Talk:Main Page/Archive 112

message: Would you please fix it? Adam78 22:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like someone's updated it.-Wafulz 00:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wikipedia languages" should be updated with the Hungarian version having more than 75.000 articles 

message: Lets add a Featured Quote of the day!Tourskin 00:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That could actually be pretty interesting, where could it go though?Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 01:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that it should go between the featured article section, and the Did you know... section. Lord Dreamy § 01:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikiquote says "Hi!" The Placebo Effect 01:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) Wikipedia is not wikiquote.  PseudoEdit (yak) (track) 01:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If you put this between the featured article section, and the Did you know... section, how many items would you remove from In the news and On This Day to maintain some sort of balanced layout? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Remove? I would say add, to keep it equal. Like this:
Today's featured article	In the news
Did you know...         	On this day...
EARL
Featured Quote 	
Did you know...	On this day...
You see? Lord Dreamy § 02:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I was merely pointing out how it might fit in. Lord Dreamy § 02:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: And, to be fair, that's essentially how featured pictures are chosen now :) -Elmer Clark 14:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, lets go ahead and get rid of ITN then, we have Wikinews for that Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 21:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: For that one, I must agree. Lord Dreamy § 02:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This sounds like a better suggestion than the quote thing. But are there enough featured media files for one a day? Picaroon (t) 02:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a large enough pool of videos and sounds to feature a different one every day for several years. (I say this having upload a very large number myself) But they aren't "featured", because the "featured sounds" process is basically a ghost town, and there is no such "featured video" designation that I know of. Raul654 02:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should just use Commons' list of featured media; having our own processes for those is redundant anyway. Might help promote Commons, too, which would be good – Gurch 14:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it might be cool to have a variable section. The first day a video, then a list, then a sound etc. Maybe a different type of a thing every day of the week. I think it would be cool, if technically possible.Note: I didn't really think about it too much, so there's probably a major flaw. Oh well...Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 13:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't even know we had a Featured sounds process. Mr.Z-man 17:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I stumbled across it about a week back, but forgot about it until now. Maybe raising awareness of the fact that Wikipedia contains videos, and sounds (let's face it, most of our readers don't know about that), would show people that Wikipedia is really different than the traditional encyclopedias, and display the website in a different light. It would also bring editors to featured nominations discussions which are currently little known (like featured sound). Of course, we would have to emphasise that encyclopedic value counts. Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 19:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, Videos are included in features picture (see Last Weeks Signpost) And I would be opposed to adding featured sounds to the main page before they start getting promoted at a constant rate (greater than 2 a week) Although Featured Lists are being promoted at a rate at about 1 per day. The Placebo Effect 21:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the above listed reasons I slightly oppose adding a Featured media. Reason why is because i thought a quote was more different than what we already have. A featured media is similar to a featured picture. A featured quote is informative because quotes are used by people all the time - like "I'll be back" for instance. Just my opinion. Tourskin 22:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: May I suggest the following:
Today's featured article	In the news
Did you know...         	On this day...
Featured quote          	Today's featured picture
Since that way we'd be adding on the FQ (featured Quote) near the bottom as if its a new addition to the Main Page. A new quote in my opinion would be very informative - you know... what people in the past said. Tourskin 22:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, we could replace the featured picture with a featured list.... I'll get my coat. -- !! ?? 11:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mav makes an excellent point. I think featured pictures differ from featured pictures on Commons, because here, we focus on encyclopedic value in a way that Commons doesn't, but that's neither here nor there. A featured quote would also suffer from serious POV problems- are we endorsing what is said in the quote? Wikiquote is the place for quotes, not here. J Milburn 12:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily just a suggestion of endorsement either. For example lot of Bush quotes may obviously not be an endorsement but will have serious BLP, POV and other issues so yeah for many reasons a quote is probably a bad idea Nil Einne 15:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hah, what an argument, considering how a picture of a whipped slave, a Jew being shot by Nazis and various other images attract such issues. Tourskin 21:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um no? Those pictures are in no way POV and the objections have been to their being shocking. Atropos 22:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Strange how they are shocking but seemingly nuetral? You gotta be kidding me. They are shocking because they were offensive. Thats why its shocking. Ok well I see that the usual Atropos and Nil have come to counter my suggestion so I think I better withdraw before I "take it personally" Tourskin 02:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, according to most of the comments I have read they were shocking because people didn't like to see the brutality that humans are capable