Talk:Main Page/Archive 94

message: Ahh, I've found a workaround (Note that there was a magic word that was included in the software that was supposed to do all this work but had too many bugs so it is no longer enabled/supported. What follows is the current workaround):
: Basically you have to fiddle with this. You place it at the very top of your article:<BR />


Type your replacement heading text here
 
-just replace the color part with your desired colour, and 
-replace "Type your replacement heading text here" with whatever content you want -- you can put a table there if you like, or a big heading using  or  tags.
Problemo solved.
Rfwoolf 18:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solution 

message: : Or you could use CSS and Javascript, like the Main Page currently does. Titoxd(?!?) 19:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Any more information on that would be helpful Rfwoolf 13:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  iirc, the hack can be found on MediaWiki:Common.js. Search on that page for Main Page layout fixes. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. But, I don't quite follow much of it (yet I understand pascal and some java). It speaks about renaming the name-space or something like that. All I want to know is... when the Main Page loads, at the top of the page (not to be confused with the Title of the window) instead of saying Main Page I want it to say [nothing] or [something else] ? Rfwoolf 07:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I don't think MediaWiki:Common.js is the one that rids it of the title, as Common is for all skins, and the title's only gone in the monobook skin. However, in MediaWiki:Monobook.css, you can see right at the top where it says 
 /* Don't display some stuff on the
 main page */
 body.page-Main_Page #lastmod,
 body.page-Main_Page #siteSub,
 body.page-Main_Page #contentSub,
 body.page-Main_Page h1.firstHeading {
    display: none !important;
   }
well that basically tells it not to display the subtitle, h1 (the top header/title), the content subtitle, and whatever lastmod means. Anyway, this is pretty simple to understand. It just tells monobook NOT to load these, and so it doesn't. Thats that. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 02:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: lastmod is presumably the note at the bottom of the page (next to the license) giving the date/time of the last edit. Algebraist 00:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Once again, the above div id is used to remove the title from the main page. If, however, you want to change the title of a page, say, in your user space, you could use the following Div id:Your title here
One example of this being used is at User:Malber. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 04:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm... thanks to all for your suggestions. The Monobook.css seems to make the most sense but when I copied the code to a different wiki it didn't work - so somehow wikipedia's got it implemented and jacked - could be a version thing, too. My first solution is very much an override, but it seems to work both on and off of Wikipedia, so unfortunately that's more of a solution. If you're bored, try get the Monobook.css thing working on a different wiki -- and let me know how you go. Much appreciated and very interested thus far. Rfwoolf 15:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other solutions 

message: In MediaWiki:Monobook.css, the following code is used to remove elements from the Main Page.
 /* Don't display some stuff on the
 main page */
 body.page-Main_Page #lastmod,
 body.page-Main_Page #siteSub,
 body.page-Main_Page #contentSub,
 body.page-Main_Page h1.firstHeading {
    display: none !important;
   }
My question is:  where is this stuff documented?  I can't find where "body.page-Main_Page" is defined, nor any documentation on it.  The same with "h1.firstHeading".  Does anyone know?  The Transhumanist   17:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Page Monobook.css stuff 

message: Sorry, I thought I saw some news about an epidemic in Paraguay. Where is it?
--Aldo L 21:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was removed  because  the article had not been updated much Nil Einne 23:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dengue in South America 

message: Hello, do you guys have a Wikipedia News section on the main page? Today, the German Wikipedia reached 1000 excellent articles (simular to the English featured articles). I think this is worth mentioning! --Tantalos 12:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Announcements is one place to put it; you might also want to speak to the people who write the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost and it can be included in next weeks' issue. Mentioning it on Wikipedia talk:Featured articles might attract the attention of anyone interefddfasdsted, too – Qxz 14:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. --Tantalos 17:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia News 

message: Why not?72.184.201.3 03:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you want to change? The Placebo Effect 03:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't edit this page because it is the most visible page of Wikipedia. You can edit almost any page but if anyone could edit this page, it would be so buried in vandalism that we couldn't control it. It's protected from editing except for administrators. If you want to change something on the main page then suggest it here, if you just want to test out what things do, try the sandbox. James086Talk 03:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just vandalism, but people fighting to have "their" content on the page. Can you image how horrible INT would be if people could just change it instead of complaining about it here? Koweja 04:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why can't I edit this page? 

