boy riding a blue Yamaha Motocross bike.  I presume the author was suggesting that he is participating in a "moto" (for individual moto event) not "mono". Bbump (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "mono" is the trick he's doing, not the event he's partaking in. BTW, this belongs in Main Page Errors above :). ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 23:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Picture 

message: Back it up with credible resources wiki.
-G  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Click the link and find out. ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 01:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Since when did the USSR try to destroy Polish culture? 

message: Might I suggest removing the image that's currently on the main page? Firstly, it doesn't have much to do with the subject matter, and frankly when I opened up my browser today I would've sworn the featured article was about intravenous injection. Removing it may nullify confusion, I think. Anyone else agree? Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺</font></sub> 03:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone should put up the marijuana plants for the sake of hilarity.-Wafulz (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Treatment of multiple sclerosis]] image on main page 

message: I'd just like to thank (sarcastically) whoever allowed a summary of the plot of a classic which I have not read on the main page. Thanks a bunch!  Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 00:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All it gives away is the initial situation at the beginning of the play.  It doesn't mention any major plot points, let alone give away the ending.  What exactly are you unhappy with? -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: See WP:SPOILER for more information. Puchiko (Talk-email) 08:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think 400 years is a tad long for a statute of limitations on these things. And besides, Hamlet isn't written to be read as a book. I guarantee you'll enjoy it more as a play. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: "the play tells how Prince Hamlet exacts revenge on his uncle for murdering the previous king, Hamlet's father."  Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 18:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a major spoiler; that's the premise of the play (see what Elmer Clark said.) GracenotesT § 19:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I too was intrigued and want to see it played out!!Tourskin (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The purpose of Wikipedia is to make knowledge more accessible, not to conceal it.The blurb intrigued me so much, I think I'll read Hamlet sometime this week (a version with explanatory notes of course-my English isn't nearly that good). Thanks to whoever allowed this on the main page! Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: Interesting the "In the news" section has ignored the US primary election results, even though they're being widely reported by both US and non-US media sources as they occur.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.66.243 (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the results (at least the main states) are in Portal:Current Events section. There is no need to mention every primary on the main page except maybe when the nominees will be official for each party.--JForget  01:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Hey 141.213.66.243, as you can see from the information box at the top of the page, this discussion belongs at Wikipedia:In The News Candidates, but just for your information, the preliminarys to the election itself fail the criteria for inclusion. ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 01:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What exactly do you mean by widely played out? In California, were I live yes, maybe. But you see half of wikipedians contribute from overseas and don't know, and half of the US population probably don't even care who is running for what! Tourskin (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. primaries 

message: Today, January 28, Google celebrates the 50 years aniversary of Lego's patent on Lego bricks. Should it be on our main page too? The date is recorded in the article Lego; I'm about to add it to January 28.--Niels Ø (noe) (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, you can suggest that for DYK here, or if you wish, you can suggest it for ITN here depending on which you had in mind... ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 09:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think 'on this day' items that have been missed are best suggested here. I am not adding it myself, but for what it's worth, I support its addition. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here? No heres not the place J :) ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 11:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where, then? J Milburn (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, read my first post, or the help box, but just for you, here it is again!; the lovely suggestions section over at Template: Did You Know. ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 12:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You're looking for Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries, not DYK or ITN. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Niels Ø (noe) was originally looking for the OTD, where SA is a part... --Howard the Duck 13:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually yeah, that like DYK tangent was my fault, my bad! ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 13:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but I think that, if something was to be added to OTD after it had been protected, here would be the place to post. We don't have an OTD proposals page- we just protect whatever is there a couple of days beforehand and stick it on the main page... J Milburn (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not entirely true. There are in fact a couple of admins including myself that double check each OTD page before they go onto the main page to make sure they are acceptable under the WP:OTD guidelines – they are not blindly protected.  Also, there is really no proposals page because these OTD pages are generally unprotected throughout most of the year; anybody can suggest something by just being bold and editing the OTD page before it is protected. However, in a case such as this, if an event is suggested right in the middle of the day (including being posted on the article in question and the date page), more often than not it will unlikely to be included. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, after Zzyzx11 readied Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/December 30, I managed to sneak a little edit so any registered user can sneak a "minor" edit. --Howard the Duck 03:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's rather late, but try posting a request at Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/January 28 anyway. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lego anniversary 

message: What's up with the picture on the main page for the TFA? Should we be using it since it's subject to copyright? In the licensing, the uploader says something to the effect of "use of the image on this page alone", meaning the article, not the main page. Any reasons we're going against his will?  Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 02:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, based admittedly on just a few minutes of browsing through the picture and the article's talk page, it looks to me like the picture's uploader believed the movie and the poster are copyrighted, but since they were published without a copyright notice before 1978, that's not the case, and they're actually in the public domain. Someone else changed the licensing on all the images to reflect this, without removing the fair-use rationales. It's a bit of a shame that the original uploader went to the trouble of adding such a well done rationale when he didn't need to. --Herald Alberich (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool...it's a nice poster, too.  Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 03:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture? 