of or felt it was unsuitable for children. They didn't find the content offensive per se but just horrific. Perhaps if we'd had a hardcore porn picture then people would have found it offensive but we didn't (and besides that the issue of neutrality still doesn't come in to such a situation). On the other hand, "Wow! Brazil is big" or " Rarely is the question asked, is our childrens learning?" have a far different set of issues Nil Einne 10:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just think its funny how a wikiquote would not be neutral and everything else neutral. What people say can be important or comical.Tourskin 18:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmm... now I see more clearly what you mean. I still think its a good idea, though I can imagine the long list of losers who have nothing better to do than complain - I still think its great to have certain quotes placed up there - whats the harm of having an Arnie quote of "I'll be back" or say Richard Dean Anderson of SG-1 saying "Stronger, faster, better!". We don't have to have Hitler screaming a quote about how pure his Aryan race is - we could have a Churchill quote instead - how many would you say know of the famous speech of Churchil after B of Britain? I would say in this day and age few in my younger generation. Therefore to counter your point regarding the endorsement of quotes, we can carefully select appropriate quotes that will be meaningful and yet neutral. Only a nazi-sympathizer can argue against a Churchill quote - and I say to hell with them!! By the way I appreciate your argument... Tourskin 07:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, because those of us who are not Conservative are blatantly Nazi. (And yes, I know Churchill was once not Conservative, but I can CERTAINLY think of a quote of his that I despise- something like [off the top of my head] 'When you're young, it is evil to not be Liberal. When you have grown up, it is stupid not to be Conservative.') J Milburn 20:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit off topic, but see wikiquote:Winston Churchill#Misattributions. Laïka 23:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh bollocks. Sorry. J Milburn 18:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Maybe I haven't been clear on my point, so hear it is, with extra extra emphasis: "CAREFULLY SELECTED QUOTES". Gees. Tourskin 20:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  These "CAREFULLY SELECTED QUOTES" won't be biased because we can have someone like Raul choose them and people ask for them on certain days - like the way we select FA's. So like on Battle of Britain Day we can have Churchill's speech: "never in the field of conflict... so many to so few etc..."Tourskin 20:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  On what completely non-biased criteria would they be carefully selected?--APL 21:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This NPOV argument that people keep spouting, is it not similar to suggest that wikipedia is currently endorsing The Siege of Malakand on the front page? I mean, we're displaying a whole bunch of info on it, if we have a featured quote, couldn't the quote context also be included, therefore reducing this supposide bias? Its the same premise really.Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 21:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Each of our sections, with the exception of Featured Content, serves to highlight a point of Wikipedia which we are proud of, but which may still require work: ITN highlights articles about recent events, which often need sourcing or copyediting, DYK highlights new articles which often need expanding, OTD highlights articles on important events - something Wikipedia is surprisingly bad at. Plus, there's an obvious copyright issue: Wikipedia's Main Page is currently only for free-content. Without reopening that old debate, I'd like to point out that many quotes are copyrighted: Wikiquote can only use most quotes under fair use (to take examples from above "I'll be back", "Stronger, faster, better!"). Another issue is that a combination of WP:ASR and WP:OR would forbid us from using quotes of Wikipedians, and hence all the quotes would be by other people with no connection to Wikipedia; how does that showcase the uniqueness of Wikipedia's user generated content? Laïka 23:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: THANK YOU!!! Surely someone from the East India Company said something important, we could tie it in with this day for instance or something like that! That doesn't mean that wikipedia is trying to revive an extinct mercenary service or celebrate British rule over India. And yet if we included Richard Dean Anderson giving a humourous quote its somehow biased? Give me a break!!Tourskin 23:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Historical quotes, like "vae victus" and "veni vidi vici"? Surely these are not under Imperial Copyright law, lol? There's lots of quotes that pre-date copyright era that we can use no?Tourskin 23:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The thing is that all of the things currently on the front page are time-related.  Featured articles, Featured photos and DYK entries are from recently promoted or recently created articles.  The 'On this day' and 'In the News' sections relate to this specific day of the year.  All very topical stuff.   But quotes just "are".  Getting a decent quote from something someone said today might be tough on a regular basis - getting a quote that relates specifically to this day of the year - also tough.  Using a "Featured quote" would be the job of WikiQuote - not Wikipedia.  I don't think this is a good idea. SteveBaker 05:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By that logic shouldnt we ditch the Featured Pictures? That sounds more like a WikiCommons thing than a Wikipedia thing Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 15:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Not true for many FA articles which may have been created ages ago. Lol no one is listening to me. When feature a quote, will it not then be time relevant? Same thing for Featured Articles!!! people when we feature the quotes we can then have it posted. Just like we feature an article. Your argument is flawed by this manner for both an FA and an FQ would be relevant after they are promoted.Tourskin 22:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly would support replacing the featured picture box with a featured list box. --mav 17:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we could have a standard featured quote in OTD  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferdiaob (talk • contribs) 16:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radical proposal 