message: It's quite embarrassing that we do not offer any kind of RSS syndication of our newest content. Is something like this in the works? mstroeck 09:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's more embarrassing now? ;) Wikipedia:Syndication --Monotonehell 10:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That link doesn't mention anything about In The News or Did You Know. --Cherry blossom tree 11:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because they're templates, not RSS feeds. You can get a feed of changes made to the template, as you can with any page, but that's probably not what you want. I imagine you want a function that picks out the individual DYK entries, formats them nicely and makes a feed out of them. Well, if you want to write an extension for MediaWiki that does that, or a bot that does it, you're welcome to do so. If you actually want an RSS news feed, go and get one from a news service – Qxz 14:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Define "newest content". There are feeds of Special:Recentchanges and Special:Newpages, but both of those change much too fast and are too full of junk to be of any use for casual browsing. If you have some kind of algorithm that can pick out substantial new content from Recent Changes, we'd love to see it. If all you want is a feed of Did You Know, see my reply to Cherry blossom tree – Qxz 14:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You might have read the heading of this section ;-) I was specifically talking about sections of the main page that are created by editors. DYK, In the News and Picture of the Day. mstroeck 16:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  MediaWiki isn't excessively XML-oriented, as far as I'm aware. This and This should alert you to updates for ITN and DYK. Here is a POTD feed, but it hasn't been updated recently. GracenotesT § 17:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News, DYK need an RSS feed 

message: Why doesn't Wikipedia have any article on Conservopedia: http://www.conservopedia.com  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.230.205.56 (talk • contribs).
: Wikipedia relies on people like you to write articles. Start working! However, consider the possibility that the topic is not worth writing about. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Start anyway. Be bold. Someone will let you know if there is a problem. --74.14.23.202 21:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing you meant Conservapedia, the article for which I remember being deleted, but it appears to have been dramatically improved since. --Maxamegalon2000 21:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that is the correct name of the article. I've created a redirect from Conservopedia as it's clear there's a chance people will misspell it – Qxz 22:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It was apparently never deleted. It has no deleted revisions. —Cuiviénen 05:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, it was deleted six times. Presumably it has no deleted revisions because they were all restored again, or something (I don't really understand how deleted revisions work). Either that or you were looking at the misspelt version of the page. Read the deletion log to be certain of whether a page was deleted – Qxz 13:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it has no deleted revisions because the article was deleted, but circumstances changed, so the article was undeleted again. If an article is recreated, usually all its revisions will be visible in the history. Those that aren't may be copyright violations, nonsense, contain personally identifying information or similar. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the deletions seem proper. It had little noteablity in December 2006, only 6 Google hits supposedly. It was only in late February that it began to achieve significant notablity with a number prominent blogs and papers Nil Einne 20:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservopedia 

message: Today's Featured Article is three characters long. Is this the shortest ever? Borisblue 00:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also Ido. Happy editing — S.D. 01:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Took a moment to work out that the OP meant the title of the FA, rather than its content. I *think* the shortest FA is still Hurricane Irene (2005), though that may have since been surpassed. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 04:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to break the record for shortest title, I had a quick look and one candidate which looks like it could do it is Ur. It already much more then a stub and it looks like it might survive under it's current title without being converted to a disambig (there's one at UR and it seems like this Ur may be clearly the most noteable/deserving of tht title) Nil Einne 20:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A is a reasonably good article that won't have to be converted to a disambig. —Cuiviénen 23:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And I thought New Radicals was short...Circeus 21:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hurricane Irene (2005) is very short indeed. It is the shortest FA article I have ever seen. --Meno25 09:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortest FA ever? 

message: On Feb. 27th I recommended a new section to the Main Page's section "Wikipedia languages" with
* More than 500,000 articles: Deutsch 
It received the following answers:
:There's absolutely no reason to create a category for only one language. —Cuiviénen 15:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed many time before BTW, check the archives Nil Einne 16:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: They don't mean a category as in a category:, but rather a visual seperation for the one project. Possibly when FR reaches 500K, we will consider a section. But more than likely, we will wait until at least three reach this pillar.  --  Zanimum 18:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Category" is an English word as well as a Wikipedia term. I could have said "line" or "section" or "division", but the meaning is the same. In any case, as others ahve pointed out, there's no need for more arbitrary divisions that split the languages down into groups of one or two or three. The usefulness of divisions is primarily that they group like things together; having a divisions for only one thing defeats the purpose. —Cuiviénen 23:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Aesthetic reasons, mainly. A section with only two items doesn't look so good when the other sections have 6-11 items. Also simplicity is good, especially on such a visible page; better to have only four sections if we can help it. Perhaps when three or four Wikipedias have 500,000 articles, we can redefine the top sections as 500,000 and move the rest down to the 100,000 section, or something like that. That's still over a year off, though, so no need to worry about it at the moment – Qxz 18:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is absolutely no need for a new section for just one language. --Meno25 05:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not 100% sure if your being sarcastic or serious in suggesting my comment was helpful. However I wanted to point out that the reason I mentioned it because it has in act been discussed many times before and the reasons we mention are always the same so IMHO, there isn't any real point discussing it again unless you have something new to discuss. It's resonably easy to find this in the archives as well as I did so myself in a about 2 or 3 minutes. Admittedly this was longer then I expected. I originally thought it would be easy to Google for it but I gave up after getting no where. However once I have up on that, it was fairly easy to find it by visiting each archive starting from the latest and searching for German. Once I did this, I found it in probably about 45 seconds (although this will depend on your internet connection and what wikipedia is being like). It was mentioned here Talk:Main Page/Archive 86 with pretty much the same responses. There are definitely a few more discussions but I didn't bother to search once I found one. On consideration, it's not IMHO resonable to expect people to find this if they are not aware. But once someone has mentioned it's been discussed before it's fairly easy to find it yourself in the archives and you'd probably find all the explaination you need there which IMHO is easier then waiting for other to explain it again but of course, people do is up to them. Nil Einne 09:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Main_Page#Wikipedia languages]] 