message: I'm new to wiki, but just glancing at the Pokemon X webcomic article tells me 2 things: Firstly, it needs a complete overhaul as it is seemingly written by a six year old, and secondly, it needs to be moved to bulbapedia, it is too specific for main wiki. I know this is not really the place to discuss this but i really think we need to move it, and then it can be improved. [i am unable to create/edit on bulbapedia due to something about bots and i would probably make a real hash of it anyway. Assisstance [yes, im sure i spelt that wrong. (King Garchomp VII (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestions to improve the Pokemon X article may be better posted at Talk:Pokemon X, rather than here. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pokemon X 

message: Can this be taken off the front page?--72.209.9.246 (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, what? What picture are you referring to? Is this some kind of crude joke? Dreamy § 00:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see the humor so I'll assume its not a joke, can I suggest you refresh your browser cache (could be vandalism that was reverted by now), if it remains, I'd suggest that you may have malware on your PC, and will need to take the appropriate action. ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 00:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've heard this one before, and there was nothing from the history of the page. Tourskin (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  AGF, Tourskin, Wiki knows its not easy but we gotta try to AGF :). ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 00:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't be in the main page history- in the past when something like this has cropped up, it has been because a template or image on the main page has not been protected. I've seen it before- sadly, it does happen. J Milburn (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: However this doesn't happen much nowadays (as far as I'm aware), due to cascading protection. The only way it can, as far as I'm aware assuming that cascading protection wasn't turned off (and it looks like it wasn't) is that someone forgot to upload the image from the commons to wikipedia. Either that or an admin did it or it lasted the whole day on tomorrow's main page without anyone noticing. The fact that no one else has mentioned this suggests didn't happen and there was no picture of a penis on the main page on the 29th although I'm lazy to go through the history to confirm either way. I'm not saying 72 is lying simply that he or she might be mistaken. Perhaps it's a caching issue, there is definitely odd stuff that has happened that can probably be put down to some weird caching issue. Or perhaps he or she simply doesn't understand the difference between the main page and articles linked to from the main page. In any case, none of this really matters, if there really was a penis for a short time, it is unfortunate but seemingly didn't last long Nil Einne (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually after going through the logs and getting confused why we didn't see any vandalism even though some images weren't uploaded I now think it's even more unlikely. It appears cascading protection now prevents the creation of an article etc i.e. stops people from uploading an image which doesn't already exist on wikipedia. This was I believe on of the problems before, even with cascading protection someone could still upload an image which didn't already exist (or perhaps I remember wrong, not sure). Also :Commons:User:Zzyzx11/En main page is being used to provide cascading protection on the commons to images that are or will soon appear on the main page (since cascading protection doesn't transfer from wikipedia to the commons). Therefore it's rather difficult for this stuff to happen it would usually only be in DYK or ITN where a new image is added which is not :Template:C-uploaded or protected on the commons. But going through the logs for the time of day I don't see any evidence it did happen to any of the images although I've always been a bit crap at looking through wikipedia logs Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Coming into this late, but even without cascading protection, only admins can upload a file locally that has the same name as Commons file. howcheng  {chat} 04:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Goddamnit, I was so sure I'd checked all logs including  but I'm obviously wrong :-P Nil Einne (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was there, thanks for thinking that I made it up for kicks, next time I won't bother commenting. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we've already found the image you referred to Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: We need more "picture of penis" discussions on Talk:Main Page. Zeality (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, we should create Talk:Main Page/Penis Picture Related Discussion to contain the obvious demand for it. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 18:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a guy. Can't we just have pictures of... kittens? --Howard the Duck 12:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Please, no more talk of cocks and such on the main page. You know what that kind of thing does to kitttens ;-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.192.131 (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ZOMG, think of teh kittens!!!1111  ;-)  --Iamunknown 22:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture of penis 

message: Change this to em dash. The current punctuation is just a minus sign. third season – sixty-ninth episode overall – of. Thanks. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, but next time go to WP:ERRORS for faster service. howcheng  {chat} 17:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MoS issue 