message: If you want to put something new on the main page, I think it would be a much better idea to do a "featured media" of the day - a movie or sound file, like the Media-of-the-day I set up on Commons. Raul654 02:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For that one, I must agree. Lord Dreamy § 02:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This sounds like a better suggestion than the quote thing. But are there enough featured media files for one a day? Picaroon (t) 02:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a large enough pool of videos and sounds to feature a different one every day for several years. (I say this having upload a very large number myself) But they aren't "featured", because the "featured sounds" process is basically a ghost town, and there is no such "featured video" designation that I know of. Raul654 02:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should just use Commons' list of featured media; having our own processes for those is redundant anyway. Might help promote Commons, too, which would be good – Gurch 14:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it might be cool to have a variable section. The first day a video, then a list, then a sound etc. Maybe a different type of a thing every day of the week. I think it would be cool, if technically possible.Note: I didn't really think about it too much, so there's probably a major flaw. Oh well...Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 13:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't even know we had a Featured sounds process. Mr.Z-man 17:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I stumbled across it about a week back, but forgot about it until now. Maybe raising awareness of the fact that Wikipedia contains videos, and sounds (let's face it, most of our readers don't know about that), would show people that Wikipedia is really different than the traditional encyclopedias, and display the website in a different light. It would also bring editors to featured nominations discussions which are currently little known (like featured sound). Of course, we would have to emphasise that encyclopedic value counts. Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 19:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, Videos are included in features picture (see Last Weeks Signpost) And I would be opposed to adding featured sounds to the main page before they start getting promoted at a constant rate (greater than 2 a week) Although Featured Lists are being promoted at a rate at about 1 per day. The Placebo Effect 21:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the above listed reasons I slightly oppose adding a Featured media. Reason why is because i thought a quote was more different than what we already have. A featured media is similar to a featured picture. A featured quote is informative because quotes are used by people all the time - like "I'll be back" for instance. Just my opinion. Tourskin 22:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: May I suggest the following:
Today's featured article	In the news
Did you know...         	On this day...
Featured quote          	Today's featured picture
Since that way we'd be adding on the FQ (featured Quote) near the bottom as if its a new addition to the Main Page. A new quote in my opinion would be very informative - you know... what people in the past said. Tourskin 22:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured media of the day

message: Right now, movies come under my jurisdiction at featured picture candidates because movie is a contraction of moving picture. There are only two featured movies, :Image:Annie Oakley shooting glass balls, 1894.ogg (which I promoted today) and :Image:Bombers of WW1.ogg. There are only 12 featured sounds, and featured sound candidates is a swampy backwater, complete with chirping crickets (now there's a good idea for a featured sound). In other words, we'll burn through the collection in 2 weeks. 
The question of having a MOTD is irrelevant, because right now we cannot have one regardless of what the consensus is unless we up the promotion rate by three orders of magnitude. MER-C 12:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May I suggest the following:
Today's featured article	In the news
Did you know...         	On this day...
Featured quote          	Today's featured picture
Since that way we'd be adding on the FQ (featured Quote) near the bottom as if its a new addition to the Main Page. A new quote in my opinion would be very informative - you know... what people in the past said. Tourskin 22:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MOTD is unsustainable

