Talk:Main Page/Archive 87

Archive 80

←

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

Proposal

Why don't we just keep the "this donation will by matched by Virgin Unite" text but remove the logo? I think this is a reasonable compromise between most parties. 66.108.66.125 21:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The agreement involved using the logo. --Cherry blossom tree 22:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Did it? I didn't see that tidbit in the FAQ. Where was that mentioned? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 22:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It seemed implicit to be based on this. Dar-Ape 23:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I read it stated somewhere amidst all the discussion that's gone on about it. Possibly by Danny but maybe not. The implication was that we made the offer, rather than virgin, and that the offer involved using the logo. I can't find it again, so I'd check with someone higher up if it's important to you. --Cherry blossom tree 23:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 23:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, Danny did say this on IRC. Why, however, should such an offer be made to provide a logo? If the logo or similar was necessary in order to secure the donation, then that is exactly a paid advertisement. The FAQ is not compelling: many advertisements are for establishing brand recognition; an advertisement does not need to be a car salesman hawking goods to be an advertisement. —Centrx→talk • 02:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That section indeed has enough ambiguity under it to drive an aircraft carrier, unnoticed. It does not say that the logo (nor the company mention) is required for that agreement. Where is the public record of the board's internal vote on all this? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 23:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please do not consider this issue closed, now that the logo is finally gone from the advertising banner. If this problem is ignored, there will be a larger, more offensive one tomorrow. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 00:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Last thing we want to see is Google ads in lieu of a matching donations (Uncyclopedia looks real cool with the google ads though)--Vikas Kumar Ojha _{Talk to me!} 07:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Owned?

Somebody just messed up the links on the donation header. Just thought I would point that out, if anybody hasn't noticed. PTO 01:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a temporary breakage of all interwiki links, and the issue has been fixed. Thanks for pointing it out, though! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Lol, nice section heading. "Owned?". Nishkid64 02:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hrmz yes, but it is traditional to spell it with a P. ;) --Monotonehell 10:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

On This Day ... An Error

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/December 29 (Should have been on WP:ERRORS first.) --10:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Gerald Ford

Gerald Ford should not be on ITN. He was an old man who died of natural causes. He was not in office at the time of his death, he didn't die unexpectedly, and his death hasn't had any large impacts on current events. Therefore it does not meet any of the ITN criteria, stated here. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 12:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

See above #Gerald Ford's death on In The News. --PFHLai 12:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

And also Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates#27 December. --PFHLai 12:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

They only say that there is a guideline which is in discussion which would allow this inclusion. I am not against the guideline, but if it hasn't reached concensus, it shouldn't be used. Also, the state funeral doesn't constitute (c), as it is just a state funeral. What articles, excluding Gerald Ford, has been changed because of his death? --liquidGhoul 12:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

IMO, the state funeral is a current event, so it passes (c). The Gerald Ford page was indeed updated. (a requirement for ITN) Other pages changed because of this death ? Well, Death and state funeral of Gerald Ford (a new page, though some people want that merged back into Ford's page) and list of oldest presidents, etc. (not a requirement for ITN) ... I'd rather not change that line on ITN when discussion on changing the ITN inclusion criteria is still on-going. Please be encouraged to join the discussion. (Furthermore, edit-wars should never take place, and I don't want to somehow start one on MainPage.) -- PFHLai 14:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

But we can't put up the death of every old person who has done something in their life. I seriously doubt that the death of an old Australian Prime Minister would ever get on ITN, even if there was a state funeral. Secondly, if the "story" is about the funeral and death of Ford, then that should be bolded, not Ford. We shouldn't be placing a (rightfully) controversial article on the main page. And we should be basing our choice of ITN on the current guidelines and policies. There will always be discussion about guidelines, and the content of the discussion should not influence the content of the encyclopaedia until it has reached concensus. You should not be arguing any point on the basis of a guideline under discussion.

If "the death of an old Australian Prime Minister" were to have significant international impact, it would qualify for ITN inclusion (assuming that the other criteria—most importantly the article update—were met). Also, I advocate expanding the ITN criteria to cover all former heads of state/government. —David Levy 16:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

How could this possibly pass criteion (c) in the guidelines? His death has not had any "international impact". A state funeral does not constitute an international incident, it says in the name: "state". If the loophole to pass (c) is to create an article about the death, then it is a very weak loophole.

Quoth the Death and state funeral of Gerald Ford article:

"Some foreign leaders who paid tribute included Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Czech President Vaclav Klaus, and German President Horst Köhler. In Great Britain, the Union Jack at Buckingham Palace was flown at half-staff. "

Please explain how that fails to qualify as "international impact." —David Levy 16:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That's people paying tribute. You get that when anyone dies. Gerald Ford's death hasn't had any international impact at all - the world is just the same as it was. --Cherry blossom tree 17:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"International impact" != "dramatic effect on people's day-to-day lives." It means "impact occurring in more than one nation." When notable dignitaries from various countries (having canceled previous plans) travel to the U.S. for Ford's funeral, that will be further international impact. —David Levy 20:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You are using an extremely broad definition of international impact, which would include the deaths of even moderately famous people. This is not the definition that has been applied to other deaths previously appearing (or not) on the news template. --Cherry blossom tree 22:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Do the deaths of "moderately famous people" prompt public responses from numerous world leaders? —David Levy 06:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You are limiting international impact to public responses from world leaders? It's a defensible standard, I suppose, if one likely to favour politicians and statesmen. I don't see how it logically derives from 'international impact', though. --Cherry blossom tree 12:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm merely citing an example of major international impact. —David Levy 18:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You see, I would never even consider that it constituted major international impact. I think we're just working from such different definitions of the term that further discussion won't really get us anywhere - we'd still be having the same disagreement next week. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 19:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it's perfectly understandable for reasonable people to disagree on this issue. My point is that is that no one is attempting to impose a double standard by applying a special definition to Ford's death. —David Levy 23:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe that Margaret Thatcher's death won't be listed? —David Levy 06:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't considered it. I suppose it would be consistent. How is that relevant to this issue, though? --Cherry blossom tree 12:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm noting that we aren't making a special exception for Ford because he was American. Thatcher's death is likely to result in comparable international impact (and presumably a substantial article update). —David Levy 18:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, fair enough. I wasn't at all implying that Ford's death was only on the main page because he was an American. I can see that people have genuine arguments in favour of it even if I'm not convinced by them. --Cherry blossom tree 19:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, I understand why some people disagree with the entry's inclusion, and I hope that we can reform the criteria to eliminate as much ambiguity as possible. —David Levy 23:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I also do not wish to have an edit war. That is why I have taken it up on the talk page. An exception is being made here, and I fear it is because he was an American president. --liquidGhoul 15:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It was indeed a weak pass of (c), but I don't see that as a loophole. And the link to Death and state funeral of Gerald Ford was indeed bolded for a while.... --PFHLai 15:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly the kinds of arguments that have been occuring recently (Freidmann, Brown, Ford et al) that have brought us to the discussion that PFHLai mentioned above. LiquidGhoul: have a look at the three near identical debates on that page that occured recently, then have a look at the guidline change proposals. The reason the change is sort is because of the disatisfaction with the current guidelines and how they are being interpreted differently by different editors. The objections you've stated above have already been stated by others. --Monotonehell 15:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The discussions at Talk:ITN really heated up since the death of James Brown. Please join the discussion there, LiquidGhoul, if you've more to add. --PFHLai 16:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is interesting, as we've had one of each now; a statesman, an entertainer and an academic. Each hotly debated as to their worthyness of inclusion. ITN ain't working like people want it. Also, wish my mouse mat would stop curling... --Monotonehell 16:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you know how frustrating it is to deal with allegations of American bias every time an entry pertaining to the U.S. is added?

We just excluded the death of American musician James Brown (which was reported on the main pages of numerous languages' Wikipedias) because the criteria weren't met. Last month, we included the retirement of Australian swimmer Ian Thorpe. Did I hurl accusations of Australian bias? No.

No "exception" is being made for Ford; the criteria are met. For the record, I'm a stickler for the ITN rules and a member of the Democratic Party (the primary opposition to Ford's Republican Party). —David Levy 16:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Have any overseas leader travelled to the US for the funeral? All I can find on the subject is statements from the leaders of many countries. This is to be expected, it takes them a few minutes, sitting in their office, to write a press statement. Considering he was a very influencial politician, you expect politicians to respond. Just the same as when Donald Bradman died, many sportsmen responded. --liquidGhoul 04:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to likely future occurrences (based upon history) that have no bearing on the international effects thus far. —David Levy 06:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So why not include it once the funeral has taken place, and make the ITN about the funeral, not the death. You are making a prediction, and that isn't our job. His death is not exceptional. Press releases from politicians should be expected for any political death. --liquidGhoul 12:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

1. You seem to have overlooked the words "no bearing." I'm telling you that the statement in question was a mere aside (not an attempt to justify the ITN entry).

