Talk:Main Page/Archive 110

message: The sentence "Beginning in the 7th millennium BC, human populations moved into the Chadian basin in great numbers." in the featured article seems to be in a very odd location.  The sentence before is about present-day religion in Chad, and the sentence after is about present-day politics in Chad.  These seem to flow well together.  The early migration of humans into Chad seems like it would be better discussed either immediately after the discussion of the geographical features of the country, or perhaps at the end. Xargque 02:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My fault - in shortening it for the main page, I deleted some sentences around it, turning it into a non-sequitor. I've removed it entirely now. Raul654 03:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non sequitur in featured article 

message: "killed ... due to mismanagement" seems an utterly bizarre way to describe the Cambodian genocide! Sdedeo (tips) 03:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pls go to WP:ERRORS above to suggest alternate wording. --74.14.20.83 05:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Wait a minute... This is not on the main page at all!  What is this about, Sdedeo?  Are you sure you're posting on the right talk page? --74.14.20.83 05:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was on the page - unless I was seeing things the main page featured a news item about a UN led group or something about a Cambodian genocide and I specifically remember seeing the words mismangement. Tourskin 07:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sdedeo references this item about the detainment of Nuon Chea; in view of its being a stub and to balance out the main page, it was removed around ninety minutes after its posting.  It is, IMHO, a not-bad candidate to return to ITN, though, and so it would be entirely appropriate to take the issue of wording to the article's ITN candidacy section.  (On the substantive issue, I gather the item means to suggest that not all of those who died under the Khmer Rouge died as a result of the regime's willful and active undertakings—some, for instance, died of starvation in part because of the government's dereliction [whether intentional/knowing or simply incompetent]—but I appreciate that the wording might be a bit confusing/imprecise.)  Joe 07:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cambodia 

message: There seems to be a problem with the news section of the main page. It seems like it is updated every week, with stories coming out in clusters. It should be updated over time as apposed to clusters, or renamed 'recent history'. Contralya 11:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is often confusion over the purpose of ITN. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and therefore ITN is not intended to be a news service whatever the name may suggest to you. (:Wikinews:Main Page is a newspaper.) Template:In the news describes briefly what ITN is and Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page goes in more detail. There have been suggestions to rename ITN but for a variety of reasons these haven't got far. You may want to check out and/or continue the discussion here Template talk:In the news#Proposal to rename In the news to Current events. Cheers Nil Einne 12:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News not really news 

message: Sometimes there are no obvious (or even any) links in the summary to the actual article in Wikinews. There may be a number of links to Wikipedia articles about various topics but no hint as to which goes to the news article - it may take a lot of hovering to search this out and then find no link to the article. Would it be possible to put a specific link at an uniform spot, start or end? W#hile I have been able several times to simply go to Wikinews and see the story on other occassions, if it is an older story, I have not been able to quickly find it there. s-slater.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.75.95.127 (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that Wikipedia and Wikinews are two separate online operations.  Some people take part in both projects, but the two are independent.  If you want to complain that Wikinews doesn't have the news or the hyperlinks you are looking for, you should go there to do so.  --199.71.174.100 20:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ITN Article Links 

message: Normally I'd fix it myself, but it's protected, so ...
In the In The News section, right at the top, some people participate in some protests "lead" by some group. I'm pretty sure this should be past-tense, so "led" with no "a"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.134.27 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 24 September 2007
:See WP:ERRORS. --74.14.17.200 16:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo on main page 

message: I think that the main page should load in your browser with the cursor default position in the search box.
142.59.85.208 21:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's been discussed previously discussed. I think the consensus is not to do that. --Agüeybaná 21:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why doesn't the cursor appear in the search box, like with Google? - BanyanTree 23:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main page default cursor position 