message: Let Wikiquote have its quote of the day and Commons have its media of the day. Picture of the Day is even tenuous and highly duplicative with Commons, but I'm not about to suggest that section be removed - yet. The four main sections at Main Page play a direct role in showcasing and encouraging improvement in the encyclopedia (TFA - > better content, ITN -> currency, DYN -> expansion, OTD -> history, which binds all human knowledge). That said, a portal at en.wikimedia.org fed by RSS feeds from all Wikimedia projects in English would be a wonderful idea. But let's not have that portal here. --mav 03:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we could replace the featured picture with a featured list.... I'll get my coat. -- !! ?? 11:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mav makes an excellent point. I think featured pictures differ from featured pictures on Commons, because here, we focus on encyclopedic value in a way that Commons doesn't, but that's neither here nor there. A featured quote would also suffer from serious POV problems- are we endorsing what is said in the quote? Wikiquote is the place for quotes, not here. J Milburn 12:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily just a suggestion of endorsement either. For example lot of Bush quotes may obviously not be an endorsement but will have serious BLP, POV and other issues so yeah for many reasons a quote is probably a bad idea Nil Einne 15:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hah, what an argument, considering how a picture of a whipped slave, a Jew being shot by Nazis and various other images attract such issues. Tourskin 21:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um no? Those pictures are in no way POV and the objections have been to their being shocking. Atropos 22:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Strange how they are shocking but seemingly nuetral? You gotta be kidding me. They are shocking because they were offensive. Thats why its shocking. Ok well I see that the usual Atropos and Nil have come to counter my suggestion so I think I better withdraw before I "take it personally" Tourskin 02:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, according to most of the comments I have read they were shocking because people didn't like to see the brutality that humans are capable of or felt it was unsuitable for children. They didn't find the content offensive per se but just horrific. Perhaps if we'd had a hardcore porn picture then people would have found it offensive but we didn't (and besides that the issue of neutrality still doesn't come in to such a situation). On the other hand, "Wow! Brazil is big" or " Rarely is the question asked, is our childrens learning?" have a far different set of issues Nil Einne 10:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just think its funny how a wikiquote would not be neutral and everything else neutral. What people say can be important or comical.Tourskin 18:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmm... now I see more clearly what you mean. I still think its a good idea, though I can imagine the long list of losers who have nothing better to do than complain - I still think its great to have certain quotes placed up there - whats the harm of having an Arnie quote of "I'll be back" or say Richard Dean Anderson of SG-1 saying "Stronger, faster, better!". We don't have to have Hitler screaming a quote about how pure his Aryan race is - we could have a Churchill quote instead - how many would you say know of the famous speech of Churchil after B of Britain? I would say in this day and age few in my younger generation. Therefore to counter your point regarding the endorsement of quotes, we can carefully select appropriate quotes that will be meaningful and yet neutral. Only a nazi-sympathizer can argue against a Churchill quote - and I say to hell with them!! By the way I appreciate your argument... Tourskin 07:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, because those of us who are not Conservative are blatantly Nazi. (And yes, I know Churchill was once not Conservative, but I can CERTAINLY think of a quote of his that I despise- something like [off the top of my head] 'When you're young, it is evil to not be Liberal. When you have grown up, it is stupid not to be Conservative.') J Milburn 20:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit off topic, but see wikiquote:Winston Churchill#Misattributions. Laïka 23:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh bollocks. Sorry. J Milburn 18:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Maybe I haven't been clear on my point, so hear it is, with extra extra emphasis: "CAREFULLY SELECTED QUOTES". Gees. Tourskin 20:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  These "CAREFULLY SELECTED QUOTES" won't be biased because we can have someone like Raul choose them and people ask for them on certain days - like the way we select FA's. So like on Battle of Britain Day we can have Churchill's speech: "never in the field of conflict... so many to so few etc..."Tourskin 20:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  On what completely non-biased criteria would they be carefully selected?--APL 21:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This NPOV argument that people keep spouting, is it not similar to suggest that wikipedia is currently endorsing The Siege of Malakand on the front page? I mean, we're displaying a whole bunch of info on it, if we have a featured quote, couldn't the quote context also be included, therefore reducing this supposide bias? Its the same premise really.Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 21:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Each of our sections, with the exception of Featured Content, serves to highlight a point of Wikipedia which we are proud of, but which may still require work: ITN highlights articles about recent events, which often need sourcing or copyediting, DYK highlights new articles which often need expanding, OTD highlights articles on important events - something Wikipedia is surprisingly bad at. Plus, there's an obvious copyright issue: Wikipedia's Main Page is currently only for free-content. Without reopening that old debate, I'd like to point out that many quotes are copyrighted: Wikiquote can only use most quotes under fair use (to take examples from above "I'll be back", "Stronger, faster, better!"). Another issue is that a combination of WP:ASR and WP:OR would forbid us from using quotes of Wikipedians, and hence all the quotes would be by other people with no connection to Wikipedia; how does that showcase the uniqueness of Wikipedia's user generated content? Laïka 23:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: THANK YOU!!! Surely someone from the East India Company said something important, we could tie it in with this day for instance or something like that! That doesn't mean that wikipedia is trying to revive an extinct mercenary service or celebrate British rule over India. And yet if we included Richard Dean Anderson giving a humourous quote its somehow biased? Give me a break!!Tourskin 23:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Historical quotes, like "vae victus" and "veni vidi vici"? Surely these are not under Imperial Copyright law, lol? There's lots of quotes that pre-date copyright era that we can use no?Tourskin 23:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The thing is that all of the things currently on the front page are time-related.  Featured articles, Featured photos and DYK entries are from recently promoted or recently created articles.  The 'On this day' and 'In the News' sections relate to this specific day of the year.  All very topical stuff.   But quotes just "are".  Getting a decent quote from something someone said today might be tough on a regular basis - getting a quote that relates specifically to this day of the year - also tough.  Using a "Featured quote" would be the job of WikiQuote - not Wikipedia.  I don't think this is a good idea. SteveBaker 05:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By that logic shouldnt we ditch the Featured Pictures? That sounds more like a WikiCommons thing than a Wikipedia thing Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 15:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Not true for many FA articles which may have been created ages ago. Lol no one is listening to me. When feature a quote, will it not then be time relevant? Same thing for Featured Articles!!! people when we feature the quotes we can then have it posted. Just like we feature an article. Your argument is flawed by this manner for both an FA and an FQ would be relevant after they are promoted.Tourskin 22:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly would support replacing the featured picture box with a featured list box. --mav 17:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we could have a standard featured quote in OTD  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferdiaob (talk • contribs) 16:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's not lose focus that this is the Wikimedia ''encyclopedia'' project