2. Are you seriously suggesting that Ford's funeral is more important than his death?

3. I'm not arguing that Ford's death was exceptionally notable compared to the deaths of other world leaders. I'm arguing that the deaths of world leaders are exceptionally notable. —David Levy 18:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a major distinction between an event that prompts public responses from sportsmen and an event that prompts public responses from world leaders. —David Levy 06:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is. Yes, they are world leaders, and yes, they are more important than sportsman. But what is newsworthy of an expected statement from the politicians of the world. Somebody refusing to give a statement would be newsworthy, or someone saying: "he deserved it" would definitely be newsworthy, but people condoling his wife and family is not. --liquidGhoul 12:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You've completely missed the point. The world leaders' comments (and Union Jack at Buckingham Palace being flown at half-staff) aren't particularly newsworthy in and of themselves. They're collectively indicative of the fact that Ford's death is newsworthy. These events are to be expected in this situation, but they don't occur in just any situation. —David Levy 18:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not insinuating a US bias, but Americans seem to have this fascination with their leaders. Personally, I would prefer James Brown's death over Ford's in ITN, as it has had a lot of airtime on Australian news, whereas Ford has had practically none. Also, a lot more people know who James Brown is over Gerald Ford. --liquidGhoul 04:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

1. You wrote the following: "An exception is being made here, and I fear it is because he was an American president." That certainly seems like an insinuation of American bias.

2. The James Brown article wasn't sufficiently updated as of the time of consideration.

3. Do you believe that the retirement of a swimmer was more notable than the death of a former world leader? (Note that I haven't accused Australians of having a "fascination" with their athletes.) —David Levy 06:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

(rem. indent) The retirement of the best swimmer of all time, at the age of 24, is pretty news worthy. It also meets the guidelines, as it was unexpected.

There is no doubt in my mind that an exception is being made. I can not come up with any other reason for this than America's fascination with their leaders.

The excuses to keep him on were a future guideline and press releases from politicians. How can press releases be "major international impacts"? I don't care about the new guideline, and will probably not participate in the discussion. However, I have a strong objection to implementing guidelines still under discussion. --liquidGhoul 12:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Pointing you toward the discussion was not put forward as a reason to keep the item in ITN, but as a sidenote that may interest you. The reason the guideline change is under consideration is due to editors like yourself and others arguing that the current guidelines allow XYZ while others argue that the same guidelines disallow XYZ. The point is that the current guidlines are too subjective and they need to be reconsidered. If you'd read the discussions we've pointed you to you'd realise that everything you are saying has already been said, multiple times. You're not being ignored because we disagree with you, you're being ignored because we've had this discussion already and have moved on to an attempt at solving the big picture problem. --Monotonehell 14:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou. I still think it is bullshit, as under the current guidelines, it still doesn't qualify "major international impact", but it should be gone soon and you are at least trying to remove the subjectiveness of that guideline. Have fun with the discussion. --liquidGhoul 14:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems like there's always complaining when an article is highlighted from people with no interest in the subject, because they expect Wikipedia to revolve around themselves. Ian Thorpe had little world impact compared to Gerald Ford. I'm surprised you're even trying to support an argument for Ian Thorpe's ITN entry over Ford's. I don't care for Thorpe or Ford, and actually dislike them both; but, I understand that other people do care, which is something that you should try understanding also. You're gonna be seeing a lot more America related items, especially involving US presidents, due to it being the only current superpower and also being the largest English speaking country in population. That's world impact on English Wikipedia -- world bias, not Wikipedia bias. falsedef 17:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

1. You evidently haven't read the guidelines very carefully, as the "unexpected" wording applies specifically to people's deaths.

2. Please back your claim that "an exception is being made" by citing instances in which former heads of government died (prompting responses from numerous world leaders) and articles were substantially updated to reflect the deaths, submitted for ITN inclusion, and not listed.

3. Has it occurred to you that perhaps you're allowing bias to cloud your judgement? Gerald Ford held a nation's highest office. Do you honestly believe that being the "best swimmer of all time" is more important? Do you honestly believe that Ian Thorpe is more internationally known than Gerald Ford was? Was Michael Jordan's retirement more newsworthy than William McMahon's death was? —David Levy 18:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

David, I suspect that liquidGhoul is Australian (as I am) and so your point 3 is totally moot. YES from an average Australian perspective a sporting hero is MANY TIMES more important than a previous Prime Minister. Most people would not be able to name the previous PM, let alone one from the early 70s, but they still worship a cricketer from the 1930s. The current PM pretends to be an avid sports fan and tries to hang on the coat tails of any sporting hero. We don't have the big team sports attitude to politics that you guys in the US do.

Besides Ian Thorpe is much better looking than John Howard ;) --Monotonehell 18:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem arises when people evaluate ITN's content from an "Australian perspective" (or an American perspective, British perspective, Canadian perspective, German perspective, et cetera). The section, like all of Wikipedia's encyclopedic content, is written for a worldwide audience. I'm not questioning Ian Thorpe's immense popularity, but even a top athlete lacks the international importance of a head of government.

Note that I'm not addressing the issue of whether Thorpe's retirement qualified for ITN inclusion. (I wouldn't think so, but I acknowledge the fact that my perspective is skewed.) I'm addressing the claim by LiquidGhoul (whose nationality I was aware of when I cited the Thorpe entry) that Thorpe's retirement is more newsworthy than Ford's death. —David Levy 23:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't expect the death of any old Australian Prime Minister to make it onto ITN, just the same as I don't expect any old cricketer's death to make it. Just so you know, I am more interested in politics than I am in sport, but the importance being placed on this guy, who was retired and doing nothing important, is ridiculous. I believe that their is more international interest in the retirement of Thorpe than there is in the death of an old US president. The normal reaction over here was: "Oh, the guy from The Simpsons?" Again, there is no major international impact from this death, just press statements from people in the same business. --liquidGhoul 08:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree regarding what constitutes "major international impact." I am, however, troubled by your apparent beliefs that:

A. A retired head of government is no more important than a retired cricketer.

B. The fact that someone's major accomplishments occurred decades ago means that said accomplishments are irrelevant.

C. The opinions of Australians (as your perceive them) are representative of those held worldwide.

Incidentally, Two Bad Neighbors is one of my favorite episodes of The Simpsons. —David Levy 17:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The pentultimate!!1-11 solution to vandalism

Not really. But now that I have your attention.

Recent vandal attacks on the main page where an 'interesting' picture has been snuck in via unprotected subparts of the main page have been annoying at the least. Yes it's true. It was one or two lapses of concentration by admins who forgot to protect something that they placed on the front page templates. Admins are human, they do make mistakes. Everyone has been poked and reminded. I'm not saying that it won't happen again, but everything that should be done has. So leave them alone.

However.

What should happen when such a vandal attacks? Within minutes someone with admin ability spots it, quietly reverts it and covers the cracks that the vandal oozed in via. The vandal is blocked, defeated and deflated, they move on.

What does happen when such a vandal attacks? Everyone, their dog, cat, hamster and rabbits swamp this talk page with "OMG!11!! I'M OFFENDED!! ARGH! ARGH! MY EYES WTF!" style messages of outrage and indignation. The vandal says "HAR HAR PWND! I EMS TEH 1337", posts several taunting messages about how good they are and revels in the afterglow of their nuclear attack.

Eventually, within minutes someone with admin ability spots it, reverts it and covers the cracks that the vandal oozed in via. The vandal is blocked and moves on with a self-satified smug smile and sticky underpants.

People. If you get all up in arms about it, you're feeding the vandal's ego. Just let it pass. It will be reverted within minutes.

This has been a public service announcement on behalf of a (mostly)sane but (slightly) inebriated Monotonehell 16:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you get 40 more points if you take the Are You a Wikipediholic Test right now. (When you use Wikipedia, no. 10) - BanyanTree 17:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The answer to that question is, Yes. I only edit when drunk. What, you think I spell this bad sober? ... 1051 questions? I think not... short and automated hey.. okay... --Monotonehell 17:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The vandal is blocked, defeated and deflated, they move on.

The five (six?) attacks on the Main Page this month, as well as dozens of attacks on the Featured Article of the Day, are similar enough to make it very probable, in my opinion, that this is the same person; someone who clearly has a technical knowledge of Wikipedia, a large amount of spare time and an immature desire to cause as much damage as possible; someone who is prepared to spend longer searching for gaps in our image and template protection than the administrators themselves. Something tells me that simply not talking about this person isn't going to make them go away – Gurch 21:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Read my post again, please. --Monotonehell 08:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't think I've ever seen this vandal post such "taunting" messages. Certainly the times I dealt with them, they were too busy trying to vandalise as many times as possible before being blocked to post anything – Gurch 21:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That's because they are removed. --Monotonehell 08:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Good post Monotone. The whole idea of covertly adding penis pictures is to SHOCK. If no reaction is noted, the vandal will know that everybody is cool enough to handle his outrageous behaviour, and move on. Vranak 21:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

10 points that boy! --Monotonehell 08:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

the point is, if we could (but won't) build an adminbot that finds and fixes unprotected elements on the Main Page, so can the vandals (only in their case, not to fix but to exploit). This is probably just a perlscript watching all the templates for changes and pouncing on us as soon as something unprotected is added. This means, we need an adminbot to couter this, now. dab (𒁳) 08:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Shadowbot2 was doing something similar to that... Titoxd^(?!?) 08:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

alright -- now we just need to give that bot admin powers so it doesn't have to spam admins to do a perfectly trivial task manually. dab (𒁳) 08:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ProtectionBot. Dragons flight 11:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to help preventmain page vandalism

While looking through the upcoming selected anniversaries sections at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January, I noticed that a number of the daily pages for next month are currently unprotected. I'd like to suggest that all of the Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/date pages be permanently protected as they are automagically transcluded onto the main page and receive very few edits (For the pages for 1-7 Jan, I count a total of 7 content (as opposed to formatting) edits in the almost-year since those dates in 2006.)

