Jump to content

Talk:Main Page

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jellypuzzle (talk | contribs) at 10:01, 13 January 2007 (→‎Do you read the featured article?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Wikipedia Main Page: please read the information below to find the best place for your comment or question. For error reports, go here. Thank you.

Today's featured picture

  • Today's featured picture is taken from the list of successful featured pictures, If you would like to nominate a picture to be featured see Picture of the Day.
  • To report an error with "Today's featured picture...", add a note at the Error Report.

Main Page and beyond

Otherwise; please read through this page to see if your comment has already been made by someone else before adding a new section by clicking the little + sign at the top of the page.

Main page discussion

  • This page is for the discussion of technical issues with the main page's operations. See the help boxes above for possible better places for your post.
  • Please add new topics to the bottom of this page. If you press the plus sign to the right of the edit this page button it will automatically add a new section for your post.
  • Please sign your post with --~~~~. It will add the time and your name automatically.

Template:Main Page discussion footer




This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Searching

when I was searching for something and didn't have the exact i bum men title I was looking for, a list came up with relevance numbers and it was easy to find what I was looking for? Why has it changed??????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.178.53 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you were looking at the History, maybe some else edited when you did or maybe the page simply took a long time to load. Simply south 23:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Hockey Championships

Moved to Template talk:In the news

Grammatical Error

The "In the News Section" contains a grammatical error. "Defeat" in "Australia defeat England " should be plural. It should read "Australia defeats England". --Geoffrey Gibson 01:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shouldn't. "Australia defeat England" is correct. In both countries' varieties of English, groups of people are grammatically plural. —David Levy 01:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is truly bizarre usage and I was going to object as well, but it seems David Levy is right. Googling reveals it is common among sportswriters. I've never seen anybody do this when talking about the result of a war or something, though... Redquark 02:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably because most writers would use the past tense "Australia defeated England" it's just the ITN writing style that forces the use of this tense. These days due to the overwhealming amount of US media, in Australia both plural and singular are acceptable. It's almost to the point where "defeats" is becomming the norm. The logic is as David said above, a team is a group of people and therefore treated as a plural. Even though "a group" is singular in itself, it's to recognise a team effort. --Monotonehell 02:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It still grates on the ears. I always thought that a group "was" singular in word but plural in concept. But I am American, not English or Australian, and I don't know cricket at all, so it's out of my range. However, if it read "Australians defeat England" or something along those lines, would it still be good sportswriterese? graphite_elbow 14:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, 'Australians' is not acceptable either. This is because You should not say "The Australian captain scored a century", but rather "The captain of the Australia team scored a century". Ditto "The England team", instead of "The English team". Carcharoth 11:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A little off topic, I know, but "defeat" is the plural form of the verb. "Defeats" is the singular. The number in the verb must agree with the subject.--205.133.240.254 19:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm based in the UK, and can confirm that sports teams are often referred to in the plural: see various instances of this at http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/league_cup/6236687.stm. The grammatically correct form is, as far as I know, to refer to sports teams in the singular (Arsenal was playing Liverpool last night; Arsenal's players were playing Liverpool's players last night), and this usage is creeping in to the British media. However, the plural is still the most-used form. Because I'm so used to hearing the plural form, I find the American singular strange - the exact opposite of what User:Graphite_Elbow experiences. In general - and I don't know the reason for this, but I'd like to know - American grammatical usages are usually correct, whereas British grammar often deviates from the norms in various ways. --Jim (Talk) 08:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think you'll find that British English grammar generally adheres to British English norms very well; one of which is to treat a team as plural object (a team of players), hence the requirement for the plural version of the verb (see here, [1] and [2]. Bazza 16:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I find that a main page item seems linguistically incorrect or confusing to people from one nation or another, I attempt to devise suitable wording that eliminates the issue. Unfortunately, I've never managed to arrive at such a solution for the "defeat/defeats" problem (which arises from time to time). It seems impossible (without using awkward wording) to not end up with either an Americanism or a Commonwealthism.
I suppose that we'll just have to continue relying on the nationalities of the teams involved (or the event's location if the teams represent nations with conflicting rules), and accept the fact that a large segment of our readers will think that we've messed up. Let's just try to remember to include a hidden comment explaining the situation (to avoid accidental back-and-forth edit wars among people who all believe that they're correcting a simple typo). —David Levy 17:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come, now! Let's say Australia defeats England.Wugo 17:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia split?