message: I got lot of information from Wikipedia and it is my best Encyclopedia webpage.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayani007 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Nice to know we can help someone. :-) ΚαροτΜαν 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, nice to know we helped someone. Dreamy § 02:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Case in point, the woefully biased article on plug-in hybrids being championed on the main page as a beacon of hope for all mankind alongside a marxist world government. Don't you dare think for yourself or disagree, you will be called a neocon! --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 10:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What backwards university accepts any encyclopedia as a reliable source? IvoShandor 14:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Please stop trolling. • Lawrence Cohen 16:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: When I worked as an editor, this is what I always told my reporters, and in my opinion, what all academics should say about all encyclopedias. They are simply good starting points. IvoShandor 15:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I LOVE WIKIPEDIA 

message: Just wondering: What would we do if, for some reason, we ever wanted to create an encyclopaedia article named 'Main page'?? Not very likely, I know, but it's theoretically possible! (i.e. if something called 'Main page' became notable in its own right.) Let's just hope it never happens. :) Terraxos 01:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If someone asks this question again I'm gonna get a dirty 18th century flintlock and stick it to my mouth... I know this has been asked a brazillian times in the last few months. Tourskin 05:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What will we do if someone writes a book called Main Page about a guy called Flintlock who lives in 18th century Brazil? Nil Einne 09:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Note this doesn't actually says what we would do. Disambiguation or redirects here/see also would be exceptionally ugly solutions which is why many people believe it's a mistake for things to continue as they are now. Simply calling it Main Page (book) without disambiguation or 'redirects here'/'see also' would be bad, particularly if the item is very noteable. If we changes things soon then very likely by the time it occurs (if it occurs), most people will have updated bookmarks etc so it won't matter so much. However all this has been discussed before Nil Einne 09:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Damn I'm out of gunpowder... Tourskin 19:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: How about moving to Portal:Wikipedia (currently redirects to Wikipedia:Community Portal)? feydey 02:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Portal:Wikipedia should be about Wikipedia. As for the Main Page, tell your favorite author/singer/movie director to create a book/song/movie called "Main Page" then we'll see what happens... --Howard the Duck 17:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A hypothetical question 

message: I'm guessing that the timing was not coincidentual :). The only problem is that there is no picture? Must be the stupid fair-use / copyright people at it again :(. Seriously, why not just put a free pictures of a jack-o-lantern or something there to represent the FA since the cover art for the movie is pretty much a jackolantern??
:Generally the image is a free picture of something relevant to the article that is used in the article. Films and other topics that don't have freely licensed images available (e.g. video games), and if an article has nothing but fair use images in it, then I guess not much can be done but omit an image. ~ Sebi 06:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Donkey Kong recently lasted its entire front page tenure with an image of a Game & Watch console in use. Picture in question: Media:Gw_donkeykong.PNG. Somehow, the guy who took it can magically release a picture of a copyrighted design / game on the screen into the public domain, so I'll be sure to try it when my VG articles come up. Zeality 17:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *So by your logic, we should ban all car images because the car companies aren't profiting from the sales of some models that they stopped production on since whenever. And all images of new cars is also forbidden because they prevent the carmakers from making a profit. --293.xx.xxx.xx 09:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should use a fair use image from the movie.  It is legally permissible, and it furthers our primary mission, which is to build a high quality, informative, encyclopedia.  When we keep informative, legally-permissible images off the main page, we are allowing the free-use-culture tail to wag the dog. Johntex\talk 19:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that might be a good idea. In my personal opinion, we should use free images whenever possible, but if it's impossible, it's impossible. We are using it to illustrate the subject, so it should be fine, as far a copyright law is concerned. We will have to change policy if we want this implemented though. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately Jimbo has spoken from on high on this issue.  No fair use on the main page. -Elmer Clark 00:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimbo does not and should not have the authority to make that decision, especially since he hasn't provided any reason why he feels that way. Atropos 00:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually he doesn't. Please read this essay. Also, I believe you are refering to the Wikimedia Foundation, which rarely involves itself in the day to day function of the English Wikipedia, and which Jimbo is not always acting for. Atropos 00:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimbo has provided reasoning, and, as it happens, it is reasoning I agree with. Jimbo has authority, certainly, and I think it is important for him to do what he can to keep Wikipedia true to the principles on which it was founded. Would it be right for Jimbo to close a vote on whether publicity shots should become 'allowed' on Wikipedia, even though the majority of people taking part said that they should be? I saw this, a while ago (so maybe I am actually not saying what happened- don't quote me) and I agree completely. Yes, we work on a principle of consensus, but the consensus should never be to stop text be freely usable, to take up a specific point view, or to turn our back on any of our founding principles. This is a case whereby we should stand by our founding principles, and eschew the non-free media. Is Wikipedia's 'best work' really fair use? I think not. J Milburn 22:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of these principles, a lion's share of topics covered by this encyclopedia are copyrighted by someone or some organization. Removing this incentive disheartens the editors of these topics and appears essentially unfair since fair-use is allowed everywhere else but the main page. TFA blurbs look better with pictures. As one who has promoted four or five featured articles on copyrighted subjects, it is discouraging that my work will appear a peg below others' because of copyright paranoia. 75.25.69.216 20:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halloween II Featured Article 