IMO the unwikiness of this suggestion is outweighed by the fact that it is cutting off a potential avenue for major high profile vandalism if a daily page is missed (as happened on December 15 where the page was vandalised by User:Earthofsprit.) -- AJR | Talk 17:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a fair proposal, but may now be superceded. Largely prompted by the recent vandalism, Shadowbot2 was created to check Main Page templates for protected status, including those in Main Page/Tomorrow, and alert admins who sign up. It should also soon be able to check the text in Template:Did you know/Next update to warn of situations like that of the most recent vandalism. Thanks, BanyanTree 18:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I also added a massive great big warning notice to the templates that don't change daily (Template:In the news and Template:Did you know), which should help prevent such oversights as forgetting to protect images there (the other source of Main Page vandalism) from occuring in the first place. The bot should also catch this if it does happen – Gurch 21:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I posted a similar analysis at WP:AN#Follow-up_to_Vandalism_on_Main_Page. If that doesn't work, try this archive page. As said above, the bot should do the trick now. Does it really check images as well? Carcharoth 02:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't. Though there is another bot being proposed that would actually protect stuff (including images) itself – Gurch 23:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Automatic Search Input

I think that once the Wikipedia main page loads, the blinking text cursor should automatically be in the search box for quick input. This is like when you load Google. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Digitalapocalypse (talk • contribs) 00:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

But Wikipedia isn't a search engine. --Howard the Duck 01:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

But does that mean that we should discard useful modifications to Wikipedia simply because the most well-known instance appears on a search engine? Such a feature is hardly limited to search engines, and I think it would be a handy change. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but as far as I know, it wouldn't affect anything else. You'd still only have to click once on links, for example. --DonES 04:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It would. If you are looking at an article, giving focus to the search bar would automatically disable keyboard-based scrolling, which is going to make a lot of people unhappy. This has been brought up before, and if I recall correctly, our lead developer summarily dismissed the idea. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I forgot about that. In which case, it is a bad idea. --DonES 05:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I now also agree. Digitalapocalypse 15:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

When you load the Wikipedia first page (at www.wikipedia.org) the cursor is blinking in the Search box. Once you have chosen to click through to the Main Page of the English Wikipedia, it is not, because that would make it harder to navigate the page. If you are just visiting Wikipedia to look something specific up, aren't you more likely to be at wikipedia.org first than en.wikipedia.org? Skittle 15:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

About the proposed move

I can't see any real reason why it should be moved: this is a clear case of ignore all rules. It's equivalent to index.htm on most websites: and 'Main Page' describes what it is, after all, it is the site's main page.

I realize this may be a controversial viewpoint, but I'm expressing my opinion. Feel free to comment. --SunStar Net^talk 01:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

By the results of the move poll above, that's definitely not controversial. I (as the proposer of the move) still support Wikipedia:Main page, but I understand the viewpoints of others. —Mets501 (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion as much as I am. I still think moving it might be a bad idea.. --SunStar Net^talk 02:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't like Wikipedia:Main page but I find Wikipedia:Main Page or even Portal:Main Page acceptable. Somehow the normal page naming conventions don't seem to fit to me. --WikiSlasher 03:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedia:Main Page was the right choice, but now that it has been Main Page for so long, it is not be worth the effort to move it, since this page would pretty much be forced into a redirect for all the external sites linking here, it can't be used for its true meaning (synonym of Front Page). Prodego ^talk 04:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see why people assume we're going to have to redirect for ever. Perhaps for a year or two, but probably not forever. Sure there may still be one or two links to the old name out there but I doubt it'll be enough that we have to worry. (and we still don't even know how many people link to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_page as opposed to en.wikipedia.org). As far as I know, companies like Microsoft and the like don't spend hours worrying everytime they change the layout and index of their page (which isn't that uncommon) Nil Einne 17:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW have you tried going to http://www.microsoft.com/index.htm or http://www.microsoft.com/index.html. I'm pretty sure one of these were the Microsoft index/front page at one stage but shock & horror, they're no longer valid links. What about all the old external links goddamnit??? Nil Einne 17:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

While we're at it - check out where http://en.wikipedia.org/index.html gets you... --Monotonehell 18:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The index.htm thing was a metaphor. I agree with WikiSlasher's point above. Nil Einne's made some good points too. --SunStar Net^talk 02:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

US centrism

Hey, what happened? Right now the FA and the first four of the six DYKs are all on US topics. Not exactly reflecting the aims of an international encyclopaedia, surely? 81.152.169.19 02:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh c'mon...It's not like it's rigged. Today's FA is something that we can't really control since Raul654 randomly picks dates for FA's to appear on the Main Page. As for DYK's, well that's up to the editors who are providing the articles. By the way, only 1 item in OTD and ITN are US-related, so that's good. Nishkid64 02:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, I point you in the direction of DYK Rules and Regulations:

"Try to avoid country-centrism and topic-centrism. Wikipedia is a general-interest encyclopedia with a global audience. No DYK installment should have more than two entries relating to one country, topic, or issue, and no more than one is even better." 81.152.169.19 02:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That's just the ideal. In reality, I doubt it's possible to find separate DYK's that comply with those rules all the time. We try our best, but sometimes it doesn't happen. Nishkid64 02:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, there are only two DYKs specifically about the US. The Great Trail one is as much about Canada as the US and is really about pre-colonial Native Americans, anyway, and James Brown, while American, was a world-famous musician. —Cuiviénen 02:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

And now it's my turn to say 'Oh c,mon': there's masses of non-US topics on the suggestions page that could have been chosen. (And pre-colonial Native Americans aren't anything to do with the US? Where did they live then? Atlantis?) 81.152.169.19 02:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Native Americans, pre-colonial period, are not USians. You could call it "North American bias", but that's reaching. —Cuiviénen 04:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There might be an Iraq-related one anytime soon. Carcharoth 02:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right. From Saddam Hussein:

An adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saddam's death sentence would be executed before 0600 local time (2200 EST/0300 GMT) on December 30 - meaning about an hour before sunrise and the beginning of the feast of Eid al-Adha.

Vandalism will happen. It's inevitable unfortunately. --WikiSlasher 03:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey at least there's no Eurovision Song Contest-related links there (lol), although the current DYK is really U.S.-centric. --Howard the Duck 10:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You have to pick DYK's in a systematic order. To clear backlogs, we look at the oldest not-yet-picked items. If they happened to be all US-centric, then it happens. A lot of the other suggestions were struck down because of problems, so they are ineligible. By the way, look at the DYK now, and you'll see there's only 1 US-related topic on there (and it happens to be mine). Nishkid64 17:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Four on 1 day, but just 1 on the next ? Perhaps we could scramble them a little bit to avoid the appearance of a bias towards any country. But I agree with Nishkid that if it happens, it happens, there's no need to get worked up over it. DYK gets refreshed with a variety of new stuffs quite often these days. Feel your country is being slighted ? Start typing. Your contribution may get featured as a DYK in a few days. -- PFHLai 22:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

ZOMG BIAS!!!!

The Main Page is blatantly biased toward articles beginning with "G". I count SIX of them! That's far more than any other letter has. This is clearly evidence of a conspiracy by pro-letter-G administrators.

Seriously, stop it – Gurch 11:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

(The username of the user who said "stop it" starts with a letter "G".) --Howard the Duck 12:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, then I'm obviously part of the conspiracy, aren't I? Sssssh! – Gurch 13:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoever is responsible for this atrocity will be blocked indefinitely. Nishkid64 17:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for a good laugh there. Though of course I wouldn't be surprised to find some people pissed off at you for mocking their accusations of bias. DoomsDay349 18:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikivertisement

I have a product I'd like to see get "featured". For comparison, how much did Maraba Coffee pay for their ad? 71.62.51.172 03:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

They didn't pay a cent, because it isn't advertising. Articles are awarded "featured" status if they are of very high quality. For all we know, the Maraba people have no idea the article about their organization is on the main page. For more information on what an FA is, see Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. Picaroon 03:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I find somewhat unlikely that an obscure cooperative farming organization in Rwanda has any idea that their product is featured on Wikipedia today. Featured articles are chosen for their quality, and this article is among the most thorough, well-written and well-sourced even though the subject is (very) obscure. It would be somewhat depressing and unethical on a corporation's part to hire people to bring an article about them or one of their products to an extremely high standard, but articles are chosen for featured status based solely on the quality of the article, not the subject matter. —Cuiviénen 04:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I would think that in the unlikely event the corporation's contributions were NPOV, that would be a win-win situation and hardly unethical. ~~ N (t/c) 05:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's actually regarded as poor form by several noteable wikipedians for a cooperation to hire someone to write an article about them, even if said entity correctly identifies itself and writes a good NPOV article. Check out the User:MyWikiBiz for a case (which I myself just became aware of). On the other hand, while writing an article about yourself or your company is generally frowned upon, if you clearly identify and write a good article, it's unlikely to be deleted. Nil Einne 10:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

--Did you know... and Virgin Unite--

Wikipedia is seriously in trouble when the sponsor starts appearing on the "did you know" section, on the main page. --Ezadarque 14:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the article? It's certainly substantial enough to merit the mention. --Maxamegalon2000 19:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, I just knew this was going to happen the moment I saw the DYK there. Heck I was even thinking of pre-empting the complaints by making a post directing complaints to the sandbox but wouldn't have worked I guess... Nil Einne 09:18, 1 January 2007 (NZDT UTC+13)

Donation to get my article featured on the main page

I see that the coffee article got an FA status and was featured on the main page even though it's not very well written. What is the minimum donation amount to get my product advertised at Wikipedia? This is an ideal advertising medium, as millions of people visit this page daily. It's the first product placement for Wikipedia, but it doesn't have to be the last! --Gunsfornuns 17:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Simply: NO! NO! NEVER! I can see the article on Jesus making veiled references to products that every worshipper absolutely HAS to have. NO! PTO 19:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

To everybody who wants to get their product "featured" just to fill their bottomless pockets with cash, read this: WP:COI! PTO 19:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If you cover donations for a specific period, you could get your company's logo at the top of each and every Wikimedia page, the way the Virgin Group did. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-31t19:44z

If you read the top, it clearly says:

Do you think today's featured article is awful? See what you can do about it.