message: Shouldn't there be something on the Main Page about the Chinese railway mess? It's affecting millions of people (see Chunyun).
--Atchom 23:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please check the information box at the top of the page for the correct place to post this. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 23:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese railways 

message: "...Byron Reed was one of the greatest collectors of the 19th century"... The reader, thinking of Rothschilds, Robert Hoe, Phillips, et al. is astonished, but soon learns that Mr Reed of Omaha was collecting US coins. --Wetman (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has already been addressed in Main Page Errors above. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 00:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Byron Reed 

message: Under latest news to represent the "Chad Crisis" the picture of the president has been used, while yes, it could be considered that he could be in the center of the crisis wouldn't it be more approperate to just have the flag of Chad be the picture to repersent this news bullition? Tazz (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. The president is a key figure in the crisis, the flag doesn't have to do anything with the crisis. Puchiko (Talk-email) 10:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  President of Chad's Picture used 

message: The picture for the lead right now is awesome! I didn't know that could be done! Good job to whoever did it, bravo, bravo!  Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 03:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, what a trick. This is second only in novelty and fun to ubiquitous penis pictures. Zeality (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It would be better if someone could enlarge it, can barely see the people  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.251.11 (talk) 08:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an image map. I applaud whoever took the time to do it.We should enlarge it a bit, but not too much because there has to be room for the text of the hooks. If you click on it, you'll get a larger version along with information about the picture. Puchiko (Talk-email) 10:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Aww, I missed the fun. Could someone link to whatever picture you people are talking about please? J Milburn (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is :Image:RalphBartonExtract.jpg, but there's no fun in that. What was good about it was the way it was in the template, as you can see in an old revision of it. Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty awesome code, didn't know you could do that, but I dunno if I like image captions on the main page. Thanks, Puchiko. J Milburn (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  :Template:Hollywood1921 has the codes and should be large enough for anyone who want to see the individual faces. Click on 'history' there to find out who did this outstanding job. --PFHLai (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK Pic 

message: What are  these(link takes a while on slow connections) edits about since the trouble earler? ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 02:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They make sure the Main Page has at least 5,000 revisions so it cannot be deleted by admins. Graham87 07:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Main Page history changed

message: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Adding useless revisions to pages to make them undeletable. Short summary, a bot was used to make lots of null edits, and the edits were merged into the page history by an admin. A fudgy workaround that has got Tim Starling (one of the lead Wikimedia developers) quite angry. See here. It seems that this has now resulted in a Mediawiki change that makes all main pages on all wikis undeletable and unmoveable. See here. Carcharoth (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Refactored the above - there were two separate Main Page deletions. The one above was Maxim (falling for a silly joke), and the second one was East718 (part of carrying out a history merge). Carcharoth (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: So now we have several thousand revisions in the history for no good reason... and have no way of deleting the page to get rid of them. Sigh. – Gurch 17:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nah, one of the devs (Tim) blocked Betacommandbot and deleted all the revisions, which is why my link above doesn't work anymore. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 17:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Main Page deletion