Maybe there should be an english and american versions separate to wikipedia as a lot of the content is americanised and as I am english a lot of it takes figuring out which to be frank is not very good to do late at night.--99ghorner|Talk 01:26, 9 January 2007 (GMT)

No, no no! We need to work on collaboration, not splitting up. A preferences for American/British English would be a lot better than a split. —Mets501 (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of articles are Britishized, and I really don't have a problem with it, though I'm American. A rule I use, is that if the article is about an American thing, use American spellings;if the article is about something British, use English spellings. If it has to do with neither, make a decision. --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 01:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A profoundly idiotic idea, if I do say so, and I am not usually rude about this sort of thing. Separating versions by tiny dialectic differences would only result in two inferior versions of Wikipedia, mostly overlapping and yet neither as complete as the current united project. Mets501's idea, which I'm certain has been proposed before, would be a solution—it's already done that way at the Chinese Wikipedia—, but it seems like far too much work for our programmers for piddling differences. (Chinese had a much larger problem of two different character sets to deal with.) I suppose I have some advantage in understanding both easily, being British-American, but I don't understand what causes such trouble in understanding. —Cuiviénen 01:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same here, I don't have any problem at all understanding it and don't mind it's usage, so I would be opposed to user preferences. It may be the only way though, in the long run. —Mets501 (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expect an answer similar to Bug 8327 if this is suggested to the developers. Titoxd(?!?) 02:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree, as loathed as I am to leave alone "incorrect" spellings like "color" (Oh the pain it took to leave the u out!) we don't need to make redundant British verses American WPs. What next? Australian verses Hong Kong english? In fact I'd like to see the en.WP introduce policy that the lead paragraph of an article must be in simple terms in order to merge in the simple english WP. As that's another redundant project. --Monotonehell 04:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ladies and gentlemen, the vast majority of people on this planet who learned English as their first language are Americans. Can we agree to standardize (or standardise) on American spelling? The comments by Mets501 are well taken. - 209.221.240.193
Quite righte, a colourfule ideae. Ie agree withe alle the above. Britishe or Americane ise fine. ;-) | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 15:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why does first language matter? Surely all people who use a language have just as much right to define how the language is used regardless of whether's it's their first language or tenth language. While you can argue that there should be some consideration depending on how much they use a language, you can't IMHO argue that their views and usage should be ignored Nil Einne 14:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could also make sure that everyone is using the same American dialect. You know, replace all instances of 'pail' with 'bucket,' etc. We could use some of that $0.9Mil we raised to hire a team of linguists to standardise the entirety of the Eng. wikipedia into the same dialect.--205.133.240.254 19:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question then becomes...which one? There's quite a few distinct American dialects. How do we pick? And what about other languages/countries in similar (meaning, not Chinese) situations? graphite_elbow 16:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't make everything American only. I'm sure there would be a lot of objection to that. Simply south 17:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it is not Ye Merrye Ole Englishe, people should be able to read articles wether they speak of the loo, or the restroom. FirefoxMan 17:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about a new policy? If an article begins with British-English keep it that way, if it begins with American English, then keep the rest that way. This way we have consistency. -- Kerowren (talk • contribs • count) 17:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If i'm reading that right, it is a clever way of saying next article= British-English, articles aferward= American-English or am i jumping to conclusions already? Simply south 17:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actualy, there is a manual of style pages on this. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (national varieties of English) and WP:SPELLING. FirefoxMan 17:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've never associated the words "pail" and "bucket" with conflicting American English dialects. Here in New Jersey, both terms are commonly used (though "pail" most often refers to a small bucket, such as one used by a child as a toy). Of course, the word "bucket" is more fun, as one can comically use the pronunciation "bouquet." —David Levy 17:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting wikipedia simply due to American or British English would be a ridiculous move. Its not that difficult to figure out the differences - its all the same language! If the spelling differences seem annoying to anyone, it really is a personal thing. The idea of keeping the dialect consistent in an article is a good one, but given the fact that anyone can edit articles, it would be very difficult to implement such rules, unless there are editors whose sole job would be to go around fixing articles. Personally, it seems like a waste of time. Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of people who use and contribute to wikipedia regularly who have learned English as a second language...for them American or British English isn't as obviously different. Bottom line though...wikipedia is here to share knowledge...why would we want to put limitations on that?? Eendrani 13:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current guidelines state pretty much that. And there are those disruptive elements / ignorant elements who insist on "correcting" everything to their understanding of what's 'right'. Look at the current mini-wars over the spelling of the chilli chili chilllliiii chilie tamagotchi and the classic color article for examples of how pigheaded some people can be as to their way is the only way. What we need do is recognise that there are differences and incorporate that into the articles when it's part of the subject matter, or just use one set of grammar in the context of the article when it's not. --Monotonehell 08:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Pelosi Pic