Also, if you actual read the article, you'd see the cooperative only made $35k in 2003. This is a lot of money for them I'm sure and I don't know what they made this year, but they'd probably have do pay their entire profit just to match what Virgin Unite is paying for matching donations. So clearly, if we we're going to allow features articles to be influenced by financial support, they would have to pay us a lot more. Ergo, there is no way in hell the cooperative could ever afford to pay for a featured article. Not to mention it's not particularly good method of advertising either. A fair trade cooperative should advertise in a more targetted manner... Nil Einne 09:16, 1 January 2007 (NZDT UTC+13)

Saddam Hussein - how much do I have to pay

I see that Saddam Hussein's execution is featured on the main page despite him not being a noteable person. I am going to be executed in a few days time. How much will I have to pay for my execution to be on the main page? Nil Einne 09:25, 1 January 2007 (NZDT UTC+13)

ETA bomb in Madrid Airport

Should this not be "in the news"?    Codu    talk    contribs    email   14:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

ITN is not a news ticker, so we will wait and see before actually deciding if this should be on ITN. By the way, can you cut down your signature? It's like 10 lines long. Nishkid64 14:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I updated ITN anyway. It fits the criteria: it's important and it has an updated encyclopedia article about the subject. —Mets501 (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

that was very quickly done, and painless. thanks to everyone involved.    Codu    talk    contribs    email   15:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. It says that there have been two people killed. Now, this has not yet been confirmed. There are two people missing (most likely dead I agree), but until they are found and their deaths confirmed I suggest changing kills two and injures 26 for 26 injured and two missing, or something like that. At least for now. Cheers Raystorm 16:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I reworded it. Hopefully, it's better now, and isn't misleading. Nishkid64 17:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice. :) Thanks Raystorm 17:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

2006 Bangkok Bombings

I've created an article, hopefully we could build it up till it can be added to ITN... Kaushik twin 17:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Please make use of WP:ITN/C. Thanks. --PFHLai 19:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected Image

In the did you know section Image:Alexexterior3.jpg is not protected. --Banana04131 19:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's unprotected as it leaves MainPage. Thank you for pointing this out. A new pic is now on DYK. --PFHLai 19:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

o sorry. --Banana04131 19:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's okay, Banana04131. There's no need to apologize. We could always use an extra pair of helpful eyes. In future, please consider reporting sth like this at WP:AN or WP:ERRORS for a quicker response. We don't want to tip off the vandals, eh? :-) --PFHLai 19:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy new CE

Since it's some kind of abitary milestone today and the talk page was very large, I've archived the whole thing to wipe the slate. If anyone was having an ongoing discussion that they want to continue they can cut it out of the archive and paste it back here. --Monotonehell 20:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Bit late, you should have done it 10 hours ago.. Nil Einne 10:02, 1 January 2007 (NZDT UTC+13)

Meh; call me politically incorrect but I'm using the AD calender till the day I die. DoomsDay349 21:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Just for no reason, should we poll whether the topic should be called "AD" or "CE"? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, does anyone know if it's true that Muslims are opposed to BC/AD as the CE article claims? I've never noticed much opposition to the terms in Malaysia, I suspect many people have never even heard of BCE/CE. Presumably the Gregorian calendar is of no religious concern to Muslims, the Islamic calendar is the ones that matters. The term BC is also not problematic as they acknowledge Christ as a prophet. AD is more problematic but I guess for many it's just a recognition that the Gregorian calendar is not the Islamic calendar. From what I've seen anyway, it appears to be primarily Jewish people that object to CE/BCE and Western secularists but there doesn't actually seem to be so much objection to the terms from Asians, Arabs and Africans who aren't Christians. (Indeed I wonder whether some Muslims consider BCE/CE 'Jewish' terms.) But my experience is somewhat limited. Nil Einne 10:37, 1 January 2007 (NZDT UTC+13)

Don't you mean 3 hours early (UTC)?  ;) --Monotonehell 21:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

In the news is a bit bias

== A a car bomb exploded Kufa in southern Iraq killing 30 and another bomb in a busy market of Baghdad kills another 36. Yet that doesn't make the news. Instead a car bomb exploding in Madrid, a western country, makes the news even though only 26 were killed. I understand that in the news in only for articles that we have...but maybe we should be making those articles. Pseudoanonymous 21:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC) ==:Hundreds of car bombs explode in Iraq every year. When one does, its not news, its generally considered the status quo. They're not nearly as common in Madrid, so when a bomb explodes there, its big news. This would be similar to the case of someone finding a big nugget of gold in a gold mine (not news) to someone finding the same nugget of gold in a totally new area (gold rush). — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 21:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

When was the last time a bomb exploded in Madrid? --Ineffable3000

See 2004 Madrid train bombings Raul654 01:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not true ([1]). User:Zoe|(talk) 21:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, articles go onto ITN when an article receives significant updates. Whenever a car bombing occurs in article, there problem is not a significant update to an article, since it's so commonplace. However, I would like to note that the bombings in Sadr City on November 23, 2006, did make it to ITN because of the new article – Sadr City bombings – that was created. -- tariqabjotu 01:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy new year

Happy new year Wikipedia! :-) —Mets501 (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What obvious bias using a Gregorian calendar! As a true Wikipedian, you are now obligated to wish us Happy New Year at least a dozen more times. Dragons flight 00:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Too true. HNY Simply south 00:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC) (Not sure on how order got mixed Simply south 00:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC) )

And don't forget timezones. It's been New Year in some places for 13 hours now; others won't see 2007 for a further 12 – Gurch 00:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That sould be 11, otherwise adds up to 25 hours. Simply south 00:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There are 25 time zones, excluding the half-hour time zones. The International Date Line, if it went straight north to south, would bisect a time zone, making 25 time zones. (The time zones are 0, +1 to +12, and -1 to -12.) —Cuiviénen 01:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Time zone bias! I live in one of those half hour timezones and I don't appreciate being excluded! ;) --Monotonehell 04:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually UTC+13 does exist, partially because of DST in NZ and so does UTC+14 (because one country decided they wanted to see the millenium first). Nil Einne 14:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

*cough* Chinese New Year's *cough* Vranak

*Aachteee* Norouz .... --64.229.226.252

Wikipedia uses UTC, so it is now 2007. --Kalmia 00:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

GEEK! :P JACOPLANE • 2007-01-1 00:38

Here's to world domination in 2007 by Nishkid and his Imperial Army in the new year! Btw, I created 4th article (Cecil F. White) of 2007. Nishkid64 01:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year using EST standard time!that_guy 05:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, you might wanna find some sources, otherwise that has some POV...Cameron Nedland 02:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

new year notice?

can we have a notice on the main page that wishes people happy new year?

New Year's Day is mentioned in Today's Anniversaries. It isn't the New Year everywhere, and, even if it was, Wikipedia's purpose is not to celebrate even secular holidays. —Cuiviénen 01:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Andrej Nadrah

Andrej Nadrah (born June 27, 1968) is Slovenian citizen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Si05400 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Any drive by admins want to SpeedyD (G1 A1?) this guy's contributions? --Monotonehell 10:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have put a speedy tag on the article. AxG ^(talk) _{(sign here)} 10:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

External Wiki indexes.

I think the main page is biased towards the Wikipedia and its sister projects only. It makes no reference to the other Wiki projects around the world (It may look like it but they are all sister projects). The Wikipedia talk about a neutral POV, but the main page points to internal links only. Even the second level pages do the same.

For the Wikipedia to loose its bias I think it need to address external wiki issue.

I just visited a great wiki called -- Removed spam Monotonehell 10:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC) -- that carries a list of all the Wiki's submitted sites. That could be one option. Its unbiased and lists anybody who cares to add a discovered wiki to the project.

The other option is to link to a wikipedia internal page that list indexes of external sites, like the one mentioned.