message: Someone put this photo on czech airlines please. CSA airplane in new livery!
http://www.flightsim.cz/forum_prispevek.php?id=184264&lan=0  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should go ask this at the discussion page in the Czech Airlines page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tourskin (talk • contribs) 18:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You need to stop this.  This is at least the third time you've posted this here.  You've been told it's not appropriate, and where you should bring it up.  Harassing people on the main page won't get things done faster. -Elmer Clark 02:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking to me? It wasn't me who posted this, only the response the first time. Just to clarify. Tourskin 06:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By indenting at the same level as you, Elmer Clark was too responding to the original poster. If Elmer had indented further, as I have with this post, he'd have been talking to you. Have a read of Wikipedia:Guide to good indentation. Hammer Raccoon 09:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No. Have you read everything in Wikipedia? Can you assume that everyone out there knows the rules about indenting? Don't assume everyone knows what you know. Tourskin 00:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry? You seemed to be confused about who Elmer was replying to, so I sought to clarify the situation, and provided a useful essay to further explain indentation. I don't assume everyone knows the "rules", which is why I directed you towards the supplement. I'm sorry if I somehow offended you; my intentions were only to clarify who was talking to who. Hammer Raccoon 10:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Talk:Main Page is still the wrong place to ask. Try Talk:Czech Airlines. --Howard the Duck 14:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Czech Airlines Logo 

message: In today's TFA, it has a transwiki link to "shambolic".  Besides the fact that there is probably a better word (or at least one that sounds better) than shambolic, is it standard form to have transwiki links in main page content?  Mbisanz 03:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never seen it before, but it can't hurt to give wiktionary a bit of prime-time advertising. —METS501 (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or to provide a definition for a word most users are unlikely to know. Atropos 05:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should Wikipedia even use words that the average reader is unlikely to know when an alternative is available, especially in such a high-profile location?  Why not just change it to "chaotic?"  This does seem silly. -Elmer Clark 06:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why dumb down Wikipedia?  When you read an article are you just supposed to be learning about the subject alone?  Or is it possible to learn a new word at the same time?  Dismas|(talk) 06:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Good point - you beat me to it at an edit conflict. As an encyclopedia it does its job by teaching others "words that the average reader is unlikely to know", quoting from you. Besides, my arguments with the word Plurality, a word never used in the British or the American media taught me that you can't say things like "the average reader" - because you do not and will not ever know what the average read knows. So you can't argue that shambolic is unknown, only to yourself and others who post a response.Tourskin 06:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the OED says its been in use since 1958, I don't have a problem using difficult words, it just seemed awkward in the article and the link to wikitionary threw me. Mbisanz 07:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We might not be able to argue that shambolic is unknown, but we can argue that it's less known than chaotic or disorderly—words that almost any English speaker will understand. There's no good reason to use British slang introduced in 1958 when plainer, more widely known alternatives are available. Teaching words is not the job of the encyclopedia. Punctured Bicycle 14:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't have an opinion on whether or not the word shambolic is appropriate. My message was more a polite reminder that the transwiki link is far more important as a method of education than a method of advertisement. Atropos 01:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the word and would've thought it fairly well-known, but it's probably not as internationally known as it is in the UK.  If there is a direct replacement that is more readily understood we should always look at using that instead, but we should also be wary of repetitive wording (which is not a problem in this case, I don't think).  violet/riga (t) 11:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think this is a simple matter. It's true that as an encylopaedia we should aim to make our content accessible. However most people would probably agree we shouldn't aim to be the simple English wikipedia. While we probably would lose content if we go that far there are a lot of words which are perhaps less known then some alternatives but in many cases IMHO they should not be replaced even if it doesn't lead to repetition. While it's not an encylopaedia's job to teach words it's also not an encylopaedia's to assume all readers are stupid and incapable of looking up a word they don't know. Where to draw the line between being unnecessarily inaccesible and allowing less known but valid words ultimately comes down to personal opinions IMHO and I'm not convinced either way. Also, if the article has a clear WP:ENGVAR preference (as in this case), and one word is equally understood in this ENGVAR (not sure if this is the case here) then IMHO there is definitely no justification for changing it even if an alternative word is understood much better in other areas. In more neutral articles where we're going by first author's preference that's a different matter Nil Einne 15:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  shambolic 

message: Hi what would cause me to get this message?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.164.221.196 (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are experiencing a bug, you can report it. ffm 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GE New Horizons error message 

message: Why can't this image be used: :Image:Clark2-Pilot.jpg? Wikidudeman (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unfree. Regardless of how relevant, I can't remember the last time a fair use image was allowed on the Main Page. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There use to be an exemption on the main page, but after the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions#Removing exception in policy for "Main Page", and this edit by Jimbo, it has been removed from policy. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for those links. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Mostly after the edit by Jimbo, anyway. The debate didn't really have any sort of consensus. 69.95.50.15 19:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Get rid of Michael Rosenbaum's picture! 92.80.16.56 16:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Normally I would object since I think ignoring our female and gay male is systemic bias but he's hardly a hunk so I guess there's no harm :-P Nil Einne 19:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA image... 