Nothing against Nancy Pelosi, but could someone please replace her pic with something fresh? Merci! 24.82.168.119 04:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest? —David Levy 04:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Nancy Pelosi is getting annoying...you could change it to a laughing baby or something. Dagari 04:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still desperate to get rid of Nancy ? Please be encouraged to update pages related to politics of Austria. A new Chancellor of Austria will be installed this week, and we have his picture standing by at WCommons. --PFHLai 16:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, its starting to get a bit old, especially with her story falling way down to the bottom. There have been US strikes in Somalia, that seems worthy of replacing Pelosi. Perhaps a picture of an AC-130. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tired of seeing Nancy Pelosi? Well guess what? So am I. I want another picture to be there. For the past 3 days I am stuck seeing her face. Please someone change to photo to another news article. thanks Sf49rox 05:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find a free photo then. —Centrx→talk • 05:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.inthenews.co.uk/photo/oil-$7307$180.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sf49rox (talk • contribs) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Is that applicable? and free? It comes from this news article: http://www.inthenews.co.uk/money/finance/news/international-affairs/belarus-shuts-down-oil-pipeline-$1038488.htm Sf49rox 05:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be free as in liberty. This picture does not indicate its license; the copyright is owned by a news agency or a photography service, and without evidence of a free license, we cannot use it. The Pelosi portrait, for example, is in the public domain because it is a work of the United States government. —Centrx→talk • 05:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is government picture: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/images/pipeline.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sf49rox (talk • contribs) 06:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
And seriously, don't all pipelines look the same? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sf49rox (talk • contribs) 06:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
This looks like it's just a random pipeline, not especially relevant to this news item. This does not add any information; the Pelosi picture says "This is what this person looks like". What's worse, it may very well be entirely misleading; the pipeline could be metal and be supported by concrete or be in a totally different natural environment. The picture cannot be false. Anyway, the proper place to bring this up is Template talk:In the news. —Centrx→talk • 06:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the Pelosi picture has become rather stale. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a viable alternative at the present time. —David Levy 06:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we find one of those green-and black <a href="" onmouseover="window.status='night-vision'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=; return true;">night-vision</a> images of u.s. airstrikes on southern somalia? There's gotta be one free, or a fair use screenshot we can snag.—ExplorerCDT 06:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, to which ITN entry would that be relevant? Secondly, we only use free images in this section. —David Levy 06:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a U.S. airstike in Somalia is worthy of inclusion in ITN. Surprised no one's added it yet. —ExplorerCDT 07:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've spamed the link to the news in a couple of places. But you haven't put it forward as an ITN candidate. It may be in the mass media and big news - but is there an substantial article on Wikipedia about it? --Monotonehell 08:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, because I was busy getting drunk tonight. Now, see below. —ExplorerCDT 10:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting drunk? I approve ;) --Monotonehell 10:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See War in Somalia (2006-present). The ITN line should read something like (not final): "An United States Air Force AC-130 gunship attacks suspected Al-Qaeda operatives entrenched in southern Somalia".

She's old news. That was Friday. This is Tuesday. Even the mention of her has moved so far down the page that it's separated from the photo. I suspect that any resistance to removing her photo may be based on "in your face" DailyKos politics, rather than legitimate copyright concerns about other photos. Can't we move the photo down to keep it with that mention? - ClemsonTiger 14:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • And your suspicion is wrong. Find another free-licensed image for any one of the items. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-09 14:44Z

It's interesting to see how a fake smile bores people quicker than any other picture.--cloviz 15:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still desperate to get rid of Nancy ? Please be encouraged to update pages related to politics of Austria. A new Chancellor of Austria will be installed this week, and we have his picture standing by at WCommons. --PFHLai 16:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's another option. You could suggest a few new news items, or just grow up and deal with Nancys picture. dposse 20:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh ? "Just grow up" ? --PFHLai 23:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anything. Please. The humanity. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly a matter of maturity, it's a matter of stagnation of the main page's ITN picture. Though I agree that nothing has come to take its place, I as well am tired of seeing. Can't wait for the picture to change...DoomsDay349 00:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please someone, change it. It is annoying! Sf49rox 01:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*cough* ~Rangeley (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH THAT IS FUNNY. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Sf49rox 02:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article man. I've updated Nancy Pelosi's page at Uncyclopedia, have a laugh eh? DoomsDay349 02:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Pelosi is attacking Somalia now? Can't we get a pic of the plane, for a change? --Howard the Duck 07:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image of the day DAB

The link for Salamis on the image of the day for January 9 goes to a disambig page. Can we get that changed to either Battle of Salamis or Salamis, Cyprus? z4ns4tsu\talk 14:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Salamis Island & Battle of Salamis have been added. Thanks for pointing this out, z4ns4tsu. Next time, please make use of WP:ERRORS. It's good for suggesting small tweaks on MainPage like that. Service is usually quicker there. Thanks. --PFHLai 16:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idea

I know we ask a math question before allowing an account to be created, to protect from vandalbots and automated spam. But what if we asked a random math question every time before editing an article? This would prevent vandalbots from vandalizing at all. I know this is not the place for this---where do I go to sugesst this? Seldon1 17:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to go to Wikipedia:Village pump. --PFHLai 18:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) would be an appropriate forum, but I seriously doubt that this idea will garner much support. While an exception could be coded for properly flagged bots, this would inconvenience editors and reduce productivity to far too great an extent. —David Levy 18:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm dyscalculic ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheVenerableBede (talk • contribs) 16:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Question