Personally I'm not biased one way or the other, but I do think it would make the main page a great place as a home page for knowledge. Right now it biased and lacks that universalness a really good porthole has. --155.143.214.10 10:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not a collection of external links or Internet directories That's Google and similar's job. The links to the sister projects are because they and Wikipedia are all under the same Wikimeta umbrella. Many marketers would love to get their promotions onto wikipedia simply because of the high google ranking. If we put one link on the main page, we'd have to let EVERYONE onto the main page, that would be bias. --Monotonehell 10:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You say, "It makes no reference to the other Wiki projects around the world (It may look like it but they are all sister projects)." This is not true. The term "sister" in this context – for example "sister project" or "sister publication" – has a particular meaning; it refers to a project (or publication, or whatever), operated, managed or administered by the same organization. So Wikipedia's "sister projects" comprise the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, all of which are listed at the bottom of the Main Page. Other wikis on the Internet are very definitely not sister projects, even if they look the same (this means they just happen to use the same wiki software – MediaWiki – which is open-source and can be used by anyone) – Gurch 11:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a link should be added to Wikia, though. They aren't technically affiliated with the Wikimedia foundation, but Jimbo Wales did found it, and I think he still oversees it. --Grand Slam 7 | Talk 01:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikia is a commercial, for-profit organization; the Wikimedia foundation is a non-profit organization. Linking to Wikia is a bad idea – it would be almost as bad as advertising – Gurch 15:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Unexplained Basque link

At the top of the "in other languages" bar, there's a link to eu:Txantiloi:Urtarrila 1. What's all that about? --AdamSommerton 18:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears that an interwiki link on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January 1 was not enclosed within the <noinclude> tag. This has been fixed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin help needed

Hello, please help to change all image links of Image:Wiki letter w.png to the .svg version Image:Wiki letter w.svg. After all links are changed, the .png version can be deleted on commons. Thank you. --GeorgHH 19:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Getting to it with MetsBot. —Mets501 (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, I don't think there are any uses except in the template {{sectstub}}, which has been changed, but I'll wait for the image file links to update before I'm certain about that. —Mets501 (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Image:Wiki letter w.png is not a speedily deletion candidate at the Commons (and I've noted this in a message on GeorgHH's talk page there). Quoth Erik Möller (now a member of Wikimedia's Board of Trustees) regarding Commons policy: "'Obsolete' images should indeed no longer be deleted except where they're orphaned and there's clearly no opposition." There doesn't appear to have been a deletion discussion, and some users generally oppose the deletion of "superseded" images. —David Levy 22:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If those images are used in those templates, shouldn't they be protected? Also, what links here doesn't show the image beng used in {{sectstub}}, though it is there. What's going on? Carcharoth 01:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

problem with Recent deaths

I'm not sure if this is a good place to report this, but this is about a page that is linked from the main page and this is a pretty busy page. Recent deaths should redirect to Deaths in 2007 now, and I changed the redirect, yet it still redirects to Deaths in 2006. Why could this be? Thanks. Academic Challenger 23:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you needed to bypass your cache, but it certainly redirects properly now. -- tariqabjotu 23:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Knee Cartilage

I am looking for information about cartilage related issues to teh knee Nbaldanz 11:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The articles Knee, Cartilage and Knee cartilage replacement therapy may be of help --Melburnian 11:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

In the future, such questions are answered at the Wikipedia:Reference desk, not here. —Cuiviénen 17:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Although even at the reference desk, we expect question askers to try and find information themselves first. Nil Einne 16:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible vandalism / Forced Redirect

Is anyone else being redirected to Charitable organizations if he/she clicks within the search bar? This problem seems to be persisting even if I purge my cache and reload. Any ideas as to cause? Kaushik twin 15:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor question

Does all vandalism have to be marked as minor? Simply south 20:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If you reckon that vandalism is a minor problem, then doing such would be appropriate. Vranak 21:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism should generally be marked as a major edit and summarized with "blanked the page" so that it can be reverted easily. Vandals can save time all round by issuing themselves with a final warning and then reporting themselves to WP:AIV so they can be blocked – Gurch 21:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have also put this q on the help desk. Simply south 21:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you meant reverting vandalism. Completely different thing. Consensus leans toward doing so: 55% of all vandalism reverts are marked as minor – Gurch 21:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait,where did you get those stats from? I had trouble finding them on Wikipedia:Statistics. Simply south 22:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism reverts are marked as minor because they make no changes to the page except to reverse patently bad changes. They do not need to show up as major edits. —Centrx→talk • 22:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that cause problems for anyone who chooses to ignore minor edits if the vandalism is is marked as major? Not that I know anyone who ignores minor edits, seeing how some vandals mark their edits as minor in the hope of not being noticed. Actually in today's climate I don't see the point in a minor edit checkbox. Back when we were civilised maybe. Having said that, I do use the minor check box... --Monotonehell 22:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I use the minor check in a vain attempt to get my last 150 ones up to 100% edit summary. Doesn't seem to be working though. Do edit summaries like "typo" get ignored? (I know, I know, use spellcheckers and the preview button...) Carcharoth 01:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

All of my edits can be classed as one of two things: minor, or very minor. I don't select "minor" for minor edits, but I do select it for very minor edits – Gurch 16:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Uploading

Is it possible to upload a video file (mpeg file) or a music file (wav or wma file)? If so, how do you do it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bob the ducq (talk • contribs) 21:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

See Wikipedia:Media help. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-2 21:09

No. Wikipedia:Media help is for playing files found on Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Media is for generating and uploading them Raul654 21:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be at Help:Media instead of Wikipedia:Media help? Zocky | picture popups 23:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The help namespace is for mediawiki related issues. And regardless, help:Media redirects to Media help. Raul654 23:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The quick answer BTW is NO. We accepted video files and audio files but not MPEG or WMA because of patent issues. (WAV is uncompressed and we don't accept uncompressed because of size. Loseless compressed might be acceptable but not uncompressed. Technically of course you can give a MP3 and other formats a RIFF WAV header but I'm assuming you mean a normal WAV here). We greatly prefer open standard and patent unencumbered formats. Since Ogg Vorbis (and the other audio formats) and Ogg Theora (for video) are free from such issues and are more or less able to do whatever MPEG and WMA can do, they are preferred. GIF is patented format that we grundingly accept because it's currently the only format suitable for animations, although IIRC the GIF/LZW patents have all expired now anyway so it isn't an issue anymore Nil Einne 16:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I noticed from your talk page you may not totally understand our copyright policies. Take a while to read them as all uploaded content must obey them. If you didn't create the video or audio yourself, don't upload it unless you properly understand them and have received the necessary permissions Nil Einne 16:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

RSS feed symbols

Given the high frequency of RSS feeds on the net, perhaps the Main Page should be better at noting that they exist for several of the items. By placing within the FA and FP (DYK, OTD and ITN are currently feedless) boxes, the feeds would become better known. Of course, on clicking the feed icon (), the page opened would have to be the feed itself (or at least Wikipedia:Syndication). I don't know about the technical aspect of actually linking to the feeds (as far as I know, clicking on an image must open the image's page), so maybe it is an idea for the future. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 03:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Just checked WikiNews - they use

<span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:70%;text-align:right;">[http://feeds.feedburner.com/WikinewsLatestNews <span class="rss">RSS</span>]</span>

on their main page to produce

RSS

might be an idea. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 08:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Closed as WP:NOT democracy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

---

Look, this is frankly ridiculous. We do not vote on matters like this; per WP:NOT,

Wikipedia is not a democracy

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding.

I am now closing this debate because of this. I hope this gets the message through that we are a consensus-building community, not voters in a Senate chamber. Yuser31415 20:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Requested move

Main Page → Wikipedia:Main page — This page is not an encyclopedia article; therefore, it does not belong in the main namespace. Simply put, the Wikipedia namespace exists for pages related to the project, which is exactly what the main page is. —Mets501 (talk) 02:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Main page is part of the encyclopedia. It is the very first page of the encyclopedia, like the title page or table of contents of a book or the front page of Britannica.com. The Wikipedia namespace is for pages about the encyclopedia or policy and processes for creating the encyclopedia. The Main page does not fit there. —Centrx→talk • 20:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

