Talk:Main Page/Archive 93

message: Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
=====Survey - in support of the merge=====
*Support, as the nominator.  Having WP:ERRORS as a separate page leads to a lot of unnecessary WP:BITE violations here.  The vast majority of edits to this page are people with corrections or questions about items on the front page on that given day.  Rather than having to say, "You're posting in the wrong place", why not bring the mountain to Mohammed and have WP:ERRORS here?  We could add a subpage for discussion of Main Page formatting and the like — even if logically, to Wikipedia insiders, that's what Talk:Main Page should be about, we should be more welcoming and transparent to non-Wikipedians.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole idea isn't to just merge WP:ERRORS back to here, but to leave this natural place for anyone to post errors and have another subpage for the more "in crowd" to discuss the other issues. --Monotonehell 11:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep: essentially, WP:ERRORS would move here, and discussions about the format, &c. of the Main Page would go somewhere else, like Wikipedia:Main Page/Formatting or Wikipedia:Main Page/Meta or something. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that's really necessary. Most meta discussions about the main page are short, and they're better visible here. Really big discussions like major redesigns can go to subpages. Zocky | picture popups 19:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think making another subpage would be the best idea: may well just need to just as much biting, just on different matters.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternately, if we keep the existing format of WP:ERRORS "meta" comments could be placed in the section WP:ERRORS#Any other problems, or that could be renamed "Any other issues" or something. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The points above are that, errors reported on WP:ERRORS are going unnoticed, while errors here are fixed quickly, most errors are being posted here anyway as it's not natural to have a separate page on an article for errors, a central place would still exist - it would be here and easier to find, WP:BITE is being violated a lot not intentionally but perceptually as people report errors here and are told to report them somewhere else, corrected errors could still be removed instead of archived. The thing is WP:ERRORS isn't working well and that's why the above discussion has lead to this. The suggestion isn't to move all discussion other than errors off this page, only to have a sub page for the more technical and informed discussions that have been held here in the past that have been disrupted by a lot of drive-by !votes. --Monotonehell 12:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the assessment that ERRORS is not working well. Most straight-forward error reports are quickly fixed and removed; admittedly, some longer, not-so-straightforward questions do linger there a few days, due to the discussion ongoing, but overall the page is extremely efficient. I still fail to see what moving ERRORS back here would accomplish: errors can already be reported here and should be responded to with the same courtesy used elsewhere, and shifting more technical discussion elsewhere gets us back to square one - having multiple discussion pages for one page that would confuse people, especially newcomers, even more. For instance, if a newcomer posted a question about the format of the page, where would it go? Would it be shifted to the technical discussion page, where it would be unlikely that s/he would be able to find again, or would it be mixed on this page with all of the other error reports? What about a person asking a question about Wikipedia? Having a separate page for errors (that is, the ERRORS page) makes the process a lot more streamlined, also allowing us to watchlist that page and reply to error reports a lot quicker than if the page had more than just error reports. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your arguments against the merge are pretty much the argument for the merge. It's too confusing for new people to find the right place. Therefore this page should be that place. All the "newb" questions you mentioned above would still legitimately be posted here, and responded to here as they currently are. There's a constant stream of error reports being posted here, and despite our best efforts at redirecting that stream - why fight it? Merge the errors back to here and deal with them here. It's an endless job due to the constant stream of new people, more work and a violation of WP:BITE to constantly be redirecting people. I'm only suggesting moving the highly technical discussions off this page. Any "newb" questions regarding layout can still be dealt with here and need not be redirected. --Monotonehell 01:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it seems I was outnumbered. :-) However, I hope for the best for an improvement - if not, we can always revisit this issue later and see which version is more effective. Thanks again! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: *Support, as the nominator.  Having WP:ERRORS as a separate page leads to a lot of unnecessary WP:BITE violations here.  The vast majority of edits to this page are people with corrections or questions about items on the front page on that given day.  Rather than having to say, "You're posting in the wrong place", why not bring the mountain to Mohammed and have WP:ERRORS here?  We could add a subpage for discussion of Main Page formatting and the like — even if logically, to Wikipedia insiders, that's what Talk:Main Page should be about, we should be more welcoming and transparent to non-Wikipedians.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the merge