Why is the Wikipedia logo on Russian Wikipedia all sparkly now? 158.123.160.2 17:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it was, it's not there now. I don't see it, at least. Seldon1 17:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking the same thing, It's still there [3]. AxG (talk) (sign here) 19:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it the anniversary of its creation? Or is it for Wikipedia Day? -- tariqabjotu 19:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been looking and they recently celebrated 100,000 articles. but now they have about 130,000 articles. AxG (talk) (sign here) 19:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deguerre Image

Isn't there a Deguerreotype image of Deguerre than can be used rather than a pencil drawing? Not sure about copyright issues, but there are a ton in google image search (http://www.acmi.net.au/AIC/daguerre_jemayall_1848.gif). And given his 1789 birth I can't imagine any of them aren't in the public domain. Aepryus 19:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image may not nessisarly be in the public domain, even if the man was born in 1789. Unless you are aboslutly sure that it will not be a copyvio, then don't upload it. FirefoxMan 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daguerre died in 1851, well over 70 years ago. Any of his works are in the public domain in the US (which is what matters for the English Wikipedia, as our servers are in Florida), no matter who tries to claim otherwise. —Cuiviénen 21:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider submitting the pics to Wikimedia Commons. We can use one of those pics next year. (Pls check the photographer's year of death for non-selfportraits.) Thanks. --PFHLai 23:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RSS feed for POTD

The RSS feed for POTD shows the following page: Wikipedia:Picture of the day/January 10, 2007. Which does not exist. What's happened? --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 01:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The POTD system was changed recently, see Wikipedia:Picture of the day#Including the POTD on your user page. So it looks like the RSS feed was not updated yet. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gathland State Park

The DYK on this park is incorrect - the article stated that this park hold the only memorial to war correspondents killed in combat in the world, but there is actually at least two other prominent memorials of this kind in the US - the OPC memorial center in New York City and the memorial at the Arlington National Cemetery. I've now corrected the article on this point Bwithh 10:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skewed taxonomic diversity

Can someone elaborate on what the phrase "skewed taxonomic diversity" in the opening sentence, means. There is no explanation of skewed in the Alpha diversity or Biodiversity articles and this piece of jargon stands poorly in the opening of an article. Lumos3 13:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article and you'll see that the term is described in the opening paragraph (and the Main Page blurb). It means that the taxonomic diversity observed differs from (is skewed from) that or the general region. In this case, there is a significant lack in terrestrial mammal diversity. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another POV main page

Far right parliamentarians increase their influence within the European Parliament (pictured) by founding a new transnational caucus.

Great job using a wikilinked term having a disputed neutrality and unsourced materal to describe MEPs. Wikipedia is consistently a joke. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well they are all far-right. It's established at the article. Still, it shouldn't really be stated at ITN, so I'll change it now...Actually I have to go, someone else take care of this. Nishkid64 15:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that everyone who edits wikipedia is human, right? I dunno about you, but i haven't met a perfect one yet. dposse 16:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty ironic to declare "they are all far-right" in the context of the moral and political relativism that is the EU. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 16:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is, but your comment "Wikipedia is consistently a joke" is very, very insulting and demeaning to thousands of editors who actually work to try to make it better. I take great offense at that, personally, and ask you either apologize or retract the comment. DoomsDay349 01:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So do we really have to feed the trolls, again? --Howard the Duck 07:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the only context they should be considered in. No one gives a screwy whether they're far right in the context of the US or Haizum or whatever, that's completely irrelevant Nil Einne 11:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, what's screwy is the inability to just let their political leaning be self-evident. Instead, "someone" has chosen to use a wikilinked term that has disputed neutrality, is of substandard quality, and doesn't cite its sources. Just bringing this up results in personal attacks by editors that have fancy user pages. The joke continues. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 20:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty page has a source that the group really is far right. --Howard the Duck 04:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also keep in mind that the news story is much less significant if the group's far-right status isn't pointed out. -Elmer Clark 08:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be missing the point. You said, "pretty ironic to declare "they are all far-right" in the context of the moral and political relativism that is the EU". Whatever you may think of the EU, and regardless of whether you think anything associated with the EU can be far right it's irrelevant. What is relevant that far right in this context means far right in the context of the EU. Not far right in the context of the US or far right in the context of Haizum. Whether or whether not it was justifiable/right to call them far right on the main page is not a debate I want to get into. My sole point was that your suggestion that they can't be far right because they're associated with the EU is IMHO, silly... Nil Einne

Requested move

Main Page → Portal:Main page — Not an article, is a portal, contradicts Wikipedia's policy. Only reason last one closed is because of WP:NOT (as in democracy) and the RM was flawed with confusion about whether it would be at Wikipedia:Main page or Portal:Main page. While this move is highly controversial, it needs to be done as to prevent contradiction to Wikipedia policy. This will not create hundreds of broken links - not many pages redirect to Main Page any way and bots can fix redirects over time.--HamedogTalk|@ 09:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a democracy. Do not cast a "vote" please state an opinion and an argument. This debate will only be resolved by a consensus.