• Support - Per the suggestion. Article space is for articles. Main Page is obviously not an article. All the oppose votes seem to be about the links being broken. As far as I am aware, not many pages redirect to the main page so double redirects wouldn't be an issue. Bots and a task force could then fix the redirecting links. Links being broken isn't an issue. And besides, the main page is less than 5% of Wikipedia's traffic (which granted is still a lot) so this isn't as big a deal as it is being made out to be.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 07:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, per Hamedog although Wikipedia:Home page seems to a better title for me. --Howard the Duck 07:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support I proposed this requested move back in 2004. Another case of Wikipedia defying its own rules...namely, the naming conventions. I always love how several editors will gladly bitch us out for minor violations of these rules, but for simple, no-brainer violations of the rule by the administration, they'll defend it as if they were preserving a wounded virgin's honour. I'm afraid the WikiHypocrites will WP:SNOW this proposal yet again. —ExplorerCDT 08:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Your anticipation of this issue and concern for consistency are noted with appreciation, although no one has responded to my inquiry below about whether the suggested move has any practical implications rather than largely meta and theoretical ones. However, this is hardly a contentious discussion, and I see no reason that terms like "WikiHypocrites" would need to be used. Newyorkbrad 17:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Brad, I know I should probably be civil, but you being a lawyer would know that it's usually the aggreived who quote the rules and argue loudly and strictly for a response from the bureaucracy that enforces rules by the letter. Living by the sword and dying by it. I'm using a little corollary of the Bush Doctrine on this one, pre-emptive strike against the those who quote rules vociferously to others but are mysteriously silent when they realize they're in a glass house. From my knowledge of this, I don't see any technical problem with moving the page, the theoretical won't become practical or experiential, but the database stuff isn't my forte and my knowledge is limited. —ExplorerCDT 18:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, when I first came across term "WikiHypocrites", it was very amusing, filled with dark humour. Brad, where is your sense of humour? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Although also Portal:Main page could be workable. A great part of Wikipedia is that it is flexible. Given policy over name spaces, there is no reason to keep the main page where it is, other than tradition and bookmarks. Well, slavery was a tradition, so too was denying women the vote, oh and don't forgot burning old ladies as witches. So I think that reason is rather defunct. The second holds more sway - but a great deal of wikipedia is also ready redirects, so I don't see why a redirect can't be used. However, ultimately, there are far greater problems in Wikipedia than what name space the main page should be in. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 09:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC) (after edit conflict)
  • The WikiHypocrites always raise reasons that are illogical and specious. But they desperately hold fast to them like my dog does to paper towel rolls.—ExplorerCDT 15:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You know you're a Wikiholic when... you compare moving the Main Page to abolishing slavery. -- tariqabjotu 22:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Association_fallacy -- Rafy 00:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think this is a case of association fallacy. Perhaps Midnight didn't choose his/her words well. But the meaning of the words are clear. S/he isn't comparing this to slavery nor is s/he saying well slavery was bad and so was abc so Main Page must be bad as well. What s/he is saying is that a lot of people have argued in a lot of instances that we shouldn't bother to change it because it's always been like that/it's tradiation. But when something is broken and a bad idea, should we really let intertia and the fact that it's tradiaition stop us? Or should we Wikipedia:Be Bold and do something which should have been done a long time ago? Some changes may seem radical at the time, but later, we are all amazed that they took so long to come Nil Einne 14:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Support the implications to meta,foundation, and other language wikipedias are assessed/address before implmentation. Gnangarra 09:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Support - Assuming that there is nothing about Meta that would keep the redirect from working properly, this page should be moved immediately. Otherwise, let's fix that which needs fixing and do this move ASAP. As long as this move does not immediately deprive people of access to the main page using the same means as before, there should be no problem with doing it. (In the longer run, if someone wants to write an actual article on "main page", they should be allowed to do so. However, I advise keeping the left-over redirect locked for at least a year before permiting such a thing to happe.) --EMS | Talk 16:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Support – make sure that all of the consequences have been thought through and planned for before the move takes place. It makes sense to have the main page in the appropriate place - and it's not an article. Mike Peel 07:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support According to Comment of Hamedog. to that, when Main Page has moved, the old title "Main Page" will be redirects to an suggested new title: Wikipedia:Main page. but that makes few "Double redirects". however, they are easy to fix. so moving does not affect links from other pages. -- Korean alpha for knowledge (Talk / Contributions) 09:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support per Hamedog and the original suggestion. Makes perfect sense. We should choose what is most consistent and simpliest, especially to new users. Wikipedia:Main Page or Portal:Main Page is consistent and simpler then Main Page. Our current set-up is likely one of the causes of confusion as to the purposes and functioning of the main page and of wikipedia in general. Nil Einne 14:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per Hamedog's redirect suggestion. It is important to maintain consistency throughout the encyclopaedia, and it makes no sense having such a unique page listed as an encyclopaedic article. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 15:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for using my thoughts in your vote!--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 01:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Support as long as this is discussed on meta and with other Wikipedias.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 15:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Moral support. It's not as stupid an idea as some of the opposers seem to think... Imagine the ruckus that would be caused if there was an encyclopedic article called "Main Page" to be had. It might not be bad to think ahead a little. :-) Grandmasterka 20:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Main Page is not an article, and shold go in the Wikipedia space. 0L1 | Talk | Contribs 11:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support The main page definitely should not go in the main namespace, since its not an article. A lot of the oppose votes seem to talk about the move being too much of a problem, or not worth the amount of work it would take. I think that positive revisions on Wikipedia should be made regardless of how much work it entails. The end result is what we need to strive for here. --Kevin ^(TALK) 00:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support per OL1. Move shouldn't be much of a problem, people just need to update bookmarks. --75.26.8.194 03:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support per OL1 I don't see the harm in this. --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 03:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Strong Support - Absolutely move it, but put it in Portal:Main Page, definitely not Wikipedia:Main Page. It is, after all, a portal, not an article nor a Wikipedia-information-related page. Encyclopedic integrity is much more important than a minor inconvenience for some people. If this issue is not addressed now, it will continue to be in the future, again and again, until the move happens. Let us just get it over with now.--Tom^{I edit my userpage too much}, 06:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I withdraw my vote until a clear consensus for the choice of name is reached.--Tom^{I edit my userpage too much}, 22:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support, but I prefer Portal:Main Page. The main page is clearly a portal both in layout and contents. The layout of the main page is very similar to the other portals (Portal:Technology, Portal:Sweden, Portal:Mathematics, etc). Jeltz talk 10:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support, though I also prefer Portal:Main Page.Mowens35 21:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support I prefer moving the page. Pl_Dinesh
• Support the move. There is nothing wrong about redirects between namespaces. --JWSchmidt 03:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• I don't support moving the Main Page to Wikipedia space, but do support defaulting it to Portal:Main page (and we can finally decapitalize "page" as well if that's done).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support, Portal. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 20:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - makes more sense.--Azer Red Si? 23:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support, on en.wiktionary.org, I opposed the move (done mid-last year) from wikt:Main Page to wikt:Wiktionary:Main Page. None of my insightful prophesies of doom came to pass - traffic to the site increased for a short while after it was done. Normal growth rates resumed after two weeks. (YYMV - 100% unscientific personal observations.) The en.wiktionary decision was to debate wikt:Main Page after a year, to see if people agree then, that it can finally become a proper main namespace entry (as I suspect, the Wikipedia Main Page will also become, in a couple years.) --Wiktionary CheckUser & Sysop: Connel MacKenzie - wikt 07:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support and then enlist a bunch of people to make an article about main pages. ~user:orngjce223how am I typing? 17:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Utterly useless, but logical. - !Malomeat 15:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

• Oppose because this page has been here forever. If this were to move to Wikipedia:Main page, it would have to be a considerable amount of time – certainly years – before it would be safe to break the cross-namespace redirect as there have been so many pages linked to Main Page from all over the Internet. And then what would we do with that former redirect? Make it a blank, useless page until someone directs a featured film entitled "Main Page". I can already see it now... in a world... where Britannica ruled... there was one page that dared to dream... the MAIN PAGE. -- tariqabjotu 03:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Clearly we'd need to get Don Lafontaine to do a voice-over. :-) -/- Warren 04:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

We would likely leave Main Page as a redirect until we ever have use for the other page. If there is ever something called Main Page, we will probably turn it into a disambig Nil Einne 13:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm in complete agreement with tariq on this. The issue might be worth looking at if a topic for which the best article title is "Main Page" becomes encyclopedic one day, but otherwise it's more of a problem than a solution to move the Main Page at this point. —Cuiviénen 04:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this idea. I don't think the reason should have anything to do with whether there should be an article called main page but what is the most consistent, makes the most sense and is simpliest. Wikipedia:Main Page or perhaps Portal:Main Page are that not Main Page. More importantly as others have pointed out who oppose, if we do change it we will need to leave the redirect for quite a while. If we suddenly find we need an article and we still have Main Page as Main Page we will have a right royal mess. What do we do? Suddenly change it and turn Main Page into a disambig? We need to anticipate problems before they arise, not pray to God they don't arise and then when they do run around in a mass panic Nil Einne 13:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, it would just be too confusing and in this case it's best to preserve the status quo. DoomsDay349 04:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ain't broke. Don't fix it.--Skyraider 04:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Who said it isn't broke? Nil Einne 14:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's a good idea, but way, way, way too much work would be involved in implementing it successfully. Chalk it up to an intricacy of our community. alphachimp. 04:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Skyraider. Naconkantari 04:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

But it is broke, so surely we should fix it? Nil Einne 14:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - (double super mocha latte edit conflict) This would cause chaos for the newcomers who don't care about namespaces. Also, if it gets moved, Slashdot might link to it, causing even more chaos...you get the picture. PullToOpen^Talk 04:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If the newcomers don't care about namespaces, it will not affect them. And Slashdot linking to Wikipedia has not been a problem for quite a while now. Wikipedia is largely immune to the Slashdot effect, much to the chagrin of Slashdotters. Uncle G 20:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - My views echo those of tariqabjotu Rafy 04:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Simpler URLs are better. -/- Warren 04:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Why change what isn't broken? —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

But it is broken. That's why people want to change it... Nil Einne 14:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Can you imagine how many links would have to be fixed? Yikes. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Approximately 9,500, according to Special:Whatlinkshere/Main Page. However, the large majority of them are links from notices on talk pages. And most of those are links that result from templates such as Template:mainpage date, which would all be modified by adjusting the template. Uncle G 20:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - not to mention double redirects... MER-C 09:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The double redirects would be far fewer and would be the few obvious ones, such as mainpage and main page, and a couple of not-so-obvious ones such as %s. Uncle G 20:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, a solution in search of a problem. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 09:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tariqabjotu, Skyraider and Warren. --Ouro 13:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