message: Just thought it interesting that the day "Smallville" has its premiere, the featured article is for a "Smallville" episode. I'd find it extremely hard to believe if that's just a coincidence. 216.146.94.235 17:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not. See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. --Howard the Duck 17:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically, this request Raul654 18:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shills? 

message: Has anybody ever stopped to think that this encyclopedia could be getting too big? Its mind numbing knowing how huge it is and how many articles it will have in the future. Is there any maximum limit it could have? The Wild West guy 16:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, owing to technical limitations, the title of each article has to be under 256 characters (though ones of a similar length to A Dissertation on the American Justice System by People Who Have Never Been Inside a Courtroom, Let Alone Know Anything About the Law, but Have Seen Way Too Many Legal Thrillers or Stereophonic Musical Listenings That Have Been Origin in Moving Film "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan" start to display uncomfortably), there is a practical upper limit to the number of potential article titles for the English Wikipedia. I suspect we may run out of topics to describe before we hit that limit, though :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And of course, that limit could be removed with a bit of work in the future, if it became necessary. The next practical limit would be something akin to The Library of Babel, with the maximum article length set at ~300kb (The only article currently over that limit is the monstrous List of Unicode characters WARNING: Clicking that link may cause your browser to crash.). GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol thats at AFD. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've come across larger stuff before especially unarchived talk pages. I think one was like 800k or something. It didn't cause any problems with my browsers altho on slow internet connections and mobile phones and the like I guess it may be problematic. Editing it was very annoying especially when you had an edit conflict or had to edit the whole page for some reason Nil Einne 17:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, thanks to an edit by User:Violetriga clearing a goodly portion of the dross, the article's now down to a somewhat reasonable 104kb, meaning that every article in Wikipedia is now <300kb in length :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's focus on quality, instead of quantity, shall we ?  --74.13.131.37 05:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Improving existing articles generally involves making them longer, better reference, etc, which still takes up more hard drive space... -Elmer Clark 09:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but as noted above, there is no limit to hard drive space potentially available as long as the Foundation has enough funds. However, lovely Mr Anon above is correct - let the number of articles steadily increase, but at the same time let's focus on improving the current articles as much as we can, whether this involves cutting out the crap or adding in material. To a thousand more years! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Vanderdecken, you are lovely, too. :-) --74.14.17.200 17:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  When improving Wikipedia's quality, don't forget to delete the junk. Anyways, size doesn't matter in this case.  Quality is more important. --74.14.17.200 16:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That's weird.  Special:Longpages doesn't seem to work properly. APL 01:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is wrong with it? Dreamy \*/!$! 01:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I missunderstand how its supposed to work, but why is it listing stubs and other short articles and listing numbers like [288,466 bytes] next to them? 24.2.176.64 01:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's gone now, but yesterday, someone vandalized a few pages (one was the E-mail pages. don't remember the others) and increased there size by a few hundred thousend bytes. Before they were reverted, about a minute later, the Long pages page updated itself, and so it read pages like the E-mail page as being really huge. Tesfan 17:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, wasn't the E-mail page =/ 76.84.12.144 03:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was E-mail_address. 69.95.50.15 19:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size  of wikipedia 