message: Is it normal that my TFA has only been vandalised 2-3 times in four hours... has vandalism dropped off lately or something? Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 03:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too tired after Halloween parties? Too busy cleaning up after Halloween parties? Mid-terms coming up in North America? Who knows... --74.13.128.77 06:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Is that a request for more vandalism? Raul654 06:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh sorry I was slacking... Tourskin 06:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism on main page 

message: International Tennis player Martina Hingis failed a cocaine drugs test, and Wikipedia talks about The Red Sox winning a trophy. Americanipedia, great...... 217.65.158.13 13:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Had you nominated non-US news at In the news candidates this wouldn't have happened. Go ahead, go there and nominate a non-US news item. As long as it meets the criteria, it will be featured. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, the Martina Higgins case is already there. There is currently a discussion whether this is a notable enough topic. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I don't understand that an American baseball tournament is big enough to be internationally known. Most countries around the world don't even play baseball and not even heard of the Red Sox. 217.65.158.13 14:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tell to that the Japanese. And maybe the Taiwanese too... --Howard the Duck 15:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm Czech and I have heard of the Red Sox, while I haven't heard of Martina Hingis. Of course, "I've heard of it" and "I haven't heard of it" are not very good arguments. All are welcome to take part in the discussion whether Hingis is to be on the main page. Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  news 

message: *On this day: All Souls' Day commemorates the faithful departed; Day of the Dead in Mexico. 
*Today's featured article: Arrest and assassination of Ngô Đình Diệm
*Today's featured picture: Dead Chinese soldier
I think it's a good idea to tie the sections of the main page together like this.  — Zaui (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I was thinking of creating an account just so I can add my two cents to the main page.  I think, along with what you listed, it might be a good idea to add a section about Satan, massacres, and the French. 68.143.88.2 16:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't speak to the other choices, but Diem was picked because it's the 44th anniversary and that was the date requested. Raul654 16:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image was totally coincidental. I don't check what the featured article is or what's in "on this day" when I schedule the POTD. howcheng  {chat} 17:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, hmm. Maybe this might be something we want to consider in the future, a little bit of coordination might be cool. I certainly think that the coincidental set up today was pretty neat. Maybe this is something we want to aim for occasionally? IvoShandor 17:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok then heads up for Nov 11...Tourskin 18:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Ah what the... bobcat!Tourskin 18:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm detecting a theme 