message: See Omo remains. Fix this please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abelani (talk • contribs) 10:11, 7 March 2007
:Fix it yourself! Be bold in updating pages! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Klasies not oldest 

message: I've just noticed that this page has the time in the top right (alongside Talk:Main Page). I assume this is generated by the code
:
Any reason why this is present, and if it's useful, why it isn't on other talk pages?
MrBeast 16:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume it's for the same reason we mention this at the top "Note that the current date and time are in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), which may not coincide with your local time zone. The next day's featured article of the day, picture of the day, and anniversaries update at midnight (00:00) according to UTC. The current time is 17:37 on March 7, 2007 (UTC).". People may not know this and may be confused as to why when they visit wikipedia 'the next day' they get the same stuff and why on this day still says 'yesterday'. Or alternatively they might visit wikipedia and wonder why it changed and why 'on this day' is tomorrow. As to why we have it twice, I guess it's useful to people not used to different time zones to have it in an easy to see location if they need to check and by having it twice we increase th chance someone is going to see it and hopefully realise we use UTC a different time zone Nil Einne 17:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time in the heading of this page 

message: :moved to WP:ERRORS by ffm yes? 21:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The FP of Dwigth D. Eisenhower 

message: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070307/ap_on_hi_te/wikipedia_credentials
So, are "essjay's" contributing articles in religion going to be altered given the news of his non-credentials? I can't help but wonder what harm he's caused followers of religions because of any authoritative statements he made, which were not allowed to be corrected because of his status on Wiki.Jlujan69 21:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine that all of his work has been checked by people who know the subject at hand and any changes necessary will have been made days ago. There's no indication that Essjay's work in incorrect, indeed, nobody would have suspected he was 'faking' his credentials, such were the quality and accuracy of his contributions. -- Nick t 21:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essjay dismissed 

message: Does anyone else agree that bands are featured far to much in this? Tenacious D Fans (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are taken from the list of featured articles and the article is chosen by User:Raul654. Talk to him about that. ffm yes? 19:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Really ?  Today's FA on the KLF is the first band at TFA this month.  If you really think so, please help out by writing articles in other topics, and improving them to FA status. --PFHLai 21:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over representation of music groups in todays featured article 

message: No, I seriously did not know that Assyrians in Finland lived mostly in that city. I forgot its name already. Well, I'm satisfied. But I wonder what they were doing there. Tourskin 06:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go write an article on something you find fascinating. Stop criticizing the work of others at DYK. Thanks, Nishkid64 18:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It was an easy mistake to make when so many of the posts here centre on misunderstandings of what DYK and ITN are for. Stop criticising other's criticism of criticism. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tourskin, I saw what you've been saying about DYKs and how "boring" they appear to you. That's why I said what I said. Also, why do you need to make a whole new section at Talk:Main Page, when this really belongs at WT:DYK, if anything at all. Nishkid64 23:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: For a new user, who has made a few petty contributions (contributions nonetheless), I have recieved quite some displeasure. I never used boring. Quote me on that for real if I said it. You can't stop me from criticizing other's work, or else wikipedia would be stagnant without people proposing changes. And perhaps someone could explain what the fuss is with discussing DYK here? I never knew that there was a WT:DYK. I do now.Tourskin 01:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you seemed to be suggesting that previous DYK were uninteresting and/or that they were details that everyone knew. So when you came back and said "lived mostly in that city. I forgot its name already. Well, I'm satisfied. But I wonder what they were doing there." especially with the part "I forgot its name already" it sounded a bit like you were being sarcastic, saying yes that's so interesting... not. Or alternatively saying finally something that's interesting after all that junk. Okay so you've now explained this was not your intention but given your previous criticism, I think people can be forgiven for thinking that you were trying to criticise DYK for being uninteresting rather then congratulate. Nil Einne 18:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The issue here is not that criticism isn't welcome but we've already explained how DYK works and that although you may not find it interesting, other people probably did as it's difficult to define what interesting. After all, people must find the fact that celebrity X was seen holding hands with celebrity Y so celebrity Z the girl/boyfriend of celebrity Y obviously isn't happy; and meanwhile Prince William is going to marry, perhaps. Maybe. Possibly... Otherwise tabloids wouldn't sell so well and paparazzi wouldn't be rich. I'm not saying we should sink to the level of a tabloid but my point is that different people find different things interesting. So unless you can come up with a good explaination for why you think something isn't interesting to most readers, there seems little point in saying you don't find something interesting. Nil Einne 18:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Other then that, we only have limited DYKs so unless we suddenly we 5 times more then we use or whatever we're can't afford to be too choisy. As such, perhaps the best way to increase the number of 'interesting' DYK or at least reduce the number of 'uninteresting' to you DYKs is to write some articles and nominate them. BTW, as you'll find if you get used to wikipedia, nearly every page has a talk page and this is usually the best place to discuss details related to to that page (and by page here, this is including categories, images, policies, templates) Nil Einne 18:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the bad part of being choosy is... oh yeah, more work.  And Wikipedians are more apt to expand Minor Characters in Dragonball Z than weed through 50 facts to find 5 interesting ones.  Human nature... 71.202.20.91 23:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, as I had mentioned earlier, I was not criticizing the DYK fact about Assyrians. I'm an Assyrian myself. But I did have a few opinions on how to improve DYK. My comments have been answered, end of that. Its how discussion works.Tourskin 06:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yeah! Something I didn't know, found interesting and was new!! 