message: Let's say someone wants to make an article on something called Main Page. How can they make that article if there is already a page titled "Main Page" -- the main page. If this page is moved to the Wikipedia namespace, then somebody can create an article on Main Page if they want to. Someone the Person 16:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this "main page?" Is it a band? A book? Something else? Then the page would be named Main_Page_(band) or Main_Page_(book) or the like. We'd probably need some sort of disamb at the top of this main page if such a thing happened, though... which might mar the way it looks... that is an excellent question, that I don't know the answer to. Gscshoyru 16:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't heard of anything actually existing that is called "Main Page," but just in case... Someone the Person 16:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'd cross that bridge when we got to it.  17Drew 16:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This has been discussed before quite a number of times. Many people agree that having Main Page in the article space is a bad idea for many reasons including the one you mention. Many people have pointed out that crossing the bridge when we come to it is a bad idea because amongst other things it means that we will have to carry out the change much faster then we would like and we may not be able to have a simple redirect which we could do at the moment. Unfortunately (IMHO anyway) many other people disagree for a variety of reasons so there is no consensus either way. It has been a while since we've had a serious discussion (it's brought up every so often but usually by people who aren't aware of the previous discussions so usually people just recommend they check the archives and it ends there) so you're welcome to try and resurrect the discussion but you should familiarise yourself with the previous discussions in the archives first. The last major discussion occured some time in December last year I believe (it we definitely either late last year or early this year anyway): Nil Einne 18:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why is Main Page in the main namespace? The latest proposal was in February 2007.  - BanyanTree 07:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Simple. We just put a dablink at the top. "This article is not actually an article but is in article space for reasons too complex to explain here at the top of the Main Page. For other uses of Main Page, see Main Page (disambiguation)." :) --Dreaded Walrus  t c 01:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly, and against what I intended to do, the link I just provided was deleted once before, in December, so Nil Einne is probably right with his dating of the last major discussion. --Dreaded Walrus  t c 01:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If there are any namespace diehards out there, now's your opportunity to write the perhaps-not-bestselling-but-nonetheless-notable book Main Page: A novel receiving reviews in several major newspapers and force the issue.--Pharos 02:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There probably is something out there called Main Page, but just you try searching for it on Google... Lots of chaff. Carcharoth 16:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several encyclopedic meanings for "main page", actually; Homepage is thae sense that we use it in, and it can also be used as a synonym for the Front Page of a newspaper, or the main body of the page as opposed to the footnotes.  But these uses are probably not specific enough.--Pharos 17:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't we lucky the Main Page wasn't called Front Page... I see we have a hatnote there pointing at our Front Page. Silly. Carcharoth 17:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironically, if it had actually been called Front Page, it would have been moved out of the article space years ago, and there would be no issue at all today.--Pharos 20:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have just noticed that on Wiktionary, the main page is titled Wiktionary:Main Page. This is probably because there would be a dictionary entry for "main page." Also, if we make the change, we could, instead of a redirect, make a page under the title "Main Page" that says, "The main page has been moved to the Wikipedia namespace," leave it there for long enough to get rid of most ot the confusion, and then delete it. I noticed that Wikipedia:Main Page redirects here. Someone the Person 22:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think it redirects here, I think its a mirror of the page, because the URL remains on the Wikipedia name space. The problem with moving the page would be the many, many pages out there that link in, those would all have to be update, an article about mainpages would be one of the highest hitted ones on Wikipedia for no real reason, lol. Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 16:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as an aside, Wikipedia:Main Page does indeed redirect to Main Page. (Link with redirect suppressed.) The URL's staying the same is how all redirects work.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All good, my main point was the external links bit, I had a quick look at your main page and I'm totally the same with Avatar btw :)Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 16:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypothetical article 

message: :Moved from WP:ERRORS
I notice that when I come to the home page that you have no search box up-top for words or articles - such as Find: ? It would be a real help if someone would introduce this to the Main page. Otherwise a person is at his wits end trying to find a topic on this site.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.109.188 (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be because the searchbox is on the left of any page, and this really isnt that place for this kind of queryFerdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 21:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For better places see Wikipedia:Questions, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. Art LaPella 01:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  search box 

message: What are the consequences if someone deliberatly adds bad information to a page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.227.207 (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a person repeatedly adds bad information to a page they may be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Blocking policy for some more information. Raven4x4x 11:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only bad information, but deliberate attempts to degrade the encyclopedia, Vandalism is not tolerated, and neither is spamming or harassment, among other things. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But note you are only blocked from editing. You can still view the articles on the site. You just can't touch them. I imagine vandalism would almost come to a halt if they were punished by being blocked from the site altogether. GizzaDiscuss © 11:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can people get in trouble for mis-editing Wiki? 