message: * I agree that the current system looks quite logic. Britta / Germany —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.249.240.79 (talk • contribs). 23:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole idea isn't to just merge WP:ERRORS back to here, but to leave this natural place for anyone to post errors and have another subpage for the more "in crowd" to discuss the other issues. --Monotonehell 11:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep: essentially, WP:ERRORS would move here, and discussions about the format, &c. of the Main Page would go somewhere else, like Wikipedia:Main Page/Formatting or Wikipedia:Main Page/Meta or something. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that's really necessary. Most meta discussions about the main page are short, and they're better visible here. Really big discussions like major redesigns can go to subpages. Zocky | picture popups 19:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think making another subpage would be the best idea: may well just need to just as much biting, just on different matters.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternately, if we keep the existing format of WP:ERRORS "meta" comments could be placed in the section WP:ERRORS#Any other problems, or that could be renamed "Any other issues" or something. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The points above are that, errors reported on WP:ERRORS are going unnoticed, while errors here are fixed quickly, most errors are being posted here anyway as it's not natural to have a separate page on an article for errors, a central place would still exist - it would be here and easier to find, WP:BITE is being violated a lot not intentionally but perceptually as people report errors here and are told to report them somewhere else, corrected errors could still be removed instead of archived. The thing is WP:ERRORS isn't working well and that's why the above discussion has lead to this. The suggestion isn't to move all discussion other than errors off this page, only to have a sub page for the more technical and informed discussions that have been held here in the past that have been disrupted by a lot of drive-by !votes. --Monotonehell 12:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the assessment that ERRORS is not working well. Most straight-forward error reports are quickly fixed and removed; admittedly, some longer, not-so-straightforward questions do linger there a few days, due to the discussion ongoing, but overall the page is extremely efficient. I still fail to see what moving ERRORS back here would accomplish: errors can already be reported here and should be responded to with the same courtesy used elsewhere, and shifting more technical discussion elsewhere gets us back to square one - having multiple discussion pages for one page that would confuse people, especially newcomers, even more. For instance, if a newcomer posted a question about the format of the page, where would it go? Would it be shifted to the technical discussion page, where it would be unlikely that s/he would be able to find again, or would it be mixed on this page with all of the other error reports? What about a person asking a question about Wikipedia? Having a separate page for errors (that is, the ERRORS page) makes the process a lot more streamlined, also allowing us to watchlist that page and reply to error reports a lot quicker than if the page had more than just error reports. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your arguments against the merge are pretty much the argument for the merge. It's too confusing for new people to find the right place. Therefore this page should be that place. All the "newb" questions you mentioned above would still legitimately be posted here, and responded to here as they currently are. There's a constant stream of error reports being posted here, and despite our best efforts at redirecting that stream - why fight it? Merge the errors back to here and deal with them here. It's an endless job due to the constant stream of new people, more work and a violation of WP:BITE to constantly be redirecting people. I'm only suggesting moving the highly technical discussions off this page. Any "newb" questions regarding layout can still be dealt with here and need not be redirected. --Monotonehell 01:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it seems I was outnumbered. :-) However, I hope for the best for an improvement - if not, we can always revisit this issue later and see which version is more effective. Thanks again! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the merge

message: I've been bold and implemented the suggestion, since discussion has slowed to a still and the few objections have been mostly rebutted. Can we all live with this for a while and see how it goes?
The header is intended to be substed from Template:Talk Main Page errors header each day to clear the old errors. But they can still be removed as fixed if we prefer. I'm sure there was one more thing I had to do... but I can't remember it now X( --Monotonehell 08:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it's the fact that the main page toolbox which is include on this page, redirects error reports to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors which of course redirects to here? Nil Einne 10:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Another double redirect Talk:Main Page/errors but it wasn't protected so I fixed it Nil Einne 10:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh and WP:ERRORS. Did you check for double redirects at all? Nil Einne 10:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: And Talk:Main Page/Errors as well. I could probably fix some more doubles but I can't be bothered. I've never been strongly supportive of this move anyway. If it was the move to Portal:Main Page I might be willing but I don't really care about this move and and infact I think I'm even be slightly opposed to it so someone else would have to do the legwork. Just use the what links here and try to find things which are unnecessary double redirects (obviously when someone links to WP:ERRORS in a discussion it's not a problem) Nil Einne 10:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SEE? I knew I forgot something! Thanks people. --Monotonehell 14:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No, just read the first few sections at the top, that is where WP:ERRORS has moved to. ffm yes? 16:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Pls see proposal 4, which keeps WP:ERRORS on admins' watchlist. --PFHLai 16:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Seems to work, I'll fix the dbl-rdrs now. --Quiddity 19:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Experimental implementation