message: Could not a better picture be used on the main page. Instead of some crummy photo - that doesn't even feature the title character - we could instead use the screenshot of the opening title sequence, or the cast in makeup. Surely its still fair use oon the main page? --Kronecker 01:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The pictures in the Main Page must be free pictures. We can't use copyrighted pictures. --Meno25 01:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only exception is when Today's Featured Article has absolutely, positively no free pictures. Unfortunately, the Buffy the Vampire Slayer has a free image, even if it is only one, and therefore that has priority to be put on the main page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately?? Garion96 (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, becaues it is such an awful one, it is almost worse than no image at all, IMO. ffm yes? 16:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's that bad. The trouble is, such a small thumbnail of photos showing such a large number of people never works well. We could crop it but as Kronecker says, without the title character it's not clear what to crop. BTW, even if we didn't have this and the several other Buffy related pictures on commons, we do have a Sarah Michelle Gellar free photo, nothing to do with Buffy and indeed postdating the end but potentially it could be seen as connected enough to the show to replace whatever you may prefer Nil Einne 16:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not quite sure what you mean by cast in makeup but if you mean just a general photo of the cast in makeup, note that this probably won't qualify as fair use in any case IMHO. I don't think it's likely to be seen as unique enough compared to a free photo which may resonably replace it. Unless of course there was something particularly noteable about the use of makeup on the show. We do use in in show shots sometimes under fair use but along with the title sequence tends to be all that qualifies for fair use. Obviously as others have pointed out we don't use photos under fair use for the main page when we have free photos whatever the case Nil Einne 16:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article's picture 

message: Hmmm, not sure the caption is doing much to combat WP:BIAS. I live in the UK, and Buffy first aired for me on channel 4, then on Sky One. Fair enough mentioning writers and production companies, as well as the success it bought them, but I'm not so sure about those who brought the show to the American masses. Perhaps I'm missing something? — Jack · talk · 01:47, Saturday, 10 March 2007
:I would imagine it has to do with the American networks' influence on the show's budget and existence.  I mean, if no British network wanted the show, it probably wouldn't affect the show's existence, but if no U S network wanted it, the show would be cancelled.  Heh, I made this edit on my Wii.  Awesome. --Maxamegalon2000 02:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop Wii-ing on Wikipedia. ;) Or is it Wii-kipedia now? --Monotonehell 02:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wiikipedia, the friii encyclopedia – Qxz 13:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Consider, Jack, that Buffy aired, like other successful shows, in something like 20 countries. We cannot list all of the networks that the show aired on in the caption, so we list just the network for which it was produced, the network it originally aired on, the network that made the decision on whether it would be canceled or renewed each year, which was WB (and later UPN) and not Channel 4. Andrew Levine 17:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of tv networks in TFA 

message: How can I email today's picture to someone - can I email it? I think we should hacve that option, if possible.Tourskin 18:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The easiest way would be to save the image to your computer and then email that file. As for adding the functionality, I guess the best place to propose that would be at the Village pump Koweja 19:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's picture 

message: Please change this. Becasue Turkish Wikipedia is over 50.000 subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.244.131.250 (talk) 07:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Tebrikler! Andrew Levine 08:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks:)--88.244.131.250 12:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish Wikipedia is over 50000 subject 

message: I went to have a look at the Wikipedia Statistics "Charts and Table" section, and I found that it has not been updated since October. Who updates it and how - I would be happy to assist, but I feel that someone should certainly be doing it. David Spart 11:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Time to re-activate Wikipedia:Statistics Department ?  You may want to bring this up at Wikipedia talk:Statistics and the Village Pump.  This has little to do with MainPage.  You'll get a better response on those discussion pages than here.  Hope this helps. --PFHLai 12:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Statistics are 6 months out of date 