message: This is a slightly controversial fact as basically both  the City & South London Railway and the Tower Subway are seen as the world's first. Simply south 12:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please clarify - first what? What DYK are you specifically referring to? And in the future please add any potential error reports to the top where it says "Errors in Todays Did you know" Thanks Tourskin 23:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have taken a look at the DYK I think you are referring to (1890 subway?) and the article of the DYK clearly says that the tube was built after Tower Subway. The DYK does not say the first tube but the first major tube. So there is nothing controversial unless you contest how "major" it was. Tourskin 23:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  City & S London Did you know 

message: So we finally decided to use non-free images on the Main Page. The FA write up on the Main Page does look good with the :Image:Ernest Emerson.jpg. -- Jreferee   t/c 01:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image description page is kinda of confusing with ,  and  all on there. Someone who has access to the OTRS system and can look up OTRS number 2007010410021786 would be appreciated. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My best guess is that the image was orginally used under fair use, but was subsequently released and confirmed under GFDL, and the rationale template just got left on there. Hard to be totally sure, though.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have verified that that ticket does in fact license that image under the GFDL. – ABCD✉ 11:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Note that if this has not been a free image, I don't think there is much support for it to be allowed. While there have been calls for fair use images on the main page, most of these have concentrated on cases when a free image is unlikely or not possible and said image is allowed in the article. However fair use images to simply show what a living person looks like, particularly when said person is from an English speaking developed country like the US, and who regularly makes public apperances, is a completely different matter and is generally not allowed on articles either Nil Einne 13:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-free image on the Main Page 

message: This is probably quite random, but why is the main page layout (and, to some extent, the Wikipedia UI) not standardized across languages?
143.195.202.18
:Well, each language sort of does its own thing.  The Wikimedia Foundation oversees the projects, but it doesn't demand a certain layout, and I imagine trying to gather a consensus among the different projects would be pretty hard.  17Drew 05:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  standardized main page layout across languages 

message: Two people I greatly admire had a very good day.  Viswanathan Anand won the world chess championship and Haile Gebrselassie set a new world record in the marathon.  I found out about Anand's achievement through Wikipedia but I found out about Haile's record elsewhere.  I'd like to nominate the marathon record for the news section but I'm not sure where the best place to do that is.  Thanks!  Synesthetic 05:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates, which has the shortcut WP:ITN/C. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 05:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! It looks like there's a whole discussion going on on over there about this.  Synesthetic 06:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the best place to request an event to be added to the news section? 

message: Did Wikipedia change the font or is something wrong with my computer? Why the change?
65.2.68.60 22:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has not changed its font. You may have changed the default font size for your browser, which will affect font size on Wikipedia. —Verrai 22:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Please see also #Still all in Arial Black with IE7! above. --PFHLai 03:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It appears others have had this problem before Talk:Main Page/Archive 107. Upgrading to IE7 may help. If you don't want to, you can try asking on WP:VPT to see if there's a way to fix this Nil Einne 12:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Font? 

message: WTH is going on with Wikipedia and Internet Explorer? IE6 and now IE7 (and ONLY IE!) displays ALL fonts on Wikipedia as Arial Black. It does that with SOME fonts on a few other sites, but Wikipedia is the only site I've found where the whole thing is in Arial Black. IT DOES NOT DO THIS ON FIREFOX OR NETSCAPE. Nor is any other program afflicted with font problems, so it can't be a problem with the fonts, it has to be something screwed up with IE- something that not even "upgrading" to IE7 corrected.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.250.124 (talk) 04:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably set your browser's default font to Arial Black somehow.  Check your preferences. -Elmer Clark 05:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically Tools>Internet Options>General>that little "Fonts..." button at the bottom. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 02:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: So? Use Firefox or Netscape then. ;)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.154.160 (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still all in Arial Black with IE7! 