  • I think you're confused about how policies came to exist on Wikipedia. They weren't handed down from on high, and are still open to modification. It seems easier to simply add a note to the policy, than to edit a billion links and/or force the servers to redirect millions more clicks. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-11 15:30Z
    • I'm not sure how you could fix many of my concerns below simply by editing a policy. Which policy to you intend to edit, and how? (If you're thinking of the Main Page fair use debate, there are plenty of reasons to move unrelated to that.) --ais523 15:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I would modify Ignore all rules to include "especially the rules that would change traditions that span all wikis and have existed since their inception, and/or rules that result in a needlessly large burden on the servers and editing community with no positive gains to the reading community." This requested move fits both of those descriptions. If the work needed to do this move was on the same order of magnitude as the resulting benefit to the reading community, I might have a different opinion. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-11 16:00Z
        • Depending on the caching architecture of MediaWiki this could mean no performance cost at all, since no HTTP redirect is sent. You shouldn't worry too much about the severs since it is likely that this wont noticably affect the load and if it does it just temporary. As for the magnitude of the work I doubt that it can be that much. A bot or a team of editors would fix this quickly. Especially since most links to the Mian page probably are in templates. Your point about other Wikimedia Wikis is a very valid one though, but there is at least the Swedish Wiki has moved their main page to the portal name space.Jeltz talk 16:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not all wikis have their Main Page at Main Page (for instance, Wikia's main page is at http://wikia.com/wiki/Wikia). The Main Page can be selected by editing MediaWiki:Mainpage (see http://wikia.com/wiki/MediaWiki:Mainpage). The change would not be too big; most links to the Main Page are from templates (for instance, the entire first page of the WLH), so it would just be a case of changing a few templates. And as mentioned below, this would cause minor gains to the readers (the removal of the cite link, for instance, and the correction of the statistics). I admit that these aren't big improvements, but there's no reason to keep the Main Page at its current location apart from vague historical reasons. And Jeltz is right too: the Swedish Wikipedia's Main Page is at http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Huvudsida. --ais523 16:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Look under Talk:Main Page/Archive 87#Another type for extra info. Simply south 16:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so some people, as in the last move request, will say it will disrupt the encyclopaedia and such what. That is not looking at the long term, only at the short term. Change the software to hid "Redirect from Main Page", point en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ to Portal:Main page and same with the portal. Having the Main Page in article space is a violation of wikipedia policy.--HamedogTalk|@ 09:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, the inclusion of the survey sections led the proposal be closed. Can it be removed? --Howard the Duck 09:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it just comes up when you use the template it tells you to use in WP:RM. Feel free to remove it. But, on the other hand, shouldn't that template be changed to there is not survey section per WP:NOT? Dinner for me now--HamedogTalk|@ 09:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "survey" bit. It's pointless and yes it should be removed from the template. --Monotonehell 11:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the WP:RM page says "if a survey will help..." - it's an option. I still think that bit should be removed though. --Monotonehell 11:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wait, can fair-use images be used in portals? The Sky May Be 11:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a concern last time. Fair use images can only be used in article space. Bit of a loophole really. --Monotonehell 11:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a weak argument to me. Main Page is by no means an article, even if it is in article name space. Main page isn't an article about anything, it is a portal. I don't have any legal education but I can't see why the law should care about a technically such as name spaces. It is how you use the images that matters not Wikipedia's internal ordering and categorising. If you have a portal in article name space it is still not an article. Jeltz talk 15:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My strong support has IMHO been sufficiently explained previously. I don't really with to get too deep into this but if there are any important questions about my previous points, please mention them at my talk page Nil Einne 11:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has very few hard-and-fast rules. There's really no reason why the Main Page should not stay right where it is. Why break thousands of internal and external links? Redirecting just looks cheesy. --Nelson Ricardo 13:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some previous discussion, see WP:VPR#Main Page to Portal:Main. There are some points there which haven't come up here yet (Main page could go to home page even if Main Page can't (notice the caps), 'cite this article' doesn't work properly on the Main Page, and is disabled on Portals, and Current Events was moved to portalspace a while back (so there's a precedent)). There's also a rebuttal to the fair-use claims there; loopholes in Wikipedia policy don't affect copyright law, and anyway taking advantage of them would violate WP:IAR and WP:POINT (yes, I believe it's possible to violate WP:IAR). Feel free to list any points there I missed, especially as I support this and am probably biased in which points I copy across. --ais523 13:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be Portal:Wikipedia instead of Portal:Main Page? Koweja 13:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would imply a portal about Wikipedia. My suggestion on WP:VPR was Portal:Main; the exact name to move to should probably also be decided here if the move is accepted. --ais523 13:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
"That would imply a portal about Wikipedia" Isn't that exactly what the main page is? Koweja 14:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, a portal about Wikipedia would probably have links to wiki, GNU Free Documentation Licence, and Jimmy Wales, rather than what's up there at the moment. --ais523 14:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed Portal:Wikipedia would be the Community Portal, which it in fact already is a redirect to. Jeltz talk 15:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish people would stop taking this seriously. No, do not move the Main Page. There is no reason for it. If people are looking for information about home pages and they type "main page" into the search box and get back here, they're going to figure out pretty quickly that typing "home page" would be better. Home page is a poor article, and if someone's knows enough about the internet to use it, they know what a home page is. I can't imagine that article gets many visits, certainly not compared to the TWO MILLION per day that the Main Page gets. And all that's irrelevant anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page probably one of the most-linked-to pages on the entire Internet now, so if moved there would *have* to be a redirect to the new title. So the old name wouldn't be usable for anything – Gurch 15:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the arguments above? Here's some more that I've thought of:
  • With the Main Page in article space, it's included in database dumps of articles, which means it's plausible that a bot or mirror would need an exception for it.
  • My edits here now on Talk:Main Page add to my Talk-space edit count, when really they're nothing like ordinary Talk-space edits.
  • Things related to the Main Page aren't in article-space, so redirects are needed on the subpage parent links (the links that link back to the parent of a subpage).
  • The Main Page adds to the article count on Special:Statistics, so actually Jordanhill railway station was the 999,999th article. And I hadn't realised all this time! (A redirect wouldn't add to the count).
This is an entirely serious proposal; there are many reasons to move it on top of 'freeing up the space for something else', which is only a very minor benefit (I agree, the redirect would need to be maintained more or less forever). --ais523 15:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The main page is the main page, whether its at Main Page, Portal:Main Page or User talk:Main Page on Wheels!, the same rules would apply to it regardless of its location in the wiki. There are some marginal benefits from a move to portal space as described by ais523 above. However, not one of those concerns matter to the readers. In fact, I think the main page should be at http://en.wikipedia.org and not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page (most external links are probably targeted at the former). Likewise in an ideal world the title of the main page as seen in a browser window, should be "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" and not "Main Page - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". However as I understand things this would need the devs to change MediaWiki slightly, but at least that has value to the reader.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This could also be Portal: Wikipedia. Simply south 16:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I see no reason not to move it. Just because it's always been here doesn't imply that it always should be --T-rex 16:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It can if you want it to. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-11 16:42Z

Even if the Main Page is moved (which is almost unthinkable), a Portal is clearly not the apropropriate way to do so. The main objection to the current location of the Main Page is that Wikipedia pages do not belong in the article space; a Portal does not resolve this objection. Another elephant in the room is an article about "Main Pages" which would clearly be a perpetual non-starter, doomed to be an inferior article, accessed mostly by people trying to find Wikipedia's main page, most of whose history would be composed of people arguing about how to add a link to the "real" Main Page in that article. The Main Page is the sole exception to the article space being inhabited only by articles, and not a particularly bad one. It is rootly deeply in Wikipedia's history and thus even this forum is insufficient to generate a consensus suitable for moving it. This should also be taking place on the mailing list, etc. Savidan 19:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portals aren't in the article space, they are quite separate. And why would an article on "Main Pages" (or a movie entitled "Main Page" etc.) be doomed to be an inferior article? And simply because something is rooted in history does not provide a sufficient defence - otherwise we still wouldn't have the wheel! I agree that this debate needs to be put out further. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 23:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some traditions are more important than others. It's all subjective, but then so is the rest of this discussion. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-12 00:09Z
Well, the proposed move is saying that the rules should triumph over tradition. The rules were adopted for a particular reason, there is logic behind it. The Main Page being in article space seems to defy logic. If you were creating a new Wikipedia2 tomorrow, would you have the main page in article space or as a Portal? Related question: Did portals etc exist when Wikipedia was first created? --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 02:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Portals are relatively new on Wikipedia. When I joined (late 2004) there were no portals other than the main page. WP:PORTAL claims they were added in 2005. English Wikipedia has existed since early 2001. Since there was no concept of portals in the early years of Wikipedia it makes sense to when they were added to move the main page to portal namespace. WP:PORTAL even uses Main Page as an example of a portal, and it perfectly fits the descirption of what a portal is. The portals were modelled after the main page from what I remember. Jeltz talk 11:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So if portals are rather new developments, then surely Wikipedia should be fully adjusted to met the new technical abilities of Wiki-software. Whenever there has been a technical change, or a new space created there have been changes. The Main Page should be moved to reflect the continuing changes in technical ability available to Wikipedia, along with all the other arguments. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 02:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the last long debate that we just finished, the main page is part of the encyclopedia. It should remain in the mainspace. --- RockMFR 22:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would contend that the main page is not part of the encyclopaedia, but rather a glorified contents page. We don't include the contents page as part of an encyclopaedia, usually they are not even on the standard page numbers in a book/paper encyclopaedia. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 23:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, my view on what is a part of the encyclopaedia is that it is just the articles and disambiguation pages for articles. Portals are meta information pages used for navigation and presenting parts of the encyclopaedia, like Main Page. These pages are vital for the project but not actual encyclopaedic content and therefore should be kept separate. Jeltz talk 23:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only question about this whole thing is whats gonna happen if you move the main page Buford444

Nothing much, except that this discussion page will now be called Portal talk:Main Page, and the Main Page's URL will be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Main_Page (with redirects from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and http://en.wikipedia.org). Also, the 'cite this article' link will disappear from the Main Page (a context in which it doesn't work anyway), the article count will become correct, the article-only database dumps wouldn't contain the Main Page, and contributions to Talk:Main Page would show up in the Portal talk rather than Talk namespace. In order to actually move it, three MediaWiki messages will need to be changed (MediaWiki:Mainpage, MediaWiki:monobook.js, and MediaWiki:monobook.css), the page will have to be renamed by an admin, some double redirects will have to be fixed (I wouldn't think there'd be very many, and an admin with AWB could manage that easily), and Shadowbot2 will have to be told about the new location. --ais523 14:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
But what are the improvements for the reader? Otherwise, why waste time on this? Also, the article count argument is nonsense; that count is always changing as articles are deleted/created; its only real purpose is as an estimate. And, the "cite this article" link can be removed from the Main Page more easily than the work required for this move. The only real change I see is that editors interested in accurate edit counts will be happier, and that robotspeople obsessed with logic will not have their brains explode; but is that enough of a reason to justify all this discussion and work? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-12 15:23Z
As Wikipedia expands, more and more of it is becoming automated (either by developers or by bots). For automatic systems, namespace is a big clue as to what happens. Removing the "cite this article" link would be more work than simply renaming the Main Page, because it would require a developer; and a specific Main Page exception will have to be coded into every other namespace-dependent feature for the rest of time. To take a slightly frivolous example, suppose the Main Page was proposed for deletion (not that it ever would be deleted, or the proposal would ever get further than a speedy keep). Would AfD or MfD be more appropriate? If MfD (like I would suggest), what would prevent the AfD template from coming up with an error? Likewise, on the list of most-viewed articles (which is of interest to readers, based on the frequency with which the question comes up on the Help Desk and the various Village Pumps, 'Main Page' is shown as the most frequently viewed article. Without changing the namespace, there's no way that current and future namespace-dependent tools are going to be able to handle the Main Page without special exceptions. --ais523 15:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Improvements for the reader will include being introduced to the logic of how Wikipedia works earlier, which could make them more able to access information, less confusing for those who want to sign up and get involved in the community, and show that rules must be followed. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 02:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Main page is not an article.
  2. Tradition means nothing. WP:CCC and WP:IAR say very clearly that rules and traditions are less important than making a better encyclopedia.
  3. Main page is a portal, and ought to be treated as such.
  4. There is precedent for such a move.

The only arguments against this are "tradition!" and that it'd be a burden, but arguing that it'd be a burden is making empirical claims without evidence. The precedent shows that it has in fact been done before and not been a problem, so why not do it here? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have one problem and one problem only with a pagemove. Google for Wikipedia, and the first hit relevant to en is "Main Page - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"; this is the same with other search engines. Portal:Main Page is more fitting in terms of WP namespaces but it is obfuscated to a wikipedian, why confuse matters? If someone can make a css tweak for the main page that changes the html title of the page to be just "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" then that is a strict improvement. The location of the main page in wikipedia is an irrelevancy, compared to how it appears in external websites (like search engines). If this can be fixed, then does it really matter where the main page is? In short, nope - so a move would be much less contraversial.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very basic js could be added to MediaWiki:Common.js making the html title of the Main Page just "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". —Mets501 (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone considered a move to Wikipedia:Main Page?--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 20:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That was the subject of the first page move. See Talk:Main Page/Archive 87#Requested move. Although closed on WP NOT democracy, the majority of people opposed the move anyway. Simply south 22:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I personally prefer Portal: over Wikipedia: is that the main page in most ways (layout and contents) is exactly like the other portals. Jeltz talk 23:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Main page would be a portal about homepages. Whatever name you move it to, there's going to be some oddity causing it to be totally absurd. Both Main page and Wikipedia:Community Portal, which should obviously be at Portal:Wikipedia or Portal:Wikipedia community, predate the portal namespace and have contentedly remained in their original location since the hazy mists. I'm not sure why there is such a sudden panic to move the page, but the rapid-fire nature of the recent requests suggest an attempt to exhaust, rather than convince, the clear consensus to continue as is, as illustrated by the most recent discussion. I don't see the problem that this is purporting to solve. The only real encyclopedic content argument, holding the opinion that the main namespace is the justification for Wikipedia and all the other namespaces are just support functions to keep the real work progressing, to be made is that main page should be a redirect to homepage, which is so problematic that it will probably never be implemented. I don't see the point in having a bot make thousands of disambiguation edits and devs tweak how to handle incoming requests for something that appears to be trivial at best, and that doesn't actually address the issue as it relates to the content. - BanyanTree 23:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The developers don't have to do anything at all for the main page to moved. Moving the main page is something admins do. It is if we don't do anything and still want the main page to be treated differently (like no cite link for example) that something has to be done by the developers, something which would litter the code base in spite of there already existing a solution. Jeltz talk 00:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit break)

It seems that Nilfanion's suggestion of putting the "Main Page" at http://en.wikipedia.org/ makes the most sense. It just "redirects" (silently) to the current Main Page anyway. It is in all probability the most referenced external link into Wikipedia (or would that be http://www.wikipedia.org/?). --Nelson Ricardo 11:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That seems like the best option (having the main page at en.wikipedia.org, but having the actual page for editing/talking stored at a Portal or MediaWiki page, maybe) — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-12 15:20Z

Simple question. M3tal H3ad 07:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple answer: sometimes. — ceejayoz talk 08:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rarely. There's been some weird stuff as FA lately.--Suleyman Habeeb 08:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has little to do with Wikipedia's MainPage. Please move this survey onto your own blog, M3tal H3ad. Or WP:VP. --65.95.107.148 16:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It's very relevant to this page (being that this page is for feedback on the main page) and in point of fact I'm interested in reading what is said here. Raul654 16:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I always read the main-page summary of the featured article (except for days when I don't go near a computer). I usually (but not always) follow through to the article and at least read the beginning. I often read the whole article. Lately I've been copyediting a lot of featured article candidates. Several of those have since been on the main page. I don't usually read those when they are on the main page as I've already read them. However, I do check out the diff from the last time I read it and the main page version. Some main page articles are better than others. I don't always read the entire article when it's not very good. Seeing as I have the bad habit of doing most of my Wikipedia browsing from work, lately I've been following through to the article less and less because of the template-vandal. It'd be embarassing to have some of those images suddenly on my screen. However, I've yet to visit the main page or any of its articles when they've been vandalised, and I understand that problem's mostly solved by the new cascading protection stuff, so I'm getting back into the habit of usually reading the featured article. As for ITN, DYK, and Today in History, I scan ITN to see if there's anything I haven't already learned about from real news sources, and I read today in history, and sometimes follow through to an article. I also read whatever's in DYK when I chance to look at it, and usually twice a day; but it changes so frequently that I know I miss seeing stuff. The article that I contributed that was featured in DYK was featured while I wasn't on the computer so I missed seeing it. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same with all the sections on the main page - I only read something if it peeks my curiosity. So somedays yes, somedays no --Monotonehell 08:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read the main page summary pretty much every day and then if that really interests me I'll read the whole thing. Other than that I read it if there's a big "this shouldn't be on the main page" uproar or if it's something I personally would never have guessed there'd be an article/featured article on. Jellypuzzle | Talk 10:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Beckham

I thought his contract was the biggest of all time? Just H 16:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with "possibly" the largest sports player contract to date? Is it or is it not the largest contract? Don't we have the firm statistics? DoomsDay349 04:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it depends on the way the money is counted. He gets 55 mil a year but only 10 mil is his salary. So it really depends on whether the other 45 mil, which he is getting from the club, is counted or not.--HamedogTalk|@ 08:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest atill active

Well, there is the oldest articles at Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles. The next question is, who is the oldest still-active editor, ignoring Jimbo Wales? Also, are there any which have still not become admin? Simply south 18:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Nupedia crowd - User:Larry Sanger, and User:RoseParks, and probably some others. Raul654 18:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might also be interested in Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. —Cuiviénen 18:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia

lets mention wikia search on the front page of wikipedia to get more users to wikia.

Sadly Wikiasari doesn't have it's own page, so that alone disqualifies it from the Today's Featured Article and Did You Know sections. The proposed launch was mentioned by Jimbo way back on December 23, so it's a tad stale to appear in In The News (and barely got a mutter in the offline press regardless), and I'm afraid the idea's not been around long enough to merit a place on On This Day. Lacking any images for Picture Of The Day, there don't appear to be any sections that the proposed search engine would qualify for at the moment. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 07:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a metawiki sister project either :( --Monotonehell 08:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=100415730"