message: yes
Does the front page really need to mention where a sporting event will be held seven years from now?  Let's try to make sure in the news is actually, you know, newsworthy.  Looking at Portal:Current events, just about everything on it is more newsworthy than the location of a future sports event, and most of it is more relevant than the score of some recent sports event, also on in the news... Bushytails 17:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually ITN despite the name is not primarily intended to be about the news. However the selection of Brazil, even if it was more or less a done deal, is an extremely significant event. 12 stadiums or something are going to be built. The government of Brazil was also heavilg involved in the process. This is going to have a significant effect on the economy of Brazil. Indeed in many ways the selection of the host is more significant then who actually wins the world cup. Nil Einne 18:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Please discuss the selection of items for ITN at WP:ITN/C, if possible before they appear on the main page. Discussion of ITN here rarely affects anything very much. Algebraist 18:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So when the NFL announces where a Super Bowl will be played, will that be on the main page?  SashaCall (Sign!)/(Talk!) 20:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe. It'll depend on whether it's suggested at WP:ITN/C, and consensus is reached there that it meets the criteria and ought to be included. Algebraist 21:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the soccer announcement was only listed there for an hour before being added, and not much of a discussion resulted.  SashaCall (Sign!)/(Talk!) 00:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: When is an announcement of the Super Bowl venue news? I haven't seen it on news channels; at least the men's soccer world cup is "news" right now. --Howard the Duck 03:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My problem isn't really with it being posted, just the speed at which it was posted.  SashaCall (Sign!)/(Talk!) 05:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been enqueued already several days at ITN/C so that explains it. --Howard the Duck 09:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps but from what I can tell nothing is expected for a while. Also based on a look at a few of the bid articles, I'm doubtful they will qualify. As I mentioned, successful world cup (and olympics) bids tend to have massive implications for the host country (and usually involve multiple countries). The government of most bidding countries are usually heavily involved often up to the very top (i.e. Prime Minister or President). For Super Bowl bids, it appears only the city government is involved not even the state government (for example in this case Super Bowl XLIV the state government killed the cities successful bid). Also as SuperBowl happens every year, it's likely a successful bid is much less of a major thing. And remember, the Super Bowl is one event and one game, the world cup and olympics are multiple games and/or multiple events requiring multiple stadia (as I mentioned). Indeed, there doesn't seem to be any article for the 2012 Super Bowl but the 2014 World Cup article existed since 2005 with verified information. You might also want to compare the detail in the 2014 FIFA World Cup bid from the bids for the Super Bowl XLV. Perhaps if a city outside the US is selected then there may be cause because of it being the first time but a normal US city bid seems a fairly minor thing to me Nil Einne 11:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention the Super Bowl is almost always played at Miami LOL. --Howard the Duck 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The FIFA World Cup is the most widely watched sporting event in the world, with over 715m watching the 2006 final. The decision for it to be held in one country is notable because the event is so huge, and the huge amount of preparation involved (several stadiums are usually built or renovated, the event brings in a silly number of spectators). Over 10x as many people watch the World Cup than the Super Bowl, and it only happens once every 4 years. It is /extremely/ notable just due to the sheer size and popularity of the event. -Halo 18:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, but the announcement wasn't as big of a news as I expected it to be. Perhaps because everyone knows which country will win the "bid." --Howard the Duck 11:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Meanwhile, the current events portal for the US is vastly underrepresented... a while ago I stuck  (now deprecated) on the talk page (as an anon, FYI, because it was a school computer) because I had to get someone else there to try to improve it.  Now, there are just 4 October stories, and before that only a few September stories... ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 03:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-news In The News 

message: As one person mentioned; "Children read this page"  Well, in my opinion, children should read pages such as this in the presence of an adult.  Perhaps when the child asks the adult why this is, the adult will be moved to do something to prevent it, instead of being shocked by it.
Images in the real world are shocking.  And they are also real.  How shocked would you say a child in Bagdad would be on a daily basis?  Or perhaps one in Mogadishu, or any number of places were war is the daily fare?  They would be happy to see images on this page.  Just so long as they were spared the sent of death, the tightness of dried blood on their skin, and the anguish of loss at the hands of people who would be "shocked" at seeing this on a web page.  Life is hell, made so by people who are "Shocked" at the reality of it.  Teach your children, don't shelter them from the world, or the pain of reality will be far more "Shocking" for them. NAeuroMUT 06:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A very interesting argument, and to some extent I agree. However, before you make any further edits, I should warn you of WP:SOAP and WP:POINT. That said, welcome to Wikipedia! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Next time someone gets all icky on the talk page, be there!!Tourskin 18:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NAeuroMUT, it looks like you support WP:CENSOR. Nothing more to say here! GizzaDiscuss © 09:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Watch out for the reaction to tomorrow's featured pic... Carcharoth 13:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A dead soldier. Tomorrow will be interesting... I wanted to study, but I think I might stick around. Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument doesn't hold water.  Using a photo as old as 55 years for reality education?  We certainly have better alternatives, don't we?  I call for the person who posted this photo to be suspended as a main page administrator, and I reiterate my remmendation for him to be more aware of the dark side of his inner being (see heading "Featured picture too contraversial" below).   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hai Huang (talk • contribs) 07:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: High hopes we have here. Whats next, we get to see penis or vagina on the main page? I know, let's have Strippers!!--293.xx.xxx.xx 12:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel that you have a particularly good picture and feel it is pertinent enough, you're free to list it on featured picture candidates.  However, with regard to the current picture, the overwhelming consensus was to support featured picture status.  You are always free to nominate it for delisting.  --slakr\ talk / 12:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Dark side of [my] inner being" ... yes, I'm definitely feeling the Darth Vader in me. howcheng  {chat} 17:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [/me whacks everyone with a wet noodle] ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 03:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  shocking 

message: Shouldn't there be something about Musharraf declaring emergency rule in Pakistan?  It's breaking news, and the BBC and CNN are currently showing it as the main news story on their web sites. Nanten 13:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to WP:ITN/C to suggest and reat criteria for ITN items. --Howard the Duck 14:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistan 