message: http://www.novinky.cz/krimi/v-obchodni-zone-u-prahy-se-zritil-jerab--dva-mrtvi_123942_1bdmf.html
2 people died in a crane collapse and dozens were injured
--85.71.211.66 15:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The place to post this is WP:ITN/C. Though I have to say I doubt it will make it. Algebraist 15:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: See User talk:85.71.211.66#main page talk page. --74.14.17.109 18:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News 

message: The Hindi letters in the center of the left curving margin of the logo supposed to be pronounced as "Wi"{edit-protected} have been represented wrong. In this case the consonant for "W" should follow the wovel for "I" instead of the characters depicted on the logo. I would have gladly written the correct letters in Hindi if this page had supported hindi text. -ANIL TANWAR, New Delhi, 122.162.142.87 17:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a known problem, and is (supposedly) being worked on. See User talk:Ambuj.Saxena/Wikipedia-logo for details, and links to all known past discussions. --Quiddity 18:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindi letter in the logo 

message: ... Is the fact that the New York City metropolitan area is the most populous metropolitan area in the United States, and is one of the five most populous metropolitan areas in the word.  
The opening sentence on NYC should include these facts, and should more importantly link to these lists.  
The link that is provided in the sentence that currently exists on this page, rightly lists San Antonio as one of the ten most populous cities in the United States.  But of course this is a running joke, because San Antonio is just above 30th on the list of the most populous Metropolitan areas in the United States.  The boundaries of San Antonio, are simply drawn so that most areas that would be considered suburbs in most American metropolitan areas, are considered parts of the city.  To a lesser degree a similar phenomenon occurs with Houston, which is the fourth largest city in the United States, but which, depending on one's statistics, is either 10th or 11th on the list of metropolitan areas by population.  Phoenix and San Diego, both also make the top ten on the popoulous cities list, but not on the populous metropolitan areas list.  (5th, and 6th, instead of 13th and 16th).  A similar anomaly has long been a running joke in my home state of Ohio, with Columbus having incorporated so many former suburbs, that it has long been the state’s most populous city, while the Cleveland metropolitan area has, at least since the mid 1800s, been the state’s most populous metropolitan area.  And even the Cincinnati Metropolitan area is much more populous than the Columbus Metro.  And by looking at the most populous city list, I can see that this effect is even greater in Florida, causing Jacksonville to be listed as the state's most populous city, while Miami, Tampa, and Orlando, are all the centers of larger Metropolitan areas.  
All of the characteristics that we associate with large cities, actually correlate much more closely to “metropolitan area size” than to city size.   
George Pelly-Bosela 
GPelly-Bosela 01:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:ERRORS above.--74.13.129.143 03:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We do not link to red links, please create an appropriate article first. Also WP:ERRORS is for simple issues. It is not suitable for complex arguments about whether 'metropolitian areas' or cities are better metrics. Nor is this page. Instead, you should take this issue to the NYC talk page first. Once the NYC article has been updated, then feel free to propose a change in [[WP:ERRORS]. In the mean time you could suggest we mention something like "The New York metropolitan area, with a population of nearly 19 million (18,818,536), ranks among the largest urban areas in the world." from the article itself. (The blurb already mentions that NYC is one of the most populous urban areas in the world, I'm not quite sure what is being requested so again, take it to the NYC talk page) Nil Einne 05:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really redlinks. GPelly-Bosela simply did not use the right article names. Try List of cities by population, List of United States cities by population, etc. --74.13.130.133 06:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The blurb already links to the second article. As I understand it, in the second case, GPelly does not agree with the current link because he feels metropolitian area is a more meaningful metric. This may or may not be but without an article to link to it seems irrelevant (and in any case, should be discussed on the talk page). In the first case, we already link to List of metropolitan areas by population so as I said, I don't quite get what GPelly is requesting. GPelly clearly does NOT want us to link to List of cities by population but we don't so it's kind of irrelevant. Edit: List of United States metropolitan areas looks like it might be what GPelly is looking for but again, the NYC article should be updated first. Nil Einne 06:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much more important than the fact that that “New York City” is the most populous city in the United States, ... 

message: How about a link to "archived" ITN news items in the bottom of ITN? --Camptown 08:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the best place to propose that sort of change would be Template talk:In the news. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ITN Archive 

message: Is now much better. The so called "true color" picture looked like a low resolution shot of a ball of mud. Tourskin 01:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pluto Image 