message: I think that the todays featured article should be blocked from editing by anyone except admins. This article is the focus of many vandalism attempts, and it would make it easier on everyone to just block it from editors. Smbarnzy 06:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Smbarnzy, don't take this personally, but this has been suggested many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many times. The answer is no, for the same reasons that we gave when this was suggested yesterday (look up five sections), and the day before, and the day before (and you get the idea). See WP:NOPRO Raul654 07:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That gives me an idea for WP:COPRO... the content being DO NOT SUGGEST PROTECTION OF FEATURED ARTICLES ON THE FRONT PAGE. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, unless I'm mistaken, there's heavy discussion over semi-protecting the FA.Circeus 21:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think enough people patrol the daily FAs that they should be pretty safe without protection. - Serious Cat 20:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Todays feature article 

message: Hi, Can we have the total count of FA on main page?
  Featured Articles as on today!!!
--Nirajrm talk ||| sign plz! 14:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd have to get that template protected first – Qxz 15:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Count of FA on main page. 

message: As User:Werdnabot is currently unavailable due to a malfuction, I've been bold, removed the Werdnabot stuff (wouldn't want them fighting) and put in a request to User:MiszaBot/Archive requests Nil Einne 21:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's done, all hail Misza! :-) Nil Einne 21:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was it a bloodless coup, or has W.bot gone on "permanent vacation"? ;) Viva la revolucion! ;) --Monotonehell 00:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archival 

message: Did you know that ethical dilemmas result from medical research scientists (pictured) working with animals and animal products, such as stem cells?  ----  Um, no kidding?  I would suggest that pretty much everyone knows this?  Normally I look forward to the interesting tidbits of info in Did You Know, but this one seems kind of self-evident, does anyone agree?  Sorry to nitpick, whoever writes these does a great job most of the time.  Spebudmak 22:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just rewritten that line on DYK.  I hope it sounds more exciting now.  Hope this helps. --PFHLai 00:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, it mentions toxic and dangerous things! Much better. GracenotesT § 01:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks! Spebudmak 01:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What a waste. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 05:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol. agreeable on that. Bigman17 05:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's Did You Know 

message: Where is bosnian language here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.92.237.133 (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you mean the Bosnian language article, or the Bosnian Wikipedia? howcheng  {chat} 22:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello mans 

message: A link to Cebuano wiki is shown on the Main Page of English wiki, and languages which are apparently much better, but have fewer articles than Cebuano are not. Is this not a reason to reconsider the criteria interwiki links appear on the Main Page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.81.145 (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying that a language is "much better" is inherently a subjective judgment which we won't get into. The number of articles is the litmus test we are applying. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant wikipedias on other languages, not languages itself. And I was questioning exactly the adequacy of the litmus test. Why not think about other litmus tests? Like, one abvious (I think) improvement (of the litmus test) would be to expel wikies with Depth less than 1. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.81.145 (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No statistical measure of quality can be truly accurate. Counting articles at least has the virtue of being simple. --Cherry blossom tree 11:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Out of interest, what exactly is the depth of a wiki and how is it determined? Nil Einne 18:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It appears in a column on m:List of Wikipedias, and according to that page is calculated as "(Edits/Articles × Non-Articles/Articles)". Sounds like a statistical fudge to me – Qxz 19:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say it doesn't look like a good indicator to me.  For example, it ranks Bambara above Arabic, and Arabic has about ten times as many speakers.  ShadowHalo 19:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It ranks activity, not "quality of the language" (and it also makes a note that the numbers are probably skewed for small Wikipedias). —Cuiviénen 20:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What the heck is this about? It's obviously just a joke that someone's posted this crap here. Bigman17 21:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That's true that No statistical measure of quality can be truly accurate. But at least remove Cebuano from the list. Even its own users admit that the quality of the wiki is unsatisfactory. They are not even campaigning for their wp to be included in the >10,000 articles list . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.81.145 (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The bottom line here is any measure, other than a simple statistic, would be very subjective and be wide open to endless debate over what is better. Using a simple metric draws a line that isn't open to bias, interpretation and debate. Editors of en.wikipedia aren't happy with the quality over quantity of its articles either. --Monotonehell 08:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki links on the Main Page 