But Skyraider said it isn't broken and it is broken... Nil Einne 14:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, not to me it isn't. 'sides, it's just simpler for newcomers/for the bulk of users, if the Main page stays in the main namespace, because the're basically going to be mostly interested in the main namespace anyway when looking up information, or am I wrong? It's always been this way, it's definitely not broken. Still oppose :) --Ouro 15:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Naming conventions are not that important. . .--Banana04131 18:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Every rule needs an exception. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose "Technically correct" and "user-friendly" are not always (or, quite possibly, ever) the same thing, and user-friendly is much more important in this case. Moving the page would cause a lot of problems and not solve any, so there is no reason to move it. The main page isn't an encyclopedia article so we don't need to be correct about the name. Koweja 18:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That the main page isn't an encyclopaedia article is the very rationale given above in favour of the move. Given that altering the "Main Page" link in the navigation side bar would be a concomitant part of any such move, please describe what other user-friendliness issue you are alluding to. Uncle G 20:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. You must be joking me. The main page gets three million views per day. Much of that probably comes from links directly to the main page (bookmarks, etc). Making it into a redirect would cause the "redirect from" crap to display for tons of people. Also, the main page doesn't belong in the Wikipedia namespace. As others have said, it is part of the encyclopedia. --- RockMFR 02:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to clear things up, the software would be changed to point to Wikipedia:Main page, so there would be NO redirects. —Mets501 (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • And even now there are CSS hacks to hide the redirects. Try for yourself. Harryboyles 02:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Skyraider. —EdGl 03:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It'd be one thing if Wikipedia had just started, but since Wikipedia is one of the top-visited sites of the Internet, I think that changing it could wreak havoc. Also, using similiar logic, should Google change its home page to http://web.google.com, to match with convention of other Google services, such as http://images.google.com and http://video.google.com ? If and only if something notable enough to merit an article with the title "Main Page," it is then we should move it. Until that time, it isn't sensible. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 05:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. No real benefit to a move: the page is linked from everywhere, so we would need a cross-namespace redirect anyways. Besides, if we moved it, what would take it's place? A redlink? No, thanks. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We wouldn't need a redirect if we fixed all of the links. Uncle G 13:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • How are we going to fix the links pointing from external sites in? Titoxd^(?!?) 23:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per all the above. I think everyone's made better points than I could make. Ral315 (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose No way you can justify removing url of a page which is direct linked to as the MediaWiki standard, which implies a permanent XNSR, and whats the benefit of that? And on this page not being an encyclopedic page, it has far more encyclopedic content than Wikipedia: space pages do. Unnecessary wikilawyering I say. Ansell 06:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

As others have explained, there is no MediaWiki standard and it doesn't affect the Foundation or Meta. Other wikis already do it. Portal:Main Page is also an idea. This isn't wikilawyering. It's about doing what makes the most sense, is most consistent and is simpliest and easiest to understand. The fact remains, Main Page clear isn't an encylopaedic article no matter how much encyclopaedic content it may have Nil Einne 14:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Main Page is not an article but the overwhelming links to the page means that it will have to stay. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a wiki. Links can be altered. Uncle G 13:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Bad idea. Let's move on. --Ligulem 09:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't supposed to be a simple vote. Could you explain why it's a bad idea? Nil Einne 14:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 10:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, no, this is fine. Terence Ong 10:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

But does that mean we shouldn't change it if the alternative is better? Nil Einne 14:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per Skyraider RHB 13:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Who said it isn't broke? Nil Einne 14:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Whats wrong with it as it is? It changes dynamically every day, its entire content. What is we have a band/political party/famous person called Main Page? We stick a disambig link at the top? RHB 00:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose as per everyone else here. Someone tell me this is a joke. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 00:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, as per everyone else. Timrollpickering 01:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - not something we should be worried about. --Ineffable3000 02:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, this vote is stupid. -- Zanimum 17:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This is called main page, because it's the site's main page. Equivalent to a index.htm file. This is a clear case of where WP:IAR comes into play. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, as they say. --SunStar Net^talk 19:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. A complex and major change with no real benefit other than conforming to an arbitrary standard. - SimonP 22:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose besides all of the difficulties mentioned above, I don't think this is even the right place to go. This page is really more like a portal into Wikipedia. Dar-Ape 22:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose because that would still be the wrong namespace. As discussed below, this is a Portal. Matchups 02:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Clearly, the main page is the Main Page. I don't see how this warrants any discussion. Mrmaroon25 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no point to this. Wikipedia is created for the readers, remember that. What might be better for us and our over-bureaucratic policies is not always better for the readers. The stuff in mainspace is meant to be seen, it's the encyclopedia part. Everyone sees the main page. I just see no good point to move it. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It's good as it is!!! Pseudoanonymous 21:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Has some one not got better things to think about? 87.113.82.36 15:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Consistency for consistency's sake is unnecessary and futile, in this case. Natgoo 16:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per many of the arguments above. — ceejayoz ^talk 17:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - The main page will always be a special case of one sort or another. To people with particularly narrow points of view special cases are _always_ "Wrong" in some way. The main page is legitimately a special case. There is no point to perpetually juggling it unless it's actually causing a problem. APL 21:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong opose Due to the fair use of copyrighted images on the main page loophole (see below) --Monotonehell 21:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose-per everyone--Randalllin 22:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The main page IS part of the encyclopedia. It is the cover; just like the lovely leather-bound cover of the encyclopedias on my book-shelf. You can't use leather on a website; so you make a page showcasing some of the best of the contents to be found inside. 70.231.126.33 03:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose unnecessary jumbling up of things. I agree with the above-mentioned sentiments - lets fix what is broke instead. --Ezeu 04:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose it is not in article namespace. It is different namespace called main page. So there is no issue to make requested move. Shyam ^(T/C) 20:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, the main page is in article name space. That is a fact. Name spaces are for example "Wikipedia:", "Template:", "Portal:". Since there is nothing such in the beginning of the title of this page it is in article name space. Jeltz talk 11:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. per all above. —dima/s-ko/ 21:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Tariq summarized it well. Lincher 03:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Extremely Strong Oppose. The Main Page, though not an article in and of itself, is reader-facing. That's the overriding issue.--HereToHelp 03:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose; well-intentioned, but ultimately an unhelpful change. And why exactly are we voting on this? I'm pretty sure it has been discussed before... --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 04:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Even if the current state were wrong (and I'm not convinced), there are a jillion things in far worse shape in Wikipedia. This isn't worth spending time on. Wasted Time R 04:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Unnecessary Bureaucracy and PC b/s, that's all I gotta say... acronyms and all. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 06:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• No. No, no, no. No, a thousand times no. NO. NO! NO! NO!! NOOOO!!!! NO. Ok, I'm calm now – Gurch 08:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh mamma mia, mamma mia, mamma mia, let me go! Couldn't help myself, sorry... --Ouro 11:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - a main page of a site should be in the namespace. It's easy to find. A newcomer will never search for Wikipedia or Portal:Main page... NCurse _work 11:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • A newcommer would not know to search for the phrase "Main Page" in the first palce. Usually it is called something like "index.html". Jeltz talk 15:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, most people probably don't search for the main page. They just click the link on the toolbar on the left side of the screen.--Azer Red Si? 23:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. No, it just wouldn't be appropriate. → JARED ^(t)  20:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - It should have it's own page. If there is a really big deal about this, why not a disambiguation page, if people are THAT fussy. So many more articles could be worked on instead. Timclare 14:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't Care

• Right Here Just H 03:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• To all of those opposing this move who have voted to remove all other Wikipedia namespace redirects from unambiguous non-namespace terms: be consistent and support this move too. —  AjaxSmack  06:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Does it matter? dposse 22:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• This whole conversation is an argument over a fairly trivial suggestion. There's nothing terribly wrong with the main page, it's not broken, and nothing would happen if it were to be moved, though there would be no real reason to move it in the first place. Unless someone is going to create an encyclopedic article about "Main Page", there's no reason to move the page. Most people are smart enough to figure out that the Main Page is not an article. No one's going to be confused about the purpose or mission of the encyclopedia because of the Main Page. I give credit to the human population as a whole and I trust that they are smart enough to figure out what the Main Page is. Moving the Main Page to a Portal: or Wikipedia: namespace is unnecessary, as most people using the encyclopedia will not care where the Main Page is -- they'll just pass right past it on the way to the information they need. Although Wikipedia editors might disagree, we must take into account the interests of the encyclopedia users over the interests of the encyclopedia editors. And about the issue of redirects and double redirects, that's a trifling issue. If there are any, they'll be easily and quickly discovered and fixed, given the prominence of the main page in Wikipedia. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 01:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Do people even realize that all of these support/oppose votes count for nothing? All that can possibly matter is the discussion below. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-01 21:48Z
• The only reason I'm writing this is to express my discontent at ever having bothered to read it. Couldn't time be better spent than arguing over something that doesn't matter? Trebor 22:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Another type

I suppose Portal:Main page would also be out of the question? Simply south 00:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

See sv:Portal:Huvudsida. It makes more sense to me than the Wikipedia name space; the main page is like the main portal. // habj 15:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think i should put up a seperate WP:RM to propose to move this to Portal:Main page or Portal:Wikipedia, or not really? Simply south 02:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

In general, I would say yes, but judging from the oppose comments above, I would say that too many people are resistant to any change at all. —Mets501 (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

By the looks of it, a few oppose votes agree on that this a portal. Simply south 15:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