message: Who thought it would be a good idea to have TWO holocaust related items today (the EinsatzGruppe execution photo, and Night of the Long Knives)? Honestly, are we hitlerpedia now? Couldn't we possibly come up with two unrelated, non-nazi subjects for the main page? ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 14:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, I have guinea pigs as the FA today, with long knives coming tomorrow. --Dweller 15:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Just TWO items, one is a Featured Article, the other a Featured Image, and the two are used on the main page on DIFFERENT DAYS, and you're complaining? --76.64.77.176 15:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Nazi guinea pig Wikipedia shock. -- !! ?? 15:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess what? Just a few days ago, we had someone complaining about Holocaust article not getting featured status. Guess no one is ever happy. 128.227.113.49 15:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: FP and FA are usually chosen independently and as such, it sometimes happens that two items are fairly similar coincidentally. For example one time we had a space related FA and space related FP. As far as I'm aware there has not been a Nazi related subject as FA or FP for a while before these Nil Einne 01:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, while Night of the Long Knives is certainly a Third Reich topic, it is not a Holocaust topic. -Elmer Clark 05:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Godwin's Law right out of the starting gate. ffm 14:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Godwin's Law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions. It does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi regime Raul654 14:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selection choices for today? 

message: Is the picture of Will Shakespeare in Main Page/tomorrow supposed to have an earing? It seems weird to me... Astrale01talkcontribs 00:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, the earring is, strange though it may seem, in the original Chandos portrait. Joe 03:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved discussion to Talk:William Shakespeare Nil Einne 10:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shakespeare 

message: I believe it would be fitting to add Che Guevara's death in 9 Oct 1967 at the "On this Day" section. After all, this is the 40th anniversary. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At present, the guidelines for SA/OTD inclusion provide that a birth or death should be mentioned only on its centennial or subsequent significant anniversary (except to the extent the death itself, as, for instance, the Kennedy assassination, is encyclopedically notable).  The last discussion about the issue, though, appears to have occurred nearly two years ago, and so any revisions might surely be suggested at Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries or, I suppose, on this page (of course, if our practice no longer follows the written guidelines, one may, inasmuch as policy is descriptive, not prescriptive, be bold and update them accordingly). Joe 03:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the Che Guevara article has been plagued by edit wars and POV for the past several months – not appropriate to be posted on the main page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahaha, I was about to ask why it wasn't featured since most high-profile controversial articles, especially those with edit wars, tend to get improved through community discussion until they're featured.  I clicked the link and saw the article is not only featured, but tagged with the  template.  Nice.  17Drew 06:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  9 October: What about Che? 

message: Any particular reason today's DYK is about twice as big as it normally is? 63.167.237.65 13:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe to compensate the very long ITN? --Howard the Duck 13:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ITN is very long now to compensate for the very long DYK, which has a backlog of eligible and expiring items. We need more admins to keep DYK more frequently updated. --74.13.131.169 15:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well the frequency of DYK updates diminishes the amount of time an entry is displayed, so I'd rather increase the DYK items with longer refreshes rather than more DYKs with little screen time. But this is not within the scope of this talk page... --Howard the Duck 15:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  FAs are shown on the main page for 24 hours. DYKs shouldn't be shown longer than that. The current 6 to 8 hours seems right, except that we don't always have an admin available after each 6~8-hour interval. Suggestions regarding DYK policies can be discussed at Wikipedia talk: Did you know. --74.13.131.169 17:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did you Know? 

message: Dosent Wikipedia have a forum? all other wiki's do. where is it?12.216.165.50 19:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has a mailing list, and a village pump. ffm 20:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and an IRC channel - oh wait, actually it has several of them. 130.88.79.24 09:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourm 

message: whenever i try to click on "my talk", the whole set of buttons go across the screen to the wikipedia logo!Starwars55 22:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you using a Mac computer? Perhaps OSX? Your Grace Lord Sir Dreamy of Buckland tm 23:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *No, i use windows. never used a mac, ever.Starwars55 23:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If not, your settings may be whats making this occur. Your Grace Lord Sir Dreamy of Buckland tm 23:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *What settings?Starwars55 23:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It happens to me every so often as well, on many different computers. It's incredibly annoying, but usually stops after a few hours. Skittle 14:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HELP! 