message: A somewhat controversial image, :Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg, was promoted to Featured Picture status some time ago, and now it's time for its day in the sun as POTD. User:Pharos suggested that we might talk up the benefits of this being a professional quality free-license image, even if such discussion were a bit self-referential. I've made an initial stab at it at User:Howcheng/MerkinPOTD. Comments are welcome at User talk:Howcheng/MerkinPOTD. Thanks. (cross-posted to WP:AN). howcheng  {chat} 01:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 100% Support.  Something like this is exactly what would prompt me to finally register an account -- just so I could vote support! (I'm serious).  It is so, so rare to get a professionally shot photo of a model released of copyright for public use.  I bet there are only a dozen or so in this entire encyclopedia, and even fewer of this quality (texture, composition, and lighting are perfect; note her head blocking just enough sun light for the chromatics of the photo to still come through but also place an aurora around the top portion of the body.  68.143.88.2 20:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michelle Merkin POTD 

message: Please fix this. BBC 1936 may have benn the first puplic Television service. It was not the first HDTV service. HDTV was invented a half-century later. -Arch dude 03:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please click high-definition television and read, and see if you agree. It's not the same as HDTV. (maybe the word 'video' should be included?)  If you insist, please re-post at WP:ERRORS. Thanks. --199.71.174.100 03:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah the link and wording on the Main Page is misleading. IvoShandor 20:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I laughed MAO when I saw that...very misleading it was, my young padawan. Ben 01:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC 1936 was not HDTV 

message: I was wondering if anyone can point me to the discussion that was had on whether the Main Page should be moved to Portal namespace. 60.229.9.172 09:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the archive links from Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why is Main Page in the main namespace? - BanyanTree 11:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Page Portal 

message: Has anyone ever given any thought to making a separate tab (to go along with Discussion, edit this page, +, History and watch) for the Notes and References? I've noticed that they can take up a large chunk of an article at the bottom. Just my two cents. Txredcoat 13:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have that, wouldn't you need a section tab for every section in an article? That's why there is a table of contents. Dreamy § 13:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No..he's talking about the references at the bottom of the page. Why not tuck it onto a subpage, or a tab, so that the entire article is anarticle, not an article and a bibliography. I agree.-Violask81976 17:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting idea, but doesn't the current layout make composing/editing easier? Shir-El too 21:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agree with Shir-El too. Having it on one page makes editting the references so much easier, especially if theres a mistake or if wikifying needs to be done. As a tab requires too much waiting time Tourskin 23:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes/Refrences Thought 

message: What determines how full the green donation bar is? Is it the number of people or the amount of money? Tourskin 19:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People.  Well numbers of donations technically, since a person could be counted multiple times if they made multiple donations.  Dragons flight 21:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: ok thanksTourskin 23:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I really don't want to make you feel unwelcome, but it might be a good idea to review WP:SOAP. Thanks! Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 20:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We shouldn't be feeding the trolls and we shouldn't be commenting. Oh wait that includes me huhTourskin 07:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an FYI: but if you really cared that much, and you knew that either you, or your significant other had a family history that displayed genetic tendencies of developing bad teeth, wouldn't it be better to just not have children since that is, indeed, still free? 68.143.88.2 18:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's funny.  (funny as in laughing funny) ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 03:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Alot is not a word, and "there" is used when you're talking about a place, "their" refers to something belonging to something. Aaadddaaammm 03:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To is also used incorrectly. BTW, my parents both have great teeth, as do I and one of my sisters, yet my other one has a 2 centimeter overbite, which is costing us $10,000 and 2 years to fix, though there has been no "genetic tendencies" of developing bad teeth. And also, you're saying that people shouldn't have kids, the joy of many people's lives and the hope of the human race, because they can't pay for braces? Sickening and pathetic, dude...Ben 01:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone needs their sarcasm detector adjusted.... 157.127.124.15 14:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually the best hope for the human race is probably if people on the whole have less kids not more Nil Einne 13:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curious question about Donation 

message: The donation count has just messed up. 0 people have donated? It was a lot just five minutes ago. Josh  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.15.35 (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Their is a discrepancy based upon whether it is open or closed.  When the banner is open, it says "0 have donated".  When closed, the number is over 14,000.  It has been a while since I took statistics, but I think this is statistically significant. :-)  I am running Firefox, if that makes a difference. Johntex\talk 19:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The donations tracking server appears to have gone offline.  I have no idea why.  Depending on the cause it may take a while to resolve.  Dragons flight 19:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donations Dead?! 

message: You may have seen either the original list of the day proposal or the revised version.  A more modest experimental proposal is now at issue at WP:LOTDP.  Feel free to voice your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  18:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOTD proposal