message: A plane just crashed at my local airport. It missed the runway, and nearly crashed into a car that was coming out of the aiport restaurant. Luckily, there were no fatalities, but the plane is totally done for and there were an additional $100,000 (2 pounds sterling) worth of damage. Can this be featured in the ITN section?  Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 15:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but the story about British Airways Flight 38 in ITN is more interesting than your story ;-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.135.116 (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno about a worldwide perspective, but in terms of Britain and Europe, this is recieving A LOT of attention. Not honestly sure why, I kind of agree with Benjamin, but there is attention. J Milburn (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the first hull loss for a 777 ever. That is the significance. Oh yeah, and there was a world leader at the airport. And there might have been a instrumentation failure in flight. Lots of little things that add up to big ones. spryde | talk 17:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. Our crash was pretty notable. Governor Jim Douglas was in the state at the time which is a pretty big thing (considering Vermont is about, give or take a few acres, as big as Heathrow). It's been getting A LOT of attention around here: The Times-Argus ran a front page story on it! And it was on the front page of the Burlington Free Press...very good articles, mind you. And check this out: It was a Piper Saratoga II HP, the SAME kind of airplane that John F. Kennedy, Jr. crashed in! Now tell me that doesn't deserve to be put on the front page!  Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 18:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't deserve to be on the front page. London Heathrow is one of the biggest international airline hubs and the loss of a 777 in the circumstances reported must be of considerable international significance. The story merits its place in ITN.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.108.167 (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a major international event, I think it should be included. Noobeditor (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The media love stories of plane crashes nowadays, so yes it's receiving a lot of attention. So it should. Exciting it was. Boeing 777 nearly knocked a taxi driver's head off then dropped clean out of the air from 100 feet. BOOOM!! :D Sky News are lovin' it. • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 18:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: For anyone who's been confused by my sarcastic wit, or lack thereof, there was no plane crash at the airport I'm talking about. I was merely highlighting what seems to me to be the sheer foolishness of putting a plane crash on the main page. I mean, check out this page: The only known fatality resulting from a 777 doesn't even have it's own article, let alone it's own spot on ITN! Unless I'm missing something, which is very probably, there are not any articles on any other 777 incidents, and I'm pretty damn sure that nothing about any of them made it to ITN. This crash, which had no fatalities, doesn't deserve the coverage it's getting. It hasn't even been deemed a hull-loss accident yet! For the sake of any [[deity which you choose, be it God, the invisible pink unicorn, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, could someone tell me why this deserves front page coverage? What makes it so much more notable than other of the other 4 incidents which Wikipedia (although as everyone knows, Wikipedia isn't very reliable) lists?  Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 18:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Items selected for inclusion in ITN, as far as I know, have some kind of international significance. About 50 to 60 million people pass through Heathrow annually, most of whom are international travellers (and many of whom are USAmericans no doubt). The 777 is one of the leading types of aircraft that carries these people internationally and very many other people between other airports. The loss of a 777, in the circumstances that have been reported, may well have implications for all other 777s in operation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.118.125 (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My fellow IP editor is correct. Additionally, the fact that nobody died is not a reason for this crash to not be notable, but one of the many reasons why it is notable. 152 on board, and not one killed. 65.4.50.162 (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Plane crashes without fatalities are the most common kind of plane crash.   (However, I'm not disputing that this plane crash is notable.) 24.2.176.64 (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Resistance is futile, Wikipedia is Britocentric. You can't do anything about it. --Howard the Duck 07:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But the Boeing 777 is a USAmerican aircraft. Flight 38 had flown from Beijing and many of its passengers would be travelling on to other countries. If Wikipedia really is Britcentric, the story about Flight 38 most certainly is not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.223.71 (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The main bone of contention on why this article was saved from deletion was that it happened on Heathrow, not to mention it's BA and it occurred "meters" (about 4 football pitches) away from the British PM. If an airplane had a similar accident in another airport I doubt it'll be posted at the ITN, let alone have an article (That's following the "all airplane accidents are notable by default" rule). --Howard the Duck 08:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You implied that the story is Britcentric. It isn't for the foregoing reasons. I don't know what would happen in the hypothetical case you mention and neither does anybody else.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.223.71 (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is Brit-O-Centric. As I've said, if the reason why it is saved from deletion is that 1) It's BA, 2) It's Heathrow, 3) Gordon Brown was meters (4 football pitches) away. If the accident happened on another airline and on an airport no one goes to it won't be posted on the ITN and even have an article. If this happened at JFK and it got posted, Jooler and a dozen other non-Americans will be up in arms crying "US-centrism! Remove all* US-related items in the Main Page! Heck, even Super Bowl I. (*excluding TFA and TFL) --Howard the Duck 09:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to find out what people said about what actually happened immediately before the plane crash-landed. The story is really Boeing 777centric - and that is of major international significance. If you continue to think the story isn't ITNewsworthy and is Britcentric, then so be it. I happen to disagree with you. 'Nuff said.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.217.72 (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Did you even read the AfD you're linking to? Because if you had, you would have noticed the nominator withdrew it not because of Gordon Brown (which he/she said was laughable in affecting its notability) nor because of Heathrow, nor because of BA but because it was the first hull lost of a 777. And in fact reading it further, only 2, yep do you hear me?, two people even mentioned Gordon Brown in a reason to keep and neither of them used it as their sole reason. Besides that your claims are laugable in themselves because if George W. Bush had been within metres of a plane crash we wouldn't even be having this conversation because few people would bother disputing keeping the article Nil Einne (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That still doesn't resolve the fact that it was saved due to it's "Britishness". I mean, come on, if this happened in a anywhere else, even in the U.S., and no casualties were reported it would've been deleted. The fact that it happened in Britain, is a British aircraft, and missed the British PM by four football pitches (LOL) was enough reason for it to be saved, er, withdrawn. --Howard the Duck 05:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again read the AfD which clearly contradicts what you're saying. If you're going to ignore what the AfD says and come up with your own conspiracy theories, then I suggest you do it somewhere else since the main page isn't the place for people to publish conspiracy theories which don't agree with the evidence. And actually I completely disagree with you, if this had been an American airliner or had happened in JFK or any other large American airport and had missed Bush by four American football pitches as I said above we wouldn't even be having this discussion because people wouldn't be asking to delete it. This of course doesn't change the fact that there are much more important reasons to keep this article but anyway... Nil Einne (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The article, however, says, or at least did, that it isn't even a complete hull lose, or whatever the term is, yet. That's my beef. It's like saying "Hillary Clinton is notable because she is the first woman president of the United States", which is untrue and only speculation. And if George Bush had been with feet of a plane crash, people would most likely yelling at the pilot for bad aim.  Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 00:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not here to debate whether we should keep the article or the facts contained or even to defend the AfD per se. This clearly isn't the place. What I am saying is the reason why the AfD failed had nothing to do with the claims Howard the Duck made. If you wish another AfD or want to dispute what the article says, I suggest you take that to the appropriate forum not here. You may be right that the opinion of the person who withdrew was slightly inaccurate but an analysis of the accident suggests to me the right decision was made whatever the reasons (although as I keep saying, the reason had nothing to do with what HtD claimed). Nil Einne (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Flight 292 was an Airbus aircraft, Airbus was partially owned (until a couple of years ago) by BAE systems, formerly known as BRITISH Aerospace, so that article's retention is clearly due to Britocentrism. ReadingOldBoy (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not gunning for an AFD on the crash, I just don't think that it deserves to be on the front page. It's notability is based on something that has yet to be determined, so I'm just saying that it does not deserve front page coverage: It's not that big of a deal (yet, perhaps). We should have an article on it, that's cool and encyclopedic. However, It's just not notable enough to be put on the front page.  Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 00:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Wanna see this AFD? --Howard the Duck 06:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (Comment) Howard the Duck voted keep in this AFD  Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 01:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually my vote was "Keep for the mean time until notability guidelines are agreed upon, with no prejudice for re-nomination." I'm waiting for the appropriate WikiProject to finally iron out notability guidelines so this and BA38 can both go to Wikipedia heaven. --Howard the Duck 03:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really notable? 