message: i am sure that england is biased towards cricket as when england won the cricket world cup, a competition not remotely cared about in most countries, especially america and other western european countries. the whole team recieved awards from the queen. however when liverpool won the europeaan champions league non of them recieved medals from the queen when it is the most prestigous sporting event in europe, and reveared throughout the world. and to do it in the manner in which they did was all the more impressive. however, the main reason i dnt favour cricket as much as other sports is because they are not athletes, they are like snooker players- skill but not athletisism, which is why i respact rugby, football, and other real sports far more than cricket.
:When did England win the World Cup? Maquahuitl 04:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Cricket does not demand too much of athletic abilities but that's because endurance is not a question in the game. However to compare cricket players with snooker players is idiocy. Cricket has its own fitness requirements. Maquahuitl 04:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the idiotic Americans, America is the world and what they don't see in America does not exist. Maquahuitl 04:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you "bowl" a ball at 100mph or 160kph without bending and then straightening your arm like a javelin thrower. An unfit player cannot preform to the levels that a fit player can perform; a lack of fitness will sap him over a long period in the field. Grumpygrumpy 00:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This is no more a bias than if we had a main page article on the FIFA World Cup during that event. The Cricket World Cup is taking place as I type. Whilst certainly not popular in all countries, it is definitely an international competition and is, in fact, popular in most Commonwealth and former Commonwealth nations. Brown168 07:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles that are chosen are Feature articles, which means we rate them as the absolute best on Wikipedia. It is not our fault that the cricket-editing Wikipedians want to write superb articles on what they enjoy. If you want other sports or other topics to dominate the main page, I suppose you should start contributing to some FAs or Did you knows! GizzaChat © 10:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: How did this end up here anyway? It's a new post but it's neither at the very top (which is wrong but people do it occasionally) nor at the very bottom. In any case, as others have pointed out Cricket World Cup is a featured article so there was never any reason not have it on the main page and this is a good time to have it so why not? It may reduce the demands to mentioning the opening in the world cup too. Nil Einne 18:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There must be quite a few supporters in North America as Canada even have a team in the world cup this time! I agree with others though I have not noticed any cricket bias, there have been a few front page articles on it over the past year or so but considering it is one of the most popular worldwide sports, this isn't surprising and there hasn't been any more articles than on other sports of similar popularity (e.g. Soccer, Rugby & Hockey). Canderra 21:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think anyone argues basketball's popularity. We do feel that American Football (esp. during Superbowl) gets too much coverage on Wikipedia. 203.199.213.67 06:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In North America, March is notoriously dead sports-wise, outside of the College basketball finals there's not much going on. Football is over and Baseball hasn't started yet. Surely there's enough room to talk about Cricket. I won't pretend I understand any of it but it seems to be a cool sport. Besides, Wikipedia is a place of learning, it can't hurt to learn about Cricket. Saebhiar Adishatz 00:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: To deal with your points in turn- a) perhaps very few people in overall terms as a percentage of the global population, but for a sporting event it would not surprise me at all if viewing figures for e.g. the Champion's League Final (is that what you're referring to with "...some cup"?) and the cricket world cup final were comparable (or even if the football was ahead); b) that obviously isn't of any relevence, but it is only fair to point out that cricket also has its share of crowd problems from time to time (not as great as those of football, but then we are dealing with a far, far smaller overall fanbase and a completely different sort of game) and can at times be quite charged (e.g. India v Pakistan etc.). Badgerpatrol 02:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Football is very popular world over. And many people worldwide actually do care for Liverpool (and that's why they resort to violence).Aniket ray 02:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No true football fan "resorts" to violence under any circumstance. Invariably, the animalistic thugs who are associated with football violence know or care little or nothing about the game itself. For interest, it seems from this (not the greatest source, I grant you!) that the Champion's League Final gets about 3.5 times as many viewers as the cricket world cup final (and the Superbowl seemingly gets more than either). Badgerpatrol 02:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that football thugs aren't representative of the average fan and can't be called a true fan, the evidence to me suggests they do in fact know about the game and do in fact care about the game (or rather their teams). Yes they might be somewhat insane individuals but I think you're ignoring the evidence since the evidence to me suggests it isn't just mindless violence. Also I'm highly doubtful of the figures for the cricket world cup however. 20 million seems a rather low number to me. Especially since that final involved India, it wouldn't surprise me if the Indian audience itself exceeded 20 million. Audience statics in India are fairly difficult to work out I presume but the figure does seem on the low side to me Nil Einne 12:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No more cricket, Please!! 

message: I would love to be able to look at a random article in science/technology.  Is there any way to do something like this?   Vincecate 23:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, no! --Meno25 01:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, you can click Special:Random until you get a science/technology article, or you can find an appropriate category page and click a link at random. Can't think of anything other than that – Qxz 13:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Now that you think of it, it would be nice when you click "random article", say a drop down list opened and you could click all articles or a particular section. -abynion08 11:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it would be cool, but you would have to throw all of the millions(billions?) of articles into a category for each of them. 65.9.153.112 20:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It wouldn't hurt to ask Werdna to make this possible. · AO Talk 17:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or anyone at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). --199.71.174.100 23:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random Article within some Category? 