message: How about making the "Errors" section a subpage that is merely transcluded here? For those who want to keep "Errors" on their watchlist, they could just use the subpage (e.g. Talk:Main Page/Errors). For those wanting to post comments, they would come to the Main Page talk page and click on the appropriate [edit] link at the top (just like it is now, with no difference in appearance). And to be honest, that could be done with a couple other pages (like WP:ITN/C, which many do not know exists) making sure to put <noinclude> tags around parts that don't need to be visible on Talk:Main Page. Not to further complicate the situation... -- tariqabjotu 22:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like a great idea. Might make it more complex for newcomers though, if they don't use the [ edit ] button next to the section heading, they can't find the right space to put it in. ffm yes? 22:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea makes some sense, but I wonder if that wounldn't defy the point of moving it here: somebody still has to go to a different page to report the errors. It would increase the visibility of the errors page, though, which may help get things where they belong.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is now Proposal #4 in the "Re: Main Page Error Reports" section above. --PFHLai 17:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was bold and did it. And was bold and merged this thread! --Quiddity 19:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The minor problems with transclusion; are that if a user clicks on the edit section button, adds their report and presses save - they are then sent to WP:ERRORS instead of remaining on talk main page; and if they hit edit this page all they see is a "Please add error reports above this line" message, if they do then there will be misplaced error reports that someone has to move to the right place. I substed the error report section to make it simpler for new editors. --Monotonehell 05:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a brilliant idea, and I fully support the implementation of this. Kudos for thinking of it! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making "Errors" a transcluded page 

message: Hi! i think the main article should be something... well... way more interesting! the main article should be something that catches someone's eye... and i dont think thats happening! im not so sure what would catch someones eye but.. if you have any ideas, please reply back —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Juicy FUN1 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Featured Article is taken from our list of featured articles, the best articles produced by Wikipedia. These articles are obviously all of great interest to someone, as someone took the time to make each article exquisite. (Articles are nominated to become featured at featured article candidates, though passing FAC does not guarantee a spot on the Main Page. (More than 28-31 articles, currently around 50, are generally promoted per month.) The purpose of the featured article is not to show off the most interesting topics Wikipedia has to offer but the highest quality articles. —Cuiviénen 02:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Different things interest different people. For example, I'm very interested in yesterday's (I helped write it, actually) but today's doesn't really interest me. I'm sure there are others that would say just the opposite. Like was said, that's just not the factor. The point of TFA is for Wikipedia to show off its best written articles, and it does that well.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Juicy FUN1, have you considered that maybe a good number of people think TFA is interesting, and you are one of the few who don't think it is interesting? Nah, I'm just kidding. TFA showcases Wikipedia's best articles, while DYK (below TFA) showcases unique and interesting details from articles recently created. Nishkid64 18:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: On tangent, I suggest we create a new section on the main page, not for featured articles but interesting articles.Tourskin 18:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who would decide whats interesting? Like I said before, different people are interested in different things. I don't really see how you could do anything with such a subjective criteria.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Presumably the people who raised the featured article to its excellent standard found it interesting enough to invest their time in doing so.  The best way for the OP to get interesting articles on the main page is to raise articles s/he finds interesting to FA status.  --TotoBaggins 01:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You can't. Hit counters are disabled for performance reasons. Titoxd(?!?) 04:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Article 

message: How have you stopped WerdnaBot from archiving the ERRORS section? Simply south 00:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under each section header is the hidden comment < !--werdnabot-noarchive-- >. -- tariqabjotu 00:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it on werdnabot's wiki and added it under every section on errors. ffm yes? 01:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot 

message: Can we have the number of featured article constantly displayed along with total articles? --Nirajrm talk ||| sign plz! 01:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this function screwed up some days ago? --Howard the Duck 08:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The FA counter bot died in a hard drive crash. Still waiting for an estimated time of resurrection. - BanyanTree 14:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean as in the server the bot was running on is dead or as in someone forgot to keep a backup of the bot's code? Nil Einne 15:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More the latter I guess, though there is some ambiguity.  See User talk:Jmax-bot#Death.  - BanyanTree 16:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal moved from [[Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors]] 