message: Whoever included the spoiler regarding the flashforwards in the summary on the main page is inconsiderate at least! The specific piece of information need not have been included in the main page entry. There is also viewers in countries other than the USA you know... You are forcing this spoiler down their throat. They don't even have the option to resist clicking.
Message to those who can edit the main page: It is still not too late to rectify this! Please do so. 85.240.90.204 (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've hidden the original contents in a box to stop people seeing any spoilers -Halo (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I've hidden the original contents in a box to stop people seeing any spoilers -Halo (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  That's the big revelation at the end of the episode, and is with perhaps one exception the biggest possible spoiler that the blurb could mention. -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Ugh...I was going to go ahead and spoiler tag this discussion, but it would appear the spoiler template has been deleted, in order to enforce the new "consensus" at WP:Spoiler.  Apparently, no one considered situations such as this, where potentially unanticipated spoilers might be present outside of the article namespace... -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really just the nature of Wikipedia that it will include spoilers. I don't see why the main page should be any different, frankly. If you read an article here, there may be spoilers in it. That's just the way it is. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The subject of an article has no bearing (beyond being notable) on whether the article becomes featured (and can therefore appear on the Main Page) or not. As long as the article follows the criteria, it can be featured. Of all the featured articles (not all articles, but featured ones) on all the possible topics, notable American TV episodes are just as likely to appear as any others. --Herald Alberich (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I wonder what would be the reaction if the FA was an episode of a non-American TV program... --Howard the Duck 06:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably the same thing or worse. Remember what happened when we had The Bus Uncle? Not quite the same thing but people will always find something to complain about Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Tomorrow's featured article: Dookie. Should be fun... - auburnpilot talk 17:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahahaha... can't wait for the comments :p --Howard the Duck 10:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think putting a featured article on an episode of a TV show is acceptable, but its a little too much like an advertisement in light of the fact that the 4th season of Lost just started airing in Canada and the USA. On the plus side I almost forgot to watch it, but the article reminded me to. Basser g (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It worked out that way because someone requested that be the article on the day, not because of advertising purposes. So long as the article has Featured Status, and that its not been used already, you can request it on any day you like. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 22:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The main TV series article became a TFA on the season premiere a year(?) ago, again requested. --Howard the Duck 10:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, Lost is very, very popular in Poland, yet still some of us don't care for it one bit. It was chosen as WP:TFA for today specifically, so there it is. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Just read another FA today, there's plenty to choose from. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, I'm afraid you've missed the point entirely. There are of course plenty of other FAs to read, but this is the one that you see immediately when coming to the Main Page, and it contains spoilers that will be particularly irritating - and disappointing - for people outside the US. Bingobangobongoboo (talk) 07:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to hear that. But, in all honesty, I have resisted the temptation to read today's blurb, just the first two lines were enough. I believe that when you don't want to read, you just don't read. Still, well, happens. Somebody wrote a FA on this episode and there it is. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's great that someone did write a FA on this episode. However, is the front page FA generated randomly, or is a selection process involved? And if there's any human element to the selection process, shouldn't some consideration be given to creating a front-page edit which doesn't include spoilers? Bingobangobongoboo (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The daily FA is selected by User:Raul654 a few days prior, however one can request a specific date here. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Ouro! Bingobangobongoboo (talk) 08:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No prob. Have a nice day, after all. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Just my point of view but i think it was a very low and shoddy thing to do. It seems clear this would upset people. That paragraph contains many many plot details that would spoil the show for people. Its sad that you can have a great article about arch in the same week as a plot spoiler for lost.--Curuxz (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we had another spoiler this week on Hamlet which I'm sure someone complained about. And the article on Archimedes also had a spoiler. For those who didn't yet know about his life, they found out how he died. Oh and..... Nil Einne (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, get over it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.136.190 (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Well there are other countries besides the good old US of A we series 3 has been shown completely Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Please read WP:SPOILER for more information. The purpose of Wikipedia is to make information more accessible, not to conceal it. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Through the Looking Glass (Lost)]] 