message: What is the most complicated function that Wikipedia can perform? Ahadland 21:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Creating an encyclopaedia? You'll have to be more specific. --Cherry blossom tree 01:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like whats the most complicated formulae it can produce, or the most complicated infobox —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahadland1234 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think my (removed) quine is better. 81.77.73.180 22:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're talking about m:ParserFunctions, then... well, see that page for what they can do – Qxz 00:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia functions 

message: I think someone should create a software using which we can easily create pages in a graphical interface. The software can resemble Microsoft Frontpage or any other web designing software. The software should then be able to convert the web page into a Wikipedia style page. You know it's difficult to use the editing interface currently offered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.130.9.24 (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why we have WikEd, but you will need to register for an account and add that to your WP:monobook. It isn't stable enough to be standard, and doesn't work with all browsers, so it is not the default. And this isn't the right place for this kind of stuff, anyway. This belongs in the village pump proposals. ffm ✎talk 15:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: I was wondering wether the 6 nations final (won by France) should be included in the news. It is by no means a minor sporting event, and the Superball was included. Matt. P 22:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to discuss this at Template talk:In the news where it is more appropriate. Alternatively, you can propose it yourself at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. I'd have to say tho, I'm not particularly sure this is of sufficient international interest for ITN, especially as there was nothing particularly suprising about the result. The Superbowl often seems to be mentioned but I personally feel it shouldn't. The RWC this year definitely should be mentioned. Nil Einne 01:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What the fuck is the "6 nations final"? (And please stop editing my question. Wikipedia is not censored.) 89.120.193.125 20:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  89.120.193.125, please be civil. There's no need to use bad language in these discussions here. Use the F-word only when it's appropriate, like when screaming at vandals. --199.71.174.100 21:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even then don't. It just encourages vandals. Wikipedia may not be censored but as you said let's be civil at all times. --Monotonehell 16:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "...incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress." My comment was neither personally targeted nor did it cause an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress (there was only an IP who decided to edit my question - and that was his only edit on Wikipedia). 89.120.193.125 16:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Try Six Nations Championship. Next time scroll to the box to your left, enter Six Nations (or 6 Nations, both work) and click "GO". You should end up at Six Nations from which you can go to Six Nations Championship. Alternatively, if you use www.google.com and search for "Six Nations" you should find useful results. Nil Einne 21:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well its more important than the Superbowl but thats a discussion for another day, I am dissapointed it didn't make in the news, because i woukd make sure as hell the AFL Grandfinal or the Tri-nations final would get in. -- Librarianofages 21:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I was also extremely surprised the 6 nations result wasn't mentioned in the "in the news" section. Particularly as I've seen several other sporting events of less prominence mentioned. Canderra 21:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No need to bother with WP:ITN/C. The Six Nations should stay off ITN because it's not the top level competition in the sport of rugby, unlike the SuperBowl (/NFL postseason play), the top level competition in American football. Wait till October for 2007 Rugby World Cup, people. --199.71.174.100 21:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Forget Six Nations. Why isn't Cricket World Cup in the news? 58.178.129.251 08:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because nobody won yet, although the death of the Pakistan coach might be included. --Howard the Duck 11:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This issue should be discussed at WP:ITN/C. Not here. --74.14.18.212 15:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  6 Nations 

message: to the tips on where else a user might want to go for assistance besides this talk page?  On February 15, for example, under the "Main Page and beyond" box, there was a link to Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia, a server status page, and the important bullet point (in bold) "If you have an opinion, comment, question or are looking for help regarding Wikipedia in general, find the place where your post will get the most attention here.  Just that last link alone would be helpful, I think.  --zenohockey 01:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We decided to take all that crap out because it made this page look daunting and overly complicated. 89.120.193.125 11:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And because people just ignored it anyway. We "connected" this page with WP:ERRORS, as a compromise over a merge poll. ffm ✎talk 20:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened... 

message: Is there anyway to stop anonymous IPs from at least editing the main pages?  It seems like most of the good edits to these pages are performed by those who care to login.  Just my $0.02.  Thank you.  --BlindEagletalk 18:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It possibly seems that way because vandals stand out, but if you look more closely there's quite a number of very good contributions made by IPs and quite a number of vandals from newly created accounts. --Monotonehell 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP Vandals 