message: Can it be linked "more clearly" - and, as a general request for such articles, a sentence along the lines of "This formula is used in (xxxx field) to do (yyyy process)" - for those of us unfamiliar with the particular topic. Jackiespeel 23:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to that formula on DYK earlier ?  It's gone now.  Next time, to suggest changes to the text on MainPage, please make use of WP:ERRORS.  Response is usually quicker there.  Thanks. --PFHLai 01:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematical formula 

message: change "practise" to "practice" Xxanthippe 04:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, since it being used as a noun. Next time, to suggest changes to the text on Main Page, please post on WP:ERRORS since responses are usually quicker there. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  spell 

message: I have no idea how to retrieve my password. Apparently, i didn't save an email address so it can't send me a new password.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.231.192 (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest creating a new account then.  17Drew 13:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or proving your identity somehow to an Admin.  Say if your username had disclosed your real life identity, then you would need to find an admin that you could somehow verify your idntity to and have them reset the pword.  Or create a new account.  Mbisanz 19:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins can't do that. Not sure who can reset passwords, if anyone, but it would probably be a developer, with the person in question needing to verify their identity to some bureaucrat or steward at least. Probably nothing can be done unless you have a committed identity - see Template:User committed identity. But it is simpler to enable an e-mail address and use that next time you lose your password. Just don't lose the password to the e-mail account! :-) Carcharoth 21:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost password 

message: what sort of stuff do they have on wikipedia?T.ZBowman 17:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything. Ok, well maybe not everything, but close nonetheless. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 17:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a list.  For general information about Wikipedia, see Wikipedia. -Elmer Clark 18:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you!  Our articles are, after all, written by thousands upon thousands of volunteers! ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 14:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hey! 

message: What happened? Has Conservapedia finally won? Dr. Cash 00:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you even read the blurb? —Nricardo 01:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You really can't please everybody :D --Howard the Duck 03:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, wikipedians don't understand the definition of sarcasm,... ;-) Dr. Cash 04:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  apparently sarcasm is suppose to sound sarcastic. Tourskin 04:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are people showing "ownership" of Intelligent design? I got back from another part of Rutgers after finding the IP at my school (Rutgers-Bloustein) blocked for "POV pushing". Upon looking up the edit history, I noticed the IP had been used by someone engaging in an edit war. Furthermore, I noticed that the reverts were often without explanation. While the anon apparently got his or her answer, it was after the block had already been put in place. Methinks this is an example of improper blocking, even if WP:3RR was violated.  Would you admins please calm down and have a cup of WP:TEA? 204.52.215.107 04:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are you referring to? Special:Contributions/204.52.215.13 edited the ID page 9 times, most or all of these were reverted it appears. The fact that some of these reversion were without comment doesn't change the fact that some of them did have comment including the first reversion and any editor with common sense should realise if people keep reverting your comments you should discuss and not get into a revert war with MULTIPLE editors. While it is unfortunate that this user was not explicitility warned about the 3RR policy earlier (he/she was warned but only after he/she made his/her last edit) it isn't necessary IMHO to warn people since it's resonable to expect that if multiple people revert, there is a problem you need to take to the talk page. User do need to have common sense to edit wikipedia Nil Einne 10:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Intelligent design]]? 

message: I see User:WJBScribe moved the protection level today. However my understanding was that the main page Featured Article is never protected if possible..... Pedro :  Chat   07:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that is correct, it is should almost never be protected from editing. However, I believe you may be misreading the protection log. It is currently only protected from page moves ([move=sysop]). User:WJBScribe only turned off the semi-protection. The previous settings set by User:Chaser was that the page was both semi-protected and fully protected from page moves (edit=autoconfirmed; move=sysop). Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, we do in fact usually turn on move protection because the main page Featured Article does become a target of page move vandalism, and in most cases there is no need to rename the article while it is still posted on the main page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The simple answer that I am indeed mis-reading the page move protection is correct!!!! Doh !!!! Thanks Zzyzx11 Pedro :  Chat   11:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Intelligent design]] Is protected 

message: We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September).  When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month.  I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page.  Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1 2007, voting starting December 1 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1 2008.  For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual content will resemble the current content at the featured content page.  Such output would probably start at the bottom of the main page.  The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries.  However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge.  See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  14:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure most featured lists would be of interest to the average reader... -Elmer Clark 03:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds like we're showing the gears of a black box - whats the point? Like Elmar Clark has stated, the reader would probably only be interested in the featured articles. Tourskin 03:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New FL on the Main Page proposal