How about inserting {{moveoptions}} or do you think this would be a bad idea? Simply south 22:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Another possible name with I thought could be a good substitute - Portal:Wikipedia instead of the other suggestions. Currently Portal:Wikipedia redirects to Wikipedia:Community Portal. Portal:Wikipedia is a good alternative, IMHO, because it releaves the name "Main Page" (which is kinda redundant) and kinda says that to portal is the (main) Wikipedia one. One more - Portal:Wikipedia Home which is the same idea.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 00:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering Current events is at a Portal, this suggestion makes sense. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who has done that and how, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Main_page seems to be a perfect alias already. Checked it with http://web-sniffer.net/. Seems not even to be a http redirect. So, whoever wants the main page at Portal:Main page: just use it :-). --Ligulem 10:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Main_page works too. Does that mean the main page is effectively in 3 namespaces ;) --Nilfanion (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems we already have:

• main page and Main page
• main Page and Main Page
• Portal:Main page and Portal:Main Page
• Wikipedia:Main page and Wikipedia:Main Page

--Ligulem 12:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the "main name" (hehe :-) of the main page is defined by MediaWiki:mainpage. So that name is used if I click on any of the edit tabs on one of the listed "pages" (that is, I currently always get http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=edit when clicking on the edit tab on any of them). So it seems all we are talking about here is: "What do we want to have in the address bar?" of the users browsers. Maybe some consulting with the devs/brion would be in order as well (but I fear they might find this main page naming discussion a bit strange... :-). --Ligulem 12:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

All of the above pages are just normal redirects. The main page uses some special CSS to prevent "(Redirected from _____)" from appearing. Nothing special. --- RockMFR 22:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Swedes have sv:Portal:Huvudsida and sv:Huvudsida. Their MediaWiki:mainpage is [2]. So they have "Portal" on the first tab on top. --Ligulem 12:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Location of move request

Somehow I don't think this is the best place for this move request. They normally appear on the talk pages for their associated articles so that those interested in the respective articles will take a look at the move request. But everybody reads the Main Page. We are polling nearly every visitor that chooses to come by... longtime editors and one-time readers alike. I understand that nearly everyone is allowed to !vote, but the idea behind the move request (Wikipedia-space vs. mainspace) is not a trivial concept the average fly-by reader would understand. I predict us getting an exceptionally large amount of !votes from uninformed visitors. That would not be helpful in resolving this issue. -- tariqabjotu 03:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It might not be helpful because there would be a large volume of such !votes that would make this discussion quite long, but the outcome of this discussion will be based on consensus and not the number of !votes, so I don't think it can really be that detrimental. Dar-Ape 16:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Its ironic that they may not even understand the logic behind the whole idea in the first place. Especially this nonsense about "!vote" (ie, not-vote). It is clear that votes happen, much to the disgust of some it seems. If the average reader wants the page to stay here who are you to say they should be ignored? It all comes down to the number of votes in the end. Consensus is just another word for super-majority after all. Of course, campaigning for your "cause" could make all the difference. Keep up the effort and dont you dare look at improving an encyclopedia article :-O... 59.167.118.99 08:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean super-majority, it means agreement. The way we (attempt to) reach agreement is through discussion and argument. Consensus is reached when the discussion reaches a conclusion. Sometimes this doesn't happen and no-concensus is reached. It's not about weight of votes, it's about weight of argument. --Monotonehell 12:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it's looks like we haven't actually been getting that many votes from the uninformed and new users. But extremely sad to say, we have been getting a lot of no votes from experiences users :-( Nil Einne 14:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Practical implications?

I can understand the meta/theoretical argument for this proposed change, but apart from serving perfect consistency, is it anticipated that it would have any practical effects on the site or on users, good or bad? (The only effect I can think of is that edits to mainpage talk would be in a different category for the edit counter, but that is hardly a big deal.) Newyorkbrad 04:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally think it will be easier for users to understand the purpose and intention of the Main Page and also how wikipedia works if we use Portal:Main Page/Wikipedia:Main Page Nil Einne 13:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In the hypothetical

tariqabjotu's hypothetical, though intended in jest, touches on something important. Given all of the really strange and odd things people name books, films, music, etc., I'm actually pretty surprised that no one has ever used such a fairly common phrase for anything else. And what if someone did? Would the main page have a dab link? –  Anþony  talk  08:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Meta / Foundation

An interesting proposal but one must ask what implications for the foundation such a move would entail, I remember it was a significant effort to alter the side bar recently. I dont think that consideration to mirrors, or other sites that just feed off our efforts is a valid reason to not consider the move. As for internal changes a bot could be run to correct redirects, though it would consume a few resources for a couple of days and produce significant increases in watchlist sizes while it was occuring. Gnangarra 09:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• There aren't any implications for the Wikimedia Foundation. Indeed, some other Foundation projects already have their main pages in the project namespace, without affecting the Foundation one iota. The English Wiktionary has its main page at wikt:Wiktionary:Main Page, for example. Uncle G 19:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Target namespace

Considering what User:Midnighttonight said above, shouldn't this move be to something like Portal:Wikipedia? The Wikipedia namespace is usually for policy, help, and meta processes, but the Main Page much more like a portal into the encyclopedia. Dar-Ape 16:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought of this too. Though having Portal:Wikipedia be about Wikipedia itself (kind of like where it leads to now) is also not a bad idea. Jason McHuff 02:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

How do most people come to Wikipedia?

Do most people (not users) come via http://en.wikipedia.org or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page ? Are there any statistics for how many people get here via http://www.wikipedia.org ? Because if people are going via http://en.wikipedia.org or http://www.wikipedia.org they are already being redirected so it wouldn't hurt bookmarks (or typing in the address) so much. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 22:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

From my personal experience, I would say most non-editors don't know Wikipedia's URL and hence come via Google. The first link when "Wikipedia" is typed should be where most people go to. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I would guess people who do type in would type in en.wikipedia.org or www.wikipedia.org. Bookmarks would probably be en.wikipedia.org/Main_Page since thats what you would get whn you click add to bookmarks/favourites. Of course, booksmarks can easily be updated. I don't know about the load on the servers cause of the temporary redirects but I presume it won't be that great Nil Einne 14:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I always type in en.wikipedia.org on my address bar. But there are other ways to access Wikipedia:

• Directly going to a specific page on the address bar (example: to go to my userpage, I type http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ed skipping the Main Page altogether). This is useful if you want to check your messages/watchlist right away
• Typing in wikipedia.org and clicking on English
• Typing in en.wikipedia.org
• Going to a search engine (Google, Yahoo, etc.) and typing in Wikipedia

--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 18:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• • I've been typing en.wikipedia.org for 2.5 years, and oddly, i can type en.wikipedia.org in 1.12 seconds according to my computer. Faster than at the typing rate I use for my own name. —ExplorerCDT 01:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You can always change your name to en.wikipedia.org. You might get in the signpost, but i'd watch out for legal actions by the foundation. Just H 03:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In firefox, simply typing wiki in the adress bar will take you to wikipedia's main page. For me that is even faster than using bookmarks. --WS 01:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I just found wiki. All I do is type in wiki and it will give me options. Ricky

Funnily, if people use en.wikipedia.org on Wikipedia, it doesn't redirect back to the main page. Instead it goes to the English Wikipedia article. Simply south 23:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, from personal experience, I hit "en", hit the down arrow, then hit the enter key. Four keystrokes (including the enter key), and I'm in. theProject 20:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting examples

I'm pretty sure it isn't uncommon that sites change their layout so the main or front page address changes. But when this happens, the people who own the site don't seem to panic or go into crisis simply because some external links will now point to the wrong address (and we still don't really know how many external links actually direct to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page anyway). All of them seem to handle it fine. For example, I believe Microsoft changes it resonably often. I'm pretty sure that one of http://www.microsoft.com/index.htm or http://www.microsoft.com/index.html was a valid link at one stage and the main Microsoft page. But guess what? It's no longer a valid link. What does this say to all those convinced we will have to maintain en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page in perpetuity as a redirect to whatever we decide on in perpuity because of external links? I would actually think it a good either to maintain en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page as a redirect until and unless we have a reason to make the page a disambig of something but not because of external links. Simply because it makes sense! Nil Einne 18:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The New Zealand Parliament changed its site from being http://www.parliament.govt.nz to http://www.parliament.nz with little problems (and that was far more than just the main page). As long as you keep a working redirect (for a while), there won't be much problem. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 22:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use

If we acknowledge that the main page is just another portal like all others, then how will Raul654 be able to continue using fair use images for his featured articles. Currently the only reason we allow the fair use images is because of this little cheating where we claim that since the main page is in the article namespace allowing fair use was ok. If it was a portal that would become a problem, just see Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals, which is clearly not going to be adopted any time soon. Personally I feel this is a hypocritical situation (Why would it be ok here, but not on Portal:Computer and video games). The fair use images are actually already in Wikipedia namespace, but are transcluded here. For example:

• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 23, 2004
• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 19, 2006
• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 12, 2005
• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 12, 2006
• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 26, 2006
• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 31, 2005

Sigh, this is one of discussions that's bound to go on forever and never actually see any action because people here never agree about anything. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-2 19:49

That's a clintcher for me. Before this point was put forward I hadn't seen any argument that swayed me either way. --Monotonehell

We're still just lying anyway, since it isn't a real page. Won't change anything. 84.64.226.4 19:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Main Page/Archive 87 § About the proposed move

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.