message: Given today's featured article, I'll just go ahead and say it before someone else does - OMG WIKIPEDIA IS COMMUNISM!! (I can't help myself) Raul654 01:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure there are thousands of Wikipedians on here now in 2007 who may not be familiar with the significance of that statement. And I bet that there are a few on RC right now that hope that it stays that way... :-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raul654, I have to say this is grossly irresponsible of you.  You need to 'fess up with trying to further the communist agenda by intentionally selecting this article over Democracy (who cares that it's not technically a featured article).  It's a conspiracy, I say.  ShadowHalo 01:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly I'm surprised the shit storm hasn't erupted yet.  I don't have any feelings towards communism because I know nothing about it, but I know about the American paranoia towards it, and really I'm shocked we haven't gotten a real message about this yet.  You'd think if people cared enough to complain about Torchic we'd have heard something about this by now.  DoomsDay349 01:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't care less about politics either. But I agree, it seems many are simply paranoid about anything with the word communist in it. ShadowHalo makes a good point though that no-one would be saying anything if the FA of the day was Democracy related which would surely be just as political (that's if there was actually any evidence that this article of the day was politically motivated - which of course there isn't). It's an encyclopedia folks...   Canderra 02:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Having the day's featured article isn't enough to remind people that Wikipedia is communism. I suggest that we get a vandalbot through WP:BRFA immediately in order to remind people of this important, but well-hidden, fact. We must use every means possible to tell people that polling is evil, and that after a couple of years of our two year plan, everything will belong to whomever it's supposed to belong to. (I'm more a "Wikipedia is an oligarchic pro-choice anarcho-syndicalist laissez-faire legislative body" guy myself.)  Gracenotes' left sock 02:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It has begun: . 128.227.1.207 02:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The libertarian capitalist position: Communism is certainly practically bad, but there's nothing wrong with an article thereon being featured, just as there would be nothing wrong with featuring an article about Charles Manson.  Simply because an artcle is featured does not mean the subject it is on is being celebrated or promoted.  Allixpeeke 02:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer to think that Wikipedia is much more republican than we think, with the exception we aren't elected representatives.  But our functioning is very similar to it.  And may [Insert applicable Being/Force/Philosophy here] help us all, now that the crap has begun.  DoomsDay349 02:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you mean Democratic? Republican implies Wikipedia has an elected president with executive powers over and above the council (unless your talking about the US political party).  Canderra 02:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression Republicanism meant having a republic, with representatives who deliberate things.  If I'm correct, they're very similar.  I just prefer saying Republic.  But I mean that essentially we're a legislative branch that doesn't get elected and doesn't represent special interests.  But the actual functioning is pretty legislative, and I wouldn't call it communism (if it were communism, every visitor and IP on Wikipedia would have an equal say and equal power, and we also wouldn't have admins.) DoomsDay349 02:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually neither republicanism or demoractic are the correct words in this case in themselves IMHO. Republic (nowadays anyway) just means there is an elected head of state rather then a monarch. Democractic is harder to define but you could have a direct demoracy for example. Representative democracy might be closer to what your thinking about but as you say there are no elections. Actually I would argue we are closer to some forms of communism. Oh and communism is generally not thought to be mutual exclusive with republic. Indeed, I don't think there is much doubt that countries like China & Vietnam are republics. (Just as constitutional monarchy is not exclusive to demoractic.) I guess when it comes to something like North Korea, some would argue they really monarchies or perhaps oligarchies. Nil Einne 05:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 1. That's not the definition of Communism, that's the definition of totalitarianism. There isn't a single communist run country on this planet. 2. We're way off the topic of this talk page now. ;) --Monotonehell 11:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Motion to make the next IP who vandalizes the FA of the day our Eternal President and close this discussion?  ShadowHalo 11:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't want to continue this discussion other then to point out there is no requirement for a constitution (and therefore constitutional principles) to have a republic. A constutional republic obviously requires a constitution though. Also we we're talking about the way Wikipedia works in comparison to common forms of government, not whether it is controlled by any government or legal in any country Nil Einne 16:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a few countries, like the UK (which in truth has been a republic, as the Greeks and the Romans understood it, for over 300 years), have unwritten constitutions, but their governing principles are well defined. An ad hoc system without a constitution or basic law isn't a republic, it's a mob. Actually, Wikipedia works very poorly "in comparison to" (try "when compared to") a government because it operates in semi-secrecy. Despite open comments, its intellectual climate is well known, and hundreds, if not thousands of controversial entries are controled by extremists. Otherwise how did this silly, badly written, entry get onto the Main Page?Scott Adler 21:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh, the U.K. is a Constitutional Monarchy, not a republic and it does not have a constitution. It has a democratic system similar to the Roman and Greek systems you describe but that is because they also were similar types of (supposable representative, but that's all beside the point) democracies, not republics. A Republic refers specifically to the instance of a democratically elected sovereign, neither the U.K., ancient Rome or ancient Greece has/had such a system. The article got onto the main page through the open and well documented featured article selection process. See the Wikipedia:Today's featured article page for more information. Canderra 22:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obligatory 

message: 1,700,000 articles! Yay! --WikiSlasher 11:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, 1,690,000 of them are rubbish! Get back to work! – Qxz 11:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But what work? Creating more 'rubbish' or improving and/or deleting the existing rubbish? Nil Einne 14:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be a garbage man, throw the rubbish into a dirty pit (the deletion log)! --168.99.182.254 17:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Up to you. If you feel like creating more stuff, do something on Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year rather than just 'rubbish'; improving what's already there... pick a backlog, we've got dozens of them; deleting the existing rubbish... AfD or Special:Newpages – Qxz 00:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have to say it...