message: Somoebody has to take a good long hard look at themself.  Choosing an article on en apisode of a TV series as the Feature Article is stretching the boundaries, surely?  Wikipedia is not a fansite, right?  Of all the possible articles on all the possible topics in all possible fields, somebody chose an article on an American TV episode as the FA.  No wonder Wikipedia is criticised so much.  Darcyj (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The subject of an article has no bearing (beyond being notable) on whether the article becomes featured (and can therefore appear on the Main Page) or not. As long as the article follows the criteria, it can be featured. Of all the featured articles (not all articles, but featured ones) on all the possible topics, notable American TV episodes are just as likely to appear as any others. --Herald Alberich (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I wonder what would be the reaction if the FA was an episode of a non-American TV program... --Howard the Duck 06:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably the same thing or worse. Remember what happened when we had The Bus Uncle? Not quite the same thing but people will always find something to complain about Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Tomorrow's featured article: Dookie. Should be fun... - auburnpilot talk 17:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahahaha... can't wait for the comments :p --Howard the Duck 10:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think putting a featured article on an episode of a TV show is acceptable, but its a little too much like an advertisement in light of the fact that the 4th season of Lost just started airing in Canada and the USA. On the plus side I almost forgot to watch it, but the article reminded me to. Basser g (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It worked out that way because someone requested that be the article on the day, not because of advertising purposes. So long as the article has Featured Status, and that its not been used already, you can request it on any day you like. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 22:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The main TV series article became a TFA on the season premiere a year(?) ago, again requested. --Howard the Duck 10:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Feature Article or Feature Advertising??

message: What's with such a major end-of-series-three Lost spoiler right up there on the main page? Sure, it's already been aired in the US, but don't be so US-centric - we don't all live there, you know, and some of us want to wait until this hits our screens before finding out how many of which group die!!! Bingobangobongoboo (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Lost is very, very popular in Poland, yet still some of us don't care for it one bit. It was chosen as WP:TFA for today specifically, so there it is. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Just read another FA today, there's plenty to choose from. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, I'm afraid you've missed the point entirely. There are of course plenty of other FAs to read, but this is the one that you see immediately when coming to the Main Page, and it contains spoilers that will be particularly irritating - and disappointing - for people outside the US. Bingobangobongoboo (talk) 07:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to hear that. But, in all honesty, I have resisted the temptation to read today's blurb, just the first two lines were enough. I believe that when you don't want to read, you just don't read. Still, well, happens. Somebody wrote a FA on this episode and there it is. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's great that someone did write a FA on this episode. However, is the front page FA generated randomly, or is a selection process involved? And if there's any human element to the selection process, shouldn't some consideration be given to creating a front-page edit which doesn't include spoilers? Bingobangobongoboo (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The daily FA is selected by User:Raul654 a few days prior, however one can request a specific date here. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Ouro! Bingobangobongoboo (talk) 08:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No prob. Have a nice day, after all. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Just my point of view but i think it was a very low and shoddy thing to do. It seems clear this would upset people. That paragraph contains many many plot details that would spoil the show for people. Its sad that you can have a great article about arch in the same week as a plot spoiler for lost.--Curuxz (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we had another spoiler this week on Hamlet which I'm sure someone complained about. And the article on Archimedes also had a spoiler. For those who didn't yet know about his life, they found out how he died. Oh and..... Nil Einne (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost spoiler 

message: Fanbloodytastic. I came to this talk page to complain about Wikipedia's front-page Lost spoilers, and by looking to see if anyone had already mentioned this I'm bombarded with even more spoilers above. Way to go, Wikipedia - there are other countries than the good old US of A, and we haven't all seen series 3 of Lost yet. Cheers for that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.18.71 (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, get over it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.136.190 (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Well there are other countries besides the good old US of A we series 3 has been shown completely Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Please read WP:SPOILER for more information. The purpose of Wikipedia is to make information more accessible, not to conceal it. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers 

message: Since today's Super Bowl Sunday, I'm thinking this was planned.  LMAO! Yamakiri TC   [ §]  02-3-2008 • 17:50:22
:Yes, I'm sure it was. TFA assignments are not random, that's no secret. Anybody can request an FA be on the Main Page on a given date at WP:TFA/R.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well of course, by the time the game ends (before halftime even) it will be off the main page.  Charles Stewart (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was requested at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, I believe. J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Irony != coincidence. Jetekus (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The FA is <i>so</i> ironic 

message: If an image can be in an article, then why can't it be on the main page? -- 70.134.89.91 (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because WP:JIMBO said only free images can be used and editors acquiesced submissively, effectively punishing editors who make Featured Articles on copyrighted topics. Zeality (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyrighted topics? What on Earth is a 'copyrighted topic'? The debate about fair use on the main page has played out many times before, and it is not simply because Jimbo said so. I don't think there is any need to hash out the whole discussion again, though. J Milburn (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: and the community by and large agreed with him. This has been discussed for a long time- one of Wikipedia's main goals is to promote the use and production of free content, so we keep use of nonfree, copyrighted material to an absolute minimum. Borisblue (talk)`  —Preceding comment was added at 16:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure if using "by and large" is appropriate. From the discussions I have seen, both opinions are subscribed to by a large number of editors, there is no consensus. Personally, I believe that our main goal is to be an encyclopaedia, to provide information. I believe it is perfectly acceptable to use copyrighted content when there's no other choice. As far as the main page is concerned, we should always pick a generic image over a non-free one. In this case, we can use the image of the artist, so there's no need for a non-free image.  However, if the choice was TfA without an image versus TfA with a non-free image, I'd definitely choose the latter.Also, this is a minor and irrelevant comment, but we don't keep non-free content to an absolute minimum. Take a look at the picture in the left upper corner of every page. It's copyrighted. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the real issue here was that policy was changed on an issue where there was clearly no consensus.  I've only ever heard the "Jimbo says" rationale for this, but he's said himself not to take his words as gospel truth unless he's making it clear that he's speaking in that capacity.  Very strange... -Elmer Clark (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not even sure there's a policy that says so, I could be wrong though. I suppose there's the "no un-free images outside of articles" policy. However, the Main Page is in article space, yet it's not an article, so I can't tell whether that policy applies here. I don't think that there's a policy that says "no non-free images on the Main Page", I think it's more like an unwritten rule. Puchiko (Talk-email) 22:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The FU criteria used to mention the main page as an exception to the policy we don't allow images in places other then article space. This was removed when it underwent a major change to NFCC so there is both a written policy (since we explicitly say no NFCC images in anywhere other then article space and main page is not article space) and an unwritten policy (remember wikipedia is not a bureaucracy) in this regards. The wikipedia logo is an interesting issue but somewhat of a different issue. Your personal beliefs aside as I'm sure you've read whenever this discussion has come up, it has ALWAYS been our policy that we are a free encyclopaedia, not simply an encyclopaedia, and there has never been any suggestion that either of these are less or more important then each other. The only relevant issue IMHO is whether we are making either more important then each other by excluding all non free images from the main page and the answer to this (IMHO again) is no. Nil Einne (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: To above: Chrono Trigger is a copyrighted game; Chrono Trigger is a "copyrighted" topic in that meaning. I cannot use any art or representation of the game when submitting a Featured Article because of this arbitrary rule, making my TFA blurb inferior to those of free topics. Zeality (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Chrono Trigger is not a copyrighted topic. And you are free to use any free image. It's not our fault if the people who made the game don't release any free image to represent the game so if the TFA blurb is inferior (which is a big if) you should be complaining to Square Soft not us... Nil Einne (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think I'd rather complain about a violation of Wikipedia's own rules and a totally arbitrary restriction of fair use. Having a tiny thumbnail of a copyrighted work is not magically going to incur lawsuits. And it is obvious that TFA blurbs without images are uglier and less eye-catching than those with. Zeality (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the early days of featured articles, when many didn't have any images whatsoever, articles with no suitable image simply weren't featured on the main page.  