message: Is there a way for a non-administrator to redirect a page which has been prevented from recreation to another relevant aticle? Randomfrenchie 00:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you should instead ask an admin to change the page into a redirect. That way, vandals and others will not be able to convert the redirect back into the previously deleted article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about Redirect

message: What with it being an image of citrus fruits and all, the caption really should mention vitamin C - Jack · talk · 01:54, Monday, 26 February 2007
:I don't see why a mention of lemons has to include Vitamin C.  If you want to know about Vitamin C in lemons, you should probably read the article instead.  ShadowHalo 02:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes... um I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to say "lol" on wikipedia. Unless it's in an article about internet slang. And also, please contribute to the discussion in some way. I agree with ShadowHalo by the way. ||Dark Jirachi 23:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's featured picture 

message: Should they be incorporated into the news section of this Main Page? If not, why not? -- Sarcha 45 02:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "In the news" is actually short for "recently changed articles that are currently in the news", so if the Jesus or James Cameron articles have been changed to reflect the item you link to, then you might like to nominate them over at WP:ITN/Candidates. --TotoBaggins 02:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talpiot Tomb was proposed at WP:ITN/C, but was rejected. --76.64.76.106 06:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  James Cameron's Jesus claims? 

message: A new section should be added in the Template:Wikipedialang:
* More than 500,000 articles: Deutsch 
--Wittkowsky 14:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's absolutely no reason to create a category for only one language. —Cuiviénen 15:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This has been discussed many time before BTW, check the archives Nil Einne 16:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Main_Page#Wikipedia languages]] 

message: I think the featured article needs to be locked while it is featured on the Main Page.  The article Banksia integrifolia has been vandalized several times today.  This should probably be a standard policy. Squad51 22:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this has been discussed many times before. See WP:SEMI and WP:PROTECT. Many new editor's first edit is the featured article, and the Featured artice is almost never locked, even though it is one of the most often vandalized. ffm yes? 22:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It only attracted about 180 edits during the 24hours on main page so assuming all were vandalism/revert thats only 90 or just over 3 per hour making it a fairly quiet TFA well within the capabilities of editors to keep on top of. Gnangarra 00:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really.  Today's is about a hetaera; there'll no doubt be more vandalism.  And it'll be much funnier, if not misogynist.  ShadowHalo 01:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locking Featured Article 

message: ..doesn't go in line with linked articles on it being less edit protected than more hidden articles. double standard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.72.129 (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the main page isn't actually an article... There isn't actually much to improve in the main page either. On the other hand link articles (including FA) can an usually are improved including by anons. Yes there's a lot of unfortunate vandalism but also a fair amount of improvement some of which we should probably miss with protection. (And we would probably also be less successful at attracting new regular editors) Nil Einne 11:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you referring to the Main Page itself, or the day's featured article? I think it's fairly obvious why the Main Page is protected; it gets millions of hits a day, and we simply can't allow anyone to post anything on there if we want it to be usable. As for the featured article of the day, it usually isn't protected; it gets semi-protected when there is a lot of vandalism because, again, that's the only way to keep it usable for readers. Perhaps if a significant proportion of anonymous edits to popular articles were actually constructive, the administrators might reconsider, but the overwhelming majority simply aren't – Qxz 11:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, if someone vandalizes an article, it's a shame.  If someone blanks the main page, it causes problems and people can't navigate around the site.  ShadowHalo 14:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if an average user like me wants to improve the Main Page? --–  Emperor Walter Humala  · ( shout! · sign? ) 16:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about the actual content, or improving the overall look and layout of the Main Page? Only a periodic community effort such as here and here is necessary to completely revamp the overall layout of the main page. For small changes to the layout, a normal discussion on this talk page is necessary to gain some sort of consensus. For minor errors currently on the main page, you have to post a report above at the top of this page. See Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ for more information concerning this and other similar questions. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In short, if you want to improve the design or layout of the Main Page, make your suggestion here, and if enough people agree with it an administrator will make the change for you. If you want to suggest items for Did you Know, In the News or Selected Anniversaries, there are pages specifically for such suggestions; see the links at the top of the page. If you want a particular article to be Today's Featured Article, first improve it to featured status, and then just wait; it'll come round eventually – Qxz 16:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want a particular article that has already achieved featured status, you can always make a request here (assuming that it has not been displayed on the main page before). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the main being constantly edit protected.. 

message: Why is "Delete file" not in the toolbox ?
Tsi43318 22:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved to WP:HELPDESK. ffm yes? 22:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete