From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

edit

Archives

001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 007, 008, 009, 010 011, 012, 013, 014, 015, 016, 017, 018, 019, 020 021, 022, 023, 024, 025, 026, 027, 028, 029, 030 031, 032, 033, 034, 035, 036, 037, 038, 039, 040 041, 042, 043, 044, 045, 046, 047, 048, 049, 050 051, 052, 053, 054, 055, 056, 057, 058, 059, 060 061, 062, 063, 064, 065, 066, 067, 068, 069, 070 071, 072, 073, 074, 075, 076, 077, 078, 079, 080 081, 082, 083, 084, 085, 086, 087, 088, 089, 090 091, 092, 093, 094, 095, 096, 097, 098, 099, 100 This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any sections older than 3 days are archived.

Contents 1 Main page error reports 1.1 Errors in Today's featured article 1.2 Errors in In the news 1.3 Errors in Selected anniversaries/On this day 1.4 Errors in Picture of the Day/Today's featured picture 2 Main page general discussion 2.1 ITN picture 2.2 On this day 2.3 Choosing the Featured Article 2.3.1 Spiffy new way of choosing the TFA 2.4 Displaying the ToC first. 2.5 Where did main page go? 2.6 Interaction 2.7 Boxed links on T:MP 2.8 Wikipedia Hacked? 2.9 Error in the news section 2.10 Suggestion: a "recently featured" for POTD 2.11 Spanish proposal thing? 2.12 Choice of ITN 2.13 Kewl Picture 2.14 need help 2.15 Change of policy/guidelines to dissallow fair use images on the main page 2.16 Piped link

[edit] Main page error reports

To report an error you have noticed on the current main page or tomorrow's main page please add it to the appropriate section below. You can do this by pressing the [edit] button to the right of the appropriate below section's heading. Also, please sign your post using four tildes (~~~~)

The Main Page Toolbox
Yesterday March 28	Today March 29, 2007	Tomorrow March 30
TFA	TFA	TFA
SA	SA	SA
POTD	POTD	POTD
In the news / ITN Candidates
Did you know / DYK Next Update / DYK Suggestions
Protected main page images Protected pages associated with Main Page articles
Error reports · General discussions · FAQ
It is now 16:22 UTC Purge the Main Page Purge this page

Note that the current date and time are in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), which may not coincide with your local time zone. The next day's featured article of the day, picture of the day, and anniversaries update at midnight (00:00) according to UTC. The current time is 16:22 on March 29, 2007 (UTC).

Once an error has been fixed, the error report will be removed from this page; please check the page's history to verify that the error has been rectified and for any other comments the administrator may have made. Lengthy discussions should not take place here.

[edit] Errors in Today's featured article

[edit] Errors in In the news

[edit] Errors in Selected anniversaries/On this day

[edit] Errors in Picture of the Day/Today's featured picture

neighbourhood is spelt incorrectly in DYK - the first 'h' is missing.

[edit] Main page general discussion

[edit] ITN picture

Sometime the images in the News section don't line up with the headlines they are related to. For instance, right now the photo of Bob Woolmer is right next to the headline about Armenian Prime Minister Andranik Margaryan. Quite confusing. I'm wondering if others have the same issue. If it matters, I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.2. Gobonobo 01:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed previously, in that the image always appears at the top. The problem is that the WP:ITN template also appears on Portal:Current events, Main Page alternative (PDA version) and a number of other pages. If we try to line up the image to the related item, it might screw up the formatting on the other pages. For now, the relevant entry is indicated by the words "(pictured)" or similar. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This question is asked so often. Should the answer be added to Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ? --74.14.18.56 15:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On this day

there is no mention of "1975: Saudi's King Faisal assassinated" why? User talk:Yousaf465 05:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the Faisal of Saudi Arabia article is currently tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. As per Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries#Criteria for listing items on this set of pages, "the selected article must not be a stub and preferably it should be a relatively complete and well-formatted article". Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.... that guideline doesn't really make sense. Anniversaries are not featured content. They're a way to get more people interested in editing those articles, not a showcase. Zocky | picture popups 10:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess the intention is not so much to feature content but to provide sufficient context so that readers can know what the event is about etc. Obviously in this case, it's pretty self explainatory but there would be other examples when it is not the case. It also helps to reduce the demand for items of limited importance or notability I guess (again not applicable here but in general it's probably true) Nil Einne 11:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The Scottsboro Boys is a good example IMHO. Not being an American & read the entry in itself, I go WTF is that and why do I care? Having read the fairly good article, I get the context to know why it's important Nil Einne 11:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that guideline for "On this day/Selected anniversaries" is basically consistent with those of ITN and DYK: the bolded, selected articles linked on the main page must be relatively complete and well-formatted to give sufficient context. It is hard to do that when an article has a bunch of cleanup and/or dispute tags. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Today is the 200th anniversary of the abolition of slavery in the British Empire. Please swap that line about the Scottsboro boys or the line about Titan (on ITN for quite a while recently) with a line about the Slave Trade Act 1807. (See Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/March 25#Possiblity for a new inclusion. Thanks. --199.71.174.100 20:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. 25 March 2007 was the 200th anniversary of the passing of the Slave Trade Act 1807, which outlawed the British trade in slaves. It did not outlaw slavery, which continued in the British Empire until the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 came into force on 1 August 1834. Even then, a form of partial slavery continued for another 4 years, until 1838. See, for example, the articles on the Acts, and Abolitionism. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The line User:199.71.174.100 suggested on Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/March 25#Possiblity for a new inclusion is correct, then. It was the abolition of the slave trade, not the abolition of slavery. But the 200th anniversary was yesterday. Too late to do anything now. --74.14.18.56 15:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - it is a pity it did not get on. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Choosing the Featured Article

I don't know why the featured article isn't picked by a random generator.

While I have nothing against Raul, it is a stain on wikipedia's transparency. A list of featured articles that have not been featured can be made, and numbered serially. A random number generator can then be used to pick out the correct one.

This has many benefits:

1. Total transparency
2. No more "wikipedia is communism" complaints - which may be dumb, but peoples faith in wikipedia is important.
3. The added transparency and fairness will further motivate people to create featured articles
4. Saves time
5. Saves effort

It wouldn't even need to be a random number generator, there could be a very simple system for picking out a random number that would be completely transparent. Some simple geometric system could be used with the last 4 digits used only. This would be random enough since:

1. As soon as an article is picked, it is removed from the list, so all the articles below get shifted up; and
2. The list would be in alphabetical, so the new featured articles added every day would shuffle the list randomly making it impossible to predict in advance.

Practically, the last four digits would be used - since there are now only 1,200 or so FAs on average you would need to pick 8 numbers to get a good one - however this is still completely random, and would take about ten seconds. Indeed, the digits of pie could be used!, every day, you take the next four and so on. For practical reasons the articles would be set 24 hours in advance (IE the number picked and the position decide the article not for taday but tomorrow. this would give time to sort out any problems with the FA

Why is this not being done already? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 14:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I like that! If an article is featured, it should be of equal status to those others that are featured, so there should be no reason for choosing the best article to put on the MP. (And P.S., your signature is huge!) _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  14:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

But often times, the FA relates to something going on in the world. For instance, the world cup article from the previous year is usually on the main page the day that the current year's competition starts... things of that nature. I don't think it should be COMPLETELY transparent. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 14:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As if the reviewers actually try to get it to match real-world events! I've tried at least twice to get them to do that and all they said was that other people in the world may not celebrate/recognize that event/holiday. If the only reason not to automate it is to be able to choose articles that are current events and that's not being done, then we might as well just automate it. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  14:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not quite sure what you mean here. People reviewing articles shouldn't support an article to FA just because a real world event is coming up. However Raul does sometime select FAs to match real world event when users request it (I believe the FA page says he may choose it to match a specific date if requested). Like the Cricket World Cup article (or some cricket article anyway) on the day of the opening ceremony and I believe we had some football article on the day of the opening of the world cup. Indeed projects coordinate to get article to FA in time for events, I believe this occured with cricket. Of course, there has to be some balance. I don't think anyone would support the idea of having a cricket article for every day of the world cup even if we manage to get that many FAs. Nil Einne 15:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not? As it stands it is completely opaque anyway, I mean whatever is picked by one guy is what it is and that's it. There is no significant input from anyone that makes any difference. It is very unusual to have a relevant featured article, and anyway that is for "in the news" and so on. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 15:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I would respectfully suggest that those who suggest this will do away with all those bias claims are missing the point. One of the key reasons why we get so many 'bias' claims is because wikipedia does have a systematic bias. There are several reasons for this. But one of the net effects is that if we just choose article randomly, this systematic bias would be clearly present in the FAs on the main page. However as we are IMHO always likely to have a growing backlog of articles that have not been featured, we have the luxury of being more selective with the articles that are featured on the main page. We can therefore reduce (not eliminate) the visibility and effect of the systematic bias in the articles that are featured on the main page by being more likely to feature on the main page articles on more obscure topics. While this does have the net effect of penalising articles on more popular topics which may seem unfair to editors of said article, many would argue it's better if it helps us reduce our systematic bias. I have no idea for sure if Raul does this, but I expect he does try to achieve a balance and therefore probably does do this Nil Einne 15:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You cannot have a purely random selection process simply because there are topics that have so many featured articles (compare the number of hurricane articles on Wikipedia:Featured articles#Geology, geophysics, and meteorology versus the number of articles about states of the United States on Wikipedia:Featured articles#Geography and places). Having a truly random selection function would just make Wikipedia's internal systemic biases become more apparent. Raul overall has done a good job in trying to balance out geographica distribution of articles (you don't have two consecutive articles about similar regions), topical distribution of articles, and current relevance. Besides, I don't think that the process is actually broken, so why fix it? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 16:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If Raul is choosing articles for this kind of reason then that is a disaster. There is no transparency here, no colloboration and this oges agianst everything wikipedia stands for. The current situation is not good. Having a daily vote would also not work. Random is the only way to go. How can I get a list of all the featured articles? If I had that I could formulate a formal proposal. That objectiion could be easily remedied by filtering some subjects that are far too prominent before they go into the list. This should be viewed as a good thing because much like the "random article" feature it is a good way to get a sence of the actual quality of wikipedia and will only spur people on to greater efforts. There are many simpe ways that the geographic bias could be solved by a simple rule - eg: if the randomly selscted article is on the same topic as one picked within the past month, you "roll the dice" again. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you have seen the existing structures to request articles at WP:TFA, but there is a significant degree of collaboration. Not everything in Wikipedia can be done by everyone at the same time, as you point out above, and I do not believe having a random featured article (such as occurs on Wikipedia:Featured content) is either appropriate or smart. Choosing which article goes on the Main Page is minor, when you consider that he also decides which articles receive FA status, and was ratified to do so. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have seen that, but in the end this wikipedia process is entirely within the mind of one user. HE is a very good user, but that is not the point. Chosing what aritlce goes on the main page in the FA box is the most significant deicision that occurs here eacch day considering how this page gets 5% of all wikiepdia's traffic, and needs to be transparent. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 17:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Also having a look at your link, I am not convinced that there is any systematic bias in the content of FAs - there are more on history, but how many should there be? That is a value juegement - and not one that we can trust to one user out of a pool of millions, who dosent provide us with any rationale or justification. Again, I think he does fine fine work, but it is the principle at stake here. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I just can't agree that anything is so wrong as things are. The system works. I'm not convinced that we should change just because "it isn't right". If problems exist, fix them, but if in ain't broke, don't fix it.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't take this the wrong way but if you don't believe there is a systematic bias in our crop of FA (as there is a systematic bias in our crop of articles), you haven't been looking hard enough. The Indian bias thing came up recently. But India does have 1 billion people. But what about China? China has a larger population than India. How many FA's are there on China? What about the continent of Africa with it's 900 million people? Heck take a look at the warfare and politics categories. How many things there do you see that aren't something that involves/d the 'west'? Then of course if you compare the number of FAs on computers and pop culture with our science related stuff (especially if you don't consider the hurricane and the like articles) surely you see a systematic bias there as well (although I admit biology and medicine is higher then I had expected). As I've already mentioned, systematic bias is prevalent in wikipedia. This isn't surprising or a disaster in itself but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to redress it. One key thing to remember is that TFA is not just about motivating editors. This should only be a secondary concern. TFA's primary goal should be to make wikipedia an inviting and informative place for all readers and highligting our collective work. By reducing the systematic bias, we can help to achieve this. Also, this just occured to me after reading what Raul said but remember one key thing. For more obscure topics, it's more likely that only a few or maybe even only one editor has done most of the work. For more common topics, it's more likely to be a larger colloboration. What this means is these editors are more likely to see an article they've worked on appear TFA. If we give equal opportunity to the obscure topic, this means the editor who worked on this is in fact far less likely to see an article he or she worked on appear as TFA. It seems to me this is much more likely to demotivate an editor. P.S. By obscure I don't mean the topic isn't interesting itself. I mean the topic isn't something which attracts a lot of editors. Nil Einne 12:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I too am not saying that anything is awful, just that it could be improved, for all the reasons set out above. It would be more transparent, more motivational, simpler and less time consuming. Setting up the system would take someone about an hour and last for ever. We just need (a) an irrational number (b) a list of all FAs, updated (c) a short set of rules. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 17:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And what of the specific date requests? Running an article about a person on their birthday, for example. That's a loss that this change would cause, and it should be acknowledged. Honestly, I just don't see a compelling reason to change a functional system.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. One of few rules could be that people could call for an "override", perhaps a maximum of one a week, (which is far far more than we have now) and if a lot of people (say 20) supported the idea then it could go ahead. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 17:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul is just a volunteer scheduler. He has been doing a fine job. Leave him alone. That "wikipedia is communism" bit was an inside joke. If you don't get it, never mind. --199.71.174.100 19:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that he is doing a fine job. I get the inside joke, but the point is sereious. Look, if he is just a volunteer - I tell you what, I will voluteer and do it the random way. That one person makese the most important decision on wikipedia each day - every day - undermines the principle that wikipedia is founded on. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 00:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is this "the most important decision on wikipedia each day - every day"? Please explain. It's just a schedule of FAs that survive FAR. Are we making an issue out of nothing? Does David simply want Raul's job/volunteer position? --74.14.18.56 14:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been keeping up, but do you have a proposal ready, or are we still in the "convincing others that this is actually a good thing" phase? Contact me if/when you actually decide to carry this through. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  02:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Since its clear this is a serious proposal, I'd suggest it be taken to Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article, since its really only about that element in particular, than the main page in general.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Holy smokes - we just finished rejecting one half-baked proposal to radically change how the FA selection process works and before the ink is even dry on the reject tag another one comes along. This is a non-starter for the same reason the last one was, and the one before that, 'etc. Thanks for your thoughts, but we'll keep the system the way it is. Raul654 03:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just read that rejected proposal, and I think the thing people were not realising was that the pool of FAs available for the Main Page is kept in check by FAR. I'm not entirely clear, but I think FAR does sometimes demote an FA before it has been on the main page. Kind of like a check-and-balance system and overturning the initial promotion. Or does FAR only review "older" FAs or those that have already been on the Main Page? Carcharoth 11:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I too have read through that proposal, and it has nothing to do with this. Raul, you think this is a half-baked proposal - but I don't see why. This proposal is simply to chose the article from the pool of avaliable articles. We simply need to create a list of all FAs that have not been featured, and maintain that list. Which you do do anyway, presumably. Then we take a irrational number and move along it every day to get the FA for the day 24 hours in advance to allow any needed clean-up. There is the possiblity for an occasional override if there is strong support and the possiblity of skiping an article if by chance it is very similar to a recent one. How is that half-baked? Is it worse that the current situtaion where one person acts as the effective "editor in cheif" (picking the main story every day)? Do you think that the way it is not is really good enough? Or that this would not be much fairer and more transparent? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 13:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok I know I'm as guilty of this as you but since you are clearly serious about wanting to continue this proposal, why don't you take it to TFA as suggested? Nil Einne 13:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Or Wikipedia:Today's featured article/amendment proposal. --74.14.18.56 15:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Thanks for your thoughts, but we'll keep the system the way it is." That's easy for you to say when you're the one in charge, Raul. I don't understand why you don't see the need for randomization. You think that one person with all the power is the right course for Wikipedia's main page articles? _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  01:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the nature of randomness and the systemic bias of Wikipedia, I predict that any random system for picking FAs would last until a cluster appeared. Once there are several days in a row of anime or American military-related articles, there would be an demand for some sort of director to organize the TFAs. Besides, having Rosa Parks up on the anniversary of her stand (or sitting) was a Good Thing. The human touch is also apparent in having "I Want to Hold Your Hand" for Valentine's Day 2006 and Night of the Living Dead on Halloween 2006. One could say that we could have a random process, but with some sort of organizer or organizing committee for trying to match the available FAs to related special dates. But let's just skip the whole "get rid of the Featured Article director until we realize we need a FA director" step and keep the FA director that we've got. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BanyanTree (talk • contribs) 21:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Spiffy new way of choosing the TFA

I have designed a new policy for choosing the TFA in a way that will make everyone happy and solve a lot of problems. Please add to the debate at Wikipedia:SweeTFA proposition! David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 22:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I still fail to see why we need to change the way it is chosen. Has Raul654 done anything wrong? PS: your sig takes up almost 8 lines of text!. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. ffm ✎talk 15:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:SweeTFA proposition. --74.13.128.153 15:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Displaying the ToC first.

Is it possible for us to get the ToC first thing on this page, above the error reports? It'd make navigation much easier. DoomsDay349 20:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Why not? Done. --199.71.174.100 20:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Awesomeness. DoomsDay349 02:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where did main page go?

Where theF** did the main page go just now? it's completely dissapeared.Witty lama 15:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it looked like it was deleted. --Bryson 15:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I checked the deletion log, it had been deleted.... weird. SGGH 15:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Is back now though, with no evidence in the history of having gone anywhere.... SGGH 15:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

see? SGGH 15:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

so User:Michaelas10 deleted it. Do we know why? Witty lama 15:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it was just an accident, an unfortunateone though! lol SGGH 15:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe he apologised.[1] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

But he deleted content from his talk page.--Bryson 15:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

But then proceeded to delete the discussion on his talk page twice! Witty lama 15:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Newbie admin, still learning his tools. Cut him some slack. He was perfectly entitled to remove the hysterics on his talk page.--cj | talk 15:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

But other users are not allowed to do that.--Bryson 15:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

They can, actually.--cj | talk 15:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Many people have told me you can't please explain.--Bryson 15:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

DUMP.--Bryson 16:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:User page. Basically you are allowed but discouraged to remove legitimate warnings and such from your talk page. Archiving is preferable if the stuff is appropriate. Deleting vandalism, personal attacks, clearly underserved warnings etc is usually non controversial. Nil Einne 12:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's fine I think, I'm a newbie admin myself and I know it can be easy to mess up (I myself didnt protect a page because the tag was still on the article and thought it was still protected!) so I agree, cut him some slack he'll know he shouldn't delete things normally. SGGH 15:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

/me remembers one of his favorite goofs ... [2] AmiDaniel (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it's all fine, not sure why he deleted all the commnets on his talk page though, it's not like anyone was getting angry we were all just... so curious :D SGGH 15:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The particularly amusing thing for me is that I was looking at an old revision via BJAODN and came across the page unprotected after its restoration (don't worry, it's protected now). I was going to do a null edit just to see if it really was unprotected but someone noticed and protected it before I could save. (I was unaware of the deletion.) So a perfect example of comic timing (from my point of view). --ais523 15:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I managed to get one vandal revert in before the reprotection :) —Dark•Shikari^[T] 15:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Lucky you. I'm so jealous :) Gracenotes^T § 17:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Let's do this again this coming Sunday!!!!! (Just kidding.) --74.14.18.56 15:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Let us not make a mountain out of a molehill. No animals were harmed in the making of this encyclopedia. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have to say that the vandal was bloody quick. The Main Page is unprotected for a short amount of time, and somebody comes along to vandalize it. If only that anonymous user was as efficient with constructive editing as they seem to be with vandalizing. :) Acalamari 17:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

At least (s)he wasn't a penis image vandal. --Ixfd64 20:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Is cascading on? The logs don't say so. Daniel Bryant 22:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• The logs say it is set. The edit history doesn't show it for some reason. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Cascading in edit summary. --- RockMFR 03:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interaction

I noticed the navigation bar on the left has changd a few times recently and now says 'interaction'. I don't really like that. Where is this discussion? Reywas92^Talk 21:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign —METS501 (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That was fast!! Reywas92^Talk 21:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boxed links on T:MP

Could someone make a box that would provide links to the errors section and the discussion section, so that users not familiar with WP's ToC system can still know where to post errors, now that the ToC is the first (and only, on many screens) thing that they see when they go to this page. Thanks in advance! ffm ✎talk 22:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean we cannot revert back to using Template:Main Page discussion header again? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Or at least a modified version of it? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There would just be two or three links, and their target would already be places on this page. ffm ✎talk 11:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol this is going to go full circle soon isn't it? --Monotonehell 01:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Hacked?

Was wikipedia hacked today, I looked at the site at work and the main page was blank and had red text. Anyone else see this? or know what the heck happened??--History Fan 01:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a look four sections up. (In short, a new admin made an accident.) ShadowHalo 01:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Error in the news section

In the news section for March 26, 2007, it says that Bob Woolmer is being pictured when what is actually being pictured is the symbol of the Quebec Liberal Party. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.45.139.82 (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Suggestion: a "recently featured" for POTD

I'm hoping this is the right place to put it, I couldn't find anything telling me where suggestions go. The last three featured articles are listed, what about having the same for pictures? I'm thinking a simple "Recently Featured:" with small (80 or so pixels) thumbnails of the last three pictures below the description paragraph of the current picture. A Boojum Snark 03:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, though I don't think thumbnails should be used as most pictures would lose all meaning at 80x80. You could suggest it at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of what the archive is for. howcheng {chat} 06:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That would apply to TFA too. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish proposal thing?

There is a link on the top of the main page to some kind of proposal involving the Wikimedia foundation. It is all in Spanish, so I can't read a word of it. Is it something I should be concerned about?--Danaman5 05:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, not there anymore...--Danaman5 05:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It is fixed now (log).--Commander Keane 05:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Or even better, the diff. It translates to "Learn about the new licensing resolution by the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, valid since March 23, 2007." Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Choice of ITN

Hi. Can anyone tell me why a provincial election makes ITN? --Oreo Priest 14:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess because it's not just any ordinary provincial election but "resulting in a minority government for the first time in 129 years.". Nil Einne 14:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, this is best discussed at Template talk:In the news where there has already been some discussion Nil Einne 15:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It was a very unusual election; a first-past-the-post election that gave near-proportional results, a minority government for the first time (the "minority" government 129 years ago wasn't really a minority, but it was a strange situation), a very close three-way election. I would not have nominated for ITN, and I wouldn't be upset if it were removed, but it's fine for now. —Cuiviénen 22:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Pls see Template talk:In the news#Quebec newsworthy. --199.71.174.100 23:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kewl Picture

I know this is off the topic, and i know that this is not the place to discuss this, and i know this is the point of "picture of the day," but I would just like to say that today's picture looks REALLY BLEEDIN COOL! Goldfritter 17:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completly that today's POTD is very cool (Link added so this makes sense in the archives.) ffm ✎talk 19:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But you just try the craters all those underground tests have caused (where the hole underground vaporised by the blast has collapsed in), the preparation for a new test, some more craters a little on the big side or the fact that they used to detonate these things within six miles of humans, on the surface, as recently as 1951! The entire Nevada Test Site article makes very interesting reading. While you're there, check out the Chernobyl disaster (just like the top blowing off Mt St Helens, and the striking image of the nuclear fuel that turned into lava) and Three Mile Island accident. List of civilian nuclear accidents makes pretty interesting reading, too. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 20:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok I know this is un related to science, but don't you think there are more than one cool pictures on Main Page today?:)--Scheibenzahl 20:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] need help

Hi, im new here and I want to know how you correct vandalism.Could you like help.And how do you become an administrator? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TaylorLTD (talk • contribs) 21:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Please see Wikipedia: Help desk, Wikipedia: Vandalism & Wikipedia: Administrators. --199.71.174.100 22:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change of policy/guidelines to dissallow fair use images on the main page

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Fair use exemptions#Removing exception in policy for .22Main Page.22 about dissallowing fair use images in the "Today's featured article" section. For example, if Superman were featured, an image of Superman would not be allowed. - Peregrine Fisher 05:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly why it's a ridiculous idea. 81.77.73.180 13:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like to discuss the issue, please discuss it there. ShadowHalo 14:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

i agree Radarnovel 16:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Piped link

Why is the word "livable" piped linked to "quality of life"? "Livable" already redirects there, so it should just be a regular link. See Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. --JianLi 07:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I have to say we need more links to that section or something; nearly every TFA ends up having that same issue. ShadowHalo 11:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Are we really supposed to 'fix' needlessly piped redirects? My reading of the policy is that you aren't supposed to fix unpiped redirects not that you are supposed to fix needlessly piped redirects Nil Einne 13:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If we're presenting the blurb as representative of our best work, then it shouldn't go against guidelines in any way. That's a good point, though, and I'll bring it up at the talk page. ShadowHalo 13:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)