I can't believe we've started doing that, which wasn't even done in Wikipedia's infancy, for such a silly reason.  Perhaps we should at least re-implement that restriction?  No main page featuring without a usable image?  It does look quite bad.  -Elmer Clark (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's going to discourage people from working on certain topics (films, video games, people recently deceased) which will lead to systematic bias. We should instead try to use more generic images (if it's an album use the artist, if it's a film use the actor, if it's a biologist use an image of a plant he studied).I also don't think we should complain to the company. They knew that they don't have to release a free image, because if someone wants to write an article or something they can claim fair use. They expect their copyrighted images to be used, but they don't want to give away their work for free, which is reasonable. And in general, I think giving up your intellectual property rights should be voluntary. Puchiko (Talk-email) 10:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: There will still be plenty of film/pop-culture/video games/pop music articles, but their editors might not strive to bring them to featured status. Then we will be left with lots of poor quality articles about this topic. It won't lead to systematic bias in the number of articles about these subjects, but in the number of featured articles about these subjects. Puchiko (Talk-email) 12:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification, sorry for the confusion. This may be true but just because an article isn't featured doesn't mean it isn't any good. I come across many well-written, well-referenced articles on this site that aren't featured, a process that, from what I can see isn't actually what vets the articles for their accuracy and quality as much as it does their agreement with Wikipedia's own Manual of Style. It's the dedicated editors that make these unfeatured gems I see the good pieces they are, not the featured article review process, which is mostly, again, from what I have seen, made up of a core group of ivory tower editors who impose their own personal preferences throughout the process. (This is obviously a generalization). While the Main Page is a good reward, there are tons of featured articles that haven't seen the Main Page and have free images, so I guess it's never guaranteed just because an article has the star. As mostly a reader, I don't think it matters that much because I think when many come to Wikipedia it is for a specific reason and specific topic, so that the best articles are rarely navigated to through Wikipedia's Main Page. Just my thoughts. 24.14.119.135 (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: To elaborate a bit more, when I am looking for a topic I don't even do it at Wikipedia, let alone the Main Page. I just type my topic into Google and add the word wiki to the search. I always get what I am looking for, I can then navigate to related topics from there. My own personal way but surely many others use Google as their primary search, even when searching Wikipedia, hardly ever visiting the Main Page at all. Of course, you can look at my contributions from today and see I commented on a talk page for a Main Paged article. This is an anomaly, feel free to say I told you so. :) 24.14.119.135 (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess what I am getting at is that editors here should consider that very few users actually arrive at pages through the Main Page. If getting an article on the Main Page is the only motivation  for contributing it ought be rethought for that reason. Something seemingly highly visible may in fact be less visible than, say, an article about Britney Spears on a day she is taken to the hospital because of how people surf the web. I hope I got my meaning here across. Sorry to be so wordy, I just felt like talking from behind the reader's curtain I guess.
24.14.119.135 (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're very right. And, just to state my opinion- a free and very related image is best, a generic image is fine, no image is boring but a non-free image is baaaaaaad. J Milburn (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Getting an article on the main page is a very appealing prospect; Raul acknowledges this outright in his personal comments. It's the chance to get something you like and enjoy out to a wide audience of thousands. Wikipedia isn't ranked in the top ten of Alexa for nothing. Zeality (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that- all I've had on the main page are two DYK items, but I felt great on both occasions. I'd love to have a FA up, and I have one waiting. J Milburn (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Articles on pop culture are "actual encylopedia topics". 86.44.6.14 (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Should have been phrased, "core encyclopedia articles" probably, as far as encyclopedia's go there are certain topics that have more value than others, to deny that is just silly. 69.137.246.61 (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's silly is establishing a false dichotomy between pop culture articles on the one hand, and core encyclopedia articles on the other. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images for Featured Articles